How Did 9/11 Change U.S. Foreign Policy?

Presidents Bush and Obama visit the 9/11 Memorial with their wives on September 11, 2011. The legacy of 9/11 is the subject of ongoing debate.

On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, a variety of policymakers, scholars, and pundits have (at times heatedly) discussed and debated the broader significance of 9/11.  A common theme is that American foreign policy changed dramatically in the aftermath of the attacks, representing either a necessary reorientation toward a new threat environment (as defenders of the Bush administration suggest) or an over-reaching and self-defeating policy shift (as its critics allege).  But how exactly did 9/11 change American foreign policy, and how revolutionary were these changes?

The Bush administration certainly changed its foreign policy priorities, moving from a focus on relations with great powers such as China and Russia to an emphasis on the nexus between non-state terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and “rogue states” such as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, with known or suspected WMD programs.  Bush and his advisers also moved away from a reliance on deterrence and containment (status-quo oriented pillars of the Cold War era) and embraced the need for more transformational policies of preemptive action and regime change under certain circumstances.  Bush also jettisoned his pre-9/11 aversion to “nation building” and came to view failed states not only as a humanitarian problem but as a security threat of the highest order (insofar as they provided potential safe havens for terrorists).  Finally, Bush famously articulated a “freedom agenda” that centered on democracy promotion, particularly in the Arab and Muslim world, as an antidote to extremism.

But how revolutionary and long-lasting were these changes?  Noted historian Melvyn Leffler joins John Lewis Gaddis and other insightful scholars in noting that notions of preemptive action, unilateralism, primacy, and idealistic democracy promotion are nothing new in American foreign policy:

“The long-term significance of 9/11 for U.S. foreign policy, therefore, should not be overestimated. The attacks that day were a terrible tragedy, an unwarranted assault on innocent civilians, and a provocation of monumental proportions. But they did not change the world or transform the long-term trajectory of U.S. grand strategy. The United States’ quest for primacy, its desire to lead the world, its preference for an open door and free markets, its concern with military supremacy, its readiness to act unilaterally when deemed necessary, its eclectic merger of interests and values, its sense of indispensability– all these remained, and remain, unchanged.”

What do you think?  Was the Bush administration’s post-9/11 foreign policy a radical break from America’s past?  If so, how?  Which of these Bush-era policies have continued under President Obama, and which (if any) has Obama reversed?  Is America safer or more vulnerable as a result?

Did Obama “Flinch” on Afghanistan?

President Obama announces a timeline for withdrawing forces from Afghanistan in an address to the nation on June 22, 2011.

In President Obama’s speech to the nation on Wednesday night, he announced that he would be withdrawing 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2011 and an additional 23,000 by summer 2012.  This would leave the U.S. with 68,000 troops by next summer, and the administration has pledged to withdraw all forces by the end of 2014.  As noted by David Rothkopf, this withdrawal plan is too slow for some critics (most of whom are on the political left), and too fast for others (generally on the political right).

Most of the criticism is coming from the conservative side of the political spectrum, and it highlights some crucial strategic dilemmas associated with counterinsurgency–the type of war the U.S. has increasingly found itself engaged in since 9/11.  Counterinsurgency warfare focuses on providing security for the civilian population and winning the “hearts and minds” of the people so they support the government rather than the insurgents.  Many critics of Obama’s withdrawal plan have suggested that by adhering to arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal–based on domestic political pressure rather than conditions on the ground in Afghanistan–Obama risks undoing all the progress that has been made at enormous cost, in blood and treasure, over the past decade (including Obama’s own “surge” of forces in late 2009).  An oft-repeated concern is that by setting clear timetables for withdrawal America signals the enemy that they can just “wait us out” and signals Afghan civilians that we won’t be there to protect them from these militants, so they had better start hedging their bets.

Michael Waltz, a former special forces officer with multiple tours in Afghanistan, raises these concerns in an ominous piece in Foreign Policy:

“What this administration doesn’t fully realize is that the Afghans, their government, the Pakistanis, the Indians, the Iranians, and the rest of South and Central Asia aren’t listening to the policy nuances of Wednesday’s announcement. All they hear is U.S. withdrawal and abandonment. More disturbingly, all the Taliban and al Qaeda hear is that they have survived the worst of it and they only need to last a few more years until 2014. Three and a half years is nothing in that part of the world. Although Obama attempted to emphasize that significant U.S. forces will remain after the withdrawal of the surge, their very mission to win over the populace will be severely undercut by the message he sent Wednesday night. The entire region is now hedging against the United States rather than siding with it.”

