InfoAlert

November-December 2006

Foreign Policy | Arms Control | Defense Policy | Terrorism | United Nations

Countries/Regions: Afghanistan | Iran | Iraq | Middle East | North Korea | Russia |

Foreign Policy

A1 - Operation Enduring Freedom: A Retrospective
Zunes, Stephen
Foreign Policy in Focus, October 18, 2006, online edition
"It has become a given, even among many progressive critics of Bush administration policy, that while the U.S. war on Iraq was illegal, immoral, unnecessary, poorly executed, and contrary to America's national security interests, the war on Afghanistan—which was launched five years ago last week—was a legal, moral, and a necessary response to protect American national security in the aftermath of 9/11. Virtually every member of Congress who has gone on record opposing the Iraq War supported the Afghanistan War. Similarly, a number of soldiers who have resisted serving in Iraq on moral grounds have expressed their willingness to serve in Afghanistan. Relatively speaking, the war in Afghanistan has not been nearly as much the unambiguous tragedy as the U.S. war on Iraq. Only the most committed pacifists or the most extreme among the ideological critics of U.S. intervention would have ruled out the possibility of at least some use of force against al-Qaida following the 9/11 attacks against the United States." Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy In Focus Project. He is a professor of politics and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003). Fulltext

A2- The Overestimation of American Power: Sobering Lessons from the Past
Thompson, John A.
World Policy Journal, Summer 2006, v23, #2, pp85-99
"Whatever the future holds in Iraq, it is already clear that the American policymakers who made the decision to intervene overestimated the power of the United States to achieve its objectives in that country. What those objectives were remains somewhat open to question. Critics of the intervention generally attribute such overconfident expectations to particular characteristics of the George W. Bush administration—such as the highly concentrated nature of the decision-making process, the personality of the key players (including the president himself), or the mind-set of the neoconservative intellectuals who were such vocal advocates of the policy. These special factors certainly seem to be important parts of the explanation for the miscalculations in this case. Yet a broader historical perspective reveals that other policymakers, at other critical moments in the nation’s foreign relations, have similarly overestimated the capacity of the United States to determine the course of events overseas or the behavior of other states." John A. Thompson is Reader in American History, University of Cambridge, and a fellow of St. Catharine's College, Cambridge. Fulltext

A3 - The Unipolar Illusion Revisited: The Coming End of the United States' Unipolar Moment
Layne, Christopher
International Security, Fall 2006, v31 #2, pp7-21

