Realism Not Racism

I believe I may be the only NSTOnian who openly describes himself as a Realist, and one of my favorite bloggers over at Foreign Policy is Stephen Walt. He may not be as BRO as T. Ricks, but intellectually his arguments are very much in line with my views. Here is a good post from him the other day responding to a post by the neo-con Michael Gerson. I think people often hurry to place all conservatives under the same foreign policy camp, but the difference between these two writers clearly shows this is not the case.

Divided Government 2.0

This winter's edition of The Economist's annual predictions issue, The World in 2011, is on the shelves. Arianna Huffington's contribution is "The Year of Hope 2.0," an article that appears to be too short for the size of its ideas, whatever they may in fact be. Here, I will only address the supposition that "Hope 1.0," and its accompanying President have failed irredeemably.

Sources on Sacrifice

For those of you interested in ancient history or archaeology, the following may be relevant to your interests:

New research has tendency to be over-hyped. A recent study of a Carthaginian infant burial site (a Tophet) has refuted the proposition by some scholars that all the infants buried at Tophets were sacrificed (here is the article). Osteological analysis of the remains of infants has shown that 20 percent of those found died before birth, and thus could not have been sacrificed. It seems more likely that Tophets were used as more general burial sites.

However, this does little to refute the general historical evidence for child sacrifice at Carthage. Kleitarchos, Diodorus, the Old Testament, and some inscriptions all support child sacrifice at Carthage. Schwartz, the author of the article, rightly limits his conclusions: "Skeletal Remains from Punic Carthage Do Not Support Systematic Sacrifice of Infants." However, as so often happens, studies limited in scope are taken too far. One article has gone so far as to declare that Schwarts' research refutes "millennia-long claims of mass infant sacrifice in ancient Carthage." This just isn't the case. Nothing says that all of those children buried died of natural causes. Moreover, some sacrifices could have been buried elsewhere. Writers in the media and university have a responsibility to remain skeptical of new claims and opinions. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to blow new research out of proportion and make sweeping claims about the past. Orthodox perspectives should not be quickly dismissed, and new research should not be overstated.

OH Berlusconi!

This is one of my first posts for a while, so why not post something to make us all smile?

It, honestly, gives me pride to see my second prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, being so candid and not politically correct! (OK so his hilarious quips may not be the most strategic political tactic, but they certainly provide for excellent entertainment!)

His most recent comment was a complement on President Barak Obama's tan.

On another note, it may seem incredible that Berlusconi has remained in power so long with his very controversial commentary on other politicians, the left wing and not to mention his liaisons with teenage girls but, from recent events, his power appears to be tenuous - He will be facing a confidence vote in the upper and the lower house. Although it is thought that he will still retain his majority in the senate, he may not be so lucky in the lower hues with the abandonment of many of his old supporters. Will this mean an early election for Italy? (well it wouldn't be the first time!)

Evangelicals and Academics

Here's an interesting article on Evangelicalism in modern America. I believe that it is indicative of an underlying lack of diversity within the academic community. Conservative Christian academics are a dying breed. As the author acknowledges, most professors, even of religion, are completely unfamiliar with the religious identity of millions of modern Americans. Even the author of the article (Timothy Beal) ascribes to the liberal dogma of academe (notice his description of the Bible as "an accidental book"). Contrary to this article's suggestion, no mere article or book will bridge the fundamental gap between academia and conservative Christianity. If Evangelicals truly want to be understood, they themselves must penetrate the ivory tower of academia. Until underrepresented groups finally gain their own voices in the liberal world of the American university, they will remain strangers and foes of academics.

WikiLeaks continues to be harmful in a different way than it thinks it is

The latest Wikileaks "scandal," a dump of over 250,000 US diplomatic cables and other documents, is alleged by many in the press and assumed by much of the public to be extremely revelatory and shocking. In fact, very, very little, if anything, in the leak, has surprised anyone who's been paying even a minimum of attention to international news over the past 8-12 months.

What in this leak is actually surprising news?

Is this war in the 21st century?

Would you have every thought that it would be possible to cite Google as your casus belli?

Well, that's not stopping Nicaragua from trying.  At least that's what Costa Rica's La Nacion is reporting, calling the border that Google Maps shows an "error."  (That's the extent of my Spanish.  More like Spanglish.)

Why the US can't expect the rest of the world to ignore Iran

I was doing my daily scan of foreign policy blogs and I came across an interesting point made by one of the bloggers over at Real Clear World.

Having had an in depth discussion in class last week about the necessity of Turkey's engagement with Iran, I feel that the question presented (what is going to be the reaction to the strengthening of Georgian-Iranian ties?) only proves that the West, and especially the Western media tend to approach Iran very naively.  It is easy for the US to be high and mighty and impose sanctions on Iran who is "not enriching uranium for weapons purposes but is developing missile technology."  When your country is within range of said missiles, one must act a little more carefully.  Clearly Turkey, and now Georgia, understands this.  Each country has a right to act in such a way to protect its own national security, and (naturally) every country will.  What must also be understood is that pursuing a diplomatic relationship with Iran doesn't not automatically undermine any close ties with the West or Washington.  Arguably, if Iran was located where Mexico is, the US would also need to act more carefully.

Don't Worry Democrats...

It could have been WORSE.

