Tag: Vietnam
Premature withdrawal is not good foreign policy
President Trump is spending these first days of his “lame duck” presidency sulking out of public sight and playing golf. He fired the Defense Secretary on Twitter and has installed yes-men throughout the upper echelon of the Defense Department. His minions there are plotting a rash of US troops withdrawals from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia, and perhaps from South Korea and more from Germany.
I’d be more than happy to see US troops come home, not least because I’ve got a beloved daughter-in-law slated for deployment, I know not where. She is a lieutenant colonel physician in the US Army and has already done three tours in Afghanistan in recent years as well as one in South Korea. It would be more than nice if she could stay home rather than leave a toddler behind in the care of her admittedly very capable husband.
But we know from bitter experience the trouble premature withdrawal of US troops can cause. We don’t have to harken back to Vietnam, graphic though the evacuation was. The Soviet-sponsored regime in Afghanistan lasted a few years after Moscow’s withdrawal, but the civil war and Taliban rule that followed weren’t good news for either the US or the Soviet Union, never mind the death and destruction they wrought in Afghanistan. President Obama’s premature withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 opened the door to sectarianism and the rise of the Islamic State.
There is little reason to believe the government in Kabul will survive if the preconditions for US withdrawal specified in Washington’s agreement with the Taliban are not met. The government in Mogadishu is even weaker than the one in Kabul. Baghdad’s government would be more likely to survive, but in a pro-Iranian form that won’t be to Washington’s liking.
The sad fact is that withdrawal requires at least as much diplomacy as military intervention. Zal Khalilzad has been doing the right thing by negotiating the US exit from Afghanistan with the Taliban and insisting also that the Taliban reach an agreement with Kabul. But that negotiation can’t be successful if President Trump pulls the carpet out from under it. There is no reason to believe that any withdrawal decided because it is time for the President to leave office will be done at the right time. Withdrawal, like intervention, should be decided based on conditions in the country concerned, not only in the US.
President-elect Biden should of course be informed if not consulted on any decisions for withdrawal, or military action, during this lame duck period. That won’t happen so long as Trump is disputing the election result. Even thereafter he may avoid Biden, but at least the Pentagon and State Department people should be allowed to talk with Biden’s transition teams. Some of Trump’s mistakes will be correctable. He is unlikely to get the troops out of Germany in an irreversible fashion. But once the troops are out of Iraq, it will be hard to get them back in.
You don’t have to think the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, or Somalia, were good ideas to appreciate that ending them abruptly on a timetable determined by American politics is a bad idea. Each will require careful diplomatic preparation to ensure that US interests are preserved as much as can be reasonably expected. Premature withdrawal just isn’t good any better for foreign policy than it is for birth control.
PS: For more on the mendacity of the troop withdrawal announcement, list to this from NPR:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 20
– NYT has the tick tock on how Pelosi and Lighthizer got to Yes on the USMCA trade deal with labor support.
– WaPo shows sequence of Trump’s belief in Ukraine interference in 2016. Former Trump officials link it to Putin’s influence.
– There’s still hope: the special House committee on modernization urges specific reforms. There’s their release.
BTW: both Houses have adjourned until January.
– India cracks down with detentions and internet suspension.
– A Tufts prof says cybersecurity experts are being driven out of government.
– One of the most significant unreported [other than FT] stories is this: China is set to open enough new coal-fired plants to equal Europe’s current capacity.
PS: SecState Pompeo has lunch scheduled today with Trump. Will he finally announce his plan to return to Kansas and run for Senate?
And a supplement:
I found several more items worthy of your weekend time.
– Ward Just has died. He was an outstanding WaPo reporter from Vietnam until being wounded. He then turned to fiction, and wrote some of the most realistic Washington novels I’ve ever read. [Only Thomas Mallon comes close.] His political characters are true and complex.
– The Vietnam draft lottery spawned decades of valuable scientific research because it produced truly random samples for later study. Some of the vet/nonvet results are deeply troubling. [FYI, I lucked out: my birthday was 312 in the lottery.]
-CFR has its latest report on what to worry about in 2020. [We’ll read this in the spring course.]
– Reuters says Saudi oil fields attack came from the north, thus likely Iran.
– Atlantic Council has a good new report urging “managed competition” with China, with justifiable heavy emphasis on economic issues like R&D and trade.