"The conventional wisdom among U.S. grand strategists is that U.S. hegemony is exceptional—that the United States need not worry about other states engaging in counterhegemonic balancing against it. The case for U.S. hegemonic exceptionalism, however, is weak. Contrary to the predictions of Waltzian balance of power theorists, no new great powers have emerged since the end of the Cold War to restore equilibrium to the balance of power by engaging in hard balancing against the United States—that is, at least, not yet. This has led primacists to conclude that there has been no balancing against the United States. Here, however, they conflate the absence of a new distribution of power in the international political system with the absence of balancing behavior by the major second-tier powers. Moreover, the primacists' focus on the failure of new great powers to emerge, and the absence of traditional "hard" (i.e., military) counterbalancing, distracts attention from other forms of counterbalancing — notably "leash-slipping" — by major second-tier states that ultimately could lead to the same result: the end of unipolarity. Because unipolarity is the foundation of U.S. hegemony, if it ends, so too will U.S. primacy." Christopher Layne is Associate Professor at the Bush Scholl of Government and Public Service at Texas A & M University. Fulltext Arms Control A4 - The End of the Nonproliferation Regime? Perkovich, George Current History, November 2006, v105 #694, pp355-362 The effort to constrain the acquisition and use of nuclear weapons is perhaps the most ambitious attempt ever made to extend the civilizing reach of the rule of law over humankind’s destructive capacity. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty enshrines three basic bargains at the core of the nonproliferation regime. States that had not tested nuclear weapons before January 1, 1967, promised not to seek the transfer or manufacture of nuclear weapons, while the states that had already tested nuclear weapons promised to work seriously toward eliminating their nuclear arsenals. States with advanced nuclear capability promised to assist non-nuclear weapon states to develop “the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” And, less formally, states with nuclear weapons (primarily the United States and the Soviet Union) pledged to come to the assistance of non-nuclear-weapon states if they were threatened with nuclear attack. The author believes that "the fundamental requirement today is to establish a basis of cooperation between the most powerful state—the United States—and the others, without which pressing proliferation problems cannot be solved.” George Perkovich is vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Fulltext A5- Russia Rules The World's Arms Bazaar Ahrari, Ehsan Asia Times Online, Posted October 31, 2006 The author cites a recent report by the Congressional Research Service and the Pentagon’s 2006 Annual Report to Congress in his analysis of recent developments in world arms trading. He notes that last year, Russia surpassed the U.S. and France as the leading supplier of arms to the developing world, racking up USD 7 billion in weapons sales to Asia, Africa and Latin America, an increase from $5.4 billion the year before. Russia's top customers are China, India and Iran. China’s arms sales are another source of concern since Iran and North Korea are reportedly among their missile technology customers. He notes that the Bush administration hopes that “Iran's neighbors in the Persian Gulf will read this latest arms-transfer report closely and start to share America's threat perception related to Iran's military preparedness.” Ehsan Ahrari is head of a defense consultancy based in Alexandria, Virginia. Fulltext A6 - Conventional Arms Transfers To Developing Nations, 1998-2005 Grimmett, Richard F. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. October 23, 2006, 98p “This report is prepared annually to provide Congress with official, unclassified, quantitative data on conventional arms transfers to developing nations by the United States and foreign countries for the preceding eight calendar years for use in its various policy oversight functions. All agreement and delivery data in this report for the United States are government-to-government (FMS) transactions. Some general data are provided on worldwide conventional arms transfers by all suppliers, but the principal focus is the level of arms transfers by major weapons suppliers to nations in the developing world.” Richard F. Grimmett is specialist in national defense in CRS’ Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division. Fulltext A7- Nuclear Deterrence for the Future Schelling, Thomas C. Issues in Science and Technology, Fall 2006, v23, #1, pp50-53 The most significant event of the past 60 years is the one that did not happen: the use of a nuclear weapon in conflict. One of the most important questions of the next 60 years is whether we can repeat this feat. The success that we have had in avoiding the construction and deployment of nuclear weapons by a large number of nations has been far better than anybody anticipated 40 or 50 years ago. Likewise, the fact that nuclear weapons have not been used is rather spectacular. The British scientist, novelist, and government official C. P. Snow was quoted on the front page of the New York Times in 1960 as saying "unless the nuclear powers drastically disarmed, thermonuclear war within the decade was a mathematical certainty." I think he associated with enough scientists and mathematicians to know what mathematical certainty was supposed to mean. We now have had that mathematical certainty compounded more than four times without any use of nuclear weapons. Thomas C. Schelling, Distinguished University Professor at the University of Maryland, won the 2005 Nobel Prize in Economics. Fulltext Defense A8 - I Want You! The Evolution of the All-Volunteer Force Rostker, Bernard D. Rand Research Brief, September 2006. 5p The movement from conscription to an all-volunteer force (AVF) was a contentious issue when it was proposed in the 1960s. However, concerns about relying on volunteers to maintain a professional military at required levels have proven to be unfounded. As this study demonstrates, a 40-year partnership between policymakers and the research community has produced not only the finest fighting force the United States has ever had but also one that is broadly representative of the American people. Bernard D. Rostker participated as an analyst and government policymaker in many of the events covered in the book reviewed here. Fulltext A9- Defense Transformation: To What, For What? Reynolds, Colonel Kevin P. Strategic Studies Institute, November 21, 2006, online edition, 82p “What form is transformation taking and what end(s) are the armed forces transforming to obtain?” The author argues that U.S. foreign and national security policies should drive the pace and direction of defense transformation, but finds that all too often the military’s weapons systems preferences determine the shape and form of the armed services transformation and their future capability sets. Due to the lengthy Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E) time to acquire technologically advanced weapons systems, up to and beyond 20 years in many instances, future administrations will inherit weapons