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 ...

Libya, Cote D'Ivoire and "Vital Interests"

Finally! A pundit draws the parallel between the humanitarian crisis in Libya and those further South on the continent. Ted Koppel on Meet the Press Sunday:

"The question hasn't yet been answered as to why it is that Libya , of all countries in that region , has won the humanitarian defense sweepstakes of 2011 . We have seen many countries, both in that region and throughout the world , where civilian loss and civilian suffering has been much, much greater. Congo for the past 12 years, we've lost about five million people. Sudan , three million people, never any talk of military intervention . Take a look at what's going on in the Ivory Coast today. Secretary Clinton was talking about the number of refugees that might have come out of a Gadhafi attack on Benghazi . You've got 700,000 refugees in the Ivory Coast right now- -close to a million, in fact."

Take a bow, Mr. Koppel.

Of course, the argument for Libyan intervention is far broader than the humanitarian rationale the president has been reiterating and that Koppel cited. Hillary Clinton made this point explicitly on MTP.

"I mean, did Libya attack us? No. They did not attack us. Do they have a very critical role in this region and do they neighbor two countries -- you just mentioned one, Egypt , the other Tunisia -- that are going through these extraordinary transformations and cannot afford to be destabilized by conflict on their borders? Yes. Do they have a major influence on what goes on in Europe because of everything from oil to immigration? And, you know, David , that raises a, a very important point. Because you showed on the map just a minute ago Afghanistan . You know, we asked our allies, our NATO allies, to go into Afghanistan with us 10 years ago. They have been there, and a lot of them have been there despite the fact they were not attacked. The attack came on us as we all tragically remember. They stuck with us. When it comes to Libya , we started hearing from the UK , France , Italy , other of our NATO allies. This was in their vital national interest . The UK and France were the ones who went to the Security Council and said, "We have to act because otherwise we're seeing a really violent upheaval with a man who has a history of unpredictable violent acts right on our doorstep." So, you know, let, let's be fair here. They didn't attack us, but what they were doing and Gadhafi 's history and the potential for the disruption and instability was very much in our interests, as Bob said , and seen by our European friends and our Arab partners as very vital to their interests."

I think that's probably the best reflection of the White House's thinking on this that we've heard. Not that that's going to silence the skeptics. If anything, this everything-but-the-kitchen-sink list of catalysts is probably going to stir the debate even more, since you can pick out and quibble with each individual rationale. And it's not clear that the totality of these incentives -- humanitarian, regional stability, Arab relations, NATO relations -- outweigh the statement by Bob Gates that directly preceded Hillary's explanation (which could have been directed at Gates as much as at the public).

"I don't think it's a vital interest for the United States , but we clearly have interests there, and it's a part of the region which is a vital interest for the United States."

Fascinating back-and-forth, and there's sure to be much more.

Congress No Monolith on Libya

The narrative that's emerged this week is in the media is that Congress opposes President Obama's action in Libya. I think that is overblown -- a handful of voices on the Hill being picked up and amplified in news reports. Some of the critiques are valid, some not terribly coherent, some posited for partisan gain.

In the first part of the week, I've reported on the congressional reaction to the U.S. lead on the military engagement in Libya through the lens of the Tea Party freshmen -- who are facing to the first military conflict initiated under their watch -- as well as senior Democrats who are backing the president (CQ, subscription required). In gathering information for both stories, it became clear to me that lawmakers' take on Libya is much more nuanced -- and conflicted -- than at first glance.

Talking Libya on the Morning News

It's a bit earlier than I normally like to start my foreign policy discussions, but I spoke to the local Fox News affiliated Tuesday at 7:30 a.m. on the political dynamics surrounding U.S. intervention in Libya. Enjoy!

Mission Indefinite?

Since the first Tomahawk missile was launched at Libyan air defenses at the beginning of the weekend, there has been almost non-stop talk about what the mission of the coalition bombing Libya IS in practice, and what a potential end-state would look like. The president tried to lay that out, full stop, on Friday, but it's done nothing to cease the chatter -- and hand-wringing -- since.

Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, appeared on a number of Sunday shows to reiterate the president's line:

"This is a very specifically focused limited military mission to provide for -- to create the no-fly zone, to ensure that we protect the civilians in Libya and provide for the humanitarian support with force authorized in accordance with the United Nations Security Council resolution," Mullen told CNN's Candy Crowley.

Mullen did not rule out the possibility of Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi staying in power. But as the British paper The Guardian noted Sunday,

"The Pentagon line contrasts with the more hawkish line in Britain, where David Cameron has insisted Gaddafi needs to go.

That's also the outcome Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) pushed for in a separate interview with Crowley. The pair -- two out of the self-labeled "three amigos" along with Lindsey Graham (R-SC) -- have been by far the most aggressive voices on Capitol Hill pushing for military action in Libya.

"Once the president of the United States says as President Obama did that Gadhafi must go, if we don't work with our allies to make sure Gadhafi does go, America's credibility and prestige suffers all over the world," Lieberman said.

The limited nature of the mission is also facing pushback from lawmakers who are at the other side of the debate on Libyan intervention. Senate Foreign Relations ranking Republican Dick Lugar of Indiana worried Sunday on Face the Nation that the humanitarian rationale was not enough to prompt military involvement, and could create a dangerous precedent.

"We must get this straight from the beginning or there’s going to be a situation in which wars linger on country after country, situation after situation, all of them on a humane basis," Lugar said of the mission's definition.

Lugar raised the situation in Bahrain. I would add Cote D'Ivoire to that list, which seems to have fallen completely off the radar, but is on the brink of a civil war that could be equally bloody and equally destabilizing to a region that can ill afford it. For some reason, nobody seems to be connecting the dots between that situation to our current actions, but I, for one, think the comparison is apt.

A number of House GOP leaders raised the same points as Lugar in press releases out Sunday.

It doesn't seem to have taken very long for the initial unity of purpose -- displayed both in Washington and internationally -- after Thursday night's UN resolution to begin to wear off ...