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:
Walking back
President Trump and his minions are walking back a lot of things:
- No, the Trump Doral resort will not host the G7;
- No, Trump did not greenlight the Turkish invasion of Syria and attack on the Syrian Kurds;
- No, the President’s chief of staff did not confirm that the President wanted an investigation into Joe Biden and his son in exchange for Congressionally mandated military aid to Ukraine.
None of these corrections comes even close to erasing the original mistakes. If it is wrong for Trump to host the G7 at one of his resorts, it is also wrong for foreign governments and US agencies to be padding his income at the Trump hotel in DC and a resort in Scotland. He definitely did yank the US troops who were preventing a Turkish invasion of Syria, without apparently thinking about the consequences, which are catastrophic for both the Kurds and Arabs who did the bulk of the fighting against the Islamic State in Syria. Chief of staff Mulvaney’s denials don’t pass the laugh test, or Chris Wallace’s grilling.
Trump is reaching his limits. Public opinion among Democrats and independents is turning against him on the impeachment inquiry. John Kasich may not be a typical Republican today, but he is an intelligent one calling for impeachment. At least a few Senators may not be far behind. The damage to America’s standing in the world, and to their hopes for re-election, is becoming all too evident. Still, most rank and file Republicans are backing Trump. If that starts to change, the Senate dam will break.
Ron Chernow, who knows more American history than anyone else alive, has the most interesting and compelling take on impeachment today: it was designed, he says, precisely for someone like Trump. I confess to me it seems almost too good for someone of his ilk, but Chernow helpfully notes that prosecution can come once he is out of office. I do hope to live long enough to see that happen.
Meanwhile, American interests worldwide are suffering mightily. Everyone who depends on the US has to see the instant betrayal of the Kurds as a warning. No American friend or ally should be neglecting to hedge by seeking support elsewhere. America’s adversaries are enjoying the spectacle, which has handed Russia and Iran a leg up in Syria and enabled both of them to gain invaluable intelligence on US military operations both from the abandoned bases and from erstwhile US allies.
Trump’s move has also signaled, once again, that he is a pushover who yields easily to adversaries. Turkish President Erdogan rolled him, the Iranians have apparently gotten away with a serious attack on Saudi oil production facilities, Russia is enjoying impunity for its invasion of Ukraine, and the North Koreans have given Trump an ultimatum if he wants them to make even small moves to limit their nuclear program. Make America Great Again is not only isolating the United States but diminishing it. Even at the end of the Vietnam war, which was unquestionably a low point for US influence in the world, American influence was greater than it is today.
The spectacle of the United States walking backwards is demoralizing, not only to Americans but also to much of the rest of the world. Let’s hope we get Trump out of office within the next year or so. If he gets re-elected, the damage will be irreversible.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, February 12-18
- Geostrategic Flashpoint: The Eastern Mediterranean | Monday, February 12 | 9:00am – 10:00am | CSIS | Register here |
The Eastern Mediterranean forms a geostrategic seam between Europe and the Middle East, and for over seventy years, the region represented a strategic anchor for the United States. Today, Washington and its allies are struggling to adapt a coherent Eastern Mediterranean regional policy that acknowledges dramatically new economic, political, and security realities. As Syria enters its seventh year of conflict, Russia and Iran deepen their military footprints in the region, and NATO ally Turkey radically alters its domestic and external policies, the strategic importance of the region to the United States is growing while U.S. influence there appears to be waning. To assess regional security challenges and discuss NATO and U.S. Navy operational approaches to the Eastern Mediterranean, we are pleased to host Admiral James G. Foggo, III (commander, Allied Joint Force Command Naples; commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe; commander, U.S. Naval Forces Africa) for a timely conversation. Jon Alterman (CSIS) and Heather Conley (CSIS) will offer reflections and observations on a recently concluded CSIS research project on the Eastern Mediterranean.
_____________________________________________________
- Iran’s Political Future | Monday, February 12 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
The Atlantic Council’s Future of Iran Initiative invites you to a panel discussion on “Iran’s Political Future,” in the aftermath of recent protests. The demonstrations, which took place in more than 100 Iranian cities and towns in late December-early January, focused on poor economic conditions, Iran’s interventions abroad, and domestic political constraints. Analysts are divided over whether the Iranian system can profit from the protests to enact meaningful reforms or whether the system is too repressive and brittle to change through relatively peaceful evolution. Please join Nazila Fathi (Iranian journalist and author), Suzanne Maloney (Deputy Director, Foreign Policy Program, Brookings Institution), and Alireza Nader (former Senior International Policy Analyst, RAND Corporation). Barbara Slavin (Director, Future of Iran Initiative, Atlantic Council) will moderate.