systems and force structures that, although recently fielded, were imagined several administrations previously and whose capability to support current policy may now be limited. He concludes by arguing that the military should acquire a broad range of technologies now in order to present as yet unknown future political leaders with a broader range of military capabilities with which to pursue future U.S. policy preferences." Colonel Kevin P. Reynolds currently is assigned to the Department of Distance Education (DDE), U.S. Army War College, as a professor and course author. Fulltext A10 - Alliance and American National Security Sherwood-Randall, Dr. Elizabeth SSI Letort Papers, October 2006, online edition, 49p One of the greatest challenges facing the United States today is the translation of its overwhelming might into effective influence. Traditionally, the United States has leveraged its power through bilateral and multilateral alliances. However, the end of the Cold War and the events of September 11, 2001, have led some policymakers and analysts to question the value of alliances in American foreign and defense policy. This monograph advocates that allies are more important than ever to the achievement of U.S. national security goals. This monograph advocates that allies are more important than ever to the achievement of U.S. national security goals. Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall is the Adjunct Senior Fellow for Alliance Relations at the Council on Foreign Relations; a Senior Research Scholar at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. Fulltext Terrorism A11 - National Strategy for Combating Terrorism 2006 The White House, November 2006, online edition,26p "America is at war with a transnational terrorist movement fueled by a radical ideology of hatred, oppression, and murder...This updated strategy sets the course for winning the War on Terror. It builds directly from the National Security Strategy issued in March 2006 as well as the February 2003 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, and incorporates our increased understanding of the enemy. From the beginning, it has been both a battle of arms and a battle of ideas. Not only do we fight our terrorist enemies on the battlefield, we promote freedom and human dignity as alternatives to the terrorists’ perverse vision of oppression and totalitarian rule. The paradigm for combating terrorism now involves the application of all elements of our national power and influence. Not only do we employ military power, we use diplomatic, financial, intelligence, and law enforcement activities to protect the Homeland and extend our defenses, disrupt terrorist operations, and deprive our enemies of what they need to operate and survive." Fulltext A12 -Why Terrorism Does Not Work Abrahams, Max International Security, Fall 2006, v31, #2, pp43-78 "This is the first article to analyze a large sample of terrorist groups in terms of their policy effectiveness. It includes every foreign terrorist organization(FTO) designated by the U.S. Department of State since 2001. The key variable for FTO success is a tactical one: target selection. Terrorist groups whose attacks on civilian targets outnumber attacks on military targets do not tend to achieve their policy objectives, regardless of their nature. Contrary to the prevailing view that terrorism is an effective means of political coercion, the universe of cases suggests that, first, contemporary terrorist groups rarely achieve their policy objectives and, second, the poor success rate is inherent to the tactic of terrorism itself. The bulk of the article develops a theory for why countries are reluctant to make policy concessions when their civilian populations are the primary target." Max Abrahams is a doctoral candidate in political sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles. Fulltext A13 - Suicide Terrorism & Democracy: What We 've Learned Since 9/11 Pape, Robert A. Cato Institute, November 1, 2006, online edition, 20p "Terrorist groups that employ suicide as a tactic follow a strategic logic to compel democratic governments to change their policies, but the motivations of the individual attackers have evolved over the past few years. The author states that suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism. He stresses that this differentiation has important implications for how the U.S. government should conduct the war on terrorism..." To complete disengagement from the Middle East, however, is not possible and America needs a new strategy that safeguards vital interests in the region, but does not stimulate the rise of a new generation of suicide terrorists. The author argues that beyond recognizing the limits of military action and stepping up domestic security efforts, Americans and their major-power allies would do well to recall the virtues of traditional policy of “offshore balancing” in the Persian Gulf. Robert A. Pape is professor of political science at the University of Chicago and director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism. He is the author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2005). Fulltext A14 - The Terror War is an Honor War Rauch, Jonathan National Journal, October 14, 2006, v38, #8, pp18-19 In a recently published and bracingly original book called "Honor: A History", Bowman - a cultural critic and historian affiliated with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington - argues that honor remains a potent force in world affairs, perhaps more potent today than in many years, because it is central to the liberal West's confrontation with militant Islam..." Understanding this traditional concept of honor provides insight the willingnesss of the Jihadists to kill civilians. Rauch concludes: “Americans are naïve if we assume that honor cultures yearn for freedom on our terms, and remiss if we underestimate their capacity for self-defeating belligerence. Although they are not strictly rational by modern Western light, neither are they crazy. They are something else altogether: honor-bound.” Jonathan Rauch is a staff writer for the National Journal. Fulltext United Nations A15- Ban Ki-moon vs. The Bad Guys Traub, James New York Time Magazine, November 5, 2006, pp.17+ James Traub considers whether South Korean UN general-elect Ban Ki-moon will be able to break through years of bureaucratic wrangling at the UN to improve the power and responsiveness of the Human Rights Council, recently established to replace the toothless Human Rights Commission." James Traub is the author of a new book “The Best Intentions: Kofi Annan and the U.N. in the Era of American World Power.” Fulltext A16 - For Permanent Peace: Beyond the Nuclear Challenge and the Cold War Ki-Moon, Ban Harvard International Review, Summer 2006, pp24-27 Since last year's breakthrough Sep 19 Joint Statement, the North Korean nuclear issue has drawn considerable attention in the international community. The historical origin of the North Korean nuclear issue can be traced to both the immediate aftermath of World War II, which led to the division of the Korean peninsula, and the Cold War. In any kind of engagement strategy, the first and only viable step is always dialogue. Ban Ki-Moon is the newly Secretary General –Designate of the United Nations. His term will start January 1, 2007. Fulltext COUntries & Regions

