Three Upcoming Conferences (Updated)

There are two three upcoming conferences this week that might interest you.  All should be interesting.  Hopefully at least one of them will be useful. 

The first conference is Stability Operations and State Building: Continuities and Contingencies in Tennessee February 13-15, 2008.  This part of the conference description threw me:

…we will look at theoretical, intellectual, and moral foundations of state-building as derived from the Age of Enlightenment, ethical norms, and religious values from various societies… we will examine contemporary practices as related to us by serving military officers.

This sounds like a colonial mindset even when throwing in "various societies."   Will they truly look at the socio-political-economic structures of target territories and will local systems take primacy over our "superior" systems? 

That said, a friend is presenting at paper at the conference.  Read it and read a discussion about it at Small Wars Journal. 

Tom Barnett and John Robb will be bookending the Valentine’s Day session with Tom in the morning, 8-9:30a, and John in the evening, 8-8:40p.

The second conference is The Challenges of Integrating Islam: Comparative Experiences of Europe and the Middle East at GWU’s Elliott School in DC.  Friend of MountainRunner Marc Lynch announced this event on his blog today:

The morning panel looks at the headscarf issue in Turkey, while the lunch address is being given by Jakob Skovgaard-Peterson, director of the Danish-Egypt Dialogue Institute (which must be one of the most thankless jobs in the world, but one which must offer some interesting perspectives on inter-faith relations).  Two outstanding anthropologists are slated to speak as well:  Jon Anderson (American University) and John Bowen (Washington University – St. Louis).   I’ll be rushing over from a morning workshop across town to speak at the 1:45 panel.  I was slated to talk about "The social and the political: Islamist views of reform", but now I’m planning to work up some remarks on the fascinating controversy which has erupted in the UK over remarks by Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, over the application of sharia law in Great Britain. Stay tuned.  

The third conference is Public Diplomacy: Reinvigorating America’s Strategic Communications Policy at the Heritage Foundation tomorrow, February 13, noon – 1:30p.

Strategic communication has long been essential to furthering American foreign policy goals, especially during times of war. Recently, the government has taken numerous steps to improve its wartime strategic communication capacity. However, it is evident that the current system is not working as well as during the Cold War, and the United States still lacks an integrated public diplomacy strategy capable of bolstering America’s image overseas. This panel will address the efficacy of the current administration’s strategy and give recommendations for the next administration, whether it is Democrat or Republican.

I won’t be at any of these.  If you go, I’d appreciate sharing your thoughts on the events.

Miranda’s Departure Assessment of Embassy Baghdad

Received this  commentary on Ambassador Ryan Crocker and State’s effort in Iraq yesterday (Friday) morning.  Highlights are mine.  Comments from the different communities affected are requested.  Update: see Life after Jerusalem’s comments on Miranda and his memo, Whirled View’s Pot Calls Kettle Black, and Jerry’ Loftus’s comments here.

M E M O R A N D U M

To:             Ambassador Crocker
From           Manuel Miranda, Office of Legislative Statecraft
CC:             ALCON
Date:           February 5, 2008
Re:             Departure Assessment of Embassy Baghdad
__________________________________________________________________

Introduction

As I prepare to sign out after a year with the State Department, I feel it my last duty to offer you my assessment of what I observed.  Please accept this assessment in that spirit.  The presence of so many Section 3161 temporary direct hires in various areas of expertise in the Embassy is a unique opportunity for the evaluation and oversight of the Foreign Service and the State Department’s bureaucracy and competence, whether it is a Service at War or Peace.  

Continue reading “Miranda’s Departure Assessment of Embassy Baghdad

Briefing: Militarization of Aid

An upcoming event you may be interested in: 

The Militarization of Aid

Date: Monday, February 11, 2008
Time: 1 -3 pm
Location: Dirksen 419

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is organizing a briefing to discuss NGOs’ perspectives on The Militarization of Aid with Hill staff on Monday, Feb. 11 @ 1 pm in Dirksen 419

Topics include foreign aid effectiveness, the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, AFRICOM, Combined Joined Task Force – Horn of Africa and the InterAction-DoD Guidelines on Civil-Military Relations.  Speakers include:

  • Jim Bishop, InterAction, VP for Humanitarian Policy and Practice
  • Emily Burrows, Catholic Relief Services, Strategic Issues Advisor
  • Brian Grzelkowski, Mercy Corps, Sr. Policy Advisor
  • Paul O’Brien, Oxfam America, Director of Aid Effectiveness Team
  • John Patten, International Medical Corps, Sr. Program Development Officer
  • Anne C. Richard, International Rescue Committee, VP for Government Relations and Advocacy 

Please RSVP to lyoshikawa@interaction.org

I am neither involved with this event nor will I be there. 