______________________________________________________
- Conflict Prevention and Resolution Forum: The New Landscape of CVE in Southeast Asia | Tuesday, February 13 | 9:30am – 11:00am | Johns Hopkins University SAIS | Register here |
The dynamics of international violent extremism are rapidly changing. Groups like ISIS are losing physical territory, and their ambition post-caliphate is uncertain. Former fighters are returning to their home countries, creating new security risks and raising important questions about how to effectively rehabilitate and reintegrate foreign fighters. Southeast Asian countries from Indonesia to the Philippines have experience preventing and countering violent extremism, but as the global dynamics change, what can be learned from long-standing efforts to prevent violent extremism in Southeast Asia? How is the landscape changing? What are the key risks emerging? Join a panel of experts to discuss the needs and opportunities for countering violent extremism in Southeast Asia. Featuring Sinisa Vukovic (Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins University SAIS) and Luke Waggoner (Senior Governance Specialist, International Republican Institute). Kimberly Brody Hart (Senior Manager, Search for Common Ground) will moderate the discussion.
______________________________________________________
- Managing Fragility for Peace, Security, and Sustainable Development | Tuesday, February 13 | 1:00pm – 2:30pm | CSIS | Register here |
Countries experiencing significant fragility, while amounting to about 20 percent of the world’s population, are projected to be home to 80 percent of the world’s extremely poor by 2035. Societies affected by poor governance, limited institutional capability, low social cohesion, and weak legitimacy tend to exhibit erosion of the social contract, diminished societal resilience, and low levels of economic and human development. Spillover effects of fragility include increased risks of armed conflicts, forced migration, spread of diseases, organized crime, and terrorism. Ambassador Michel’s report places these challenges to security and development posed by fragility in the context of centuries-long trends toward declining violence and increased prosperity and freedom. Featuring Joseph Hewitt (Vice President for Policy, Learning and Strategy, USIP), Laurel Patterson (Senior Policy Advisor, Crisis, Fragility, and Resilience, UNDP), Romina Bandura (CSIS), and James Michel (CSIS).
______________________________________________________
- Colombia Peace Forum: Colombian Human Rights Defenders Navigate Post-Accord Challenges | Wednesday, February 14 | 10:00am – 12:00pm | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register here |
The government’s peace accord with the former FARC rebels presents a historic opportunity to work towards the construction of a democratic Colombia. At the heart of this process are human rights defenders and civil society organizations, who play a vital role in addressing the underlying economic and social root causes of violence and holding stakeholders accountable to the commitments of the accords. Join the U.S. Institute of Peace, Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), and the Latin America Working Group Education Fund (LAWGEF) to hear from the leading Colombian human rights activists. They will discuss the challenges they face in their communities and the role they play in engaging regional institutions, local authorities and diverse social sectors to secure lasting peace in Colombia. Speakers include Carla Koppell (Vice President, Center for Applied Conflict Transformation, U.S. Institute of Peace), Enrique Chimonja (Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz), and Socorro Acero Bautista (Comité Permanente por la defensa de los Derechos Humanos en Colombia, CPDH), among others.
______________________________________________________
- U.S. National Security and the Korean Peninsula: Perspectives from a Defector, a Russian, and an Analyst | Wednesday, February 14 | 1:00pm – 3:30pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
Join us for a discussion on U.S. national security and the Korean peninsula from the perspectives of a former senior ranking official of the Kim Jong-un regime, a professor of St Petersburg University, and a renowned author on issues related to North Korea at a conference hosted jointly with the Institute for Corean-American Studies (ICAS). Featuring Jong Ho Ri (Former head, Korea Daehung Trading Corp., North Korea), Sergei Kurbanov (Professor, St Petersburg State University), Tara O (Adjunct Fellow, Pacific Forum, CSIS), Abraham Denmark (Director, Asia Program, Wilson Center), Synja P Kim (President and Chairman, ICAS). Sang Joo Kim (Executive Vice President, ICAS) will moderate the discussion.
