Yemen: failed or client?

ARTICLE: Yemen teeters on brink of failure, By Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times, December 6, 2009

Key thing to remember about a failed state: it's not "failed" if it attracts the intervention of great powers. Those are called "client states" and they were around throughout the Cold War.

(Via WPR's Media Roundup)

Overleveraging American Foreign and Domestic Policy

Conservative voices are being raised against what defense hawks consider to be the Democrats' ulterior motive in addressing healthcare in America: a none-too-subtle longterm plot to curtail U.S. defense spending and thus render our military forces as strategically impotent as those of our NATO allies. This charge is at once hypocritical and correct, but not for the dark reasons ascribed to the Obama administration.

Continue reading this week's New Rules column at WPR.

Zakaria on India over Pakistan (too)

ARTICLE: The Prize is India, By Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, Nov 21, 2009

Add Zakaria to the list of notables who now say we should prioritize India over Pakistan in any choices we make on Afghanistan.

But one assumes he was there all along.

(Via WPR's Media Roundup)

Passing on COIN and regretting it in the future

OP-ED: Clear, Hold and Duct Tape, By DAVID BROOKS, New York Times, November 30, 2009

Nice, overarching piece by Brooks. Very sensible delineation of why the Obama team is eschewing COIN in Afghanistan, a policy I think it will come to regret.

(Via WPR's Media Roundup)

Planning process for strategically myopic surge

ARTICLE: How Obama Came to Plan for 'Surge' in Afghanistan, By PETER BAKER, New York Times, December 5, 2009

The most detailed presentation of the process of decision-making with regard to the Afghanistan surge.

Again, my major problem with it is the strategically myopic vision that views it totally as America's gig with some support from NATO. There is simply no contextualizing of this reality within the regional landscape, and the constant referencing of Vietnam is simply unhelpful in this regard.

The Gates timetable

ARTICLE: Gates: 2-4 years of big Afghan role for US troops, AP, December 6, 2009

Further crucial hedging/signaling from Gates.

In his testimony last week, Gates said the 18-month marker wasn't some knee-jerk moment (meaning serious consideration would be given to the local landscape), and now he's saying 2-4 years of a significant presence seems more likely.

Looking past the Iraq election

MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA: "Iraq's fragile security: Jangling nerves; As the Americans prepare to go and an election looms, anxiety is rising again," The Economist, 24 October 2009.

The question of whether Iraq's national government ends up centralized or federalized, secular or Islamist, remains to be decided. The key point: "Most politicians seem sincere in insisting that this will be decided by parliament and not by force."

Meanwhile, while the insurgency can still bomb here and there spectacularly, it controls no geographic swathes and clearly cannot overthrow the government.

The danger of the post-election period: no party or coalition will dominate, so "lengthy and ill-tempered horse-trading" will result.

Shakiest place? The "trigger line" between Kurds and Arabs.

Reborn on the bayou?

MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA: "Nigeria's hopeful amnesty: A chance to end the Delta rebellion; An amnesty for thousands of militants in the Niger Delta is raising hopes that reconciliation in the region may benefit the whole country," The Economist, 24 October 2009.

Description of an amnesty program, replete with classes on "how to reintegrate into society."

Very positive sign.

Kim: an axis worth getting wrapped around

ASIA: "Hell on Earth: The West still turns a blind eye to the world's most brutal and systematic abuse of human rights," by Banyan, The Economist, 24 October 2009.

Nice piece.

In one regional city, 70% of the population is described as subsisting only on a corn porridge mixed with grass.

A recent government move: basically taking all remaining farmers' land away and putting it into "socialist production." One farmer says, "We are being led to our deaths."

Swat squared

ASIA: "South Waziristan: There they go again; War-weary refugees hope that this time the army finishes the job," The Economist, 24 October 2009.

Why harder? Some 200,000 Mehsud tribesmen are expected to flee the fighting.

Whither Gitmo? Take . . . whatever

UNITED STATES: "Guant√°namo: Home of the brave? Certainly not our home for the free," The Economist, 24 October 2009.

Of the 221 inmates there, more than 150 have filed habeas corpus suits in federal court. Thirty-eight have gone to court, with 30 ordered to be unlawful and therefore are prioritized for transfer--abroad presumably.

Nice to see that part of our legal system still functioning.

Tom around the web

+ SMALL WARS JOURNAL linked The Bottom Line on Nation-Building.
+ The Captain's Journal disagrees with the figures.

