As we wait for Gen. McChrystal’s report on the war in Afghanistan I thought I would call your attention to this YouTube video in which the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen invites questions from the public on national security and military personnel issues for an online discussion billed as a virtual town hall. The forum for submitting questions ends tonight at midnight, so be sure to get your question in. Admiral Mullen is in the news for his critique of recent U.S. efforts to counter Islamic extremism using “strategic communication,” efforts which he says lack credibility. His solution is to simply let our actions speak louder than our words. Wise man.

The U.S. Role blog generally examines U.S. actions in the international context and only rarely is our focus on domestic politics. The passing of Senator Edward Kennedy provides an opportunity to note how this important domestic event is reverberating in the world at large. This report from the Associated Press offers some insight into how world leaders saw Kennedy and notes his involvement in promoting peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland as one of his greatest international achievements:

Nowhere outside of America has the Kennedy legacy been more deeply felt than in Ireland, where photographs of the family adorn homes and hundreds claim to be distant relations of the glittering dynasty that brought the first Roman Catholic to the White House. Here, Senator Edward Kennedy is largely known as JFK’s brother. But he was also a power broker who mobilized Irish Americans and their political views on Northern Ireland — a kingmaker whose actions in the years before the Good Friday peace talks served to lay the groundwork for a lasting accord.

I would also suggest that as a dynamic leader of one of our political parties, Kennedy was an example to the world of the vibrancy of the two-party system in America. As someone famous for his ability to reach across party lines, build coalitions, and forge pragmatic solutions to complicated problems he was also a symbol of the strength and resiliency of the democratic process.

Photo Credit: AP

This report in The New York Times notes that Attorney General Eric Holder has named a federal prosecutor to examine alleged abuse of prisoners held by the C.I.A., as officials released a 2004 report detailing abuses inside C.I.A.-run prisons overseas:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. named a veteran federal prosecutor on Monday to examine abuse of prisoners held by the Central Intelligence Agency, after the Justice Department released a long-secret report showing interrogators choked a prisoner repeatedly and threatened to kill another detainee’s children. [...] The decision was a significant blow to the C.I.A, and Mr. Holder said he would be criticized for undercutting the intelligence agency’s work. He said that he agreed with President Obama’s oft-expressed desire not to get mired in disputes over the policies of former President George W. Bush, but that his review of reports on the C.I.A. interrogation program left him no choice.

How will this public report and investigation of interrogation practices  impact the U.S. role in the world? Will this be an affirmation that the U.S. is a country that abides by the rule of law and holds itself to a high standard of justice? Will sensational media reports about abuse give support to our enemies and allow them to score propaganda points as they recruit new members? The Council on Foreign Relations offers this summary (CIA Probe and the Torture Debate ) of the debate. This is a complex issue and there are many competing viewpoints. The summary does a great job contrasting sources that say the investigation is needed but it’s not enough, or it’s needed but it goes too far, or it’s not needed and provides propaganda points for our enemies. If you are not familiar with this debate the sources they cite should help you figure out where you stand on an issue that is sure to dominate the headlines for months or years to come.

Photo Credit: CFR/AP

The election is Afghanistan is over and in an interesting twist, both candidates are claiming victory amid charges of ballot fraud. Before departing for his vacation, President Obama praised the election as a sign of progress while noting the important work yet to be done:

President Obama hailed Afghanistan’s election as an “important step forward” for the country. The president said in the Friday afternoon statement on the White House lawn that he was struck by the “courage” of Afghans who voted despite intimidation and violence perpetrated by the Taliban. [...] Mr. Obama also talked about the future of the country, and the continued presence of U.S. troops eight years after 9/11. “Our goal is clear: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda and their extremist allies,” he said. “That goal will be achieved, and our troops will be able to come home as Afghans continue to strengthen their own capacity and take responsibility for their own future.” As the war in Afghanistan is also becoming more unpopular in the U.S., Mr. Obama also defended the reasons for continuing the fight. “This is not a challenge that we asked for. It came to our shores when Al Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks from Afghanistan. But America, our allies and partners and, above all, the Afghan people share a common interest in pursuing security, opportunity and justice,” he said.

