The Global Power Barometer (GPB) has been tracking global reaction to President Putin’s Munich speech and to follow-up comments from various officials within the Russian government. Global reaction was favorable to President Putin’s point about a “unipolar world” and his objection to the “almost unrestrained, exaggerated use of force” by the U.S. Reaction to the Putin speech within the U.S. was negative, particularly among conservative commentators who charged that President Putin was initiating a new “Cold War”.

Continue »

By Karim Sadjadpour

“You know the thing about Iran,” a European Ambassador in Tehran once lamented to me. “It has such a rich culture, a grand history, wonderful people. The cuisine is sophisticated and the scenery is breathtaking. It’s got incredible poets, musicians and filmmakers. Beautiful art and architecture…But it’s cursed with such lousy politicians.”

Continue »

by Prof. Cynthia E. Ayers and COL (R) David W. Cammons

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Army, the Dept. of Defense, or any organization within the U.S. government.

“Get the U.S. out of the U.N.!,” a sign near Gettysburg shouts. “The United Nations sabotages America’s security,” author Eric Shawn declared in his book The U.N. Exposed. Iranian spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham told reporters that the U.N. “must be relocated from the U.S.” And a few days after Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez’s rant before a U.N. audience, a New York Daily News editorial encouraged Chavez to “take the atrophied, self-abasing remains of a global idea 2,100 miles to Caracas!”

Continue »

By Haim Malka

Let’s stop fooling ourselves. No number of meetings between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will blossom into full-fledged negotiations. The U.S. strategy is to hold talks so Palestinians can begin to imagine what a final agreement might look like. Yet the two leaders are too weak, and their politics too complicated, to contemplate making even symbolic concessions on long-term outcomes. Jerusalem, refugees, and territory will not be the carrots to lead this process forward. Instead, they will be the poison that dooms any opportunity for progress.

Continue »

By Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank -- Islamabad and New York

Five British citizens, four of whom are of Pakistani descent, were convicted Monday of planning to attack targets in the United Kingdom under orders from al Qaeda using fertilizer-based bombs. Their convictions underline the fact that from its Pakistani hub al Qaeda now has the capability not only to plan once-off attacks in the U.K., but is also able to plan a sustained campaign of terrorist operations against the United States’ closest ally. And the ease with which al Qaeda has recruited operatives from the U.K. suggests that a future attack on the United States by British militants trained in al Qaeda’s training camps in Pakistan is a real possibility.

Continue »

By Yaşar Yakiş, Ghassan al-Atiyyah, Khalid al-Dakhil and Scott Lasensky

Istanbul, Riyadh and Washington - No one fears instability and violence in Iraq more than Iraqis and their neighbors. But mutual suspicions and rivalries, and a lack of U.S. commitment to regional diplomacy, have prevented Iraq and its neighbors from turning common anxieties into a common agenda. However, an emerging regional diplomatic initiative—the focus of this week's foreign minister's conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt—could be a turning point that leads all sides toward concerted action.

Continue »

By Wayne S. Smith

Terrorist acts are a serious and growing problem in much of the world, especially in the Middle East and Africa. It is a problem that must be addressed. One does not contribute to that effort, however, by putting forward false targets, as the just-released State Department Report on Terrorism does by including Cuba on the list as a state sponsor of terrorism. As was the case last year, this year’s report puts forward not a shred of evidence to demonstrate that Cuba is a terrorist state.

Continue »

By Ershad Mahmud

Islamabad – Many Western media and policymakers appear preoccupied with the danger of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists– whether small terrorist groups or organized political parties who may try to take power in upcoming elections. Their immediate concern is not the independence of the judiciary or the establishment of democracy, but rather Pakistan’s internal stability in the immediate-term, and the protection of certain Western interests abroad.

That’s a mistake. By focusing almost exclusively on the ‘terrorist threat’, these individuals are in fact supporting the government’s imposition of emergency rule. This focus has helped divide international opinion over President Musharraf’s recent declaration of emergency rule: although most commentators share in widespread condemnation of recent undemocratic actions under emergency rule, international opinion is now divided over whether “terrorist threats” may have justified Musharraf’s initial decision to impose it.

President Musharraf took full advantage of these Western apprehensions when he denounced the judiciary as a terrorist ally. However, this argument was turned upside-down when the same judges who had passed orders to release some of the Red Mosque’s alleged terrorists were sworn in under the PCO.

