2009 In Review 12/31/2009
Since it 'tis the season for lists, here is mine for the top 10 international political developments of 2009:
10) The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in America. In November, we saw Nidal Malik Hasan, an American-born Palestinian go on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood military base in Texas. Hasan had been radicalized by another American-born Muslim, Anwar al-Awlaki. America long thought it was immune to the domestic Islamic terrorist threat that has plagued Britain and other countries. This has all changed.
9) The increase of unrest in the North Caucasus. This year the governor of Ingushetia narrowly survived a suicide car bombing. The interior minister of Dagestan was killed by a rain of bullets. Chechens probably derailed the train form St. Petersburg to Moscow that killed 25 and injured 100. Instability in the Caucasus hurts Medvedev domestically and makes Russia look weaker to the rest of the world.
8) The expansion of America's secret war. Under President Obama, drone strikes turned from an adjunct tool to a central plank in the war against al-Qaeda. The idea that America is globally assassinating terrorist leaders using remote controlled airplanes would've been science fiction 15 years ago. Today it is a daily reality.
7) The reintegration of Turkey into the Middle East. For a good part of the last millennium, the Turks were the strongest power in the Middle East. But after the Ottoman collapse and Ataturk's revolution, Turkey turned geopolitically isolationist. Fearful of the Soviet Union, Turkey threw its lot in with the West after 1950, largely following America's foreign policy. With the end of the Cold War, Turkey is finally finding its feet, and is now looking to fill the Middle Eastern power vacuum left by a divided Arab world and an unstable Iran. The expansion of Turkish power, as an example of a functioning democracy, is a positive development in the region.
Click "Read More" to Continue---->
10) The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in America. In November, we saw Nidal Malik Hasan, an American-born Palestinian go on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood military base in Texas. Hasan had been radicalized by another American-born Muslim, Anwar al-Awlaki. America long thought it was immune to the domestic Islamic terrorist threat that has plagued Britain and other countries. This has all changed.
9) The increase of unrest in the North Caucasus. This year the governor of Ingushetia narrowly survived a suicide car bombing. The interior minister of Dagestan was killed by a rain of bullets. Chechens probably derailed the train form St. Petersburg to Moscow that killed 25 and injured 100. Instability in the Caucasus hurts Medvedev domestically and makes Russia look weaker to the rest of the world.
8) The expansion of America's secret war. Under President Obama, drone strikes turned from an adjunct tool to a central plank in the war against al-Qaeda. The idea that America is globally assassinating terrorist leaders using remote controlled airplanes would've been science fiction 15 years ago. Today it is a daily reality.
7) The reintegration of Turkey into the Middle East. For a good part of the last millennium, the Turks were the strongest power in the Middle East. But after the Ottoman collapse and Ataturk's revolution, Turkey turned geopolitically isolationist. Fearful of the Soviet Union, Turkey threw its lot in with the West after 1950, largely following America's foreign policy. With the end of the Cold War, Turkey is finally finding its feet, and is now looking to fill the Middle Eastern power vacuum left by a divided Arab world and an unstable Iran. The expansion of Turkish power, as an example of a functioning democracy, is a positive development in the region.
Click "Read More" to Continue---->
Add Comment
China's Free Ride 12/31/2009
Cutting the ribbon at Aynak
The NYTimes has an excellent piece on Afghanistan's decision to award a huge copper concession to China. The mine at Aynak is the world's largest untapped reserve of copper.
China outbid competitors from other countries for the mine by more than $1 billion. China's efforts to snatch up minerals in Afghanistan mirror its moves to grab oil contracts in Iraq. This is part of China's strategy to aggressively safeguard its long-term access to critical mineral resources.
It is impossible not to see this as China reaping the benefits from America's military sacrifice, while refusing to contribute to the war effort in either Iraq or Afghanistan. In both countries, America is hamstrung by bad optics-- if it won the copper concession, then it would be liable to charges that it invaded for resources. China has no such concerns.
China is currently at an inflection point of sorts in its rise- it is ruthlessly advancing its own global interests while shirking the traditional responsibilities that come with that level of influence. It wants to be treated as a developing nation while swinging at the weight of a superpower. This is clearly unsustainable.