Afghanistan

A17 - Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy
Katzman, Kenneth
CRS Report for Congress, Updated November 3, 2006, 54p
This report is updated as warranted by major developments. Current "U.S. stabilization measures in Afghanistan focus on strengthening the central government and its security forces and on promoting reconstructing while combating the renewed insurgent challenge. The United States and other countries are building an Afghan National Army, deploying a NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) that now commands peacekeeping throughout Afghanistan, and running regional enclaves to secure reconstruction (Provincial Reconstruction Teams, PRTs).
Approximately 21,000 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan to help combat the insurgency, of which most are now under NATO/ISAF command (as of October 5). To build security institutions and assist reconstruction, the United States gave Afghanistan about $4.35 billion in FY2005, including funds to equip and train Afghan security forces. Another $3 billion was provided in FY2006. Pending and enacted FY2007 appropriations measures would add another $2.6 billion, including security forces funding." Kenneth Katzmann is a Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division CRS Report for Congress, Updated November 3, 2006. Fulltext

A18 - Nato in Afghanistan: A Test of the Transatlantic Alliance
Gallis, Paul
CRS Report, Updated November 1, 2006,online edition,25p
"The mission of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Afghanistan is seen as a test of the alliance’s political will and military capabilities. The allies are seeking to create a “new” NATO, able to go beyond the European theater and combat new threats such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Afghanistan is NATO’s first “out-of-area” mission beyond Europe. The purpose of the mission is the stabilization and reconstruction of Afghanistan. The mission is a difficult one because it must take place while combat operations against Taliban insurgents continue." Paul Gallis is a specialist in European Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division CRS Report for Congress. Fulltext

