Now that McChrystal Is Out, Can Petraeus Save U.S. in Afghanistan?

General Stanley McChrystal has been one of the most influential U.S. military leaders in Afghanistan. After his successes in the Iraq war (e.g. arresting Sadam Hussain), he was appointed as the head of the American forces in Afghanistan. Initially, he requested additional forces, insisting that a victorious war in Afghanistan requires more troops. Despite major economical pressures, the Obama administration accepted this request. Gradually, he became known as the “master of counterinsurgency (COIN)”. Fundamentally, he strived to reduce the civilian casualties by decreasing the airstrikes. Moreover, he was frequently meeting with tribal elders and President Karzai’s military generals to provide a platform for Afghan military and police to take over. His popularity in Afghanistan raised to the extent that after his recent disappoint interview the the Rolling Stone, President Karzai asked President Obama to maintain General McChrystal in power.
Although there are different arguments measuring the efficacy of his strategies, McChrystal’s resignation due to his interview with the Rolling Stone has been a crucial event. This has persuaded many to ask: if it was essential to fire such an important leader at this point of the war? On the one hand, some argue that at this period President Obama should have had a different reaction towards McChrystal’s interview to prevent any negative effects on the Afghanistan War. However, McChrystal’s resignation appears to be a necessity not only to maintain President Obama’s strong leadership as the commander-in-chief, but also to sustain the unity of the his administration. In the interview, General McChrystal’s aids had undermined many of the high-ranking U.S. administration staff: “The national security adviser of the world’s greatest superpower is a “clown”, its vice-president a nobody and its president “uncomfortable and intimidated”” (The Economist). One can hardly expect these people to sit in front of one another in crucial meetings and plan a unified strategy for the success in Afghanistan. Furthermore, similar to firing General McArthur by President Truman, the resignation of General McChrystal was illustrating the power of politics over military in the United States.
Meanwhile the Taliban leaders are cheering for General McChrystal’s resignation and President Obama is more than any other time under pressure for his Afghanistan policies, General Petraeus has been replacing the old commander. After the resignation of General McChrystal, President Obama emphasized that the strategy in Afghanistan will remain the same. The upcoming operation in Kandahar will be a challenge for the Obama administration and General Petraeus to prove their capability of maintaing the previous strategy. The time is running and the media is labeling Afghanistan as the second Vietnam. Thus “Operation Kandahar” will be one of the last opportunities for the NATO forces to mark the history for themselves.

Image Source: The Economist

Ban and A Unique Opportunity, Can He Use It?

Following the increasing international pressure due to the Israeli forces clash with the activist on the Turkish flotilla carrying aid to Gaza, Israel announced last Thursday that it will ease the land blockade on Gaza. Although it has not yet specified the list of the banned items, the Israeli government promised that it will allow the humanitarian aid, food and the building supplies to enter the territory. The Israeli blockade is aiming to pressure Hamas, the Islamist movement governing Gaza and to increase the Israeli national security by preventing the rockets fired from the territory. However, the Israeli government has been criticized for increasingly pressuring the civilians in Gaza by banning items such as children’s toys, chocolate and coriander.
The Israeli clashes with the flotillas lead to the death of nine of the activists causing the condemnations of many nations and UN Security Council requesting an investigation on the event. Meanwhile a Lebanese ship containing humanitarian aid is preparing to leave for Gaza, Ehud Barak, the Israeli defense minister, held a meeting with Ban Ki Moon in New York, attempting to persuade him on holding the International investigation requested by the Security Council on the recent clashes. Talking after his meeting, Mr. Barak expressed his concern on the news of the Lebanese flotilla’s preparation and argued that “as long as new flotillas are in preparation, it is probably better to leave it [the investigation] on the shelf for a certain time and we are moving ahead with our independent investigation.” Previously many officials, including the Turkish ones, have expressed their distrust in the biased of the Israeli investigation.
It appears that a combination of different events is creating a unique opportunity for Ban Ki Moon to request a better deal for the upcoming banned list by Israel. As the list has not been publically announced yet, Ban can hold the UN international investigation instead of a more humanitarian blockade on Gaza. This can socially reduce the pressure over the Gaza civilians and politically give Israel what he requested. Perhaps, if the list is publically announced sooner rather than later, using backchannel negotiations the UN might be able to stop the Lebanese flotilla. The Israeli officials have expressed their serious concerns on the connection between this flotilla and Hezbollah. These concerns and the recent clashes with the Turkish flotilla illustrate the potential of another major crisis. This can not only be socially devastating, but also it can disrupt the recent negotiations between Israel and Fatah, the Palestinian political party ruling the West Bank. Although this all depends on the details of the new banned list and whether Israel is willing to negotiate upon altering any elements of it.

