Capture of Bin Laden Is Not Mission Accomplished

Like most Americans, I share the joy and relief that Osama bin Laden has been killed. It took ten long years of hunting across two countries, but the armed forces finally took the man down. While bin Laden's death could not replace the loved ones lost on September 11, their families may at least have some solace from the trying ordeal. Furthermore, as President Obama said and promised, the capture of bin Laden represented America's dogged pursuit and determination to bring the War on Terror to a victorious conclusion.

But Osama bin Laden's death is just a milestone and not the end to the War on Terror. Al Qaeda has been living on without his greater presence for a long while, and others will doubtless step into bin Laden's shoes. There are greater challenges facing the U.S. such as extracting intelligence from the captured materials, figuring out Pakistan's role in "hiding" bin Laden so close to Islamabad, and most importantly, making sure another bin Laden does not emerge in the future. I applaud President Obama's decision not to show pictures of bin Laden's body, for it would cause violence and affront Islamic traditions. Even if America pulls out its military from Afghanistan starting this summer, the War on Terror is far from over.

Obama's Houdini Month

Who would have thought? After declaring a "shellacking" in the November election, Obama has resurrected his political hopes and his party's momentum in a whirlwind two weeks. I have not seen such a swift turn of fortunes since the Red Sox's recovery against the Yankees and the 19-8 "shellacking" in 2004. But somehow Obama defied the odds and critics who labelled him soft and incapable of pushing through key legislation. He did it the old-fashioned way: using personal will and political compromise. Adopting some of Clinton's tactics, Obama has thrown the gauntlet to the Republicans and revitalized support among the liberals and Democrat base.

I think the three major pieces of legislation are all wise and practical. First, extending  the Bush tax cuts, despite liberals' cries against cuts for the wealthy, will help to keep money in consumers' pockets and foster investment and consumer spending in 2011. The net gains from the tax cuts for the middle class, unemployment benefits and reduced payroll tax makes this a desirable compromise. Second, Obama rallied his liberal and youth base by fulfilling his campaign promise to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. Let's hope this makes the beginning of extending equal protection to gays and other still-marginalized groups. Finally, the START treaty ratification is a huge foreign policy success and instrumental to promoting nuclear peace and better relations with Russia. Biden and Kerry were instrumental in passing the treaty, which leaves America in a better position to tackle problems such as Iran and North Korea in the upcoming year.

Obama is not out of the woods yet. He and the incoming Congress will have many challenges in the upcoming term, most notably appropriations and the budget/deficit and other measures to stimulate the economy and job growth. How well the economy fares in 2012 will determine whether Obama wins reelection. But his December success has paved the way for that possibility and raised the spirits of his supporters and independents alike.

Afghanistan - the fallout begins

This past weekend's leak of classified documents of the war in Afghanistan reveals the many troubles that led to the quagmire that the U.S. faces today. Much of it I blame on lack of planning and understanding. The U.S. entered Afghanistan in a highly uncoordinated and impromptu fashion. Granted, it was right after September 11 and most of the nation was indignant. Nonetheless, Bush sent in American troops and requested allied support without understanding the situation in Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance, then opposition to the ruling Taliban, had different motives and means of conducting the war; Osama bin Laden was perhaps the least of their concerns. The U.S. sent in its military without developing a coherent strategy, especially for nation-building and exit, or leveraging its allies properly. Pakistan stands out. Its shocking behavior was not unexpected; after all, the U.S. did not understand Musharraf or what interests Pakistan had in the region. Throughout the whole Bush years, the U.S. treated the war, strategy and allies indifferently and even wantonly.

