Foreign Policy
National Security
-
Best Defense
Robots: Killing Our Warrior Spirit?
-
The Cable
Whistleblower: I'm Being Bullied By State Dept.
-
Passport
Syria: Is It the Sunnis' or Shiites' Fault?
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks
Friday, January 27, 2012 - 5:34 AM
Share
This is the first presidential election in many decades, I think, in which the Democrats have the upper hand in foreign policy and national security. I have only dim memories of the 1964 campaign, but I recalls Lyndon Johnson having an advantage over Barry Goldwater in that area. Hard to remember that now, in light of how badly LBJ handled the Vietnam War in the following four years.
Ironically, Obama is likely only to get a small boost in votes for this, because -- just a bit more than a decade after 9/11 -- Americans frankly don't give a damn about foreign policy, Scarlett. By a 81 to 9 percent margin, they care more about the economy. (Hey, imagine if we still had all the money spent on the Iraq war to spend on domestic infrastructure, which is crumbling…)
The guy has got some huge boats. Look at those feet.
Walt
Concur Tom with all!
North Korea has yielded to The Saviour, didn't you know?
Iraq is The Saviour's shining success story.
The Saviour hath stretched out his hand and Afghanistan was tamed.
The Mighty One made it that Brit and French oil and security executives make Big Bucks in Libya.
The Supreme Leader has presided over the creation oif an arc of Islamic extremism in the Middle East and North Africa. But who cares, so long as he is re-elected?
Yes, it is indeed most fortunate that Americans don't care about foreign policy. From that to saying that the Obamabots have a handle on security and foreign policy, oy, that is far.
And of course, the Immaculate Misconception has had his boys shoot a few Somalis which does wonders for recruitment but, alas, not much for the economy.
And the successes on the economy? Where are they?
. . . was helpful. No. Really it was.
He wants his 4th grade-level ad hominem neologisms back. zzzzz.
It's understandable that the average American is less focused on foreign policy and more focused on unemployment/underemployment, the rising cost of living and the long decline in real wages.
While Iraq was an expensive folly that sqandered thousands of lives and probably $750 billion, where was the grand vision to use the 2008 $787 billion stimulus on infrastructure? Spending on highways, bridges, railways, sea ports, airports and a wireless superhighway across the country would've provided jobs and an economic foundation for a recovery for decades to come.
Instead it was partisan politics and business as usual. It was largely a scheme to funnel public money to "blue states" and the Dem base read unions (SEIU et al) and special interests ("clean energy"). It was a band- aid to state and county governments that helped them make payroll for a few months and it never tackled the fundamental economic challenges. -My comments are from the perspective of a family of long time democrats and union members.
I think Mondale had a foreign policy edge over Reagan in 1984, but it availed him nothing against the GOP incumbent juggernaut. & of course John Kerry in 2004 was a lot smarter on foreign affairs than the GOP incumbent.
it's a no-brainer given, the economy will always be paramount in most U.S.voters minds. Bush the Elder was on a roll after Desert Storm; also good at foreign policy, and then the economy tanked: "Read my lips: no new taxes." And if that wasn't enough, he stated, "My mother made me eat broccoli. I hate broccoli. I am president of the United States. I will not eat any more broccoli."
Jeez, who would want to elect a whiner for a second term? One issue I'll give President Obama credit on is that he not a whiner. . .But, I hear he has quite the wine celler. : )
I would say that even when Americans . . .
. . . are "caring" about foreign policy, it's usually because our economic interests lie just below the surface. Not to go all William Appleman Williams, or anything.
And not that there's anything completely wrong with that . . .
Bin Laden, Iraq withdrawl, Iran sanctions, and increased use of drones are all either direct continuations of Bush policy or a ramp up of Bush policy. Take drone strikes for example. Under Bush, Secretary Gates pushed for a significant increase in drone aircraft. That fleet came on line under Obama and got used for the purpose they were built.
And yes, he made a gutsy call on Bin Laden (and again this week). But to take personal credit as he has ("I ordered a focus on getting OBL...," or words to that effect) is just politics. The CIA had been targetting that courier since 2007. Eventually that hard work payed off.
