Afghanistan needs more sociologists, not more troops. Sociologists would point out that Americans tend to see this country as one nation, with a central government and national security forces. But it actually is a collection of tribes--(including Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara). The first loyalty of most members of these tribes is to their own kind, not to the national government. Most Afghans correctly perceive the national government as corrupt to the core, in cahoots with drug lords, promoted by foreign powers, and the beneficiary of fraudulent elections.

Read more »

I yield to no one in my delight that President Obama is bringing a whole new attitude to international relations, and I salute his consistent efforts to restore the good name of the United States across the world. The new goodwill was supposed to make it easier for the US and other nations to work together. What is happening instead, at least in dealing with Russia, is that the Obama administration is making major concessions--in order to make it seem that the new spin is working.

The Russians are very excited about the Bush-designed plan to position a missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland. The Obama administration is moving toward an agreement to place the missile defense some other place, one the Russians approve of, and to make it into a joint defense project. Thus, the US satisfies in full a major Russian demand--getting what in exchange? A temporary pause to Russia cussing us out?

Read more »

I'm blown away by the fact that scores of people took the time to comment on the "silliness of Amitai Etzioni" here. In Iran they are shooting protestors; in Iraq people are killing each other because they hold different interpretations of Islam; in many countries millions of people are thrown out of their jobs and homes--and you want to waste your key strokes on me? I mean not my ideas, they may deserve to be taken apart, but on my persona? How trivial can you get?

Read more »

In the year I spent in the White House, I kept being surprised by government agencies that simply ignored the president's instructions and directives. In some cases, the political heads of the agencies were more liberal than the president and had their own political agendas; in others, the civil servants just refused to play ball. (Dealing with high levels of inflation I suggested that the government issue some gold-based bonds, which I hoped would demand a much lower interest rate and hence reduce the costs to the public. The president sent me across the street to the Treasury to discuss the matter with the civil servant in charge of the issuance of bonds. The guy in charge said that he did not consider this a sound idea. When pushed, he responded: "you and your president will soon be out of here. I have seen four come and go. And--I will still be here." My little idea was never tested.)

Read more »

The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution today which calls for U.N. member states to inspect all ships entering or leaving North Korea if there is a reasonable suspicion that the cargo contains banned nuclear or missile technology. Now, this mission will fall on a little know body, the PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative). The PSI, an activity launched in 2003, meets all the criteria progressive people have been promoting for a new international approach to the exercise of power--yet they are curiously mum about the merits of putting the PSI to work.

The PSI works mainly by sharing intelligence among the participating states, who patrol the seas and interdict ships that are suspected of carrying WMD, their delivery systems, and related materials

Read more »

"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." President Obama could hardly improve on this line, from his inaugural address, during his forthcoming much-heralded major speech to the Muslim world on June 4th. Better yet, he has already further reinforced this position when he announced--after an extensive strategic review--that the United States' goal in Afghanistan was "to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda," full stop. To further this message, we have outlined here points we hope the President will include in his scheduled speech.

Read more »

One can disagree with everything the new Israeli prime minster says and does and still admit that he raised an important question during his recent visit to the White House. Benjamin Netanyahu stated "I want to make it clear that we don't want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them. We want them to govern themselves, absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel." The same issue was addressed by two leading foreign policy mavens not suspected of a pro-Israeli bias, to put it mildly, namely Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft. Both favor pushing a two state solution on Israel, as they see it as the way to turn around the Middle East (which they define as including Afghanistan and Pakistan). Three elements of the plan the US is to push are well known (no refugee return, a divided Jerusalem, and redrawn 1967 borders), but the fourth is much less often explored. Namely that the Palestinian state be disarmed and that US or NATO troops be stationed along the Jordan river. They pointed to this condition in a new book America and the World, composed of interviews with Brzezinski and Scowcroft, conducted by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. In the book both authors agree that "they [Israel and the Palestinians] need a heavier hand by the United States than we have traditionally practiced" (87). Furthermore, Brzezinski suggests "an American line along the Jordan river" and Scowcroft favors putting a "NATO peace keeping force" on the West Bank. That is, they do not want the Palestinians to have what most people consider a true state, one that is free to arm itself.

