Category Archives: Obama Administration

On Islam, Romney Doesn’t Have the Slightest Idea What He’s Talking About


by Juan Cole, History News Network, May 7, 2012

Mitt Romney said Monday that of course he would have taken out Osama bin Laden and that “even Jimmy Carter would have made that call.”

Since Jimmy Carter ordered a brave and risky but failed military mission into Iran, that was a cheap shot on the part of someone who has never had anything to do with the military. Moreover, Jimmy Carter made peace between Egypt and Israel and played a major role in reducing the number of Africans stricken by the Guinea worm from 3.5 million to 1,100. So Romney, who has mainly been sending our jobs overseas, isn’t good enough to shine Carter’s shoes.

Moreover, Romney is forgetting what he said about Obama when bin Laden was killed:

“I think the president deserves credit for approving a relatively high-risk entry into the country with helicopters and special operations personnel, Navy SEALs,” Romney said. “That was the thing that proved to be successful.”

So at the time, Romney acknowledged that Obama made the decision, and that it was a high-risk strategy that he approved (advisors such as Joe Biden preferred a missile strike). Continue reading On Islam, Romney Doesn’t Have the Slightest Idea What He’s Talking About

Tribalism in Yemen has changed deeply


Tribesmen voting in al-Ahjur, Central Highlands, 1978

By Elham Manea, The Daily Star, April 6, 2012

February’s presidential election in Yemen by no means marks the end of the country’s troubles. However, the suggestion that the United States host a new arrangement based on decentralized negotiation between tribal and regional leaders is not the way to solve them.

Such a call ignores lessons from Yemen’s past and underestimates the deep changes that have taken place in Yemeni society over the last decades. Although the tribal system continues to operate as the prevalent mode of social organization, it is crucial to recognize that the nature of tribal networks and institutions has changed drastically.

Historically, tribal networks compensated for the state’s lack of capacity. The tribe assumed the role of protector and provider: securing tribal territory, protecting water wells, and resolving conflicts between its members or with other tribes. In many ways, the tribe was the institution of first resort for financial backing and social support in times of crisis. It is perhaps very telling that Aden – where the nuclear family has displaced the tribe as the main social unit – is more affected by poverty than regions that have preserved tribalism, such as Shabwah, Mahra and Al-Dali.

Tribal sheikhs were also once accountable to their constituents: They were elected and could be voted out. Thus, a sheikh was often regarded as a first among equals, rather than an absolute ruler. Custom (Irf) governed the mediation of conflict within or outside the tribe and could not be violated without loss of honor – a distinct disgrace – and threat of severe penalty. Continue reading Tribalism in Yemen has changed deeply

Into the Snake Pit: The US and Restructuring the Military in Yemen


by Gregory Johnsen, Waq al-Waq, February 24, 2012

The closest thing the US has to a “Yemen Czar” is John Brennan, President Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser, and so when he speaks on Yemen – as he did recently – it is a good idea to pay attention.

On Monday, the eve of Yemen’s one-man elections, Brennan was in Sanaa, and during his time there he sat down with some journalists, and the US Embassy has since published the transcript of his roundtable.

Brennan has a lot to say, and I would encourage everyone to read his full remarks, but one of the things that stood out to me was Brennan’s comments on military restructuring.

Obviously military restructuring is going to be one of the most important and most controversial processes of the post-Salih era in Yemen. Salih’s relatives and fellow tribesmen have a stranglehold on much of the military and security apparatus in Yemen. Salih spent more than 33 years building this network, and dismantling it is going to require a great deal of patience, effort and knowledge.

Imagine the security services like a giant Jenga tower and you get some idea of the problem: the US wants to remove some key blocks, without seeing the whole thing tumble down. Continue reading Into the Snake Pit: The US and Restructuring the Military in Yemen

Top Five U.S. misconceptions on Iran


By Hooman Majd, Politico, January 17, 2012

Top five, 10 or 100 lists are standard at the end of the year. Though the Iranian year doesn’t end for roughly two months, given the escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran, with threats and counter threats over the Strait of Hormuz — to say nothing of most GOP presidential candidates’ views on what to do about Iran — it might be useful to compile one on the growing Iran crisis, early 2012 here and late 1390 there:

1) More severe sanctions will eventually cause the regime to blink.

Um, no. Thirty-plus years of sanctions have had no effect on Tehran. None. The regime can’t blink — even if it wanted to. Not after it has spent energy, money and every tool it has convincing its people that the nuclear program is a matter of national pride, that the West wants to prevent Iranians from enjoying the fruits of technological advancement and that their suffering under the sanctions is for the country’s greater good.

The regime’s credibility has already suffered because of the opposition protests in 2009 and 2010. So what would it have left if it caved to foreign demands that even the opposition describes as unreasonable?

2) Increasing sanctions will cause the Iranian people to hate the regime even more, leading to an uprising against the ayatollahs.

No. The Iranian people may blame their government for economic mismanagement, as well as human-rights abuses — but most won’t blame it for U.S. actions. Similarly, Iranians may blame President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for exacerbating domestic problems or creating problems with the West because of his rhetoric. But they don’t blame him for, say, sanctions that prevent Tehran from buying parts for its aging airplanes, which fall out of the sky with alarming frequency.

Think about it: When a nation is attacked, or under severe external pressure, it usually blames the external enemies, not its own leaders. If you factor in the assassinations of scientists on the streets of Tehran and mysterious factory explosions, sanctions and threats may make life miserable for Iranians but are unlikely to cause them to overthrow their rulers. Continue reading Top Five U.S. misconceptions on Iran

Welcome to America?


Photo credit: AP | Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh speaks to reporters during a press conference at the Presidential Palace in Sanaa, Yemen. (Dec. 24, 2011)

Yemen rarely makes the front page of The New York Times, but today it did. The seesaw political succession game underway in Yemen has seen President Ali Abdullah Salih’s head bobbing up and down in the power vacuum like a bobblehead doll in the hands of a Little Leaguer on opening day in Yankee Stadium. According to the article, Salih requested a visa to receive medical attention at New York’s Columbia Presbyterian hospital. Why it is not sufficient to return to Saudi Arabia, where he first underwent surgery and medical attention for major burns and other complications, is not clear. To complicate matters, and Salih has a knack for complicating matters, Salih told the Yemeni public in a recent televised address that he was not seeking medical treatment in the United States but simply wanted to allow the political process to evolve with him on the sidelines.

The Statue of Liberty still holds the beacon of hope aloft. So what does Salih hope to get from this visit. The Obama administration is keen to insist that Salih is welcome only for medical assistance, not for refuge. There is a glaring precedent that urges such caution: when Jimmy Carter allowed the former Shah of Iran entry to the United States for treatment, the pre-nuclear revolutionaries back in Iran went ballistic and stormed the U.S. Embassy. The rest, as they say, is history, but not the kind one likes to repeat. Continue reading Welcome to America?

The Zero/Sum Game and Israel


It seems this year that the Republican Antique Ideas Road Show is more about flubs than substance. Having made the cable-show “debates” (which are like T-ball compared to Major League baseball) the center of political attraction, the news media and late night talk show hosts are reveling in their good luck. With the crew assembled it is inevitable that one or more of them will stick their feet (or some other insignificant part of their anatomy) into their mouths. There was no “oops” moment last night in South Carolina, no 9-9-9 upside downside and no smoking gotcha gun moment, but Rick Perry is still as insensitive to political realities as Cain is to a woman’s dignity. Perry’s litmus test for “foreign aid” would be to start at zero and let each country prove it deserves our help. Each country, as Perry admitted, includes Israel. While his campaign was quick to release a statement assuring the Israel Lobby that they would obviously have no problem proving their case for Israel, the mere suggestion that American aid to Israel be re-evaluated is flirting with rhetorical fire. If Obama had made such a suggestion, Fox News anchors would be ranting above their usual derisive decibels.

Perry’s ignorance of foreign policy, while perhaps not as deep-dished as Herman Cain’s knowledge outside the pizza box, is front and center in this case. First of all, there is a cardinal rule in both major parties not to alienate the so-called “Jewish vote”; suggesting that aid to Israel can be reevaluated is not a wise political move, especially when it echoes the Libertarian sentiments of Ron Paul. I suspect that Perry is not aware of the recent book by John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt arguing that it is not in the best interests of our government to continually bow to the “Israel lobby.” Continue reading The Zero/Sum Game and Israel

Will Congress disrupt diplomacy?


by William O. Beeman, Star Tribune, November 6, 2011

In an ill-advised piece of legislation, Congress is using opposition to Iran as an excuse to attack President Obama’s executive authority.

The “Iran Threat Reduction Act” (HR1905), passed on Nov. 2 by the House Foreign Relations Committee, neither reduces an Iranian threat nor puts significant pressure on Iran’s leaders to change policies.

The bill would make it illegal for any American diplomat to speak to or have any contact with an Iranian official unless the president certifies to Congress that not talking to the Iranian officials “would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States” 15 days prior to that contact.

Minnesota cosponsors of this bill are GOP Reps. Michele Bachmann, Chip Cravaack, John Kline and Erik Paulsen.

A corresponding bill has been introduced in the Senate (S1048), cosponsored by Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, both Democrats.

In addition to tying the president’s hands on diplomacy, the bill also prevents the president from issuing waivers to existing Iran trade sanctions for any reason, singling out the sale of vital airplane parts for civilian aircraft.

Iran’s civilian air fleet is aging, and without replacement parts, air travel on Iranian carriers poses a danger to the public, including American citizens who travel to Iran. Continue reading Will Congress disrupt diplomacy?

Over and almost out (of Iraq)

The Iraq war is finally over. And it marks a complete neocon defeat

by Jonathan Steele The Guardian, October 23, 2011

The Iraq war is over. Buried by the news from Libya, Barack Obama announced late on Friday that all US troops will leave Iraq by 31 December.

The president put a brave face on it, claiming he was fulfilling an election promise to end the war, though he had actually been supporting the Pentagon’s effort to make a deal with Iraq’s prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to keep US bases and several thousand troops there indefinitely.

The talks broke down because Moqtada al-Sadr’s members of parliament and other Iraqi nationalists insisted that US troops be subject to Iraqi law. In every country where they are based the US insists on legal immunity and refuses to let troops be tried by foreigners. In Iraq the issue is especially sensitive after numerous US murders of civilians and the Abu Ghraib scandal in which Iraqi prisoners were sexually humiliated. In almost every case where US courts tried US troops, soldiers were acquitted or received relatively brief prison sentences.

The final troop withdrawal marks a complete defeat for Bush’s Iraq project. The neocons’ grand plan to use the 2003 invasion to turn the country into a secure pro-western democracy and a garrison for US bases that could put pressure on Syria and Iran lies in tatters.

Their hopes of making Iraq a democratic model for the Middle East have been tipped on their head. Continue reading Over and almost out (of Iraq)