President Obama addressed the nation from the Oval Office yesterday to announce the end of combat operations in Iraq. Since then there has been a fair amount of media coverage and I’m very encouraged by that. I was beginning to worry that this major milestone in the history of the U.S. role in the world was being underplayed.

When the majority of combat forces left two weeks ago it barely made a ripple in the national dialogue. Perhaps because it was late summer and the peak of vacation season, but it didn’t appear to me that we had the 24 hour news coverage of the event that I’d imagined would be appropriate to the end of a seven year conflict. To be sure, some news media covered the event more than others. The MSNBC networks were standouts in my opinion, offering great video reports from embedds while Fox seemed to barely acknowledge the event, perhaps not wanting to acknowledge an Obama campaign pledge kept. And CBS News not only offered major airtime coverage but sent their anchor, Katie Couric, to Iraq for on-the-scene reporting, though according to this report, no one noticed, as their ratings hit a new low. Still, for all of that, coverage was rather muted for an event of major national and international significance. That’s why I’m glad President Obama announced the end of combat operations with a major address to the nation. The White House video of the speech is available here:

I liked the part of the speech that placed the Iraq war into historical context, reminding everyone that removing a dictator from power is almost always a good thing. And I appreciated the solemn thanks shown to the men and women of the U.S. armed forces. The language and tone was presidential and even though a cynic might say it was the kind of praise one would expect from any president at the conclusion of any war it was nonetheless moving. One of the reasons I worried that the country was ignoring the draw-down in Iraq was out of regard for our troops and the fear that this would become a “forgotten war” and that a general sense of public war fatigue and the ongoing war in Afghanistan would deprive them of the thanks they are due from a grateful nation. I think the White House deserves credit for their effort to make sure this doesn’t happen, an effort which includes a Saluting Service in Iraq website that encourages citizens to share their thanks with the troops.

I was disappointed with the part of the speech that turned the focus toward the domestic economy. It seemed to me somewhat condescending, as if to suggest that the American people couldn’t appreciate a major international milestone without self-interested financial concerns framing the issue. This speech should have been entirely about the war in Iraq, about how the surge worked after all, and how a promise to withdraw from Iraq was kept. There was a greater theme to develop as well, a narrative about how the U.S. is not an imperial power waging war for conquest and territory, the traditional theme of American exceptionalism, and about how our great power can be checked and constrained by our values and traditions. Instead, somehow, this important presidential address became a standard stump speech about jobs.

And so President Obama invited us to turn the page. What is the next chapter? A new Iraqi government is supposed to lead the way toward greater political stability and prosperity, though even Iraqi politicians admit that the chances of this happening soon are slim. There is still a substantial American role to play, one of training and support, with a new “diplomatic surge” to take the place of the military surge. Though, according to this Politico report, there are grounds for concern that the State Department is not being given the resources they need to do the job. I’d like to be optimistic and I’m looking for reasons to be optimistic, but optimism seems to be in short supply. Perhaps that’s my answer to the question of why we made so little of the withdrawal two weeks ago - no one really believes it’s over

Many countries in the world have constitutions based on the models of the great imperial powers of Europe. It makes sense that former colonies would model themselves on Great Britain or France, for example, and shape their systems of government to mirror the ideal of parliamentary democracy. Rarer are the countries that have modeled themselves on the U.S. system of checks and balances.  Even though Kenya was never a colony or protectorate of the U.S. it now has a new constitution explicitly based on the U.S. model. As the Associated Press reports:

Kenya’s president signed a new constitution into law Friday that institutes a U.S.-style system of checks and balances and has been hailed as the most significant political event since Kenya’s independence nearly a half century ago. Kenya’s new constitution is part of a reform package that President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga committed themselves to after signing a power-sharing deal in February 2008. That deal ended violence that killed more than 1,000 people following Kenya’s disputed December 2007 presidential vote. [...] The government and parliament now must implement the ambitious document, a process expected to take up to five years. The document requires, among other things, the formation of a Supreme Court and a Senate.