Similarly, the editors of the conservative publication National Review take issue with Obama’s strategy in a piece entitled “Obama Flinches”:

“There’s a reason Gen. David Petraeus opposed this kind of drawdown and that, apparently, no general supported it…It’s Obama’s prerogative as commander-in-chief to make whatever strategic judgment he deems appropriate, but the lack of military support for this decision highlights its essentially political nature…[the Afghan] government is a mess and — to one extent or another — always will be.  Afghanistan is a poor, tribal society.  We should have no great expectations for it.  The question is whether it is fated to be ruled by (or at least provide safe haven to) the Taliban and other extremists.  President Obama just made it more likely the answer to that question will be ‘yes.’”

The counterarguments provided by Obama and Congressional Democrats include (a) we are winning and we will keep the pressure on the Taliban and Al Qaeda, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan (e.g., through drone strikes), as we withdraw our ground forces, and (b) setting clear deadlines for withdrawal forces Afghanistan’s government to step up, “grow up,” and take on the roles of providing security and providing basic services instead of remaining dependent on American assistance.

Who do you think is right?  Is Obama’s withdrawal schedule too fast, too slow, or just right?  Does it ignore the realities of counterinsurgency warfare, the commitment of our adversaries, and the politics of the region, or is it a sensible policy for ending this costly war and beginning, as Obama declared in his speech, to “focus on nation building here at home”?

Does Bin Laden’s Death Vindicate Bush-Era Harsh Interrogation Techniques?

The killing of Osama bin Laden has revived a debate over the usefulness and morality of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” (a euphemism for torture according to critics) employed by the George W. Bush administration to extract information from suspected terrorists.  Several Bush administration officials and conservative commentators have claimed that the enhanced techniques, such as waterboarding, produced the vital intelligence that led the U.S.to bin Laden’s hideout.  Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s op-ed in last Friday’s Wall Street Journal, entitled “The Waterboarding Trail to Bin Laden,” makes this case.  Mukasey argues that coercive interrogations, though used very infrequently, led to the capture of top Al-Qaeda operatives including Ramzi bin al Shibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who were themselves subjected to these techniques and gave crucial information about bin Laden’s couriers—information that helped the U.S. track and kill the elusive bin Laden.  Upon taking office, President Obama discontinued the CIA program of harsh interrogations, a decision Mukasey suggests will harm U.S. security: “But policies put in place by the very administration that presided over this splendid success promise fewer such successes in the future. Those policies make it unlikely that we’ll be able to get information from those whose identities are disclosed by the material seized from bin Laden. The administration also hounds our intelligence gatherers in ways that can only demoralize them.”   

Opponents of Bush-era interrogation practices immediately fired back, contending there is little evidence that torture led to bin Laden, and pointing to the lengthy gap between the use of these techniques and the successful raid on bin Laden’s compound.  Adam Serwer of the Plum Line argues along these lines: “The pro-torture argument ignores the obvious — that if torture was so effective, bin Laden would have been dead long ago. Bin Laden was found through years of painstaking intelligence gathering, not through the barbarous methods supported by many Bush apologists.”  Former interrogator Matthew Alexander joins many critics (including Senator John McCain) in arguing that torture is not only immoral but practically it does more harm than good: it prompts detainees to fabricate information to stop the pain, it puts U.S. soldiers at risk, it harms America’s image overseas, and it serves as a potent recruiting tool for America’s enemies, including Al Qaeda. 

As is often the case, the answer to the question of whether enhanced interrogation techniques were pivotal in this case lies somewhere in between the stark narratives provided by either of these camps.  It appears that some of the intelligence that ultimately led to bin Laden did come from detainees who were subjected to these techniques (CIA Director Leon Panetta conceded as much in an interview with NBC news) but a great deal of additional intelligence gathering and analysis was required before the mission could be launched.  As National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor put it in a NY Times interview, “The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out Osama bin Laden in 2003…It took years of collection and analysis from many different sources to develop the case that enabled us to identify this compound, and reach a judgment that Bin Laden was likely to be living there.”

