September 2009 Archives

"It is past time to stop talking about starting negotiations, and time to move forward," a plainly impatient President Obama declared before convening a closed-door meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City on Sept. 22 with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas. OK, but now what? The Arab and Israeli press, in equal measure, derided the "summit" get-together, on the sidelines of a United Nations confab, as little more than a photo-op, with Abbas also drawing flak from Hamas for attending the meeting without first getting an advance agreement from Netanyahu's government to freeze all settlements construction.

As the clock ticks, is there any substantive action that Obama can and should take -- something beyond mere words -- to get these talks going, and in particular, anything to get Netanyahu to agree to a total freeze on growth in settlements? Would prospects for a deal be better served if the rickety Netanyahu government fell? Should the White House also be talking to Hamas? And just how dire are the consequences of a complete derailing of this diplomatic track -- does the world really collapse if the stalemate continues, however much Obama's prestige may suffer?

9 responses: Col. W. Patrick Lang, Michael Brenner, Paul Starobin, Wayne White, Michael Brenner, Dov S. Zakheim, Christian Caryl, Kori Schake, Col. W. Patrick Lang

In announcing plans to abandon the Bush administration's missile defense system in Eastern Europe, President Obama said that his alternative is more flexible and better tailored to the nature of regional threats. Specifically, Obama says that the Navy's Aegis theater missile system, which he favors, could be put into use earlier than the Bush system and is better equipped to defend against Iran's short- and medium-range missile capabilities. The system also has the added benefit of not making the Russians more paranoid at a time when the administration wants Moscow's cooperation in curbing Iran's nuclear program and reducing American and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals. Critics charge that Obama is appeasing an authoritarian Russia at the expense of our democratic allies in Eastern Europe and leaving the United States and NATO allies more vulnerable to Iran's missiles. Which side is closer to the truth?

12 responses: Michael Brenner, Henry D. Sokolski, Richard Hart Sinnreich, Daniel Byman, Andrew Bacevich, Paul R. Pillar, Michael F. Scheuer, James Kitfield, Ron Marks, Michael Brenner, Joseph Cirincione, Baker Spring

Eight years ago, as the grounds of the World Trade Center and a chunk of the Pentagon lay smoldering, it was an easy if grim guess that the American homeland, sooner or later, would be attacked again by jihadist terrorists. But at this point, no such attack has occurred, and the question ripe for debate is why. Razor-sharp U.S. intelligence? The bringing of the fight to the "home turf" of the terrorists in Afghanistan and the tribal borderlands of Pakistan? The emergence of Iraq as a more convenient place to kill Americans than America itself? A calculated decision by the terrorists not to wage a second wave of assaults? Sheer luck?

And what can and should be done, at home and abroad, to make sure that no second attack occurs, ever?

9 responses: Joseph J. Collins, Steven Metz, Patrick B. Pexton, Michael Vlahos, Michael F. Scheuer, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., James Jay Carafano, Ron Marks, Michael Brenner

Afghanistan is escalating faster than Iraq draws down, creating a dilemma for President Obama. The number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan has nearly doubled since last year, from 32,000 last fall to more than 63,000 today. Now reports swirl that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the new U.S. commander in Kabul, may ask for another 40,000, bringing the total to beyond 100,000.

Meanwhile, the Taliban is inflicting record casualties, with August the deadliest month on record for coalition forces; last month's Afghan elections were marred by widespread fraud; and polls say that the majority of the U.S. public believes the war is not worth fighting. Many observers draw the parallel to Iraq at its worst and to George W. Bush's "surge" there of reinforcements who are widely, albeit controversially, credited with turning that conflict around.

Should Obama gamble that more troops and new tactics will turn the tide, as Bush did in Iraq, and how many more troops would it take? Or does Obama risk his presidency by getting bogged down in another Asian land war in support of an increasingly undemocratic government? And what's the alternative to an "Afghan surge" -- perhaps, as conservative columnist George Will wrote last week, withdrawing and relying on special forces, intelligence and drones just to monitor the Afghanistan-Pakistan border?

19 responses: Col. Douglas Macgregor, Steven Metz, George Ward, James Jay Carafano, Michael Brenner, Michael F. Scheuer, Steven Metz, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Wayne White, Steven Metz, Michael F. Scheuer, Bing West, Dov S. Zakheim, Michael Brenner, Ron Marks, Rachel Kleinfeld, Chris Seiple, Bruce Hoffman, Josef Joffe