The NYTimes mostly overlooks the other layer here: the competition for power in Central Asia. Russia, although shackled by its dark legacy in Kabul, is jealous of Chinese maneuvering. India sees Afghanistan as part of its sphere of influence, and as vital to its national security. So do Pakistan and Iran. With so many suitors, and security underwritten by Americans, the Afghans have an abundance of geopolitical options.
China outbid competitors from other countries for the mine by more than $1 billion. China's efforts to snatch up minerals in Afghanistan mirror its moves to grab oil contracts in Iraq. This is part of China's strategy to aggressively safeguard its long-term access to critical mineral resources.
It is impossible not to see this as China reaping the benefits from America's military sacrifice, while refusing to contribute to the war effort in either Iraq or Afghanistan. In both countries, America is hamstrung by bad optics-- if it won the copper concession, then it would be liable to charges that it invaded for resources. China has no such concerns.
China is currently at an inflection point of sorts in its rise- it is ruthlessly advancing its own global interests while shirking the traditional responsibilities that come with that level of influence. It wants to be treated as a developing nation while swinging at the weight of a superpower. This is clearly unsustainable.
The NYTimes mostly overlooks the other layer here: the competition for power in Central Asia. Russia, although shackled by its dark legacy in Kabul, is jealous of Chinese maneuvering. India sees Afghanistan as part of its sphere of influence, and as vital to its national security. So do Pakistan and Iran. With so many suitors, and security underwritten by Americans, the Afghans have an abundance of geopolitical options.
Berlusconi '09 12/31/2009
Lookin' good
In honor of the fact that I'm stuck in the Baltimore International Airport for the afternoon instead of being in NYC eating pizza, I bring you my nomination for quote of the year, hell quote of the decade. From the loquacious Silvio Berlusconi:
"I have never made any gaffes, not even one."
The evidence against you, Mr. Prime Minister, is overwhelming.
Anyone else have a nominee?
"I have never made any gaffes, not even one."
The evidence against you, Mr. Prime Minister, is overwhelming.
Anyone else have a nominee?
Top-10 Nuclear Quotes 12/31/2009
Its that time of year. That's right: top-10 time.
Since I've had limited internet access over the holidays, my contribution to the list-making fury is secondhand. The Center for Strategic and International Studies' Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI) has a great list of the top ten quotes about all things nuclear in '09. My favorites:
10. “Let’s sanction Iran, marry Pakistan, and bomb North Korea”- Joe Cirincione, on the Colbert Report, November 30
3. “Putin . . . showed me a map that his intelligence guys had prepared, and I told him he needed a new intelligence service.” - Secretary of Defense Robert Gates referring to Russia’s claim that Iran would not have a missile capable of reaching Western Europe by 2020, June 9
You can check the full list here.
-Evan
Since I've had limited internet access over the holidays, my contribution to the list-making fury is secondhand. The Center for Strategic and International Studies' Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI) has a great list of the top ten quotes about all things nuclear in '09. My favorites:
10. “Let’s sanction Iran, marry Pakistan, and bomb North Korea”- Joe Cirincione, on the Colbert Report, November 30
3. “Putin . . . showed me a map that his intelligence guys had prepared, and I told him he needed a new intelligence service.” - Secretary of Defense Robert Gates referring to Russia’s claim that Iran would not have a missile capable of reaching Western Europe by 2020, June 9
You can check the full list here.
-Evan
Most al-Qaeda terrorists cross into Iraq from Syria
Michael Bronner has a very interesting interview with "Abu Khalid," a terrorist from Lebanon who joined al-Qaeda to become a suicide bomber. Abu Khalid's Iraqi handlers decided that they already had enough suicide bombers, and sent him back to Lebanon to fundraise and recruit people with more high-level skills.
The interview sheds light on the role of foreign jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan, and especially the rise of suicide bombing as a tactic in Afghanistan, where it was insignificant until 2005.
