by Charles Naas

On the Washington Post’s front page February 2 there is a photo of Mrs. Clinton departing the State Department surrounded by admiring staff members with a big smile on her face. She already looks five years younger. And why not? The burden of the Secretary of State is [...]]]> via Lobe Log

by Charles Naas

On the Washington Post’s front page February 2 there is a photo of Mrs. Clinton departing the State Department surrounded by admiring staff members with a big smile on her face. She already looks five years younger. And why not? The burden of the Secretary of State is exhausting, generally thankless and terribly complex; each day a new challenge arises or one that you hoped had been put on the back burner reappears. Secretary Kerry, may you age well.

Yet Secretary Kerry’s problems are enhanced by the continued absence of a consensus among prominent politicians on what the United States’ role in a vastly changing world should be. Some are desperately defending actions and policies of the Bush period, many others view “bipartisanship” as a dirty word or a call for surrender of their views and values. Others are locked into one issue, which prevents them from seeing larger schemes of interrelationships — and then we have our neo-isolationists. “Leading from behind” is an implicit recognition of the grave, perhaps insurmountable, problems we face abroad as well as on the Hill. Added to all this, despite President Obama’s sweeping electoral victory, some want to make sure that he fails in whatever he does to ensure that he will be the only black president.

During his first term, Obama tried to pivot US policy and recognize the increasing importance of China and its surrounding countries in East Asia, as well as address new tensions with Russia and the muscular Vladimir Putin who is enjoying his return to preeminence. But, no matter how much Kerry might like to spend more time on the these issues and respond to the urgings of important lobby groups on Africa, Latin America, or even Europe, the Middle East will intrude each day. I Promise. Let’s take a brief overview.

Recently, India and Pakistan were engaging in talks to see what could be done to reduce tensions and look to future relations, but, it seems that every time they get to that point — with US encouragement — something fouls the nest. This time firing across the line of control in Kashmir has been as usual followed by instant charges of blame and perfidy from politicians of both sides. However, even when local peace is regained, the tensions of 55 years and three wars and terrorist actions are almost certain to prevent significant cooperation. Both nations have extreme religious movements and each has substantial nuclear arms with multiple delivery systems. Afghanistan poses an area of special importance for both. Pakistan has posited that Afghanistan is its defense in the event of a war in which India’s superior-sized forces sweeped eastern Pakistan and nuclear war was to be avoided. Both countries are looking ahead to the American departure and trying in advance to out-influence the other. India has opened consulates in important Afghan cities, has increased trade, and offered considerable training and aid.

Afghanistan is looking ahead with both trepidation and hope. The rulers from the heights of Kabul realize that many Afghans are simply weary of the American presence, but are not yet ready to take on the Taliban and strong tribal raiding forces that span the border with Pakistan. Al Qaida may have remaining influence but much of that organization’s appeal has shifted to the Yemen and east and North Africa. Our deadline for ending combat presence is December 2014 but we have continuing huge responsibilities to retire, having done every task possible to give the Afghans a chance to survive as a unified nation with a degree of stability. Talks in Qatar to test possible political detente between the Taliban, Kabul and the US have apparently died on the vine. Iran has strong security and historical interests in whatever happens in western Afghanistan as do the former Soviet nations in the north.

What is there to say about us and Iran? The hostage taking 34 years ago and the victory of the conservative clerics in the post-Shah struggle for control, the chanting even today of Marg ba Amrica (“Death to America”) have left strong negative feelings about that country. From the Iranian point of view, the tenacious beliefs that the US was responsible for the Shah’s every action and that our policy aim is the overthrow of the regime and the institution of a “green” movement in power has made some degree of normality impossible. Israel’s expressed fear of Iran’s nuclear power program reverberates powerfully in a Congress that has imposed rigorous economic and financial sanctions. The so-called P5+1 negotiating team — the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany — is scheduled for another negotiation early in Kerry’s term to ascertain whether extended talks are possible to begin to resolve the great differences that divide us. Any success until after Iran’s elections later this year is highly unlikely and looking further into the future is probably beyond hope unless Israel lowers its concerns and even then Kerry would have to gain a Congressional consensus and untangle the sanctions. The threat of conflict hangs over us.

