February 2010 Archives

This week the Obama administration renamed the Iraq war "Operation New Dawn," ushering in an endgame of U.S. troop withdrawals over the next two years and a steady reduction of the U.S. role and influence in the everyday life of that nation. With national elections scheduled for March 7 as another milestone, we would like to ask exactly what you believe has been purchased with U.S. blood and treasure in Iraq, whether those gains can be sustained, and how they balance out against the costs.

And going from that macro view to the micro, do you believe that the Iraqi elections will mark a major step forward, for instance, in healing the fault lines between Sunni and Shiite, Arab and Kurd? Has a strong enough foundation been laid in terms of institution-building to sustain a unified and democratic Iraq, or will the country remain susceptible for the foreseeable future to civil war or military coup?

Will the United States military be able to keep to its schedule of withdrawing 50,000 troops by Aug. 30, and all combat troops by the end of 2011? What will the post-2011 U.S. presence look like? Are the Iraqi security forces capable of standing up as U.S. forces stand down, and to remain defenders of, and subservient to, a democratic government?

14 responses: Larry Korb, David Krieger, Gordon Adams, Richard Hart Sinnreich, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., James Kitfield, Michael Brenner, Ron Marks, Daniel Serwer, Michael Brenner, Kori Schake, Daniel Serwer, Wayne White, Michael Brenner

On the 30th anniversary of the Islamic Republic, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad taunted the West by proclaiming Iran's ability to produce weapons-grade nuclear fuel if it one day chooses to do so; announced further uranium enrichment; and successfully kept the opposition "green movement" in check through suppression of Internet services and a show of security forces on the street. So what, if anything, should the Obama administration do now?

This week, we would like you to consider the options on the table for dealing with Iran, choose the best among them or write your own, and predict the likely outcome of a crisis that may reach a culmination in the six to 24 months that experts variously estimate it will take for Iran to achieve a nuclear weapons capability.

Here are the options most frequently discussed:

1. Continued gradual pressure from the U.N. Security Council, combined with other U.S.-led, non-U.N.-approved sanctions targeted narrowly at the Revolutionary Guards and hardliners associated with Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

2. "Crippling" sanctions, to include a ban or even embargo on refined petroleum imports to Iran, as urged by the U.S. House and Senate and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

3. Full open and clandestine support for the opposition "green movement."

4. Military strikes against Iran's nuclear complex.

What should President Obama do next on Iran?

14 responses: Col. W. Patrick Lang, Michael F. Scheuer, Steven Metz, Patrick B. Pexton, Michael F. Scheuer, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Wayne White, Paul Sullivan, Michael Brenner, Paul R. Pillar, Steven Metz, James Jay Carafano, Robert Baer, Daniel Byman

You've all heard the arguments for and against. Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen are now for dropping "don't ask, don't tell" and allowing openly gay troops to wear the uniform. So is President Obama. So is Colin Powell, who as head of the Joint Chiefs in 1993 helped torpedo the idea at great political cost to the young Clinton administration.

Mullen said it was partly a question of honor, and he questioned a policy that forces members of the armed services to lie about who they are or be forced out. The counterargument from some Republicans, veterans groups and others is that it's a "social experiment" that could harm readiness, unit cohesion and even esprit de corps -- especially now, in the middle of two wars.

Which is it? Should we lift the gay ban or not? And have society and members of the military changed so much in 17 years that we won't repeat the previous impasse in Congress, which led to a compromise that satisfied no one?

16 responses: Joseph J. Collins, Gordon Adams, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Richard Hart Sinnreich, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Michael F. Scheuer, Col. Robert Killebrew, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Larry Korb, Gordon Adams, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Gordon Adams, Michael F. Scheuer, Wayne White, Gordon Adams, Kori Schake

President Obama is in a rough political patch with the apparent demise of his top domestic priority, universal health care; with the loss of a 60-vote Democratic supermajority in the Senate; with improved Republican prospects for the midterm elections in November; and with his once sky-high approval rating now below 50 percent.

So, what does his weakened position mean for his handling of foreign affairs and for the tack that allies, rivals and outright enemies take toward the U.S.? With his focus on "jobs, jobs, jobs," Obama devoted a grand total of nine minutes to national security issues in his State of the Union address. Does this suggest less activism on the foreign policy front? If so, Obama would be going against the historical pattern, which suggests that a president weakened on the domestic front is likely to become more energetic in foreign affairs as the realm that is less subject to congressional and political control at home (Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon are examples).

In any case, what is the best course for Obama at this juncture? Should he try to improve his standing at home with a prestige-enhancing triumph abroad? Are there such opportunities out there -- for example, a bold deal with the Russians on nuclear disarmament, a tough package of sanctions against Iran, a breakthrough on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Are the Russians, the Chinese, the Pakistanis, the Iranians, the Indians, the Japanese, the Europeans, likelier to be tougher or more accommodating with Obama facing troubles at home? (Or to put it another way: Do any of them want to see Obama fail?) Is a weakened Obama in danger of being seen as another Jimmy Carter -- that is, as an ineffectual president not likely to serve another term? (The analyst Les Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations is already likening Obama to Carter.) Is his damaged domestic position likely to matter in any way to Al Qaeda and other anti-U.S. Islamic militant groups?

Any and all speculations on this theme are welcome.

12 responses: Michael F. Scheuer, Michael F. Scheuer, James Mann, Paul Starobin, Joseph J. Collins, Michael Vlahos, Christopher Preble, Paul Sullivan, Paul Starobin, James Jay Carafano, Ron Marks, Michael Brenner