As Kenya moves forward to end decades of political and ethnic unrest, it’s encouraging to see that the U.S. Constitution has not lost the ability to inspire. Let me leave you with this video report from the Reuters news service on the celebrations in Kenya:

Pakistan is experiencing epic flooding as a result of monsoon rains. How bad is it? U.S. Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke puts it this way:

“Floods in Asia” is such a recurrent headline that many people outside Pakistan still do not realize that this is an epic event–the worst monsoon floods in the history of the 63-year old nation, in fact the worst floods in the area since 1926. The statistics are overwhelming. At least 14 million people have been affected–more than Haiti and the tsunami combined (although deaths are, mercifully, fewer in numbers, so far). Hundreds of bridges, an unknown amount of roads, homes, schools and health clinics, have been destroyed. In one area, over 700,000 people have been evacuated. A major dam in a densely populated area is in a precarious state, and millions lie in its path. The already-over-burdened electrical grid is in danger of further weakening. The relief and reconstruction costs will be enormous. The region affected by this catastrophe includes the tribal areas where Taliban and Al Qaeda have been operating; some reports suggest that they are trying to exploit the tragedy for their own purposes. We must not allow this to happen, as it would add to the dangers facing our troops in Afghanistan.

The U.S. is responding to this crisis by rushing aid to the stricken region. The U.S. military is providing food and other relief supplies in an effort to address the humanitarian crisis as well as undermine chances that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have for taking advantage of the situation. This report in The New York Times notes the multiple goals of the U.S. aid effort:

As the Obama administration continues to add to the aid package for flood-stricken Pakistan — already the largest humanitarian response from any single country — officials acknowledge that they are seeking to use the efforts to burnish the United States’ dismal image there. Administration officials say their top priority is providing much-needed help to a pivotal regional ally in the fight against Al Qaeda. But when senior officials from the White House, State Department, Pentagon and Agency for International Development hold their daily conference calls to coordinate American assistance, they are also strategizing about how that aid could help improve long-term relations with Pakistan [...] American aircraft have rescued more than 4,000 people since Aug. 5. The Pentagon announced Friday that ships carrying more relief supplies and helicopters had left the East Coast and would arrive in the waters off Pakistan in late September.

Whether American aid is able to change perceptions of the U.S. in Pakistan is yet to be seen, though it’s clear that for now, helping an ally in distress is the right thing to do and a fine an example of the U.S. role in the world.

Let me leave you with this video from MSNBC that shows the scale of the disaster:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

When was the last time you heard someone thank the U.S. for our role in the world? This report in The New York Times highlights how American funding for AIDS treatment has changed lives - and saved lives - in Africa:

The last decade has been what some doctors call a “golden window” for treatment. Drugs that once cost $12,000 a year fell to less than $100, and the world was willing to pay. In Uganda, where fewer than 10,000 were on drugs a decade ago, nearly 200,000 now are, largely as a result of American generosity. But the golden window is closing. Uganda is the first country where major clinics routinely turn people away, but it will not be the last. In Kenya next door, grants to keep 200,000 on drugs will expire soon. An American-run program in Mozambique has been told to stop opening clinics [...]  American taxpayers have been particularly generous to Uganda, paying for 88 percent of its drugs; Ugandans know it. Karen Morgan, an American who runs a laboratory at the hospital where Ms. Kamukama was turned away, said: “Just today, a patient came up to me in the parking lot and said, ‘Thank you, American.’ I said, ‘For what?’ He said ‘For my medicine. You care if I live or die.’ ”

The remarkable American generosity praised in this report was a result of President Bush’s “President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) program,” a billion dollar aid effort sure to rank as one of the top achievements of his presidency. Former President Bill Clinton recently praised this program for improving opinion of the U.S. role in the world:

When President Bush’s and America’s approval went way down all over the world because of the Iraq war [....] there were three places where it didn’t go down: in India, where we made a deal for peaceful nuclear cooperation; in central and eastern Europe, where we continued my policy to expand NATO; and in the 10 countries of southern and eastern Africa where PEPFAR (the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) was concentrated and the highest AIDS rates were. Did they agree with President Bush’s Iraq policy? No. … They thought he and the United States cared whether their children lived or died.

