The Monday before Tuesday

/in /by

I don’t believe we’re going to wake up at the end of tomorrow, after the Annapolis conference, and discover peace has broken out across the Middle East. I’m not developing some newfound faith in Condi’s ability to negotiate real diplomatic deals. But I am intrigued by the degree to which pieces are falling into place, just on the eve of tomorrow’s conference.

First there was the news that Syria will attend the conference. The most telling explanation of what that might mean, I think, is Iran’s response.

Syria’s decision to attend the conference will please many U.S. andIsraeli officials eager to make the talks appear successful. But itwill likely upset Iran, which has become Damascus’ biggest ally at atime when the West and fellow Arab states have spurned the country of19 million over its support for Iranian-backed militants in Lebanon,the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Tehran has vehemently denounced the Annapolis conference.

"They[the U.S. and Israel] intend to deceive a bunch of people who are likethemselves in a watery conference and make them give concessions to thecriminal Zionists," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today,according to the Fars News Agency.

Damascus may have decided tobuck Tehran because Americans met its condition of including the GolanHeights on the agenda and would face criticism as an obstacle to peaceif it then failed to attend, an analyst said.

Sending Moqdadinstead of the more senior foreign minister, Walid Moallem, may be aconcession to Iran, said the analyst, speaking on condition ofanonymity. But Moqdad, a seasoned Syrian diplomat, is considered arelative heavyweight within the Damascus political elite. EmadMustapha, Syria’s well-connected envoy to Washington, will also attendthe talks, the official in Damascus said.

Ahmadinejad andSyrian President Bashar Assad spoke today in a phone conversation andissued a joint statement affirming that conferences such as Annapolis"are destined to failure even before they start," Fars reported.

Usually, Ahmadinejad manages to achieve coherent demagoguery, not this futile sputtering. Which suggests Iran has some real concerns that Syria might be seduced by what it sees in Annapolis. Which is kind of what Colonel Lang thinks:

Read more →

Does this Sound Familiar?

/in , /by

Where have we seen this before: a Bush Administration gives vague guidance to our favored military dictator in a turbulent neighborhood, and the dictator takes a step that might destabilize the whole region.

The Bush Administration knew that Pakistani strongman PervezMusharraf planned to institute emergency rule but did not act or speakout about the plan, according to officials with knowledge of thediscussion who spoke anonymously in Friday’s Wall Street Journal.

"In the days before the Nov. 3 announcement, the general’s aides andadvisers forewarned U.S. diplomats in a series of meetings inIslamabad, according to Pakistani and U.S. officials," the paper said.

Because the US response was "muted," Pakistan interpreted Americansilence as a green light to instituting martial law, quickly deposingan intransigent Supreme Court, which had ruled against the general inthe past.

"One of Gen. Musharraf’s closest advisers said U.S. criticism wasmuted, which some senior Pakistanis interpreted as a sign they couldproceed," the Journal said. "’You don’t like that option? Yougive us one,’ the adviser says he told his American interlocutors.’There were no good options.’"

A U.S. official "familiar with the discussions" told the paper thetalks were part of "’intensive efforts’ to dissuade Gen. Musharraf fromdeclaring a state of emergency."

"There was never a green light," the U.S. official told the New York daily. [my emphasis]

Of course, when we offered such vague guidance to Saddam Hussein in July Read more →

Putin Captures Opponent’s Bishop

/in /by

The Saudis Have Been Busy

/in /by

The Saudis appear to be moving three chess pieces at once. I won’t pretend to know what the moves mean. But I’d suggest that the coincidence of the three moves might suggest they’re taking an upper hand in the US policy-making in the Middle East.

Nawaz Sharif

First data point: after preventing former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from returning to Pakistan several weeks ago, the Saudis now appear to be forcing his return on Pervez Musharraf.

Mr. Sharif met Saudi King Abdullah in Riyadh yesterday evening, toclear his passage. Previously, Saudi Arabia had been complicit inkeeping Mr. Sharif forcibly in the country under an agreement with Gen.Musharraf, who had told the kingdom’s royal family that it was neededto ensure stability in Pakistan.

However, Saudi Arabia was angered when Gen. Musharraf allowedanother opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, back to Pakistan. The Saudishave always been sympathetic to Mr. Sharif’s pro-religion politics,whereas Ms. Bhutto represents the forces of secularism.

When Mr. Sharif landed in Pakistan in September this year, he wasquickly bundled off to Saudi Arabia by the Musharraf regime. This time,it seems unlikely that Mr. Sharif will be sent packing, as the Saudisare no longer willing to keep him. While Ms. Bhutto has engaged insporadic power-sharing talks with Gen. Musharraf, Mr. Sharif hasdoggedly refused to negotiate with the general.

