Tag: Pakistan
Masterful
Secretary of State-designate John Kerry was masterful today in his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing. It wasn’t so much the details of what he said, but the breadth and depth. This is a guy who really knows international affairs.
His prepared statement was notable for some high points: the emphasis on the importance of American economic health in determining the country’s role abroad, the clarity about preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons and the vigor of his defense of the State Department budget. I would also note that John Kerry regards USAID, whose functions he mentioned but not its name, as an integral part of the State Department.
Then Kerry showed a lot of agility in dealing with not only the questions but also a demonstrator, expressing respect for her cries to be heard. He defended Secretary of Defense-designate Hagel’s views on getting rid of nuclear weapons, which he said was an aspiration for a world different from the one we live in today. He described his own changed view of Syria’s President Asad, whom he now hopes to see go soon.
He showed his clear commitment to maintaining the high priority Secretary Clinton has given to gender issues. He was non-committal on the Keystone pipeline, deferring to the official process under way. He was gentle with the Russians, citing their cooperation on particular issues (other than Syria). He was supportive of American anti-corruption and human rights efforts abroad. He showed he knows what is going on in Sudan’s Blue Nile and South Kordofan provinces. He parried accusations about Benghazi.
Of course part of the reason for this masterful performance is the attitude of the questioners, who showed enormous respect for their long-standing colleague. Gone was the idiot questioning of yesterday’s hearing with Secretary of State Clinton on the Benghazi murders. There was little “gotcha.” Certainly had the President nominated Susan Rice, who is far more combative, the tone if not the substance of the hearing would have been different. In a week’s time the Hagel hearing may be far more contentious, even if Hagel himself comes close to matching Kerry in knowledge and equanimity.
On Syria, Kerry advocated changing Bashar al Asad’s calculations, but he was unclear about the means to achieve that. He wants an orderly transition. The Russians appear willing, but differ on the timing and manner of Bashar’s departure. Kerry fears sectarian strife, implosion of the Syrian state and what they might mean for chemical weapons.
The Syrian opposition has not been ready to talk, Kerry said. In a sentence he struck–one of his few moments of hesitation in this long hearing–he started to say that we need to increase the ability of the opposition to do something unspecified. I’d sure like to know how that sentence was supposed to end: increase their ability to negotiate? increase their ability to strike the regime militarily? There’s a big difference. It sounded to me more like he wanted them to be more flexible on negotiations, but I’m not certain.
Kerry hit a lot of other subjects. On Afghanistan, he put his chips on a good April 2014 presidential election, which has to provide legitimacy to Karzai’s successor. Kerry wants “a metric” for stopping infiltration and attacks on Americans from Pakistani territory. He noted China is “all over” Africa (and America has to get into the game). Al Qaeda has dispersed at the urging of Osama bin Laden and is now a threat in the Arabian Peninsula and the Maghreb, where the solution is not only drone strikes but (unspecified) civilian efforts. We don’t like what Egyptian President Morsi says about Jews, but we need him to maintain the peace treaty with Israel. On Israel/Palestine, Kerry was cagey and refused to be drawn out, except to reiterate commitment to the two-state solution. The solution to climate change is energy policy, which will enable job growth. The “war on drugs” is ill-conceived. We need to do more on the demand side.
Here is the lengthy (four hours?) video of the hearing:
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Prevent what?
Most of us who work on international affairs think it would be much better to use diplomacy to prevent bad things from happening rather than waiting until the aftermath and then cleaning up after the elephants, which all too often involves expensive military action. But what precisely would that mean? What do we need to prevent?
The Council on Foreign Relations survey of prevention priorities for 2013 was published last week, just in time to be forgotten in the Christmas rush and New Year’s lull. It deserves notice, as it is one of the few nonpartisan attempts to define American national security priorities. This year’s edition was in part crowd-sourced and categorizes contingencies on two dimensions: impact on U.S. interests (high, medium, low) and likelihood (likely, plausible, unlikely).
Syria comes out on top in both dimensions. That’s a no-brainer for likelihood, as the civil war has already reached catastrophic dimensions and is affecting the broader region. Judging from Paul Stares’ video introduction to the survey, U.S. interests are ranked high in part because of the risk of use or loss of chemical weapons stocks. I’d have ranked them high because of the importance of depriving Iran of its one truly reliable ally and bridge to Hizbollah, but that’s a quibble.