See also:

Upcoming events on Africa

Heads up on two upcoming events on Africa. The first is titled AFRICOM: The American Military and Public Diplomacy in Africa and will be at the University of Southern California February 8, 2008:

The USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School and the USC Center for International Studies are pleased to announce the upcoming conference, AFRICOM: The American Military and Public Diplomacy in Africa. The first of a series of conferences on public diplomacy, this conference will be held on Friday, February 8, 2008 at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

This conference will feature panel sessions addressing U.S.-African relations, the State Department and Department of Defense concepts of public diplomacy in Africa, and African perspectives on the issue. Some questions to be discussed include how AFRICOM should be presented to African publics, to what extent African nations and regional organizations will be involved in shaping AFRICOM’s role, and how AFRICOM will work with other developmental and humanitarian projects on the continent. The conference hopes to provide AFRICOM as a case study for a discussion of public diplomacy in a broader sense, considering who should conduct public diplomacy and how it can be better integrated into government policy.

Confirmed panelists include: Jendayi Frazer, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs; Ryan Henry, Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense; Nicole Lee, Executive Director of the TransAfrica Forum; Amb. Brian Carlson, State-DoD Liaison in the Office of the Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs; Mark Malan, Peacebuilding Program Officer at Refugees International; and H.E. Peter N.R.O Ogego, Kenyan Ambassador to the United States. The conference will be recorded and followed by the publication of the transcript and briefing papers. All sessions will be open to the USC community, the news media, the Los Angeles consular corps, and the general public.

For further information, please contact Lisa Larsen, Assistant Director for Programming and Events, at (213) 821-0768 or llarsen@usc.edu.

The second event is a 1.5 day event, February 28-29, 2008: Countering Terrorism in Africa through Human Security Solutions at The Fletcher School at Tufts University.

The Jebsen Center for Counter-Terrorism Studies—with support from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and co-sponsorship from the Conflict and Human Security Studies Program at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point; the Fletcher Institute for Human Security; the Feinstein International Center at Tufts University; and Synexxus, Inc.—presents a two-day conference, “Countering Terrorism in Africa Through Human Security Solutions” on Thursday, February 28 and Friday, February 20 at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

The conference will explore the mutual concerns of development, human rights, and security professionals working in a region that, due to poverty, civil violence, and mismanaged security interventions, may be susceptible to: influence and activity carried out by global terrorist networks such as al Qaeda and affiliated movements (AQAM); radicalization and the formation of independent violent terrorist cells; and the use of violent, civilian-focused terrorist tactics. Through three panels and two keynote addresses, the aim of this conference is to explore collaborative efforts to improve human security in Africa by addressing both development and security issues, which could help to improve conditions on the continent and, by extension, prevent terrorist networks from exploiting grievances and garnering support.

Both look interesting and worthwhile.

See also:

Something’s stirring under the water

Last month, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates threw out the first pitch in his Kansas State University speech. This week, with the HELP Commission report, the bat made solid contact with the ball. The report (PDF) recommends revamping America’s primary institutions of engagement and frequently cites military-led public diplomacy efforts like development and communications that fill “the vacuum created by our broken system.” While focusing on foreign assistance, it recognizes development and financial assistance are linked, trade policies, non-governmental actors, and public diplomacy. 

For far too long our overseas assistance has been haphazard and missing the collective (and enterprising) power the United States could, and in the past did, bring to bear in struggling, and by definition contested, areas.

I applaud the Commission’s work and recommendations for change, but I have not had the chance to read the report thoroughly. From what I have read, I am mostly in agreement and certainly less tepid about the recommendations than MountainRunner friend Steve Corman.

On the super-size question, I agree with the dissenters, and for the same reasons, that we must have an independent, cabinet level Department of International Development like the United Kingdom. It must have a separate public diplomacy agency that conducts and advises on communications and interactions, similar to the 1950’s USIA.