But in all seriousness, the ball is now in the Republicans' court (or at least its back to half court). Shadow Government seems to think Obama will respond by focusing more on foreign affairs and they will be a major issue in 2012. Maybe, but Obama is far too careful and pragmatic to stir the pot too much in the foreign policy arena. It is unlikely foreign issues, rather than domestic ones, will draw the attention of the electorate.

Stephen Walt largely backs my theory. There are simply not a lot of things that the Congress can do in the next two years to substantially alter foreign policy. Obama could take some drastic actions, but again who thinks that is likely to happen? Walt notes that Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict will remain the main issues Obama focuses on. I'm pessimistic about any President's ability to bring about peace in Israel; that will probably take a generational shift in the Israeli government and a decision on its part to come to a final settlement with the Palestinians. Afghanistan is the real thing to watch. In two years it could be going very well or very poorly, in both cases the US will be heading for the hills as quickly as possible. If it remains in the neutral 'somewhat good/bad' category (as I suspect it will), it will probably be shunted to the periphery in 2012.

Finally this article notes what issues the new Congress may be able to come together on. Anti-war democrats and isolationist tea party republicans will advocate a withdrawal from Afghanistan. They might be able to agree on cuts in Defense spending. Other areas of cooperation could include reforming foreign aid, reducing agricultural subsidies, and limiting earmarks. Now, I don't necessarily agree with all of these policies, but I would be pleasantly surprised if the new congress was able to come together on these issues. The pessimist in me worries that we are in for 2 years of legislative gridlock.

Health Care Repeal

Although the Republicans have swept the House of Representatives, they failed to win enough seats for a majority in the Senate. How, then, will they honor their promise to repeal health care? Even if they could muster a handful of votes in the Senate (an unlikely possibility), they could never get past the filibuster or presidential veto. Is this a lost cause? Will the Republicans be able to undo Obama's "socialist" agenda?

Probably not through legislation. However, a number of State Attorney Generals have begun a suit against the federal government, arguing that a number of provisions in Obamacare are unconstitutional. While many of these challenges are likely to fail, I think that the challenge to the provision requiring every American to purchase healthcare (or suffer a penalty) has the best chance to be overturned. Why? Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Supreme Court jurisprudence on the Commerce Clause has swung widely back and forth in the past century. Beginning during FDR's presidency, partly out of fear of his court packing scheme, the Court began to rule minimum wage laws and other measures by congress as Constitutional. Later, in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the Court ruled that congress could require, pursuant to the Commerce Clause, motels to treat black guests the same as white guests even if the guests were from in state. Given these precedent cases, it may seem that the Commerce Clause gives congress a blank check to do any and everything it wants.

However, during the 1990's, the Rehnquist Court began to reign in the Commerce Clause. In US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison, the Court ruled that congress' legislation on guns in schools and rape was unconstitutional. The Commerce Clause allows congress to regulate things/persons in interstate commerce, channels of interstate commerce, and things substantially affecting interstate commerce. In Lopez and Morrison, the Court ruled that a kid bringing a gun to school and a man raping a woman did not have substantial effects on interstate commerce because the relationships were "too attenuated."

So what will the Court rule when the health care bill comes up? When I buy health care or don't buy health care do I "substantially affect" interstate commerce? Personally, I think no. The Court is likely to agree. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito, the true conservatives on the Court, will strike down the law. Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan will rule in favor of the government. What will Kennedy do? If he follows his own voting in Lopez and Morrison, he will strike down the law. Liberal pundits may scoff at the "radical" or "reactionary" Republican challenges to the constitutionality of Obamacare, but they overlook the fact that the Constitution only enumerates certain powers to Congress, all other powers reside with the states.

When Republicans proposed that Congress should be required to cite each constitutional provision which gives them authority to pass each law, the Democrats opposed them. Why? Did Democrats fear that they would not be able to justify their own measures constitutionally? Or do they not have enough knowledge of the Constitution to find such provisions? Maybe, liberals simply feel so confident in the righteousness of their own agenda that they do not wish to be burdened by an outdated document written by a bunch of dead white men. Either way, if the Supreme Court overturns the health care bill, it will be seen by liberals not as a defence of Constitutional principles, but as an activist conservative Court run amock.

Corruptions Perceptions, because that's not vague

I actually had no idea that there was an annual corruption index measured every year.  I think it's a very interesting idea, and while I'm not sure exactly how its measured or how accurate its findings are, I ran across it in the Foreign Policy blog, so that has to count for something, right?

Where does your favourite country rank?

How to get my blood boiling

I have realised that the quickest way to start my blood boiling is to read small-minded, one-sided arguments about Turkey's past human right's abuses.  Excuse me, I mean the Ottoman Empire's human rights abuses.  Let me give you some context.

In Monday's NYT, Roger Cohen wrote a well-put op-ed about Turkey's foreign policy.  Naturally I was going to post a link to it when I finally got out from the pile of reading that I let build up.  Regardless, we were assigned to read it for my Turkish foreign policy class, along with the reader's comments.  I scan over the article, to refresh my memory on the topic and move on to the reader's comments.  Much to my chagrin, the first one is basically ripping Turkey a new one for the Armenian Issue (or Genocide, however you prefer to call it) of 1918.  This is my open letter to you, JG, Caesarea @ blogspot:

The Settlement Freeze and the Olive Tree

Somehow I find myself posting Thomas Friedman again.  However it feels good to know that I'm not the only one getting fed up with Israel.  My favorite part of the article:

First — I know this is a crazy, radical idea — when America asks Israel to do something that in no way touches on its vital security but would actually enhance it, there is only one right answer: “Yes.” It is a measure of how spoiled Israel has become that after billions and billions of dollars in U.S. aid and 300,000 settlers already ensconced in the West Bank, Israel feels no compunction about spurning an American request for a longer settlement freeze — the only purpose of which is to help the United States help Israel reach a secure peace with the Palestinians. Just one time you would like Israel to say, “You know, Mr. President, we’re dubious that a continued settlement freeze will have an impact. But you think it will, so, let’s test it. This one’s for you.”