Iran

A19 - Iran: Balancing East against West
Vakil, Sanam
Washington Quarterly, Autumn 2006, v29, #4, pp51–65
For centuries, Iran oriented its vision and focus toward the West. As Indo-European descendents, Persians prided themselves on their distinct ancestry in the region. With the election of the revolutionary nationalist ideologue, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as Iran’s president, the country is using its carefully cultivated commercial and strategic relations with China, Russia, and India to counterbalance the threat of Western sanctions against its nuclear program. This article asks if today’s globalizing economy is already diverse enough for this strategy to work? Sanam Vakil is an assistant professor of Middle East studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Fulltext

A20 - How to Keep the Bomb from Iran
Sagan, Scott D.
Foreign Affairs, September-October 2006, v85,#5, pp45-59
This article discusses the possibility that Iran's nuclear weapons program will yield a successful arsenal, and what the United States should do about it. Rather than continue to actively stop the development of nuclear weapons, the United States maintains a fatalistic attitude towards nuclear proliferation, contrasted by an optimistic view of deterrence. In order to stop nuclear proliferation in all of the world's developing countries, nations must attempt to stop weapons programs before they are successful, rather than rely on diplomatic ability to stop nuclear weapon use after they are made. Scott D. Sagan is Professor of Political Science and Director, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University. Fulltext

A21- Iran's Young Opposition: Youth in Post-Revolutionary Iran
Cohen, Jared
SAIS Review, Summer 2006, v26, #2; pp3-17
In a country of 68 million people, the youth in Iran constitute close to 70 percent of the population. In the absence of a strong opposition, young Iranians are now the de facto opposition in the Islamic Republic. The emergence of new youth networks of communications has allowed young Iranians to circumvent the rules and regulations of the regime by expressing themselves and communicating above the grid through digital, audio, and visual media. This has changed the way they think and created new opportunities to work with the youth of Iran to bring about democracy on their terms." Jared Cohen received his B.A. from Stanford University and his M.Phil in International Relations from Oxford University, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar. He has conducted research in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon on youth and how they view the post-9/11 world. Fulltext

A22 - Getting Serious About Iran: For Regime Change
Taheri, Amir
Commentary, November 2006, v122, #4, pp21-27
"What to do about Iran? The question has haunted successive administrations in Washington since the raid on the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the seizure of its diplomats in November 1979." The article discusses regime change in Iran, which has traditionally shown an Anti-American foreign policy. A look at American foreign policy towards the country from the Carter administration to the George W. Bush administration is presented, with an analysis of the possibility that America will facilitate a regime change. Amir Taheri was the executive editor of Khayan, Iran's largest daily newspaper, from 1972 to 1979. Fulltext

Iraq

A23 - Iraq Study Group Report
United States Institute of Peace and Baker Institute, December8, 2006, online edition, 160p
"The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved. This report make a number of recommendations for actions to be taken in Iraq, the United States, and the region.The most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly..." This report offers seventy-nine proposals for the situation in Iraq. Although there is no explicit timetable, it calls for a short-term increase in US forces with a gradual decrease by early 2008. It recommends direct engagement with Iran and Syria, and renewed commitment to dealing with the Israel-Palestine issue. Fulltext

A24 - Iraq: What Now? A Foreign Affairs Roundtable
Foreign Affairs, December 7, 2006., online edition
"Can the Baker-Hamilton commission save Iraq from a full-fledged civil war, and the Bush administration from a foreign policy fiasco?" Stephen Biddle, Larry Diamond, James Dobbins, and Leslie Gelb analyze the report of the Iraq Study Group and debate what should be done in Iraq. Fulltext

A25 - The Baker-Hamilton Study Group Report: The Elephant Gives Birth to a Mouse
Cordesman, Anthony
CSIS Commentary, December 6, 2006, online edition
“It is going to take time to make a full appraisal of all the annexes and content of the full report, but the principle recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission are very unlikely to produce success…
The key problem is that events may be spiraling out of control, and the key to success is not outside action but Iraqi action. As a result, the most important single sentence in the Study Group's executive summary is it introductory caveat, “if the Iraqi government moves forward with national reconciliation.” Anthony Cordesman is the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Fulltext