Should these facts prompt President Obama to reconsider his rejection of his predecessor’s interrogation policies?  Is Obama putting America at risk by leaving a potentially important tool in the War on Terror in the toolbox?  Or does the use of this tool actually harm America’s interests, undermine its values, and make us more like our enemies?

Bin Laden and the War on Terror

Perhaps not surprisingly, the blogosphere has been dominated by discussion of the killing of Osama bin Laden by US special forces operating in Pakistan. While the mission itself was clouded in secrecy, perhaps the most detailed description was offered by Marc Ambinder at the National Journal.

The news prompted spontaneous gatherings outside the White House in Washington DC and at the World Trade Center site in New York City. It also prompted Peter Beinart to assert “The War on Terror is over.”

But as several bloggers have been quick to point out, Beinart’s assertion may be a bit premature. As Daniel Drezner points out, bin Laden’s role in al Qaeda had been minimized. Although he continued to serve as its figurehead leader, bin Laden had little role in the organization’s operational side. Al Qaeda itself had long been fractured into separate commands, each operating essentially as franchises of the larger organization. Operations in Yemen, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere will therefore not be affected by bin Laden’s death.

The real question that bin Laden’s death does raise, however, centers on US-Pakistan relations. A number of bloggers, including David Rothkopf, Julian Borger, and Stephen Walt all note that given bin Laden’s location it is improbable in the least to think that he was not receiving support from elements within the Pakistani government. What this means for the future of US-Pakistani relations remains unclear. The United States, however, continues to need Pakistan’s assistance in the war on terror. Al Qaeda may not be the threat it once was, but terrorists nevertheless continue to be key actors on the global stage.

Winning the Global War on Terror

Stephen Walt posed a pretty provocative question in his blog today. Walt, a key realist IR theorist, was commenting on the response to the failed Christmas Day attempt by a Nigerian man to detonate a bomb on a Detroit-bound airliner. The attempt (now dubbed the underwear bomber) led to a 24-hour news cycle discussion of what new security measures were needed to protect Americans. Shortly after the attempt, the Transportation Security Administration announced tight restrictions on flyers. But the calls to “do something” remain. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, for example, criticized the Obama Administration for failing to do enough to protect Americans, and calls for new strikes against terrorists intensified.

But in his post today, Walt offers some important points to consider before rushing off to “do something.” Walt writes,

most of the commentary about the attack focused on the breakdown in security procedures and possible intelligence failures, but for me the real issue is to ask why groups like al Qaeda want to attack us in the first place. With a few exceptions, this is a question that rarely gets much scrutiny anymore; pundits just assume “terrorists” are inherently evil and that’s why they do evil things…But we really do need to spend some time asking why terrorists are targeting us, and whether we could alleviate (though not eliminate) the problem by adjusting some aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

In particular, I’m struck by the inability of most Americans to connect the continued risk of global terrorism with America’s highly interventionist global policy. One can have a serious debate about whether that policy is the right one or not; my point is that we are kidding ourselves if we think we can behave this way and remain immune from any adverse consequences. As a society, we seem to believe that we can send thousands of troops to invade other countries, send Reapers and Predators to fire missiles at people we think might — repeat, might — be terrorists, and underwrite the oppressive policies of a host of “friendly” governments, yet never pay any significant price for it back here at home. We are a nation of swaggering sheep: eager to impose our will on others yet terrified that doing so might inconvenience us, let alone put U.S. civilians in real danger.

Walt phrasing may be controversial, but his conclusions should not be. Terrorist activities are most often used in situations of asymmetrical warfare [glossary], when the weaker party cannot defeat the stronger party directly.  Al Qaeda lacks the capacity to fight a conventional war against the United States (and most other countries, for that matter). Al Qaeda’s choice to engage in terrorist bombings is not the action of crazed zealots. Rather, it is a rational decision given the balance of force between the two parties. And, as Walt suggests, U.S. policy likely contributes to the success al Qaeda enjoys in recruiting operatives and launching attacks. The challenge is for Americans to understand this.  The success of the U.S. counterterrorism effort likely depends on it.

