During the Cold War the US and Russia had an “Incidents At Sea Agreement” to avoid accidentally stumbling into a war.  The US and Iran Navies patrol the Persian Gulf with not such protection. We have already had a few close calls.

There is no reason to take this risk.  If we could work with the Soviets on these issues, we can work with Iran.  If fact, instituting a similar agreement would be a first step towards improving relations between our countries.

Our forces must have a direct method of communication should an accident occur, a for a naval war in the Gulf could disrupt the flow of oil, weakening an already weak world economy.

Just Foreign Policy is and TSN! encourage you to write your Congressmen and ask them to support John Conyers’ (D-MI) and Geoff Davis’ (R-KY) Resolution 94.

Here is a site to help make it easy.

Big talk happened this week. The US said that they see Iran as an important player in Afghanistan.  Iran said it would take part in the regional conference on Afghanistan and the US pledged to bring more troops to Afghanistan to root our terrorists camps.

The slow dance of Iranian and the US negotiations is underway.  Of course, it has a long way to go with many potential stumbling blocks.  One of which is the amount of ugly noise we will have to stomach from both the American and Iranian right.  At home, the right say talking to Iran is naive and will never work. In Iran, the right crows about trust and demands measurable progress.

Both criticisms are based in valid points of view.  The only guarantee the US can expect is that Iran will act in its own interests. But it is almost impossible to figure how how they see their interests. The outcome of any conversation is far from set.

On the Iranian side, the US has a long history of working against Iran. Both countries are right to demand clear metrics of progress, as this is best way  to build trust in any wary partnership.

The problem is that neither the US right or the Iranian right offer these criticisms to be constructive. They see problems but don’t offer any solutions.  They say we can’t work together but don’t offer ideas for how we can move forward in Afghanistan or improve US - Iranian relations.

All ideas should be considered but loud mouth criticism from the easy chair offer nothing but a bit more noise.

The  tragedy is that these defeatist tomes contain important points but readers have to wade through miles of bile to extract them.  The US needs a vigorous internal opposition and we need to understand the full spectrum of obstacles in Iran.

But right now, we just get anger and hopelessness. Hopefully, both rights can figure out how work towards thier countries future.

No military solution will work in Afghanistan without economic development to reinforce the security. The country has been so poor for so long that rebuilding the economy may be more difficult than securing the peace.

There is a growing movement to focus on the economy first. We should surge our investment in the road, water, waste and electrical systems.  Why not put people to work and pay them each day so they have cash to spend in the local markets?

The military mission would shift to from hunting killers in the mountains to protecting the economic activity.  This would be safer for our soldiers, less costly for the tax payer and would fundamentally shift the situation on the ground for the people of Afghanistan.

Joe Biden said in Brussels on March 11, 2009 : “Roughly 70 percent [of Taliban] are involved because of the money, because they are getting paid.” Biden said this 70 percent of Taliban may be persuaded to lay down arms.

The Taliban pays its soldiers $8 a day.  If we double that, people will work with us.  If we simultaneously start buying the poppy plants from the farmers, as we did successfully in Turkey and India, the Taliban will not have any money to pay their fighters.  By fall, Afghanistan could be full of workers and a blossoming local economy.

Americans back home could then use organizations like Kiva.org to help Afghans create their own businesses, and the US would be deep in the business of nation building instead of fighting a war.

If we are principled enough to follow FDR’s call for self determination, this approach could damage the terrorists much more than any drone attack ever will.  Reviving Afghanistan and getting our troops home might just be the stroke capitalism needs to save itself.

The Weekly Standard just published a strong story about Afghanistan. The three authors, Max Boot, Frederick W. Kagan & Kimberly Kagan, spent 8 days traveling the country and feel hopeful that the war can conclude successfully.  They don’t define what success is, but my assumption reading the article was that we will succeed when we can pull our troops out and  leave behind a stable Afghan government that provides its own security.

The positive focus is a welcome contrast from the doom and gloom in most US reporting.  The article is also refreshingly free of partisan  bickering and is properly focused on our efforts to secure the country. Far too many articles written about Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan actually focus on local US politics. We are all in this together and we need to find ways to solve these problems - regardless of political stripe.

Well done, Weekly Standard. We need more reporting on what is actually happening on the ground.  And the three authors offer a wealth of details about many aspects of our effort. The multiple voices  also mean that the article suffers from a lack of overall direction as separate sections are loosely stitched together, but the article is well worth reading.

The authors are not free of politics but they make a few excellent points that could really enlighten our national debate:

• The term Taliban is all but meaningless. There are so many factions with layered, shifting allegiances that it is ridiculous to speak of them as a single, cohesive resistance.
  
• Extra troops could secure and hold more areas of the country. But we do will not have enough troops to secure the entire country. The Afghan forces are performing well but there is not nearly enough of them.
  
• The NATO structure needs overhaul as short assignments, too many players with different missions are leading to inefficiency and waste

I do have some questions for the authors.