26- 79 Steps to Victory in Iraq?
New York Times, December 10, 2006.
“President Bush says the Iraq Study Group report ‘did a good job of showing what is possible.’ Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain said, ‘It offers a strong way forward.’ There is no shortage of opinions. There has been no shortage of opinions about the Iraq Study Group report. The New York Times published commentaries by 12 experts, including Andrew Exum, Richard Perle, Madeleine Albright, Fouad Ajami, Rory Stewart, Leslie H. Gelb, Nathaniel Fick, Larry Diamond, Robert Pape, Jeremy Greenstock, Bing West and Josef Joffe. Fulltext

A27- An Analysis of the Iraq Study Group Report
Pascual, Carlos, O'Hanlon, Michael E.; Pollack, Kenneth M.; Riedel, Bruce
Brookings Institution, December 07, 2006, online edition
At a panel discussion, four Brookings Institution fellows focused attention on issues related to Iraq in particular in the context of the Iraq Study Group Report. “We feel that both the issue of Iraq is one that requires extensive public analysis and debate, and we think the report requires extensive analysis and debate.” Moderator Carlos Pascual, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at Brookings started the discussion, “The report itself does several things, but the first sentence really sets the tone. It says, ‘It is a grave and deteriorating situation.’ And it’s important that that kind of honesty is set as the foundation for the report.” Fulltext

A28- There is Much More At Stake For America Than Iraq
Brzezinski, Zbigniew
Financial Times, December 5 2006.
“The president, and America's political leadership, must recognise that the US role in the world is being gravely undermined by the policies launched more than three years ago. The destructive war in Iraq, the hypocritical indifference to the human dimensions of the stalemate in Israeli-Palestinian relations, the lack of diplomatic initiative in dealing with Iran and the frequent use of Islamophobic rhetoric are setting in motion forces that threaten to push America out of the Middle East, with dire consequences for itself and its friends in Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia… In brief, the immediate dilemma is Iraq but the larger stake is the future of the Middle East.” Zbigniew Brzezinski is the former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. Fulltext

A29 - We Can Put More Forces in Iraq... And They Would Make a Difference
Kagan, Frederick W.
Weekly Standard, December 4, 2006, pp
Hagan believes discussion of troop numbers in Iraq clouds the discussion. He says the only option likely to bring peace to Iraq would be to change the prioirity to establishing security in Iraq as a primary objective, with training Iraqi forces a close second. He says, "The U.S. military, partnered with Iraqi army units capable of assisting, needs to clear and hold troubled neighborhoods in order to bring the sectarian conflict under control. At the same time, the coalition must reinvigorate its efforts to reconstruct cleared areas, bringing jobs, food, and water to the Iraqi people along with safety. Only in this context will it be possible to recruit an effective Iraqi police force or more Iraqi soldiers and to develop effective Iraqi institutions of central, regional, and local government. And only in this context will the Iraqi government be able to disarm militias that now derive their primary justification from the ongoing attacks on their communities." Frederick W. Kagan is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of Finding the Target: The Transformation of the American Military (Encounter). Fulltext

A30 - Iraq's Youth in a Time of War
Powers, Jonathan
SAIS Review, Summer-Fall 2006, v26, #2, pp17-29
"The war in Iraq continues to have a detrimental affect on millions of Iraqi youth. Although billions of dollars are being spent on the war, not enough attention has been paid to enabling these youth to be part of Iraq's reconstruction. Yet the vast majority of the country's population is under 25 years old. As a result, many youth are being recruited as paid-for-hire insurgents and adding to the perpetual mayhem and violence. This article will explore the current struggle that Iraqi youth face and suggest ways to ameliorate their increasingly desperate position and help them find a better future. It argues that the United States and the international community should increase their support for efforts to engage Iraqi youth in their country's state-building efforts. This is crucial for increasing the stability in that country and throughout the region." Jonathan Powers, an Iraq veteran, spent 14 months in Baghdad and Najaf as a Captain in the Army's 1st Armored Division and later as a civilian. He is now the Program Manager of War Kids Relief, a project of the Veterans for America aimed at assisting the youth of Iraq. Fulltext

