Salon.com > U.S. foreign policy

The real reason not to intervene in Syria

Fri, 03 May 2013 17:22:00 +0000

Demands by politicians and pundits for intervention in Syria have become so strong that they now seem to be influencing U.S. policy. But are they right? The most emotionally powerful arguments came from the State Department former policy planning head Anne-Marie Slaughter. The Obama administration is in danger of letting genocide akin to the one in Rwanda in the 1990s occur, she wrote, in the Washington Post. The case of Rwanda haunts Democrats. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called not saving Rwandans her “greatest regret” from her time in office, “something that sits very heavy on all our souls.” U.N. ambassador Susan Rice has similarly expressed agony over U.S. failure to intervene in Rwanda.

Drone victim: U.S. strikes boost al-Qaida recruitment

Thu, 02 May 2013 19:00:00 +0000

On April 17, a 23-year-old Yemeni activist and journalist named Farea Al-Muslimi tweeted about a U.S. drone strike on his village, Wessab, which he describes as “the Yemen capital of misery with its beautiful mountains no one from outside remembers.” In the strike, five alleged members of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) were killed. The U.S. droned Yemen 53 times last year, tripling the number of attacks from 2011, and incurring a civilian casualty rate between 4 to 8.5 percent. On April 23, Al-Muslimi gave stirring testimony at the first U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on the legality of drone wars.

In the exclusive conversation below, Al-Muslimi tells Salon about the drone strikes’ devastating toll on Yemeni civilians and how the current U.S. counterterrorism policy in Yemen is like “reading from a manual '10 Steps on How to Lose a War.'”

Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American

Tue, 16 Apr 2013 23:24:00 +0000

As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing -- the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity -- the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation's collective reaction to the attacks. That's because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are -- and are not -- collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.

This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings -- even though most come at the hands of white dudes.

President’s visit shouldn’t ignore refugees in peril

Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:01:00 +0000

During his visit Friday to Jordan, there's little doubt President Obama will praise it for its hospitality toward some 350,000 Syrian refugees. While praise and support for Jordan’s reception of many Syrian refugees is deserved, the president should not give Jordan a free pass when it comes to its forcible returns of Palestinian refugees to Syria.

During interviews we conducted in Jordan in January and February, a Syrian refugee told us what the Jordanian authorities said to him as he approached the border with his Palestinian wife:

‘You can come, but she is not allowed because she’s Palestinian.’ I told them our house is burned down and that we have no house to go back to. The Border Patrol officer said, ‘That is not our problem.’ I begged him. My wife and children were begging and crying not to be sent back. He said, ‘It is impossible,’ and put us in a military vehicle and took us to the border.

Jordan has made no secret of its policy. In October, Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour publicly announced Jordan’s policy to reject Palestinian refugees from Syria when he told the Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat, “Jordan has made a clear and explicit sovereign decision to not allow the crossing to Jordan by our Palestinian brothers who hold Syrian documents.”

Liberal racial hypocrisy

Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:00:00 +0000

Since the reelection of President Obama, liberals have made some bold admissions. Commentators like Touré Neblett of MSNBC’s The Cycle have enthusiastically and repeatedly defended the president’s authority to launch drones against anyone, including American citizens, if he suspects that they are “trying to kill us.”

At no point in his several defenses did Touré reconcile his position with once-popular Constitutional precepts that every person should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and know the charges and evidence against him, and have the right to a fair trial. Neither did he explain why ordinary Americans should suspend their longstanding skepticism of politicians in power or withdraw the demand that the president and Congress be accountable for their actions, especially the taking of someone’s life.

Why Washington needs Joe Biden

Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:15:00 +0000

Justin Logan, the director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, has an excellent piece at the American Conservative arguing that Paula Broadwell’s quick and inexplicable rise through the foreign policy establishment -- to a station that would put her in such close proximity to David Petraeus -- illuminates the groupthink of the national security elite in Washington. It's an elite that obsesses over process arguments while eschewing real debate over important strategic issues.

For instance, Logan writes, the debate over Iran starts and ends with the assumption that the country must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons at all costs. It's almost impossible to find inside voices who question that underlying assumption, even though there’s plenty of evidence that it would be possible to contain a nuclear Iran at reasonable costs. Meanwhile, President Obama made few major adjustments to George W. Bush’s national security apparatus. Mitt Romney, who disagreed with Obama on just about everything, could find almost nothing substantive that he would do differently from Obama on strategic national security issues. On Israel, China, Russia or the need for a massive American military empire there is a clear, bipartisan foreign policy consensus; dissenting voices are dismissed almost out of hand as unserious, so most people who hold them stay quiet to stay on the inside.

Ignore McGovern’s message at your peril

Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:54:00 +0000

George McGovern lived his public life with an integrity that in these rancid political times, all of us might envy. He unfortunately is remembered most for his overwhelming defeat at the hands of Richard Nixon in the presidential election of 1972, but it is worth noting that Nixon resigned in disgrace, the only president to ever abandon his office. McGovern was a historian, undoubtedly with profound respect for the presidency; it is difficult to imagine his obstructing justice or abusing his power in the Nixon manner.

