Marin Forum

This week the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism released a draft report claiming that the odds of an attack on a major city with WMDs has greatly increased. The report rightly claims that the biggest threat comes from biological or chemical weapons not nuclear weapons. However, the report states that a nuclear threat has increased as nuclear materials and technology has significantly spread.

At least at the moment there is not much of a threat posed by nuclear weapons. First lets begin with non-state actors. Just because there is more information available does not mean that a terrorist group can immediately create a nuclear weapon. Plutonium bombs are extremely sophisticated as the mechanism requires precise implosion (known as the implosion method). Non-state actors lack the skill and resources to create such a bomb. The second type of mechanism is called the gun-type weapon. This works by shooting one piece of material into another. This technology is far more simple but it has many limitations compared to the implosion method. The first problem is that it requires a significant amount of uranium (specifically highly enriched uranium) which would be out of reach of most non-state actors. Finally, the gun method is very accident prone, although safety concerns might not be considered a limitation by terrorist groups. It seems highly unlikely that a terrorist group or non-state actor would be able to develop a nuclear weapon on their own. The skill and resource requirements are too high.

The next possible threat is from current “unstable” nuclear powers. Pakistan is a significant problem as it is becoming a haven for terrorist organizations and extremists. However, ultimate control lies behind the military who also control Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. As long as the military is competent, coherent, and retains control of Pakistan, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons will be safe from falling into the wrong hands. In the meantime, Pakistani leaders definitely do not want nuclear material falling into non-state actor hands, even friendly hands. North Korea is the next threat but they still lack both an effective nuclear weapon and a delivery device. Their threat lies in the potential for selling off information and technology. The international community is already at work to diffuse the threat.

There’s still the threat from Russia. When the Soviet Union broke up there was the threat that portions of the Soviet arsenal would “disappear.” While large amounts of Soviet military hardware was sold off by recently turned capitalist former Soviet officers, so far it seems the selling of hardware stopped at conventional weapons. Then during the 1990s the Russian political structure decayed and became completely ineffective. The lack of oversight and safeguards significantly limited accountability over nuclear stockpiles. However, unless some group has a nuclear weapon stashed away somewhere, this threat does not seem significant. Furthermore, Russian is now on a path to reassert itself as a global power rivaling the US. It’s going to need all the military hardware it can muster, so fire sales should decrease. Finally, Russia does not want to see more groups with nuclear weapons. It threatens their security. If they feel threatened by the United States they may think twice about deploying nuclear weapons to friendly governments (Belarus comes to mind) but they will want to keep significant control over the weapons.

Now the hypothetical situation: a nuclear Iran. Iran wants nuclear weapons as a deterrent to threats by the United States or Israel. Iran has ambitions to a regional power in the Middle East; thus, it will want hegemony on military power. The quickest way to military hegemony is by obtaining nuclear weapons. During the Cold War the United States was able to maintain a balance of power with Soviet conventional forces through its nuclear weapons program. Under these conditions it seems unlikely that Iran would give nuclear handouts to its extremist buddies since they could then present a threat to Iran itself. Iran wants nuclear weapons as a deterrent to US aggression and would only use nuclear weapons if provoked by the United States.

States want nuclear weapons to protect their national security. Most of the current nuclear powers are actively involved in nonproliferation efforts. The spread of nuclear weapons presents a threat to their hegemony on global power. Nor will they use nuclear weapons unless in the most dire situation because of the ultimate repercussions for their security and power. In international relations a state’s primary concern is its national security; thus, state actors with nuclear weapons do not pose a threat to US interests.

The areas for immediate concern are Pakistan and Russia. If Pakistan’s military were to lose control, which is possible, there would be serious problems. Policy needs to focus on keeping Pakistan stable. The second threat is Russia. Just because a Russian origin bomb has yet to surface in some terrorist group doesn’t mean that it can’t happen. The key in Russia is to focus on non-proliferation and making sure Russia has secured their nuclear material. The report places too much emphasis on a nuclear threat. The real immediate threat is from chemical and biological weapons.

However, the report is right in that globalization has allowed for the spread of nuclear material and information. Regional terrorist groups can now attract a global following and a global source of doners. Technology advancement is a double edge sword. In the future nuclear weapon technology will be further perfected which will allow a bomb to be created more cheapily and with less skill. Non-state actors may not pose a threat today, but in fifty or a hundred years small nuclear weapons could be readily available. Non-proliferation enforcement is paramount.

