This is a guest post by Anya Landau French, who directs the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative. This post originally appeared at The Havana Note.

The other day, I participated in a conference call with House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman. I was eager to see what he would have to say, ever since the House Agriculture Committee passed legislation to end the Cuba travel ban and ease agriculture trade restrictions back in June. Many Cuba pundits have wondered what Mr. Berman, who has jurisdiction over the travel ban piece of the bill, might do next.

Berman cleared that up in no short order, and candidly expressed his determination to round up the votes he needs to pass the bill, make it available for subsequent floor consideration, embolden the Senate to act, and to provide political cover and encouragement to the Obama administration to use its executive authority to loosen restrictions on travel until the Congress is able to finish the job. This late in the Congressional session, Berman seems to have decided, rightly I think, to use both private and public persuasion to get the votes he needs.

I've long been in Berman's camp when it comes to why the travel ban should end - as he said on the call, "as a matter of principle, this is about Americans' right to travel."

But let's remember why doing travel is important, especially now. At the core of U.S. policy toward Cuba is the linkage established both by law and the declarations of the Obama administration that says, we won't liberalize the embargo unless Cuba reforms its system, such as releasing prisoners. Although Cuba rejects that linkage - as do I, because I think it puts our policy in someone else's hands - the fact is that Cuba did the deal with the Spanish government and the Catholic Church on human rights, it is in the process of releasing all of the 52 remaining dissidents rounded up in March 2003 (27 released so far), and U.S. policy makers should use this moment to incent the Cubans to do more. Actions by Obama and the Congress to open up travel to Cuba would signal back to the Cubans - we see and support what you're doing. Failing to acknowledge the progress being made on the island would further undermine the credibility of the policy.

-- Anya Landau French

For much of the last year, a group of policy experts, scholars and practitioners have been meeting to discuss the situation in Afghanistan, with the hope of of charting a "New Way Forward," for America's longest war.

TWN Publisher Steve Clemons and a select group of others have crafted a report (AVAILABLE HERE) of findings and recommendations for U.S. policy in Afghanistan, which will be released in an event TODAY at the New America Foundation, from 12:00 PM - 2:00 pm.

The event will livestream here at TWN, with Steve Clemons moderating an all-star expert discussion featuring the following:

PAUL PILLAR
Director of Graduate Studies, Center for Peace & Security Studies, Georgetown University
Former National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia

MATTHEW HOH
Former Afghanistan-based official with Department of State and US Marine Corps
Director, Afghanistan Study Group

STEVE COLL
President, New America Foundation
Author, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and bin Laden from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001
Contributing Editor, The New Yorker

BRIAN KATULIS
Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress

CHARLES KUPCHAN
Whitney Shepardson Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
Professor of International Affairs, Georgetown University
Author, How Enemies Become Friends

DARCY BURNER
Director, American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation

ROBERT PAPE
Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago
Director, Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism
Author, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
Co-author of the forthcoming, Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It

session chair
STEVE CLEMONS
Director, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation
Publisher, The Washington Note

If you are in Washington and would like to attend the launch event, please RSVP here.

-- Andrew Lebovich

This is part of the Jinshanling Great Wall that I traversed a substantial segment (in my book) of on Sunday.

Mao said "You are not a real man; if you haven't climbed the Great Wall."

All I can say is that the women sherpas along the way -- who I didn't ask to carry anything but who trotted along with us no matter whether we wanted their company or cold water or not certainly put all the men to shame.

Heading back to Washington.

This report on Afghanistan is the next big thing. Wednesday -- 12 noon -- watch the streaming live event here at TWN.

-- Steve Clemons

President Obama's National Economic Adviser Lawrence Summers has just landed in Beijing along with Deputy National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, Asia Desk NSC senior director Jeff Bader, and National Security Council Spokesman Michael Hammer. The China Daily reports this morning:

The arrival of two high-ranking US officials in Beijing [it's really four] on Sunday signals the willingness of the two countries to push for more positive development in bilateral ties. . .A timely exchange of views on core issues of mutual concern is conducive to effective cooperation as well as to ironing out differences and hurdles standing in the way of ties between the two big towers. The talks between the US officials and their Chinese hosts are widely expected to address bilateral trade as well as global and regional security.

All good. It's important for US officials to get over to breathe the air, meet the people, and see the furious digging and construction going on all over China. While Summers has been to China, I think [and could be wrong] that this is Tom Donilon's first trip. He needs more than four days -- but he's an intense workaholic, so four is more like ten.

One of the things that I'd be worried about if I were them is that the Chinese are learning the American secret of reserve currency magic in their management of the mooncake market.

Like the U.S. dollar -- which despite the global frustration with American economic policy, over-consumption and under-investment -- Chinese mooncakes, or the idea of them, are in huge demand.

When the season hits, everyone in China -- which is a fifth of the world's population -- wants their slice of the mooncake racket.

Not to eat, mind you, but to give and get and re-gift and re-gift and to pretend to want.

The French have a "French national mooncake" (pictured on bus above) to build on the popularity of the France Pavilion and Moet Hennesy Restaurant at the Shanghai World Expo. The French Pavilion is France's most visited tour attraction in the world -- more than the Louvre and Eiffel Tower. France's mooncake has the three colors of the flag, but their are a couple of Chinese blogger sites warning "not to eat" it. Well, from my discussions, it seems that most mooncakes are more seen than eaten anyway.