There are many indicators that Western worries about terrorism are unfounded. To date, the army has not faced any significant internal strife from Pakistani terrorist groups. Domestically, such individuals have limited social sanctity and are referred to as terrorists, not freedom fighters or revolutionaries. Thus the survival of armed vigilantes in Pakistan is unlikely in the long run, irrespective of who leads the country, due to such groups’ illegitimacy in the eyes of the people.

The same is true for al-Qaeda, which is a foreign outfit with no significant domestic support. The fear that such groups can take control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal seems exaggerated. This is not meant to trivialize real concerns about growing radicalization; however, an exclusive focus on this issue simplifies the situation, ignoring the actual diversity in Pakistani culture and politics.

Continue »

By Farah Zahra

Pakistan’s “creeping Talibanization” has been in the national and international media for a while. Nonetheless, Benazir Bhutto’s assassination comes as a shock to the entire world. Before she went back to Pakistan from her self-imposed she publicly stated that she was aware of the risk involved and also that she was prepared to take the risk. Now that she has been assassinated, the question remains: What is next for Pakistan?

Will President Musharraf be able to calm down the whole nation by telling them that it is a ‘barbaric’ act of ‘a terrorist’? How do we discern where politics ends and terrorism begins in this country? Will the people of Pakistan and the world at large be lulled into a stupor where the usual phrase of “an act of terrorism” accounts for simply everything?

Continue »

By Alizeh Haider

Scotland Yard’s probe into the assassination of Benazir Bhutto has failed to address the more important questions surrounding the event. Pakistani Senator Farhatullah Babar of the PPP, Bhutto’s party, said as much recently: “It is really immaterial,” he said. “In what way does it negate the PPP’s position that there are hidden hands behind Bhutto’s murder?”

Not only has the report been largely rejected for being self-contradictory and overly presumptuous, but it also calls into question the government’s real objective for commissioning this investigation. It now seems Scotland Yard was inducted as proof of the government’s genuine and earnest efforts to investigate Ms. Bhutto’s murder. However, far from vindicating itself, the government has only succeeded at drawing further criticism.

Continue »

By Haider Ali Hussein Mullick

When a new government takes charge in Pakistan, there will be little time to celebrate the return of civilian rule. Faced with a plethora of socioeconomic problems made worse by rising suicide bombings, Pakistanis have not felt this insecure in their homes and cities since the conventional wars with India. The United States administration is equally nervous about its estranged, nuclear-armed ally facing the nearly insurmountable task of eradicating al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban. Given the electoral loss of Islamists in insurgency hotbeds in northern Pakistan, Pakistani civilian and military leaders, backed by the United States, have an excellent opportunity to go beyond short-lived counter-terrorism tactics to a multifaceted sustainable counterinsurgency strategy.

Continue »

By Hady Amr

DOHA, Qatar -- You have not read this in the news before.

Three months ago, an American citizen was kidnapped in Northwest Pakistan. He was murdered. His body was just recently recovered by his bereaved family. I learned about the kidnapping shortly after it happened, when my dear friend Ayesha wrote to tell me that her brother, Imran, had been abducted in Northwest Pakistan, still bravely expecting him to be recovered.

Continue »

Terrorism on the decrease? Not so fast – that's probably unfounded optimism.

By Bernard I. Finel

A mere six months ago, the Bush Administration was arguing that the terror threat was so severe that even a momentary lapse in the domestic surveillance authorization would place American lives at risk. Now, a series of briefings and speeches by high-level officials, reported on and amplified by prominent columnists has created a veritable drumbeat in support of the notion that not only is the threat diminished, but that victory in the “war on terror” is in sight. The timing is tremendously convenient in the run-up to an election that will inevitably become something of a referendum on the Bush years.

Think about it. This was supposed to be a generational conflict, and now it turns out that it that victory was always just an Iraqi awakening, a few predator strikes, and an obscure manifesto away. Islamo-fascism? Forget about it. The threat is now just from a bunch of yahoos. Porous American borders, disaffected Muslim populations in Europe, madrassas pumping out fanatics in Pakistan… all largely irrelevant.

Well, personally, I don’t buy it.

There are three recent reasons to be optimistic about progress in the struggle against violent extremism, but none of them is particularly compelling when examined closely.