CFR ranks another six contingencies as high impact on U.S. interests and only plausible rather than likely. This isn’t so useful, but Paul’s video comes to the rescue: an Israeli military strike on Iran that would “embroil” the U.S. and conflict with China in the East or South China seas are his picks to talk about. I find it peculiar that CFR does not treat what I would regard as certainly a plausible if not a likely contingency: a U.S. attack on Iran. There are few more important decisions President Obama will need to make than whether to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Certainly it is a far more challenging decision than whether to go to war against China in the territorial disputes it is generating with U.S. allies in Pacific. I don’t know any foreign policy experts who would advise him to go in that direction.
It is striking that few of the other “plausible” and high-impact contingencies are amenable to purely military responses:
- a highly disruptive cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure
- a mass casualty attack on the U.S. homeland or on a treaty ally
- severe internal instability in Pakistan, triggered by a civil-military crisis or terror attack
It is not easy to determine the origin of cyberattacks, and not clear that a military response would be appropriate or effective. The same is also sometimes true of mass casualty attacks; our military response to 9/11 in Afghanistan has enmired the United States in its longest war to date, one where force is proving inadequate as a solution. It is hard to imagine any military response to internal instability in Pakistan, though CFR offers as an additional low probability contingency a possible U.S. military confrontation with Islamabad “triggered by a terror attack or U.S. counterterror operations.”
In the “moderate” impact on U.S. interests, CFR ranks as highly likely “a major erosion of security in Afghanistan resulting from coalition drawdown.” I’d certainly have put that in high impact category, as we’ve still got 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and a significant portion of them will still be there at the end of 2013. In the “moderate” impact but merely plausible category CFR ranks:
- a severe Indo-Pakistan crisis that carries risk of military escalation, triggered by a major terror attack
- a severe North Korean crisis caused by another military provocation, internal political instability, or threatening nuclear weapons/ICBM-related activities
- a significant increase in drug trafficking violence in Mexico that spills over into the United States
- continuing political instability and emergence of a terrorist safe haven in Libya
Again there are limits to what we can do about most of these contingencies by conventional military means. Only a North Korea crisis caused by military provocation or threats would rank be susceptible to a primarily military response. The others call for diplomatic and civilian responses in at least a measure equal to the possible military ones.
CFR lets two “moderate” impact contingencies languish in the low probability category that I don’t think belong there:
- political instability in Saudi Arabia that endangers global oil supplies
- renewed unrest in the Kurdish dominated regions of Turkey and the Middle East
There is a very real possibility in Riyadh of a succession crisis, as the monarchy on the death of the king will likely move to a next generation of contenders. Kurdish irredentist aspirations are already a big issue in Iraq and Syria. It is hard to imagine this will not affect Iran and Turkey before the year is out. Neither is amenable to a purely military response.
Most of the contingencies with “low” impact on U.S. interests are in Africa:
- a deepening of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo that involves military intervention from its neighbors
- growing popular unrest and political instability in Sudan
- military conflict between Sudan and South Sudan
- renewed ethnic violence in Kenya surrounding March 2013 presidential election
- widespread unrest in Zimbabwe surrounding the electoral process and/or the death of Robert Mugabe
- failure of a multilateral intervention to push out Islamist groups from Mali’s north
This may tell us more about CFR and the United States than about the world. Africa has little purchase on American sentiments, despite our half-Kenyan president. All of these contingencies merit diplomatic attention, but none is likely to excite U.S. military responses of more than a purely emergency character, except for Mali. If you’ve got a few Islamist terrorists, you can get some attention even if you are in Africa.
What’s missing from this list? CFR mentions
…a third Palestinian intifada, a widespread popular unrest in China, escalation of a U.S.-Iran naval clash in the Persian Gulf, a Sino-Indian border crisis, onset of elections-related instability and violence in Ethiopia, unrest in Cuba following the death of Fidel Castro and/or incapacitation of Raul Castro, and widespread political unrest in Venezuela triggered by the death or incapacitation of Hugo Chavez.
