The Stafford Voice

Our little place to talk about and share about life.

Foreign Policy

Russian Politics Posing Test for U.S.

by

One day before debate in the United Nations Security Council talk about posing tighter sanctions on the Iranian nuclear program, and Russia is resorting to their old political tactics.

Leaders from Iran, Turkey and Russia met and had dialogue over international cooperation that caused frustrated the United States, who would rather impose very strict and tight sanctions versus the Russian idea that the sanctions should not be ‘excessive.’

NYTimes:

“We’ve seen a lot of support from the international arena,” he said, according to the Turkey’s official Anatolian News Agency. “This is the voice of everyone’s heart.” Mr. Ahmadinejad also maintained a defiant posture toward the United States.

“If the U.S. and its allies think they could hold the stick of sanctions and then sit and negotiate with us, they are seriously mistaken,” he told a news conference, according to Iran’s state-run Press TV satellite broadcaster. European and American officials say the vote on sanctions could come as early as Wednesday.

Mr. Ahmadinejad said Iran would not repeat its recent offer to send part of its stockpile out of Iran for enrichment. The accord, supported by Brazil and Turkey, was designed to break the deadlock over its nuclear program, according to Iran.

While Ahmadinejad is correct in that he is receiving international support, it is mainly from one source: Russia and her puppets. Russia is very supportive of Iran, and they should be because they are a huge financial supporter for Iran and they are a source of intelligence for the technology needed as well.

“The Tehran declaration provided an opportunity for the United States government and its allies. We had hoped and we are still hopeful that they use the opportunity well,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said. “I must say opportunities like this will not be repeated again.”

He added: “We were thinking that the United States President Barack Obama would make certain changes in the United States policies. We don’t say that we are hopeless. We hope that he can actually get over the present conditions in the time that remains. We are ready for dialogue within the frame of justice and respect.”

The United States contends Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, while Iran argues its nuclear program is peaceful.

Mr. Putin, speaking at the conference, said sanctions should not be “excessive” but gave no details on whether Russia would change its mind on the vote. He called Iran’s nuclear program peaceful, a characterization with which Washington disagrees.

“I hold the opinion that this resolution should not be unnecessary, should not put Iran’s leadership or the Iranian people into difficulty,” Mr. Putin said.

But hasn’t Turkey been a long-time ally with the United States? Yes, but they have also been at the disposal of regional hyper-power Russia. And, while Russia has been resorting to its old ways of business, they have been helping give Turkey a voice of their own.

Turkey is seen increasingly in Washington as “running around the region doing things that are at cross-purposes to what the big powers in the region want,” said Steven A. Cook, a scholar with the Council on Foreign Relations. The question being asked, he said, is “How do we keep the Turks in their lane?”

From Turkey’s perspective, however, it is simply finding its footing in its own backyard, a troubled region that has been in turmoil for years, in part as a result of American policy making. Turkey has also been frustrated in its longstanding desire to join the European Union.

“The Americans, no matter what they say, cannot get used to a new world where regional powers want to have a say in regional and global politics,” said Soli Ozel, a professor of international relations at Bilgi University in Istanbul. “This is our neighborhood, and we don’t want trouble. The Americans create havoc, and we are left holding the bag.”

Turkey’s rise as a regional power may seem sudden, but it has been evolving for years, since the end of the cold war, when the world was a simple alignment of black and white and Turkey, a Muslim democracy founded in 1923, was a junior partner in the American camp.

Twenty years later, the map has been redrawn. Turkey is now a vibrant, competitive democracy with an economy that would rank as the sixth largest in Europe. Unlike Jordan and Egypt, which rely heavily on American aid, it is financially independent of the United States. And, paradoxically, its democracy has created some problems with Washington: Members of Mr. Erdogan’s own party defected in 2003, for example, voting not to allow the Americans to attack Iraq from Turkish territory.

The one thing to remember is that while regional power maps are being redrawn, Russia is holding the pen and orchestrating everything.

Obama’s Nuclear Summit

by

Recapping the days events of Obama’s nuclear summit.

President Obama’s Opening Remarks

Good afternoon, everybody.  We have just concluded an enormously productive day. I said this morning that today would be an opportunity for our nations, both individually and collectively, to make concrete commitments and take tangible steps to secure nuclear materials so they never fall into the hands of terrorists who would surely use them. 