Continue »

By Dana Kutchova

Secratary of State Condoleeza Rice is in Prague today to ink the U.S. Missile Shield Treaty, but the question remains, who invited her?

The U.S. National Missile Defense project is a complex, far-reaching system involving the production of new weapons and the installation of U.S. military bases around the world. In Europe, the first step is the installation of an advanced radar facility in the Czech Republic, as well as a base for interceptor missiles in neighboring Poland.

But Czechs want no part of it. Polls have consistently confirmed that 70 % of the Czech population are against building even “defensive” radar installations on their soil (the Polish numbers are not much different). And thus far all attempts to allow referenda have been blocked. This disregard for the will of the people could lead to a breakdown of the governement’s tenuous coalition.

Continue »

By Shuja Nawaz

Even as the civilian death toll of the Mumbai attacks climbs, fallout from these terrorist actions threatens thawing relations between India and Pakistan.

The danger signals are already evident, as first reactions from the Indian government tended to blame "foreign" intervention, a code word for Pakistan. However, the prompt response from the Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and the Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi indicates a willingness to stem the ratcheting of tensions between the two rival states.

Pakistan will send the head of its Inter Services Intelligence, Lt. General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, to India to help in the investigation. Referring to Lashkar-e-Tayaba, the group whose tactics in the past resemble those employed in the Mumbai attacks, Qureshi told an Indian press conference "we have no patience for such organizations" in Pakistan.

Pakistani civil society has been generally quiet in attacking religious extremism. Neither the government nor the military can successfully proceed against terrorism without public support. Yet, there are signs of hope. President Asif Ali Zardari recently offered to open up borders with India for visa-free travel and to eschew a first nuclear strike. Earlier this week, the Home Secretaries of India and Pakistan met in Islamabad and agreed to begin cooperating against terrorism and to bring the Federal Bureau of Investigations of Pakistan and the Central Bureau of Investigation of India in close contact to that end.

But the Mumbai attacks and India's response to them could derail the peace process -- presumably what the militants would want -- particularly if India's leaders attempt to tie homegrown militants to Pakistan-based Islamist groups or the Pakistani state.

Continue »

The real risk is that federal judges will do what al-Qaeda cannot: order that committed jihadists be released.

By Debra Burlingame

Two weeks ago, I was among a small group of USS Cole and 9/11 victims' families who met with President Obama at the White House. Despite President Obama's assurances that the safety and security of the American people is his number one priority, I left the meeting with little confidence that the President appreciates the grave consequences of shutting down Guantanamo or the complex problems associated with adjudicating detainee cases in the federal court system. Indeed, he told us that he is "not at all concerned" about the security issues of bringing the detainees to the U.S. His rationale for this is simple: whether detainees are held in a federal prison or a military facility, either location would present a "hard target" for future terrorist attacks aimed at freeing them. He believes the detainees will be forgotten by their fellow militants.

Continue »

A smart counterterrorism policy would focus on incapacitating those who provide value-added to the al-Qaeda network - the leaders, financiers, and technological experts who cannot be easily replaced, and who can be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit terrorism, if not more.

By Jennifer Daskal

On his second full day in office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order committing to close the military detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, by January 2010. The attorney general-led review team is now underway, reviewing the detainees' files and determining what to do with the 245 men who remain there.
As an initial matter, the team needs to consider who the United States should be seeking to detain long-term, far from any battlefield, and on what grounds.

Continue »

The men who remain imprisoned at Guantanamo are there now more because of nationality than because of any evaluation of their actual danger to the United States. Citizens of powerful European countries were released long ago.

By Gitanjali Gutierrez

After meeting many men in Guantanamo, and breaking bread with my former clients after their release, I remain baffled by the Administration's continuing uncertainty about how to close the notorious prison facility. Have we as a people still not recognized in 2009 our gross mistakes at Guantanamo? Are we actually willing to squander the good will extended to the new Administration by perpetuating fear-mongering and continuing to suggest the need for "new" detention authorities? I hope, for the sake of our country, that the answer to these questions is a firm "no."

Continue »

The main objective here must be the swiftest adjudication of all cases without providing enemy combatants access to civilian courts and the same rights afforded to American citizens.

By Kirk Lippold

In order to effectively deal with the closure of the detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay, the Obama administration must complete several critical steps before it can claim any degree of success in this ill-advised and poorly conceived critical policy decision.