In Iraq the president has simply followed the "failed Bush/McCain policy" to the letter, except that he failed to gain any sort of SOF agreement to maintain some leverage in country. Perhaps that was never going to happen, but we'll never know as there does not seem to have been much of an attempt.
As for the Middle East in general, anti-US sentiment is at an all-time high despite the nice speeches and we are already at loggerheads with the new Egyptian government. We led from behind with some success in Libya, but now as a result have absolutely no leverage or influence in that rapidly collapsing mess. Previously 'moderate' Arab countries are going Islamic, and all we can do is watch, having either hedged our bets too long or backed the wrong side. Sure, those old regimes had their drawbacks and were doomed to eventually fail. But this trend could be a disaster for the west and a guarantee that the ongoing ideologic and violent conflict that Bacevich noted so well will not end anytime soon. I consider the 'Arab Spring' a complete foreign policy failure for the United States.
As for the ridiculous and embarrassing 'Reset' with Russia... and the fact that we threw our Eastern European allies under the bus to get that photo op - the Russians are simply laughing at our naivety. They still won't give us the support needed against rogue regimes and demonize us for political gain at every step.
In complete candor, the only foreign policy success that can be directly attributed in total to this administration is the recent engagement with Burma. Of course the Burmese generals were growing desperate, so there was leverage. But I give Secretary Clinton full marks for her handling of that issue - as has Senator McConnell.
And we haven't even touched on the rock and a hard place the administration's approach to Afghanistan has produced.
The president may be able to spin a good yarn about foreign policy success, but the facts do not bear out the premise.
He is carrying on Bush's policies more successfully,
politically speaking, whether that is to the long-term good of the Republic remains to be seen. There is some truth to the claim that Obama is cleaning up Bush's mess, but like a shrew he whines but does not change the running of the household, ensuring future messes.
There are things Obama shouldn't be faulted for, like Egypt, Israel-Palestine, and interventions he should- like doubling down on a failed venture in Afghanistan and intervening in Libya and post-Mubarak meddling in Egypt's internal affairs and the whole looking forward strategy, which might save the Democrats politically speaking at the cost of insuring future boondoggles. As long as senior officials can meddle and screw up with impunity, we can expect more of the same.
And regarding our Eastern European "allies", I take it you mean Poland primarily. Great friends, there, they'll support us in any kind of foolish venture in the hopes that we'll be their ally. It's basically driving your alcoholic friend to the bar our of friendly solidarity and the hope he'll buy you dinner on the way. And re Poland vs. Russia, that's another centuries-long tribal fight we should stay out of. Let the Slavs settle their own internal feud that's been going on since one sided opted for Rome and the other for Constantinople.
Think of our current foreign policy as always a few fries short of a Happy Meal, and in that regard, the only difference between Obama and his predecessor, is that Obama has better fry cooks around him.
As I see it, the issue is that there has been no strategic plan developed, taking the Middle East for instance. . .only varied policies to broker the desired result with various countries within that region, and even when he have some modicum of success, we have difficulty repeating it.
"... there has been no strategic plan developed, ..."
"... taking the Middle East for instance. . .only varied policies to broker the desired result with various countries within that region ..."
And I would say, given the nature of the region, that's all we're going to or can get.
in part by using intelligence derived from Bagram/Parwan TIF, which under Obama has turned into John Yoo's wet dream.
with currently 3,000+ detainees (which is almost 3 times the amount of GITMO at it's height) and a confirmed black-site prison (which violates both Bush and Obama executive orders), and those who've had the dubious pleasure of being a resident of both GITMO and BTIF easily say BTIF was far worse.
People are already getting wise to what's going on there, and Britain's judges have issued a Habeas Corpus to have a British Citizen who's been unlawfully held at Bagram. So Obama in reality has done far worse than Bush when it comes to Geneva Convention application to civilians in wartime.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/14/bagram-jail-detainee-yunus-rahmatullah
it's lack of a coherent, long-term strategy. Unfortunately, I don't see any solution to this problem. As TYRTAIOS points out you can improve personnel but the overarching problem remains. The problem is we ourselves.
Paradoxically, whilst our government, elites, and military are increasingly insulated from the populace, they still act on the contradictory demands and ideals of said populace. Contra culture warriors, this is not necessarily because of increased diversity of the population. These systemic, cultural contradictions have been around since the beginning.