Musharraf made an unexpected trip to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, at which he discussed Sharif’s return. And Sharif apparently met with the chief of the ISI.

Musharrafhad made a brief visit to Saudi Arabia on November 20 where he met theKing and apparently discussed the issue of Sharif’s return.

Though the military ruler’s spokesmansaid there was no contact between Musharraf and Sharif, it is believedthat Sharif met Lt Gen Nadeem Taj, chief of the Inter-ServicesIntelligence agency, who accompanied Musharraf to Riyadh.

So we’ve got a religious conservative returning to Pakistan in time to contest the election for President–with Saudi support and the potential involvement of the ISI.

Saudis to Attend Annapolis Peace Conference

And then, on the very same day that Sharif was finalizing his plans for return to Pakistan with King Abdullah, the Saudis announced they would attend the Middle East peace conference to be held in Annapolis starting Tuesday.

The US-brokered Annapolis peace conference was given a significantboost yesterday when heavyweight Saudi Arabia decided to send itsforeign minister to the launch of the first peace talks betweenIsraelis and Palestinians in seven years. Syria, Israel’s mostimplacable Arab enemy, signalled that it was now also likely to attend.

PrinceSaud al-Faisal said he would be taking part in next Tuesday’s Marylandsummit as part of an Arab "consensus" of support for the Palestinians -despite near-universal gloom about the prospects of agreement on thetoughest issues.

The decision had as much to do with Arab consensus as it has to do with any events in Pakistan. For whatever reason, it appears the Arab states may believe the Saudi proposal–normalization in return for the pre-67 borders–may be on the table. It even appears possible that Syria will win recognition of its right to the Golan Heights, pretty remarkable given Israel’s apparently successful recent strike in Syria.

Of significance, Bush will personally participate in the Annapolis conference, which might be read as a signal for his support of Condi’s attempts at peace-making over Cheney’s attempts to foment war. And it surely will give whatever discussions occur real emphasis.

Read more →

No, Pakistan Was the Last Big Test. And We Failed It.

/in , , /by

"Serious Person" Michael O’Hanlon and  escalation surge architect Fred Kagan end their op-ed with the following words.

There was a time when volatility in places like Pakistan was mostly ahumanitarian worry; today it is as much a threat to our basic securityas Soviet tanks once were. We must be militarily and diplomaticallyprepared to keep ourselves safe in such a world. Pakistan may be thenext big test. [my emphasis]

I’m just a DFH and not a "serious person" or anything. But I am certain they have this wrong–dead wrong. It highlights the problem of neoconservatism–an acute myopia that therefore cannot see a problem until we’re already in the thick of it and until they can make an argument–however specious–that the only solution is military.

The way in which O’Hanlon and Kagan conceive of Pakistan "becoming the next big test" is the perfect illustration of this. They describe the events that need to occur for them to take some action–and of course, action is exclusively military.

AS the government of Pakistan totters, we must face a fact: the UnitedStates simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descendedinto the abyss. Nor would it be strategically prudent to withdraw ourforces from an improving situation in Iraq Read more →

Oil Bucks

/in , /by

I’m a determined skeptic about broadcast "accidents." But for the life of me, I can’t understand the precise goal of allowing a discussion about not discussing the falling dollar at the OPEC summit to be caught on tape. Here’s the Financial Times’ version of events–which depicts it as disagreement about the underlying issue. 

In a landmark summit, leaders of the Organisation of the PetroleumExporting Countries are meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, were dividedover how they should respond to the weakness of the US dollar, whichhas fallen 16 per cent this year against a basket of leading currencies.

Thedollar has dropped 44 per cent against the euro since Opec leaders lastmet in Caracas, Venezuela in 2000. Opec members are also divided aboutwhether the group should seek to play a greater role in world politicsas well as in the oil market.

The disagreement was revealed whena ministerial meeting Friday afternoon, supposed to be in closedsession, was accidentally broadcast live to reporters for about 30minutes, before Saudi officials cut off the transmission.

But look atBloomberg’s version:

Saudi Arabia, the world’s largestcrude oil exporter, rejected a proposal by Iran and Venezuela todiscuss the weak dollar at this weekend’s OPEC summit in Riyadh,saying it didn’t want the U.S. currency Read more →

“This problem will not be discussed in public”

/in , /by

I do intend to return to my planned series on Matt Bai and the Serious People. But for now, David Sanger asks a question that really needs to be asked: what is going to happen to Pakistan’s nukes? Before I look at the answer Sanger offers, let me point to this one line in the story.

