What is This, 1981?

We have massive protests in Iran, the staff of a Western embassy was held hostage, Michael Jackson is dominating the airwaves, a superpower is bogged down in Afghanistan, and now a coup in Honduras? It's enough to make me want to break out my neon fanny pack. Or, you know, be born.

When I was growing up my lefty parents gave me a book called something like "The Twenty-Third War" about a child in an unnamed Central American country forced to fight in one of a series of never-ending revolutionary wars in his country. I spent a few years in Central America growing up, but am not currently much of an expert on the region, but to me the signs are actually remarkably good.

First, coups, revolutions, and even coup attempts have been remarkably few since the end of the Cold War.

Second, no one more moderate (and less paranoid) than Hugo Chavez seems to think the United States instigated or supported the coup. This is a remarkable and welcome change from the 1980s, and even from the past eight years when the Bush Administration cheered on a coup attempt against Chavez in 2002.

Third, in many ways the coup was actually an attempt to restore constitutional order. The Honduran constitution limits presidents to one term precisely to limit leaders from obtaining the Calvin and Hobbes-esque title "dictator for life." The military installed a civilian, not a military, leader as president. If a right-wing president attempted to pass a "referendum" supporting his right to change the constitution and run for president again the leftist blogs would be up in arms (irony intended).

Fourth, a peaceful solution is likely. Most predictions I have read say that Zelaya will likely be reinstated for the remainder of his term, until next year, and not be allowed to run again. That is perhaps the best of all solutions, and one the Obama Administration and its allies should push for.

Neither Zelaya nor the military went about this in the best possible way. Zelaya should not have tried to change the constitution to his own benefit, and his opposition should not have opposed him with force. But think of how far we've come, and how much worse this situation would have been in 1981.

Interview With Tony Woods

From Sunday's Washington Post:

When it was first implemented, the policy was allegedly supposed to preserve morale and unit cohesion. How does that fit in with your experience in Iraq?

The thing that soldiers care about is, is their leader competent and does he or she care about them. And if they had a choice between a straight superior who was not very good at their job or a gay superior who was very good at their job, I think they would choose the one who's going to help ensure that they come home to their families.

Guest Post: Double-Dutch Diplomacy

Ed. Note: The following is another guest post by Michael Rohrs. The views expressed are his own.

President Obama and his administration have heretofore taken a double-dutch approach to diplomacy; that is to stand just outside the turbine and gauge the tempo; pick a calculated spot and jump in; do work, jump out, and circle back for another pass. For the most part, they have done so adeptly and eloquently. Three weeks following his address in Cairo, however, the President seems to have gotten a little tripped and tangled.

• 24 June- President Obama reinstates the U.S. Ambassador to Syria—A post that has been strategically vacant for four years.
• 25 June- The White House rescinds its invitation to Iranian diplomats to attend Fourth of July celebrations worldwide (presumably held at American Embassies).
• 26 June- Ahmadinejad publicly demands an apology from President Obama for interfering in Iranian affairs of state.

The United States is in a heated diplomatic playoff with Iran. We know this. President Obama’s strategic reinstatement of the American Ambassador to Syria on Wednesday was a straight-steal. As the Post reported, “The loss of U.S. diplomatic leverage in the region,” caused by the American response to the Syrian government’s complicity in the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, “has left a vacuum filled in large part by Iran.” It is no coincidence that because politics has forced President Obama to be careful regarding the contentious Iranian election, we’re trying to regain some diplomatic high-ground by climbing up the backside of the hill. The problem is we’re doing so clumsily.

Yesterday, the State department “disinvited” Iranian envoys from partaking in its Independence Day dissipation—a diplomatic disaster akin to taking your baseball and going home because they made you play right field. A tantrum only amplified by the White House’s self-deprecating quip, "July 4th allows us to celebrate the freedom and the liberty we enjoy…Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom to assemble peacefully. Freedom of the press. So I don't think it's surprising that nobody's signed up to come."

Even if extending invitations to celebrate our (and the rest of the world’s) freedom is standard diplomatic practice, American diplomacy operates best when we’re calling the pitches. As George Orwell espoused as his sixth and final rule of writing, we should have broken any of these rules before doing anything outright barbarous. By offering up our most sacred regalia to a base body politic, we undercut our axiomatic authority. Remember, we’re dealing with no less than half of the official state sponsors of terrorism. I’m all for extending an open hand, but you don’t invite vegans to a bull roast.

Let’s hope the President regains his diplomatic rhythm and finds his double-dutch dexterity. We need to be playing by American league rules; especially on Independence Day.