I’d add intensification of the global economic slowdown (high probability, high impact), failure to do more about global warming (also high probability, delayed impact), demographic or financial implosion in Europe or Japan (and possibly even the U.S.), Russian crackdown on dissent, and resurgent Islamist extremism in Somalia. But the first three of these are not one-year “contingencies,” which shows one limit of the CFR exercise.
I would also note that the world is arguably in better shape at the end of 2012 than ever before in history. As The Spectator puts it:
Never has there been less hunger, less disease or more prosperity. The West remains in the economic doldrums, but most developing countries are charging ahead, and people are being lifted out of poverty at the fastest rate ever recorded. The death toll inflicted by war and natural disasters is also mercifully low. We are living in a golden age.
May it last.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Redlines
The publication last week of a five-step peace process roadmap to 2015 allegedly prepared by Afghanistan’s High Peace Council reopens the issue of whether a negotiated settlement with the Taliban–or parts thereof–is possible. American efforts led first by Richard Holbrooke and more recently by Marc Grossman have failed. With an American drawdown of troops proceeding and Afghan forces all too clearly not yet capable of taking over, it would not be surprising to see the Afghans make another stab at a deal.
But anyone who thinks this plan was prepared in Dari or Pashto is kidding themselves. This document reads to me like an American plan, written in good diplospeak, warmed over. It foresees an increase in Pakistan’s role in the negotiations, but it also includes all the American red lines (admittedly at the very end):
Any outcome of the peace process must respect the Afghan Constitution and must not jeopardize the rights and freedoms that the citizens of Afghanistan, both men and women, enjoy under the Constitution. As part of the negotiated outcome, the Taliban and other armed opposition groups must cut ties with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups and verifiably renounce violence.
The timeline for the plan began in early 2012. Some of the action items concerning release of prisoners and assurance of safe passage for negotiators seem to have been fulfilled. But a critical step, announcement that the Taliban are cutting their ties to al Qaeda, to my knowledge has not been taken (the deadline was March 2012). The Taliban have denied media reports to that effect. I know of no credible evidence that the Taliban have softened their position on education and participation of women, though they may have gotten savvier about (not) attacking girls’ schools. Nor have they renounced violence.
The devil, as always, is in the details. The roadmap proposes that in the second half of 2013 the negotiating parties
…agree on the modalities for the inclusion of Taliban and other armed opposition leaders in the power structure of the state, to include non-elected positions at different levels with due consideration of legal and governance principles.
I wrote about this for the Washington Post more than two years ago, when I first heard rumors of State Department officials looking for a settlement that would give over a large portion of southern Afghanistan to Taliban governance in exchange for cutting their ties with al Qaeda and laying down their arms. It is still a distasteful proposition.
But less so than two years ago because American and Afghan efforts have failed to install anything like functioning governance in much of Afghanistan outside urban centers. The Northern Alliance opponents of the Taliban may not like it, but the Americans will find it easier to twist their arms than those of the Taliban. The alternative to a negotiated settlement with the Taliban might just be their military success in the countryside, where they are doing relatively well.
It is reasonable under current conditions to pursue a plan like the one McClatchy uncovered. But those redlines are important. If the Taliban don’t break with al Qaeda and accept women as human beings, we’ll regret a settlement that brings them into Afghanistan’s governing structures. So will Pakistan.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The proverbial hammer
Today greeted me with two contradictory headlines. Fareed Zakaria urged a beginning to the end of the war on terror. The Wall Street Journal reports an expansion of U.S. military authority to intervene in Mali and other parts of the Sahel against extremists, using drones and special ops teams, as we do in Yemen and Pakistan.
Fareed does not argue that the threat no longer exists, only that it can be dealt with in the normal legal framework rather than the extraordinary one put in place after 9/11. Nor, I imagine, will the Pentagon ignore completely the non-military aspects of the fight against al Qaeda linked groups in Mali. Our military officers are far too smart, and far too deeply committed to counter-insurgency, to ignore the social, economic and political matrix that is providing safe haven to extremists in northern Mali.
But the fact is that we are still over-emphasizing military responses to terrorism, rather than using preventive and civilian approaches before the emergence of a clear threat. Northern Mali, Tuareg grievances and various extremist groups existed well before this year. Why were we ignoring them when it might have been cheaper and easier to prevent them from emerging in the first place?
We are still playing global whack-a-mole with terrorists rather than developing a strategy that makes them unwelcome in the poverty-stricken, relatively weak and conflict-prone states in which they find safe haven. If we are successful in Mali, they will no doubt find have someplace else. Strengthening the indigenous capacity to resist and repress extremists is much more likely to produce results. It is also likely to be far cheaper. But it requires a more forward-looking, anticipatory and civilian-based strategy.
Instead, we are now deploying an additional Defense Intelligence agents abroad. They will number 1600 in five years time. This makes no sense, unless they will be doing intelligence collection that would be better done by civilians agencies.
If al Qaeda central still exists, someone there is surely calculating today where to move to when Mali gets too hot. Northern Nigeria? Niger? Back to Somalia? There are lots of options. What we need is a comprehensive strategy that enables a preventive approach to strengthening local governance. The military may recognize that as the requirement, but it is not their responsibility to meet it. Our civilians–State Department and USAID as well as Justice and Commerce departments–need the resources and capabilities to undertaken expeditionary activities that today are possible only for the Defense Department.
We are the proverbial hammer that views everything as a nail. Some jobs require a screwdriver.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
How many is enough?
The right question is not why U.S. troops need to stay in Afghanistan after 2014 but rather how many are needed to counter the resurgence of Al Qaeda there. Fred and Kim Kagan say upwards of 30,000 and cast aspersions on the “amateurs” who call for fewer. The Administration seems to be focusing on 10,000, plus several thousand advisors from NATO allies. The Administration has most of the qualified professionals in its employ.
I put myself solidly in the amateur category, which is clearly where the Kagans also belong. But even an amateur sees the big hole in their argument. They fail to consider the possibility that U.S. troop presence helps to generate the recruits Al Qaeda requires. This is no small matter. Any good military commander needs to ask whether offensive efforts are generating more enemy fighters than they are eliminating. David Petraeus, who on this showed far better judgment than in his personal life, famously asked this question in Iraq about the U.S. detention policy there (and arranged to free a good number of people when those in charge told him the bad news). There is ample evidence that this counter-productive effect is happening in Yemen, where the numbers of estimated Al Qaeda activists have grown markedly during the course of the U.S. drone war there. Could the same thing be happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
I can’t answer that question, but others have tried to do so. It has been years since reasonable observers concluded that on balance drone strikes are counter-productive in Pakistan, which is the center of gravity of the war on extremists. The problem is that there is a lot of collateral damage, and population anxiety, for every high-level target killed. Three quarters of Pakistanis now regard the United States as an enemy. If even a tiny percentage of them joins Al Qaeda to fight against us, we are in trouble.
There is another problem. U.S. troops in Afghanistan will be vulnerable to asymmetric Iranian attacks if Israel or the U.S. goes after the Tehran’s nuclear program. If you think preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons is a top U.S. priority, you should want to minimize the number of American troops exposed if military action becomes necessary.
The Kagans and many others will complain loudly if “only” 10,000 American troops are left in Afghanistan. They also wanted to leave American troops in Iraq. I find it hard to fathom what good that would have done, and easy to imagine how problematic it would have been as Prime Minister Maliki tries to exert more centralized authority over both Sunni and Kurds. The notion that American commanders would necessarily stand up for truth, justice and the American way is not convincing.
The United States has more troops abroad than it can afford, and likely also more than some of the societies in which they operate find acceptable. I’m just an amateur, but so is the man in charge. He should want to keep those low options open.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
There are many interesting events this week to shake us out of our tryptophan-induced post-holiday slumber.
1. The Pathway to Peace in the Middle East Begins with President Obama, Monday November 26, 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Marwan Muasher, Aaron David Miller, William Quandt, Daniel C. Kurtzer
What used to be the measuring stick for a president’s foreign policy legacy – bringing Palestinians and Israeli leaders together to negotiate a lasting peace – has in recent years been largely ignored, overshadowed by the imposing threat of a nuclear Iran and for the first time rarely garnering a mention on the presidential campaign trail.