There is no money, political will or plans to train enough Afghan forces to secure the country.  How can we succeed without finding a way to dramatically increase the size and capabilities of the local forces?

The authors rightfully point out that increased US troop strength could push some of the insurgent further west, close to Iran.  The authors says this is a problem because we don’t have troops there and won’t anytime soon.

Why do we need troops near Iran?

Iran has long been involved in that area of Afghanistan and shares language, custom and history with the Tajiks Western Afghanistan (25% of Afghanistan is Tajik). Iran helped us immensely during the 2001 war.  Iran doesn’t want to see radical Pashtuns in power and they want to curb the flow of drugs. They would be glad to secure this area; why don’t we work with them?

They are naturally allies here.  Why would we send in more Americans to fight in that god-forsaken terrain when it will antagonize a country that would love to do that fighting for us?

Economic development is crucial to a successive conclusion of the war. Security has to come first, but economic development needs to follow hard on its heels. A working economy will be the best way to maintain stability and the lack of one will quickly erode all our hard fought gains.

We need to start thinking about how to rebuild the country. Solving this may prove as difficult as creating security and we need to get it moving now.

Perhaps the American people can help.  We are sick of letting our soldiers do all the work. Poverty is caused  by a lack of money and there are new ways for those with resource to connect with those you don’t. If there are ways that we can help foster economic activity that will solidify the Afghanistan and bring our people home - count me in.

Let us all pick up on what this article started and continue to imagine how the US can succeed in Afghanistan, what peace will look like and how it will work.

National Intelligence Director Blair had his first meeting with the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he was much more reasonable than most of the Senators. Both NID Blair and Defense Intelligence Agency head Lt. Gen. Michael Maples presented clear thinking and rational goals regarding Iran.  The senators were  the ones out for blood.

A welcome change from the last 8 years.

NID Blair said that many Arabic countries want to help prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But the continuing conflict between Israel and Palestine makes it hard for them “to defend their ties to the US.”

In other words, our one-sided approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict undermines our ability to reach peaceful solutions on other issues. The analysis is not new, but hearing the words from intelligence experts is.

The obvious follow up is ask if the US could use progress with Iran’s nuclear program as a means to opening Israel’s stance towards Palestine? Isn’t keeping nukes out of Iran worth peace with Palestinians?

It is an obvious question and opens a new line of thinking in our foreign policy. Yet in three hours of questioning, not one Senator asked.

The Senators were much more concerned about how much uranium Iran has.  NID Blair said that Iran does not have any highly enriched uranium (bomb grade) and has not yet decided to produce any.  Senator Wicker (R) Mississippi was not happy with this and spent his time having Blair and Maples repeat themselves.  Iran does not have the material to make a bomb and is not trying to make it.

Senator McCain (R) Arizona was particularly whacky. After having his leading question shot down (doesn’t Iran missile programs mean they are developing nuclear weapons? No, those missiles have numerous, valid defensive applications), Senator McCain scolded NID Blair for not knowing the precise number and schedule draw down of troops in Iraq.

NID Blair explained that is not his area of responsibility and he will provide his advice of security implications when the Pentagon asks him. But the Pentagon makes those decisions.  Senator McCain blew right over that straight talk and continued his lecture.  He has to know how the system works, so he was either grandstanding or lost.

Senator Lieberman (I) Connecticut questioned the thinking of NID Blair and heard that the Israeli - Palestine conflict fuels the way people think across the entire region, including Afghanistan and Pakistan.

These two intelligence professionals were handing the Senate a clear way to improve our standing the Middle East.  We need to help solve the Israel-Palestine conflicts and we can use Iranian Nuclear threat to do it.

How many of the Senators followed the lead?  How many Senators were looking for new solutions to our challenges? How many Senators were fighting for change? Zero.

Update - It has been 11 hours and FOX still has not published the comment.  Login was successful and the comment has been re-submitted twice.  FOX let’s me say nothing.

Fox News just published an article say that the Obama administration might invite Iran to an upcoming conference on Afghanistan.  I immediately submitted the following comment:

This is a great idea. Iranians share cultural and linguistic heritage with roughly one third of all Afghanis and Iran is determined to keep the Taliban out of power. They are natural allies in this fight. If everything goes to hell over there, do we want to send our soldiers into Pakistan? Why would we when the Iranians are itching to go? This is a step that we should have taken in 2001 and I am glad to see FOX talking about Iran in contexts other than the nuclear weapons and Mr. I’m-Madder-Than-You’s crazy statements.

They have yet to publish it. In fact, they have never published any of my comments but if should be interested if they do. Let’s see if the keep the bias-clamps on or not.

Economic commentators tailor their comments to the expectations of their clients.  We all know that, right? So what? The what is that one of pro-pundits, Zachary Karabell, admits it in Newsweek.