Morality of War

Responding to the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration initiated a “War on Terror”. A campaign designed by the United States and supported by the other NATO allies to eliminate terrorist organizations threatening the U.S. and global security. Along this path, many civilians have been arrested and accused of “terrorism”. The suspects have been tortured to collect further information about their possible connection to any terrorist organization. This has created major scandals such as the “Abou Ghoraib”, challenging the legitimacy of the treatment of the suspects by the Bush administration. Meanwhile the war on terror has started a new phase after Obama’s victory in the 2008 presidential elections, the last terrorist attack in the Times Square by Faisal Shahzad, confirms the difficulty facing the U.S. government in maintaining its national security in the “War on Terror”.
One of the centers for holding the terrorist suspects, classified by the U.S. as the “enemy combatants”, in captive was Guantanamo Bay. The unique geographical position of this shore enabled the U.S. justice department to argue that the Guantanamo Bay is neither part of the Unites States territory nor Cuban territory. Hence it is outside the U.S. legal jurisdiction zone. Following the arrival of the first detainees to Guantanamo, U.S. Supreme Court recalled that the United States government is responsible for the minimal protection of the prisoners under the common article three of the Geneva Conventions.
Aside from the treatment of the detainees, the method used for arresting them has been a serious question. Only 7% of the terrorist suspects kept in captive in Guantanamo have been arrested by the NATO forces. The remaining 93% have been captured through the denunciations of the Iraqi, Pakistani or Afghan warlords who often received cash awards in response to their cooperation. On the surface, this helped the U.S. government to respond to the public lobbies by providing statistics of the number of imprisoned suspects. In depth the accuracy of these denunciations are concerning.
Dilawar, an Iraqi taxi driver, is an example of a wrong denunciation. Through the information provided by one of their informers, the U.S. army arrested accused and captured him for using rockets against the U.S. forces. Tutored under the hands of inexperienced U.S. soldiers, Dilawar died after few days. The case was not made public, until a New York Times journalist collected sufficient information on Dilawar’s torture and innocence. Afterward it was publicly announced that the denouncer of Dilawar was the person behind the rockets against the U.S. forces.
Supporting his policies, George W. Bush criticized the oppositions of his “War on Terror” campaign, arguing that the men in uniform are doing their job for the U.S. national security. However, arresting suspects through wrong denunciations or gathering inadequate information from the suspects using torture does not provide the right means for the U.S. national security. Nevertheless, along this path many civilians have died and when the cases wear revealed the inexperienced, traumatizes soldiers have been charged. The expectation from the Obama administration is to have a more effective, legal and moral approach to this case. Wars might be cruel, yet they still include morality as a fundamental element.
Image Source: The New York Times

-Little Darling-

Step by step
Walking the distances
To an empty land

Concrete on concrete
Building a tower
On a shaky earth

Blown away!

Poor
You little darling

-Ramtin (June 17,2010)-

Challenges of the Oil Spill

Oil has been spewing into the Gulf of Mexico since a drilling rig leased by British Petroleum exploded on 20 April. It was only earlier this month that BP was able to cap the leaching oil pipe. The pollution created by this event has been causing major economical and environmental affects which, according to the officials, will be staying for decades in the gulf. Environmentally, many species lost their lives and it is expected that in the long term the ecosystem will be highly affected by this pollution. Economically, many careers, such as the fishermen who work in the area, are facing serious economical difficulties as a result of this incident. Politically, it is the responsibility of President Obama’s administration to deal with this issue.
The major challenge for the U.S. government is enforcing BP to pay the economical and environmental costs caused by the oil leak. More significantly, it is an opportunity for Barack Obama to lobby for the usage of the clean energy sources, what he has promised in his campaign. Domestically, clean energies can decrease the U.S. government’s dependency on the oil companies. Internationally, be beneficial for the U.S. National security enabling the U.S. diplomats to have a more extensive strategy. Moreover, modern clean energy resources can be more environmental friendly than fossil fuels. However, the challenge facing the President Obama’s administration is to convince the nation of the necessity for such costly plan at the time of major economical pressure. This will be perhaps an issue which President Obama will tackle today, in his addresses to the nation on the BP oil spill.
Source of the image: The Economist