As successful as this program was, the American effort in Africa is now waning as the Obama Administration changes the focus and strategy of American aid efforts away from medicine and towards family and community support programs. That change is already drawing criticism, as this Washington Post report notes:

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) succeeded internationally with a simple theory: put someone in charge, give them the resources they need, and hold them personally accountable for outcomes. By this measure, the new domestic AIDS strategy raises more questions than it answers. The report comes out of the National AIDS Policy Council at the White House, which does not have direct, government-wide authority over this issue. The new resources dedicated to the effort — $30 million — are minimal. And if the targets in the strategy are not met, it is not clear that anyone is held directly responsible.

Still, it’s not uncommon for a president to change the policies inherited from a predecessor, and how these different efforts compare will take time to properly assess. For now, if you are interested, you can read about President Obama’s HIV/AIDS program on the White House website for the Office of National AIDS Policy. Finally, let me leave you with this video of President Obama announcing his program:




The following video features a panel discussion examining recent global public opinion poll data and considers the question: What does Obama’s global popularity bring the U.S.? The panel was hosted by the Christian Science Monitor and brought together Pew Research Center president Andrew Kohut, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and former U.S. Senator John Danforth to discuss the Pew Global Attitudes Project. The survey examined responses from 24,000 individuals in 22 nations.

The survey found that the U.S. enjoys high approval ratings in most of the world but certain regions and issue areas showed declines in approval. Among the specific findings:

U.S. favorability ratings remain high in Western Europe and have increased markedly in China and Russia. But opinions remain negative in many Muslim nations. Mexican views of the U.S. tumbled following passage of Arizona’s immigration law. Confidence in Obama is high across much of the world, but support for his handling of specific policies is less widespread.

This report from The Voice of America also notes the remarkable decline in approval among Muslims abroad:

Things have changed dramatically in Egypt, where the percentage of Muslims expressing confidence in Mr. Obama dropped from 41 percent to 31 percent.  In Pakistan, the level dropped from 13 percent to 8 percent.  Confidence in Mr. Obama remains high in Nigeria — a whopping 77 percent of Muslims polled there approve of him, but that is still down from 81 percent last year. In fact, confidence and approval levels slipped among Muslims surveyed everywhere but Indonesia, where Mr. Obama spent time as a child.

I find that surprising given President Obama’s remarkable efforts to reach out to the Muslim world and I can’t help but wonder if they are missing an opportunity to meet the U.S. halfway? This is all the more worrisome because this opportunity will not last. After all, how likely is it that a future president would make a speech similar to Obama’s Cairo speech? Conciliatory gestures, outreach efforts, and goodwill must be reciprocated or it’s likely that relations will fare worse than if such overtures had never been made. My hope is that a new generation of leaders in Muslim nations will demonstrate the leadership and courage necessary to take advantage of the historic opportunity President Obama has offered to reset relations with the U.S. and chart a path away from confrontation.

I’ve often wondered if the pace of modem life, the 24/7 new cycle, and the need for governments to respond in real-time to what is happening have had a negative impact on the conduct of diplomacy. Take, for example, the odd incident last week in which two American allies made great progress in a matter that the U.S. has defined as a major international concern. I’m referring to the agreement that Turkey and Brazil negotiated with Iran over the enrichment program. Within hours of the announcement of the agreement the U.S. circulated another draft resolution on sanctions to the UN Security Council and released a statement calling the agreement a ploy on Iran’s part to avoid further sanctions. It all amounted to what Reuters called a “deep rift” between the allies:

In signs of the deep rift between the United States and two influential nonpermanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Turkey and Brazil stepped up to defend their proposal as the right thing to do to reduce tensions over the Iranian nuclear impasse. “We know we did the right thing,” Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim told a news conference, flanked by Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu. “We are seeking to follow a path of dialogue, a path of conversation and understanding, and that has produced results.” Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan traveled to Tehran earlier this month to broker the deal under which Iran agreed to send 1,200 kg of its low-enriched uranium abroad in exchange for specially processed fuel for its medical isotope reactor. Senior U.S. officials dismissed the fuel deal proposal, saying Turkey and Brazil appeared to have been hoodwinked by Tehran in its efforts to escape new U.N. sanctions.

In an earlier era, pre-cable news and the internet, perhaps the Brazilian and Turkish foreign ministers would have been invited to Washington for consultations over days and even weeks, and an effort would have been made to better coordinate diplomatic actions. Instead, we had multiple overlapping efforts and organizational timelines measured in hours that precluded thoughtful consultations. As it stands, our Secretary of State did plan a meeting with them this week, after that fact, which probably made for a rather awkward conversation.

Let’s accept as a given that Iran deployed a strategic gambit to divide the Security Council by negotiating an agreement that would be good enough to create the appearance of progress while preserving a stockpile of uranium for further enrichment. Let’s also agree to set aside for a moment the question of whether it was appropriate (or even shameful, as Thomas Friedman put it in his NYT op-ed) for our democratic allies to coddle democracy-crushing Iran. What should have been the proper U.S. response when our allies made a sincere effort to address a matter of great concern to us? The U.S. had a choice, for apparently a brief moment in time, to offer praise and encouragement to our allies or to dismiss out of hand the agreement that had been reached. Guess which option we chose? Like children taking a new bike for a spin around the block - without the training wheels - emerging powers Brazil and Turkey stepped up on the world stage and negotiated an agreement on a matter at the very top of the international agenda. They may have expected a parental slap on the back and a hearty “good job!” from the U.S., but sadly, like a neglectful parent, the U.S. seemed more annoyed than appreciative.

For those who believe that a managed transition to multipolarity is desirable, the U.S. missed an opportunity last week and showed once again that our diplomacy can be, well, a bit undiplomatic.

Image Credit: Jordan Times

Someone wished me a “happy Memorial Day” in passing and I wondered if they understood what the holiday was really all about. What is it really all about? The above photo was taken the Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery and Memorial in France. According to Wikipedia, “the cemetery contains the largest number of American military dead in Europe (14,246), most of whom lost their lives during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive,” in World War I. Americans will gather there and at similar cemeteries all over the the world to commemorate this somber holiday meant to honor our war dead. So, as we observe (not celebrate) this Memorial Day, let me leave you with this poem sent to me by a veteran that sums up far better than I could what the holiday is all about:

Freedom isn’t free
I watched the flag pass by one day,
It fluttered in the breeze.
A young Marine saluted it,
And then he stood at ease..
I looked at him in uniform
So young, so tall, so proud,
With hair cut square and eyes alert
He’d stand out in any crowd.

I thought how many men like him
Had fallen through the years.
How many died on foreign soil
How many mothers’ tears?
How many pilots’ planes shot down?
How many died at sea
How many foxholes were soldiers’ graves?
No, freedom isn’t free.

I heard the sound of Taps one night,
When everything was still,
I listened to the bugler play
And felt a sudden chill.
I wondered just how many times
That Taps had meant “Amen,”
When a flag had draped a coffin.
Of a brother or a friend.

I thought of all the children,
Of the mothers and the wives,
Of fathers, sons and husbands
With interrupted lives.
I thought about a graveyard
At the bottom of the sea
Of unmarked tombs in Arlington.
No, freedom isn’t free.
- Author Unknown

Photo Credit: Jojoaektschn/Panoramio

Egypt is the land of pyramids and pharaohs, a magical and mystical place living in the minds of dreamers and tourists the world over. A constant stream of headlines fuels the mystique and allure of Egypt: MSNBC reports divers are exploring the sunken remains of Cleopatra’s palaces and USA Today reports on ancient mummies discovered south of Cairo. This is the image of Egypt in the popular imagination. There is another reality existing alongside the storied history and ancient artifacts: the reality of an aging autocracy governing a country lacking economic and political opportunity; the reality of an American ally at the crossroads of history and modernity.