All is not lost despite the revelation of thousands of pages of classified documents. The war is now Obama's. He cannot blame Bush should his venture in Afghanistan end in failure. Obama indeed can learn much from Bush's failures in Afghanistan. Moreover, this leak pay prove to be a blessing in disguise as policy wonks and experts may help drive national foreign policy in a proper direction. I believe that Obama should learn the two main lessons from Afghanistan that I point to above: develop and continue to develop a coherent strategy, and manage allies, especially the Karzai government, effectively. I believe the former will be less of a problem than the latter: after all, Obama has seriously considered and developed a strategy for Afghanistan, but Karzai will be a thorn for many years to come. Ultimate success in Afghanistan will not depend on how the U.S. armed forces perform. It will depend on how the U.S. unleashes its intelligence and diplomacy skills, above all others.

The Decade of the Puffing Dragon

Will China be the biggest topic in international relations this decade, if not the century? The past month, relations between the U.S. and China have frosted, while bilateral issues have continued to come up. I do not see China's "complicit" role in derailing climate change talks at Copenhagen decisive in causing the setback. Underlying tensions, including questions about China's economic growth and conduct in global affairs, have existed for a while. September 11 might have put them to rest briefly, but new issues, including global warming, the global economic recovery and Iran have surfaced those tensions. The current souring of relations came about not from one conflagration, like the April 2001 plane incident, or traditional sources of disagreement like human rights, but rather from a confluence of developments that shook both groups' trust in the other.

Despite what the Chinese media might have said, Copenhagen was a setback for China. Coming in with high expectations, China failed to effect any concrete results or agreements. Instead, much international criticism, especially from Europe, emerged, which dampened the West's enthusiasm for working with China. Likewise, the Obama administration's recent gestures of support for Taiwan (weapon sales) and Tibet (invitation for the Dalai Lama) underscored the America's flouting of areas of traditional Chinese sovereignty. These setbacks, along with many others, have eroded trust on both sides. Unfortunately, the days of unilateral action in tackling any substantial global problem is over. For China, that means more responsibility and accountability. It must act as a responsible global power and not be stubborn or self-interested on key areas such as global warming and Iran. For the U.S., it means great sensitivity to issues that continue to irk China, especially Taiwan and Tibet. Rebuilding the lost trust will not be easy, but is essential to restoring the most important bilateral relationship in the 2010's.

Domestic Security success, Foreign Policy failure

The recent, foiled Christmas hijacking calls into question U.S. domestic security readiness. Obama quickly ordered overviews of the system, but rejected any characterizations of systemic failure. He is right. This isolated incident should not indict the Homeland Security department and its programs. Overall, it has done a great job countering terrorism and empowering domestic security personnel (their successes are just unreported by the media). The rapid extinguishment of the situation exemplifies the progress made in protecting domestic security.

Nonetheless, the incident underscores the lacking foreign policy goals of the U.S. Yemen recently and rightfully has drawn attention from policy experts and foreign analysts (see recent Boston Globe article, infra). The biggest foreign policy issue still isn't necessarily one troublesome spot, Afghanistan, but many failed states. These include Yemen, Somalia, etc. For too long, U.S. foreign policy has ignored failed states because individually, each of them present no substantial foreign policy problem or asset. Afghanistan under the Taliban should have taught a lesson. So long as failed states exist, and continue to be lawless, they offer havens to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The war on terrorism should not be limited to Afghanistan and specific terrorist organizations, but to building up and promoting the governments and economies of states on brink of failure.

Obama's speech leaves ample questions

I just finished watching Obama's speech, which overall was thorough, insightful and eloquent. He outlined his Afghanistan strategy and took responsibility for sending 30,000 additional troops in 2010 and 2011. I also liked how he tied Afghanistan to his overarching foreign policy. Nonetheless, his strategy raised several questions. First, Obama failed to address convincingly why an alternative strategy involving zero additional troops is not viable. Many critics have faulted current strategy, tactics and approaches and believe that the U.S. needs to deploy them better rather than send in more troops. Second, I am unsure whether Obama's strategy will pressure Karzai and Pakistan to be more accountable and involved in the war. If his timetable and emphasis on Pakistan are meant to send a message to those governments, how much would those leaders heed Obama? Third, the timetable is unrealistic. Sending in additional troops in 2010 and planning a withdrawal as early as mid-2011 is ambitious. Given the complexity of the situation and Obama's goals - counterinsurgency is a task of years, not months - a more flexible and far-off timetable would be better. Fourth, Obama failed to detail what he expects out of other allies, such as NATO members. Many of those governments face increased domestic pressure for withdrawing troops, and Obama should have given them some acknowledgment and outline for their continued role and need. Fifth and finally, he blurred military and political objectives without delineating the extent and limits of U.S. involvement. For example, he alluded to American involvement in Afghanistan's agricultural production - including, I presume illicit drugs - but in what capacity, military, economic or political? While a counterinsurgency strategy should emphasize nation-building, promising too much is desultory.