MIddle East

A31- The New Middle East
Haass, Richard
Foreign Affairs, November/December, 2006, v85, #6, pp2-11
This article discusses the role of the United States in the Middle East in the post-American era. The author traces the rise of the Middle East as a strategic area through the four previous eras of power and control. He suggests that Israel and Iran will be the central powers in the fifth era with minimal chances for the peace process. He believes that Iraq will have a weak central government for years with militias emerging stronger and tensions between Sunnis and Shiites spreading. He thinks the U.S. needs to avoid the mistakes of an over-reliance on military force and dependence on the rise of democracy to pacify the region. Richard N. Haass is President of the Council on Foreign Relations. Fulltext

A32 - There Are no Shortcuts to the "End of History"
Fukuyama, Francis
New Perspectives Quarterly, Spring 2006, v23, #2, pp35-38
In this interview the author points to several illusions that led to the current American position in the Middle East. These include the existence of weapons of mass destruction, the speed with which Iraq would transition to a successful democracy, and the reaction of the world to the invasion of Iraq. To remedy its current predicament, America needs more of a political strategy and less of a military one. We should not reshape the world through the use of force, but by establishing multilateralinstitutions that will create long-term incentives for stability. Francis Fukuyama teaches at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Fulltext

A33 - The Future of Lebanon
Salem, Paul
Foreign Affairs, November/December. 06, v85, #6,pp13-22
"This summer, Hezbollah and Israel blundered into a war that neither anticipated, and the costs for Lebanon have been high. But if Beirut and the international community handle the crisis well, the end result might still be surprisingly positive: a more stable Lebanon that could help secure a true regional peace." This article discusses the future of Lebanon following the 2006 war between Hezbolah and Israel. The author argues that United Nations Security Resolution 1701 provides a basis for moving forward and that the international community should provide an effective UN force and to follow through with training, technical and material support to Lebanese armed forces and security services. He cautions that a war with Iran would necessarily involve Lebanon." Paul Salem is Director of the Carnegie Middle East Center, in Beirut. Fulltext

A34 - Jordan & Iraq: Between Cooperation and Crisis
Scott Lasensky
USIP Special Report No. 178, November 2006, online edition, 20p
" Iraq's neighbors are playing a major role — both positive and negative — in the stabilization and reconstruction of "the new Iraq." As part of the Institute's " Iraq and Its Neighbors" initiative, a group of leading specialists on the geopolitics of the region is assessing the interests and influence of the countries surrounding Iraq and the impact on U.S. bilateral relations with these countries . The Institute is also sponsoring dialogue between Iraqi national security and foreign policy officials and their counterparts from the neighboring countries. Scott Lasensky's report on Jordan is the fourth in a series of special reports by the U.S. Institute of Peace on " Iraq and Its Neighbors." Scott Lasensky is a senior research associate at the Institute’s Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention and an adjunct professor of government at Georgetown University. Fulltext

North Korea

A35 - North Korea's Nuclear Test: The Fallout
IGC Asia Briefing, November 2006, #56, online edition, 20p
"The North Korean nuclear standoff entered an even more troubling phase with Pyongyang’s test of a nuclear device on 9 October 2006. Condemnation was nearly universal, and the UN Security Council moved quickly to pass Resolution 1718 unanimously less than a week later. The test stirred China to take an unusually strong line against its ally, joining UN sanctions and dispatching a senior envoy to Pyongyang. On 31 October, after talks in Beijing with the U.S. and China, Pyongyang agreed to return to the six-party talks. The resumption of a diplomatic process is welcome but will likely face the same pitfalls as earlier rounds in which progress was undermined by a lack of clear understandings between North Korea and the U.S. While the six-party talks are a useful forum, resolving the nuclear issue will also require committed bilateral negotiations that address in detail North Korea’s security concerns and U.S. demands for complete disarmament and intrusive verification. China’s strong response may prove to be a major new factor pressing North Korea to offer more concessions in the talks, but only if the U.S. is prepared to set the table with a far more specific and appetizing menu than it has thus far" Fulltext

