CNAS Conference Round-Up

I spent all day at the Center for a New American Security's annual conference. The think tank has become the de-facto bench for a lot of top Obama Pentagon officials (Flournoy, Miller, etc, etc), so the room was packed with people waiting to see what future policies might look like (although quite a few people left after keynote speaker General David Petraeus was done).

The event featured four panels, each on a recent report the organization has produced, on Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, natural security, and North Korea.

Overall I thought the event was very well run. I got to meet two of my favorite bloggers, Andrew Exum and Tom Ricks. Both panelists and the audience raised some very interesting points. The fact that I didn't get satisfactory answers to my questions is beside the point. I thought topics missing from the reports/panels included:

1. How much can we trust Pakistan's government? What leverage do we have for increasing accountability and governance in Pakistan? What metrics should we use for how responsive and cooperative Pakistan's government is, and can we tie aid to those metrics?
2. Lots of organizations are writing reports about how climate change and natural security are related to national security. Of course they are. These groups are great at saying "you think that's bad, let me paint an even worse scenario for you." I get that it's bad. How about some solutions or policy prescriptions. I already drive a hybrid car, but I want something on a bigger scale. CNAS' project is just getting started, so hopefully they can come up with some answers.
3. One reason China may be reluctant to get tough with North Korea, or allow us to really tighten the screws, is that they fear a humanitarian crisis and refugees flooding across their border if North Korea really goes downhill. What can we (the United States or the international community) do to lessen that possibility, in order to enable China to take action? The panel said that South Korea is even more worried about refugees than China. Fine, I get that, but what can we do?

If any of my readers has answers or opinions, I'd love to hear them.

Taliban's Questionable Tactics

I am of course encouraged by the news that in parts of Pakistan, such as Dir, people are standing up to the Taliban (although I suspect a little wishful thinking by the reporter is also involved). I also applaud the Pakistani military's efforts to back up those home-grown uprisings against the Taliban (though they need to improve their aim to the point that they are helping, not killing, the population). 

But what are the Taliban thinking? Bombing a mosque won't encourage the population to side with you. How does that encourage people to be more observant and go to the mosque more often? Is their argument "the government can't protect you from us, so you should side with us?" A weak argument at best. The larger bombing of a hotel popular among foreigners I can understand on the premise that it might discourage foreigners from coming and providing aid, but a mosque? Just who is providing the strategic thinking for the Taliban?

Obama's Bulletin Board Cairo Speech

Once again President Obama's speechwriters did a masterful job on today's speech in Cairo directed at the Muslim world. I enjoyed all the references, from the Koran and elsewhere, on Islam as a religion of tolerance, peace, and knowledge. And I certainly detected some themes from Vali Nasr, an Iran expert and former professor of mine who advised on the speech. 

But it seemed too busy to me, as if it was trying to be all things to all people, groups, or advisers. The speech had seven major issue areas: violent extremism; Israel-Palestine; nuclear weapons/Iran; democracy; religious freedom; women's rights; and economic development and opportunity. I can imagine the writing process where a group of writers and advisers gather in a room and each pins several dozen issues they want included in a bulletin board before gradually taking those down they didn't absolutely have to have. I wish they had been able to pull a few more. Not that all of those issues aren't very important, but it jumbled the overall message, that America's interests are aligned with the Muslim world on many core values. 

It was trying to be something to everyone, and while it did an admirable job of that I think the process weakened some of the core message. And as many have noted, the only actions he promised or proposed were more discussions. The messages were good, but it could have been stronger if they were less muddled and if they were backed by stronger actions. 

Cybersecurity is Useless...

...if we continue to make human errors like this one. Apparently we published a "highly classified" list of nuclear sites online, in "an online newsletter devoted to issues of federal secrecy." (emphasis mine).

We can have the best security procedures and safeguards in the world, but it can't make up for human beings making stupid decisions like this, or flying nuclear weapons around by accident. As the saying goes, we have to get it right every time, the terrorists just have to get it right, or be lucky, once.

One Armed Economist...

With respect to President Harry Truman...

On the one hand, the decision by a Pakistani court to release Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist group and alleged mastermind of the Mumbai attacks, is remarkably unproductive for both counter terrorism activities and Pakistan-India relations.

On the other hand the court ruled that the arrest of Saeed and his three colleagues violated Pakistan's already fragile constitution. Any decision that strengthens the secular judicial system at this point in Pakistan is a welcome step. 

I'm not sure how Pakistan's double jeopardy laws work, but I do wish that information/intelligence/evidence sharing between Pakistan, India, and the United States had been a little better so that Saeed could have been brought to justice with sufficient evidence to properly charge him with his crimes. 

Define "Win"

Yesterday the New York Times called for General Stanley McChrystal, bound for Afghanistan once he dodges the Senate shrapnel, to be asked tough questions. It doesn't seem like he's getting them. Today on the Hill he said the war in Afghanistan was winnable. But did any senator ask him what a win would look like? Of course not. 

Game 6 was winable for the Cleveland Cavaliers (if LeBron had decided to play while not on Ambien). I know what that means. But you don't win a war, and especially not a counterinsurgency, by having more points than the other "team." What is a win in Afghanistan? A thriving democracy with a strong economy? All the Taliban dead? A 300,000 person Afghan army capable of controlling the whole country (and the tax revenue to support it)? Without defining the term, saying the war is winnable is just a good sound bite. 

Onward Pakistan

For all their faults, South Asians in general and Pakistanis in particular are steadfast. I've been pretty harsh on the Pakistani mindset of refusing to take responsibility or action for the problems facing their country. I'm not convinced that they are now taking responsibility, but at least the Army and the general population have recognized the threat the Taliban poses. They should, and I predict will, continue their actions in Swat and the NWFP, despite the increased bombings, kidnappings, and whatever else the Taliban can dream up. If they're shooting at you, you know you're touching a nerve. 

Yes, the Pakistani Army's tactics have been heavy handed, displacing 2.5 million people in order to chase several thousand. That's far from ideal, and I would certainly encourage restraint (shelling a town doesn't usually encourage your enemy to come out and fight, it only enrages and kills the local population), but the signs are encouraging. Pakistan moved several thousand troops from the Indian border, as many people around the world have urged them to do. So don't stop now because of some bombings and kidnappings.

All due respect to the very smart Amed Rashid, but Pakistan is not "on the brink" of collapse. The central government has never had much control over the NWFP, much less the FATA. The population, and perhaps just as important the Pakistani press, seem to have recognized the danger the Taliban pose and have embraced the offensive as an action that is good for Pakistan rather than doing the bidding of the evil Americans. 

Pakistan has plenty of problems, primarily the lack of good governance and the terrible economy, but the country working together against the Taliban could be a turning point. Perhaps this is what the army meant when it kept saying it could take on the Taliban whenever it felt the need. 

I will keep up the pressure on Pakistan, but they also deserve credit when they do a good job.

(image from Dawn.com, "Locals walk past an army check point, lifting up their shirts to show they are not wearing suicide jackets.")