A Voice of Reason

Not a full post, but I just read a fantastic op-ed from the prominent Israeli newspaper Haaretz.  The article outlines Netanyahu's foreign policy failures and Israel's general international conundrum with a clarity that is rarely found in the pro-Israel camp.

Spitzer for Governor ... again

     I discovered a post on RCW today by none other than former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who is apparently going to be co-hosting his own show on CNN. It's mostly a domestic politics piece, but think he makes some good points for the future of US foreign relations and foreign policy. The article naturally has a very liberal slant, but Spitzer asks questions that neither party has given me a satisfactory answer to. What are we going to do about our unemployment? And when we fix it, what is your plan to fix all the entitlement programs that are going to run huge budget deficits over the next few decades?

Venezulea and the End of the World

Its been a while since I've posted, but there was a good article on Foreign Policy today. Written by Roger Noriega, who was a member of the Bush administration and is an expert on South American affairs. The article describes the mounting circumstantial evidence that Venezuela may be aiding Iran with acquiring uranium, and that in turn Iran may be helping Venezuela develop a nascent nuclear power program. Obviously the terrifying implication here is that Chavez may one day be able to back up his insane rhetoric and posturing with nuclear weapons. However, even if Venezuela is beginning to walk down the path of nuclear weapons development (which I highly doubt it is), there is little reason to be concerned.

If in 5-10 years there is evidence that Chavez is attempting to develop these weapons, the US could easily destroy its facilities without fear of major repercussions. The multitude of barriers that prevent a strike on Iran (Iranian ability to retaliate against U.S forces and Israel, highly unstable region, powerful ties between Iran and China/Russia) do not apply to Venezuela. Venezuela's neighbors would be abhorred by the idea of a nuclear Chavez, Brazil and Colombia would either seek to develop their own or would seek assurance from the US that they would be protected by our nuclear umbrella. A strike against Venezuelan nuclear sites would bring some grumblings about "American Imperialism" from Cuba and other leftist South American governments, but there would be few other reprecussions.

I think it is almost impossible for this scenario to occur, unless Chavez is completely insane or a complete idiot. The more pressing issue is the increasing ties between Iran and Venezuela. If Chavez is providing the Iranians with uranium, then Venezuela is violating UN sanctions. I think that the Iranian sanctions are the best foreign policy achievement of the Obama administration. Everyday brings news that the sanctions are causing further disarray in Iran. Eventually these pressures will cause some change with Iran's actions. It is vitally important that gaps in the sanctions be found and closed, or we will just end up with meaningless sanctions (i.e. Iraq in the late 90's/ early 2000's).

In the long term, it will be interesting to see how Venezuela develops. There has been some recent evidence that Chavez's power has been weakening due to his infringement on civil liberties and failed economic policies. Clearly on the international stage Chavez relishes being a foil to America, much like Ahmadinejad. I suspect that is why these two have been buddying up, what better way to annoy America than to have two of its major headaches work together. Chavez did this a fear years ago with Russia, inviting some of its military units to visit while relations were cool between the US and Russia.

Will the US allow Venezulea to grow into a regional power in South America? We've been subtly supporting Colombia as a means of balancing against Chavez, could this become more overt? Finally, what role will Brazil play? Brazil is one of those countries prognosticators love to call a future great power. It will be interesting to see if this turns out to be the case, and what its relationship will be to the US and Venezuela. Many would argue that the Monroe Doctrine is out of date, but just how would the US react to a growing power in South America? We were once concerned with foreign powers interfering in the western hemisphere, will we willingly accept a home grown great power? Many of these questions will define South America for the next 50 years. While it has been a continent largely off the international stage for sometime, I would not be surprised to see this change.

Even China has domestic politics

Drezner over at Foreign Policy seems surprised that China would be so belligerent towards Japan over custody of the Chinese fishing trawler captain. Drezner points out that China's apparent rare-earth embargo against Japan makes little sense internationally. A belligerent China is pushing the Pacific Rim towards Washington; according to Drezner, China doesn't seem to realize this. I think they must.

What's going wrong in our right system

Now, I know how Charlie feels about Thomas Friedman, and 9 times out of 10, I'm inclined to agree.  However, when I spotted a post on RCW's blog that started in a similar cynical manner, but argued that Thomas Friedman was actually making a legitimate point, I had to read on.  In his September 21st column in the New York Times, Friedman points out what is wrong with our system when comparing it to what China is doing right:

Studying China’s ability to invest for the future doesn’t make me feel we have the wrong system. It makes me feel that we are abusing our right system. There is absolutely no reason our democracy should not be able to generate the kind of focus, legitimacy, unity and stick-to-it-iveness to do big things — democratically — that China does autocratically. We’ve done it before. But we’re not doing it now because too many of our poll-driven, toxically partisan, cable-TV-addicted, money-corrupted political class are more interested in what keeps them in power than what would again make America powerful, more interested in defeating each other than saving the country.