On Monday Barack Obama announced the key components of his foreign policy team. As expected Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State, Robert Gates is Secretary of Defense, Gov. Janet Napolitano will head Homeland Security, General James Jones will be his National Security Adviser, and Susan Rice will be the UN ambassador. With these additions Team Obama is proving to be full of high profile figures and large personalities. The question is whether these personalities can mesh into a coherent and effective foreign policy team. Or rather the question is what role will Clinton play.

Hillary Clinton is by far the highest profile figure on Obama’s foreign policy team and will be a leading voice. This is not to undermine the role of the rest of the team, but Clinton will receive the most attention. The first question is whether Obama and Clinton will be able to work together. This should not be a problem. Obama has repeatedly shown that he can work with former opponents. Clinton proved her backing of Obama on the campaign trail.

A second question is what will become of Bill. He has considerable influence around the world and his charities have a global impact. The difficulty will be in separating Bill Clinton’s charity work from his wife’s diplomatic efforts. Clinton’s charities cannot become ears for US foreign policy. Bill will not go away and he will be a factor. It will be important for Team Obama to use Bill when necessary but also keep him distant to prevent conflicts of interest or any scandals.

In previous posts it has been mentioned that Clinton would best serve in a leadership role in the Senate. That being said, Clinton could be able to play a key diplomatic role in guiding US foreign policy. She is perhaps one of the highest profile figures to head the State Department. Colin Powell or George Marshall both come to mind. Many presidents have feared a popular and ambitious Secretary of State. Both Bill Clinton and Kennedy picked low profile, yes-men for the position. Clinton particularly floundered in foreign policy precisely because of his yes-man Secretary of State. By selecting a high profile figure with their own following for Secretary of State, Obama has allowed another voice to interject opinion and critique his foreign policy initiatives. The end result should be stronger foreign policy which will only be helped by Clinton’s energy and influence.

The rest of the foreign policy team brings things to the table. As previously mentioned Gates will provide a transition in Iraq. General Jones brings military experience and an emphasis to refocus on Afghanistan. Rice has been in the State Department for many years where her background was in African affairs. Her diplomatic background will be important in the UN. Napolitano has knowledge on immigration issues as a Governor of a border state. Her selection as Secretary of Homeland Security suggests that immigration will be a top priority of DHS.

Obama’s greatest task will be able to channel all these personalities into one coherent administration.

Barack Obama wants current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, to continue at his post. Gates has yet to accept although most sources say that it is highly likely that he would accept the offer at least for a temporary amount of time. Sources say that Gates may hold onto the job for another year which would be up to 2010. Clearly the Obama team wants to keep Gates at the Pentagon as long as a sizable contingent of US troops are stationed in Iraq.

The Left will be disappointed with this appointment as it signals that Obama will not immediately withdraw troops from Iraq. Yet, this is a good thing. A significant failure in Iraq due to hasty changes in policy would possibly cripple Obama’s presidency. Obama wants a gradual withdrawal of US forces but he also wants US forces out of Iraq as soon as possible. Keeping Gates at the Pentagon does not prevent that objective.

Over the next few years (basically Obama’s first term) the Pentagon’s main concern will be Iraq and Afghanistan. Since Gates entered the Pentagon in 2006, things on the ground in Iraq have improved. It might be too much to attribute many of this to Gates, but he did represent a new direction in US-Iraq policy. Under Obama it is quite possible that he will have a freer hand at looking at other alternatives. Furthermore, he has done a pretty good job while in the Pentagon and has earned respect from both parties.

Iraq is not Vietnam in the sense that it will collapse if we withdraw like South Vietnam. It has a democracy and the people want democracy even if it’s a form that we may look down upon. Thus, it is still possible to make something good out of the Iraq fiasco before we leave. Gates would connect the successes of the surge to any Obama plan. He provides the necessary transition that might aid in bringing some stability.

Under Obama we will be in Iraq for a little while longer. Out attitude will change, our patience will be much thinner, but we are going to be in Iraq at least through 2010. Due to our continued presence, Obama needs someone in his cabinet or close group of advisers who has connections to the leadership since the surge. What better person for such a position then the man himself who oversaw the surge and associated policies. In regards to Iraq, stability is paramount and Gates provides that stability.

