Twenty questions I would like to see asked at the debate tonight:

1.  Are we at war with Pakistan?  Senator Obama, given your pledge to go into Pakistan, if necessary, to take out Osama bin Laden, do you support President Bush’s current counter-insurgency efforts along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border?  And Senator McCain, when Senator Obama made those comments, you accused him of being reckless.  Do you now think President Bush is being reckless?

2.  Numerous reports have indicated that the State Department is woefully underfunded and understaffed.  Secretary Gates, among others, has urged Congress and the President to take steps to address these concerns.  Congress has largely been unsympathetic.  What would you do, as President to make the State Department more effective, and to give it the resources it needs to succeed?

3.  Do you support making USAID a cabinet-level agency?  Given the current financial crisis, can the United States afford to continue its foreign assistance programs?  Do you support reestablishing the US Information Agency or a similar construct to coordinate and strengthen our public diplomacy?

4.  Is the United States more or less safe and secure than it was on September 12, 2001?  Why or why not?

5.  Senator McCain, can you please tell me what the difference is between Russian incursions into Georgia and American incursions into Pakistan?  Don’t both involve a large power moving into territory controlled by a democratic ally of the United States?

6.  Some have argued that the American century is over and that China will soon be the world’s dominant economic and political power.  Do you think that is accurate?  Why or why not?  Would it matter if the United States wasn’t the biggest dog in the yard anymore?

7.  Senator McCain, five former Secretaries of State, including two who have endorsed you, have called for dialogue with Iran without preconditions.  You have stated your opposition, and your candidate for Vice President has suggested that such views are naive.  Yet when it came time for you to choose someone to brief Sarah Palin on foreign policy, you asked Henry Kissinger, one of those five, to do it.  Do you still believe that it is not possible for the United States not to talk to Iran?

8.  Senator Obama, are there any situations where you think it would be necessary to set conditions before meeting with a foreign leader?  In other words, is there anything that any leader can do that would make it impossible for you to meet with him or her?

9.  Senator McCain, your running mate has suggested that the United States should not second-guess Israel should it decide to attack Iran.  Is that your view as well?  Senator Obama, do you agree or disagree?

10.  Both of you have called on the Bush Administration to close Guantanamo and to end the practice of torture.  There is growing evidence that Bush Administration officials may have violated U.S. law as well as treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory.  Would you favor the investigation of such allegations and the prosecution of those, up to an including President Bush and Vice President Cheney, found to have broken American laws including statutes against war crimes?

11.  What can the United States do to strenghten the United Nations?

12.  Should the United States ratify the International Criminal Court treaty?

13.  What can the United States do to prevent genocide?  Would you favor military intervention by U.S. forces if it could help prevent a genocide?  Would you have intervened in Rwanda?  What are you going to do in Sudan?

14.  What is the one foreign policy issue that you think is currently under the radar but will have an impact on your administration?

15.  Most of the world has come to regard the United States as part of the problem rather than part of the solution.  What steps would you take to reverse that?

16.  Have we “lost” Latin America?  What steps would you take to reverse growing anti-Americanism in the region?

17. When this campaign started, no issue was bigger than Iraq.  Now it appears to be an almost forgotten issue.  Senator McCain, given Prime Minister Maliki’s outspoken desire to see American troops leave, why do you continue to oppose a phased withdrawal from Iraq?  Senator Obama, is there any situation where you can see American troops remaining in Iraq beyond the timetable you outlined?

18. Is the war in Afghanistan lost?  Would you favor a surge there along the lines of what happened in Iraq?

19.  Senator McCain, how can we afford to stay in Iraq and deal with the financial crisis at home?  Senator Obama, you have suggested moving troops in Iraq to deal with the growing crisis in Afghanistan.  Can we afford to do that as well?

20.  Given the fact that Russo-American relations have cooled considerably since Russia’s invasion of Georgia, what steps would you take to ensure continued Russian-American cooperation on anti-proliferation measures, including not only implementation of Nunn-Lugar, but also the situations in Iran and North Korea?

Add your own questions in the comments below.

Related posts

• The Manchurian President
• Sarah Palin and Henry Kissinger: Blech.
• Obama Wins the Meme Wars
• More on “The 300″ and Obama’s Experience
• Controlympics: Pollyanna George

I’ve been a fan of Timothy Garton Ash since the days of his fine books about the end of Soviet rule in Eastern Europe.  He has a new piece in today’s Guardian worth reading.