A36 - North Korean Test Provokes Widespread Condemnation
Kerr, Paul
Arms Control Today, November 2006, v36,#9, pp23-32
" An Oct. 16 statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence partly confirmed North Korea's claims, stating that an "analysis of air samples" collected two days after the test "detected radioactive debris," confirming that North Korea had "conducted an underground nuclear explosion." For some time, the U.S. intelligence community has estimated that North Korea likely has at least one or two nuclear weapons from plutonium it extracted prior to 1994..." Paul Kerr has been a research analyst at the Arms Control Association covering missile and nuclear non-proliferation issues since 2002 and contributes articles to "Arms Control Today". Fulltext

Russia

A37 - Russia, Iran, and the Nuclear Question: The Putin Record
Freedman, Dr. Robert O.
Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, December 2006, online edition, 64p
"The author analyzes the Russo-Iranian relationship through the spring of 2006. This issue is vitally important in U.S. foreign policy, not just as it relates to Iran and the overall issue of nonproliferation, especially in the Middle East, but also as U.S. foreign policy pertains to relations with Moscow. Thus this monograph should also be read in light of the current crisis with Iran and bearing in mind the dimensions of Iranian proliferation and the issues surrounding it. At the same time, the numerous challenges to regional security in the Middle East, and the addition of great power rivalry to that list, further aggravate Middle East instability and make the search for peace that much more difficult. Consequently, the Russo-American dimension of the Iranian crisis adds to the complexity of the myriad issues and regional challenges to security, and the enduring difficulties in the Russo-American relationship." Dr. Robert O. Freedman is Peggy Meyerhoff Pearlstone Professor of Political Science at Baltimore Hebrew University and Visiting Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University. Fulltext

A38 - Russian Youth Policy: Shaping the Nation-State's Future
Blum, Douglas
SAIS Review, Summer-Fall 2006, v26, #2, pp.95-109
"The collapse of the USSR and the resulting devastation of Russia's economy created a multitude of acute social problems. At the same time, the sudden, massive exposure to globalization constituted a double-edged sword: While opening up a world of possibilities, it also exacerbated cultural fragmentation and diminished social cohesion. As a result, since 1991 Russia—like all of the other post-Soviet states—has been embroiled in the process of nation-building, which involves the creation of new institutions of governance as well as new systems of meaning and order. Increasingly, the focus of such efforts has been on the socialization of youth, reflecting a recognition that successful nation-building depends on enlisting the loyalty and active participation of young people. Youth policy thus represents part of a larger attempt to anchor state and society within a sound institutional framework—one which, under Putin, is marked by a telltale mixture of delegation and centralization. This article reviews the pattern of current youth policymaking in Russia, outlining the contours of the relevant legislation as well as the nature of the political process involved." Douglas W. Blum is Professor of Political Science at Providence College and Adjunct Professor of International Studies at the Thomas J. Watson, Jr., Institute of International Studies at Brown University. Fulltext

A39 - The Collapse of Russian-Georgian Relations
Welt, Cory
CSIS Strategy Report, November 7, 2006, v2,#14, 2p
On October 26, the Office of the Chief of Staff hosted a Strategy Hour with Cory Welt, deputy director and fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Program, who discussed recent developments in Russian-Georgian relations and their implications for conflict resolution and NATO engagement in the South Caucasus. Welt recently returned from a month in Georgia, where he was conducting research for a book he is writing on the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetian conflicts.Cory Welt, Deputy Director and Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program, led a Strategy Hour session on October 26, 2006, discussing the current political turmoil between Russia and Georgia. Fulltext