The answer is that there is nothing wrong with being a Washington insider. Both parties in the 2008 election emphasized the difference between being a Washington insider and being an outsider. As an instrument of change Barack Obama emphasized how he’s going to reform Washington. Joe Biden leaves Washington by train every night. John McCain is a maverick who fights the entrenched Washington insiders such as lobbyists. Sarah Palin lacked any connection to Washington. The Republican right-wing elements further distanced themselves from Washington by fueling anti-intellectual and anti-media sentiments. Washington is bad; the periphery is good. This feeling has been around in politics for decades. The easiest way to increase support is to distance oneself from the “mess in Washington,” especially when Washington is receiving very low approval ratings.

The latest manifestations of anti-Washingtonism is taking the form of attacks on Obama’s cabinet selections. Obama selected Thomas Daschle to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services. Immediately Dascle was attacked for being a Washington insider. Many of the attacks focused on his wife who is a lobbyist. Immediately there is a contradiction. People want the most experienced person possible to head a government department, but they also want someone with no association with Washington.

Often the most experienced people for high level government positions are people who have spent decades in Washington. They rose through government by working the system; thus, they have lots of experience in how the system works. Experience in how the system works is invaluable for a cabinet member and presidential adviser.

There’s a fear that government insiders will represent the interests of Washington rather than the people. There are a couple things wrong with this statement. First, regardless of the person’s background, cabinet secretaries often end up representing their agency’s point of view. Thus, an outsider from Alaska could just as easily take up the cause of the Department of Education as a Washington insider. Second, cabinet members are extensions of the bureaucracy. Bureaucrats are unelected officials and are institutionally designed to not be accountable to the public. A Bureaucrats’ job is make sure that government functions regardless of public opinion. Under this definition bureaucrats (cabinet members) are supposed to reflect the interests government. Thus, it doesn’t matter if the person is a Washington insider or not. As soon as anyone accepts a cabinet position, they become a bureaucrat and a Washington insider. As the official elected by the people and accountable to the people, it is the President’s job to make sure that the government’s priority is his and by extension, the people’s agenda not Washington self-interests.

The strength of the President is the most important factor. A strong President will be able to listen to his cabinet for advice coming out of the various agencies, but ultimately he has to be the one pushing his agenda. The argument should not be about whether someone is an insider or an outsider, but whether they are the most qualified person for the job. If the most qualified person is an outsider then give them the position and the same is true for an insider. The fact that Obama is filling his advisors with Washington insiders most likely suggests that those people are the most qualified people to help carry out his agenda. When the president is in the control, there should not be anything to fear from the “Washington elite.”

The Great Lakes region of central Africa has long been a contentious area. The current outbreak of violence is really a continuation of a conflict that began in the early 1990s. The core issue is the operation of militia groups in the region.

Mobutu Sese Seko, always fearful of his loss of power, backed the Hutu government in Rwanda. When genocide broke out in Rwanda, Mobutu continued to support the Hutu militias and the Interahamwe. The Interahamwe and other associated figures fled to eastern Zaire (Democratic Republic of the Congo) after the Tutsi took control of the country. However, the fighting did not stop and the Hutu militias not only launched attacks on DRC Tutsi but carried out attacks across the border into Rwanda and Uganda. In response Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi launched a campaign across the border and supported rebel Laurent Kabila. Mobutu was easily toppled but Kabila’s new government soon turned on its former backers. With Rwandan and Ugandan soldiers stationed in the DRC, Kabila began to fund Hutu rebel groups to undermine Rwanda. War broke out as Uganda and Rwanda supported their actions by their need to protect their national security interests. In the early 2000s a cease-fire was reached the major sticking point as been the presence of Hutu and Tutsi rebel groups operating within the DRC’s borders.

Negotiations in the conflict have always been associated with the demobilizing of the militia groups. Mediators felt that by disarming all rebel factions tensions between the DRC and Rwanda/Uganda would be significantly reduced. Efforts included increased transparency gradual disarmament reciprocated by all parties to the conflict. Besides the historical context why are militia groups important?

The DRC “needs” the militias to protect its security near the eastern border. Initially, Kabila’s primary military backers were the Rwandan and Ugandan armies. When he turned on those two countries, he was left with the ragtag DRC army. He only had military control over Kinshasa. In order to exert control over the rest of the country, he relied on the Hutu militias. Likewise, Uganda and Rwanda soon turned to rebel Tutsi groups combat the Hutu militias. States turn to militias because they fail to exert military hegemony with their own government forces. However, since these groups are independent (besides some state funding and logical support) of the state they often have their own agenda. The resource rich Great Lakes region is a gem for all the factions operating in the DRC.