This evening, I can report that we have seized this opportunity, and because of the steps we’ve taken — as individual nations and as an international community — the American people will be safer and the world will be more secure.

I want to thank all who participated in this historic summit — 49 leaders from every region of the world.  Today’s progress was possible because these leaders came not simply to talk, but to take action; not simply to make vague pledges of future action, but to commit to meaningful steps that they are prepared to implement right now. 

I also want to thank my colleagues for the candor and cooperative spirit that they brought to the discussions.  This was not a day of long speeches or lectures on what other nations must do.  We listened to each other, with mutual respect.  We recognized that while different countries face different challenges, we have a mutual interest in securing these dangerous materials.

So today is a testament to what is possible when nations come together in a spirit of partnership to embrace our shared responsibility and confront a shared challenge.  This is how we will solve problems and advance the security of our people in the 21st century.  And this is reflected in the communiqué that we have unanimously agreed to today.

Read entire remarks HERE.

The U.S. National Statement (PDF)

The summit communiqué (PDF)

The work plan (PDF)

A fact sheet about the summit (PDF)

PDF’s courtesy of ForeignPolicy.com

The Threat of Disarming America

by

“No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair.” – Gen. Patton

When you take a look at the threat level from rogue nations – N. Korea and Iran – it is alarming that the current administration would even humor the idea of backing down on its nuclear presence. However, the same energy that carried health care reform will, and has already begun to see the ill effects of current talks with nations like Russia.

As Iran prepares for an upcoming conference on nuclear disarmament, N. Korea is openly committed to furthering their nuclear status. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that they have “between one and six nuclear weapons.” In the same speech, Clinton says that “We will not unilaterally disarm. We will maintain our nuclear deterrent.” A mixed signal within the administration as Obama seems hard pressed to formulate a new nuclear weapons policy that would, in some eyes, disarm America. It is no secret that the current stockpile of nuclear weapons in America is old and technologically outdated.

”The United States is trying to say, ‘Look, let’s keep the bargain where all of the rest of the world agrees not to get nuclear weapons and to work with us to keep nuclear weapons from terrorists and other states, because we are keeping our side of the bargain. We are doing everything we can to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and reduce the number of nuclear weapons.’”

That may be what is said, but what is being heard is another story. What it says to countries like Iran and N. Korea is that we don’t want you to have nukes, and while we will still maintain our outdated weapons at a lesser level, you in turn will agree that you will not further your acquiescence of nuclear weapons. While it is easy to make accusations with a statement like that, it is in some ways beginning to take shape in that manner.

Our side of the bargainis demonstrated with the nuclear talks with Russia, in the hopes that they would take the side of the U.S. in sanctions against Iran. However, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sees things differently. Although he agreed that nations should not “turn a blind eye” to Iran’s nuclear defiance, he indicated that Russia would not support sanctions that would punish Iran’s people or encourage regime change. He told reporters in Prague, where he and Obama signed an arms control agreement on nuclear weapons, that: “Let me put it straightforward. I have outlined our limits for such sanctions.”

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s outright defiance toward sanctions, has created what some are calling diplomatic foot-dragging, while he continues to take a strong stance on the direction and purpose as to Iran’s nuclear efforts. But, only time will tell after Tehran holds it’s international conference of nuclear disarmament on April 17th and 18th, where it is said that Iran “does not consider legitimate the possession of nuclear weapons and other [forms of] weapons of mass destruction by any country,” and adding that Tehran believed in a world free of such weapons.

With noise like that coming out of Tehran, it is hard to understand their stance when they make statements that, “If America makes a crazy move, its interests will be endangered by Iran’s allies around the globe.”

A Sinking Ship of State

by

A well article by Tony Blankley posted at Townhall is worth the read.

Last summer, President Obama spent several months publicly anguishing over what he would or wouldn’t do in Afghanistan. Finally, he agreed to ramp up troop levels but warned that he intended to start getting American troops out in 18 months. After anguishing in several columns over the president’s anguishing, I concluded in November 2009:

“If the Taliban and al Qaeda retake Afghanistan, the world (and America) will have hell to pay for the consequences. But this president and this White House do not have it in them to lead our troops to victory in Afghanistan. So they shouldn’t try. The price will be high for whatever foreign policy failures we will endure in the next three years. Let’s not add to that price the pointless murder of our finest young troops in a war their leader does not believe in. Bring them home. We’ll need them later.”

