International Politics, Chicago Style

The now admittedly doomed (and therefore sometimes desperate) John McCain for President 2008 campaign did its very best to paint Obama as a doe-eyed idealist, prepared neither to lead the free world nor to face down the world's fiercest dictators. Obama's interactions with Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega at the Summit of the Americas last week seemed to confirm some such fears on the right. Pat Buchanan wrote a scathing article in which he called Obama an "apologist," unwilling to defend his country. Obama's inaction even caught the attention of some on the left, such as Eugene Robinson, who urged Obama to "slap back." But there are signs that Obama's Chicago past have produced a hardened politician, albeit one that doesn't fit the inside-the-beltway profile one would expect out of a President.

First, there is a thoughtful post by the ever-impressive Daniel Larison at The Week, which interprets Obama's behavior at the Summit as calculating and wise. Second, there is speculation that Obama is playing hardball with the new Israeli government, something virtually no US President has had the courage to do since Eisenhower. Allow me to explain.

For those of you who missed it (and missing it was simple, because the US media completely ignored it), Jeff Stein of CQ Politics broke a story alleging that Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) had been overheard (via NSA wiretap) promising an Israeli agent that she would "waddle into" into an ongoing case, in which two AIPAC lobbyists have been accused of spying on the US government. In return, the Israeli agent promised to lobby Nancy Pelosi to make Harman the chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee. Quite the quid pro quo, especially considering it would essentially mean that foreign government had played a major role in installing the leader of a vital intelligence oversight body. But what does all this have to do with Obama?

The story goes on to say that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales aborted an FBI investigation into Harman, because "he needed Harman’s help defending the administration’s warrantless wiretap program." So the case was dead. How are we coming to know about it now?

Enter Philip Giraldi's post on the American Conservative Blog:

"My spook friends are speculating wildly but the theory that seems to make the most sense is that the White House is extremely angry about the Netanyahu government’s trashing of the peace process and also by his appointing of former Mossad spies Naor Gilon and Uzi Arad to senior positions, as both were involved in the Larry Franklin/AIPAC case. The Administration is apparently seeking to demonstrate that it will not be pushed around by Bibi and is showing that it has teeth by taking aim at a prominent Dem politician who stepped over the line in demonstrating her enthusiasm to play ball with AIPAC. This is pretty much speculation at this point, but I have heard from several independent sources that the White House is extremely vexed with Netanyahu and is going to tell him that his delaying tactics on substantive negotiations with the Palestinians will not be acceptable, so it might seem likely that a little pushback is taking place. Whether the Obamas will allow Harman to walk the plank remains to be seen."

Though this is entirely speculative, it seems plausible. The Obama team has shown that it's willing to let other Democrats take the fall in order to strengthen their position (read: Chris Dodd and the AIG bonuses). And the Israeli government seems to be responding in kind, with the new Foreign Minister saying that "the US will accept any Israeli policy decision." We may never know if this is what's really going on, but it's worth considering.

Obama's War

Sad as it is, one of the most profound observations so far about Obama’s short tenure as President came from a Tweet by Iowa's 75-year old senior Senator, Chuck Grassley. While Obama was announcing a new ‘surge’ of 21,000 troops into Afghanistan, Grassley tweeted:

Now it bcomes Obama War Not Bush war any longer

To be sure, Obama’s move wasn’t exactly a surprise. He made a significant speech during the general election outlining his vision for a more vigorous war in Afghanistan, and he suggested the possibility of attacking Pakistan during a primary debate (he's continued and intensified controversial strikes by Predator drones in the border regions, and his focus on the internal affairs of Pakistan suggests further involvement is possible). Despite the fact that he campaigned on the issue, Sen. Grassley is right: these actions have transferred ownership of the Afghan war from Bush to Obama.

So what are we to make of this "comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan"? Let's take a look at the speech Obama made, where he announced the "surge":

1. One of the most significant parts of the plan was an appeal to our European allies, NATO members in particular, to contribute, saying that it was not only an "American problem." However, NATO committed nearly no new troops after Obama's trip to Europe earlier this month.
2. Obama, in what is arguably a vast improvement over Bush's execution of military expeditions, defined an explicit goal: "to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan , and to prevent their return to either country in the future."
3. Obama repeatedly emphasized that Afghanistan and Pakistan are inextricably linked in this conflict, though I'm afraid that conflicts with the historical reality of their relationship. According to Dr. Amin Tarzi, who spoke at UNC earlier this month, the Afghani and Pakistani governments do not recognize each other. This complex reality is just one crippling legacy of British colonialism in the region (more on that in a later post).
4. Obama takes a page from the liberal book of international politics in emphasizing the need for economic security and education. Dr. Tarzi said this will only work if the people of the region don't know the US is backing these efforts. As former CIA officer Michael Scheuer said in his piece, "Afghanistan: Where Empires Go to Die," "absence makes the Afghan heart grow stronger," implying that the US's footprint should be as light as possible when possible.
   

Given these objectives, what are the facts on the ground that we can anticipate?

First, McClatchy Newspapers reported last month that multiple Islamic militant groups reached a unity agreement in which they agreed to put aside their differences and focus on repelling the new troop surge.

Second, the President Zardari just signed a peace deal with the Pakistani Taliban, committing the Pakistani government to enforcing shari'a in the Swat region. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that this is already emboldening the militias and giving them new ground on which to train.

These two events are particularly frightening, given the video below, which shows how hostile and heavily armed people in the Northwestern region of Pakistan are:





There are certainly more things to consider about "AfPak," and I intend to write a fairly regular post about the developments in the region, in addition to presenting some of the religious, social, and geopolitical history so that we can better understand what is actually going on there.