Haagen-Dazs has a mooncake -- and Starbucks. And of course, just about every Chinese establishment has some version of a mooncake for purchase, for gifting, for shipping with notes of congratulations for making it to another mooncake season.

But like any currency that takes the place of gold or silver or other commodities that used to underlie the solvency of national legal tender, the mooncake business has generated a currency of vouchers -- where instead of just giving and getting mooncakes, families can give and get "mooncake vouchers." Paper. . .for mooncakes.

The notable phenom, however, is that some Chinese government officials and senior Party leaders have observed that there are many more mooncake vouchers floating around then there are mooncakes connected to them -- and yet the voucher business is thriving, trading is going on. In fact, it's reaching such a frenzy that some are wondering whether or not that many mooncakes even really need to be cooked up.

Production seems unrelated to demand.

Mooncake vouchers are beginning to develop all of the characteristics of a new reserve currency, not yet globalized, but perhaps on its way -- given that mooncakes are big in Southeast Asia and possibly now in France.

There is an illogical trust in mooncake vouchers which seem to defy economic gravity and have great value despite their inflation far beyond the underlying dessert.

Chinese economic Mandarins are reportedly fed up with the dollar even though options out of the dollar are limited. Behind the scenes frustration with being trapped in the US dollar which is still buoyant but unpredictable led to rumors that the Chief of China's central bank was trying to escape the country and defect to Canada. These rumors proved to be untrue -- but many folks in Beijing and elsewhere wondered.

So, perhaps mooncake vouchers are a trial balloon -- part real bubble and part experiment -- in creating an institution with reverse currency power.

Everyone has to buy in to mooncake vouchers even though many folks don't really want the mooncakes themselves -- and for a few decades at least, one can continue to inflate and inflate further the number of vouchers without every having to pay the piper.

Larry Summers and Tom Donilon should be worried that the Chinese are going to make a play sooner than later to challenge the dollar's reserve currency status with their own home grown mooncake vouchers.

(Smile. I'm sure that there are many logical fallacies in what is above -- offered in fun.)

But still, Summers should investigate.

Leaving Beijing today and back in DC on Monday. Hope you enjoyed the fun. And if you didn't -- eat some mooncake.

-- Steve Clemons

This next week on Wednesday, 8 September at the New America Foundation a group of academics, business leaders, journalists, and other policy practitioners -- organized as 'The Afghanistan Study Group' will formally release this new report titled "New Way Forward: Rethinking U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan." The report can be downloaded here.

The Afghanistan Study Group is our effort at a Team B approach to thinking through an alternative policy strategy for Afghanistan given the problems undermining America's current course.

But after reading the following article in the Washington Diplomat by Michael Coleman, it's clear that former U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel -- now co-chair with former Senator David Boren of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board -- makes a darn good "Team B" package all on his own, particularly when it comes to no-nonsense thinking about the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.

Read the entire interview but this is the most potent section on wars which Hagel thinks have been major strategic errors and which, in the case of Afghanistan, he thinks we need to unwind:

"I think we're in a mess in Afghanistan and I think we're in a mess in Iraq," said Hagel, who voted in support of the war in Iraq based on the intelligence assessments and later admitted he regretted his vote. "Our military has been more valiant and done a better job than we could have ever hoped. But we have put the military in an impossible situation."

Hagel flatly rejects the notion -- now conventional wisdom among many Americans -- that the war in Iraq has been a success. "Did you see today's paper?" he asked, holding up a front-page story in the Washington Post that described vast swaths of the country as being plagued by electricity outages.

"Look at the facts: No government, less electricity and people want us out," Hagel pointed out. "Anyway you measure Iraq today I think you're pretty hard pressed to find how people are better off than they were before we invaded. I think history is going to be very harsh in its judgment -- very, very harsh. And I think we're headed for a similar outcome in Afghanistan if we don't do some things differently."

He stands by his assessment, outlined in his 2008 book "America: Our Next Chapter," that the invasion of Iraq is the worst American foreign policy blunder since Vietnam, and one of the five worst in U.S. history.

Hagel said the United States "made a terrible mistake taking our eye of the ball in Afghanistan when we invaded Iraq." Now, he argues that the United States is doing in Afghanistan exactly what George W. Bush famously warned against during his 2000 presidential campaign: nation building.

"We are where we are today -- going into our 10th year in Afghanistan, our longest war -- because we did take our eye of the ball," he said. "It's becoming clearer and clearer. We really made some big mistakes during that time. I have never believed you can go into any country and nation build, and unfortunately I think that's what we've gotten ourselves bogged down in.

"You can dance around that issue any way you like, but the fact is that there are billions and billions of dollars we've spent and are still spending, over 100,000 troops, and all the assistance we've got going in there," Hagel continued. "It's nation building. We should not nation build. It will always end in disaster."

He argues that the original aim of defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan -- a group that the United States essentially "invented" during the Soviet-Afghan conflict in the 1970s -- has morphed into something more complex. The U.S. is now building roads and schools, working to establish an Afghan government, and trying to negotiate peace among political factions that have been warring for centuries.

"We became completely disoriented from our original focus," Hagel charged. "That problem in Afghanistan isn't going to be solved with 100,000 American troops."