At the time, about five months ago, the New York Times also reported that Mr. Obama “admonished President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan that he must take on what American officials have said he avoided during his first term: the rampant corruption and drug trade that have fueled the resurgence of the Taliban.”

Mr. Obama told reporters that he was seeking “a sense on the part of President Karzai that, after some difficult years in which there has been some drift, that in fact he’s going to move boldly and forcefully forward and take advantage of the international community’s interest in his country to initiate reforms internally. That has to be one of our highest priorities.”

Mr. Karzai and the Afghan government were told “to put into place an anticorruption commission to establish strict accountability for government officials at the national and provincial levels. …”

“In addition, some American officials and their European counterparts would like at least a few arrests of what one administration official called ‘the more blatantly corrupt’ people in the Afghan government.”

That same week, coincidentally, the New York Times reported on the front page the name of a purported CIA-paid undercover asset. It was none other than Ahmed Wali Karzai, the powerful brother of the Afghan president. The Times cited, on background, Obama administration “political officials,” “senior administration officials” and others as its sources to the effect that the Afghan president’s brother has been secretly on the CIA payroll for eight years as well as being a major narcotics trafficker.

Last week, Mr. Obama made a surprise visit to Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. The White House did not release the transcript of the conversation between the two presidents. But conveniently, while en route to Kabul, Mr. Obama’s National Security Adviser Gen. James L. Jones, who was traveling with the president, went on the record with the prediction that Mr.

Obama would (as reported by the Times) “pressure Karzai about corruption in governance and (would) tell Karzai that he had made no progress on this front since his Nov. 19 inauguration.”And this week, the product of this careful six months of public diplomacy by the Obama administration bore its predictable fruit. The New York Times headlined its story on Mr. Karzai’s reaction: “Karzai’s Words Leave Few Choices for the West.”

According to the Times: “The tensions between the West and Mr. Karzai flared up publicly last Thursday, when Mr. Karzai accused the West and the United Nations of perpetrating fraud in the August presidential election and described the Western military coalition as coming close to being seen as invaders who would give the insurgency legitimacy as ‘a national resistance.’ ”

Mr. Karzai stepped up his anti-Western statements: “If you and the international community pressure me more, I swear that I am going to join the Taliban. …”   

Read the entire article HERE.

Live Coverage of Taliban Attacks Banned By Afghanistan

by

While there has been a draw-down in Marjah, changes are beginning to take shape. One major change is that Afghanistan has banned live coverage of the Taliban attacks, saying that it enables the enemy. This has been a source of concern during the entire war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan alike. The constant feed of news is finally being slowed to ensure not to help defeat the advancement of liberty.

Reuters – Afghanistan bans coverage of Taliban attacks

The announcement came on a day when the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) fighting the Taliban reported six of its service members had been killed in various attacks.

Journalists will be allowed to film only the aftermath of attacks, when given permission by the National Directorate of Security (NDS) spy agency, the agency said. Journalists who film while attacks are under way will be held and their gear seized.

“Live coverage does not benefit the government, but benefits the enemies of Afghanistan,” NDS spokesman Saeed Ansari said. The agency summoned a group of reporters to announce the ban.

The move was denounced by Afghan journalism and rights groups, which said it would deprive the public of vital information about the security situation during attacks.

One could accept the argument made by the journalists, however, if it is helping aid the enemy by providing the public information then the journalists should wait to share their story. The only objection one could make is if the locals are in immediate danger.

Another change being seen in the Marjah region, is that of the people and their understanding of just what type of action is being taken.

AssociatedPress – Afghan complaints show obstacles ahead in war

An Afghan government delegation from Kabul, headed by Vice President Karim Khalili, made its initial foray to the town to meet with some 300 tribal elders and residents at the largest shura, or council meeting, since coalition troops seized control of Marjah last month.

NATO military commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal and civilian chief Mark Sedwill came along in a sign that international forces intend to support the Afghan government’s efforts in the troubled south.

“The most important thing is to bring peace and stability to the people in Afghanistan,” Khalili told the residents. “This is a promise. … It’s our priority to talk to each other. But others want to prevent this. We will not allow them to keep people hostage again. This is a beginning in Marjah. We will be with you. We will stay and fight. We will bring you good governance.”