As we count the dwindling numbers of World War II veterans, we recall McGovern’s heroic service in that conflict. He piloted the lumbering B-24, the slowest of our combat bombers, through 35 hazardous missions over numerous targets in Nazi-occupied southern Europe. He received the Distinguished Flying Cross for one mission in which his navigator was killed, yet he safely landed his crippled plane on a small Adriatic island.

Ann: Hillary is “doing a great job”

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:55:00 +0000

It’s an anodyne softball question from a glossy magazine known better for its reviews of home goods than its hard-hitting political interviews, but Ann Romney’s answer to Good Housekeeping is illuminating. Asked who her “heroes” and “role models” are, the would-be first lady replies, “I would say Eleanor Roosevelt, Mother Teresa ... and Hillary Clinton. She has been through so much; she just kept going. Now she's doing a great job as Secretary of State.”

The response is interesting in its own right for the inclusion of two Democratic first ladies and the omission of Republicans like Nancy Reagan or Laura Bush (or the focus on first ladies in general). But it’s especially interesting in the context of the political debate over Libya. If there’s one thing that every conservative commentator or elected official knows about last night’s debate -- even the conservatives that proclaimed Obama the winner -- it’s that the president lost on Libya. Depending on where you fall on the kookiness spectrum, the Obama administration, and particularly the State Department, were either critically negligent before the attacks on U.S. diplomats there, or were maybe secretly hoping that Americans would be killed. And when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took personal responsibility for the attacks Monday night, the right was driven “to surreal heights of psycho-sexual anxiety," as Joan Walsh wrote.

Chinese leader-in-waiting reappears after two weeks

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:04:00 +0000

BEIJING (AP) — U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met Wednesday with Chinese leader-in-waiting Xi Jinping, who just days ago reappeared after a puzzling two-week disappearance.

The meeting was part of Panetta's weeklong trip through the Asia Pacific, in a campaign to pursue the U.S. military's increased focus on the region.

Xi stood to greet the American delegation in a lavish room in the Great Hall of the People and energetically shook Panetta's hand. Once seated, he said Panetta's visit "will be very helpful in further advancing the state-to-state and military-to-military relations between our two countries."

Panetta told Xi that the two Pacific powers have common concerns and that he is confident they will be able to improve their dialogue.

The U.S. and China have long had a tumultuous relationship, fueled by America's distrust of Beijing's military buildup and China's concerns about the expanded U.S. military presence.

In repeated statements this week, Panetta has stressed that the new focus on Asia is not aimed at China. But the U.S. has had persistent concerns about China's growing economic and trade dominance in the region.

Dumb tweet of the day: “Bow, bow, bow”

Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:04:00 +0000

[embedtweet id="246356906564792320"]

If the Iranian powder keg explodes

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:49:00 +0000

Ever since December 27th, war clouds have been gathering over the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow body of water connecting the Persian Gulf with the Indian Ocean and the seas beyond. On that day, Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi warned that Tehran would block the strait and create havoc in international oil markets if the West placed new economic sanctions on his country.

“If they impose sanctions on Iran’s oil exports,” Rahimi declared, “then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz.” Claiming that such a move would constitute an assault on America’s vital interests, President Obama reportedly informed Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that Washington would use force to keep the strait open. To back up their threats, both sides have been bolstering their forces in the area and each has conducted a series of provocative military exercises.

Scary movie: Commander in chief Gingrich

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:09:00 +0000

Presidential campaigns offer an opportunity to compare what the candidates say on the trail with what the job requires in the White House. With regard to foreign policy in 2012, the issue of Iran offers a case in point. In recent weeks, the United States and the Islamic Republic have once again clashed publicly while still seeking to negotiate privately over Iran's nuclear program. The responses of President Obama and of the candidates who hope to succeed him illuminated the fundamental foreign policy choice facing voters who will choose a commander in chief next November.

On Sunday, the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln moved through the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most heavily trafficked oil export route, on schedule and without incident. While the carrier had transited the strait numerous times before, it did so on Sunday amid a series of threats from members of the Iranian government in response to a tightening of international sanctions against Iran’s oil exports.

The scariest commander in chief

Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:00:00 +0000

In September 2006, the Wall Street Journal published an Op-Ed by Newt Gingrich headlined "Bush and Lincoln." In the article, Gingrich argued that President George W. Bush, five years after the 9/11 attacks, faced a threat no less dire than that facing Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. "American survival [is] at stake," he declared. He outlined what needed to be done: put Iran, Syria and even our allies Saudi Arabia "on notice" that any interference in Iraq will be taken as hostile acts by the U.S.; disarm Hezbollah; publicly declare a commitment to replace the regimes of North Korea, Iran and Syria; and replace the "national security systems" such as USAID with new agencies and departments. These actions are necessary, he concluded, "if we are to succeed in winning this rising World War III."

Gingrich has surprised many by surging in the polls for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination race. So far, though, commentary has mostly focused on his electability, lobbying ties and personal life and less on his substantive views especially on international issues. Some see Gingrich as no worse than Romney on foreign policy. After all, they seem to draw on the same set of hawks and neocons as advisors and both show little regard for the realists that were once such a strong part of the Republican Party.