Keep an Eye on Iran Today

Today is the ultimate "take out the trash day." Yesterday Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett died, Shaq was traded and the NBA draft took place. Any possible attention left over for politics and international events is still taken up by Mark Sanford's Argentinian adventures. The only possible world news to creep in would be President Obama's meeting with Angela Merkel. In other words, now would be a perfect time for Iran to stage a Tiananmen style attempt to crush any protests. Let's hope they don't think the same thing, and keep watching to make sure they don't.

Now Get to Work!

After a lengthy delay (thanks Senate):

Obama's nominee to be under secretary of state for arms control and international security, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), and his pick to be assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, Kurt Campbell, were confirmed tonight in a unanimous consent motion, a congressional source relays.

Hopefully now they can get to work on nonproliferation treaties and taking care of East Asia. Not that those areas have had any difficulties while the posts were on hold!

Additional note: now that Tausher has been confirmed a primary date should be set for the CA-10 special election. That means Tony Woods' campaign is ramping up to full speed. Check out his website and do whatever you can to support him.

What on Earth is Bruce Riedel Thinking?

Bruce Riedel is, by all accounts, a pretty smart guy. He's been a South Asia hand for the CIA, is a Senior Fellow at Brookings, and led one of President Obama's multiple Afghanistan-Pakistan reviews this past spring. Hopefully he gives better advice to the President, because the article he wrote for The National Interest is useless at best, damaging at worst.

In short he describes what would happen if the Taliban or other Islamic extremists took over Pakistan. He paints a grim scenario: Pakistan's embassies around the world used as terrorist bases, nuclear launches on Israel, Pakistan's Shia minority turning to Iran for help, war with India, etc.

It would be bad, no doubt. The statement is about as surprising as the recent pronouncementt that al-Qaeda would use nuclear weapons if it obtained them (a subject Riedel somehow barely addresses). Yet Riedel dangerously and surprisingly (for a former CIA analyst) devotes little attention to the probability of such an event occurring, stating only that,

A jihadist victory is neither imminent nor inevitable, but it is now a real possibility in the foreseeable future. This essay presumes (though does not predict) an Islamic-militant victory in Pakistan, examining how the country’s creation of and collusion with extremist groups has left Islamabad vulnerable to an Islamist coup.

It would be pretty bad if the Taliban took over North Dakota (home to quite a few nuclear weapons) too, but I don't see it as very likely.

Riedel then outlines quite a few events that would have to occur for the Taliban to take control: aligning with Kasmiri militant groups, defeating the MQM (moderate Muslim party based in the Sindh province), defeating the military (!), the Pashtun Taliban taking over the populous Punjabi region of the country, kicking out the military's current leadership, etc. None of those scenarios (with the possible exception of the first) is remotely likely.

In fact, I see the opposite happening. The Pakistani military is going after the Pakistani Taliban hard, and the Taliban is getting even more frustrated. Various leaders of the Taliban are disagreeing with each other, to the point of assassination. No matter how unpopular the United States is, will bombing Pakistani civilians make them more likely to support the Taliban? Will bombing mosques make Pakistanis more likely to attend?

The vast majority of Pakistanis are moderate and fairly modern, and becoming more so every year. They go to the mosque, but also enjoy a little Johnny Walker Black Label in the privacy of their own homes (political and military leaders included). The country is in a tough place, no doubt, but I believe the trend lines go in the right direction. Mr. Riedel should be more careful what he says and writes.

Another CNAS Policy Win

The Center for a New American Security released a report on Pakistan and Afghanistan in advance of their conference two weeks ago in which they recommended, among other things, a drastic reduction in missile strikes from drones along in Pakistan, and a renewed focus on protecting the populations.

Now, predictably, new Afghanistan commander General Stanley McChrystal's first order was to restrict air strikes into Pakistan in order to protect the population. Of course that was followed by the news today that an air strike in South Waziristan killed two more people at the funeral of militants killed by a previous air strike, so we'll see how the policy plays out.

McChrystal also stated that air support would be limited even when directly fighting the Taliban if the fighting is taking place near populated areas. That's great, because civilian deaths are certainly counterproductive, but if American forces are pinned down in fighting near a town will he be willing to take the heat for American lives lost due to the policy? We shall see.

Update (6/23/09 14:04 ET): News reports are now saying the drone strike killed 40-80 people at the funeral. I assume that's the same strike mentioned earlier. That's what reducing strikes and minimizing damage to civilians looks like? Wow.