Second Guessing Obama's Middle East Strategy

It was pretty interesting to read this ForeignPolicy.com piece by Aaron David Miller on Syria after the White House announced a new set of sanctions targeting strongman President Bashar al-Assad and other senior officials in Damascus.

It's been equally riveting to witness the whole carnival-like media coverage surrounding what is being billed as a landmark speech on the Middle East that the president is slated to give later this morning. The sheer number of pre-buttals -- of what Obama may say, what he should say, why he shouldn't say anything at all -- would be nothing short of stunning, except that this is D.C. and it's all we have to live for.

If I had more time on my hands, it would be an illuminating exercise to go back and re-read all the news coverage and opining from the past few days post-speech.

Instead, I'll likely be chasing down reaction and fall-out to the president's proposals -- the specifics of which have already been made public to a certain degree. A story I wrote last week scoped out the lay of the land ($$) on the Hill when it comes to aid for nascent democratic movements in the Middle East and North Africa. The White House is working with key senators on ways to channel economic assistance to Egypt and Tunisia, as well as the rebels in Libya, but, as I wrote at the time, "those efforts will face resistance in both chambers."

A round-up of other reporting I've done in the past week on the view from the Hill on the "Arab Spring":

- Weapons Sales to Arab Nations Need Fresh Scrutiny, Lawmakers Tell Officials ($$), 5/12

-  War Powers Deadline Approaches on Libya ($$), 5/13

- Senators Ready Sanctions Bill Against Iran as Obama Gets Tough on Syria ($$), 5/18

While You Were Sleeping

... I was on MSNBC Saturday morning. Here is the (belated) YouTube clip of me talking about Guantanamo detainees possibly getting visitors. Gitmo is not my usual bag, but it's definitely a subject that continues to generate a great deal of interest on Capitol Hill.

Oh Canada, Where Art Thou?

The average American gives very, very little thought to our neighbor on our Northern border. Even folks who follow politics and foreign affairs pay little heed to the Canadians affairs. As Jonathan Kay writes in a piece posted last week on ForeignAffairs.com:

It is a credit to Canada that that few outsiders pay much attention to what goes on there.

Because its had "Canada" in the headline I'm assuming most Foreign Affairs readers Stateside skipped right over Kay's piece. Is so, they're missing out on a pretty compelling argument for why Canada's recent election is worthy of the attention American political junkies and the general public, alike.

For the former, there is the transformative power shift the election ushered, which could "set the stage for the emergence of a conventional two-party system," Kay writes, thus entirely reshaping Canada's political system. It's the sort of real life case study of electoral systems and political realignment that makes any good political scientist's heart go pitter-patter.

Then there are the practical implications for what Canada's newly empowered center-right government means for the United States:

Canada will align more closely with the United States on a broad range of foreign policies, including border protection, the war against terrorism, and support for Israel.

The Canadian government is also poised, Kay writes, to:

More aggressively develop it's oil and gas exports, and as the Middle East lurches from crisis to crisis, will be able to supply a greater percentage of the United States' energy needs.

They may not be aware of it, but Americans panicked by the rising cost of fueling their cars could soon have a lot of reasons to cheer this particular evolution in Canadian politics.

The U.S. & Pakistan: The More Things Change ....

So much has changed, yet so much remains the same in the week since President Obama interrupted a drowsy Sunday night with his stunning announcement that American forces had found and killed Osama bin Laden. That holds especially true for the U.S. relationship with Pakistan. For the last several decades, the bilateral relationship has been one of our most intractable foreign policy dilemmas. Before Sunday it didn't seem possible for the relationship to get more complicated, but with the outing of Bin Laden's hideaway deep in Pakistan, it most certainly did.

The fall-out is still TBD. The Hill turned its attention to Pakistan's role in the whole Bin Laden affair almost immediately. But, as I wrote in a feature for this week's magazine, the reaction has been surprisingly restrained. The majority of senior lawmakers have resisted the urge to pitch Islamabad overboard immediately, despite the fact that, as I wrote, "no one seems to believe that the whole Pakistani power structure could have been ignorant of bin Laden’s whereabouts all these years."

But that's not to say lawmakers are not going to be looking to use the incident to hammer away at specific segments of our Pakistan aid program they have long disliked. There is also going to be an overwhelming impetus to try and leverage the aid dollars we do continue to deliver. Though as international development experts have warned for years, that practice is largely counterproductive, reinforcing the sense in Islamabad that the U.S. is trying to buy them off.

The folks at the Center for Global Development, in particular, have written some thoughtful analysis of late on perception vs reality when it comes to Pakistan aid.