Ironically, by supporting the Hutu militias Kinshasa to protect its short term security interests, it is undermining its sovereignty and long term security. During the outbreak of violence in the late 1990s Rwanda cited that it would keep its military forces in the DRC as long as the Hutu militias were active. It seems that by simply demobilizing the Hutu militias, Rwanda and Uganda would have no reason to operate in the DRC.

Of course this is naive. First, Rwanda would like access to some of the resources in eastern Congo. Throughout the conflict all sides have been accused of plundering. Second, the Tutsi militias such as those led by Laurent Nkunda, are supported by Rwanda but are ultimately independent. Nkunda claims that he protects the Tutsi minority in the region form Hutu aggression. The DRC lacks an effective military to combat the Tutsi militias. Thus, Kinshasa relies on the Hutu militias to combat domestic insurgencies.

The solution? To begin with there needs to be trust building between the state actors. Rwanda must keep its forces within its own borders and the DRC needs to prevent cross border raids. Second, there needs to be a respect for human rights especially among the Tutsi minority. Nkunda gains some support for his image as a protector of the Tutsis. Third, all militias must be demobilized. This step has to come after the first two otherwise there will be little incentive to remove support for the militias. International mediation will be required as will a far larger peacekeeping force. Finally, the government in Kinshasa must be strengthened in order to fill the power vacuum in the eastern Congo. The replacement of the militias with the DRC government and military will make all future clashes be between state actors which can be more easily mediated through the international system. The political element also includes developing a better resource distribution system. This last step is a long term solution and the resource element will be impractical as long as Kinshasa is able to exploit the region. However, it is conceivable that a removal of militias and a stronger government presence would enable a more fair distribution of resources.

The presence of militias is a sign that the state does not have complete sovereighty. States turn to militias to extend their influence but in the process they undermine their sovereignty by creating a faction that competes with the state’s military hegemony. Colombia and its support of the paramilitaries is a perfect example. It is significant that no stable democracy (with the notable exceptions of Spain and the United Kingdom before the 1990s) has a salient militia group operating within its borders. Militias only undermine the state; thus, a solution in central Africa must involve the demobilization of all militia groups.

Eight o’clock Pacific time on November 4th will be one of the most historic moments in United States history.  When the polls closed on the West Coast, California, Oregon, and Washington put Barack Obama past the 270 threshold, but really the race was over an hour earlier. At around 6:45 CNN called Ohio for Obama and it became realistically impossible for John McCain to win. Even earlier it seemed McCain had lost all chances of winning. Obama’s large victory in Pennsylvania showed that McCain’s last campaign effort in the battleground states had failed. As the hours passed it appeared that Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida would fall to Obama. Missouri seemed within reach and Montana wasn’t out of the question. In fact Obama ran competitively in many states that he ultimately lost. The landslide victory only made the results more satisfying. But the historic aspect of the election goes beyond the concrete results.

Obama’s victory last night was unprecedented (a gross understatement). On one level there is the race issue. After nearly 400 years since slavery began in the United States, 223 years since Independence, 143 years since the end of the Civil War, and 40 years after Martin Luther King Jr’s assassination an African American has reached the highest political office in the United States. To many Americans it was an emotional experience. To the world it is a symbol that America has changed itself.

But perhaps the more striking part of the election was the events that followed immediately afterward. Across the country people took to the streets to celebrate Obama’s victory. In the major metropolises thousands congregated outside. Here in Berkeley students celebrated in the streets for hours. These acts of celebration following a presidential election have not occurred in US history and it seems unlikely that they will occur again anytime soon. It really is quite impossible to explain the situation on the ground in the middle of those celebrations.

Even more amazing was that the celebrations expanded to outside the United States. Every corner of the world celebrated Obama’s victory. Even people in Iran expressed jubilation. European leaders heaped praise on Obama, Paris celebrated like Washington DC or San Francisco. So why has the world focused its attention on Obama and stopped their work to follow the election?

To the world Barack Obama is more than a man as he has become a symbol. Obama represents change which is something that everyone can relate. In Europe there is hope that Obama will repair US-Europe relations. In Africa there is hope that there will be a greater focus on fighting poverty and starvation. In Iran there is hope that there will be changes to Iranian politics. The fact that one man can bring out those emotions is spectacular. The fact that he has unified so many people behind a common symbol is unprecedented for one man. Wednesday night was a night of unity.