The irony of the Bush years is that a man who came into office committed to both celebrating and reinforcing sovereign, unbridled national power has presided over the weakening of that power in all three dimensions: military, economic and soft. . . . The massive, culpable distraction of Iraq, Bush’s war of choice, leaves the US - and with it the rest of the west - on the verge of losing the war of necessity. Here, resurgent in Afghanistan and Pakistan, are the jihadist enemies who attacked the US on September 11, 2001. By misusing military power, Bush has weakened it.

Economically, the Bush presidency ends with a financial meltdown on a scale not seen for 70 years. The proud conservative deregulators (John McCain long among them) now oversee a partial nationalisation of the American economy that would make even a French socialist blush. . . . The decline in soft power - the power to attract - is also dramatic. . . . Iraq has been central to this collapse of credibility and attractiveness. When Bush denounces Russia for invading a sovereign country (Georgia), as he did again at the UN on Tuesday, a cry of “humbug” goes up around the world. Now American-style free market capitalism is taking a further hit, while some of the alternative models are looking better. . . .

At the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, you can still see the painted glass sign that president Harry Truman placed on his desk in the oval office: The Buck Stops Here. (On the back it says: I’m From Missouri.) The buck stops there. The contrast between the president from Missouri and the president from Texas is painful. Judgment, prudence, vision, patience, honesty - every quality that the 33rd president so signally possessed, as the US remade the world after 1945, has been signally lacking in the 43rd. . . .

For years now, we have seen those who hate the US abusing and burning effigies of Bush. The truth is, the anti-Americans should be building gilded monuments to him. For no one has done more to serve the cause of anti-Americanism than GW Bush. It is we who like and admire the US who should, by rights, be burning effigies. But now, at last, we live in hope of a better America.

Devastating and deadly accurate.  And, not coincidentally, a pretty good description of what would happen under a McCain presidency.

Related posts

• Twenty Questions for the Debate Tonight
• Prosecuting Those Responsible for War Crimes
• More on “The 300″ and Obama’s Experience
• Maliki Gets Bolder
• If This Is A Retraction…

This isn’t good:

Statement by Secretary Condoleezza Rice

Washington, DC

September 8, 2008

The President intends to notify Congress that he has today rescinded his prior determination regarding the U.S.-Russia Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation (the so-called ‘123’ Agreement). As a result, there is no basis for further consideration of the Agreement under the Atomic Energy Act at this time.

The U.S. nonproliferation goals contained in the proposed Agreement remain valid: to provide a sound basis for U.S.-Russian civil nuclear cooperation, create commercial opportunities, and enhance cooperation with Russia on important global nonproliferation issues.

We make this decision with regret. Unfortunately, given the current environment, the time is not right for this agreement.

We will reevaluate the situation at a later date as we follow developments closely.

For those not familiar with 123 agreements, they are named after Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which requires that the U.S. government negotiate and sign an agreement with a given country before commerce in nuclear materials can be established.

Although 123 agreements can be controversial in and of themselves (as is the case with the U.S.-India pact), they also offer a way to help promote nonproliferation and the reduction of nuclear stockpiles.

The era of U.S.-Russian cooperation on nukes may have just come to an end.

Hope Saakashvili is feeling more secure now — because something tells me that a few of those missiles are now pointed his way.

Related posts

• While You Were Away: Russia-Georgia
• Diplospeak Translator: The Condi in Crawford
• So Much for Mars
• Russia: Anything You Can Do I Can Make Worse
• Russia-Georgia: The Big Winner

With all the debate these days about the future of Russian-American relations, there’s one simple bit of analysis I haven’t yet seen (perhaps it’s oversimplistic, but that never stopped me before).

A scorecard.  In what areas do we need the Russians?  In what areas do the Russians need us?   What would each side lose if relations were to go from bad to worse?

What follows is a first, rough attempt to provide that perspective.

The United States needs Russia to

• help contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions;
• remain a member in good standing in the six-party talks on the future of North Korean nukes;
• cooperate with us on the war on terror;
• continue the Nunn-Lugar process, which seeks to reduce significantly nuclear weapons stockpiles;
• ensure implementation of the so-called 123 agreement on civil nuclear cooperation;
• continue talks on renewal of the START I and START II treaties, which are scheduled to expire in 2009 and 2012;
• reverse its decision to suspend its compliance with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe;
• tolerate NATO expansion.

Russia needs the United States to

• continue its significant investment in the Russian economy;
• accede to Russia’s application to join the World Trade Organization;
• support Russia’s continued membership in the G-8.

See a pattern here?  Russia needs the United States for economic reasons.  The United States needs Russia for security reasons.  Unfortunately for the United States, Russia can find other willing partners on economic issues.  But the United States cannot find others to fill the role played by Russia in nuclear non-proliferation.

