Demise of American grand strategy

I'd like to point out that I haven't been linking to NYT as much now that I started using Google Reader (don't worry NYT, I still love you). This is from James Goldgeier, writing in CFR about American "strategic drift" since the fall of the Berlin Wall:

"What became clear by the time Bill Clinton became president was that formulating a simple and relevant new strategic purpose for the United States was no easy task. Clinton often harangued his aides for failing to come up with a Kennanesque vision, believing that he needed a replacement for containment to explain his foreign policy to the American people. His top State Department advisers even arranged a dinner in 1994 with Kennan, who was still going strong at age 90. The old master's response to their quest? Forget the bumper sticker, he said, the world was now too complex. Try, instead, he suggested, "for a thoughtful paragraph or two."

Kennan had hit upon a central truth of the post-Cold War world: with no single enemy and a range of diverse challenges--including proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change, pandemics, terrorism, the rise of new great powers, and globalization--there would be no bumper sticker."

US to halt Afghan poppy eradication

The NYT is reporting that Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, has announced a major shift in US counter-narcotics policy in Afghanistan. The shift, which will align US policy more closely with the approach favored by the UN and European countries, will phase out eradication in favor of support for legitimate agriculture, interdiction, and rule of law.

This announcement represents a major change in US drug policy. It recognizes the fact that eradication efforts have largely failed in the face of resistance from the Afghan government, elements of which are widely acknowledged to be in on the drug trade, and lack of support from UN and NATO allies. It also recognizes a central paradox of supply reduction efforts: where eradication has been successful, it has driven up the price of opium, leading to the cultivation of new areas (see the balloon effect). Indeed, the international approach to drugs in Afghanistan has been such a disaster that some observers, notably the Senlis Council, have suggested legalizing production and selling the opium to the global pharmaceutical industry (this approach is not without its critcs). For more on all things drug-related, see my friend Nina's blog.

Although the shift away from eradication probably makes sense, the systems which the US will rely upon to fill the gap (legitimate agriculture, interdiction, the justice system, and the borders) are not exactly "ready for prime time." Legitimate agriculture has been destroyed by years of war and neglect, law enforcement is incompetent and corrupt, and both the formal justice system and the borders (both of which I worked on to some extent) are pretty nascent. Another piece of this puzzle is cooperation with Afghanistan's neighbors, especially Pakistan and Iran; Iran had originally been invited to the G8 meeting but, what with ruthlessly crushing dissent and everything, wasn't able to make it.

Afghanistan now produces 93% of the world's opium. If you ask me, the issue will only be addressed when the country is administered by a national government that legitimately wants to address it, and is willing to remove corrupt officials and confront local warlords in order to do so. That government is not the Karzai government, and Karzai looks set, despite massive unpopularity, to win another term in August.

Tweeting the revolution

The NYT has an interesting article on the use of Twitter in the ongoing protests in Tehran over the Iranian presidential election. While acknowledging that other forms of communication, including websites and regular text messages, have played an arguably more important role than Twitter, the article points out several aspects of the new technology which have made it particularly useful. Most important is the fact that, as a tool rather than a website, Twitter has been essentially impossible to shut down:

"You do not have to visit the home site to send a message, or tweet. Tweets can originate from text-messaging on a cellphone or even blogging software. Likewise, tweets can be read remotely, whether as text messages or, say, “status updates” on a friend’s Facebook page. Unlike Facebook, which operates solely as a Web site that can be, in a sense, impounded, shutting down Twitter.com does little to stop the offending Twittering. You’d have to shut down the entire service, which is done occasionally for maintenance."

The article also quotes HLS cyberspace guru Jonathan Zittrain; I saw him give an awesome, hilarious presentation on internet law a few months ago. In addition to connecting the Tehran protesters with each other, social media technologies like Facebook and Twitter have been critical in getting information to international news outlets, which have been essentially blocked from sending reporters to the protests. For example, the mobile phone video of protester Neda Soltan bleeding to death after allegedly being shot by the Basij has been picked up by international news sources including CNN, provoking outrage both domestically and around the world.

Not coincidentally, the NYT is also reporting that Jared Cohen, a 27-year-old member of the State Department's policy planning staff, contacted Twitter last week to request a delay of scheduled maintenance which would have interrupted service during the protests. It seems that the State Department's use of communications technology, which previously focused on distributing books about Abraham Lincoln, may be catching up with the times.

Clinton vs. Biden

It's not exactly news at this point, but as part of his record-time staffing of key Cabinet posts, President-Elect Obama has announced his picks for key members of his national security team, including Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, Robert Gates to continue as Secretary of Defense, and General James Jones as National Security Advisor. The selection of Hillary Clinton, who will come burdened with several kinds of political baggage, has raised eyebrows; Politico has offered a reasonable explanation for the choice, focusing on the "team of rivals" philosophy. Here is a quote:

"A possible clue to Obama’s willingness to consider Clinton for chief diplomat can be found in a January interview he gave to Katie Couric, anchor and managing editor of the “CBS Evening News.” As part of her “Primary Questions” series, she asked him what books besides the Bible he would considers essential if he were elected president. “Doris Kearns Goodwin's book ‘Team of Rivals,’” Obama replied. “It was a biography of Lincoln. And she talks about Lincoln's capacity to bring opponents of his and people who have run against him in his cabinet. And he was confident enough to be willing to have these dissenting voices and confident enough to listen to the American people and push them outside of their comfort zone. And I think that part of what I want to do as president is push Americans a little bit outside of their comfort zone. It's a remarkable study in leadership.”"

This sounds good, but it raises the obvious specter of a potentially unproductive conflict between Clinton and Biden; while Clinton will nominally be the top foreign affairs advisor to the President, the presence of a VP with real-deal foreign policy experience and a habit of asserting his own ideas could potentially set up a tug of war. Along related lines, Global Dashboard picked up a post from the Atlantic Monthly's Marc Ambinder about the fate of Clinton's foreign policy advisors. Ambinder writes:

"So where does Hillary Clinton's foreign policy cabinet hang its hat for the next four years? Her main team consists of:

Richard Holbrooke, the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and Dayton Peace Accord broker; Clinton's chief defense adviser, Bob Einhorn, a Clinton administration veteran and non-proliferation expert, Andrew Shapiro, Clinton's chief foreign policy adviser, Wendy Sherman, a senior adviser to Madelieine Albright and Warren Christopher, and Melaine Verveer, a former Clinton chief of staff and longtime Clinton confidante.

Now -- signing up for Team Obama, especially when things were not looking so hot in late 2007, was a real act of professional courage for many Obamaites. And there was quite a bit of tension between the two camps -- although it's not clear whether the principals listed above were involved.

Tensions have cooled; Clinton advisers are assisting Obama's transition team and serving on several advisory committees. But staff is destiny, and there are conflicting reports about how much latitude Clinton will have to bring her own team aboard."

We will look forward to seeing how this all plays out.