The outbreak of renewed violence in recent days underscores the pressing need to urgently refocus on reaching a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. In his second term, President Obama should actively reengage in efforts to broker peace in the Middle East through a two-state solution that allows Israelis and Palestinians to live side by side in peace and security.
It is clear that leaders in the region will not take the initiative to restart a serious peace process. President Obama should therefore focus the resources available to him to actively reengage in efforts to broker peace in the Middle East through a two-state solution that allows Israelis and Palestinians to live side by side in peace and security.
Join the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace for a discussion with former U.S. ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer, former Jordanian deputy prime minister and foreign minister Marwan Muasher, former National Security Council official William Quandt, and former U.S. peace negotiator Aaron David Miller.
The forum will take a close look at Pathways to Peace: America and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, a collection of policy essays edited by Ambassador Kurtzer that brings together the world’s leading practitioners and scholars to counter the status quo and make a serious effort to advance Palestinian-Israeli peace. The book argues that a pathway to peace is within reach and that sustained American leadership is what is needed to help “regional leaders bridge their differences.”
Register for this event here.
2. Ambassador Dennis Ross and U.S. Policy in the Middle East in the Next Administration, Monday November 26, 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM, American University School of International Service
Venue: American University School of International Service, intersection of Nebraska Avenue NW and New Mexico Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20016, The Abramson Family Founders Room
Speakers: Dennis Ross, James Goldgeier
Join us for the fall semester Dean’s discussion with guest, Ambassador Dennis Ross. Dean Goldgeier and Ambassador Ross discuss U.S. Policy in the Middle East in the next U.S. administration. Ambassador Dennis Ross is the Ziegler Distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Ross served as a counselor from 2001-2009 and rejoined the Institute in December 2011 after serving two years as special assistant to President Obama as well as National Security Council senior director for the Central Region, and a year as special advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, focusing on Iran. For more than twelve years, Ambassador Ross played a leading role in shaping U.S. involvement in the Middle East peace process and dealing directly with the parties in negotiations. Ambassador Ross serves on the SIS Dean’s Council.
Register for this event here.
3. The Price of Greatness: the Next Four Years of U.S. Foreign Policy, Tuesday November 27, 8:00 AM – 3:45 PM, Newseum
Venue: Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Avennue NW, Washington, DC 20001, use the Freedom Forum entrance on 6th Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and C Street
Speakers: Jamie M. Fly, Jon Kyl, William Kristol, Kim Beazley, Jose L. Cuisia Jr., Nirupama Rao, J. Randy Forbes, Bernard-Henri Levi, John McCain, Robert Kagan, Joe Lieberman, Kelly Ayotte, Shin Dong-Hyuk, Christian Caryl, Adam Kinzinger, Tom Cotton, Dan Senor
In the next four years, the United States will face a wide array of international challenges. Iran continues to progress toward a nuclear weapons capability, China is expanding its military and economic power, and uncertainty over the outcome of the Arab Spring persists. These challenges will require substantial American leadership and a willingness to confront the looming budgetary crisis that underpins our involvement in the world.
Full schedule for this event here.
Register for this event here.
4. Center for Peacemaking Practice Lunch: the Ethics of Practice, Tuesday November 27, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM, George Mason University
Venue: George Mason University, Arlington Campus, 3301 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 2201, Truland Building, Room 555
Speaker: Lisa Shaw
Do you learn from your own engagement in conflict? Are you interested in sharing you practical experience with others, or learning more about practical engagement in conflict? Come and join the Center for Peacemaking Practice for our bi-weekly Practitioner Lunches. Lunches are open to anyone interested in attending, regardless of experience!
RSVP for this event to cppgmu@gmu.edu.
5. Less is Better: Nuclear Restraint at Low Numbers, Tuesday November 27, 3:30 PM – 6:00 PM, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: James M. Acton, Malcolm Chalmers, Joan Rohlfing
Current prospects for likely future nuclear reductions remain limited to the long-standing bilateral U.S.-Russia framework. However, consideration must be given to multilateral nuclear restraint as well as the arsenals of the United States and Russia. In his recent paper Less Is Better: Nuclear Restraint at Low Numbers, funded by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, Malcolm Chalmers explores the steps that other nuclear-armed states would need to take to enable progress to low numbers. Are binding numerical limits required soon or should they be a more distant long-term goal? What steps are feasible in the short term? What can be done to build trust among key actors?
Please join the Carnegie Nuclear Policy Program and the Nuclear Threat Initiative for a discussion of the paper’s key findings with a reception to follow. Joan Rohlfing will deliver opening remarks. James Acton will moderate.
Register for this event here. (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/forms/?fa=registration&event=3866)
6. Civilians and Modern War: Armed Conflict and the Ideology of Violence, Tuesday November 27, 7:15 PM – 9:15 PM, George Mason University
Venue: George Mason University, Arlington Campus, 3301 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 2201, Truland Building, Room 555
Speakers: Daniel Rothbart, Karina Korostelina, Mohammed Cherkaoui
Join Us for Food – and a Lively Discussion! This book explores the issue of civilian devastation in modern warfare, focusing on the complex processes that effectively establish civilians’ identity in times of war.
Civilians and Modern War provides a critical overview of the plight of civilians in war, examining the political and normative underpinnings of the decisions, actions, policies, and practices of major sectors of war. In sixteen chapters the contributors seek to undermine the ‘tunnelling effect’ of the militaristic framework regarding the experiences of noncombatants.
Underpinning the physicality of war’s tumult are structural forces that create landscapes of civilian vulnerability. Such forces operate in four sectors of modern warfare: nationalistic ideology, state-sponsored militaries, global media, and international institutions. Each sector promotes its own constructions of civilian identity in relation to militant combatants: constructions that prove lethal to the civilian noncombatant who lacks political power and decision-making capacity with regards to their own survival.
RSVP for this event to carevent@gmu.edu.
7. WJP Rule of Law Index 2012 Special Presentation, Wednesday November 28, 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM, Newseum
Venue: Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Avennue NW, Washington, DC 20001, Knight Studio, 3rd Floor, use the Freedom Forum entrance on 6th Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and C Street
On Wednesday, November 28, the WJP Rule of Law Index 2012 report covering 97 countries and jurisdictions, representing over 90 percent of the world’s population, will be released at an event in Washington, D.C.
The WJP Rule of Law Index® is an assessment tool that offers a comprehensive picture of adherence to the rule of law. The 2012 report is the third in an annual series and includes, for the first time, a total of 97 countries and jurisdictions.
The Index and its findings have been referenced in major global media, including The Economist, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and El País; stimulated discussions and actions on the rule of law in countries around the world; and been cited by heads of state and chief justices, as supporting evidence of the need to advance rule of law reforms in their countries.
The report is a product of five years of intensive development, testing, and vetting – including interviewing 97,000 members of the general public and more than 2,500 experts in the following 97 countries.
RSVP for this event to ruleoflawindex@wjpnet.org.
8. Homeland Security: a Look Back and Ahead, Wednesday November 28, 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM, George Washington University
Venue: The George Washington University, 805 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Jack Morton Auditorium
Speakers: Joseph Lieberman, Steven Knapp, Frank Cilluffo, Rick “Ozzie” Nelson
Please join HSPI and CSIS for a discussion featuring Senator Joseph Lieberman, Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. During his distinguished Senate career, Senator Lieberman has been at the forefront of a range of national and homeland security issues and challenges. He championed legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security, and has played a leadership role on counterterrorism policy and efforts to increase U.S. investment in defense and transform our armed forces to better meet the threats of the 21st century. Senator Lieberman will look back and ahead, addressing key past events as well as homeland security challenges for the future.
Register for this event here.
9. Department of Homeland Security at 10: Past, Present, and Future, Wednesday November 28, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM, Open Society Foundations
Venue: Open Society Foundations, 1730 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006S,
Speakers: Stephen Vladeck, Michael German, Seth Grossman, Jamil Jaffer, Wendy Patten
On November 25, 2002, then President George W. Bush signed the Homeland Security Act, which established the Department of Homeland Security and called for the largest federal government reorganization since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. On Wednesday, November 28, join the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the Open Society Foundations for a panel discussion covering a decade of DHS accomplishments, successes, failures, and controversies, as well as suggested national security policies looking forward. A light lunch will be served at 11:45.
Register for this event here.
10. The Future of U.S.-Egyptian Relations: Engagement without Illusions, Wednesday November 28, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Venue: The Washington Institute, 1828 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 1050, Stern Library and Conference Room
Speakers: Vin Weber, Gregory Craig
As the Gaza conflict underscores, today’s Egypt — with its first-ever civilian president, Islamist leader Muhammad Morsi — is a very different country from the one with which successive U.S. administrations built a strategic partnership for more than thirty years. Fundamental change in Egypt mandates an equally fundamental reassessment of the bilateral relationship. In a report by the bipartisan Task Force on the Future of U.S.-Egypt Relations, two veteran foreign policy practitioners examine the profound yet uncertain change in Cairo since the heady days of Tahrir Square and offer specific recommendations to the Obama administration on how to secure U.S. interests with the “new Egypt.” To discuss these issues, The Washington Institute cordially invites you to a Policy Forum luncheon with Vin Weber and Gregory B. Craig.
Register for this event here.
11. Fortress Israel, Wednesday November 28, 12:15 PM – 1:45 PM, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 400
Speakers: Patrick Tyler, Peter Bergen
As footage of rocket attacks in Israel and Gaza once again fill television screens around world, we are reminded of how flammable the Israeli/Palestinian issue remains today. Former New York Times Chief Correspondent Patrick Tyler argues in his new book, Fortress Israel, that the pervasive influence of Israel’s military establishment has overwhelmed every competing institution, especially those devoted to diplomacy and negotiation. As a result, political leaders find themselves with few diplomatic options in the long term struggle with the Arabs. Tyler laments that the handful of Israeli leaders who have set peace as a strategic objective have failed or, as in the case of Yitzhak Rabin, were killed by extremists.
On November 28, the New America Foundation will host Tyler for a conversation about Fortress Israel, and the Israeli military officials who have created and sustained their nation’s highly martial culture.
Register for this event here.
12. The Future of the Pakistan-U.S. Relationship Between Now and 2014, Wednesday November 28, 2:30 PM – 4:00 PM, USIP
Venue: USIP, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037
Speakers: Sajit Ghandi, Simbal Khan, Michael Phelan, Moeed Yusuf
As we approach the 2014 transition in Afghanistan, the role of regional neighbors in contributing to and/or undermining transition processes becomes more important than ever before. Pakistan’s outlook regarding the “end game” in Afghanistan, and the dynamics of the Pakistan-U.S. relationship, remain crucial in this regard. The steadily deteriorating Pakistan-U.S. relationship during the past two years has been very detrimental to the collaboration needed for both sides to come up with a more convergent vision for the “end game” in Afghanistan. The state of the Pakistan-U.S. relationship over the next two years will be a critical factor in determining Pakistan’s role in the 2014 transition in Afghanistan. Both sides must improve ties despite a deep lack of trust and the negative political and public opinion they face in each other’s capitals.
Please join USIP for a panel discussion on the near to medium term future of the Pakistan-U.S. relationship. Panelists will examine whether the U.S. outlook towards Pakistan is likely to change in President Obama’s second term and if so, how? What will be the pros and cons of the likely policy shift? What are the expectations from both sides going forward?
Register for this event here.
13. Book Talk: the Soldier and the Changing State, Wednesday November 28, 2:30 PM – 5:00 PM, National Defense University
Venue: National Defense University, 300 5th Avenue SW, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, DC 20319, Lincoln Hall, Room 1119
Speakers: Zoltan Barany, Dennis Blair, Samuel Worthington
Discussion of book The Soldier and the Changing State: Building Democratic Armies in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas by Professor Zoltan Barany, University of Texas, Austin. Hosted by the Center for Complex Operations at the National Defense University
RSVP for this event to mark.ducasse.ctr@ndu.edu.
14. The Changing Strategic Environment in the Middle East, Wednesday November 28, 6:00 PM, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service
Venue: Georgetown University, 37th and O Street NW, Washington, DC 20007, Healy Hall
Speaker: Dan Schueftan
Dr. Dan Schueftan is the Director of the National Security Studies Center at the University of Haifa, a Senior Lecturer at the School of Political Sciences there and at the Israel Defense Forces National Defense College. He is the Aaron and Cecile Goldman Visiting Professor in the Department of Government during the 2012-2013 academic year.
Register for this event here.
15. Gender and Genocide: Masculinity, Femininity & the Potentials of GBV as an Early Warning Indicator of Genocide, Wednesday November 28, 6:30 PM – 9:00 PM, George Mason University
Venue: George Mason University, Arlington Campus, 3301 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 2201, Truland Building, Room 555
Speakers: Elizabeth Mount, Kate O’Hare, Andrea Bartoli, Leslie Dwyer, Tetsushi Ogata
This conversation plans to go beyond discussions of sexual violence, exploring gender as a central element which foments and justifies genocide. Furthermore, gender neutral frameworks fail to identify distinguishing types of violence characteristic of early stages of genocide. Conceptualizing gender as a central defining component of genocide offers told useful for developing an early warning system.
Register for this event here.
16. Israel’s Right to Defend Itself: Implications for Regional Security and U.S. Interests, Thursday November 29, 7:30 AM, Rayburn House Office Building
Venue: The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 2170 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Speaker: Elliott Abrams
17. Dissertation Defense: Displacement of the Kashmiri Pandits: Dynamics of Policies and Perspectives of Policymakers, Thursday November 29, 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM, George Mason University
Venue: George Mason University, Arlington Campus, 3301 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 2201, Truland Building, Room 555
Speakers: Sudha Rajput, Karina Korostelina, Kevin Avruch, Carlos Sluzki
The magnitude of the social phenomenon of the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) is a daunting humanitarian challenge with twenty-five million people currently in displacement. Based on the premise that the displacement of over 250,000 Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir Valley, beginning in 1989, had ruptured the very fabric of this community, this study investigates the impact of positions and perspectives of the policyholders, the host community and the IDPs and scrutinizes the resulting three-way dynamic. Through semi-structured field-based interviews with high level officials, the business leaders of the host communities and the IDPs living in a myriad of camps, this study unfolds the many political, social, cultural and psychological dimensions of this displacement.
The findings reveal that the policymaking process is a direct function of the perception of the policymakers about the IDPs and their mindset about the reasons for their displacement. In addition, the official positions and labels preclude long-term solutions for those internally displaced and spillover into the IDP/Host dynamic. The ambiguous narratives meant to favor the elite, have the potential to empower the IDPs, which negates the policy impact. Armed with an understanding of the key variables that shape the policymaking process and the IDP/Host dynamic, the findings are key to policy formulation and societal reforms. The study identifies specific roles for the international community as well as the national governments in addressing and in the handling of internal displacement and empowers the Conflict Resolution practitioners with tools to perform an accurate diagnostics of the displaced communities worldwide.
18. The Battle for Syria, Friday November 30, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Rome Building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Rome Auditorium
Speaker: Radwan Ziadeh
Radwan Ziadeh, executive director of the Washington-based Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies, will discuss this topic and provide insights on the recent events in Syria.
RSVP for this event to menaclub.sais@gmail.com.
19. Nuclear Policy Talks: Etel Solingen on Sanctions, Statecraft, and Nonproliferation, Friday November 30, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Lindner Family Commons, Room 602
Speaker: Etel Solingen
Etel Solingen, Chancellor’s Professor of Political Science, UC Irvine. Dr. Solingen will speak on her new book, Sanctions, Statecraft, and Nonproliferation.
Register for this event here.
20. Inside Syria, Friday November 30, 12:15 PM – 1:45 PM, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 400
Speakers: Janine di Giovanni, Peter Bergen
By some estimates, the violent conflict wracking Syria has taken almost 40,000 lives since it began in March 2011. The world has been able to experience a portion of the horror alongside Syrian civilians through the footage and images of the fighting that have poured out of the country, though few Western journalists have been able to cover the war first-hand.
Please join the New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program for a discussion with award-winning war reporter Janine Di Giovanni about her experiences inside Syria. Di Giovanni, whose on-the-ground reporting on the war was recently featured in The New York Times, Granta and Newsweek, is a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, has won five major journalistic awards, was one of the only reporters to witness the fall of Grozny, Chechnya, and has written five books, the last of which recently won Memoir of the Year in Britain. She currently lives in Paris and served as the President of the Jury of the Prix Bayeux for War Reporters in 2010.
Register for this event here.
RSS - Posts