If you want to read the rest of Friedman's column (if you haven't already), it's here.

Tax Cuts for the Wealthy or for the Nation?

Recently debate has flared up over whether Bush’s so called “tax cuts for the wealthy” should be extended. Republicans urge congress to extend all the cuts, but the Democrats want to only extend the cuts for the bottom 98% of all income earners. Thus far, the Democrats have cast this as a choice between helping the rich or the nation. I, however, believe that extending all the tax cuts is not only good for the rich but good for the nation.

The reason most often given by Republicans for extending the cuts is that they help small businesses, for many small businesses file their taxes as individuals and thus would benefit from tax cuts to those earning above $250,000 a year. This is true, but it is often pointed out that small businesses can be helped without extending tax cuts of millions of wealthy Americans. Very few small businesses would actually benefit from this; the vast majority would remain unaffected.

However, there are far more important reasons to extend the tax cuts to the wealthy, reasons which are rarely mentioned by politicians. It is a commonplace that taxation decreases efficiency. Economic agents, even wealthy ones, will be less willing to work hard if they know the government will take a large portion of their income. An increase in government revenue will bring on a decrease in overall GDP. Thus, a decrease in taxes can cause an increase in tax revenue, and an increase in taxes can cause a decrease in revenue (the Lerner Curve). Admittedly, this is unlikely to happen, but it demonstrates that an increase in taxation is unlikely to increase tax revenue proportionally. Taxes have the unintended consequence of decreasing productivity over the entire economy.

Now under normal circumstances, correcting the deficit through more responsible tax policies would be imperative. However, we risk descending into a second recession if we tether down economic productivity with more taxes. In a recent poll, 60% of economists said that extending all the tax cuts would be the most economically sound choice. Surely, having experienced the devastating effects of the most recent recession, we should not allow our economic choices to be influenced by some infantile desire to take from the rich and give to the poor, especially since the consequences could be disastrous for the entire economy. The debate over tax cuts should not be about taking money from the greedy and lazy richest 2% of Americans. No, the debate should be about what is best for the nation. There are many strong reasons to extend the cuts, and our nation’s leaders would do well to focus on helping the nation and not punishing the wealthy.

Short and Sweet

I have been complaining for a while now that Western (in the EU/US sense of the term) media have been frustratingly ignorant of the cultural context of Turkish politics. After much ado (even though I would have preferred to write a post myself, I just couldn't find the time), I have finally found an article that isn't quite buying the message put out by the ruling AKP. All I can say is that it's about time. (Pun not at all intended.)

"Turkey Braces for Key Vote Over It's Future," Pelin Turgut, Time

Today's Elites

In recent times, commentators like offhandedly to compare America to Rome or to Athens, often with some vague implied notion that we must beware of our own "decline" and potential "fall." These statements are generally vague and historically uninformed, but they show an acute awareness that our own nation should look to the past to help steer our course for the future. It is peculiar, then, that pundits rarely critique the vices of modern America, as those in antiquity were so ready to do. Livy, for instance, observes of his own time that "we are able to endure neither our vices nor their remedies." Ammianus Marcellinus comments upon the depravity of the city of Rome as a major reason for its decline. In the past those wishing to critique their own societies tended to focus on moral as well as economic and political weaknesses.

I was somewhat refreshed then when I, while staying up late into the morning, read the following article by a conservative military historian. It is essentially a critique of what he sees as a "postmodern cultural elite" which he believes permeates academia, government, Hollywood, and corporate America. While we can easily dismiss Hanson's complaints as unsubstantiated generalizations, he brings up a number of interesting contradictions which may be important to consider:

- Those progressives obsessed with a green revolution tend to live very "ungreen" lives, favoring jets, boats, large homes, and countless electronic devices, yet they are the same public figures who denigrate those less fortunate for ecologically harmful activity.

- Although elites tend to romanticise nature, they are far removed from it and have little experience with the mechanics of agrarian society.

- Rich Americans like to go to the gym and exercise so as to appear muscular and healthy, but most intentionally avoid manual labor. In other words, today's elites exercise out of vanity and distance themselves from those who actually do work.

As many of our readers are attending universities and moving into careers in government and academia, I believe that it is important for us to consider some of Hanson's critiques of today's elites. It is possible, I think, that we can lose sight of the values and plights of common people. We should be quick to check our own excesses and shortcomings lest we suffer the same fate as Athens and Rome.

SEAMANSHIP! SEAMANSHIP!

A bit of a lighthearted post today. Last week JWar sent me a link showing the difference between American and Japanese Navy recruiting commercials. Well, the same video showed up today in an article on Foreign Policy that discusses recruiting commercials around the world. Its pretty hilarious, everyone should take a look at them. Personally, I'm torn between joining India's Summer Camp Army, using Transformers in the Singaporean Navy, or just joining the Ukrainian Army and picking up ones in a tank.

In Support of Disengagement in Afghanistan

It is a commonplace that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a massive drain upon the political, military, and financial resources of the United States. Although civilian leaders like to put deadlines for the achievement of objectives and troop withdrawals, “victory” is proving difficult to define and achieve. I do not doubt that a stable liberal democracy could eventually be established in Afghanistan, given enough time and effort on the part of the US military. However, in light of the tremendous financial, political, and military cost of a protracted war as well as the minimal strategic significance of Afghanistan, the best choice is to disengage.