It's no surprise then that the former Senator believes it's time for the United States to aggressively "unwind" in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is the kind of thinking that Obama needs to hear more often -- whether it is Team B or in Cabinet meetings or through National Security Council advisers.

It may be time for President Obama to make Chuck Hagel part of Team A.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note by Fadi Elsalameen, Managing Director of the Palestine Note, an Internet newspaper about Palestine, Israel and the Middle East. This essay first appeared in Haaretz.

Give Them Something to Lose

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas announced earlier this week that he will consider Israel fully to blame for the collapse of the negotiations that were scheduled to commence yesterday, should it resume construction in the settlements. That statement could be seen as a reiteration of last week's reports by several news outlets that the PA intended to pull out of the peace talks with Israel if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fails to extend the partial West Bank settlement freeze when it expires on September 26.

Even as they were getting ready to commence with direct talks, the PA and Israel were both preparing for the day when they will pull out of them. The announcements made by Abbas and others in the PA were a response to information they had that, regardless of what Netanyahu may hint about a continuation to the freeze, he will not extend it in the end. Therefore, Abbas is already making it clear to the world why he plans to quit the talks at the end of the month.

Last month, I met with senior PA and Fatah official Mohammed Dahlan at his office in Ramallah. Dahlan told me: "We know that Netanyahu signed a letter to [Likud MK and minister] Benny Begin and others promising them not to extend the settlement freeze." The letter, Dahlan explained, confirmed a secret deal that the premier had made with Begin. Dahlan added that Netanyahu's plan was to reveal the existence of the letter when the nine-month period of the freeze elapses, and say: "'Look, I signed this as an earlier commitment, and before we entered direct talks. I can't back out now, it would be at a huge political cost for me.'"

Dahlan added that when that time comes, the Palestinians' plan is to walk out of the talks.

The fact that both the Palestinians and the Israelis are entering the U.S.-sponsored negotiations in bad faith is not only disturbing, but extremely dangerous. If indeed Netanyahu does not extend the freeze beyond the deadline, rest assured he will have hammered the last nail in the PA's coffin.

Likewise, Israel will be left without a partner for peace or even cooperation in security matters on the Palestinian side.

The failure of direct talks will automatically bolster Hamas and strengthen its standing among the Palestinians. The Islamist organization is already preparing for the moment it can tell the Palestinian public: "We told you so. Talking with the Israelis can only lead to more talks, while they continue to take away our land to build settlements." In fact, Hamas' killing of four Israeli settlers in the southern Hebron Hills on Tuesday, and another, failed attack the following night, show how far it will go to spoil the direct talks, and to make its presence felt.

What is crucial at this point, then, is for the Palestinians and Israelis to find a way to continue the direct talks, and not allow the issue of ongoing settlement construction to be a deal breaker. After all, according to President Abbas, the so-called proximity talks and the insistence on direct talks conditioned on a prior agreement by Israel to freeze construction in the territories, were American ideas, not Palestinian or Israeli ones.

The United States' role as a mediator allows it to offer creative solutions to both sides. To be effective, these solutions must address Abbas' and Netanyahu's concerns at home. Abbas does not want an end to the settlement freeze, while Netanyahu does not want his coalition to collapse on him. Is there a middle ground?

Knowing what we know about how unconvinced both Palestinians and Israelis are about the chances of success in Washington, President Obama might do well to establish a ground rule to the effect that, whatever prior commitments were made by either Netanyahu or Abbas to their own constituencies, these commitments must be set aside throughout the duration of direct talks. This point should be communicated clearly and publicly to Netanyahu and Abbas.

If Netanyahu agrees to this proposal, he can accomplish two goals: He will have appeased the settler movement by not formally extending the settlement freeze. This will allow the premier to play a double game: to show good will to the United States and the international community, while at the same time keeping his Palestinian partner engaged in direct talks.

So long as negotiations continue, Netanyahu will be giving Abbas something very concrete to lose if he chooses to walk away from direct talks. Furthermore, Netanyahu will in this way protect Israel's image internationally and prevent the world from blaming Israel for the failure of the talks.

For the Palestinians, continuing to engage in the talks will be the only way to guarantee that the bulldozers and cement mixers remain idle in the West Bank.

-- Fadi Elsalameen

(Jean-David Levitte and France President Nicolas Sarkozy)

European High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy Baroness Catherine Ashton decided to head to China instead of participating in the Middle East stakeholders dinner hosted by President Obama in the Old Family Dining Room this week.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair covered a lot of national and transnational categories as head of the Quartet -- meaning theoretically that the EU, Russia, and the UN were in the room along with the US, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, and Jordan.

But two notable stakeholders were absent, and President Obama's team took care to address this by issuing a "readout" of phone conversations between himself and France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and Saudi King Abdullah.

Here is the readout:

Readout of President Obama's Recent Calls on the Middle East

President Obama called President Sarkozy earlier today to thank him for his support for a comprehensive Middle East peace, and to consult on next steps to encourage further progress in the direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The President noted that he had a productive series of meetings yesterday, and said that he believed the two parties were committed to achieving progress. President Sarkozy affirmed his full support for the peace talks and his commitment to working with President Obama and the other leaders to advance the process. Both leaders agreed to remain in close touch on this issue as part of their ongoing cooperation.