Money quote:
In the fall of 2007, U.S. Special Forces recovered a set of computer hard drives during a raid on an al-Qaeda in Iraq (A.Q.I.) [safehouse]...Surprisingly detailed A.Q.I. personnel records, covering a period from August 2006 to August 2007, revealed a highly professional, highly efficient smuggling operation that moved some 600 foreign fighters from 21 countries across the Syrian border and into the insurgency network in that short period alone. They made their way to war through the most banal of channels, many by air, connecting to Damascus through international airports in Europe or Egypt, then moving, like Abu Khalid, alongside the daily illicit cross-border traffic of cattle, cigarettes, cement, pharmaceuticals, diesel, guns, and gold that have been smugglers’ sustenance in the border region through peace and war before.
The interview sheds light on the role of foreign jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan, and especially the rise of suicide bombing as a tactic in Afghanistan, where it was insignificant until 2005.
Money quote:
In the fall of 2007, U.S. Special Forces recovered a set of computer hard drives during a raid on an al-Qaeda in Iraq (A.Q.I.) [safehouse]...Surprisingly detailed A.Q.I. personnel records, covering a period from August 2006 to August 2007, revealed a highly professional, highly efficient smuggling operation that moved some 600 foreign fighters from 21 countries across the Syrian border and into the insurgency network in that short period alone. They made their way to war through the most banal of channels, many by air, connecting to Damascus through international airports in Europe or Egypt, then moving, like Abu Khalid, alongside the daily illicit cross-border traffic of cattle, cigarettes, cement, pharmaceuticals, diesel, guns, and gold that have been smugglers’ sustenance in the border region through peace and war before.
Airport Security 12/30/2009
We haven't covered the Umar Farouk Abdulmutullab story here because it is being covered to death (is that inappropriate?) everywhere else. There simply is no classic profile for a terrorist-- if there was, then preventing terrorism wouldn't be so difficult.
But the would-be underwear bomber does bring up an issue that I have thought a lot about: airport security. Unfortunately, many of the conspicuous changes to airport security since 9/11 have been farcical. Remember the ban on nail clippers? And now banning people from going to the bathroom during the last hour of flight? Are you serious? What does this mean for short flights? (more yellow stains...)
The cosmetic changes to TSA security are known as "security theater": they serve to make passengers feel safer but do little to make them actually safer. For years after 9/11, you could bring cigarette lighters on board (tobacco lobby). You can still bring unlimited amounts of liquid on board, provided that they are labeled "saline" (contact lens-people). And that swoosh that TSA officials put on your boarding pass before you enter security? It's as worthless as it looks. For a frightening expose of security theater, check Jeffrey Goldberg's piece in the Atlantic from last year. He repeatedly cleared security with terrorist paraphernalia, 24 oz of liquids, and fake tickets.
Click "Read More" to Continue------->
But the would-be underwear bomber does bring up an issue that I have thought a lot about: airport security. Unfortunately, many of the conspicuous changes to airport security since 9/11 have been farcical. Remember the ban on nail clippers? And now banning people from going to the bathroom during the last hour of flight? Are you serious? What does this mean for short flights? (more yellow stains...)
The cosmetic changes to TSA security are known as "security theater": they serve to make passengers feel safer but do little to make them actually safer. For years after 9/11, you could bring cigarette lighters on board (tobacco lobby). You can still bring unlimited amounts of liquid on board, provided that they are labeled "saline" (contact lens-people). And that swoosh that TSA officials put on your boarding pass before you enter security? It's as worthless as it looks. For a frightening expose of security theater, check Jeffrey Goldberg's piece in the Atlantic from last year. He repeatedly cleared security with terrorist paraphernalia, 24 oz of liquids, and fake tickets.
Click "Read More" to Continue------->
US Troops Proselytizing in Afghanistan? 12/30/2009
Geez does this look bad. You just don't knock on a Pashtun house wearing army fatigues and carrying a bible. Millions of Muslims view the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as modern day crusades. This throws salt on the wound. I, for one, would like my tax dollars to go to these guys actually LEARNING Pashto or Dari so that they can better interact with locals, rather than pissing off the population by handing out bibles. This is both illegal and endangering for the real US missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For Christopher Hitchens's reporting on evangelism in the military, go here.
For Christopher Hitchens's reporting on evangelism in the military, go here.
