The US would need a strong partner in the region and the immediate neighborhood of Afghanistan which would extend its own politico-military strategic policy objectives in that country. With Iran and Central Asia with direct borders with Afghanistan, the challenge of stabilizing and in the end, civilizing Afghanistan is the linchpin of a larger potential fall of dominoes that directly challenge US policy interests in the region and Persian Gulf. India is a lukewarm friend to US particularly as Indian foreign policy is significantly divergent from that of the US on key issues such as Iran. On Afghanistan, India and the US are more convergent than divergent particularly on fighting the Taliban and Islamic insurgence threat, particularly as concerns the role and contribution of Pakistan and the ISI.

The US-Pakistan story is a love hate relationship. Yet Pakistan is the only country friendly to the US in the region who could continue to provide a base for continued US operations and intelligence in Afghanistan and if needed Iran, and also in some measure support a strong military response within that country. So the election of Nawaz Sharif is perplexing at a time when Pakistan’s interest might be to have elected Pervez Musharraf, not only a former military leader but also a military strategist who could give immeasurable service to US’s larger objectives in the region. But, General Musharraf was discredited by the US itself when the Obama administration leaked the report on Musharraf’s cooperation with the US Drone deployments within Pakistan just before the elections. Then there is the playboy cricketer Imran Khan who had support only amongst the chic urban elite in Pakistan’s main cities and never really had any chance of winning. So why discredit Musharraf at a time when only Sharif could win?

Since Sharif has a history of antagonistic relations with the military and a easier relationship with the ISI, it stands to reason in a country like Pakistan that these trends are set to continue. This would lead to a stratified political environment within Pakistan and acrimony between the military and the incumbent political hierarchy. The net result would be a weakened and divided power structure within Pakistan at a time when the US needs Pakistan to be stronger, both as a country and as a strategic partner. However, this situation also sets up Pakistan for a repeat of history, when Mr. Sharif was challenged and ousted by a military counterpart. It is very conceivable and would serve the entire US policy in Afghanistan and the larger subregion best, if in a short time, Mr. Sharif was again ousted by a military coup. This would return power to an established US constituency within Pakistan – the Pakistan military.

In Afghanistan itself, there are also visible changes in the politics posture of the key political actors as they approach the Coalition withdrawal and elections next year. The Taliban are cleverer than they are perceived to be. They are preparing for the 2014 elections by. Preparing a more moderate and centrist political platform, addressing a series of governance issues close to the heart of the electorate. The key question will be who the Taliban present as the line up for elections- indications are that they might go with a coalition of northern Warlords and young technocrats. Karzai has been busy exporting money supplied by Obama’s CIA to foreign. Bank accounts in the name of his family and His nephews, in what some say is the preparation for his likely exit from Afghanistan and its politics. If he remained, he would not be able to retain control even over the territory he now controls.

As Afghanistan goes, the Taliban might take the time till the elections to reshape their national image and to develop a more centrist platform, particularly if they are assured support from their old allies the Pakistan military and the ISI. The upshot remains the cost of all these maneuverings on the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who are aching for progress and democracy but once again have fallen victim to, it appears, US policy objectives.

The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War (2013).

This a good beginning but not enough! Thanks NYtimes:
US Sting Operation nets Ex Guinea-Bissau Admiral in Drugs-Arms Bust

Read the full report here:
constitution-project-report-on-detainee-treatment

Read the NY times article here:
US Engaged in Torture in the years after 9/11

Republic of Congo Launches BRIC-supported infrastructure initiative

Nice Speech, Mr. President – By Daniel Levy | Foreign Policy.

The repercussions of the Cairo speech resulted in two things: the implementation of Obama’s pledge to end US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan (latter happening as we speak) and the beginning of an unfortunate rift with Israel, that in my opinion, resulted in the Israel reaching the precipice of declaring total independence from the US in policy and action. Until President Obama’s election, the US and Israel have maintained close cooperation on a host of international issues and policy ranging from extremists threats and terrorism to economic devolution to technological and R&D development. Under Obama’s first term, this close umbilical relationship was threatened with rupture as Israel came close to independent action against Iran. It is still a question whether Israeli strikes in Syria had been pre-consulted with the Pentagon and State department. This dangerous development implied that Israel might detach from the US and in essence “go rogue” in a region that remains a powder-keg. Much of Obama’s first term was spent trying to regain some kind of balance and control in its relations with Israel and also to maintain its ascendancy.