Advantage, Russia.

Related posts

• Russia-Georgia: The Other Shoe Drops
• While You Were Away: Russia-Georgia
• Twenty Questions for the Debate Tonight
• Thabo Mbeki Is So Bad….
• So Much for Mars

My friend Nilay, who hails from Guwahati in the Assam province of India, taught me a great Hindi word:  hungama.  Think of it as a cross between a major kerfuffle and a holy mess.

RIght now, Pakistan has managed to put itself in the middle of one big honkin’ hungama, perhaps the largest ever recorded.  Via The New York Times:

American intelligence agencies have concluded that members of Pakistan’s powerful [Inter-Services Intelligence] service helped plan the deadly July 7 bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, according to United States government officials.

[I}ntercepted communications between [ISI] officers and militants who carried out the attack…[provide] the clearest evidence to date that Pakistani intelligence officers are actively undermining American efforts to combat militants in the region.

The American officials also said there was new information showing that members of the Pakistani intelligence service were increasingly providing militants with details about the American campaign against them, in some cases allowing militants to avoid American missile strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Concerns about the role played by Pakistani intelligence not only has strained relations between the United States and Pakistan, a longtime ally, but also has fanned tensions between Pakistan and its archrival, India.

[snip]

When asked Thursday about whether the ISI and Pakistani military remained loyal to the country’s civilian government, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the [U.S.] Joint Chiefs of Staff, sidestepped the question. “That’s probably something the government of Pakistan ought to speak to,” Admiral Mullen told reporters at the Pentagon.

Uh-oh.

If there’s one thing we don’t need right now, it’s a nuclear state deciding to commit an act of war on another nuclear state.  What the hell were these guys thinking?  “I’m bored.”  “Yeah, me too.”  Hey, I know what we can do.  Let’s turn South Asia into a big glass puddle!”

This could spin out of control faster than a tight-fitting sari on a Bollywood starlet.  The Indians are not going to be satisfied with false contrition and muttered apologies.

Related posts

• While You Were Watching the View. . .
• Twenty Questions for the Debate Tonight
• Sarah Palin and Henry Kissinger: Blech.
• Mumbai
• While You Were Filing for Bankruptcy: Pakistan

Okay boys and girls, time for the Diplospeak Translator!  Today, we’re featuring remarks by The Condi during her press availability yesterday.

These took place after the “Informal Six-Party Ministerial,” which is apparently what we call meetings with Axis of Evil member new strategic partner North Korea.  Because if they were formal, The Condi would have to get a dress and a corsage and everything, and Kim Jong Il would show up in one of those really hideous powder-blue polyester tuxes from the 1970s.  And nobody wants that.

So here’s what she had to say:

Read the rest of this entry »

Related posts

• Twenty Questions for the Debate Tonight
• Is That a Missile in Your Pocket or Are You Just Glad to Photoshop Me?
• Axis of Photoshop: Card Games
• The Axis of Photoshop: North Korea Goes for the Gold
• Russia-Georgia: The Other Shoe Drops

This is a fairly long post.  I hope you find it worthwhile.

I’m a big fan of Errol Morris, the terrific documentarian whose latest film, Standard Operating Procedure, is a devastating dissection of what happened at Abu Ghraib and how it reflects an Administration unconcerned with the Constitution, morality, or America’s standing in the world.

But liking Morris’s work doesn’t mean that I always agree with him.  Take his oped in today’s NYT, which concerns the recent (largely online) kerfuffle over doctored photos of an Iranian missile test.  To understand how wrong Morris is, we need to take a look at the photos in question.

But first, for those who aren’t aware of the controversy, a quick recap:  last Wednesday (July 10), Iran conducted a missile test.  Initial media coverage made it sound like Iran had significantly expanded its capacity to attack Israel and the United States:

Iran demonstrated its military force with the test-flight of nine long and medium-range missiles in the strategic Strait of Hormouz…. Tehran said the exercise was in retaliation to threats from the US and Israel over its disputed nuclear projects, which it claims are civilian.

Then people started taking a closer look at the photos released by the Iranians in conjunction with the test.  Let’s start with the one distributed by the Associated Press, among others:

Now here’s the version distributed by Agence France Presse (AFP):

Whoopsie!  One of these things is not like the other.

As reported on The Lede, a NYT blog, AFP subsequently withdrew their shot because it was “digitally altered.”  AFP said it got its version from Sepah News, the press arm of the Iranian Revolutionary National Guard, those paragons of truth, accuracy, and good reporting.

