U.S. Foreign Policy

I think we all tend to criticize too much and praise too little, especially with public officials. So I was impressed today to see proven provider John McCreary, who has forgotten more about intelligence than I will ever know, commend Hillary Clinton for her sharp comments in Pakistan yesterday:

"The US secretary of state questioned Pakistan's commitment to the fight against al-Qaida, saying she found it hard to believe that no-one in the Pakistan government knows where senior figures are hiding.

"I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to," she told a group of newspaper editors during a meeting in the city of Lahore on Thursday.

Bravo for Secretary Clinton.  Either the Pakistani security services contain senior officers who know where bin Laden is and are lying or they are incompetent and ought to be dismissed. There are no other explanations for Pakistan having become the headquarters for al Qaida and the base area for international Islamic terrorism.

‘Nuff said.

AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images

Here's a Friday special for you. Or, Monty Python would say, something completely different.

Another of the great things about CNAS is our military fellows program, which brings in smart officers from the military services, as well as the Air Force. They are a major part of the institution, bringing recent experiences in the field into our discussions, and tending to help focus the conversation on effectiveness. CNAS doesn't care about ideology, it cares about what works.

One thing a think tank should do is look at tomorrow as well as today. So, while everyone else in town who can spell "counterinsurgency" is honking on about Afghanistan and Iran, Marine Lt. Col. Jeff Goodes, a CNAS fellow, has been mulling a problem closer to home: Cuba. He's a three tour vet of Iraq who before coming to CNAS commanded Marine Wing Communications Squadron 28  in Cherry Point, N.C.

Cuba is something that could get very big, just as soon as Fidel dies-and that, for all we know, could be tomorrow. So it is best to start thinking about it now:

The Obama administration's decision to extend the U.S. economic trade embargo on Cuba for an additional year is detrimental to our national and regional security and further emboldens our economic, military, and infrastructure rivals.  What is most perplexing is the fact that earlier this summer the Obama administration decided to relax some of the regulations regarding personal travel and personal money transfers from Cuban-Americans to their relatives in Cuba, as well as telecommunication exchanges between private U.S. and state-run Cuban companies: all are steps in the right direction for U.S. interests - but are not enough.  While these relaxed restrictions are certainly a step forward in normalizing relations, these steps do not outweigh the heavy diplomatic, information, and economic influence of Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, Russia, India, and Iran, all of whom support the Cuban government and all of whom seek to be peer competitors with the United States.     

In short, the U.S. unilateral embargo will continue to retard regional security and stability, and further serve to erode our influence in the Americas at a time when U.S. credibility is globally scrutinized.  The arguably outdated and undeniably ineffective embargo will continue to halt progress at every turn; more specifically, the diplomatic influence and credibility of the U.S., the social and political progress of Cuba, and the security and stability progress of the region.  The U.S. embargo will continue to impede potential and future cultural and scientific trade investments, shared agricultural advancements, and pertinent meteorological and environmental exchanges regarding the shared Florida Straits ecology.

Furthermore, the U.S. unilateral embargo will continue to encourage Cuba to partner with Russia, China, and Brazil for off-shore oil and natural gas exploration within the shared U.S. and Cuban economic exclusion zone.  The U.S. embargo will continue to endear many of the poor Caribbean and Central American nations to the Chavez Venezuelan PetroCaribe initiative, and the embargo will ensure that no official U.S. - Cuban dialogue and/or planned cooperative action occurs with regards to such crucial issues as regional and transnational criminal organizations, illegal immigration and extortion issues, and the growing Islamic influence on Latin American from Iranian, Syrian, and Lebanese diasporas.

We must face the facts: the U.S. efforts to isolate and force a regime change in Cuba for nearly half a century have failed.  These 50 years have successfully driven Cuba to aggressively seek support elsewhere, as is evident in their forming and fostering diplomatic ties, seeking infrastructure support, establishing  military liaisons, and accepting economic support from every government in the Americas - to include Canada - with the exception of the United States.  Most of Cuba's economic and diplomatic partners have "Leftist" governments with close ties to state and non-state Islamic fundamentalists, porous national borders and often rampant organized crime cartels coupled with violent gang warfare fueled by drug trafficking, human trafficking, and extortion.  After all, Cuba has the backing of Hugo Chavez' endorsed ALBA and doctors for oil initiative, Evo Morales' endorsed MAS, China's $600M economic and trade stimulus grant, and Brazil's $300M infrastructure and modernization credit to list a few.   To be sure, the United States should be very concerned with the company that Cubans keep.