Earlier in the week on Tuesday*, August 31, the President called King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to discuss the situation in the region, including direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians and the end of the U.S. combat mission in Iraq.

I don't know whether the Saudi King wanted to attend, but through the grapevine have learned that France's political CEO was miffed not to be included. France takes affairs in the Middle East and what is unfolding with Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria -- as well as Iran -- very seriously.

An Obama-Sarkozky phone call on the fringe of this renewed effort is probably not enough, and France needs to be built in more directly. Lady Ashton has other affairs to tend to -- and these make sense -- but when there is a chance of securing a new equilibrium in the Middle East, France on its own merits should be a core partner.

One of the realities of the "messy status quo" that was reachieved by restarting direct peace negotiations is that Hamas remains outside the camp of those consulted. Hamas' power and influence have grown with attempts to isolate it -- and ultimately, Hamas needs to be part of the package.

While there are enormous political impediments to the US managing direct discussions with Hamas -- which only contributes to a sense in the Middle East that America's affections in this mess are one-sided -- the US can "remove the veto" on other nations dealing with Hamas to see how its views and parameters can be heard or potentially moved through some kind of engagement.

In my view, the only modern day Kissinger who is operating in European foreign circles today is French national security adviser to the President Jean-David Levitte, former French Ambassador to the United States.

One senior US State Department official I discussed Levitte with and who took mental stock of the various foreign policy hands in important European positions today saw Jean-David Levitte as the only one who had both a granular understanding of equities at play in the Middle East and a good vision of where things needed to go.

There is a behind the scenes veto on our allies dealing with Hamas, and this needs to be lifted. Levitte is the right one to be working quietly and privately to see if Hamas can be brought into a structure largely consistent with that which could be forged by Netanyahu, Abbas and the others in the rather limited group trying to jump start the Middle East peace process.

-- Steve Clemons

(photo depicts participants in Glenn Beck led march on Washington; November 23, 2009)

I hope that David Frum is right and that the Tea Party movement, which is growing in numbers and ferocity, will hit its limit, experience an Icarus moment, and plunge back into the fringe of American politics where pugnacious, jingoistic, narrow band nationalism has always lurked.

But there is no guarantee of this. A prominent mega-funder of the political left recently told me that he had miscalculated about a number of things in the last election.

One of these was that he thought that electorally smashing the increasingly manic right wing that had hijacked the Republican Party and dislodged the more moderate, straight-talking John McCain in favor of the McCain that empowered and unleashed Sarah Palin would produce a more reasonable GOP.

He told me that "their political loss didn't teach the Republicans anything; they actually got much worse."

And the evidence of what this Democratic Party mega-funder was saying was clear in the truly massive "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial and on the National Mall this past weekend staged by the political crusader and hugely popular talk show host Glenn Beck.

While I think Frum is probably right that this movement, much like the Obama "movement", will eventually crest -- it's not clear that losing political battles chastens the right, at least not yet.

During the presidential primary battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Obama conjured up a big politically incorrect gaffe, which like many gaffes, had some truth embedded in it.

Obama said:

OBAMA: Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism.

. . .But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

What Barack Obama described in the campaign is what we are seeing unfold in the country. Guns and religion -- or, in other words, fear and intolerance.

There are surprises and exceptions to this.

Count me as stunned that former GOP chief Ken Mehlman's recent self-outing to Marc Ambinder (though Mike Rogers really did out him before) that he is gay has produced statements from McCain campaign czar that supporting gay marriage is becoming a "conservative issue." Stunning statement.

Mehlman is leading a gay marriage rights fundraiser featuring the landmark lawsuit orchestrated by former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson and Democratic political powerhouse David Boies -- and those supporting include Paul Singer, Mary Cheney, Mark Gerson, Steve Schmidt, John Podesta, Steve Elmendorf, William Weld, Christine Todd Whitman and more.

This is the one bit of news that makes me think that there is potentially a constructive undercurrent pulling away from the reality that Obama aptly described in 2008.

But like Chuck Hagel who tried to stand for a kinder, sensible, bigger tent conservatism, Mehlman and his fellow travelers in the GOP may find themselves soon joining Christine Todd Whitman, Lawrence Wilkerson, Susan Eisenhower, Lincoln Chafee, Colin Powell, Rita Hauser in the camp of the Republicans exiled or pushed to the fringe of the party they worked hard to build.

Let's hope that the Mehlman trend and not the Glenn Beck frenzy define the future of the GOP.

-- Steve Clemons

This is the roster of who is coming to dinner tonight:

President Obama

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt

King Abdullah of Jordan

Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel

President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Quartet Representative Tony Blair

According to a pool report written by Huffington Post's Sam Stein, the White House won't be sharing "many, if any details" from tonight's dinner. All we can expect is an official photo.

OK then! I'm hooked.

Holding back is a good way to keep us me interested.

-- Steve Clemons

Angelina Jolie has traveled to Pakistan in her role as a UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador, donated $100,000 for flood victim relief and issued the public service annoucement above.

I strongly support what she and others like Richard Holbrooke, George Soros, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are doing in trying to raise the profile of this crisis. But even with Clinton and Holbrooke on board, the U.S. government is still not doing as much as it should in terms of contributing at a systemic level to helping the Pakistanis and Indians turn this nightmare into a strategically significant trust-building event.