The grave danger, however, is that people are placing too much hope on Obama. He can’t change the world by himself and he cannot immediately address every issue. People’s expectations are so great that there are bound to be many disappointments. Furthermore, American is still deeply devided. McCain’s campaign unearthed an ugly side of American politics and culture. The question is what side of America will prevail for the next few years. That being said, Obama will find himself in a unique position. He has enormous international political capital that can be turned into a significant change in the United State’s position in the world. No president since Harry Truman has had that opportunity to change the world. But he most show concrete results to keep that momentum.

What we are witnessing is something more than a presidential election. It is thre victory of a way of thinking that is devoid of racism, classism, ultra-nationalism, or fear. It’s change. Unfolding events will tell whether it is a lasting political revolution. The world wide celebrations and the immediately sell out of every major print newspaper on Wednesday morning attests to that fact. The toughest task for Obama will be living up to the symbol he has become. But if he can meet some of the expectations he has the chance to change the political sphere in unprecedented ways. For the world’s sake lets hope he turns his rhetoric into concrete results both domestically and internationally. We are at a point of amazing opportunity that is waiting to be seized.

Prop 1A

Prop 1A provides the necessary funds to begin construction of necessary transportation infrastructure to address the issues of climate change and peak oil. Our opinion of 1A should already be clear as put forward in a previous post: http://marin-forum.com/?p=197. California lacks rail networks that connect Northern and Southern California. Not only would highspeed rail be cheaper than airfare between LA and SF but the travel times would not be much different. Highspeed rail is costly but it is a good long term investment.

Our Opinion: YES

Prop 2

Animal rights are important and conditions in California farms, especially among the large commercial farms, are deplorable. Prop 2 specifically targets the egg industry but also addresses conditions in the cattle and pig industry. These industries should have addressed the humane treatment of their animals but they were more concerned with their profits. Action needs to be taken to clean up the industry. However, we do not believe this issue is best addressed through the initiative process. The vast majority of voters have no stake in the issue while a small group of people will be significantly affected if the proposition passes. Also opponents to Prop 2 claimed that the egg industry would be severely affected and may even relocate out of state driving up the cost of eggs. This claim was confirmed by the LA times so it has credibility. Considering the state of our economy this is not a good time to see an increase in food costs.

Our Opinion: NEUTRAL

Prop 3

Prop 3 addresses children’s health by funding children’s health hospitals through bonds. There does not seem to be many significant negative aspects to this proposition and the money is not coming directly from the California budget. Furthermore, it will significantly fund the University of California system which has been facing serious budget cuts as of late. We are also concerned by opponents’ efforts to connect Prop 3 with illegal immigration. According to them Prop 3 will provide money for healthcare given to illegal immigrants. This issue has nothing to do with immigration.

Our Opinion: YES

Prop 4

Parental notification for a minor wishing to obtain an abortion has appeared on the ballot several times before. Each time it has been voted down. There are too many loopholes in this proposition and it could create a mess in our legal system. Furthermore, if a girl wants to get an abortion, she will get it even if it means getting it through back ally methods. In many cases a minor cannot obtain certain medical procedures without parental consent; however, there are exceptions. Many of the exemptions involve reproductive health but they also include infectious diseases and mental health. Therefore, an exception for abortion is not out of the ordinary. Abortion is a personal issue and the state should not intervene.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 5

By removing nonviolent drug offenders from the prison system Prop 5 would significantly impact the California prison system. Prop 5 allocates nearly half a billion dollars for drug treatment programs and in the long term will remove many people from the prison system addressing the issue of overcrowded. Currently the California prison system is extremely overcrowded and badly needs to be reformed. Prop 5 would address this issue but in the process cost the state a significant amount of money that it doesn’t have at the moment. Furthermore, the effectiveness of drug rehab programs is unclear. Considering California’s budget problems now is not the time to allocate funds to prison reform without finding some way to increase revenue (i.e. taxes). Money is better spent on preventive measures, not corrective measures.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 6

Prop 6 provides funding for law enforcement. Specifically it targets gang related crimes. Other affected areas include vehicle theft, methamphetamine use, and parole penalties. The problem: the state does not have nearly one billion dollars to allocate to these programs. Furthermore, the State is already beginning to address these issues through other programs such as CalGRIP. California just doesn’t have the money for this proposition.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 7

