In October 2010, I took my car to my mechanic in Santa Clara for an oil change. As the mechanic was elevating the car on the hydraulic lift, I noticed that there was something like a piece of string or wire coming out from the back. Then, when the car was fully elevated, I noticed this black device under the back of the car. I asked the mechanic to pull it out, and he handed it to me. He was somewhat freaked out.
Drawing on newly released documents, personal anecdote, and keen analysis, former U.S. Ambassador Peter Tomsen relates a brutal portrait of Afghanistan from its origins to the present day. That present is as dark as the recent past. Despite the glum historical perspective, Tomsen’s final analysis in The Wars of Afghanistan: Messianic Terrorism, Tribal Conflicts, and The Failures of Great Powers leaves a ray of hope.
From Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya, the first decade of the 21st century has solidified the U.S. reputation as the energizer bunny of war. While these conflicts continue to rage on, there are a growing number of signs that even the United States has a limit to how much war it is willing to wage.
Last month’s release of the National Strategy for Counterterrorism has brought much joy to many foreign policy liberals. Finally, the ghosts of the Bush administration have been exorcised. Finally, the president speaks of law and allies instead of war and an “axis of evil.” Coupled with the recent announcement of a timetable to end combat operations in Afghanistan, liberals have taken heart at the apparent shift in national security strategy. Such sentiments are understandable given the foreign policy quagmire of the past decade.
Increased fighting by Myanmar’s ethnic minorities, along with low morale in the Myanmar army, suggest that the brutal government might not be as invulnerable to overthrow as previously thought.
Only recently, the Obama administration leaked news that it wasintensifying its military-run war against al-Qaeda in Yemen by bringing the CIA into the action. The Agency is now to build a base for its drone air wing somewhere in the Middle East to hunt Yemeni terrorists (and assumedly those elsewhere in the region as well). Yemen functionally has no government to cooperate with, but in pure Bushian fashion, who cares?
China’s “string of pearls” consists of port and airfield construction projects, diplomatic ties, and force modernization. These “pearls” range from the coast of mainland China to the recently upgraded military facilities on Hainan Island, China’s southernmost territory. They extend through the South China Sea to the Strait of Malacca, over to the Indian Ocean and along the coast of the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf. They include an airstrip on Woody Island in the Paracel archipelago east of Vietnam. A container shipping facility in Chittagong, Bangladesh, a deep-water port in Sittwe, Myanmar, and a potential naval base in Gwadar, Pakistan are also “pearls,” all of them representing Chinese geopolitical influence or military presence.
Congressman McDermott’s floor speech reminds us that out-of-control Afghanistan spending brought down the Soviet Union.
When the economy goes south, congress persons cling to defense programs and jobs for their district.
Iraq may use the U.S.-trained Iraqi commando corps as a security apparatus as Saddam Hussein did with the Republican Guard