The next few months are likely to  see a continuing drip-drip-drip of news about Bin Laden's hideout in Abbottabad, and what Pakistani officials knew. Lawmakers' reaction will be an important indicator for how much our relationship with Pakistan has evolved over the last decade beyond its purely transactional roots ... or not.

The Real Three Cups of Tea Fallout

I have not read Three Cups of Tea and have not been closely following the hullabaloo over revelations about the accuracy of Greg Mortenson's memoir or the integrity of his charity.

So this Brookings blog post on the scandal by international education expert Rebecca Winthrop provided some welcome perspective.

Winthrop writes:

"The underlying message of Mortenson’s book and his related advocacy – that investment in education is greatly needed in Pakistan and it is an important part in promoting peace – still holds true, despite whatever factual inaccuracies in his book."

That was my initial reaction to the news, as well. But she also provides some important context about Mortenson's work in Pakistan.

"Despite the importance of Mortenson’s message on the education crisis in Pakistan, the effectiveness of his Central Asia Institute remains questionable. Good intentions do not necessarily translate into effective international development practices and NGO management." 

That may be the understatement of the year!

Mission Creep in the Commentariat

The chattering classes in Washington have put forth an endless stream of commentary on the American intervention in Libya ever since the first planes began flying over Tripoli nearly two weeks ago. Much of is had blended together in my mind -- is the Obama doctrine really a doctrine? are we repeating the mistakes of Iraq (circa 2003)? Of Afghanistan (circa 1989)? What sort of RtoP precedent (that's "responsibility to protect" for you non-IR geeks out there) does this set?

But two voices caught my attention today -- both pushing for boots on the ground as the only logical extension to the original RtoP mission in Libya. Aside from the hawks on Capitol Hill, I hadn't seen too many commentators making this argument in the quite the realist vein as these two serious thinkers.

Anthony Cordesman of CSIS:

"From a Libyan viewpoint, dragging the country into a long political and economic crisis, and an extended low-level conflict that devastates populated areas, the net humanitarian cost will be higher than fully backing the rebels, with air power and covert arms and training."

And on ForeignPolicy.com, U.S. Army Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik (Ret.) penned a piece entitled simply, "Boots on the Ground." Dubik:

"Contrary to the president's assurances, the only long-term political solution for Libya will require having Western troops on the ground. How would security otherwise be provided in a post-Qaddafi Libya? Not by air power and a few intelligence operators on the ground. Nor by the Libyan police and army, for they have committed crimes and atrocities against Libyan civilians on behalf of Qaddafi. And given that we don't really know the composition of the rebel force, can we expect it to behave with kindness and mercy?"

 A sea change in thinking on the Western role in Libya? Hardly. But it will be interesting to see if this approach gathers more adherents if the stalemate in Libya continues.

Weekly Rounds

Last week, the foreign policy discussion on Capitol Hill was absolutely consumed by debate about Libya. It was Congress' first week back since time the international community launched its military campaign against Qaddafi and his regime, and they came back to Capitol Hill with guns blazing.

Much of the week, members seemed focused on fighting past battles, i.e. how the Obama administration went about inserting American military forces in the offensive in North Africa. Only towards the end of the week did lawmakers begin focusing their sights on the next steps in Libya. Two stories from CQ ($$) I wrote on this with colleagues last week :

Libya Rebel Groups Will be Vetted, Obama Administration Officials Say

McCain, Kerry Look for a Way to Authorize Use of U.S. Forces in Libya

This coming week, Libya will still be on the radar, but it's going to be overshadowed by budget battles and the looming threat of a government shutdown, which will impact the international affairs community just as it does everyone else that works with and relies on money and guidance from the U.S. government.

Among other events to watch for:

Israeli President Shimon Peres is in the United States, and will meet with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday and lunch with President Obama on Tuesday. (Speaking of Israel, if you missed Roger Goldstone's op-ed in WaPo reconsidering his famous/infamous UNHRC report, you best read it now!)

The UN is going to be on the hot seat in the House, with hearings scheduled in the House Appropriations and House Foreign Affairs Committees Wednesday & Thursday. Susan Rice will be the featured witness in both, trying to defend the UN's budget and practices from a GOP majority that has long been skeptical of this and other multilateral organizations.
- Approps subcommittee hearing, 4/6, 10 am
- Foreign Affairs full committee hearing, 4/7, 10 am

And, of course, the government shuts down 4/8 unless House GOP leaders and Senate Dems strike an 11th hour deal. What a shut-down would mean for government workers and the rest of us who indirectly make our living off of government action is still not entirely clear ...