It is absolutely necessary to increase the use of renewable energy and fund research and development of associated technologies. Prop 7 would increase the renewable energy standards for utilities among other things. Unfortunately Prop 7 is extremely flawed. It puts nearly impossible demands on local utilities. It seems highly unlikely that municipal utilities could reach the 20% standard in two years. The investor owned utilities are struggling to reach 20% and they have had nearly five years. It also seems unlikely that utilities could reach 40% by 2020. Furthermore, Sacramento is already moving toward increasing renewable energy use without prodding from the people. The California legislature will be able to draft a similar bill that is much better worded and probably more effective. Tellingly the opponents of Prop 7 include environmentalists, investor-owned utilities, and both political parties. Prop 7 places nearly impossible burdens on utilities and similar legislation will pass through Sacramento in the next few years.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 8

Prop 8 is probably the most controversial proposition on the ballot. There is no reason that same sex couples should be prevented from marrying. First the state should not be regulating who can marry and who cannot. Everyone deserves access to the same benefits and rights regardless of sexual orientation. Marriage is no longer completely a religious issue and allowing same sex marriage does not force religious institutions to perform same sex marriages. Prop 8 has nothing to do with “saving the children.” No well constructed study proves that same sex marriages harm a child’s growth and development. Also California schools are NOT required to teach students about marriage. Once again this is an issue where the state should not be intervening.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 9

Prop 9 is another crime related proposition that deals with victims’ rights. It would allow victims to have a larger role in the criminal justice process. It also makes some changes to the parole system. Under previous laws and a 1982 proposition victims received certain constitutional rights. Today victims already receive some rights. More importantly, victims should not have a larger role in the criminal justice process. It is important that victims are kept someone separate from the trial to insure a fair trial. This is an aspect of our criminal system that does not have high priority in reform.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 10

Prop 10 is sponsored by T. Boone Pickens and would create a demand for natural gas vehicles. It just happens to be that the use of natural gas vehicles is crucial part of the Pickens Plan. The Pickens Plan is an interesting idea to remove our dependence on foreign oil by increasing domestic sources including investments in renewable energy, but it’s questionable whether switching to natural gas is really a solution. The problem with Prop 10 is that the main beneficiary is Pickens’ natural gas company. There are better ways to develop renewable energy and energy independence. Prop 10 creates a market that didn’t exist before; it is a gimmick by special interests.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 11

Prop 11 would create a commission to do redistricting. Currently districts in California are designed to give a significant advantage to Democrats. This issue needs to be addressed and district boundaries should not favor one party over the other. However, the state doesn’t have the resources at the moment to begin redistricting. In light of our budget crisis now is not the time to perform redistricting, but this issue will have to be addressed eventually.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 12

This is a no brainer. Since 1921 Californians have approved bonds to help veterans buy homes and farms. There is no reason why this shouldn’t continue especially since there is no cost to tax payers. There is hardly any opposition to this proposition, and voters should continue to approve these bonds.

Our Opinion: YES

With Colin Powell endorsing Obama and the possibility that he may join the new administration, it is worthwhile to take a look at the Powell Doctrine. The Clinton foreign policy team found the Powell Doctrine a burden at times especially when they wanted to intervene in regional conflicts or take a firmer stance on the situation in Yugoslavia during the mid 1990s. The first Gulf War shaped the Doctine and it is one of the only recent conflicts to fit the doctrine. The Powell Doctrine involves a serious of questions that must be answered affirmatively before engaging in a conflict:

1. Are vital national security interests threatened?
2. Is there a clear and obtainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully evaluated?
4. Has all other non-violent policy been exhausted?
5. Is there an exit strategy?
6. Have the consequences been fully considered?
7. Is involvement supported by the American people?
8. Is there genuine broad support for intervention?

Powell expanded on his doctrine by including that once the decision is made to intervene then all available resources should directed to the war effort in order to achieve decisive force (”Shock and Awe”). However, “Shock and Awe” has been used outside the Powell Doctrine with notable success (Bosnia). The doctrine suggests that the United States never should have gotten involved in Iraq the second time because it failed to meet every aspect of the doctrine except points 1,2, and 7. The war only satisfies point 2 if the reason for war was to removed Saddam Husein’s WMDs or to remove Saddam from power. Even point 1 is iffy because  Saddam posed only a limited threat in early late 2002. However, point 1 can be expanded to include US allies in which case Saddam posed a threat to Israel.