However, super-sizing State is not the way to go. Certainly State must be made larger with substantially more funded and reorganized to match current security and global economy realities, but development and communications should be split out and made into their own cabinet level agencies. State’s personnel system must also be revamped to provide for more training, floats, and cross-culture billets to the Pentagon or other agencies. 

I am particularly pleased to see the (obvious) recommendation to strengthen State’s Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, but that’s for another post. See this Small Wars Journal discussion board on this topic for a hint of an overdue post that’s coming. 

Change is in the air and something is there’s movement below the surface. What’s next? Will it accompany the formal announcement of James Glassman?

State wants $1.5 billion to protect Baghdad embassy, reconstruction teams

State’s wants a piece of the budgetary pie. Richard Lardner of AP, writes

The State Department’s request for $1.5 billion to protect U.S. diplomats and a growing number of reconstruction teams on the ground is a pricey reminder that the war-torn country remains a dangerous place.

…Over $500 million of the proposed 2008 spending would go to three private security firms [Blackwater, Triple Canopy, and DynCorp]…

The Baghdad security money also will pay for armored vehicles, bulletproof vests, ammunition, X-ray machines, bomb-sniffing dogs, barriers to prevent attacks by suicide bombers, and overhead shields to deflect mortar attacks, according to an Oct. 22 budget document sent to Congress.

And, now time to be impressed with a Congressman, er, -woman:

Rep. Nita Lowey said lawmakers won’t let U.S. diplomats go unprotected. But before the fiscal year 2008 request can be approved, the State Department must prove "it is capable of overseeing the actions of private security contractors and preventing the misuse of American taxpayers’ money in Iraq," she said.

Yes, as the Iraq Study Group noted, obfuscating funding for the war has permitted wasteful spending (and a waste of time, as well as increased risks to and deaths of our warfighters and civilian personnel, not to mention Iraqi civilians).

The world isn’t flat

Tom Barnett’s New Map has been noted by State.

slide.png

So that official, Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Sullivan, is on a mini-domestic tour to promote free trade and tout the Bush administration’s commitment to foreign aid.

Somebody from Hughes’ office should be using this map to show where public diplomacy & strategic communication efforts should and must be directed (but not to the detriment of friendly countries… Hamburg anyone, big cities in England…). Not going to happen. No money and no leadership. But please, surprise me. Please!

Highlighting mission failure: the Opium Metric

Three stories on opium in Afghanistan and Iraq.

First up is a post from Henry Bowles @ Foreign Policy.com on kids toking up, and getting toked, in Afghanistan.

Even more disturbing is the fact that, according to the United Nations, some 600,000 of those addicts are under 15. In some areas of the country, giving opium to children is a common method of treating insomnia, bad behavior, and “ADD”-like symptoms.

From an Al-Jazeera report: “Zarbibi routinely blows opium into [her three year old son’s] face to keep him quiet. It is the only way she knows how to free herself so that she can work.”

Second is Nykrindc who notes Iraqi farmers are turning to the cash crop. The likely beneficiary: Shi’a militants.

Third is Peter Marton, of the State Failure Blog, who suggests forced poppy eradication may not be as helpful as we think. Instead, infrastructure and opportunities should be created to provide alternatives to switch to instead of the blinding halt without replacement income options.

Shortsighted strategy comes back to haunt

Counterinsurgency requires a holistic approach. The insurgent operates holistically, we must counter them holistically and yet we don’t, instead too often focusing on the traditional war fighting: if we kill enough of them they’ll go away. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.

In addition to our failure to understand the information war implicitly and explicitly played by insurgents (and terrorists or any smart belligerent for that matter), the James Risen’s article in the New York Times today highlights strategic failures that undermined our efforts to stabilize the region.

Poppy growing is endemic in the countryside, and Afghanistan now produces 92 percent of the world’s opium. But until recently, American officials acknowledge, fighting drugs was considered a distraction from fighting terrorists.

By ignoring the drug problem, we ignored a fundamental sector in the Afghani economy that not only bankrolls the enemy, it supports belligerent warlords resisting full participation in rebuilding the entire state, it also prevents rebuilding the socio-political structures necessary to rebuild the state.

Administration officials say they had believed they could eliminate the insurgency first, then tackle the drug trade. “Now people recognize that it’s all related, and it’s one issue,” said Thomas Schweich, the State Department’s coordinator for counternarcotics in Afghanistan. “It’s no longer just a drug problem. It is an economic problem, a political problem and a security problem.”