What can be hoped for is that as the country grows more diverse and multi-polar, the competing factions will thwart each other, resulting in a quiescent stasis. It will be hard to launch a crusade in the future if all you can muster is less than a third of the population. That said, the fear is that state elites will ally themselves with this faction or that to increase their power and promote various foreign and domestic experiments. And one mustn't forget the profit motive as a strong driver.
Is it just me or does everyone seem to have the memory of a goldfish? There are so many problems in today’s world that go back to decades of poor foreign and economic policy from both sides of the isle. Yet we always seem to blame only one guy for a world of problems, whether it be Bush, Obama, Clinton or whatever guy you didn't vote for. Iraq and Afghanistan have been a mess for a long time and Iraq is rapidly descending into chaos now, so not sure who to blame for that. Lets just call it a push and blame both presidents, one of them for getting us into it with a shitty plan and one for getting us out with a shitty plan. Hell most of the morons on Fox we're criticizing Obama for the Iraq withdrawal even though it was their boy Bush's policy. Who knows what will happen when we eventually leave Afghanistan? Pakistan doesn't seem to be in short supply of fighters to send over the mountains and with the current ROE it seems we're just making it easier for them. If you want to talk about the economy Obama and McCain were still campaigning during the crash. Here’s the facts: "On December 30, 2008 the Case-Shiller home price index reported its largest price drop in its history. Increased foreclosure rates in 2006–2007 among U.S. homeowners led to a crisis in August 2008 for the subprime, Alt-A, collateralized debt obligation (CDO), mortgage, credit, hedge fund, and foreign bank markets. In October 2007, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury called the bursting housing bubble "the most significant risk to our economy." So let me get this straight we're going to blame the guy who wasn't even the president at the time of this massive collapse, then say he is the reason the economy is in the shitter. Come on! Are you to tell me that McCain would have done any better? Lets put things in prospective the great depression took over 10 years to recover from, and only did that sooner because of the industrial build up to and the eventual WWII. Point is this shit sandwich is going to take awhile to eat and I wouldn’t be surprised if it takes till 2018 for a full recovery. Although I’m sure the liberals will have fun blaming the republicans for the economy next year. We cry and scream about the national debt when every single year our elected officials raise the debt ceiling. And it was Nixon who took us off the gold standard so he could pour more money into Vietnam (and does anyone want to dig into that hell). I think this country is headed down a dangerous path, not because of our foreign or economic policies, but because we have failed to find a middle ground between the isles that will benefit our national security and all Americans, not just the extremely poor or extremely wealthy.
I don't think your numbers are so compelling Tom.
The American Society of Civil Engineers in a 2009 report put the figure of 5 year infrastructure investment needs at 2.2 Trillion, to include H2O, dams, levees, bridges, roads, inland waterways, energy etc etc. Now lets be conservative and imagine that it will cost only 25% more than the estimate rather than double the estimate (most of those projects will be at gov direction after all). That gives us a figure of getting close to 3 Trillion dollars, just in 5 years.
Whenever you run numbers like that the money spent in the 9/11 wars isn't a backbreaker, important, yes, but not the critical element. In any event it is the fallacy of the false alternative to say "what if we'd spent that money on...". We wouldn't have. We either would not have spent it or we would have spent it on entitlement programs, just like we always do.
Entitlements are getting to the point where we could cut defense to zero and it would only delay our day of reckoning by a year or two. That is the real money.
Not knowing exactly how much unnecessary wars have cost in the past decade, CARL takes a guess and misses the main point. However much the wars have cost and need not have, that was money denied in sundry civilian needs in the homeland during the same decade. How can there be an argument that this has not been a bad thing?
Well, of course there's the Tea Party argument: if the troops had been brought home sooner or not sent in the first place, this would have presented a major a) tax saving and b) revenue strangling for the federal government. Spending the war money equivalent on domestic projects would be some kind of evil.
Kunino:
See bureaucracywarrior's post below.
Carl likes to guess, sometimes he even guesses right. Big thrill that, kind of like the lottery. Actually I didn't guess, I used a 750 billion dollar figure somebody else posted above. Seemed reasonable.