“It’s a very professional military,” said a senior American officialwho is trying to manage the crisis and insisted on anonymity becausethe White House has said this problem will not be discussed in public.“But the truth is, we don’t know how many of the safeguards areinstitutionalized, and how many are dependent on Musharraf’s guys.” [my emphasis]

Understand: the threat that Al Qaeda could get nukes was the single most important driving force behind the Iraq war. And now, because BushCo has seen fit to put Cheney in charge of its Pakistan policy, and Cheney has seen fit to make a spokesperson one of the main architects of that policy, there is a very real possibility that our "ally" Pakistan will provide nukes to the guys that hit us on 9/11. And the White House’s response is to dictate that, "this problem will not be discussed in public."

All the more reason to discuss it in public, I say.

And Sanger’s discussion is none too optimistic.

Pakistan and the Serious People, One

/in , /by

I’m going to do a series on Pakistan–and how the blindness of the "serious people" got us into big trouble there. I’m going to use Matt Bai’s inaccurate slam on me as a foil to show how the serious people allowed themselves to get distracted from a brewing crisis that carries real consequences. I’ll start, then, by showing you the slam, and explaining what Matt got wrong. MissLaura (who wrote an insightful review of this exchange) sent along this excerpt from Matt’s book; I haven’t read the book, so if you have, let me know if there’s more to this. [Update: This exchange happened at a post-keynote bloggers chat with former VA Governor and likely future VA Senator Mark Warner.]

Marcy Wheeler, who blogged as "emptywheel" on Daily Kos, jumped infirst.  Why, she wanted to know, had Warner pointed to Iran as such abig threat to national security?  Wasn’t Pakistan a bigger problem?After all, they already had nukes.

Warner had been spending hours in private tutoring sessions on foreignpolicy, and he talked confidently about Iran’s president, MahmoudAmahdinejad, and his "whole approach toward regional hegemony."  Thismade him dangerous, Warner said.

"On what grounds?" Marcy demanded.  She had short hair and glasses anda serious demeanor.  Read more →

A Brilliant Case Officer

/in /by

There’s an amusing line in Jonathan Landay’s article on the Bush Administration’s discovery that Vladimir Putin has no soul.

Bush and his aides "grossly misjudged Putin," considering him "agood guy and one of us," said Michael McFaul of Stanford University’sHoover Institution.

The former KGB officer created that illusionpartly by appearing to share Bush’s political and religiousconvictions, standard tradecraft employed by intelligence officers torecruit spies, he said.

"Putin . . . is a brilliant caseofficer," said Carlos Pasqual, a former senior State Departmentofficial now at The Brookings Institution, a center-left policyorganization in Washington.

What many experts regard as the realPutin — a hard-line, derisive Russian nationalist — was on displayFriday as he greeted visiting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice andDefense Secretary Robert Gates ahead of talks that failed to break theimpasses over missile defense and other key security issues.

Afterkeeping the U.S. officials waiting for 40 minutes, Putin mocked theirmission in front of reporters and television cameras. [my emphasis]

The suggestion, of course, is that wily Vladimir fooled the poor unsuspecting Bush cronies by misrepresenting who he was.

It’s a nice excuse, I guess. But IMO there is nothing that Putin is currently doing that isn’t utterly consistent with who he was in 2001, when Bush looking into Read more →

Afri … um EuroAfriCom

/in , /by

Scout prime has been tracking something I’ve been watching, too. The new AfriCom military command? Well, the entire continent of Africa has told us, "no, thanks."

The Pentagon’s plan to create a US military command based in Africahave hit a wall of hostility from governments in the region reluctantto associate themselves with the Bush administration’s "war on terror"and fearful of American intervention.

A US delegation led by RyanHenry, principal deputy under-secretary of defence for policy, returnedto Washington last week with little to show for consultations withdefence and foreign ministry officials in Algeria, Morocco, Libya,Egypt, Djibouti and with the African Union (AU). An earlier round ofconsultations with sub-Saharan countries on providing secure facilitiesand local back-up for the new command, to be known as Africom and dueto be operational by September next year, was similarly inconclusive.

The Libyan and Algerian governments reportedly told Mr Henry that theywould play no part in hosting Africom. Despite recently improvedrelations with the US, both said they would urge their neighbours notto do so, either. Even Morocco, considered Washington’s closest northAfrican ally, indicated it did not welcome a permanent militarypresence on its soil.

"We’vegot a big image problem down there," a state department officialadmitted. "Public opinion is really against getting into Read more →