Currently, the US has about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. At about 1 million dollars per soldier per year, that will cost the US well over 100 billion dollars per year. More importantly, our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as other factors, preclude involvement in other countries like Iran and North Korea (see "Contain Iran" by James Robinson). These many woes of warfare will not go away in the near future; it will take years before Afghanistan has been molded into a stable democracy.

The strategic importance of Afghanistan, as well as the entire Middle East, is greatly overstated (see “The Middle of Nowhere” by Edward N. Luttwak). Afghanistan has few natural resources and no significance in the international network of trade. It is a nation of impoverished farmers who live in isolated hamlets. What do we hope to gain from Afghanistan? Proponents of the war will argue that the Taliban in Afghanistan poses a national-security threat to the US a la September 11, 2001. This argument is unpersuasive. No doubt, the existence of the Taliban is counter to our interests. However, we must consider the costs and benefits of pursuing the Taliban to every last cave and mountain. I believe that disengagement is preferable to our current strategy when we consider our costs and benefits.

Disengagement is not withdrawal. I advocate neither a sudden or gradual withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Rather, I propose that the most economical and effective use of our forces is to stop all major combat operations and fortify our ground forces into bases near urban centers. There they can protect the central government from large foreign and domestic threats which materialize, and they can thwart the machinations of the Taliban through extensive aerial bombardment (see “In Praise of Aerial Bombardment” by Edward N. Luttwak). This will minimize the material and human costs while maintaining a degree of stability acceptable to our interests.

This choice is certainly unpalatable for policy-makers. The increase in civilian casualties will be unpopular, not to mention the perception that we have “given up” the fight against terror or the hunt for Osama. However, considering the minimal strategic significance of the region and the tremendous resources and time required by our current strategy, disengagement is the best choice. True, it will surrender the Afghan people to instability and violence for the foreseeable future, but it will serve our own interests and enable us to deal with unforeseen problems which may emerge. After all, as Polybius says, “In war we must always leave room for strokes of fortune, and accidents that cannot be foreseen.”

Contain Iran

First off, welcome to Jon and Elke, our newest contributors! Excellent first posts guys, I'm glad everyone is getting involved.

In the past month there has been an uptick in the debate on Iran and its nuclear weapons program. The debate was largely sparked by this article in The Atlantic Monthly magazine, which details just how seriously the Israelis are preparing for a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. I cannot stress enough how large of a strategic mistake a preemptive strike would be for Israel and America.

Lets imagine for a second what would happen if Israel ordered an air strike:

- President Obama as well as America's military chain of command, both here in Washington and local commanders in the Middle East, would be notified with less than an hour to go before the strike would be launched. There would be no time to persuade the Israelis to stop, at that point the loss of face would be too great to swallow. No American President or military commander would order our forces to shoot down Israeli planes, so the strike would go through as planned.

- The strike would be largely successful in destroying the intended targets, although a number of Israelis would be shot down and either killed or captured. Iran would immediately respond by unleashing Hezbollah in south Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Israel would have no choice but to send ground forces into both areas to halt the rocket attacks. A possibility exists that Syria would openly declare war on Israel, although this is unlikely as this would give the IDF the green light to openly attack Syria's technologically inferior forces.

- In a best case scenario, Israel would claim responsibility for the attack and the US would deny all involvement, and Iran would focus its reprisals against Israel. However, it is not hard to imagine the Revolutionary Guard demanding reprisals again US forces as well. This would lead to the often threatened attempt to close the straights of Hormuz. The attempt would be largely unsuccessful, but the US Navy would probably lose several ships or at least have several suffer severe damage. Iran's Quds force of irregulars would probably infiltrate Iraq and target any American forces remaining as well as attempt to destabilize the Iraqi government. The US Military would be forced to respond by targeting Iranian Naval and Air assets with air strikes, as well as deploying special forces along the Iran-Iraq border and possibly sending forces back into Iraq to stabilize the situation.

-Now lets look at the big picture strategic consequences of an Israeli strike against Iran. International condemnation would occur on an unseen scale. The UN Security Council very well might condemn Israel, with only the US and UK abstaining or voting against the resolution. International public opinion would turn completely against Israel. Any prospect for resolving the Palestinian situation would be completely lost as other Arab nation would refuse to cooperate with Israel. In Iran, the Ayatollah's control over the country would be vastly strengthened, as would the role the Revolutionary Guard plays in that country's government and economy. The Green Movement would be completely discredited. Iranian nationalism would run at an all time high. Ironically enough, the Iranian government would probably use the strike as a "proof" that its once "peaceful" nuclear program must not be used to develop strategic deterrent weapons. At best the Iranian nuclear weapons program would be set back 10 years. Oil prices would skyrocket and remain high for sometime, possibly forcing countries to tap into their strategic reserves to stabilize the market. The rise in oil prices could shock the fragile financial market, possibly triggering another global recession. Diplomatic relations between Iran and the west would be ruined for years. Lastly, al-Qaeda would once again have another example of western/Israeli aggression to use as a rallying call for new forces.

Essentially, while a strike would accomplish the short term goal of delaying Iran's development of a nuclear bomb, it would ultimately harm Israel's long term security. Now let me be clear, I think Iran's nuclear program is designed to give them the ability to develop a nuclear weapon. However, just because Iran wants the ability to assemble a bomb doesn't mean it has decided it wants one. What Iran does want is to assume the mantle as a regional power and counterweight to America and Israel in the Middle East. So what should the United States do?