Continue »

We don't need a new National Security Court to prosecute terrorists, because our existing system has been effectively prosecuting them for years.

By Joseph Margulies

On his second day in office, President Obama made good on his campaign pledge and ordered the prison at Guantánamo shut within a year. He also ordered the Attorney General to oversee a review of the facts in each case with an eye to deciding the fate of the remaining 245 prisoners.

The lion's share will be released, as they should be. For years, senior counter-terrorism officials with the military and CIA told the Bush Administration that the great majority of the prisoners were either innocent or insignificant, with no connection to al-Qaeda or terrorism. Many have already been cleared for release by the Bush Administration or a federal court, and it is now a matter of getting them off the base.

Most people in this first category--perhaps 150 or more--will be returned to their home countries. The remainder cannot go home because they would be tortured or killed; they must be resettled elsewhere. A number of countries say they will accept some prisoners, and the administration reports that negotiations are underway.

In diplomacy as in life, more success requires less hypocrisy. We cannot get other countries to accept prisoners unless we do the same. The best candidates are the Chinese Uighurs, a small group of anti-communist activists. All agree they are not enemy combatants; in fact, they are ardently pro-democracy with a large and supportive community in the United States.

Continue »

The Obama Administration can't just say it will follow the rule of law - the Bush administration said the same thing. It must actually do so.

By Pete Masciola

The United States should handle inmates upon the closure of detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay in accordance with the rule of law--which includes the Geneva Conventions. This is a simple answer, but abiding by the law would mark a revolutionary change in the government's handling of these issues.

President Obama, in his Executive Order on the review and disposition of individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, requires his Administration to act "in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States." Elsewhere, in describing "determination of other disposition" (as opposed to transfer or prosecution) the Executive Order requires the review process to "select lawful means, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, and the interests of justice, for the disposition of such individuals."

Actions speak louder than words. The former administration's mantra "the United States does not torture" rang hollow in the ears of most of the world. It is critical that the Obama Administration not only say it will follow the rule of law (the Bush administration said the same thing)--it must actually do so.

Continue »

The U.S. criminal justice system's record in international terrorism cases far outshines that of the Guantánamo military commissions.

By Sarah Mendelson

In 2007-2008, I convened a working group at CSIS to consider what ought to happen to those currently held at Guantánamo. Our non-partisan working group met 18 times over 8 months. We combined a range of expertise including former intelligence and military officers, as well as human rights and legal experts. I wrote the CSIS report, "Closing Guantánamo: From Bumper Sticker to Blueprint" after months of discussion, and we released it in September 2008.

Continue »

Turning our war on terror into an insulting and deadly game of catch-and-release.

By David B. Rivkin, Jr. & Lee A. Casey

The Washington Post asks, "How should the U.S. handle inmates upon the closure of detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay?"

There is no good answer to this question. All of the options are bad. And this, above, all, vindicates the Bush Administration's original decision - following the practice of the Clinton and many previous Administrations in handling Haitian and Cuban migrants and refugees - to house captured enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay. It was, in fact, almost the perfect place to hold al-Qaeda and Taliban captives. It is a secure facility, located far from the active battlefields, away from civilian populations likely to be al-Qaeda targets, and does not present "host country" diplomatic issues. The decision to close the base was a triumph of ideology and propaganda over good sense and, in the long run, it is almost certain to damage the war effort.

That said, the alternatives to Guantanamo are as follows:

Continue »

Those who say that America's existing courts can't handle terrorism prosecutions are wrong.

By Anthony D. Romero

In his inaugural speech, President Obama pledged to reject the "false choice between our safety and our ideals." Now that he's taken the historic step of ordering the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison, that pledge will be tested as President Obama decides how to handle the detainees imprisoned there. It's clear that only an unqualified return to America's established system of justice for detaining and prosecuting suspects can restore America's values and the rule of law.

Continue »

It's true that we cannot kill or capture our way to victory. Yet military detention, carefully calibrated to complement broader national security and counterterrorism policies, is necessary.

By Charles Stimson

Closing Guantanamo or merely moving its detainees to the United States, without addressing the underlying questions regarding U.S. detention policy, is just changing the zip code without confronting the broader challenges of the terrorist threat.