The Powell Doctrine is a fundamentally sound doctrine but it could run at odds with potential policies put forth by an Obama administration. Barack Obama and Joe Biden have made it clear that they would seriously consider intervention in Darfur. Most “Humanitarian interventions” fail to meet points 1 and 5 of the Powell Doctrine. So lets take a look at points 1 and 5 in detail.

The idea of intervening only when U.S. security interests are threatened is extremely vague. A narrow definition of security interests would include U.S. personnel and citizens, military installations, infrastructure (ports, airports, railways, and highways), and resources (oil). But it is also in U.S. security interest to be actively involved in the world cultivating alliances and taking a firm stand on certain issues. By directly intervening in a case of genocide it tells the world that such actions will not be tolerated and if anyone attempts to repeat genocide then they will have the same fate. This line of thought is connected to the belief that the United States should be the world’s police officer. On another level genocides and regional conflicts are never good for stability and in today’s highly globalized society what happens in one corner of the world is felt almost everywhere. For example genocide encourages small arms smuggling. The small arms trade runs counter to US security interests because often the weapons being sold on the black market end up in extremist hands. By intervening in a genocide the flow of small arms is prevented and regional stability means extremists will struggle to get a foothold. Thus, the definition of security interests in point 1 is vital to applying the Powell Doctrine.

Point 5 (clear exit strategy) is often seen as the complicating factor in humanitarian invention. The problem is that many humanitarian intervention missions in conflict zones involve peacekeeping whose duration is usually dictated by the ability of the various factions to reach a peace agreement. Often that can take several years and the last thing a country like the US wants to do is get a large amount of its military resources committed to a conflict where it’s not one of the major players (due to the neutrality of peacekeeping forces). However, it is quite possible that a well designed peacekeeping mission can have an exit strategy. One of the more significant reasons for peacekeeping failures are the rules of engagement (ROE). In conflicts such as Somalia the rules of engagement were FUBAR as US forces were extremely restricted on how and when they could use force. Aggressive ROEs may compromise neutrality but in genocide how can one remain neutral? Most UN peacekeeping missions have very limited ROEs and don’t focus on exit strategies (the mentality is that peacekeeping forces should be kept in place as long as it takes to achieve peace) so they struggle to meet the Powell Doctrine.

The Powell Doctrine does not eliminate the ability to engage in peacekeeping missions but it does make it very hard to intervene on humanitarian principles. This is perhaps one of the significant flaws with the doctrine since peacekeeping missions are vital to global security and stability. Perhaps the Powell Doctrine is best applied to full scale invasions of countries along the lines of Gulf War I and II. But then what’s the difference between an invasion and a well equipped and substantially large peacekeeping force with broad ROEs?

It’s quite possible that the Powell Doctrine is outdated. The doctrine was based off of another doctrine formulated during the 1980s (Cold War). The importance of combating terrorism has significantly shifted priorities away from the humanitarian missions. The Powell Doctrine was designed to be used for the conflicts that occurred during the 1990s (Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo). The 1990s were very different from the 2000s and the Powell Doctrine was completely thrown away by the Bush Administration.

Yet there are aspects of the Powell Doctrine that should be applied before any military engagement. Proper assessment of th situation on the ground, clear objectives, reliance on diplomatic efforts, and broad international support are crucial. It is important to remember that the Powell Doctrine represents a piece of 1990s military policy that was crafted by an institution that was still haunted by the ghosts of Vietnam and hesistent to commit US forces to what are often seen as “regional” conflicts.

The Bush Administration and countless others have pointed to Anbar Province in Iraq as the top success story in the last couple years. Once a haven for Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), US support and cooperation with local sheiks has put AQI on the run. Violence has significantly decreased in the region and there is a certain degree of order. AQI’s actions turned the citizenry against them. The local populous then put their support behind US backed sheiks who were able to successfully confront AQI.

The original leader of the “Anbar Awakening” was assassinated last year and since then there has been no unifying force other than US dollars. Anbar is now controlled by various sheiks who are all vying for power and influence. The violence is gone but there is always the possibility of an ambitious sheik who wants to become the dominate player in the region. The mentality in part seems to be the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The more troubling aspect in Anbar is the fact that these sheik’s and their personal armies are completely outside the political system in Iraq, The central government in Baghdad doesn’t want to incorporate them because they don’t trust the sheiks. Only a few years ago many of these sheiks fought alongside the insurgency. There is a fear that if the Awakening movement was incorporated into the Iraqi military and police forces the armed forces would be seriously undermined. The fear of infiltration is on top of many lawmakers minds. Then of course there is the fact that the Iraqi government is dominated by Shia while the Awakening is composed of Sunnis. On the other side Awakening leaders don’t trust the central government and are more loyal to their tribes.