David Rothkopf has written a compelling call for bolder initiatives related to the Indus River Valley and how to use this as both a way to provide vital relief and to change the toxic political dynamics in the region.

In particular, Rothkopf anticipating President Obama's coming trip to India writes:

The U.S. and the international community have responded generously in the wake of the Pakistan flood crisis. America's $7.5 billion aid effort* is a step in the right direction. But it is only a tiny fraction of the several tens of billions that are needed to better manage and preserve the water resources in this fragile, vital region. Further, it is clear that money alone will not solve the problem. Existing treaty relationships between India and Pakistan on the use of the water from the Indus are being strained to breaking by dam projects and shifting demand.

Perhaps this is one of those moments where it might be possible to harness the awareness raised by the current disaster and the sensitivities heightened by rising tensions to produce a different kind of response, one that if managed properly could also produce much larger benefits.

Few relationships on the planet are as important or as potentially dangerous as that between India and Pakistan. Further, as we have seen in Afghanistan or in the recent Mumbai terror attacks, it is a relationship with growing ramifications and multiplying risks. Seeking to stabilize it -- daunting a prospect as that seems given its history -- must be a top foreign policy priority for all the world's powers.

Further, for the United States, for whom both countries are increasingly important to a host of our international interests, playing an active role in resolving this distant and growing resource crisis is not only in our direct national interest, it could be a model for helping to address a proliferating set of similar challenges that seem likely in the very near future.

*TWN notes that only $50 million of this five year, $7.5 billion total package of US aid has been authorized for flood relief.

The U.S. response needs to be more pivotal and robust. This crisis will be remembered for generations by Pakistanis -- and the long term positives that could emanate from a robust, humanitarian response combined with an international TVA-like commitment to managing this watershed could neutralize the current high-fear, tense regional dynamic.

Recently when I ran into Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, he mentioned the texting "donate option" to Pakistan flood victims through the UNHCR which Angelina Jolie mentions above, but it is:

Text "SWAT" to 50555 to donate $10 to UNHCR for urgent flood relief in Pakistan

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

President Obama was right to give his speech punctuating the end of US combat operations in Iraq from the Oval Office as opposed to one of the military academies.

In his speech tonight, the President said:

Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country. This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq's Security Forces and support its government and people. That is what we have done. We have removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We have closed or transferred hundreds of bases to the Iraqis. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.

But now the President has said we have to turn our attentions to other matters -- an economy whose wobbliness is increasingly worse. We have been running these wars without paying for them -- and the price tag has been huge.

Obama stated:

Today, our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.

But the President needs to realize that the 50,000 residual forces left behind in Iraq will still cost about $50 billion a year -- without even considering the ongoing health and after-field deployment costs for these forces in the long term.

And of course, we are now spending more than $100 billion per year in Afghanistan in a country whose GDP is $14 billion.

The US cannot restore its health with a hemorrhaging of resources and money that large.

-- Steve Clemons

As the first direct Israeli-Palestinian talks in two years approach, it seems that enthusiasm and hope for a deal decrease again and again. Years of violence, failed talks, and now uneasy calm punctuated by continued settlement growth in the West Bank and confrontations spurred by this growth have led to an environment of grim, limited determination; it seems increasingly that both sides come to the table knowing what they must do, but unwilling, or unable, to actually do it.

In some ways, the situation is ripe for talks. Israelis seem to be growing increasingly uneasy with the settlement enterprise, there is at least tepid (albeit, very tepid) pressure from the White House for a resolution, and today the New York Times reports on the economic growth and emerging political and security stability in the West Bank long demanded by Israeli leaders as necessary for a peace deal.

And yet all of the structural and political obstacles to a two-state solution remain; an extension of even the partial settlement freeze currently in place past the end of this month is in doubt, the political will of Israel's current leadership is in doubt, and violence from militant groups, disaffected Palestinians, and Israeli settlers could easily disrupt even a fledgling agreement. As the director of the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program and TWN publisher Steve Clemons, and Middle East Task Force directors Daniel Levy and Amjad Atallah argued in a media call this afternoon, the local, regional and international stakes are desperately high, and a solution will require serious leadership in Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Washington.

Undoubtedly, though, the hard sell will be Israel. Daniel Levy has an excellent piece on the upcoming talks over at the Huffington Post describing his pessimism, optimism, and pessimism over the prospects for a political solution:

On balance, however, Netanyahu's actions and statements do not suggest a man standing at the precipice of a bold move to peace and de-occupation. Netanyahu formed an extreme right-wing coalition out of choice not necessity, insisted on those settlement expansion exemption clauses, has refused to enter negotiations with the Palestinians or Syrians on the basis of previously achieved advances, and is insisting on security arrangements, timelines, and unreciprocated and unilateral Palestinian acknowledgement of Israeli claims.

The tantalizing thing that Obama will have to deliver here is an Israeli political yes. A solution cannot be imposed on Israel, clear choices can though be presented. If there is an Israeli yes to real de-occupation gestating somewhere in the Israeli public and body politic, then it is not going to emerge on its own, that much is clear today. If the Israeli yes is there, it is going to take a c-section to bring it out into the world, and the only available surgeon is President Barack Obama.