Our efforts to curb the problem, largely ignored until early 2007 (!!), still apparently focuses on law enforcement. LE is important, but as in Iraq, if people have little options in the way of money, what are they to do? If “public” officials such as the local police lack the ability or desire to remove power from the warlords and drug dealers, what are they to do?

The Pentagon also argued that countering drugs had always been a law enforcement mission, not a military one.

The distinction between civil and military operations in both state-building and modern conflict is a line simply rubbed away. It doesn’t exist.

“The commanders said we don’t do drugs, we’re just killing terrorists,” Mr. Hollis recalled. “That showed a lack of understanding of the threat. I cared about going after the drug routes. If you could smuggle drugs, you could smuggle weapons and terrorists. It concerned me that if we didn’t go after the drug trade then, we would lose a golden opportunity.”

The focus on eradication has second order effects while ignoring the importance of the central players, ostensibly our local “allies”.

“To Afghans, our counternarcotics policy looks like a policy of rewarding rich traffickers and punishing poor farmers,” Barnett R. Rubin, a New York University professor and an expert on Afghanistan, told a Senate panel in March.

Many Afghans are hostile to opium eradication, saying it deprives farmers of their livelihoods. Mr. Rubin and others say that destroying crops drives villagers into the arms of the Taliban. But the United States has not embraced large-scale aid and employment programs that might deter farmers from planting poppies. Instead, the antidrug teams venture out into the countryside, where some have been killed by suicide bombers and Taliban forces allied with drug lords.

So why did we permit the resurgence in a drug crop the Taliban themselves had largely eradicated? Because, like decisions to support corrupt regimes and provide arms to questionable groups during the Cold War, it seemed like a good idea in the sliver of time the decision maker considered the options. Failure to understand the ripple effects of such decisions, in this case the socio-political-economic impact of the resumption of opium farming has meant the deaths of our soldiers in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 in Afghanistan were for naught. We have simply been feeding the enemy, allowing them to build their base, rearm, and resupply.

We have certainly not done our best to make the Taliban irrelevant, nor are we doing our best to make any insurgent irrelevant.

Navy: The United States Navy is not patroling Somali Waters

Link: Navy Times – Officials refute reports of expansion in Somalia, Black Sea.

The Navy has no intent to build bases on the Black Sea in Turkey, nor has it been asked to patrol Somali waters for marauding pirates, according to official denials of recent news items.

Spokesmen for 6th Fleet/Naval Forces Europe in Naples, Italy, and 5th Fleet/Naval Forces Central Command in Manama, Bahrain, refuted news articles from mid-April claiming the Navy would be reaching further into previously uncharted waters, so to speak.

Confusing messages or accidental comments?

…U.S. ships patrol in international waters off Somalia, but not in Somali waters.

Cmdr. Jeff Breslau, public affairs officer for 5th Fleet in Bahrain, said no
one has asked the Navy to patrol Somali waters for pirates, as was
reported in several news outlets.

New Piracy resource coming online

For those monitoring piracy, a new resource is coming online: Global Marine Piracy Magazine. Their mission is to…

provide the world’s best and most comprehensiveinformation on marine piracy … clearly, the most significant threat
to the world economy today. While "briefcase" nuclear devices are often
in the news … the international media seldom reports piracy unless
it’s a major event. The typical pirate is an armed robber, but the ease
with which armed bandits can commandeer large merchant vessels is
well-know to terrorist organizations which thrive on chaos. A single
terrorist incident involving a bulk carrier in a major port can exceed
the damages caused to the World Trade Center in the 9/11 attacks.   

If you’re like me and see brown and blue water issues becoming more important (with or without media attention), this may become a useful resource. National navies are growing…

  • South Africa is taking delivery of sub made in Germany
  • Israel is posturing to include "overseas targets"
  • China is a concern in the QDR (and here)
  • Indonesia is considering buying subs
  • plus others…

The two resources on piracy are the IMB Piracy Reporting Centre’s Weekly Piracy Report and the daily The Cargo Letter. Piracy happens in more places than off the Horn of Africa, the media just  doesn’t pick up those stories. 

Side note: Interested in more from the naval side? Read this War Room post on Naval Supremacy between India and China and read Dr Barnett’s message to the Indian Navy (published in 2000 however) linked there.

Technorati Tags:
Piracy,
War,
QDR,
Current Affairs,
Politics,
Terrorism,
Security,
GWOT