The Obama administration has an opportunity to build on the legal and policy underpinnings already laid down on how to incapacitate terrorists and hold them accountable. Besides closing Guantanamo responsibly, determining which detainees can be safely transferred, and deciding how to prosecute key terrorists without giving away national security secrets, the administration must figure out how to deal with future captures. That means they must develop a comprehensive detainment policy.

Military detention of some future captures, which is consistent with long historical practice, is a necessary and lawful tool. It's true that we cannot kill or capture our way to victory, as Gen. David Petraeus and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have said. Yet military detention, carefully calibrated to complement broader national security and counterterrorism policies, is necessary.

Continue »

A Congressionally authorized detention framework is preferable to indefinite detention based solely on the President's constitutional authorities.

By John Bellinger

I have long urged closure of Guantanamo and was disappointed that the Bush Administration was unable to shut the facility while in office. But shuttering Guantanamo will be very difficult, and both domestic and international critics need to acknowledge the complexities, rather than simply assign blame. Our allies also should acknowledge that, however unpopular Guantanamo may be with their populations, nevertheless they are benefiting from the detention by the United States of many dangerous individuals who pose a threat to the international community as a whole, and that other governments have an obligation to help with their detention, prosecution, and resettlement, as appropriate.

Continue »

Many critics acknowledge that there is a need for a court with evidentiary flexibility that accommodates national security while trying dangerous, stateless terrorists in a manner consistent with justice. They call them "national security courts." They already exist. We call them military commissions.

By Lawrence Morris

Thoughtful people have debated the best forum in which to bring to justice some of the accused terrorists currently detained under the law of armed conflict at Guantanamo Bay. Nearly all observers, including scholars and critics who disagree with the current military commissions, can agree on some fundamentals:

Continue »

By Pete Masciola

Colonel Lawrence Morris's contribution to PostGlobal's panel on the future of the Guantanamo detainees ("Military Commissions Are America's Best Option") paints a reasonable and even rosy picture of the current military commission system, with constitutional rights for defendants and a free and open flow of evidence to defense counsel, all legitimated by a long-standing Constitutional tradition. Would that it were so. Unfortunately, the reality is entirely otherwise.

Continue »

The Current Discussion: Today is "Genocide Remembrance Day "in the Armenian community, a particularly strained time of year for Turkey and Armenia. What's a realistic first step forward toward reconciliation for each of these countries?

By Soner Cagaptay

Turkey and Armenia are getting closer, and that's great news. Washington has long wanted the two countries to get over their differences, open their closed border, and establish diplomatic ties. If all that happened, it would be wonderful news. But euphoria over Turkish-Armenian rapprochement should not, however, obfuscate the big, strategic picture in the Caucasian energy circle. The thaw in Turkish-Armenian relations should not come at the expense of the East-West energy corridor, i.e. cooperation over pipelines running from Azerbaijan to Turkey, a crucial strategic tool for Washington to decrease the West's dependence on Middle East oil and gas.

Continue »

By Mansoor Ijaz

Pakistan has a split personality problem. Its citizens can rise up en masse on one day to depose a military dictator and reinstate honest judges, but the next day seem helpless to stop politicians from ceding strategic territory to enemies who publicly flog a 17-year old woman as a show of justice. Most American taxpayers, who are being asked to finance aid even as the country disintegrates, don't have the faintest idea how to decode what's really wrong there or where to begin to help. President Zardari could change that during his upcoming visit to Washington - but it would require his bold domestic leadership and a new direction for Pakistan and its relationship with the U.S.

Pakistan's central problem today is the systemic failure of its federal, provincial and local governments to provide for its citizens' basic needs, whether public safety, healthcare, education or employment. The Taliban is stepping in to fill that void. Hamas did the same in Palestinian enclaves throughout Israel when PLO leadership failed to offer disenfranchised Palestinians a structured way of life. You've heard it before: security is assured, albeit through intimidation and brutality. Basic daily staples like food and clothing come from Arab-financed hawala cash transfers. Education comes from Saudi-funded madrassa schools. Legal disputes are settled through harsh Islamic laws. Only geography makes the Pakistani case different from that of the Palestinians.

To make matters worse, America's visible role in Pakistan's internal affairs only helps the Taliban's cause. Pakistan's woefully inadequate leader, President Asif Ali Zardari, has been privately lectured and publicly admonished by Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. Those lectures have made him look like an American stooge playing to the often conflicting ways in which Washington wants Islamabad to act.

Continue »