Obama's Lost Opportunity in China

Three days and a departure later, Obama's much heralded trip to China ended on a whimper. He came out with nothing substantial on topics such as finances, trade, Taiwan, Tibet, nuclear safety, human rights, or climate change. In fact, the most interesting news was his brief meeting with his half-brother (he really lives in China? wow!). Sure, Obama and Hu found some common ground on issues such as climate change, but common ground is nothing more general principles, not specific actions. For instance, climate reform advocates might be encouraged by joint statements on climate control, but who knows what would happen in Copenhagen. In China, the press and ordinary folks viewed Obama's visit with apathy and little excitement. Here in the U.S., I have found a similar perception -- although granted many Americans do not pay adequate attention to foreign affairs.

In fact, I would have preferred that Obama took a strong stance on one issue - whatever it might be - and act upon it, even if he would have discomforted some group. For example, he could have pressured Hu more on currency and trade controls, and perhaps achieved some tangible agreements or concessions. Instead, it seemed as if Obama went to China just to "feel each other out". Such a strategy worth little and could cost him much domestically and internationally. Time will tell and Obama still has to meet President Lee of South Korea; maybe he can salvage something from this trip. Otherwise, I'll just have to mark it as bland, bland, bland and little else.

Awarding Nobel Peace Prize to Obama was premature

The Nobel Peace Prize just awarded to Obama is premature. No offence to the president, whose efforts and goals in foreign policy are truly praiseworthy, but he has only been in office for 8 1/2 months. In that short a timeframe, no president can achieve a substantial body of work, especially in the slow world of international affairs. While he did work hard to bring countries together in political issues such as Iran, and global issues such as climate change, thus far the results are still forthcoming and much can change in the upcoming year. Additionally, some credit must also be given to former president George W. Bush, whose policies in his later years paved way for what Obama has recently accomplished, such as more multilateral approaches toward belligerent nations. Given the eminence of the Nobel Prize and its traditional recognition of substantial accomplishments, I believe that the Nobel Committee made a poor decision in recognizing Obama.

I would like to congratulate a Penn Alum, C'55, George Smith for his Nobel Prize in Physics! Read about it here in the Penn Current.

White House warming to Russia with missile shield stance

The recent White House decision to scrap missile shield plans in Poland and the Czech Republic reflects a realization of the imminent troubles Iran and North Korea will bring. Both countries have shown belligerent intentions including renewed pursuit of nuclear weapons. For Washington to achieve leverage and success in diplomacy with those countries, it needs to cater to Russia. Therefore, the White House took a step back on a relatively unimportant theatre - missile defence over Europe - in order to take a step forward on relations with Russia, whose support will be crucial in any future bargaining with Iran and North Korea. It is well-known that relations between Moscow and Washington have been lukewarm, with the missile shield over Europe a particular cause for disagreement. But other geopolitical concerns are more important now, notably Iran and North Korea, which makes the missile shield concession a relatively cheap price to pay. Republicans have criticized this move, and claim that the missile shield and containment of Iran are connected, but it is implausible that Iran would concern itself with far-away Europe or even have the capacity to launch a long-range weapon in the near future. Overall, the move by the White House carries much potential for its increasing its bargaining and geopolitical position with an important ally, and in a far more important theatre of concern.