Containing the Radicals

Via Andrew Sullivan, Andrew Bacevich has proposed a policy of containment toward radical Islam. It's a policy you might suspect that I would agree with. Why might you suspect this? Because I made a similar argument in an op-ed piece for History News Network. In January 2006.

Hillary at the CFR

Because of my affiliation with the Foreign Policy Association I am able to access media events, though to this point I have not really done so. But today I decided to partake in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's on-the-record speech and presser at the Council on Foreign Relations. I am going to write a piece for the FPA and wrote a blog post for the Africa Blog, but I thought I'd share my notes (and that is all these are, so they are pretty fragmented) here:

Hillary Clinton On-The Record Event and Conference Call – Council on Foreign Relations

*Clinton is a much better, and frankly, more palatable and likable speaker in this capacity than she is on the stump.

*Advice she once received: Don’t try to do too much. But today this is impossible.

*The question today isn’t whether America should, but rather how it should lead.

*Obama – caused us to think outside traditional boundaries.

*We will exercise American leadership that no nation can do alone.

*While the idea that shape our foreign policy are critically important, this is not just an intellectual exercise.

*Does not make sense to utilize 19th c concert of powers, 20th c balance of powers, Cold War containment, etc,

*Countries face many of the same issues and “obstacles that stand in the way of turning commonality of interest into common action” – no nation can face these challenges alone but none can face them without America.

*A combination of boilerplate and heady rhetoric – clear break from previous administration in many areas – emphasis on coalitions and working with international community, climate change and nonproliferation, torture, talking with enemies, etc.

*Economic turmoil changes the calculus – normally economic matters not a major factor for SecState, but in these times she believes that there needs to be a restoration of State role in economic outreach, trade issues, etc.

*Good speech, to be sure. Coherent, well presented, smart, but certainly broad and even diffuse.

*Very little on Africa. Mentioned Ghana but in context of larger policy goals.

Q&A:

Israel/Palestine peace prospects in 2010? She carries forward hope. Wanted a skilled negotiator and got it in envoy George Mitchell. Not just responsibility of Israel, nor even of Palestinians, but of Arab States as well. Will not make predictions, but commitment is deep and durable.

Could Hamas play a role in the peace process? Firmly committed to quartet process. Would expect Hamas to recognize Israel, denounce violence, and support peace process. (Yeah, right.)

Elaborate on administration’s willingness to engage with Iran – any response from Khamenei to letter sent in May, and if they do show interest, what if they stonewall with no give? Has there been a green yellow or red light sent to Israel (re: Biden) with regard to attacking Iran? Troubled by repressive actions post-election, but there is no path opened up right now. There is a choice for the Iranian government to make. Will wait to see how they decide. This would not be an open-ended engagement, a door that stays open no matter what. Re: Biden: White House clarified the next day (ie: punt).

What do you expect from trip to India, especially foreign policy/global aspects? Delighted to be engaging in broad comprehensive dialogue – most wide ranging ever put on table between India and US. India has an opportunity to play a greater global role. There are a number of areas where we would welcome Indian leadership or involvement.

Reports that in discussions between Mitchell and Ehud Barak there was some agreement to allow construction to go forward – can you comment? Not going to step on the process – will announce decisions that have been made.

Talk a little more about Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review? Served on armed services committee for 6 years. This (QDDR) seems to be a very important discipline and tool for Defense Department. Allows us to justify what we are doing and to show concrete results. This is both a policy approach as well as an attempt to explain and justify what they are doing – wants this to become long-term policy put into place by Congress.

Dividends being received from recommitment to alliance relationships – early on it seems that some allies are still skeptical? She agrees that we are still dealing with the “down payment” process where we are taking unrequited steps without clear responses. But in the long run she is quite optimistic. We have intense ongoing discussions with allies trying to implement our strategies. Economic downturn plays a role. Furthermore, after eight years we are actually adding troops to Afghanistan and both at home and abroad we still have to answer questions and clarify our positions. We still need to assuage fears and anxieties (referenced loss of 8 British soldiers and Gordon Brown’s political difficulties as a result). Slow development and change in Afghanistan indicative of the difficulties we are facing. Of course she cannot say that all of our allies are going to come through to our thinking, but she is optimistic.

Previous Presidents from Carter to Clinton have set out to reach out to Iran and has been rebuffed – what happens if this attempt fails – are we prepared to live with a nuclear Iran? We have consistently said that we cannot accept a nuclear Iran. But we are not going to negotiate with Iran sitting here. Policy to Iran in last eight years was a mistake – we basically outsourced our policy to Iran and it failed. It’s not just US that should be concerned, but many others in world, including some much closer to situation for whom consequences are much more dire.

Expand on point about State Dept approach to economic issues – trade agreements, but also exports, etc. – what is the role of State in commercial advocacy? Takes commercial advocacy seriously, as it is part of State Dept. role, and trade policy is certainly an important issue for State. We are a trading nation and we need to make that clear, but economic policies also seen as important part of the diplomacy of nations. Role of State’s economic agenda needs to be strengthened, work with Treasury, work with Economic Council. Why would State say it is not part of economic mix when economics are so vital to our relations with other countries. Have worked to make ties with China comprehensive because economic issues are at the forefront.