This report from CBS News indicates that the American public is growing increasingly concerned about the war in Afghanistan. Those concerns about the war are well expressed in this commentary from the Cato Institute that suggests that a war focused only on defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan without considering the larger strategic relationships with neighbors India and Pakistan is doomed to fail:

Unless Washington addresses Pakistan’s existential fear of India, and their military leadership’s continued support for the Taliban in order to counter India’s influence in Afghanistan, U.S. and NATO troops could fight for decades, win every discrete battle, and never come close to eradicating the militancy.

At a time when the probable U.S. response will be to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, that strategic vision is timely.  Adding India to the mix would be an important step in a comprehensive solution to the regional conflict. Indian concerns are well summarized in this report from Reuters. Perhaps India could be added to Ambassador Holbrooke’s portfolio? Special Envoy to Afpakindi has a nice ring to it.

Photo Credit: The Washington Post

Here is an interesting roundup of critical commentary on the Mideast peace process from former U.S. statesmen by the Voice of America news service. The report was inspired by President Obama’s meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in the Oval Office last Tuesday and contains excerpts of interviews showcased in a 20-minute film titled New Hope for Peace: What America Must Do to End the Israel-Palestine Conflict. In the film, produced by the Foundation for Middle East Peace, former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski share their insights on the U.S. role in promoting Mideast peace.

Photo Credit: VOA

I think the U.S. role in the coordinated bombing attacks in Iraq is noteworthy. As this report in The New York Times notes, the U.S. role was remarkable not because the U.S. did too much, but because U.S. troops did nothing, as per our agreement with the Iraqi government:

Insurgents struck at the heart of the Iraqi government on Wednesday in two huge and deadly bombings that exposed a new vulnerability after Americans ceded control for security here on June 30. Nearby American soldiers stood by helplessly — despite the needs of hundreds of wounded lying among the dead — waiting for a request for assistance from Iraqi officials that apparently never came.

“As much as we want to come, we have to wait to be asked now,” said an American officer who arrived at one site almost three hours after the blast and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief reporters. At one blast site, American soldiers snapped pictures of the devastation before ducking out of the streets.

I can’t help but wonder if there will now be calls for a revision of our agreement to turnover security in the cities to Iraqi forces. If it has been shown that they are not up to the task, should we intervene? The video below from MSNBC offers an emphatic “no” to that question, while this commentary in the Guardian offers grounds for optimism that Iraqi security forces will be able to step up and meet the challenge while noting that there will necessarily have to be limits to our restraint.

Photo Credit: Times Online

This report in The New York Times offers details on President Obama’s visit with Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt, today at the White House:

Mr. Obama welcomed the 81-year-old Egyptian president for his first White House visit in five years, continuing a concerted effort to improve bilateral relations that had been damaged not only by the Iraq war but also by Bush administration criticism of Egypt over matters of democracy and human rights. Mr. Mubarak responded with warmth. He said that the American president had “removed all doubts about the United States in the Muslim world,” referring to what he called Mr. Obama’s “great, fantastic” speech delivered in Cairo in June. “We are moving in the right direction” on restarting peace talks, Mr. Mubarak said.

That sounds very encouraging, but how much movement in the right direction is really going on? The report notes a few minor signs that Israel is making conciliatory efforts on the settlements issue in line with President Obama’s vision for Mideast peace. For the sake of balance and reciprocity, the following sentence should read: The Palestinians and Israel’s Arab neighbors are also making conciliatory efforts. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.  The report notes that President Obama  has called for confidence-building measures (granting overflight rights to Israeli civilian aircraft, increasing cultural cooperation and allowing Israel to open interest sections in foreign embassies abroad) by all sides. This call has been rebuffed by Egypt and other Arab peace partners. In fact, it appears that President Obama’s Cairo speech has not had a positive impact in shaping opinion in the Arab world. This BBC News review of Arab commentary finds deep skepticism about President Obama’s efforts to promote Mideast peace:

Intensive diplomatic efforts by top US officials in the Middle East this week failed to convince Arab commentators that Washington really wants to put pressure on Israel to stop the expansion of Jewish settlements. Most writers pointed out that the talks the US peace envoy George Mitchell, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and National Security Adviser Jim Jones had in the region, including in Israel, Syria and Egypt, did not achieve the declared “good progress” towards peace.