______________________________________________________
- American Peacemaking Experience in the Balkans: Lessons for Ukraine | Thursday, February 15 | 10:00am – 12:00pm | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register here |
The United States played a leading role in ending wars that gripped the Balkans more than 20 years ago. Amid growing interest in the possibility of a peacekeeping mission in eastern Ukraine, a fresh look at American efforts in the former Yugoslavia is timely: What can be learned from the U.S. diplomatic experience in the Balkans that might be applied in the Ukrainian conflict? Ambassador James Pardew, former member of Richard Holbrooke’s negotiating team on the Balkans, will discuss insights captured in his new book, Peacemakers: American Leadership and the End of Genocide in the Balkans. Panelists include Michael Haltzel (Foreign Policy Institute Senior Fellow, John Hopkins SAIS), John Herbst (Director, Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council), and Boris Ruge (Deputy Head of Mission, German Embassy to the U.S), among others.
______________________________________________________
- Vietnam’s Relations with China and the U.S.: A Delicate Internal and External Balancing Act | Thursday, February 15 | 9:30am – 11:00am | Stimson Center | Register here |
In recent years, Vietnam’s foreign alignment strategy has raised broad attention from the region. Vietnam has a long and complicated history with China. Particularly in light of the 1979 Sino-Vietnam war and the existing maritime disputes, there exists profound distrust. In contrast, against the history of the Vietnam War, US’ relations with Vietnam has made steady progress in the past decade. Secretary of Defense Mattis just completed his trip to Vietnam in late January 2018, opening channels for more conversations and defense ties that are widely interpreted to assist Vietnam to counter China’s growing strength and ambition in the region. Although the alignment choice for Hanoi appears clear, the picture is significantly complicated by Vietnam’s domestic politics. The power struggles among different political factions within the party play an innate role in determining and influencing the country’s foreign policy. The Stimson Center is pleased to host the top Vietnam specialists from China and the U.S., Dr. Pan Jin’e (China Academy of Social Sciences) and Murray Hiebert (Deputy Director of the Southeast Asia Program, CSIS) to discuss the current state of Vietnam’s relations with the two great powers, the triangular relationship and the factors influencing their future.
______________________________________________________
- The Best Way Forward in Afghanistan | Friday, February 16 | 12:00pm– 1:30pm | Middle East Institute | Register here |
The war in Afghanistan, the longest in U.S. history, shows little sign of winding down. Despite hundreds of billions of dollars in military aid and state support, Afghanistan still struggles with resilient Taliban and Islamic State insurgencies. Increasingly, questions are being asked as to why the United States maintains a presence in Afghanistan. How is a U.S. presence serving American security interests? The Trump administration has pledged an indefinite commitment to victory in Afghanistan, but what does success look like and what would have to change to achieve it? Does the U.S. have a clear and coherent strategy going forward and what, if any, are the alternatives? The Middle East Institute is pleased to host an expert panel to discuss these and other questions about the US mission in Afghanistan. MEI’s Director of Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies, Marvin G. Weinbaum, will moderate the discussion with Vanda Felbab-Brown (senior fellow, Brookings), Christopher Kolenda, (adjunct senior fellow, Center for a New American Security), Ahmad Khalid Majidyar (fellow and director of the IranObserved Project, MEI) and Amb. (ret.) Ronald Neumann (President, American Academy of Diplomacy; former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
All in or all out
President Trump, my regular readers will be surprised to hear me say, has been asking the right questions about Afghanistan: why have we been there so long? Why aren’t we winning? These are perfectly reasonable questions. We’ve been at war there for almost 17 years. More than 2400 US service people have been killed and more than 20,000 wounded. When does it end? How?
Unfortunately, Trump seems to be asking these reasonable questions for the wrong reasons: he wants to win and he wants to deliver on a campaign promise to bring American troops home. What matters to Trump is always Trump. But his predecessor wasn’t any better when it came to Afghanistan: he tried to minimize the American commitment but also avoid losing and wanted to bring the boys and girls home as soon as possible, in order to fulfill a campaign promise.
The problem is that those goals are incompatible. There is no reason to believe that the Taliban won’t win–taking over large parts of the country if not all of it–if the US and its coalition allies depart. If the Taliban wins, Al Qaeda and the Islamic State will return.
In order to avoid this outcome, we and some of the coalition will need to stay, perhaps indefinitely. Promising anything else is delusional. The Taliban already control large parts of Afghanistan, according to the New York Times (the darker ochre areas are Taliban control and the lighter areas Taliban support; the red are Islamic State support and control):
It would be silly to think they won’t be able to take more, possibly even Kabul, if the US departs.