A government has sovereignty over all territory where it has military hegemony. The Anbar Sheiks represent another faction that has considerable clout (more so than the central government) in Anbar. Thus as long as these sheiks are independent of Baghdad, the central government will not have sovereignty over its entire national territory. Anbar will always be undermining their sovereignty until it is incorporated into the central government.

If Baghdad wants long term stability then they are going to have to incorporate the Anbar fighters into the Iraqi armed forces. By co opting a group you can effectively neutralize them. Furthermore, you want to bring independent fighters into the fold and thus make them dependent on the central government. At this stage it would be more effective if the US channeled funds to the Awakening through the Iraqi government. But as mentioned above the problem is trust. In the beginning of the war many of the fighters now comprising the Awakening fought with the insurgency; thus the Iraqi government sees them as former insurgents and arrests them which in turn makes the Anbar sheiks wary of the Iraqi government and makes the sheiks more independent. The independence of the sheiks only confirms the Iraqi government’s suspicion that the sheiks are anti-government. It is a vicious cycle that will be extremely hard to break.

Recently the Anbar Awakening leaders have suggested that they will try to contest the major Sunni party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, in provincial elections. But joining the political system does not fully integrate themselves into the Iraqi government. They will still have their personal armies and history/current events (Kenya, Afghanistan, Sadr in Iraq, Italy and Germany pre-WWII etc) shows that privates armies attached to powerful figures or political parties are extremely detrimental to political stability.

The Iraqi government must integrate the Anbar Awakening into the police and armed forces. As long as they are independent and owe their allegience to any power other than Baghdad longterm stability will be an issue. The United States in part created this problem by arming and financing factions independent of the government. It may have brought incredibile success now, but will it bring success five or ten years in the future? The Anbar sheiks are incredibly opportunistic. They saw the US as the best option to obtain power and influence after AQI lost touch with the people. But what will happen when the US leaves? Under current cirumstances it seems unlikely that they would look to Baghdad. An armed militia loyal to ambitious young leaders is never good for national stability.

This morning on Meet the Press former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama. He stated that Obama was qualified to be president, showed strong leadership and ideas on the economy, and has electrified the nation in a way will dramatically change the United States’ position in the world. He called John McCain a friend but he lacks a strong economic response and his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate puts the United States in a dangerous position. It is also well know that Powell has disagreed with the Republican Party on foreign policy issues and domestic social issues.

Colin Power is considered one of the more respected men in the US political sphere. The vast majority of Americans have a favorable view of him and he has immense respect in the military community and among moderates. Yet, to some he has lost all credibility after being President Bush’s Secretary of State as the US invaded Iraq. Many see Powell’s speech before the United Nations making the case for war as an irreparable blunder that completely destroyed his credibility in the international community. Powell recognizes that that moment was a blot on his career and has since tried to distance himself from the Bush administration.

What does Powell’s endorsement mean? It gives more foreign policy credibility to Obama and the Democrats. Undoubtedly it will have the strongest effect on independents and moderate Republicans. Older Republicans especially those from the Reagan and Bush Sr. years respect Powell and his judgment. Veterans may feel more confident in Obama. More importantly, with only a few weeks until the election it could be powerful in the battleground states. If it motivates just a few groups of voters, Obama could pick up the key states such as Virginia and Ohio. Powell is now the biggest name Republican to endorse Obama. During the primaries it was important for Obama to get endorsements from Kennedy because Kennedy represented the old Democratic vanguard. Powell is similarly a prominent figure in the military establishment and among some Republicans. That being said endorsements are only so powerful. For anyone who had already decided to support McCain, Powell’s endorsement will have no or little effect.

Powell’s endorsement is powerful because it is symbolic. It represents a certain branch of Republicans throwing their support for Obama. The timing of the endorsement is very helpful for Obama since the effects of the endorsement should be felt for the next few weeks or so. Any earlier and it most likely would have been forgotten by election day. So now will Powell have a spot in the Obama administration? It doesn’t seem likely that he would be given the Secretary of State position, but Secretary of Defense? National Security Adviser?