Five Stories You Might Have Missed

Debates over Wall Street compensation reemerged on the national stage last week, as the government urged companies that received federal assistance under the Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP) limit executive compensation. On Thursday, the Federal Reserve issued draft rules governing compensation for companies that have not repaid TARP assistance. Under the new rules, the companies would be required to demonstrate that their compensation packages do not encourage excessive risk-taking. In an interview with the Financial Times, George Soros weighed in on the debate, calling Wall Street’s profits this quarter “hidden gifts” from the U.S. government. He commented that, “Those earning are not from the achievement of risk-takers. These are gifts, hidden gifts, so I don’t think that those monies should be used to pay bonuses. There’s a resentment which I think is justified.”

Meanwhile, concerns over the spread of the H1N1 (swine flu) virus continue to grow. On Saturday, President Barack Obama declared a declaration of “national emergency” to combat the flu. Under the declaration, hospitals eases some restrictions on hospital operations, giving them additional powers to treat the flu. 

In news from outside the United States last week:

1. German Chancellor Angela Merkel formally announced her new coalition agreement on Saturday. There were few surprises, as Merkel’s center right Christian Democrats allied with the liberal Free Democratic Party. The coalition contract included a promise to pass a €24 billion tax cut for poor and middle-income Germans and will reform inheritance laws. Under the new coalition agreement, Guido Westerwelle, the leader of the Free Democrats, will assume the post of foreign minister. The Christian Democrat’s Wolfgang Schäuble, a strong fiscal conservative, will become finance minister.

2. In two separate attacks, two car bombs exploded outside government buildings in Baghdad, Iraq, on Sunday, killed more than 130 people and injuring more than 500. The attacks were the deadliest in more than two months. Iraq had been enjoying a period of relative stability, as Western-backed tribal leaders had pushed al Qaeda militants into the margins. But U.S. officials contend that Iraq may be entering a period of increased violence, as militants attempt to reignite sectarian violence ahead of parliamentary elections scheduled for next year.

3. Negotiations intended to resolve the standoff over the Iranian nuclear program appear to have stalled. The talks, which were reopened early last week, were intended to develop an agreement which reduced Iran’s stockpile of low enriched uranium (LEU), building upon an agreement reached earlier this month under which Iran agreed, in principle, to send some of its estimated 1,200 kg of LEU to Russia and France, which would convert the fuel into medical isotopes before sending it back to Iran. But after Iran failed to meet a Friday deadline, the United States warned that it would be willing to wait for a few more days, but cautioned that its patience was limited. Iran’s current stockpile, if enriched, could provide enough uranium for a single nuclear weapon.

4. Figthing between Somali insurgents and African Union (AU) peacekeepers broke out in Mogadishu on Thursday, killing at least 30 people. According to witnesses, militants attacked using mortars as Somali President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed was leaving the country for a meeting in Uganda. AU forces responded with artillery fire. More than 19,000 civilians have been killed, and an estimated 1.5 million people have been displaced from their homes since 2007 as a result of ongoing fighting in Somalia, which has made the country a center for international piracy and terrorism.

5. The government of Brazil on Tuesday imposed a two percent tax on some capital inflows into the country. The decision, which as intended to slow the increase in the value of the real, Brazil’s currency, which had already increased more than 36 percent against the U.S. dollar this year. The new tax targets portfolio investment and financial speculation, not productive investment in the country. Nevertheless, the announcement was not well received by the market, and stocks fell sharply after the government made its announcement. But analysts offered a more positive pronouncement. In an editorial comment, the Financial Times described the new tax as “wise,” “sensible,” and “honest.”

Five Stories You Might Have Missed

President Barack Obama has been busy on the diplomatic front this week. On Thursday, Obama announced his administration would cancel President George Bush’s proposed deployment of a missile defense system to Eastern Europe.  The missile defense system would have involved deployment of radar systems to Poland and the Czech Republic, a move which the Russian government insisted undermined its own national security and necessitated the expansion of its missile systems into Eastern Europe. Although the Russian government denied there was a quid-pro-quo agreement for the U.S. move, the Obama administration is hoping that the change in U.S. policy will help improve relations with Russia and lead to greater cooperation in other areas, including addressing the situation in Iran. However, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin responded to the announcement with a demand for greater U.S. concessions, including support for Russian membership in the World Trade Organization, leading some analysts to speculate that the United States had miscalculated if it believed that its policy change in missile defense would result in a dramatic shift in Russian policy.