But the townspeople appeared skeptical — and some were angry.

An elderly man, wearing a gray turban, stood up to say that his family members had been killed during the military operation, although he didn’t say by whom.

After offering his condolences, Khalili reached out to embrace him and promised some money and assistance to his family.

Another elderly man, dressed in a white turban and blue tunic, complained that his house was destroyed during the offensive.

“You promised not to use big weapons. Why was my house destroyed?” he asked.

He invited the delegation to visit his home nearby.

The allied forces have cleared most of Marjah and are now working to secure the area, though NATO has warned there could be pockets of violence for weeks. Hundreds of Afghan police and civil servants are being brought in with the goal of establishing public services to win the support of the population.

NATO officials say establishing good local governance is key, because corruption and lack of services have led many Afghans to turn to the Taliban.

“We need to move fast enough to try to meet expectations. But carefully enough that we’re not party to being blind to some of the nuances,” McChrystal told reporters. “The key thing is to get the locals represented and shape it the way they want because they’ll know best. In the near term, they have to feel represented. They have to feel it’s fair.”

For more commentary:

The Networked Enemy; The New Way of War

by

Everyday people are studying the actions and commands of the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, trying to understand not only the American forces but also those of the enemy. One such idea that does not seem to be going away is that of the age of information. When used correctly it can be the deciding factor.

John Arquilla, writer at Foreign Policy, took a look into this very issue:

Even the implications of maturing tanks, planes, and the radio waves that linked them were only partially understood by the next generation of military men. Just as their predecessors failed to grasp the lethal nature of firepower, their successors missed the rise of mechanized maneuver — save for the Germans, who figured out that blitzkrieg was possible and won some grand early victories. They would have gone on winning, but for poor high-level strategic choices such as invading Russia and declaring war on the United States. In the end, the Nazis were not so much outfought as gang-tackled.

Nuclear weapons were next to be misunderstood, most monumentally by a U.S. military that initially thought they could be employed like any other weapons. But it turned out they were useful only in deterring their use. Surprisingly, it was cold warrior Ronald Reagan who had the keenest insight into such weapons when he said, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Which brings us to war in the age of information. The technological breakthroughs of the last two decades — comparable in world-shaking scope to those at the Industrial Revolution’s outset two centuries ago — coincided with a new moment of global political instability after the Cold War. Yet most militaries are entering this era with the familiar pattern of belief that new technological tools will simply reinforce existing practices.

In the U.S. case, senior officials remain convinced that their strategy of “shock and awe” and the Powell doctrine of “overwhelming force” have only been enhanced by the addition of greater numbers of smart weapons, remotely controlled aircraft, and near-instant global communications. Perhaps the most prominent cheerleader for “shock and awe” has been National Security Advisor James Jones, the general whose circle of senior aides has included those who came up with the concept in the 1990s. Their basic idea: “The bigger the hammer, the better the outcome.”

Nothing could be further from the truth, as the results in Iraq and Afghanistan so painfully demonstrate. Indeed, a decade and a half after my colleague David Ronfeldt and I coined the term “netwar” to describe the world’s emerging form of network-based conflict, the United States is still behind the curve. The evidence of the last 10 years shows clearly that massive applications of force have done little more than kill the innocent and enrage their survivors. Networked organizations like al Qaeda have proven how easy it is to dodge such heavy punches and persist to land sharp counterblows.

While it is a good article, the one thing it does not address is the ability for a force as large and complex as that of the United States to utilize the ability to use the network-based communication idea and apply it against the enemy.

That is the one advantage the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have over the American forces. They are smaller and network, or communicate, better between each other while American forces are left to wait for information to filter down through its complex command structure. The current age of technology has been proven as an avenue to dispense information. Social media sites have taken over as an informal way to share information, and it is only a matter of time for a more secure means to surface.

Strategic Withdrawl; An Enabled Enemy

by

In the current age of information, both the internet and 24/7 news agencies have created an open window into the policies and strategies of the American way. This has been very detrimental to the strategy of advancing in places like the Afghan region. Reason being, it has enabled the enemy as to when and where the next mission will take the American forces.

ForeignPolicy – Strategic Withdrawl