So while I’m looking for signs that Obama’s meeting with Mubarak today will inspire Egyptian leadership to rally concrete steps for peace in the region, I’m not optimistic. What more can the U.S. do to move all parties closer to the elusive goal of Mideast peace?

Photo Credit: The New York Times

I’d like to take a minute to turn from our usual focus on foreign policy and diplomacy to take a look at science and technology. The U.S. has a proud history of being a world leader in technological innovation. This website, for example, provides a list of U.S. Nobel Prize winners, as of 2008, and it’s impressive, to be sure. Depending on your interests, I’m sure you will recognize the names of the esteemed winners. What can the U.S. do to make sure that this history of innovation continues? This commentary from MSNBC suggests several answers to that question and notes President Obama’s call for a “new spirit of innovation” as an important step in the right direction. A future haunted by global warming is certainly one motivator, as is securing the promise of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and robotics. Emerging technologies promise to create entirely new industries that will become engines of economic progress and prosperity if we invest now in determined efforts to maintain a culture that promotes and rewards innovation.

As you know, the U.S. has refused to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and has made statements officially supporting the territorial integrity of Georgia after last year’s war with Russia. The news that Russia will be building up a military presence there is sure to prompt an American reaction. According to this report in The Washington Post:

Speaking on the anniversary of his nation’s victory over Georgia in a five-day war last year, Putin said the Kremlin planned to spend nearly $500 million to build a base in the separatist enclave and reinforce its de facto border with Georgia. [...] His remarks and appearance in Abkhazia underscored Russia’s growing foothold in what once was Georgian territory and highlighted the sharp differences that remain between Moscow and Washington despite the Obama administration’s efforts to “reset” bilateral relations.

But what kind of reaction can we expect from the Obama Administration? This analysis from Ariel Cohen, Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, examines Vice-President Biden’s visit to to Ukraine and Georgia last month for clues on the U.S. relationship to the region and suggests to me that something less than a strong response is likely:

In a speech before the Georgian parliament, Biden correctly rejected Russia’s claims to a 19th-century-style sphere of influence. He delivered a message that the U.S. is seeking a free, secure, democratic, and united Georgia. Yet again, he fell short of operational details. Biden’s call to the world not to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is the minimum Washington can do, yet the Vice President rejected any “physical security guarantees” to Georgia in case of a Russian attack. Nor did he articulate any concrete roadmap intended to restore Georgia’s sovereignty and hold Moscow to its commitments to the Medvedev-Sarkozy accords of August 2008, which call for the restoration of the status quo ante along Georgia’s borders.

Cohen outlines four specific steps the U.S. could take to reassure allies in the region while maintaining good relations with Russia. As much as they all make sense, I was struck more by his comment that Biden’s visit in itself, rather than having Obama visit, sent a signal stronger than any speech that the U.S. was distancing itself from the region. Could it be that the U.S. need for Russian strategic cooperation in other areas of the world (Iran, Afghanistan, nuclear arms treaties) will prompt us to accept the de facto independence of the former Georgian territories?

Photo Credit: Gulf Times

The video above from MSNBC notes the surge of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and gives a quick update on the state of the war there. The U.S. Army is encouraging debate on the war in Afghanistan and in this blog post they note several different voices in the debate including those who ask if Afghanistan really matters. The debate is also taking place over at the Democracy Arsenal blog. This debate is interesting to me because it counters the idea that fighting the war in Afghanistan, no matter how long it takes, is directly justified by the 9-11 attacks. Even those who objected to the war in in Iraq generally saw Afghanistan as the “good war.” This op-ed in The Washington Post by the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan notes that the upcoming election in Afghanistan will be a turning point in the international effort to stabilize that country. Does the debate about Afghanistan signal a weakening of resolve, or a necessary reappraisal before we dedicate ourselves to a much more difficult, and deadly, phase of the war?