+ The Atlantic Wire linked We will bring Iran in from the cold.

+ Project White Horse mentioned the Gap.
+ Global Politics/Comparative Politics (Pols. 305) (.doc file) at the U of Hawaii has BFA on the syllabus.
+ We will bring Iran in from the cold.
+ HG's WORLD linked The basic reality of America's limits to do the SysAdmin work.
+ Cross Border Journal linked Debate Shifts to Afghan Exit Plan.
+ Information Dissemination mentioned Tom on China's rise and Mahan.
+ Pronk Palisades embedded the TED talk.
+ Nguyen Van Khanh talks about Tom (but I can't make much sense of it since it's in Vietnamese (even via Google Translate)).

Exciting changes at World Politics Review

First, Tom's take:

It is a good pitch, one that suggests--to me at least--that if you took the subscriptions you're currently spending on 2-3 weak pubs and concentrated the money here, you'd get a portal (I love the reader email) to the best writing out there, plus all the WPR content. In many ways, WPR, through the special reports and briefings, attempts to become sort of a pol-mil version of The Economist. It's an ambitious target but a good one, as I don't think anybody yet can claim that space online. As I contemplate (hell, I've already decided) cutting subscriptions to a number of traditional print mags/journals that just don't cut it for me anymore, WPR strikes me as a fine alternative in the growing world of online pubs.

I couldn't be happier about being associated with World Politics Review. It was a very natural evolution for me following a long stint at a syndicated print newspaper columnist.

Now, Hampton's letter:

Exciting changes at World Politics Review

Dear WPR Reader,

As you've probably noticed, there have been a number of changes to World Politics Review in the last several months. As such, I wanted to take this opportunity to update you on some of those changes, and to ask for your help in spreading the word about World Politics Review, and our subscription service.

WATCH THIS VIDEO for an overview of all the benefits of our subscription service.

World Politics Review: The Benefits of Subscribing from Hampton Stephens on Vimeo.

WPR is designed to fulfill our editorial mission of providing in-depth, non-partisan and useful analysis for both professionals -- whether in government or the private sector -- and serious students of foreign policy and international affairs.

In the last few months we've launched our premium subscription service to complement our free daily publication. Our daily content comes in the form of our briefings, columns and blog -- all of which go beyond the news cycle to offer insight and context for developments of regional and global importance. In addition to our original articles and blogs, we regularly aggregate news, analysis and opinion from other sources in our daily Media Roundup and in our video and audio sections. (Our blogs, Media Roundup and multimedia archives are freely available. Our briefings now go behind our pay wall two weeks after publication, and our columns one week after publication.)

But to better address the needs of foreign policy professionals, we have also developed a range of premium, subscription-only reports and publications.

They begin with our Features, which appear every two weeks and consist of substantive, long-form articles examining a chosen theme from a variety of angles.

These are complemented by our Special Reports, which compile the most recent WPR coverage around a chosen issue or region to serve as reference material on the most important topics of the moment. With the publication of our latest special report, "Asia: Rising Powers, Regional Balance," we begin a new schedule of publishing a special report at the beginning of each month.

Finally, every two months, we offer a Strategic Posture Review (see our latest on Brazil), which examines the strategic culture of a selected pivotal country, and the major developments driving its foreign, defense and national security policy.

Our subscription service is available for both individuals and organizations, and our subscription-only content is accessible both online in HTML form and in downloadable PDF files from the WPR Reports section of our Document Center. Individual PDF files are also available for purchase by non-subscribers.

Added benefits for WPR subscribers include:
- Free access to our Document Center, which, in addition to collecting original WPR reports, houses a resource library of third-party reference material.
- Free access to the WPR archives.
- Enhanced site search capabilities designed to maximize WPR as a foreign policy research tool.
- IP recognition, usage tracking, and reprint permissions are available for organizations purchasing a site license.

If you like what you see at World Politics Review, we would greatly appreciate your help in spreading the word about our subscription service. Every additional WPR subscriber goes a long way toward helping us continue to publish. Individuals can subscribe online. Organizations interested in our institutional site licenses can e-mail subscriptions@worldpoliticsreview.com for more information about pricing and benefits.

Thank you for reading World Politics Review.

Regards,

Hampton Stephens
Publisher

Right perspective on the Honduras elections

OP-ED: In Elections, Honduras Defeats Ch√°vez, By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY, Wall Street Journal, NOVEMBER 29, 2009

Like this piece a lot. Believe it to be the right perspective on the elections.