No I didn't miss the point because the point Tom tried to make was a phony one. I tried to point that out. That "money we would have had" argument is phony because we wouldn't have had it and even if by some miracle we had had the money, we would not have spent it on infrastructure.
The second part of my point was that if somebody is going to compare costs, they should get their figures right. Infrastructure deterioration is so bad, that even the costs of the wars over 10 years, would not make that make much of a dent in the money that is needed for just 5 years of infrastructure need.
Your paragraph about the Tea Party and some kind of evil completely confuses me...oh no wait. I get it! Tea Party-evil...I get it. Good one.
Is that photoshopped, or does he really have his name and campaign logo on that basketball in the photo?
Policies and strategies drive doctrine, force structure, and the "state" of the military/industrial complex and so forth down the line.
Big picture, I don't see our footing with the major players in the world to have improved.
Smaller picture, our strategy does not seem clear and our changes in doctrine and force structure do not appear to be coherent.
I just don't see a clear vision from the White House on down for where we're going.
"Hey, imagine if we still had all the money spent on the Iraq war to spend on domestic infrastructure, which is crumbling..."
I am so sick of that intellectually dishonest line. We NEVER had that money to begin with. Almost everything spent on that war was borrowed. It never existed, and we wouldn't have it today even if our little adventure in Iraq had never happened.
Not that this shines a better light on G W's misguided venture, but let's be a little more honest here. There is plenty to criticize without making stuff up.
Okay, valid point. Let me repackage the idea to reflect the debt aspect without changing the intent.
"Hey, imagine if we had spent all the money on domestic infrastructure instead of the Iraq war. We'd still have the debt, but a modern infrastructure instead of an Iranian client state."
Economy, War, and Foreign Policy
All Special Forces troops know that the economy pays for the war machine, and the economy develops and pays for the technological tools for the war machine. Every Special forces instructional manual explains how to conduct sabotage that has an economic and military component. In addition, the economy pays for diplomatic tools that can help foreign countries make political decisions that benefit the US. For example, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines suffered natural disasters in 2011. The US had words to offer, but China had economic development projects backed by over $3 trillion in cash. These US allies chose to make agreements with China. The Australian navy conducted joint naval exercises with the Chinese navy while US Marines were at Darwin. Japan's navy also conducted joint naval exercises with China's navy. China, South Korea, and Japan set up a Trilateral Cooperation Office in Seoul to develop joint economic projects, and the president of the Philippines led a 300 person delegation, 200 of which were businessmen, to Beijing to make commercial deals with China after the US debt crisis in August, 2011. US wars have bankrupted America, Obama's Asian Pivot cannot go anywhere without money, and China can take advantage of relative US poverty with the Chinese policy of peace, prosperity, and trade.
Mr. Christopher:
See my posts and Bureaucracywarrior's post above. The 9/11 wars have not bankrupted the US, entitlement programs have. It may feel good to say war has ruined us, but it hasn't. Feel good programs have. Social security, Medicare, Medicaid etc are all things that everybody seems to agree that we must have but nobody can figure out where the money is going to come from.
"the Chinese policy of peace, prosperity, and trade."?! Who are you really?
"...the Chinese policy of peace, prosperity, and trade."
Well, to a country other than America (whose Pentagon, Congress and media are positioning China to be the replacement for the defunct USSR as our next existential enemy), Chinese foreign policy might well appear to stress "peace, prosperity, and trade," as indicated by its foreign development aid, infrastructure projects, bilateral trade agreements, etc., to the developing world. In contrast, US foreign policy in the last ten or more years might seem to be focused on regime change, global counter-insurgency wars, naval shows of force, overseas military bases, huge arms export business, etc. If you weren't an American (i.e., a European, an Asian, a Latin American, or an African), how would you see the two countries' foreign policies?
FG42:
"(whose Pentagon, Congress and media are positioning China to be the replacement for the defunct USSR as our next existential enemy)"
That is a variation on the good old "We control everything argument". No other country can actually ever do anything that might be unfriendly or dangerous to its' neighbors or to us. What is always actually happening is that we are intentionally misinterpreting their actions for our own malign purposes. That is a great argument because it can be all things to all men and fits all occasions with just a little bit of adjustment.