A recent article on Foreign Policy's website advocated a policy of containment. While I would highly recommend you read the whole article, its title perhaps is all that you really need to know. "It (containment) worked on Saddam" refers to the successful usage of containment on Iraq by the United States between Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The author is a former CIA case officer, and he explains how it was only after the ill advised invasion of Iraq that the US realized how successful containment had been.

I see no reason why a similar policy couldn't work on Iran. The recently passed sanctions against Iran are an excellent example of the sort of steps the US can take. Of course, Iran will not feel real pain unless Russia and China decide to cut off their patronage, and therein lies the catch-22 for Iran. If it were to test a nuclear weapon, or even declare that it had a weapon, it would lose much of the international sympathy it currently enjoys. Turkey and Brazil would sheepishly back away from their erstwhile friend, having had their fingers burned on their first foray onto the 21st century international affairs hotplate. China and Russia would be furious and embarrassed, and forced to allow strengthened sanctions to proceed through the UN. America and its allies position would be strengthened, and sympathy would even increase for Israel. The Green Movement would be strengthened, and might even be able to use the Iranian government's blunder as a catalyst for a new revolution.

I suspect that the Iranian government is aware of these strategic consequences, despite the occasional appearance of being completely insane. I think they are playing a very dangerous game to propel themselves into a more important international role, and have no true desire to have a nuclear weapon solely for the purpose of having one. I also suspect that, despite his rhetoric, President Obama has decided against a preemptive strike on Iran. The strategic price would be too high for the limited benefits. The US military is over strained as it is, stuck between dwindling bank accounts on one side and over committed forces on the other. The trick will be to restrain Israel from attacking Iran. I would point to the case of North Korea. The North Korean's have had a nuclear weapon for several years now. They reside in an equally volatile area of the world, and have the ability to destroy Seoul, Tokyo, and Guam if they wished. However, the US has not launched an invasion or strikes against North Korea because it understands that the strategic cost would be too high (i.e World War III with China). An even better example of containment would be the Cold War. For 45 year the US contained the Soviet Union, sometimes poorly, but it never had to use nuclear weapons or engage in open war with the Soviets. If we could contain the USSR, we can contain Iran.

RE: Islamic Culture Center; Islamic Culture in liberal democracies

I also just wanted to say bravo to James for that post. At least there are some people in this world who still believe in allowing the freedoms that makes Liberal Democracies great.

I also wanted to add to this discussion with some interesting points I have been recently reading about on the news especially concerning Islamic culture and the veil. (Sorry i don't have accompanying articles to go with this but I read them a while back and have been stewing this over)

1. As it turns out, France has banned the veil - an Item of clothing worn by an estimated 5,000 people in France. The president claimed that the veil is harmful to women's rights.

2. A poll was taken in Canada that showed that the majority of the population would like to see the veil banned.

3. Kosovo has banned the veil now too in the hope that it can join the EU (I know this one came from BBC world News)

4. A court in Australia ordered a Woman to remove her veil while making a testimony although it is not Australian Law. (ABC News Australia)

I believe the veil is a good example of a discussion on the government limiting civilian rights of self expression:

I firstly have no idea why liberal democracies have decided to begin banning an item of clothing that comes to represent someone's faith and why this is seen as popular. This really does make me uncomfortable as I see this as crossing the line - just because someone is wearing a veil does not mean that they are dangerous in any way.

Secondly, I find the Kosovar reaction to these bannings also rather disheartening. Ieeen trying to fit in to join the EU, they have not only alienated part of their population but have highlighted the discrimination taking place against Muslims in Western European society.

The forth case from Australia that I pointed out raises an important question about security. Although some Australians (especially of the older, more socially conservative generation) are very suspicious of Muslims, most urban Australians are in fact VERY liberal and have no desire to ban the veil. The judge's request for the witness to remove her veil was because they needed to see her facial expressions in order to judge whether she was being truthful in her testimony.

So I leave you all with this question: is it OK to ban the veil outright? Should it be mandatory to remove the Veil in certain high security areas ie. Banks, the Airport and Court? Where should the government draw the line?

Is the UK finally accepting that it isn't a world power?

I was reading this article that was posted on RCW from the Daily Telegraph about the debate on whether Britain should relinquish its nuclear armaments and accept that it is no longer a world power. To relinquish their Trident (Nuclear defence) Program, they would have to also relinquish their permanent seat on the UN security council and much of its global influence and status. To update Trident technology on the other hand would mean a serious reduction in the UK's military capabilities as the update the Trident deterrent system would be using Ministry of Defence (MoD) funds which are already being cut by 10%.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/7967116/If-Britain-wishes-to-remain-a-brglobal-power-it-needs-Trident.html

In my opinion this is just the next step in the British realising that they are no longer the Empire that they used to be. Although this has already been to a large extent realised when Britain severed itself from former colonies economically, closed its borders to immigrants from its own 'commonwealth' and began bandwagoning with the US, its posturing as a global power in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has demonstrated its audacity in holding onto its past well into the 21st century.

Greetings and War

Greetings everyone! I have just joined this "blog" and am eager to contribute my thoughts and comments. Althought I am no expert on foreign policy, nor even an international affairs student, I believe that my studies of antiquity and history may be of interest and possibly - dare I say it - relevant to issues in the modern world. I am currently completing a research paper which analyzes the role of limitanei and soldier-civilian interactions in Roman Arabia. However, for my first blog, I would like to write a brief summary and review of a book I read this summer (or last spring? I forget when I finished it).