Is Iran Tipping? 12/30/2009
As regular readers know, I've been highly skeptical of reports that the regime in Iran is on the verge of collapse. Generally, I find these reports are often based on little more than a bit of hope and a Twitter quote. Even the best are highly speculative.
That said, when Abbas Milani writes on Iran, I've found it's best to pay attention. From the WSJ:
Over the past six months the regime has killed dozens of demonstrators, arrested hundreds of activists, and forced hundreds of others into exile. It took false comfort in the belief that it had defeated what it self-deludingly claimed had been nothing but an American-concocted velvet revolution.
This weekend's bloody protests during the holiday of Ashura culminate a pattern of persistence and perseverance on the part of the opposition. There can now be little doubt about the movement's staying power. [...]
As Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his cohorts come nearer to a crisis, as rifts within the regime deepen in coming weeks, as the regime ratchets up its ruthlessness against the democrats, and as the world, with anxious eyes on the nuclear issue, carefully watches the domestic situation in Iran, the democratic movement must develop a more coherent plan of action and a more disciplined leadership. And the world, particularly the West, must also let the regime know that it will not stand by idly as the people of Iran are brutalized by the regime.
Full article here
- Evan
That said, when Abbas Milani writes on Iran, I've found it's best to pay attention. From the WSJ:
Over the past six months the regime has killed dozens of demonstrators, arrested hundreds of activists, and forced hundreds of others into exile. It took false comfort in the belief that it had defeated what it self-deludingly claimed had been nothing but an American-concocted velvet revolution.
This weekend's bloody protests during the holiday of Ashura culminate a pattern of persistence and perseverance on the part of the opposition. There can now be little doubt about the movement's staying power. [...]
As Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his cohorts come nearer to a crisis, as rifts within the regime deepen in coming weeks, as the regime ratchets up its ruthlessness against the democrats, and as the world, with anxious eyes on the nuclear issue, carefully watches the domestic situation in Iran, the democratic movement must develop a more coherent plan of action and a more disciplined leadership. And the world, particularly the West, must also let the regime know that it will not stand by idly as the people of Iran are brutalized by the regime.
Full article here
- Evan
Johnson and Mason Redux 12/30/2009
Thomas Johnson and M. Chris Mason's recent FP article is one of the most persuasive arguments against the AfPak surge I've read thus far. But the duo do make a serious error that I think needs to be addressed.
The authors claim that all members of Taliban are basically the same and their ties to Al-Qaeda cannot be severed: "The strategy's other component for dealing with the Taliban, "negotiating with moderates," is also ludicrous to anyone who is familiar with the insurgents. The Taliban are a virus. There is no one to negotiate with, and from their perspective, nothing to discuss."
If this were true, I would agree with Johnson and Mason's analysis that the road ahead in Afghanistan is one the US would be advised to avoid, but it isn't.
First, the Taliban is not a homogeneous organization; it never has been and never will be. Within the organization, individual leaders and sects differ significantly in regard to their motivations and strategy and power struggles are common.
Second, there are is a significant amount of evidence indicating that the link between the Taliban and Al Qaeda is more tenuous than previously assumed. Take, for example, Mullah Omar's Eid ul Fitr statement in which he explained that the Taliban was interested in essentially going legit (i.e. withdrawing support for outside extremists, engaging the West and the East, etc.). Al Qaeda's response was particularly harsh. A spokesman called Omar's speech a "dangerous utterance" and demanded he take it back.
The Taliban share little if any of Al Qaeda's zeal for universal Islamic governance. Instead, they seek greater national and local control in Afghanistan. While not ideal, the most realistic prospect for long term stability in Afghanistan is integrating Taliban members into the Afghan government. For details check out Fotini Christia and Michael Semple's recent article in Foreign Affairs here.
The authors claim that all members of Taliban are basically the same and their ties to Al-Qaeda cannot be severed: "The strategy's other component for dealing with the Taliban, "negotiating with moderates," is also ludicrous to anyone who is familiar with the insurgents. The Taliban are a virus. There is no one to negotiate with, and from their perspective, nothing to discuss."
If this were true, I would agree with Johnson and Mason's analysis that the road ahead in Afghanistan is one the US would be advised to avoid, but it isn't.