The U.S. will have to be smart in the content of the plan it is proposing, both sides have rights and need to emerge with dignity, de-occupation will have to be real, and Israel's legitimate security concerns will have to be met--but not more than that. The context in which the plan is proposed is no less important than its content. The administration will need to remove the mist from its eyes on Palestinian political realities and address those shortcomings. The Palestinians can be allowed or even encouraged to rebuild a unified, inclusive, and capacitated national movement. At the same time, the very real asymmetries between representatives of an occupying power and representatives of an occupied people should be built in to the structure of peacemaking--substituting for unreasonable or unreachable demands on Palestinian capacity where this is needed to advance a two-state outcome. And all of this would be helped not hindered by taking a broader, comprehensive approach to peacemaking and advancing a plan that incorporates Israeli-Syrian, Israeli-Lebanese, and overall Israeli-Arab peace.

To deliver that Israeli yes, the right question will need to be asked--one rooted in guaranteeing Israel's future, that does not avoid real clarity, real de-occupation and hard choices, one that is well-marketed, and that crucially re-calibrates the incentives and disincentives for Israel of the status quo versus the peace option. When President Obama is ready with that plan and with that message, he should get on a plane and take it directly to the Israeli people. This week might just prove to be a milestone in that journey.

-- Andrew Lebovich

George Soros is working hard behind the scenes to help the Obama administration realize that a billion dollars spent now, carefully, and in a structure that could create a systemic improvement in Indus River water management helping India and Pakistan would be greatly welcomed by the currently besieged victims in Pakistan of historic-level flooding and help preempt a greater tilt towards instability in South Asia than already exists.

I won't go into the detail of the Soros plan as it would be best if it became the Richard Holbrooke plan, or the Hillary Clinton plan, the Kerry-Lugar plan, or the Singh-Zardari plan, but I am satisfied that in contrast to so many schemes I hear in which people advocate a billion being thrown here or there -- the critical need 'now' combined with a unique opportunity for the United States to constructively improve the lot over the near and long term of people who don't think well of America makes great sense.

Now that we are spending monthly figures in Afghanistan that surpass $100 billion per year, it seems to me that a well-managed $1 billion investment in Pakistan would do much to improve the political environment in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- large portions of the peoples of which respectively mistrust the U.S.

In the latest issue of the New Yorker, South Asia expert and New America Foundation president Steve Coll writes:

Pakistan's floods--like the tsunami that swept across Indonesia's northern provinces in 2004--threaten to set the country's economic growth back by years. For the United States, preventing such an outcome should be recognized as a strategic as well as a humanitarian imperative. So far, the Obama Administration has displayed all the right instincts, by rushing relief to civilians, affirming the primacy of the country's elected leaders, and galvanizing other governments to pitch in. As the waters recede, and the immediate crisis passes, however, the challenge will be to muster international investment to repair Pakistan's infrastructure and catalyze its economic recovery.

The agricultural market towns in the flood zone--Ghotki, Jacobabad, Shahdadkot--are not notable breeding grounds for international terrorism. They are home instead to the marginal lives of another Pakistan, one poised for many years between aspiration and collapse--that of landless laborers, tenant farmers, bus drivers, and shopkeepers. These Pakistanis belong to no war party and live in peaceful indifference to the United States. To help reimagine their future, and that of their country, the place to begin is to come unconditionally to their aid.

Coll is right to identify this crisis as one with significant strategic consequence -- and the U.S. would be smart to pivot quickly on this, which it has not yet done despite credible efforts by Richard Holbrooke to try and generate attention among his colleagues in the administration.

Lt. General John Allen, Deputy CENTCOM Commander, led the effort to provide relief after the December 2004 devastating tsunami in Southeast Asia.

John Allen might be the right Department of Defense point person to work with Holbrooke to help secure something along the lines George Soros is trying to stand up to both help current flood victims and create a preventive system for managing such crises in the future.

An added benefit along the way is that this effort could help build some much needed trust between Pakistan and India.

-- Steve Clemons

Today is Ben Katcher's birthday, and Ben, well known to TWN readers as a contributing editor here, is preparing for a new life in Istanbul.

Today is also the day that Mother Teresa said was her birthday as she was baptized on August 27th, though born on August 26th (100 years ago). Lyndon Baines Johnson was born today. So too one of my best friends in junior high school -- both of us then sopranos in a funeral home boys choir -- Nicholas Scogna, who is now off living a good life in Florida. And another friend in later years, Brian Strom. Brian and I didn't sing. He played the trumpet, and we ran.

Pee Wee Herman (Paul Reubens) was born today as well. Happy birthday Pee Wee!

Former Nebraska Senator and New School President Bob Kerrey was born today. He and his team are interested in possible shifts in US-Cuba policy and Bob will soon head the Motion Picture Association of America. Very cool job. (Samuel Goldwyn was born today, Bob.)

And lastly. . .was just walking on a street in Shanghai and saw that Tom Ford's next store is opening there. Happy Birthday Tom.

So, all best to all of you, particularly Ben Katcher who is off to Turkey soon and should be blogging here before long -- and yes, it's my day too!

-- Steve Clemons

Templo Beth-Shalom in Havana, Cuba (Photo credit: Anya Landau French)

This post originally appeared at The Havana Note. An earlier version, "In Cuba, a Hostage of International Brinksmanship," appeared in today's Jewish Daily Forward, the online home of the weekly Forward. Arturo Lopez-Levy is a lecturer and doctoral candidate at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies of the University of Denver. Mr. Lopez-Levy worked as analyst for the Cuban government between 1993 and 1994 when he resigned from his post. Between 1999 and 2001, Lopez-Levy was secretary of the Bnai Brith in the Cuban Jewish Community.