A less adversarial tone with Cuba will reestablish much needed dialogue in the region and help address shared national border security vulnerabilities, transnational and regional crime consortiums, and environmental and ecological initiatives.  The necessity for the Obama administration to lift the U.S. economic embargo is painfully obvious.  It would enhance the region's security, promote economic prosperity, establish shared environmental regulations, and help re-establish our credibility and leadership vis-à-vis some of our most prominent global allies and competitors.  Lastly, let's ask ourselves, "Has our 50 year embargo brought Cuba any closer to democracy, or have we denied the Cubans an opportunity to see the best that our free and democratic society offers?"

I think the colonel is right. The embargo has been Fidel's best friend, and hasn't done the Cuban people any good. It is time to change this. 

While we're all wanking away waiting for the White House to get off the dime on Afghanistan, some of the smart money stays focused on the real issue: the future of Pakistan. This is the real center of gravity in this mess. What does it profit a man if Pakistan falls apart while Afghanistan is stabilized?

David Rohde's fascinating series on being kidnapped by the Taliban concludes today with his escape. Good to read especially for how the Taliban has evolved in recent years. Or devolved.

Another David, Mr. Ignatius, continues his good reporting out of Pakistan, giving the strategic overview. This guy is so good, he should have his own blog!

I've been struck recently by the relative optimism about Pakistan from Iggie and another smart guy, Peter Bergen.

nicksarebi/flickr

Cheney accuses the Obama administration of dithering on Afghanistan. Okay,  this is enough to make me reconsider everything I've said on the subject. Seriously: I think this guy is about as wrong about American foreign policy as it is possible to be. If he thinks something, that makes me doubt it. Especially when that Karl Rove piles on.  

Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images

The McChrystal camp gets a boost from Stephen Biddle in the New Republic., which I almost never read (or see) these days, but which Exum flagged. Biddle, who advised McChrystal last summer, worries that President Obama will try to settle for a compromise proposal. "But there is no magic middle between the McChrystal recommendation and total withdrawal," he warns. "In counterinsurgency, less is not more." 

U.S. Army/flickr

It's gonna be fun watching the right writhe over President Obama's Nobel. But what about poor Bill Clinton-the only Democratic president since LBJ not to be so honored?

STEPHEN JAFFE/AFP/Getty Images

Yesterday Viola Gienger, a smart reporter at Bloomberg, asked me to compare President Bush's decision to surge in Iraq to President Obama's current deliberations. This is my response:

The biggest difference that strikes me is chronological. Bush ran the Iraq war one way for about three years. Then, in November 2006, the big Republican losses in the mid-term elections gave the White House a sense of urgency to take a different approach. In the following weeks, Bush not only adopted a new strategy, he got a whole new chain of command in place -- a new secretary of defense, a new Central Commander, a new commander in Iraq, and a new ambassador there too. (And six months later, a new chairman of the Joint Chiefs.)

Obama has had less time in office. And he appears to have less time to make the decision. It took about five weeks from the Nov. 2006 elections to Bush's adoption of a new strategy. I think Obama will be lucky to have that long.

Second, when Bush endorsed the surge, he was rejecting the advice of almost all his military advisors. By contrast, if Obama goes for a troop escalation, he will be embracing the recommendations of his generals.

Third, for Bush, going with the surge required from him almost a change in personality -- for the better. I think that for several years, he had been cheerleader in chief. In December 2006, he finally became commander-in-chief, asking tough questions of his generals and exploring the differences in opinion. I don't think Obama will have to undergo such a change in making this decision. But he will have to embrace being a war president, which lately he has seemed kind of ambivalent about.

Gary Fabiano-Pool/Getty Images

Here's a guest post by Jennifer Bernal of CNAS, who went to see the Hillary& Bob Show on Monday:

This afternoon, George Washington University hosted a discussion with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The talk was part of a series of high-profile events organized by the University to get students to engage with members of the government. To complete the celebrity roster, Christiane Amanpour and Frank Sesno moderated the discussion. The event drew hundreds of students to line up for tickets, several of them camping out on the street overnight to make sure they got dibs. Once the office actually opened, said tickets ran out in less than a half hour. (I'd only witnessed such zealous and long-lasting queuing on two past occasions: for sign-ups to the wine-tasting class offered by my college, and for a summer production of Hamlet featuring Jude Law.) 

(Read on)