In six months what has struck you most about your job? Excitement of new administration, this has also allowed us to improve our image in the world. Shocking that we do not Have full gov’t in place after six months. Realizes how shortsighted she was in Senate when it came to asking a ton of questions of every nominee! It’s been a real privilege and an honor and she is proud of what the gov’t has done so far.

Talking With the Enemy

The debate over whether to talk to dictators is hopelessly silly. Of course we always have, of course we always will, and almost certainly we should. in another political climate this would be a nonissue. This is, alas, not another political climate.

Stating the Obvious

The Council on Foreign Relations has produced two obvious but necessary reminders of the realities of the world in which we live: This nifty slideshow shows how the Olympics are pretty much always about politics, grandstanding to the contrary notwithstanding. And this op-ed piece from the CFR's Leslie Gelb states what ought to be an obvious point: American presidents nearly always negotiate with even the most noxious of leaders.

Defying Belief

Recent revelations that Nelson Mandela is still on the United States' terrorist watch list (a list he never belonged on in the first place) does not exactly inspire confidence in America's handling of its foreign policy, its approach to terrorism, or its grasp of African policy, does it?

[Crossposted at the Foreign Policy Association's South Africa Blog.]

Over at the South Africa Blog (Self Indulgence Alert)

I've been industrious of late at the Foreign Policy Association's South Africa Blog where amidst a lot of emphasis on Zimbabwe I have used the Wizard of Oz as a model to understanding why an invasion of Zim from the UK or the US might be a bad idea. But I've also looked at issues related to development, to China's role in Africa, and much more. If you have anyinterest in current African affairs, please go check it out.

Aussies Lead the Way

Over at the FPA's South Africa Blog I have some commentary on Australia taking the lead in pushing for change in Zimbabwe. Let's hope that other countries, including the United States, follow suit.

Is The Middle East Irrelevant?

Is the Middle East more irrelevant than the role it currently plays in our geostrategic approach? Philip E. Auerswald argues as much in the latest issue of the American Interest (subscriber only to access the full article, I'm afraid). This strikes me as a fairly clever bit of counterintuitive thinking as well as an exercise in contrarianism. Nonetheless, the article is at least worth reading. The latest issue is on newstands now, so it is probably worth picking up if this sort of thing interests you. And it should.

McCain on The Daily Show

Wow. Jon Stewart just kicked the crap out of John McCain in a discussion on Iraq on The Daily Show to the point where McCain's only recourse was to try to filibuster, not allowing Stewart to get in a word while McCain spewed boilerplate and invoked his service to claim moral superiority. (Isn't it funny how fickle the GOP is on how and when one can invoke military service to try to invalidate what are fundamentally policy and political arguments?)

One of the fundamentally intriguing aspects of this discussion was that it shows how politicians live in a hermetically sealed and insulated world. Their debates follow rules that allow them to spew without engaging the opposition. The media, pro or con, has to accept a certain level of soundbiting and talking points. But when a smart person from outside of the Beltway has a chance to challenge them they often show an inability to react. When pushed on his talking points McCain showed an inability to adjust. He just tried to talk longer and faster. This apparently is what passes for "Straight Talk" from the engineer of the Straight Talk Express.

The Foreign Policy Association Blog

The Foreign Policy Blogs masterblog, a consolidation of posts from the various blogs hosted by the Foreign Policy Association, is now live. As I announced last week, I am responsible for the South Africa blog, though I will post on a whole array of Africa-related issues.

Myth Busting

This post over at The Plank caught my attention, though not really for the reasons John Judis intended. His argument is that two former Justice Department officials from the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations who argue that it is unconstitutional for the Democrats to introduce a resolution condemning the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq, David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, are hypocrites. Or at least that is one of Judis' crucial points.

But what stood out to me was a sentence that Judis intended to make another point:

In Oct. 1993, Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole and Republicans passed a "sense of the Senate" resolution against the Clinton administration using force in Haiti or Bosnia without Congressional approval.

To me this just serves as reenforcement for a significant point about the Clinton administration's foreign policy and the revisionist view that Clinton in particular (as opposed to America's leadership generally) failed us with regard to the growing terrorist threat that culminated on September 11, 2001. The reality is that from the minute he set foot in office isolationist and "realist" Republicans posed the biggest impediment to an activist foreign policy. Whenever Clinton engaged in any actions against Saddam Hussein his strongest critics came not from pacifist lefties, but rather from the leadership of the Republican Party and especially the "Republican revolutionaries" from the Class of 1994. Had Clinton tried to act strongly against Afghanistan only a revbisionist of the most naked partisan stripes would argue that the Republicans would have gone along with any plan he might have concocted. Had Clinton chosen to attack Afghanistan to crush al Qaeda strongholds in that country in, say, 1998, one reasonably imagines that further counts of impeachment would have gone forth.

This does not take Clinton off the hook by any means. He should have tried to have done more. But the myth that the GOP has consistently been an ardent advocate of a prescient foreign policy that would have kept us safe from terrorists is bunk. The reality is that the conditions that led to 9/11 are the result of failures, unhappy accidents, unintended consequences, and blowback stemming at least back to the late 1970s and arguably earlier. Neither side has an especially legitimate claim on virtue, but nor should leaders of either party suffer alone on charges of negligence.