Does The Onion Now Have a Foreign Policy Editor?

That bastion of satire The Onion has been on a roll lately regarding foreign policy. Did they get a new writer or editor with more foreign policy, or is Afghanistan just really easy to mock because no obvious answers exist? Here's a quick round up, but keep your eyes out for others.

"Obama Weighs Options in Afghanistan" -- my favorite is "Not only learn the lessons of Vietnam, but apply them as well"

"Heroin Addicts Pressure President to Stay the Course in Afghanistan"

"Afghan Presidential Election A Celebration Of All Forms Of Government" -- "Afghanistan has become a shining beacon of democracy, theocracy, autocracy, and authoritarianism in an otherwise troubled region."

Perhaps the best is "U.S. Continues Quagmire-Building Effort In Afghanistan"

This video of course is similar to my idea about Call of Duty: Counterinsurgency.

Ultra-Realistic Modern Warfare Game Features Awaiting Orders, Repairing Trucks

Of course the greatest Onion foreign affairs article ever, written just before George W. Bush took office and proving to be all to prophetic, remains "Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over.'" It gets sadder and more true every time I read it.

Wilkerson Steals My "Armed Peace Corps" Headline

Michael Wilkerson at FP's Passport blog has a very similar argument to my post from two weeks ago refuting O'Hanlon's op-ed. Thanks for the thoughts Michael, I'm glad you agree. But would a link to my ideas posted a week before yours be out of line?

The Times' Afghanistan Round-Up

Once again the New York Times decided to follow my lead, this time doing a review of "is Afghanistan worth it" stories. Check it out, if only for comparison's sake.

New York Times Editorial on India

Someone at the Times' editorial board must be reading my blog. They published an editorial today calling for India to step up to its responsibilities as the world power they are striving to become.I've I've been saying that for some time now. The article appropriately calls for India to examine how its posture is viewed in Pakistan, and communicate better, especially about its activities in rebuilding Afghanistan. 

India has played a constructive role in helping rebuild Afghanistan, but it must take steps to allay Islamabad’s concerns that this is a plan to encircle Pakistan. It should foster regional trade with Pakistan and Afghanistan. 

Easier said than done of course. It's all well and good for the Times to call for India to initiate arms control talks with Pakistan and China and reach out for a solution on Kashmir. Israel should find a way to make peace with the Palestinians too, but it's just not that easy. Yes, India needs to step it up. But how about an article echoing my point about how focusing on Pakistan keeps India from achieving greatness? Follow me there, New York Times. 

Mainstream Media Asks About Afghanistan Plan

Washington Post writer Dan Froomkin has picked up my point about changing generals not really being a change in plans. 

President Obama still doesn't have an exit strategy for Afghanistan. Thebenchmarks he promised over six weeks ago are still anyone's guess.But yesterday he certainly took some decisive action: He fired his top general there -- right in the middle of a war.You could see this as a good sign, I guess -- as a evidence of a healthy recognition by Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates that more of the just same wasn't going to cut it in Afghanistan.But -- especially if you consider the aforementioned lack of an exit strategy and benchmarks -- you might also see this as an indication that Obama has committed himself to a mission in Afghanistan that isn't actually achievable. 

I'm glad they're picking up the ball and noticing that key point. Hopefully soon someone will actually ask the Administration about the lack of an actual plan. 

My Letter to the Editor of the NYT

Since the New York Times continues to believe that it comes up with its ideas all by itself, without any help from me, it refused to publish my letter to the editor about their editorial, "Watershed Moment on Nuclear Arms." Luckily for me, and you, I have this blog, so I can publish it myself:

To the Editor:

I wholeheartedly embrace your call in Wednesday’s editorial [“Watershed Moment on Nuclear Arms”] for setting a goal of reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 1,000 deployed warheads by 2012. But that move can be made unilaterally in the Nuclear Posture Review, due by the end of the year, without any reduction in our deterrence capabilities. A replacement for START could be discussed concurrently or subsequently, but the announcement of the move need not wait for negotiators. The reduction would send a powerful message not just to Russia and nuclear aspirants like North Korea and Iran, as you mention, but establish the United States as a credible leader in the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world as we move toward the 2010 conference to renegotiate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and attempt to create a solution that includes nuclear-armed India and Pakistan.

Robin J. Walker

Washington, DC

The New York Times Expands On My Argument, Again

Maybe I should start a Colbert-esque "Who's Ripping Me Off Now" bit, except then Colbert could do a segment on how I'm ripping off his segment. Also, it always seems to be the New York Times ripping me off, so that would get old. No sooner do I write a post than a week or so later the Times writes a whole article or editorial on it.

This time it's a preview article from the NYT Magazine asking "Can Pakistan Be Governed?" It's a good article full of interesting anecdotes, but they take nine pages to argue what I discussed in one blog post, "Dearth of Pakistani Leadership."

In short, President Zardari is corrupt, incompetent, self-interested, and weak. Former Prime Minister and curent opposition leader Sharif is a populist who blows in the winds of a country who's people hate the United States. Army Chief Kayani could either be the savior of the country, or its worst enemy, since he is the former head of ISI. Chaudhry seems smart, committed to democracy, honest, and principled, having stood up to both Musharraf and Zardari and united a good deal of the population behind him (including Sharif for as long as it is politically convenient). Could the United States help him move up from Chief Justice to President, or does he have skeletons in his closet too?