First, the Taliban is not a homogeneous organization; it never has been and never will be. Within the organization, individual leaders and sects differ significantly in regard to their motivations and strategy and power struggles are common.
Second, there are is a significant amount of evidence indicating that the link between the Taliban and Al Qaeda is more tenuous than previously assumed. Take, for example, Mullah Omar's Eid ul Fitr statement in which he explained that the Taliban was interested in essentially going legit (i.e. withdrawing support for outside extremists, engaging the West and the East, etc.). Al Qaeda's response was particularly harsh. A spokesman called Omar's speech a "dangerous utterance" and demanded he take it back.
The Taliban share little if any of Al Qaeda's zeal for universal Islamic governance. Instead, they seek greater national and local control in Afghanistan. While not ideal, the most realistic prospect for long term stability in Afghanistan is integrating Taliban members into the Afghan government. For details check out Fotini Christia and Michael Semple's recent article in Foreign Affairs here.
Drone Update 12/29/2009
In an earlier piece, Evan and I discussed the problem of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan intercepting video feeds from predator drones.
Bruce Schneier, an expert on encryption and technological security, gives us a bit of a smackdown. When you consider the logistics and cost-benefit analysis of military-grade encryption, it becomes clear why the Pentagon knowingly left the feeds open. Money quote:
The command and control channel is, and always has been, encrypted -- because that's both more important and easier to manage. UAVs are flown by airmen sitting at comfortable desks on U.S. military bases, where key management is simpler. But the video feed is different. It needs to be available to all sorts of people, of varying nationalities and security clearances, on a variety of field terminals, in a variety of geographical areas, in all sorts of conditions -- with everything constantly changing. Key management in this environment would be a nightmare.
Additionally, how valuable is this video downlink is to the enemy? The primary fear seems to be that the militants watch the video, notice their compound being surveilled and flee before the missiles hit. Or notice a bunch of Marines walking through a recognizable area and attack them. This might make a great movie scene, but it's not very realistic. Without context, and just by peeking at random video streams, the risk caused by eavesdropping is low.
Contrast this with the additional risks if you encrypt: A soldier in the field doesn't have access to the real-time video because of a key management failure; a UAV can't be quickly deployed to a new area because the keys aren't in place; we can't share the video information with our allies because we can't give them the keys; most soldiers can't use this technology because they don't have the right clearances. Given this risk analysis, not encrypting the video is almost certainly the right decision.
Schneier concludes that this is mostly a PR issue, and that the Pentagon is best off using commercial-grade encryption with a "Sensitive, but Unclassified" classification for the feeds.
Bruce Schneier, an expert on encryption and technological security, gives us a bit of a smackdown. When you consider the logistics and cost-benefit analysis of military-grade encryption, it becomes clear why the Pentagon knowingly left the feeds open. Money quote:
The command and control channel is, and always has been, encrypted -- because that's both more important and easier to manage. UAVs are flown by airmen sitting at comfortable desks on U.S. military bases, where key management is simpler. But the video feed is different. It needs to be available to all sorts of people, of varying nationalities and security clearances, on a variety of field terminals, in a variety of geographical areas, in all sorts of conditions -- with everything constantly changing. Key management in this environment would be a nightmare.
Additionally, how valuable is this video downlink is to the enemy? The primary fear seems to be that the militants watch the video, notice their compound being surveilled and flee before the missiles hit. Or notice a bunch of Marines walking through a recognizable area and attack them. This might make a great movie scene, but it's not very realistic. Without context, and just by peeking at random video streams, the risk caused by eavesdropping is low.
Contrast this with the additional risks if you encrypt: A soldier in the field doesn't have access to the real-time video because of a key management failure; a UAV can't be quickly deployed to a new area because the keys aren't in place; we can't share the video information with our allies because we can't give them the keys; most soldiers can't use this technology because they don't have the right clearances. Given this risk analysis, not encrypting the video is almost certainly the right decision.
Schneier concludes that this is mostly a PR issue, and that the Pentagon is best off using commercial-grade encryption with a "Sensitive, but Unclassified" classification for the feeds.
Loading