The Efficacy of the new Sanctions Against Iran

On June 9th, UN Security Council passed resolution 1929 with 12 states voting in favor of the sanctions against the Iranian atomic program. The fourth round of sanctions has a major focus on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) as well as the arms restrictions. Although the new resolution is an accomplishment against the Iranian atomic program, the setting of it has raised doubts regarding its efficacy.
Meanwhile the new sanctions mentions the IRCG and IRISL, it only “calls upon all States to exercise vigilance over those transactions involving the IRGC that could contribute to Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems” (text of the resolution 1929). Thus on the one hand, “it falls short of actually mandating international action against these entities” (Christopher R. Wall, Foreign policy Magazine), unless they were contributing to the Iranian nuclear activity. One the other hand, any further blockade appears to be unreasonable at the moment as it will render it extremely difficult to convince other Security Council members to set aside their economical ties with Iran and blockade every Revolutionary Guard or Iranian Shipping Lines activity. Furthermore, a total blockade can carry the potential of a military conflict in the current chaos of the middle-east.
Moreover, the resolution targets the Iranian financial system by prohibiting Iranian banking activities such as “opening new branches” or “establishing new joint ventures” to prevent financial services if there are “reasonable grounds to believe that these activities could contribute to Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems” (text of the resolution 1929). Thus it does require evidence of the relationship between the financial actions and Iran’s proliferation-sensitive activity for applying the sanctions. However, as the Iranian central bank has been previously accused of supporting the countries proliferation program, it opens new grounds for stronger sanction against the Iranian financial system.
Crucially, the resolutions text sates “that Iran shall not acquire an interest in any commercial activity in another State involving uranium mining, production or use of nuclear materials and technology.” This can effectively limit Iran obtaining uranium from Venezuela and Bolivia. Although the sanction forbids “uranium mining” and the IAEA magazine states that the uranium ore can be produced from the “underground mines” and the “open-pit mines”, it is not fully clear if uranium mining includes ores.
Most significantly, the sanction sets new arms restrictions, such as banning activities involving “ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.” However, the resolution does not prohibit Russia from “selling S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran because those weapons are not covered by the resolution's technical definition of a missile listed on the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms” (Foreign policy). Despite the recent comment of the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton on the union of major powers against the Iranian nuclear program, this major gap in the sanctions determines the lack of a united agreement between Russia and the U.S.
Despite President Obama’s trip to Lebanon and his new policy on the Islamic world, Lebanon was the only country with an abstained vote. On the surface, this can undermine the effectiveness of the modern Obama policy. In depth, this is highlighting the influence of pro-Iranian Hezbollah on the Lebanese foreign policy.
Resolution 1929 is certainly an achievement for the Obama administration after month of diplomatic negotiations. One the one hand, one can question the efficacy of the sanctions and require stronger restriction to prevent a nuclear Iran. One the other hand, although that does not seem to be a current strategy of Iran as it can gives rise to the possibility of a military confrontation, one has to remember that as Robert Gates said, an overwhelming pressure can persuade the Iranian hardliner politicians to adopt a more isolationist policy by quitting the IAEA and closing further diplomatic options; a threat which the Iranian parliament is seeking to use by announcing that it will “reconsider relations with the UN nuclear watchdog, following the latest round of UN sanctions” (BBC News). If preventing a nuclear Iran is the current policy of the United States and sanctions, a method to apply this policy, then other methods are required for adaptation of this policy. Unilateral, U.S. sanctions and espionage appears to be the most reasonable options.

Memorial of a Vicious Leader

A new memorial monument of the D-Day, unveiled in a ceremony last week in Virginia, contains the head of Joseph Stalin. The justification for this statue can be the alliance between the United States, Great Britain and Russia during the Second World War, to victoriously overcome the Axis. Despite the suspicion created by the opposite ideological reasoning of the Soviet Union and the United-States this alliance seized until the end of the war. However, Stalin’s World War II history has not only been about his alliance against Nazis, it also caused the death of millions. Aside from the approximate ten million soldiers, roughly fourteen million civilians lost their lives. On the one hand, World War II was the deadliest conflict in the human history in which millions of Russians died among other citizens. On the other hand, many of the ordinary Russians lost their lives directly due to Stalin’s economical and social leadership.
Creating a chaos using the fear of a potential foreign attack, Stalin started his economical agenda using the ‘Five Year Plans’. To catalyze the industrialization and secure his own leadership, he accused many Russians of a broad term called “Kulak”. Initially Kulaks were defined as a class of rich peasants who owned lands. Further, the definition this term went beyond the initial boundaries and many ordinary citizens were suspended to concentration camps in Siberia and often never came back.
Outside the Soviet borders, after occupying Germany under the control of Stalin, Russian soldiers cruelly rapped many of the German citizens. Additionally, to create his buffer zone for securing his power, Stalin not only caused the separation of many nations, but also halted migrations from the East to the West after 1950. Stalin was the same leader that not only did not permit a fully democratic election in many of his satellite states, but also brutality enforced his power over other nations in cases such as the 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état.
These were only examples of the viciousness of Stalin. Currently many European diplomats in the U.S. are expressing how they are “shocked as a European citizen and as a European diplomat” (Foreign Policy magazine). This memorial is illustrating how the officials of Virginia singularly interpreted Stains leadership by only observing his alliance with the United States. In a global world, it is essential to understand and value the international society. It is crucial to respect millions who died under Stalin’s order. It is urgent for the Virginia officials to apologize and alter this memorial in respect to millions of humans.