Also like that Ms. O'Grady gave the Obama administration some credit for finessing their originally bad approach:

At least the Obama administration figured out, after four months, that it had blundered. It deserves credit for realizing that elections were the best way forward, and for promising to recognize the outcome despite enormous pressure from Brazil and Venezuela. President Obama came to office intent on a foreign policy of multilateralism. Perhaps this experience will teach him that freedom does indeed have enemies.

Bit preachy, but then O'Grady almost always is.

The Obama plan on CO2 cuts seems proportional enough

FRONT PAGE: "China, U.S. Square Off On Climate Proposals," by Jeffrey Ball and Shai Oster, Wall Street Journal, 27 November 2009.

The Chinese proposal and Obama's compared.

Chinese are 11 percent of world GDP now and will be 21% in 2030. Their share of CO2 emissions now is 21% and it would be 29% then (meaning still high). But their CO2 intensity index would decrease a lot, from 87% higher than the world average now to 95% in 2030, even as per capita emission would almost double.

Obama's plan (how achievable, God only knows) unfolds as follows: Our share of GDP goes from 21 to 16%. Our share of emissions goes from 20 to 14%. Per capita comes down a bit to 15 metric tons, compared to 8 mt for China in 2030. Our intensity index drops from 95% of world average today to 58% then.

Another factoid: US responsibility (since 1890) for total CO2 emissions is 5-6x China's back in 1990, but only 45% more in 2030.

Obama's plan is a 17% reduction below 2005 levels by 2050, and China's is a 40-45% drop from 2005 levels by 2020.

Like Vietnam, the Soviet experience in Afghanistan doesn't compare well for one simple reason

FRONT PAGE: "Soviets' Afghan Ordeal Vexed Gates on Troop-Surge Plan," by Yaroslav Trofimov, Wall Street Journal, 27 November 2009.

Gates was high up in the CIA during the long stretch of its support to the mujahideen in Afghanistan, so we are told he is acutely aware of lessons learned.

At the height of the Sov effort, they have about 110k troops there, or about what the US and NATO will soon enough achieve.

So Gates, we are told, is a bit tortured by the comparison. Yet he is strongly ID'd with the new surge strategy.

Why? Maybe because the Taliban don't have a superpower backing them up with supplies.

Hmm. Seems like a real difference.

The continuing divergence of government and religion in Iran

ARTICLE: Senior Cleric Denounces Iranian Militia for Crackdown, By NAZILA FATHI, November 30, 2009

Another crack in the wall:

Iran's most senior cleric denounced the role of the volunteer militia force known as the Basij in the crackdown against protesters, saying the force's actions were against religion and "in the path of Satan."

The cleric, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, condemned the force in a statement posted on an opposition Web site, mowjcamp.com, decreeing that "the assailants have acted against religion and must pay blood money" to those who were wounded or to their families.

It was the harshest criticism of the militia to date by the ayatollah, who has sided with the opposition leaders.

The detachment of true religion from the government continues . . ..

The growing call for Indian help in Afghanistan

OP-ED: We Need India's Help In Afghanistan, By Marshall M. Bouton and Alyssa Ayres, Forbes, 11.24.09

Another county heard from as the bandwagon grows on my put-India-first campaign when considering "Af-Pak."

Expect our numbers to grow.

(Thanks: Jeffrey Itell)

The Revolutionary Guard furthers its hold

ARTICLE: Iran restructuring its naval forces, By Walter Pincus, Washington Post, November 30, 2009

Yet another sign of the Guard taking over everything in Iran, this time the navy.

The Leviathan is a predator, the SysAdmin is a protector

UNITED STATES: "Crime and politics: The velvet glove; Why the soft approach sometimes works," The Economist, 24 October 2009.

Nice story about a North Carolina town that house-breaks a bad, drug-ridden and violence-filled neighborhood.

The trick?

Instead of the usual rolling thunder approach (cars with sirens blaring and cops with guns drawn, swooping in irregularly) that approximates an occupational army, they move into the dialoguing business with community leaders. Drug leaders were ID'd and given a choice: jail or help into a better lifestyle and career choice.

Nearly all of the dealers took the second option. Yes, you can still buy drugs in the neighborhood, but the program wasn't about fighting the drugs per se, but reducing the violence.