We will find out some time in the future whether our invasion of Iraq was a great military/political success or a serious strategic mistake. That question remains a very bitter one on the Hill as we have seen in the nasty and contentious interrogation of Chuck Hagel. It will remain a continuing sore between the Republicans and the Obama security team. We were lucky when the Iraqi government would not sign a Status of Forces Agreement with us that would have given American troops legal immunity. A continuing military presence would have made our non-involvement in the on-going Sunni-Shi’a conflict near impossible. As a result of Nouri al Maliki’s decision, we could with honor pull out our forces and let the Iraqis address their problems without us. However, the civil conflict flows over the Kurdish questions, control of petroleum seeps into Iranian Kurdistan, affects substantial Iranian trade, Iranian sympathy for the Shi’a government, and concern over travel to the key religious shrines.

No one is very sure what the US should be doing in Syria. The tens of thousands who are fighting the Assad regime are a collection of secular, democratically-inclined young people perhaps inspired by the Arab spring. Also very much engaged are extreme Salafis, remnants of al Qaida, Sunni fighters from all the neighboring Sunni countries intent on overthrowing Syria’s quasi-Shi’a government, thugs and just about every thing else. Kerry will be under increasing pressure from leading liberal, pro-Israel media, neo-con intellectuals and even a number in his own party “to do something”. Do what is proving to be argumentative and we are nowhere near domestic political agreement. The fighting could spread to Turkey, various Kurdish groups, Jordan and Israel

US and Israeli relations are about as intimate as two nations can have. Disagreements, sure, but usually cleared up quickly. We share ideals and convictions on the need for Israel to be superior militarily and certain of its regional security. The problem for Kerry and past Secretaries is that this very closeness affects one way or another every relationship in the region.

Finally, Egypt again. Tahrir Square is aflame, significant deaths are occurring, the army is probably warming the tanks, and questioning where their loyalties lie. A year or so ago, we were disturbed by the prospect of an elected Muslim Brotherhood, but wisely accepted the decision of the Egyptian people and tried to get along. Mohamed Morsi’s overreach for greater powers than the law permits reopened the fears of the large secular democratic parties and we are now in the middle of a counter reaction and the extensive use of force. We have depleted influence in the country but the importance of Egypt will make our efforts to calm matters inevitable.

So, good morning, Mr. Secretary, good luck and God speed. You assume office at a time that is described by historians as post-Cold War, or post-Colonial, or perhaps post-Ottoman or, simply, the next stage in continuing tension between West and East. Take your pick.

by Jim Lobe

As I noted in the piece published on IPS Friday, “It’s All About Israel,” Israel and the presumed threat posed by Iran to its security dominated Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Thursday. It was the one opportunity Committee members — [...]]]> via Lobe Log

by Jim Lobe

As I noted in the piece published on IPS Friday, “It’s All About Israel,” Israel and the presumed threat posed by Iran to its security dominated Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Thursday. It was the one opportunity Committee members — and, for that matter, the entire Senate — had to publicly probe the nominee’s basic beliefs about the myriad challenges confronting U.S. national security in what Robert Gates described, while he was still working for George W. Bush, as an increasingly “multi-polar world.” That the panel chose to focus almost exclusively on the challenges facing Israel, rather than the United States, speaks volumes about the influence of the Israel lobby on the U.S. Senate. It also speaks volumes about the very basic lack of seriousness or curiosity on the SASC’s part about the geo-strategic issues that one would expect to be at or near the top of the Pentagon’s agenda. As Chas Freeman put it to me, the whole scene made it look like senators were “busking for campaign dollars” rather than grappling with the multi-faceted problems the U.S. armed forces face around the world.

So I wanted to give some additional idea of just how negligent I think the Committee’s questioning was by compiling a list with some brief annotations or explanations of countries, non-state actors, and regions and the number of times each was mentioned in the hearing. (If someone has the software to create a map of the world based on the number of mentions a country gets based on this list, I’d love to publish it on Lobelog.)

I should mention at the outset, however, that one of the most surprising discoveries to me was this: Al Qaida — you know, the group and its affiliates that have supposedly been Public Enemy #1 since 9/11 and that Republicans have been arguing for several months now has still not been defeated and is now popping up all over the place, planning attacks on the American homeland — was mentioned a grand total of twice during the eight hours of testimony. That compares with 24 mentions of Hezbollah and 11 of Hamas, neither of which has been accused by the U.S. government of planning attacks on the U.S. homeland, let alone actually carrying any out. The disproportionate focus on these two non-state actors — contrasted with the virtually complete lack of curiosity about Al Qaida and its affiliates — is yet another manifestation of the degree to which the SASC appears to be far more concerned about Israel’s security than that of the United States. (I should note that SASC senators have submitted written questions to Hagel which no doubt cover a much broader number of issues than were raised at the hearing. But the hearing is the only opportunity to raise these issues in ways that get broader attention, and that’s what makes it so important.)