Alan Gross, a Jew, an American, a U.S. AID contractor, has sat in a Cuban prison for more than eight months. Jews, whose entire history is bound together by stories of exile and return, captivity and freedom, mourn his confinement and long for his release. Cubans who have been weary bystanders for decades in the games of brinkmanship between their government and ours know a political pawn when they see one. Concerned policy makers in Washington have now taken a hostage of their own; some have made their votes on legislation to end America's failed and feckless ban on travel to Cuba contingent on Gross's release. None of this is likely to shorten his hard experience living under the "hospitality" of Cuba's government.

Why is Gross in prison? While the U.S. has intervened in Cuba to control its government or shape its system for more than a century, this story has more recent roots. The Bush administration produced two reports in May 2004 and July 2006 about how to "liberate" Cuba. The reports recommended a package of irresponsible measures to move the moderate and independent activities of Cuban civil society toward the regime change strategy envisioned by Section 109 of the Helms-Burton law. The U.S Congress approved an annual budget of tens of millions to use U.S agency for International Development contracts for this purpose - an approach that has continued under the Obama Administration.

Continue reading this article

-- Andrew Lebovich

Dr. Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland has conducted a really fascinating poll of Arab public opinion, showing persistent support for a two-state solution while at the same time rising acceptance of an Iranian nuclear weapon, among other things.

From 12:15 pm - 1:45 pm TODAY, the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force will host Dr. Telhami along with Task Force co-directors Daniel Levy and Amjad Atallah for a discussion of the poll's findings, as well as possible implications for the series of challenges facing the Obama administration in the Middle East and beyond. The event will livestream here at TWN, and those who wish to see the event in person can RSVP here.

-- Andrew Lebovich

Despite the flurry of initial applause from groups ranging from AIPAC to J Street to the Israel Project to the American Task Force for Palestine that direct negotiations were resuming between Israel and Palestine, pessimism has been the order of the day since. As one senior White House official recently told me, this just gets us back to the previously messy status quo.

One has to give credit to President Obama for not ducking this problem -- which he probably could, at least for a while. Obama chose Senator George Mitchell on his second day in office, pushed a showdown which he lost on settlements with Prime Minister Netanyahu, made the lack of progress between Israel and Palestine a key point of focus during his September 2009 UN General Assembly remarks, and is now inviting regional leaders as well as Quartet Representative Tony Blair to give this effort another shove.

By cajoling the Palestinians and Israelis to engage, Barack Obama is again putting himself in the vulnerable position of another potential battle with Israel's Prime Minister -- and this time Obama can't afford to lose.

As with Khrushchev and Kennedy, the Soviet premier took the first couple of rounds -- but Kennedy came out on top.

Beyond what ultimately happens in these peace talks, Obama needs to prevail over any pugnacious obstinacy by Netanyahu.

-- Steve Clemons

Buddy and Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner send their regards.

-- Steve Clemons

(The Overton Window)

This is a guest post by Peter Daou who previously served as Internet Director for Hillary Clinton for President. Daou publishes the Daou Report.

The Glaringly Simple Formula for Rightwing Dominance of our National Debate

There is a simple formula for rightwing dominance of our national debate, even when Democrats are in charge: move the conversation as extreme right as possible, then compromise toward the far right. It's negotiation 101.

And it's completely lost on Democrats.

It's what John Boehner knows that Obama and Democrats can't seem to get a clue about:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) will call Tuesday for the mass firing of the Obama administration's economic team, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and White House adviser Larry Summers, arguing that November's midterm elections are shaping up as a referendum on sustained unemployment across the nation and saying the "writing is on the wall."

In one fell swoop, this is the starting point of a conversation. For Democrats it would be an end point -- if they ever reached it.

It's no accident that in 21st century America, torture has been mainstreamed, climate denial has taken firm hold, book burning, racial dog whistles and brazen religious intolerance are part of our discourse and par for the course. This is how the right plays the game, using Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox, Drudge, blogs, chain emails, talk radio, etc. to shamelessly and defiantly drag the conversation as far right as possible.

Forget the thousand explanations pundits have offered for the administration's beef with the left; this is the single biggest reason the left is furious with Obama: that one by one, he has willingly and unnecessarily bargained away the progressive positions that would move the national debate back to the center. After all, the counterweight to the right is not the mushy middle, it's the principled left. Did progressive bloggers really think Obama was going to establish a single payer health care system, bring all Bush warmongers to justice, stop the looting of the poor by the ultra-rich, revitalize the environmental movement, undo Bush-Cheney's executive power excesses, bring about true social justice and stop needless wars? No. They're far more jaded and pragmatic than anyone admits. But at least make those the debate points rather than ditch them unilaterally.

As I've argued, it matters not one iota if Obama is a progressive at heart. What matters is that Democrats run away from the left like it's the plague while Republican run to the right like it's nirvana. The net effect is that the media end up reporting far right positions as though they were mainstream and reporting liberal positions as thought they were heinous aberrations. And you wonder why America is veering off the rails?