What role can the U.S. play in helping an important ally confront the challenges of the 21st Century even as they hold on to and celebrate the greatness and glory of their ancient past? The Bush Administration answered that question by pushing a democracy agenda that raised both hope for political reform and fear of political instability. The Obama Administration has adopted a less strident approach, backing away from democracy promotion while engaging in a more regional (and pragmatic) approach, taking leaders (and allies) where they can find them and offering more praise and less pressure. Elections loom next year, forcing the U.S. to confront an Egypt without longtime leader Mubarak. Should the U.S. work behind the scenes and use our influence to promote the stable transfer of power to Mubarak’s son or embrace Mohamed ElBaradei, the respected democratic challenger? To help answer such questions, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently put together a bi-partisan working group on Egypt to persuade Secretary Clinton to pursue the path of democratic reform. The text of their open letter to Secretary Clinton can be found here.

Since part of the mission of the FPA is to make foreign policy accessible to the American public, I like to recommend public sources and links to popular media. I don’t normally recommend academic articles, more often than not, they are hidden behind journal pay walls and not accessible to the public. I’m making an exception in this case to recommend an article in International Politics published by Palgrave Journals. For a short time, the publisher is making select titles available on their website for free. In this article, the author suggests the dominant narrative about the invasion of Iraq is wrong and suggests an alternative interpretation. As you know, the dominant narrative about the Iraq War in both academic and popular commentary is that it represented an expression of imperial hubris and neocon ideology particular to the Bush presidency. The author suggests that the invasion of Iraq can be seen a reflection of the spirit of liberal interventionism that dominated American foreign policy long before the Bush years. I thought the article was interesting because it questions conventional wisdom about the Iraq War and now that the complicated (and bloody) process of withdrawing from Iraq has begun it serves as a reminder that both liberals and conservatives now share responsibility for Iraq.

Photo Credit: Daily Mail

President Karzai of Aghanistan is in Washington visiting President Obama this week and is being extended a very warm welcome. This marks a remarkable turnaround in American strategy towards a leader many saw as recalcitrant and unhelpful in the U.S. war against the Taliban and al-Qaida. The U.S. had taken to scolding, prodding and criticizing Karzai in an attempt to get him to address the serious issues facing Afghanistan. This report in The New York Times explains how Karzai has gone from the dog house to the White House:

This time, the Americans are pulling out all the stops for Mr. Karzai as part of a new charm offensive. Mrs. Clinton, one of the few people in the administration with a good rapport with him, has invited him for a stroll through the grounds of a private enclave in Georgetown. Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative to the region, was dispatched to Andrews Air Force Base at 7 a.m. on Monday to personally greet Mr. Karzai. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will be Mr. Karzai’s host for a private dinner at the vice president’s mansion [...] “Two things are happening,” said Richard Fontaine, a former foreign policy adviser to Senator John McCain. “One, there wasn’t much payoff from the earlier approach. And second, it’s sunk in, after the Afghan elections last year, that this is the guy who’s going to be here for four years and change, so we better get along with him because we don’t have an alternative.”

I wonder how this all plays out in practice? Either the U.S. comes off as a most fickle partner or Karzai sees through this attempt to woo him, and either way, I think the U.S. looks rather desperate. Perhaps it’s all a ploy, as the Times article hints, to identify, elevate and encourage a new political elite in Afghanistan (as Karzai is traveling with a large number of his ministers) and prepare for an eventual Plan B. Only in Washington can you be so earnestly celebrated as you are shown the door.

Photo Credit: The New York Times