Now let’s return to what Morris had to say about the controversy:

[W]hat is the purpose of these Iranian missile photographs? They are clearly altered. The question remains: Why, and to what end?

The government of Iran could not have created a more self-serving controversy. It has focused our attention on Iranian military might more than ever. What will we remember — the digital manipulation of this photograph or the missiles streaking into the sky with their contrails of smoke? Will we ask about essential details — the range or the payload of these weapons? All we are left with is a threat in visual form.

The photographs tell us little about the real threat of Iran. The danger here is not in three missiles versus four. We do not understand the intentions behind the photograph — real or digitally manipulated. Is it a threat? A warning? Or a bluff? All we really know about the photograph is that the government of Iran wanted to get the attention of the world, and it succeeded.

Morris is a brilliant filmmaker and, from what I’ve heard, an equally talented photographer. But he totally misses the point here.  Iran is less ominous and scary as a result of this, not more.  At best they’re bumblers; at worst, they’re complete idiots.

Think I’m mistaken?  Just take a look at posts on sites like Boing Boing (”Iran:  You Suck at Photoshop”), and Wired’s Danger Room (”Attack of the Photoshopped Missiles”).   Netizens are having a field day not only mocking the Iranians but creating their own versions of the photo.  In fact, we should give Ahmadinejad credit here.  For one brief shining moment, liberal and conservative bloggers came together to abuse Iran.

The results are priceless.  Here are a few of my favorites (and yes, I know there are quite a few, but hey, it’s my blog):

Are We Lumberjacks:

Cowicide on Flickr:

Fark:

Snapped Shot:

The Mini Blog:

Are We Lumberjacks again (this is my personal favorite):

PolitiComix:

Fark, again:

And again:

And last but not least, Giant Ideas:

So in sum, the Iranians managed to take something that should have been deadly serious and turned it into one big SNL skit.  As “Farmer Dave,” a commenter on Boing Boing put it, “You know, if you’re going to play at the planet’s ‘adult table,’ you really, really, need to make sure you don’t have idiots in your propaganda office.”

But even that isn’t even the complete story:  there’s a very real possibility that the whole “crisis” is much ado about nothing.   Arms Control Wonk:

Yes, Iran has claimed that it is working on a longer, possibly two-stage [missle], with a 2,000 km range — but that ain’t what Iran launched.

Our intern — a clever kid from MIT named Nick Calluzzo — points out that the external dimensions of the tested Shahab-3 are identical to previously tested missiles. Which means the missiles are probably identical.

[Calluzzo:] “Based on analysis of the available launch footage, it is apparent that the missile launched yesterday is, in fact, an older, shorter range version [of the ] Shahab-3A…. [T]he missile launched today is just the same 1,200 km range Nodong-1 knockoff the Iranians have had functional since as early as 1998.”

So in other words, the Iranians just tested a missile that they’ve had in their arsenal for ten years.  Despite this, one of the four missiles “tested” didn’t fire properly.  So to cover up the fact that a decade-old system really wasn’t working properly, they decided to photoshop the results.

And guess what?  It worked.  Set aside the photoshopping issue for a moment and realize that the media ran with a story that wasn’t news.

Furthermore, reports of a second missile test on Thursday also were overblown.  Apparently the only missile tested was the one that didn’t fire on Wednesday — the one sitting on the ground in the AP version and photoshopped into the AFP version.

Now let’s put the cherry on this hot fudge sundae:  the Bush Administration has responded to this with their usual display of calm  and thoughtful deliberation complete hysteria:

[T]he US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said the [Iranian] “war games” justified America’s defence plans with bases in eastern Europe. She said the tests were “evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one…. Those who say there is no Iranian missile threat against which we should build a missile defence system perhaps ought to talk to the Iranians about their claims.”

Okay, let me think about this for a minute.  We are justifying a set of insanely dangerous policies as a result of a test of some missiles that Iran has had for ten freaking years.  A test where not all of missiles fired properly.  A test that demonstrated only that the Iranians’ photoshopping skills have progressed at a faster rate than their missile-building skills.

To be clear, I do think that Iran obtaining the bomb is a genuine national security threat.  But it does not even remotely help that argument when you start portraying a partially successful test of an old system as a clear and present danger.  Let’s keep our eye on the ball, people.  And Mr. Morris, please try to see the bigger picture here.

Related posts

• Diplospeak Translator: Licensed to (Kim Jong) Il
• Twenty Questions for the Debate Tonight
• The Key Question about Iran’s New Weapon…
• Russia-Georgia: The Other Shoe Drops
• How Do You Solve a Problem Like Vladimir?