Read more »

Many observers have suggested that Obama's foreign policy agenda has abandoned the Bush Administration's emphasis on promoting democracy, including human rights. Much was made of President Obama's statement in his inaugural address: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Others have pointed out, critically, that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton did not raise objections to China's deplorable human rights record during her first visit to that country as an Obama administration official.

Read more »

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has adopted, hook, line and sinkers--the vision of a world free of nukes. It is a vision that has been promoted previously by four very senior statesmen, all of whom made their names during the Cold War. George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn. They have popularized the idea that the best way to protect the world from nuclear weapons is for the United States and Russia to lead--by first reducing their nuclear stockpiles, and eventually moving to zero. This move in turn is expected to inspire other nations to reduce their stockpiles or give up on their ambitions to acquire nuclear arms--and to pressure those so inclined, to desist.

Read more »

Social scientists have long used systems theory to point out links that are sometimes overlooked. Such a link now leads to the suggestion that to deal with the crisis in Pakistan and the mounting difficulties in Afghanistan, one should go to, of all places, India. The main reason the Pakistani army is reluctant to take on the Taliban, who threaten to overrun the country, is that the army considers India its enemy.

Read more »

I arrived in Moscow from Washington highly optimistic, a day after the vigorous, historic handshake between President Medvedev and President Obama in London. I left--after visits with officials and colleagues--more than a bit concerned. My optimism was not based on such cheerful gestures as pushing reset buttons, although such tone-setting steps have their place. I believed that a major deal between the two countries could be made, one based not on identical or even complementary interests of Russia and the United States--but one that would build on profound differences in saliency.

Read more »

We are told that the reasons we have such a hard time stopping the pirates is that our forces have a very hard time locating them in the vast sea. An odd statement, given that the pirates have no trouble locating our ships in the same sea, and they have no drones, satellites, AWACS, and all the other means of modern technology. Moreover, we hardly need to look for them; they present themselves to us, quite regularly. Most recently they captured six ships with a few weeks.

Read more »

Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic, will be meeting with President Obama this weekend. Given his previous statements about President Obama, it should be an interesting meeting for them both.

The following piece on Klaus is excerpted from my book, My Brother's Keeper (Rowman and Littlefield, 2003):

The hostile reception new communitarianism encountered from some of the Czech leaders mirrored concerns initially raised by leaders and intellectuals in other former communist countries when they were first exposed to our message. It also reflected the particular position of its prime minister, Václav Klaus. Klaus has been credited with the quick transition of the Czech Republic from a communist to a capitalist economy. He defines himself accurately as an extreme Milton Friedmanite and has taken great personal umbrage to my book The Moral Dimension, which challenges libertarian assumptions of Friedmanite economics. When Klaus ran into me during the World Economic Forum in Davos in 1997, he grabbed my lapel, waved his index finger in my face, and announced in a booming voice, "You are crippling my republic! You are undermining what we are trying to do! You do not understand that egoism and the profit motive are the best part of human nature. You work for those who want to return my country to communism!"

Read more »

After Professor Samuel Huntington passed away on December 24, I held off commenting on his work during the first 30 days of mourning out of respect for the norms that govern such a period. I believe we are now ready for a balanced review of his work.

The theme that runs throughout Huntington's various works is best characterized as a theory of fear. His books typically identify a mounting threat, such as Mexican immigrants, Islamic civilization, or democratic proclivities, and then point to the need for strong national-unity building measures and mobilization of the people (including militarization) in response to the barbarians at the gates. Sometimes, the argument is formulated in basically analytical terms: If the required vigorous responses to the particular challenge at hand are not forthcoming, various calamities will ensue (e.g., the U.S. will lose a large part of its territory to Mexico and its Anglo-Protestant identity will be undermined) that will implicitly call for stronger countermeasures. In other cases, advocacy for powerful antidotes is quite explicit. As Huntington puts it in the Foreword to Who Are We?, he is writing as a patriot and a scholar, in that order.

Read more »

The suggestion that the President may wish to add to the White House's existing bodies a Council of Social Advisers (CSA) has two versions. One, suggested by Fritz Mondale, is one outlined here:

Read more »