I have left out two countries that were mentioned numerous times: Vietnam (41 references) and Germany (9 references) because all mentions of those two countries were biographical; that is, they didn’t relate to current policy, but rather only to Hagel’s experience and relationship to them.

In any event, here is the partially annotated list. The number on the left refers to the number of mentions in the transcript:

178 – Israel

171 – Iran (threat to Israel)

30 – Iraq (where we just concluded a war in which nearly 4,500 U.S. servicemen and women were killed)

27 – Afghanistan (where we still have well over 60,000 U.S. troops deployed and the exit strategy remains unclear.)

24 – Hezbollah (threat to Israel)

23 – Russia (only other major nuclear power which also will have a major influence on U.S. policy toward Iran,    Syria, and withdrawal from Afghanistan, among other issues.)

22 – Palestine or Palestinians (threat to Israel)

18 – Syria (a country torn by civil war and a possible threat to Israel.)

11 – North Korea (a nuclear power believed to be preparing another nuclear test.)

11 – Hamas (threat to Israel)

10 – Pakistan (a nuclear power whose cooperation is critical to U.S. Afghanistan policy.)

9 – Egypt (a country undergoing heavy turbulence to which the U.S. provides $1.5 billion a year in military aid; potential threat to Israel.)

6 – Asia (yes, the entire continent, consisting of over half the world’s population toward which our military is supposed to be “pivoting.”)

5 – China (critical to U.S. policy toward Iran and many other hotspots, not to mention its being the geo-strategic focus of the above-mentioned “pivot.”)

5 – NATO (Washington’s most important alliance and the one with which it conducted an aerial campaign in Libya, is still fighting in Afghanistan, and just set up Patriot missile batteries in Turkey close to the Syrian border.)

5 – European Union (all references were related to the EU’s refusal to put Hezbollah on its terrorism list.)

2 – Libya (the country where Republicans have complained that Obama’s “leading from behind” has led to disaster.)

2 – Yemen (the country where the Pentagon is working with the CIA to carry out drones strikes against suspected Al-Qaida militants)

2 – Bahrain (another country in turmoil which is also home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet)

2 – Somalia (another country in turmoil where the U.S. military has attacked suspected Al Qaida and Al Shabaab leaders)

2 – Al Qaida (in all its forms)

1 – Mali (where the U.S. just provided logistical and intelligence support for a French campaign against Al Qaida in the Maghreb)

1 – Jordan

1 – Turkey (NATO ally neighboring Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon)

1 – Japan (closest U.S. ally in Asia with which Washington has a mutual defense treaty. U.S. has 50,000 troops based there.)

1 – South Korea (second closest U.S. ally in Asia. U.S. has 28,000 troops based there.)

1 – France (U.S. NATO ally, permanent UN Security Council member, just carried out U.S. military-backed campaign in Mali. Actually the only reference was about President Clinton granting a waiver to a French oil company operating in Iran.)

So that’s the list. Now, consider those countries which did not get a single mention during the eight hours of the hearing despite their possible strategic importance to the United States. This is necessarily a partial list, but just contemplate what the SASC was not interested in:

India (a nuclear power, world’s second most-populous nation, neighbour to Pakistan and China, avidly courted by the U.S. military in the last decade.)

Indonesia (world’s fourth most-populous nation, world’s most-populous predominantly Muslim country, avidly courted by the Pentagon over the last decade.)

Brazil (world’s fifth most-populous nation, dominant power in South America.)

Mexico (with Canada, closest U.S. neighbor which is receiving U.S. military training as part of its drug war.)

Saudi Arabia (biggest U.S. arms customer by far; closest U.S. ally in Arab world with world’s biggest oil reserves.)

Qatar (home to giant U.S. air force base; aggressively supported rebels in Libya, Syria)

Nigeria (Africa’s most populous country; major oil producer; threatened by Boko Haram insurgency allegedly tied to Al Qaida in the Maghreb; Pentagon actively seeking ties with military,)

United Kingdom (Washington’s closest NATO ally and permanent member of UN Security Council).

In this context, it’s appropriate to remember what Hagel told David Aaron Miller in that fateful 2008 interview, to wit:

And this guy kept pushing and pushing. And he alluded to the fact that maybe I wasn’t supporting Israel enough or something. And I just said let me clear something up here, in case there is any doubt.

I said, ‘I’m a United States senator. I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator.’ I support Israel, but my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States — not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I’ll do that. Now I know most senators don’t talk like I do.”

You bet they don’t, Chuck.

Photo: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) questioning defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel over an appearance the former senator made on Al Jazeera in 2009.