How would I see China's action if not American? Well if I were Vietnamese, I would see the need to buy some Kilo class submarines because I was worried about my people getting shoved around by the Chinese in the South China Sea. If I were Filipino I would be talking to the Americans because I was concerned about the Chinese shoving my people around int the South China Sea. If I were Japanese I would be concerned about the very great growth and modernization of the Chinese Navy in the face of no threat and also about the Chinese cutting off raw materials after their naval forces shoved around my people in waters somewhat north of the South China Sea. If I were Tibetan I would be worried about Chinese secret police showing up at midnight to take me away and kill me. If I were Indian I would be worried about the whole general situation and the things the Chinese occasionally say about me.
How's that?
Good input, Carl. But as many commentators have noted, China's focus has always been with its immediate border, as all your examples point out. Its competing claim to much of the South China Sea is what concerns Vietnam, the Philippines, etc. Much as Americans hate the idea, Tibet is part of China now, and the regime is dealing with an internal domestic matter (insurgency?). China and India are arguing over disputed border areas. And of course Taiwan is a "border" issue too, dating back to 1947 when the defeated Kuomintang forces fled to Formosa. I'm not aware of what Japan's issue is, other than the fact that it is uncomfortable with the idea of a big world power as a neighbor. Aside from these border issues that you've pointed out, China's foreign policy towards Europe, Africa, South America, SE Asia, etc. has been exclusively about trade, foreign aid, construction projects, and even UN peacekeeping missions (which the US hates) like East Timor and the Congo.
Another brilliant Obama Foreign Policy Move.
I thought it pertinent due to the news of the killings in Syria.
Obama's continued no-bid contracts to Rosoboronexport for Russian Helicopters that go to the ANA.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/pentagon-gave-no-bid-contract-to-russias-biggest-arms-dealer/
http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/us-signs-controversial-mi-17v5-contract-/
This is the same company that has armed Syria with the weapons they are using to kill their own people, armed Iran with SAM missiles when we sold GBU's to Israel, and was sanctioned for suspected nuclear proliferation. Then one day in 2010 they were magically made kosher again by this Administration and we're just buying helicopters from them like nothing happened.
....meanwhile Syrians are being gunned down, and Iranians are prepping their SAM batteries against any Israeli sortie.
Kudos Mr. President.
Would it be better if the ANA and Syrians were using our helicopters?
And how dare the Iranians use Russian weapons to defend themselves when we wouldn't sell to them anymore
Don't you hate it when our military industrial complex has competition
I do believe Pakistan, India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etcetera, use good American made weapons if some of their own people need killing, God Bless America
When you have American Countries like Sikorsky who've made a niche for for building, restoring, and maintaining Mi Helicopters.
and just one week ago rosoboronexport agreed to sell the Syrians 36 Yak-130's.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/report-russia-signs-deal-to-sell-36-combat-jets-to-syria/2012/01/23/gIQAPbyOKQ_print.html
I am not trying to espouse that America has the moral high ground in weapons dealing, but if this administration is going to claim to support this "Arab Spring" movement they can at least stop doing business with companies that are supplying dictators with instruments to murder their own people.
How can you threaten sanctions "not only those who perpetrate atrocities but also those who enable them" Yet keep buying helicopters from the enablers?
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/13572.pdf
This is the exact stuff that gets looked over when people say Obama's foreign policy is "great".
Hand grenades, horseshoes, and foreign policy?
We're out of Iraq, but now the three nations within Iraq still don't get along
We're leaving Afghanistan, but then they may decide for themselves who should run the place
Our paid for dictator is out of Egypt but now the people may not do what we say
Our people didn't have to die to free Libya
The generals in Burma are listening to us
The people are trying to kick out the pro-Iranian government in Syria
The bogyman is dead after someone said he wasn't important anymore
The pirates may have to start looking for a safer occupation
We decided to focus on the rising power in the world instead of the noise
But,
The Palestinians and the Israelis are still fighting a 3,000 year old on-again off-again war
And Iranian powers still needs us as the bad guy to prop up their popularity, even though we eliminated their arch enemy.
Damn, I guess close isn't good enough
The problem with democracies and empowering "the people" is sometimes they do what they think is right rather then what they're told
Hand grenades, horseshoes, and foreign policy?