Will Israel Lift the Gaza Blockade?

While Turkey has been holding funerals for the nine activists killed after the Israeli attack on the flotilla, several countries including Israel’s allies, have been condemning the violence causing the death of the activists. Although the Israeli government and the activists are blaming one another for the violence, another ship has left Ireland, carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza. The recent attack of the Israeli army on the flotilla in international waters has created major diplomatic challenges for Israel, increasing the political and social pressure for lifting the Gaza blockade. Reacting to this incident, after condemning the violence, the British foreign minister asked for the lifting of the blockade.
The United States, a major ally of Israel, chose a more careful response. Although President Obama called the incident a “tragedy”, the U.S. has been asking for an American investigation and the reduction of pressure over Gaza. Perhaps the economical, political and social ties with Israel and the recent crisis between the Obama administration and Israel over the settlements had a considerable affect on the carefulness of the U.S. response.
As the Irish ship is on its way, many are asking themselves if Israel is capable of handling the increasing international pressure or if it instead will it lift the blockade. After fully supporting Israel’s military reaction to the flotilla, Prime Minister Netanyahu warned that he would not allow “Gaza to become Iran’s port”. Although Iran has been a close supporter of Hamas, it was not involved in sending the flotillas. Then why does Netanyahu name Iran in his speech responding to the Israeli confrontation with the activists?
Placing this speech and the U.S. reaction beside one another completes the puzzle. It appears that as the international request for lifting the blockade increases, Israel with the cooperation of the U.S. is building a political fence to justify its further actions. If in the next few weeks there is no diplomatic space for the blockade, Israel might have no options except altering its Gaza policy. Thus to prevent illustrating its loss, Israel can follow the United States' request by decreasing the pressure over Gaza. Using this method, on the one hand Israel does not appear to be a total loser of this series of political incidents. On the other hand, it will follow what its ‘big brother’ requested, symbolizing the U.S. and Israel close brotherhood despite the recent confrontations.
However, as Israel has been holding a unique policy over its security due to its special history and geopolitics, the concerns of a security threat can justify many of its actions. Netanyahu mentioned his concern of an Iranian influence supporting Hamas. This can work as a justification to hold control over Gaza’s borders. The current lobbies might decrease the pressure of the blockade, however Israel is seeking to emphasize the threat to its security by Hamas, supported by the Iranian government, to maintain some sectors of the blockade. Hence it will uphold the control over Gaza rather than losing it all. This will be a security guarantee for Israel and it will keep the dependency of Gaza on the Israeli government.
Once more the threat of Iran is being used/abused to create a chaos justifying one’s actions. Mao Zedong was indeed right when he said: “great chaos will lead to great order”, an order that the creator of chaos desires.

Bitter Truth

The news about the resignation of Kohler from the presidential post of Germany reminded me of the old stereotypical image of the politicians, people who just open their mouth and lie. Rather than focusing on the short and long term causes of this action on the German politics, it is also essential to ask to what extent it is necessary for a politician to lie?
To seek the answer to this question, one has to primarily define lie. One the one hand, lie can be considered as an untruth statement. The role of Ronald Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair can be a good example for explaining this type of lie. After being fully aware of the arms embargo to Iran and funding the contras in Nicaragua, he publicly denied his direct involvement. Further, despite the possible connection of the arm embargo to Iran, who was in a war with Iraq at the time, with the release of the American hostages in Lebanon; Reagan fully denied this relationship. Declassified document have shed light on many of the aspects of this event.
On other hand, one might define lie as covering the truth. As an example, although Kissinger wrote Crisis to deeply discuss his role in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, he fully ignores his first trip to Israel after the initiation of the war. Ironically, it was in the first trip that Kissinger committed slight mistakes with the major costs. A communication misunderstanding in setting the time of the cease-fire with Israel caused the continuation of the war and created a possibility of an atomic war. Depending on the definition of truth, one might call this a lie or hiding the facts.
The question remaining is if the politicians are able to say the truth? Will our political system function on the bases of truth? Kohler lost his position because he argued that Germany’s involvement in Afghanistan is due to economical reasons. I certainly support this argument and suggest that economical factors are major reasons for NATO’s operations in Afghanistan. However, neither the German public liked this statement (even my German friend fully disliked this honest statement) nor the politicians. So should the politicians be honest when their honesty costs their career? Should we know the truth when its taste is so bitter that we will hate it? To what extent should politics be an open game? Where is the border between propaganda and the facts? I am still thinking…

Further reading on Kohler's resignation: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=16261428&source=features_box_main