The article is an odd mix of expose (all experts have agendas), advice column (decisive pundits get hired), and apology (the rise of certain pundits is market driven).  Karabell begins the article by describing the fickle, self-interest of financial analysis and ends it by telling not to worry - the market determines who we listen to.  Is this supposed to make us feel better?  Karabell ends the article telling us to question financial experts but his argument suggest that we should question the entire investment system.

1. He contradicts himself about experts skewing their opinions.   First, he says that all analyst “emphasis” perceptions that fit their niche. He worked for a company that focused on growth markets, so he depicted a half -full picture.  Pundits working for more bearish companies provide a half-empty image.  Fair enough, except he also claims that pundits don’t “skew their analysis to serve their own bottom line.”  Emphasizing sounds a lot like skewing to me. Karabell probably meant to say that most pundits don’t out right lie or purposely rig their options.  But we can rest assured that they skew their opinions, for he already told us so. We don’t have to back pedal - they do it.
2. Karabell does not seem worried about disclosure either.  Wouldn’t the public benefit from knowing professional stance of TV experts?  Wouldn’t this information help us decipher their opinion?  Isn’t this a very easy step that would help bring clarity and accuracy to professional economic reporting? Mr. Karabell evidently doesn’t think so, for his confessional article doesn’t even mention such simple adjustments.
3. The psychological basis of markets - the most important thing Karabell says is that investors choose experts based on how they are currently feeling.  When investors feel confident, bullish experts become popular and when worried, bear experts reap the rewards.  For all the fancy number talk and derivative parades, human emotion drives the market.  Could we have a better indictment of our insane wealth transfer system? Again, Mr. Karabell must not agree for he tells us not to worry - the markets drive us. NO, NO, NO - our emotions drive the markets and that is what your agruement suggets.

Karabell pulls a fast one on us but telling us a bit of truth but then pretends that it doesn’t really matter.  Human emotion and self interest drive our financial markets - take it from him, even as he refuses to admit what he said.

The questions is do we really want to continue handing over so much our national sovereignty to these small group of greedy, emotional men?

I don’t.

It is time to get the media to open up their source book and for us to put faith into smaller, local markets. Why give all the money to a few super rich owners who know little and care less about what a company actually does?

Let’s invest in worker ownership and share risks (and benefits) with the people who really work. This is one of the great possibilities of our day and one of the great opportunities of this crisis.

Sec. of State Clinton asked Israel to show the Palestinians that “there are benefits to negotiating.“  This is a welcome step beyond the one-sided dealings of the Bush Administration, which made many demands of the Palestinians but none of Israel.

Sec. Clinton was not specific.  She could have suggested opening the border crossing, increasing electrical and/or water supply to Gaza, helping to build a Palestinian government, or stop building new settlements.  But at least she hinted that Israel will have to make real changes.

Most Americans want a peaceful, stable Israel AND a peaceful stable Palestine.  They actually go together and, although it may be nearly impossible to achieve, this is the goal the US should support and pursue.

The days of favoring Israel at the expense of Palestine should end. Obama’s credibility with Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan depends on how he deals with Israel - Palestine.  Getting this right won’t guarantee success with the other countries.  But screwing up will shred what’s left of our once formidable credibility.

Sec. Clinton’s words are a good first step, but only a first step.  Peace is going to require more than vague benefits.

Sensitive information about President Obama’s helicopter (Marine 1) was found on a hard drive in Tehran. Evidently, someone at “a defense contractor in Bethesda, Maryland” installed a file sharing program that comprised their hard drive.

Oh, the games we play. Some poor smuck wanted a Britney Spears song and ends up getting himself fired, maybe bringing his company down and possibly endangered the President.

Before we rush to judgement, a few more details would be nice.  For instance, what company was breached and what else was on that hard drive?  And how about the owner of the hard drive in Tehran? Did it belong to Khameni or some sixteen year old kid in that Internet savvy country?

Answers to those questions will help us decide on the level of this like particular breach, but it reminds us all how easily - and seriously - our systems can be corrupted.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) just released their report on the effect the Global War on Terror governments across the globe.  The ICJ held hearings in 16 countries, covered over 40 countries, creating the most detailed accounting of legal and institutional attitudes about the exercise of state power.

The outcome of the study was not heartening.  If the US bends the rules, others will too.  Most countries have grown more violent and the world has seen wide spread restriction of free speech and increased state torture.

Terrorism sows terror, and many States have fallen into a trap set by the terrorists. Ignoring lessons from the past, they have allowed themselves to be rushed into hasty responses, introducing an array of measures which undermine cherished values as well as the international legal framework carefully developed since the Second World War. These measures have resulted in human rights violations, including torture, enforced disappearances, secret and arbitrary detentions, and unfair trials. ere has been little accountability for these abuses or justice for their victims.

The report understands that terrorism is a real, long term threat but thinks that the international human rights framework has the capacity to deal with the problem.  IF the global community takes an opportunity to re-examined the threat and our response to it.

So far we have reacted in a violent, non-sensical manner than threatens the existing international order.  We are open the door for states to assum more power over us.  Ultimately, our response to terrorism is a bigger threat to our safety than anything else.