-- Peter Daou

This is a friendly public service announcement for young (between 25 and 32 years), policy-minded folks interested in national security affairs. The Center for a New American Security is holding its second annual competition for fellows in its Next General National Security Leaders Program.

John Nagl, one of General David Petraeus' star proteges, and former Senate Foreign Relations Committee (under Jesse Helms) and National Security Council (under G.W. Bush) senior staff member Steve Biegun head up the program -- which despite their collective lack of realist DNA -- is nonetheless an outstanding opportunity for folks.

I highly recommend this fellowship, which will expose the fellowship awardees to a wide swath of thinking on national security strategy -- even my own. Big plus if you subscribe to any notion of cost/benefit calculations in thinking through America's strategic choices. (. . .joking!)

Here is the CNAS announcement:

CNAS Announces Second Annual Next Generation National Security Leaders Program

Washington, D.C., August 23, 2010 - As part of its mission to prepare and foster the next generation of national security and defense leaders, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) is pleased to announce the launch of its second annual Next Generation National Security Leaders Program.

Applications for this year's program must be submitted by Friday, September 3, 2010. See more information about the application process below.

For the second successive year, CNAS will gather potential future national security leaders to participate in a series of frank and open discussions on immediate and long-term national security and foreign policy challenges. The Next Generation National Security Leaders Program will consist of a bipartisan group of emerging analysts and practitioners who will participate in a series of events aimed at developing a shared understanding of the nation's security interests and international priorities.

During the year-long program, Next Generation Leaders will engage with influential figures in the national security field in a series of candid dinner discussions on several of the most pressing issues the United States faces, as well as contribute to collaborative writing projects with their fellow Leaders. Next Generation Leaders will also have the opportunity to participate in variety of CNAS-hosted events.

The 2010-2011 program will again be led by CNAS President John Nagl and Steve Biegun, corporate officer and vice president of international governmental affairs for Ford Motor Company, former senior advisor to Senator John McCain, and CNAS advisory board member.

Applications for the program are being accepted now through September 3, 2010. Click here for more information.

-- Steve Clemons

During the battle over John Bolton's US Senate confirmation to serve as US Ambassador to the United Nations which resulted in "no vote" and thus his early resignation from a recess-appointed position, I received a lot of sensitive information from incumbent and former staff members of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, which at best, has a checkered reputation as a defender of global religious rights and seems frequently to be more focused on rolling back Islam. The material dealt with the treatment of employed Muslims and alleged discrimination.

Both because the material was incomplete and because those giving me the information were fearful of the repercussions for current employees and put constraints on the use of the material that would have made it more hearsay than definitive, I didn't use it.

But I've been skeptical of the Commission since.

Mother Jones' Nick Baumann and David Corn have more in an important piece profiling the views of some of the Commission Members and their hostility to the so-called Ground Zero Mosque.

They write:

President Barack Obama has declared that a group of moderate Muslims have the right to build a community center in lower Manhattan, two blocks from the site once occupied by the World Trade Center towers. Yet representatives of a wholly US government-funded outfit have joined the vociferous opposition to the Park51 or Cordoba House project that critics have dubbed the "Ground Zero Mosque." A leader of this group--which receives $4.3 million a year from the government--has even proclaimed that the community center could be a front for Islamic terrorism. That's not all: the same agency, the US Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCRIF), has been the subject of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint for allegedly discriminating against Muslim employees.

The commission was created by Congress in 1998 to monitor religious freedom around the world and scold countries that aren't meeting religious freedom obligations outlined by international human rights treaties. Its sole source of funding is the US government; it is empowered to make recommendations to the president about policy decisions related to issues of religious freedom. Recently, the commission has decried Vietnam for its systemic violation of religious freedom and slammed China for its repression of Uighur Muslims. But leading conservative members of the commission have supported the opposition to the Cordoba House, essentially joining those who want to deny New York Muslims the freedom to build their religious and cultural center at this particular site.

In a recent piece for National Review Online, Nina Shea, one of USCIRF's nine commissioners (who are selected by the president and congressional leaders), wrote that instead of "a cultural center for all New Yorkers," the "mosque" project could be "a potential tool for Islamists"--suggesting it would be a hotbed of jihadism that, among other things, spreads the literature and ideas of Islamic extremism. She compared the leaders of the Cordoba House project to convicted terrorist Omar Abdel Rahman (the "blind Sheikh") and accused Fort Hood and Christmas Day bombing coordinator Anwar al-Awlaki. (Shea's piece, as of Monday, was no longer showing up on the NRO site.)

When National Review reconsiders, well, it's clear lines were perceived to be crossed.

The term "McCarthyism" has been overused, but this mosque controversy seems to me to be contributing to a new variant of McCarthyism in which those defending the rights of religious freedom, moderation and tolerance in the US -- rights embedded in the founding documents of the country -- are labeled as appeasers or as flacks of Islamic interests, or weak, or anti-Semites; the list of labels is extensive.

Islam is going to be here for a long time -- and it's important for Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and secularists like me to figure out a way to embrace Muslims and their faith just as other faiths are embraced in this society.

But on the subject of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, it has not done its job in a long time.

Either Congress needs to review its roster of Commissioners and, ironically, purge the religiously intolerant.

Or it is time for both houses of Congress to zero this account.

-- Steve Clemons