On Saturday, the White House announced that President Obama would hold a joint meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abba on Tuesday. Obama hopes that the meeting will restart peace talks, which reached an impasse last year. U.S. Special Envoy for the Middle East, George Mitchell, has been engaged in shuttle diplomacy to address the stalled talks for more than a week, but Netanyahu remains under domestic political pressure not to make any concessions on the expansion of Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank, a key obstacle for the Palestinians.

In other news from the past week:

1. Last week’s meeting of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party raised questions about who will succeed Hu Jintao as the country’s leader. Most analysts had believed that Vice President Xi Jinping was Hu’s heir apparent, poised to take control of the party (and the country) after Hu steps down in 2012. When Xi was named to the Politburo in 2009, it was assumed that his elevation would follow the same path as Hu’s. Hu’s political power rests in his control of three offices: Secretary General of the Communist Party, President of China, and Chairman of the Central Military Commission. Xi was expected to be nominated to succeed Hu as Chairman of the Central Military Commission on Friday, but no announcement from the Central Committee was forthcoming. Although some analysts believe that Xi’s appointment may be announced at a later date, others believe that Hu may be trying to retain control of key positions, including head of the military, after his 2012 retirement.

2. Efforts to resolve the political crisis in Afghanistan continued over the weekend, as closed-door meetings between foreign envoys, opposition leaders, and representatives of President Hamid Karzai discussed the future of the country. Although President Karzai was declared the winner of last month’s presidential elections by the Afghan elections commission, most observers believe that the vote was badly flawed, with the European Union suggesting that as many as 1 million of Karzai’s votes (which would represent more than ¼ of all votes cast in the election) should be viewed as suspect. Seeking to address the political standoff, the West is pushing for a power-sharing agreement in Afghanistan that would see Karzai claim the presidency but would considerably weaken the office, transferring significant political authority to appointed technocrats.

3. On Thursday, Islamic insurgents launched a suicide bomb attack against African Union peacekeeping forces in Somalia, in a move retaliating against a U.S. strike that killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nebhan, a suspected al-Qaeda leader. The African Union force, comprised primarily of Ugandan and Burundian soldiers, remains understaffed despite being responsible for addressing the threat posed by Islamic radicals intent on toppling the fragile government.

4. The government of Venezuela has been busy courting foreign assistance in developing its oil production facilities. The Venezulan government last week announced the discovery of a “very large” pocket of natural gas offshore, following a similar announcement by the government of Brazil. The Venezulean government announced that it had signed a $20 billion deal with the Russian government and a $16 billion with the Chinese government to expand oil production in the country by as much as 1.35 million barrels per day.

5. The campaign around the Irish ratification vote on the Treaty of Lisbon, scheduled for October 2, has entered full swing. Charlie McCreevy, Ireland’s European Commissioner, delivered a strongly-worded speech to the business community in Dublin suggesting that “international investors would take flight” from the country if it rejected the Treaty. The Treaty, viewed as vital to the continued growth and expansion of the European Union, was rejected by Irish voters in 2008, sparking a furious round of diplomacy to get the Treaty passed. But many observers are forecasting another no vote by Ireland in October could lead to the defeat of the Treaty in other Euroskeptic countries, including Poland and the Czech Republic.

Five Stories You Might Have Missed

The U.S. political scene this week was dominated by coverage of Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings in the Senate. After the hearings, Sotomayor appears to be headed for an easy confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, a fact conceded by Republican Senator Lindsay Graham on the first day of the hearings.

Also on the domestic political scene, the battle over President Barack Obama’s proposed health care reform heated up this week, with both sides spending increasingly large sums of money on television advertising. So far, Obama has been content to allow Congressional Democrats to lead the reform effort, but that strategy appears to be in danger after several moderate Democrats expressed hesitation over the bill introduced in the House last week.

In news from outside the United States last week:

1. A suicide bomb attack in Jakarta, Indonesia, killed 9 people and injured more than 50 on Friday. Although no group has yet claimed responsibility for the bombing, the police investigation is focusing on Jemaah Islamiyah, a terrorist group with ties to al Qaeda. The group was responsible for a series of attacks between 2002 and 2005, including the 2002 Bali bombings, which killed more than 200 people.