Trump is nevertheless likely to land where Obama did: a commitment for several years, followed by promised withdrawal. This kind of compromise outcome does nothing but waste American lives and resources. It is frequently the product of a stalemated White House process: the President is offered Option A to stay indefinitely and Option C to withdraw quickly. He chooses Option B of course: stay for now but draw down later.
There is little justification for Option B. It is better because it is not A or C. But A and C are the real choices. It should be all in or all out, with clarity about the consequences. If we stay, we stay indefinitely, with adequate resources to provide serious support to the Afghan Security Forces, until such time as they don’t need them. If we go, we go completely, recognizing that the extremists will be back and we will likely have to hit them repeatedly, with or without Afghan approval.
This is not a pretty picture. It echoes Vietnam, where President Nixon chose Option B and hung on in support of the South only to have Congress eventually get weary and pull the plug. The short-term results were disastrous: the North took over, killed and “re-educated” a lot of people, invaded Cambodia, and went to war with China. About 2 million people fled, hundreds of thousands are believed to have died. But the long-term results were less catastrophic, from an American geopolitical perspective: a reunified Vietnam remains a Communist autocracy but has become friendly with the US and no longer a threat to its neighbors.
There is an Option D: privatize the war and let mercenaries run it. I give that one a gold star for originality, but all you need to know is that Steve Bannon is pushing it. It’s a bad idea whose time has come only in the minds of those with no memory of, or concern about, what some of those mercenaries did in Iraq, when they were only doing guard duty.
So which option would I choose? I might stay indefinitely (Option A), even putting in some more forces right now to prevent further Taliban inroads, but I would understand those who want to leave completely. My own preference is affected, I admit, by knowing worthy Afghans, who will be either dead or refugees if the US decides to leave. Trump doesn’t likely know so many, or care much about the impact on non-Americans. American First means Afghans last, but I am still betting he chooses Option B: a temporary increase in US forces with a promise to draw down soon. Someone should outlaw Option B.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
50 years on, who will be a hero?
I was in a chili joint on the south side of Chicago that night in the winter of 1967/8 when he walked in, bigger than I could ever have imagined: Muhammad Ali. He by then had won a gold medal at the Rome Olympics as well as the heavyweight championship, refused to be drafted, and was soon to be arrested and deprived of his title. No one should forget: America scorned him as draft dodger and a black Muslim with a loud mouth. Even today, his sharp tongue and mind will cause some to cringe.
But Ali has nevertheless become an icon, venerated far more than scorned. No doubt death will make that even more the case. There is no longer a risk he might say something that will offend.
Many have forgotten how they felt 50 years ago. It is now difficult to find the remnants of the “silent majority” that supported the Vietnam war, opposed integration and regarded the Nation of Islam as a serious threat to white people. Some of course have passed on. Some have simply gone to ground and will emerge to vote for Trump.
Others have changed their minds. America is not what it was when Muhammad Ali emerged on the scene. It is far less white, far more Hispanic and far more used to loud-mouth athletes, and politicians, of all races. Few Americans think Vietnam was worth fighting for and losing upwards of 58,000 of our citizens, more than eight times the number killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since the turn of the century. Most Americans today understand that Vietnam and the second Iraq war were mistakes that cost the country far more than any conceivable benefits.
Most Americans have also come around to the view that discrimination, segregation and racism are bad. That was not at all the prevailing view when Cassius Clay changed his slave name to Muhammad Ali. The white supremacist George Wallace was then governor of Alabama spouting, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” In fact, racial segregation has persisted in schools and housing, but few would now defend it. Muhammad Ali’s extraordinary boxing career was compelling evidence of racial equality, though why more proof was necessary more than a generation after Jesse Owens’ performance at the 1936 Olympics is a mystery to me.
So some combination of forgetfulness and changing attitudes has made the scorned character who walked into a south side chili joint 50 years ago a great American hero. I give credit for that, but we shouldn’t forget that it wasn’t always thus. Muhammad Ali is the greatest today because America has forgotten more than it remembers and because so many of us have dropped beliefs that were once dominant. Fifty years from now, which of our now scorned citizens will emerge as great Americans?
PS: THIS VIDEO OF MUHAMMAD ALI SURPRISING KIDS AT SCHOOL WILL MAKE YOUR DAY! https://t.co/JAJSKEfRrs
— Mike Sanz (@mikesanz19) June 5, 2016
RSS - Posts