We're out of Iraq, but now the three nations within Iraq still don't get along
We're leaving Afghanistan, but then they may decide for themselves who should run the place
Our paid for dictator is out of Egypt but now the people may not do what we say
Our people didn't have to die to free Libya
The generals in Burma are listening to us
The people are trying to kick out the pro-Iranian government in Syria
The bogyman is dead after someone said he wasn't important anymore
The pirates may have to start looking for a safer occupation
We decided to focus on the rising power in the world instead of the noise
But,
The Palestinians and the Israelis are still fighting a 3,000 year old on-again off-again war
And Iranian powers still needs us as the bad guy to prop up their popularity, even though we eliminated their arch enemy.
Damn, I guess close isn't good enough
The problem with democracies and empowering "the people" is sometimes they do what they think is right rather then what they're told
The FoxStandard of Foreign Policy?
I have no plans to support the President's re-election, but let me see if I have this straight:
Ronald Reagan is credited with bringing down the Soviet Union (along, of course with a little help from the the great warfiighter Newt Gingrich) and single-handedly causing a global democratic revolution.
But Obama gets no credit for the measurable success of a mission he actually ordered, because, well, he didn't actually shoot Bin Laden himself. Is this the argument?
I cannot remember a time when I have seen the rightwing so unhinged.
This has been building, in one form or another, since the red-baiting of the 40s.
From Nixon through Reagan to Gingrich, they turned a multitude of interests into a political haiku of utter simplicity, which could be understood by anyone, and which happened to sound like a Warren Zevon tune: Jesus, Guns and Money.
Of course, the last two have now failed, spectacularly, and in a manner that can be easily understood by anyone.
But I keep thinking about the 72 Democratic convention. And I wonder if the supposedly astro-turf tea party will give the putting green crowd a taste of people power.
Americans care about foreign policy when political candidates inject patriotism into the debate. I just heard a NPR report where Gingrich supporters were trashing the President for taking too long to make decisions and not quickly and decisively getting involved in foreign entanglements. I believe the process used to arrive at a surge in Afghanistan is an especially stellar example of how these questions should be addressed. Foreign policy will become an issue in the general election because the Republican base becomes energized by what they perceive as substantive weakness in policy and, in the demented minds of the birthers, illegality and illegitimacy.
The objective for the president will be to keep the discussion on an adult level and not let it devolve into cartoonish stereotypes. The temptation for Romney will be to placate the hard right conservatives so he may have to be over the top. The test will be whether he can invigorate that part of the Republican coalition and not alientate independent voters. Gingrich has no choice but to pander to that key element. He stands a very good chance of being the next Goldwater in terms of presidential elections. He has next to no chance to make the impact of Goldwater on foreign affairs and national security. Goldwater-Nichols has had countless ramifications in both of these areas. Goldwater made these contributions after getting smoked in the '64 election.
The bind the Republicans find themselves in is great news for the President who has a solid, defensible record on foreign policy. He may use this to trap his opponent into the snare described above.
Americans care about foreign policy when political candidates inject patriotism into the debate. I just heard a NPR report where Gingrich supporters were trashing the President for taking too long to make decisions and not quickly and decisively getting involved in foreign entanglements. I believe the process used to arrive at a surge in Afghanistan is an especially stellar example of how these questions should be addressed. Foreign policy will become an issue in the general election because the Republican base becomes energized by what they perceive as substantive weakness in policy and, in the demented minds of the birthers, illegality and illegitimacy.
The objective for the president will be to keep the discussion on an adult level and not let it devolve into cartoonish stereotypes. The temptation for Romney will be to placate the hard right conservatives so he may have to be over the top. The test will be whether he can invigorate that part of the Republican coalition and not alientate independent voters. Gingrich has no choice but to pander to that key element. He stands a very good chance of being the next Goldwater in terms of presidential elections. He has next to no chance to make the impact of Goldwater on foreign affairs and national security. Goldwater-Nichols has had countless ramifications in both of these areas. Goldwater made these contributions after getting smoked in the '64 election.
The bind the Republicans find themselves in is great news for the President who has a solid, defensible record on foreign policy. He may use this to trap his opponent into the snare described above
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(37)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE