Tag: Iraq
Pompeo is a failure
Here is Secretary of State Pompeo in an interview with Mary Louise Kelly of NPR that demonstrates unequivocally his unfitness for office:
First he defends withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran nuclear deal), which has led inexorably to Iran acquiring more of the materials required for nuclear weapons. In self-defense, he simply asserts “we’ll stop them,” with no evidence whatsoever. That’s because there is none.
Then he declares himself happy with the Administration’s Ukraine policy, which he claims the State Department controls, and says he has defended every single State Department official. This despite the fact that he has not defended several officials who testified in Congress and that Rudy Giuliani was conducting Ukraine policy outside State Department channels.
In any event, listen to the end, since Kelly then reports on a subsequent conversation with the Secretary, in which he berates her for asking about Ukraine in ways that are simply unacceptable, even if unsurprising. No one should expect this Administration to show even minimal respect for a media professional. It prefers the hacks at Fox News who do its bidding.
Pompeo, again not surprisingly, also has bigoted views on Muslims and counts right-wing extremists among his greatest admirers. That may seem obscure or irrelevant to many Americans, but stop a moment to consider how the 1.8 billion Muslims on earth look at a country that has a bigot as Secretary of State.
The simple fact is that Pompeo is not qualified to lead American foreign policy, which is failing in the most important challenges he faces. In addition to precipitating Iran’s return to pursuit of nuclear weapons, the Administration is presiding over a stunning array of failures:
- North Korea continues to produce nuclear weapons and improve its missiles.
- Venezuela’s President Maduro continues in power.
- Russia continues to occupy a good slice of Ukraine.
- Iran and Russia are winning back control of Syria for President Assad.
- Iraqis are pushing back against the presence of US troops.
- The American “deal of the century” for Israel and Palestine stands no chance of acceptance by the Palestinians.
- The trade war with China has been suspended with few gains, in order to provide American farmers some relief before the 2020 election.
I could go on, but the overall picture is clear: “America First” foreign policy has failed, often because it has amounted to “America Alone.” Our major European allies (that’s now France and Germany, with the UK out of the European Union) are no longer cooperating voluntarily with the US. They can do better withholding cooperation and only giving in when they can get something in return from a transactional president. A few weaker reeds like Poland, Hungary, Italy as well as post-Brexit Britain may be more on board with this Administration, but mainly because of their own nationalist domestic politics. The sense of shared mission to make the world safer for democracy has evaporated. Its now every country for itself.
Lots of us, including me, thought Pompeo might be a relative success compared to his disastrous predecessor, Rex Tillerson. But succeeding as Secretary of State in an administration as wrong-headed about the world as this one just isn’t possible. It will take a decade or more to rebuild US influence in the world once Trump is out of office. Two decades or more if he wins a second term.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Middle East without Soleimani
Following the US assassination of Qasem Soleimani, who was an IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) general and the Quds Force commander, Iran retaliated against the US by launching a missile attack on US bases in Iraq. What further impact will Soleimani’s death have? And what will it mean for US interests in the region?
On January 22, Carnegie Endowment for International Studies hosted a panel discussion on The killing of Soleimani and the future of the Middle East. The discussion included three speakers: Rasha Al Aqeedi, the managing editor of Irfaa Sawtak (Raise Your Voice) and a research analyst of contemporary Iraqi politics and political Islam, Dexter Filkins, a journalist for The New Yorker, and Emile Hokayem, a senior fellow for Middle East Security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The panel discussion was moderated by Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow with the Carnegie Middle East Program.
Soleimani projected Iran’s power in the region
Filkins described Soleimani as a “master spy” and “a man in the shadow.” His influence was pervasive. Lebanese people didn’t decide their government, Soleimani did. Assad was not running the war, Soleimani was. Soleimani was a product of the Iran-Iraq War, during which he worked on strengthening and allying with the Shia around the Middle East.
Hokayem depicted him as one of the most influential actors in the Levant for securing Iran’s long-term interests. Soleimani turned Hezbollah from a formidable insurgent group into a conventional actor with missile forces menacing Israel. He was implicated in Hariri’s assassination in 2005, led efforts to shore up the Assad regime in 2012, and was also involved in the Battle of Kirkuk in 2017.
Al Aqeedi noted that when ISIL (The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) took over Mosul in 2014, Soleimani reacted by forming security forces/militias to help Iraq, based on Iran’s interests. Since then, Soleimani had kept the US-trained Iraqi army as weak as possible, while strengthening and formalizing the Shia militias in Iraq. In 2017, Soleimani rallied the Iraqi army to forcefully retake Kirkuk and suppress the results of Kurdistan’s independence referendum.
Further retaliation?
Sadjadpour believes that the assassination has energized the radicals of the Iranian regime, who may intensify their repression, but the downing of the Ukrainian airline has constrained popular support for retaliation. Filkins doubts benefits to US interests from the assassination.
Al Aqeedi noted that if any Iranian retaliation targeted US embassies or Americans, the US may intensify its retribution against Iran. Hence, Iran and the US need to think twice before taking any further actions. Hokayem suggested Iran possesses lots of tools to retaliate, not necessarily against American targets but also against regional American proxies, such as Saudi Arabia.
Impacts
Hokayem emphasized that the assassination neither mitigates Iran’s threat to its regional rivals nor changes the ordering of the region. Iran has secured its presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. He also claimed that the Trump administration doesn’t care much about Iraq. The US military presence was keeping a low profile even before the Iraqi parliament urged the government to expel foreign troops from its territory.
Al Aqeedi agreed with Hokayem that the US isn’t interested in being involved in the Iraqi protests. She underlined that the US presence in Iraq is not an occupation, and there is no US military base in Iraq. Hence, she argued that the current campaign against US presence in Iraq is a distraction from the protest, which targeted the IRGC. The Iraqi protesters are reluctant to be dragged into the US-Iran confrontation and want Iraq to avoid becoming a proxy for any external actors. Al Aqeedi is deeply concerned that Iraqi protesters are likely to encounter more violence from the IRGC and forces it controls.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks|January 21-24
Ground Truth Briefing: What to Make of Putin’s Power Play| January 21, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM | The Wilson Center | Register Here
On January 15, the Russian government resigned following President Vladimir Putin’s state of the nation address in which he proposed sweeping constitutional reforms. Putin then elevated former Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to the role of Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council and Medvedev’s replacement, Mikhail Mishustin, was approved as the new prime minister on January 16.
In this Ground Truth Briefing, our experts will assess Putin’s proposed reforms and political machinations.
Dial in phone numbers:
U.S. toll-free number:
800-369-2054;
International call number:
1-312-470-7127;
Participant passcode: 6238346
Speakers:
Mathew Rohansky is the director of the Kennan Institute.
Sergey Parkhomenko is a senior advisor and a journalist for “Echo of Moscow” Radio. He previously served as the editor-in-chief for the Russian journal Itogi and the Russian magazine Vokrug Sveta.
William E. Pomeranz is the deputy director of the Kennan Institute.
Maxim Trudolyubov is a senior advisor and an editor-in-chief for Russia File. He also serves as editor-at-large at Vedomosti Daily.
Unmaking the Presidency: A Book Discussion with Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes | January 21, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM | Brookings Institute | Register Here
The extraordinary authority of the U.S. presidency has no parallel in the democratic world. Today that authority resides in the hands of one man, Donald J. Trump. But rarely, if ever, has the nature of a president clashed more profoundly with the nature of the office. From the moment of his inauguration, Trump has challenged our deepest expectations of the presidency. But what are those expectations, where did they come from, and how great is the damage? In their new book, “Unmaking the Presidency: Donald Trump’s War on the World’s Most Powerful Office,” Brookings Senior Fellows Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes tell the story of the confrontation between a person and the institution he almost wholly embodies.
On January 21, Hennessey and Wittes will debut their new book at Brookings and will be joined by journalist Fred Hiatt for a conversation. After the discussion, speakers will take audience questions. This event will be webcast live.
Speakers:
Fred Hiatt is an editorial page editor for the Washington Post.
Susan Hennessey is a senior fellow in Governance Studies. She currently serves as the executive editor for Lawfare.
Benjamin Wittes is a senior fellow in Governance Studies. He currently serves as the editor-in-chief for Lawfare.
Disengaging from Violent Extremism Kickoff for USIP Initiative on Violent Extremist Disengagement and Reconciliation| January 21, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
Governments and communities worldwide are now grappling with what to do when citizens who participated in violent extremist conflicts return home. Though the violent radicalization process is complex, it is inherently social in nature—and disengagement efforts will need to address those social factors too. Many returning persons will face prosecution, while others will reintegrate directly into local communities. But once the justice systems mete out their sentences, returnees need processes that enable them to abandon their violent attitudes and behaviors, and communities need approaches that can create social cohesion to avoid further violence, revenge, and future radicalization.
Join USIP as we kick off our VEDR initiative to progress past conventional notions of deradicalization—which generally focus on transforming a person’s beliefs about ideologies—and instead develop a systemic approach that simultaneously encourages disengagement and builds social cohesion and community resilience to prevent the reoccurrence of violence.
This panel will explore the cognitive, social, and structural factors involved in the disengagement, reintegration, and reconciliation of violent extremists within local communities. The premise of the panel is that sustained, positive, inclusive engagement with local communities is critical for building bonds, generating a sense of belonging, and fostering a cognitive opening to disengage from violent extremism.
Join the conversation on Twitter with #ReintegratingExtremists.
Speakers:
Dr. David Yang is the vice president of the Center for Applied Conflict Transformation (ACT) at the United States Institute of Peace.
Dr. Laura G.E. Smith is a senior lecturer at the University of Bath.
Dr. Mary Beth Altier is a clinical associate professor at the New York University.
Dr. B. Heidi Ellis is the director of the Refugee Trauma and Resilience Center at Boston Children’s Hospital.
Dr. Rebecca J. Wolfe is a lecturer at the University of Chicago.
Dr. Stevan M. Weine is a professor of Psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Mr. Chris Bosley is a senior program officer of the Countering Violent Extremism at the US Institute of Peace.
The Killing of Soleimani and the Future of the Middle East| January 22, 2020 | 9:00 AM – 10:00 AM | Carneige Endowment for International Peace| Register Here
The killing of Iranian major general Qassem Soleimani has sent shockwaves through Iran and the Middle East. What impact will his death have? And what will it mean for U.S. interests in the region?
Speakers:
Rasha Al Aqeedi is the managing editor of Irfaa Sawtak (Raise Your Voice) and a researcher and analyst of contemporary Iraqi politics and political Islam.
Dexter Filkins is a journalist for The New Yorker.
Emile Hokayem is a senior fellow for Middle East security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Karim Sadjadpour is a senior fellow with the Carnegie Middle East Program.
The Future of Europe:
French and German Perspectives
A Conversation with
German Ambassador Emily Haber and French Ambassador Philippe Etienne | January 22, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:15 AM
| Center for Strategic International Studies|
Register Here
In 2020, Europe will be
facing a unique set of political, economic, and security challenges, including
Brexit. However, the beginning of the new decade also offers an opportunity to
lay out an ambitious vision for the future of Europe and for progress in areas
of common concern.
Please join us for a timely conversation with German
Ambassador to the U.S. Emily Haber and French Ambassador to the U.S. Philippe
Etienne as they discuss their vision for Europe over the next decade, the
foreign policy challenges facing Europe in 2020, and the future of
transatlantic relations.
Speakers:
Ambassador Emmily Haber, German Ambassador to the United States
Ambassador Philippe Etienne, French Ambassador to the United States
Rachel Ellehuus, Deputy Director, Europe Program
The New Status Quo in Northeast Syria: Humanitarian and Security Implications| January 23, 2020 | 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM | The Washington Institute for Near East Policy| Register Here
President Trump’s announcement of a U.S. withdrawal from northeast Syria, followed swiftly by the Turkish military incursion, raised urgent questions about influence and control in that critical region. While a slimmed-down U.S. contingent remains in the area, a new status quo has emerged that includes a greater role for Russia and the Assad regime and a more circumscribed role for America’s local partners, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. How will this shifting balance of power affect counterterrorism efforts, humanitarian conditions, governance, and the political/military stature of various local and international actors, including the United States? To address these questions, The Washington Institute is pleased to host a Policy Forum with Gonul Tol, Wladimir van Wilgenburg, and Dana Stroul.
Speakers:
Gonul Tol is founding
director of the Middle East Institute’s Turkish Studies Program and an adjunct
professor at George Washington University’s Institute for Middle East Studies.
She has written extensively on U.S.-Turkish relations, Turkish domestic politics,
and the Kurdish issue.
Wladimir van
Wilgenburg is coauthor of the 2019 book The Kurds of
Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts (with Harriet
Allsopp). A commentator for numerous international media outlets, he has
covered major battles against the Islamic State on the ground in Syria and
Iraq, among other regional topics.
Dana Stroul, the Kassen
Fellow in The Washington Institute’s Geduld Program on Arab Politics,
co-chaired last year’s bipartisan Syria Study Group with her
Institute colleague Michael Singh. Previously, she served as a senior
professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, covering
the Middle East, North Africa, and Turkey.
Strategic Implications of Iraq’s Multiple Crises| January 23, 2020 | 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM | Arab Gulf States Institute| Register Here
A series of seismic systemic shocks has rocked Iraq in recent months. Fragile internal cohesion was severely disrupted by a series of demonstrations in the final months of 2019, with young protesters denouncing corruption, unemployment, state dysfunction, and, increasingly, undue influence by Iran and its client militias. An ensuing crackdown by security forces and pro-Iranian elements of the Popular Mobilization Forces left hundreds of people dead and thousands injured. Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi resigned, leaving the country without a stable government or national consensus.
Perhaps even worse, Iraq has been increasingly dragged into the confrontation between the United States and Iran. A series of rocket attacks attributed to one of the largest pro-Iranian militia groups, Kataib Hezbollah, killed a U.S. contractor and two Iraqi police officers and injured four servicemen. U.S. strikes in response killed at least 24 Kataib Hezbollah militia members, prompting supporters of the group to besiege the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on December 31. Although that confrontation ended without loss of life, a U.S. drone strike on January 3 killed senior Iranian commander Major General Qassim Suleimani and Kataib Hezbollah leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, leading to angry vows of revenge from Iran and widespread calls in Iraq for the removal of all U.S. military forces from the country.
How can Iraq avoid being further dragged into the intensifying U.S.-Iranian confrontation? Can U.S. and other foreign forces stay in Iraq, even just in parts of the country such as the Kurdistan region, and if not, what impact would that have on Iraqi society? Will the anti-government, anti-militia, and anti-Iranian protests continue or has the national focus now shifted to the U.S. rather than Iranian role in Iraq? And how do these multiple and intersecting crises impact the strategic and foreign policy interests of Gulf Arab countries and their still-fledgling efforts to re-establish strong relations with Baghdad while limiting Iranian hegemony in Iraq?
A light lunch will be served. Unable to attend? Check back to watch live on January 23 at 12:30 pm EST.
Speakers:
Ambassador Feisal Amin Rasoul al-Istrabadi, Non-Resident Fellow, AGSIW; Founding Director, Center for the Study of the Middle East, Indiana University Bloomington
Ambassador Douglas A. Silliman, President, AGSIW
Randa Slim, Senior Fellow and Director of the Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues Program, Middle East Institute
Hussein Ibish, Senior Resident Scholar
Intellectuals and Fascism in Interwar Romania: The Criterion Association| January 23, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | Wilson Center| Register Here
In 1930s Bucharest, some of the country’s most brilliant young intellectuals converged to form the Criterion Association. Bound by friendship and the dream of a new, modern Romania, their members included historian Mircea Eliade, critic Petru Comarnescu, Jewish playwright Mihail Sebastian and a host of other philosophers and artists. Together, they built a vibrant cultural scene that flourished for a few short years, before fascism and scandal splintered their ranks. Cristina A. Bejan asks how the far-right Iron Guard came to eclipse the appeal of liberalism for so many of Romania’s intellectual elite, drawing on diaries, memoirs and other writings to examine the collision of culture and extremism in the interwar years. The first English-language study of Criterion and the most thorough to date in any language, this book grapples with the complexities of Romanian intellectual life in the moments before collapse.
Cristina A. Bejan is an Oxford DPhil and a Rhodes and Fulbright scholar. She has held fellowships at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), Georgetown University and the Woodrow Wilson Center. Currently she teaches world history at Metropolitan State University of Denver. A theatre artist, Bejan has written 17 plays and directed/sound designed/produced countless shows in the US and abroad. A spoken word poet, she got her start at Washington DC’s Busboys & Poets. Her poetry collection Green Horses On the Walls (Finishing Line Press) will be released this year and grapples with the inherited trauma of communism within the Romanian diaspora. While a researcher at USHMM in 2013, she founded the arts & culture collective Bucharest Inside the Beltway (BiB), which currently promotes local and international art in Colorado. For more info please visit cristinaabejan.com.
In dialogue with the author of the book’s foreword, Vladimir Tismaneanu, Professor of Politics, University of Maryland (College Park); Global Fellow, Woodrow Wilson Center
Speakers:
Blair A. Ruble, Distinguished Fellow; Former Wilson Center Vice President for Programs (2014-2017); Director of the Comparative Urban Studies Program/Urban Sustainability Laboratory (1992-2017); Director of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies (1989-2012) and Director of the Program on Global Sustainability and Resilience (2012-2014)
Vladimir Tismaneanu, Former Wilson Center Fellow and Director, Center for the Study of Post-Communist Societies, University of Maryland
Cristina Bejan, Founding Executive Director, Bucharest Inside the Beltway; Researcher, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum; Former East European Studies Title VIII Scholar, Wilson Center
Non-Violent Resistance and Palestinian Self- Development| January 24, 2020 | 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The Middle East Institute, in conjunction with the Foundation for Middle East Peace, the New Israel Fund, Americans for Peace Now, and J Street, is pleased to welcome Ali Abu Awwad to Washington, DC. Abu Awwad will discuss his work to mobilize a movement of nonviolent resistance to the occupation in the Palestinian Territories, what led him to this path, his reception in Palestinian society, his engagement with Israeli civilians and military authorities and his hopes and concerns for the future.
Speaker:
Ali Abu Awwad is a leading peace activist and a leader of several peace-building initiatives, including the Taghyeer (Change) Palestinian Nonviolence Movement and the Karama Center. His life and work have been featured in two award-winning films, Encounter Point and Forbidden Childhood.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Reconstruction in the Middle East
On January 16 the Middle East Institute hosted a panel discussion titled, Reconstruction in the Civil War Zones of the Middle East. The panel showcased the upcoming release of the World Bank’s Building for Peace in MENA: Reconstruction for Security, Sustainable Growth and Equity this coming February, the Middle East Institute’s Escaping the Conflict Trap, and Fractured Stability: War Economies and Reconstruction in the MENA.
Speakers on the panel included, Steven Heydemann, nonresident Senior Fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution, Luigi Narbone, Director of the Middle East Directions Programme at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute, Francesca Recanatini Senior Public Sector Specialist in Governance at the World Bank, and Ross Harrison, senior fellow at The Middle East Institute and faculty of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. The panel was moderated by Paul Salem, President of the Middle East Institute.
Inaccurate assumptions
Heydemann criticized three assumptions that the international community typically uses to guide reconstruction efforts that are contextually mistaken:
- War completely destroys the pre-war economy.
- Since pre-war institutions are destroyed, the task of post-conflict is to rebuild states and use this reconstruction effort to avoid future conflict.
- The destruction of the prewar institutions generates constituencies that wholeheartedly support reconstruction.
Heydemann critically analyzed these assumptions in the context of the MENA region, proclaiming that oftentimes in MENA there is continuity in the economic norms and practices during wartime. War even amplifies and further consolidates these norms. Secondly, conflict empowers actors to reimpose institutions they can exploit, reigniting previous conflicts. In the process of power sharing negotiations, weak participants are more concerned with positions than than reconstruction efforts.
Harrison emphasized the need for the right diagnosis of the regional conflicts in order to design proper solutions. He challenged the notion that regional actors are only proxy actors, proclaiming that this model is not complex enough to reflect the actual situation. We need realignment at the international and regional levels to create a cooperative environment for reconstruction to take place in.
Competing powers
Narbone spoke about the typical Western liberal blueprint utilized in post-conflict settings, which is not the only power in the region. The MENA conflicts incorporate a plethora of leaders in the region who do not believe in this model, specifically Russia and Iran. Consensus is lacking on the drivers of conflict, with each participant blaming the others. “Reconstruction fatigue” may be appealing but it will have detrimental effects.
Local participation
Recanatini centered her rhetoric around the World Bank’s upcoming report and the importance of citizen participation. After surveying 15,000 Yemeni, Iraqi, and Libyan citizens, asking “What do you believe has been lacking in previous peacebuilding work in your country?” over 19% of Yemenis interviewed, 18% of Libyans interviewed, and 17% of Iraqis agreed that the international community is lacking a vision guiding peacebuilding. Recanatini emphasized the need for international organizations to speak with different actors to ensure that all parts of society are being incorporated and heard. She also urged thinking outside of mandates and crossing into sectors and areas traditionally unexplored by international organizations.
What now?
The panelists all agreed that while civil war conflict zones in MENA would need billions of dollars for reconstruction, smaller grants of money can be used to set examples. Without this kind of support the resulting society will be full of disparities, hierarchies of privilege, vast discrimination and marginalization, etc. All the panelists posited that there is not just one solution to reconstruction in the context of the Middle East. We must be critical of any assumptions underlying efforts in the region.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 15
Although Wolf Blitzer and fellow moderators devoted the first hour of the Democratic presidential candidate debate to foreign policy, political experts at a CFR panel I attended Tuesday said foreign policy hardly ever matters in US elections unless there is an active shooting war with significant American casualties. Even trade isn’t making a difference with voters these days, they said. Most interesting to me was Charlie Cook’s observation that unless Biden is the clear leader after Iowa and NH, Mike Bloomberg is likely to shoot to the front on Super Tuesday and stands a good chance of winning the nomination even in a brokered convention.
Sen. Kaine [D-Va] seems to have the votes for a war powers restriction on President Trump regarding Iran. The Hill has the best story of the successful negotiations with Republicans, but the parliamentary snafu that postpones debate until next week.
Washington Examiner has a story based on SAIS prof Jim Mann’s new book about the Cheney-Powell feud over foreign policy in the Bush 43 administration.
Fred Kaplan dissects administration Iran policy, sees regime change as a delusion.
A CFR writer says Huawei blacklist may backfire.
Vox disputes Trump claim about Saudi contributions to US military.
WSJ says US threatens cut in military aid to Iraq if US troops are forced to leave.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 13, 2nd edition
– NYT has long article on Joe Biden’s 2002 vote for war in Iraq. It’s not wrong, but it overlooks some important contextual facts. In class I told the story of how the bipartisan Senate leadership in 2001 rejected the White House proposed language for an AUMF because it seemed like a blank check for a war on terror.Instead, the Senate passed a bill limited to those connected to the 9/11 attacks, and then adjourned. The House felt sandbagged, forced to accept the Senate language in order to avoid a long delay. A year later, seeking the AUMF for war in Iraq, the WH cut a deal with the House Democratic leader to act before the Senate, thus preventing Senators Biden and Lugar from winning support for their conditional AUMF. In voting for the Iraq war, ambitious politicians like Biden, Kerry, & Hilary Clinton also remembered the purgatory 47 Senate Democrats faced in 1992 after voting against the 1991 Gulf War. They chose toughness over caution.
-Jim Steinberg, who was a senior official during many of the decisions he recounts in a new article, looks at US-China policy since 1989.
– WaPo says Trump has talked of killing Suleimani since the early weeks of his administration. NBC says Trump gave conditional authorization for the killing last summer.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