Now in his second term, President Obama could not avoid visiting Israel and given the last 4 years of changes in the Arab region, Obama has to be congratulated for successfully walking a very thin line but also to regaining some measure of control and command over the relationship with Israel. This initial postmortem finds that Obama succeeded in bringing Israel back towards the mutual cooperation under US lead that existed for decades. He also gave a clear message to the Israeli people: your choices today will determine your context tomorrow in a region that is hungry for a fair resolution of the Palestinian question. This message was also aimed at the new leadership configuration within Israel and one of Obama’s tasks was to establish linkages and relations with the new emergent leaders within Israel as a means of bridging over Netanyahu’s persona within the current configuration. It is important that President Obama appeared as credible to the Arabs as to the Israelis.

Read the full text of President Obama’s speech here:
President Obama’s Jerusalem Speech

Lastly, the redeployment of John Kerry to Israel to skirt and follow-up on the President’s visit was very appropriate and allowed a policy follow-up immediately after a very important visit. It also signaled that the Middle East and resolution of the lingering challenges facing Israel and the Palestinians will be accorded high priority under Obama’s second term and under the Kerry State Department. But the message to israel is clear: no more free candy – you are responsible for your choices and their repercussions in terms of the context of your lives in the region.

Yet the specter of ethics in violence and the moral use of force have recently garnered a lot of attention as drone warfare itself, challenges a number of long-established concepts in international law. One is sovereignty, another important one is the right of every human being to their human rights – collateral damage and civilian deaths attributed to drone warfare question the rights of those collateral victims to their lives – some international lawyers are arguing that the US Government is guilty of indiscriminate assassination of innocent people in their home regions far from the USA. Not wanting to be swayed by unbalanced arguments, in the course of my research on this and connected issues, I ran across this attached article by Daniel Brunstetter and Megan Braun.

This article presents the dilemma facing the future of the war machinery verses human rights and ethics. There are lots of questions and the grey of individual verses communal rights is growing fast. Add to this the advent of robotic warfare which really basically challenges each one of us to question whether we as a global community should be moving more towards mutual disarmament and reduction of war machinery versus what is now, an apparent possible escalation of warfare towards the Terminator ultimatum. Why can we not stop ourselves now, before irreparable damage has been done? Well naive as I might be, I cannot help feeling that somehow instead deescalating violence and tension, our governments seem to be manifestly intent on provoking and scaling-up types of war technologies. Am I being too naive to expect that these kinds of development should be preceded by some kind of public review?

Moral use of force

Finally, I have written extensively on this issue linking it to the Geneva conventions and the ongoing global dialogue on the need for upgrading and expanding them to cover these emerging issues (under Justice and Human Rights category).

I agree with the questions posed at the end of the analysis. I would caution however, that as usual the approach of US think tanks and this is one, is too US-centric – the US is a major hitter globally but as the post-Cold War situation has evolved, other countries and groups have emerged to paint a more multipolar global foreign policy landscape. The US is indeed not the only external actor in West Africa and while it may be able to coordinate with France and UK, it also has to understand the myriad of non-state, informal organizations and individuals that can easily impact local situations in Africa – and not all of these are terrorist or extremist organizations.

Secondly, the Governments in West Africa have had over two decades of instability starting with Sierra Leone and Liberia and continuing with Cote D’Ivoire. When committed the region is well able to lead a strong political and military process to resolve the Mali situation and contain extremism in the rest of the region. Their opinion, participation or leadership and guidance should not be minimized. Neither France nor US should be in the lead – West Africa should be!

Here is the report:
HSPI Issue Brief 17 – What About Africa

Secondly, China’s priority for next 10 years is to develop its rural and Western communities, primarily to try to allay the frustration in economic inequities nationally and bring back to the fold, restive Muslim populations. here again, Russia and China but also Central Asia have a convergence of interest – Central Asia could be key to moderating the challenge China faces in the West by cooperating with its giant neighbor on cross-border de-radicalization initiatives.

There is also Iran and eventually Iraq. While China is already a major oil client of Iran’s, so far Iraqi oil is being absorbed mostly by US led corporate coalitions. This could change depending on how the US under Obama’s second term and Kerry’s more diplomatic and strategic leadership chose to craft their Middle East strategy. What is sure is that the Chinese initiative to rebuild the Pakistani Persian Gulf port of Gwadar is now a key asset in their strategy to secure their energy future, by giving them that warm water port and hub for their ocean transporters.

I agree with Ms. Mills that the US will not be able to pivot away from the Middle East but, BUT this does not automatically translate to the US retaining its influence and power in countries of the Arab Spring, unless a more balanced regional strategy is deployed to address deep inequities in US foreign policy towards the Middle East.

Who's Winning the Great Energy Rat Race? – By Robin Mills | Foreign Policy.

UN Special Report on DRC