The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Ancient Greece is a book by the historian Victor Davis Hanson which gives helpful insights into the uniquely Greek approach to warfare and how that approach still colors our perspective on waging war.

The conditions of an egalitarian and agrarian Greek society helped mold hoplite battle and thus western warfare. Farmer-soldiers needed to be present in their fields and preferred to be home with their families, so they opted for short, brutal, and decisive battles as opposed to extended campaigns of attrition. Hoplite battle is perfectly suited for these all-or-nothing battles. Two armies face off in an open field and clash in a head-to-head collision of shock infantry. Hanson goes into extensive detail regarding the sheer horror of this kind of battle. Although war only consisted of a few hours of combat a year for a Greek polis, it had a profound impact upon the psyche of the hoplite. Hanson argues that the glorification of war found in literature is merely a symptom of how tremendously the prospect of open battle weighed upon Greek men.

Because of the conditions of Greek warfare, battle was limited in scope, a few hours a year. While we have inherited the Greek preference for open and decisive battles, we have greatly expanded the scope, lethality, and consequences of war in the modern world. A hoplite might have fought a few hours a year, but a marine in Afghanistan has to deal with the prospect of conflict for months at a time. Gone are the days when soldier-civilians, after voting in the assembly, would take up shield and spear and fight out a war to defend their endangered lands. Now, with our professional armies and modern arsenals, cold and calculating decisions are made, and long drawn out campaigns are fought, sometimes with devastating consequences.

While Greek infantry battle was just as brutal as modern warfare, if not more so, we can learn from their perspective. For them, battle was a brutal necessity and a communal choice. Rather than seeking out the total domination of their enemies, as Alexander the Great would later do, Greek armies in the 5th and 6th centuries fought chiefly to resolve conflict through quick and decisive battle. Our problem is that we share the Greek desire for decisive and head-on battle but have greatly expanded the scope and aims of warfare. Now, we fight enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq who do not fight the "Western Way of War." This presents us with a quandary which talented strategists have tried to fix through various forms of "counter-insurgency." As we seek to serve the interests of the state through warfare, we should remember the material and human cost brought on by the modern way of war.

Embrace the Islamic Cultual Center

For a long time I've been embarrassed to be a member of a generation that gets most of its news from Jon Stewart. However, in response to Denise's post, I must apologize to Mr. Stewart. This "mosque (i.e. Islamic cultural center)" debate is the most absurd debate that the tea party has yet raised. Ok, not as bad as the conspiracy that the President was grown in a Kenyan lab by Nasser, Saddam, and Gadaffi as part of an intricate plot to place a sleeper agent in the White House...but almost.

As the Daily Show's investigation showed, intolerance towards Mosques is a growing trend in America. What is your goal Tea Party, to emulate the Know-Nothing Party and its fears of "Romanism (Catholicism)"? The cultural center will be blocks from Ground Zero, farther than an actual Mosque that already exists. Charles Krauthammer, the conservative Washington Post columnist, has compared building the cultural center to building a German cultural center at Auschwitz. While I sometimes agree with Mr. Krauthammer's views, he could not be more wrong with this analogy. Every Muslim is not a member of al-Qaeda, and virtually every Muslim-American was mortified by the events on 9/11. Just because the terrorists acted in the name of Islam does not mean that they represent the views of Islam. I certainly am not represented by deranged individuals who shoot up abortion clinics in the name of Christ.

I understand why people are uncomfortable about the location of the cultural center, although I suspect that is mostly because of a lack of information and the way the story has been covered by the media. There is of course nothing I can do to stop my own party from opposing the cultural center, as it continues to become increasingly beholden to the Tea Party. However, I am ashamed to see the Democrats rallying around the nativist banner as well. Incredibly Harry Reid and Howard Dean have publicly come out against the building of the mosque, but I suspect that this has something to do with the election in November.

I was pleasantly surprised when President Obama came out in support of the cultural center, and was bitterly disappointed when he backtracked the next day. Again, I suppose this is simply politicking, but I would urge the President to stand by his convictions here. Obama's term has been full of bold leadership and decisions on many issues, not all of which I agree with, but I respect that the President is focused on improving the country and not re-election. Mr. Obama, no American president has ever been more popular in the Islamic World. Come out in support of the Cultural Center. Explain how this shows America's openness and diversity. Make a tangible demonstration of why freedom and democracy should be embraced over sectarianism and bigotry. Show the world why bin-Laden and Ahmadinejad are wrong, and why America is better than them.

Jon Stewart on the Islamic Community Center

Honestly, I'm ashamed that this whole thing is an issue. I have to laugh to keep from crying. Thank you for making that easier, Jon Stewart. Too bad that when you actually stop to think about it, it shouldn't be an issue at all.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Municipal Land-Use Hearing Update
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

An Homage to Robert Gates

I read a good article from the Washington Post this morning about how Gates is alone as a true conservative in Washington.  It kinda made me long for the days where conservativism meant less bureaucracy and smaller deficits.

It's really a shame that he's planning to retire.  Although I completely understand why.

Authoritarianism is alive and well

I stumbled across a very interesting article on authoritarianism and its shortcomings against democracy.  It wasn't anything that I didn't already know, but the author uses a few good cases to prove his point.  What is most surprising is the countries that consider themselves modern (cough cough, Russia and Turkey) can still commit such egregious violations of the democratic system which they seem committed to upholding.

What is more surprising is that it was actually published in Russia (albeit in a Western newspaper).

Because I spent my morning poking around Foreign Policy

Just a few things that might be of interest to my fellow I Street contributors.

• Pat:  Since you disagreed with the idea that Obama was 0-4 on the big foreign policy issues, it seems that someone has agreed with you.
• Charlie:  Stephen Walt of Foreign Policy makes an interesting case about the role of nuclear weapons in today's foreign policy arena.

Also of interest:

• The world's worst dictators.  Not a whole lot of surprises here.  At least for as far as my slow, government computer let me get before he decided to freeze up every time a new page would load.
• An interesting take on American democracy.  Being as big of a fan of Fareed Zakaria as I am, I would be inclined to agree.

Tolerance for the Conservatives?

Here's an interesting article calling for tolerance among the conservatives.  Just another thing to add to their already long to-do list, I suppose.

Peter Beinart also makes a good point in his article on the ADL, here.

Where's the foreign policy Obama promised?

It's not an uncommon practice for politicians to not live up to their promises.  And I admit, I've been reluctant to give up the hope that I had for President Obama.  However, of the eve of mid-term elections, things have started to look pretty grim for the Democrats.

Foreign Policy has published a scorecard of the Obama administration's foreign policy.  And while he has two years before he is put to the test of the voters once more (and two years is admittedly a long time), the article above is a very good account of how things sit on the ground right now, albeit not entirely a measure of how the next Presidential election is slated to go.  As he points out, Obama may not be the best, but the GOP has yet to field a better candidate.

"The End of Military History"

          As much as I hate to post anything from the American Conservative, this seems to be written from a true conservative perspective rather than the Neo-Con.  I suppose it's a common sense article, but it's really the first time that I've heard a professional voice the truth that most of us are already well aware of.  Food for thought.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.amconmag.com/blog/the-end-of-military-history/

The page behind the link sucks, but I only encountered a cached version of the article.

A.Q. Khan network may be active again

This is why Global Zero won't end the threat of nuclear weapons.

Handing Israel a Deservedly Large Slice of STUF Cake

Or:  When Friends No Longer Act Like Friends

Here you go

          Historically, the United States and Israel (especially Israel) have enjoyed a very close relationship. Harry Truman stuck his neck out in the international system to make the US the first country to recognize Israel (against the advice of most of his cabinet departments), and ever since, Israel has been treated like our kid brother in a school full of Arab/Persian/Muslim bullies. Whenever they attack Israel, we're outraged, and whenever Israel attacks them, we turn a blind eye. This was all well and good when we could count on Israel to support us and follow our guidance in an equally loyal way, but Israel increasingly goes against us. Well, I say, “No more!”.

Eight problems with Romney's eight problems, or an open letter to Mitt Romney

Dear Mr. Romney,

Your efforts to restart the Cold War are valiant, but when Henry Kissinger is siding with the Democrats on national security, you can solidly be assured that you are in the wrong.  I hate to tell you, but Secretary of Defense Robert Gates also disagrees with you.  At this point, you should just try to save your rapport, instead of making waves.  But that’s just my advice, who am I to judge?

Russia to resume military cooperation with NATO

New START, a hands-off response in Kyrgyzstan, and now Russia's ready to provide logistical support for the war in Afghanistan.There are plenty of factors at play in this move, not least of which is the fact that Georgian and Ukrainian efforts to join NATO have stalled.

But it looks like Russia is finally starting to see relations with the West in something other than zero-sum terms, and you can't tell me the "Reset" hasn't had something to do with that.

Global Zero vs Global Nine

Last week, I received an email from my school alerting me to an upcoming program run by "Global Zero" on our campus. Global Zero is an organization that promotes the total elimination of all nuclear weapons the world over by 2030.

I have serious doubts about whether a world without nuclear weapons would be a universally good thing. But whether or not "Global Zero" is a desirable goal, I don't think it's really possible. I can't see many of the nine current nuclear powers being ready to dismantle their weapons in the near or intermediate future.

Here's why.

Honduras: One Year Later

          A little over a year out from the coup of June 2009, Honduras remains in turmoil, the US's interests in the area remain unserved, and violent oppression is the order of the day. The US appears to be without an attractive foreign policy option. Our ham-handed attempts to have Manuel Zelaya reinstated gained us nothing, and lost us political capital in the region. However, the status quo under President Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo is unacceptable; human rights are trampled on a regular basis, and the government is, at best, unconcerned, and at worst, responsible. What the US needs to do is take a far subtler approach to our intervention in Latin American politics, and make the best of a government in Honduras that we may well be stuck with.

Where in the world is Turkey?

Or Who Lost Turkey? or Three-Level Games

Everyone just calm down, take a deep breath. Turkey is still in the same place it has always been (geographically at least). It has not been lost. It has not gone over to the dark side.

I’ve read my fair share of articles since the May 30th flotilla incident, and trust me, there have been quite a few. For a while in there, it seemed like watching a tennis game. One day Turkey was lost to the West and was trying to reestablish the Ottoman Empire or become the new champion of the Arab world, the next day its new found ties with Iran are unraveling and Turkish officials are having secret meetings with Israeli officials in Switzerland. Just a quick stroll down Real Clear World’s page on Turkey reveals the uncertainty, and it’s almost comic. But what is obvious is that Turkey wants to be just what it is: Turkey, no longer the “sick man of Europe” or America’s puppet in the Middle East, but a country with a rapidly growing economy, a strategic location, and a sovereign government.