2. The standoff between President Manuel Zelaya and the leaders of the military coup in Honduras remains unresolved. On Friday, Zelaya attempted to return to Honduras, only to be denied entry. He is currently in Nicaragua. Meanwhile, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, a close ally of Zelaya, has become increasingly vocal in his condemnation of the coup, accusing it of being backed by the United States. On Thursday, Chávez said, ““The Honduran army wouldn’t have gone forward without the approval of the state department. I don’t think they told [US president Barack] Obama, but there’s an empire behind Obama.” The de facto government of Honduras has filed a complaint against Venezuela with the United Nations Security Council, claiming that the Chávez government is interfering in its domestic affairs. But the Security Council has so far refused to deal with the complaint.

3. It’s been a month of relatively good economic news out of Zimbabwe. Although efforts at developing a new constitution to deal with the ongoing political standoff between the country’s two leading political parties appear to have stalled, the economy is slowly recovering. Finance Minister Tendai Biti announced on Thursday that the government would have a balanced budget this year, with total spending increasing 39 percent to U.S. $1.39 billion. After peaking at more than 231 million percent last year, inflation has been brought under control and the economy has effectively been dollarized, with foreign currencies used for most transactions. Nevertheless, the government is forecasting a sharp increase in agricultural production and a smaller increase in tourist revenues, which should offset a decline in mining revenue caused by the global economic crisis. Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund issued a statement describing Zimbabwe as experiencing a “nascent economic recovery” facilitated by “a more liberal economic environment, price stability, increased financial intermediation and grater access to foreign credit lines.”

4. The Russian economy is currently experiencing its worst economic decline since the transition from communism in the early 1990s. According to a Financial Times report issued on Wednesday, the Russian economy contracted by 10.1 percent in the first half of 2009, a much sharper decline than the 7.9 percent forecast by the World Bank just one month ago. Russia’s current economic woes have been caused largely by the sharp decline in global oil prices, which have recovered to $60 per barrel after falling as low as $35 per barrel earlier this year. Russia is also experiencing its own financial crisis, as commercial banks there are bogged down with bad loans. The Russian government may be forced to turn to international markets, barrowing to offset the sharp decline in tax revenues caused by the economic downturn. Based on the new figures, its projected deficit for 2010 could reach as much as 7.5 percent of GDP, a figure far above the 5 percent originally projected. Unemployment has increased from 6 to 10 percent and continues to grow. Meanwhile, many Russians are responding to the economic crisis by returning to the soil, growing their own food on small plots just outside the city.

5. Natalia Estemirova, a human rights activist in Chechnya, was murdered on Wednesday. Estemirova was kidnapped as she left her house in Chechneya on Wednesday morning, and was found shot to death in Ingushetia, a neighboring Russian republic. Protestors fathered in Moscow on news of her murder, and the international community has condemned her death. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has promised those responsible for Estemirova’s death would be punished, but the Russian human rights community remain skeptical of his reassurances. Estemirova was the third human rights activist killed this year. She was also a close friend of Anna Politkovskaya, the Russian journalist murdered in Moscow in 2006. No one has yet been punished for any of the deaths. Estemirova’s murder, however, raises concerns that the Caucasus region may be headed toward greater instability.

Five Stories You Might Have Missed

It was a busy week for the Obama administration, as the president made the rounds. On Wednesday, President Obama met with King Abudllah of Saudi Arabia to discuss the “strategic relationship” between the two countries.  On Thursday, the President followed up on a campaign promise, delivering a major foreign policy speech in Cairo, Egypt, where he outlined his vision for Middle East peace. In typical Obama fashion, the speech was balanced and generally well-received. (The video footage of the speech is available on the White House blog). In the speech, he reiterated U.S. support for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine dispute, called on Israel to cease all settlement expansion in the West Bank, and called on Palestinians to renounce the use of violence. Demonstrating a cultural and technical sophistication, the White House ensured the speech was simultaneously available through Facebook and other social networking sites in English, Arabic, Urdu, and Turkish. On Friday, the President visited the Buchenwald Concentration Camp. And on Saturday, Obama participated in the 65th anniversary celebration of the D-Day landings before meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy to discuss Iran’s nuclear program.

A busy week for the president, but here are five stories you might have missed if you were only watching his travels:

1. A new audio tape was released by Osama bin Laden, denouncing Obama’s policies as a mere continuation of the previous administration and warning the United States to prepare for war. According to many analysts, the release of the audio tape signals a growing concern from al Qaeda about Obama’s policies. Al Qaeda fears that Obama may be successful in reaching out to moderate Arab states, weakening support for the brand of radical Islam preached by al Qaeda.

2. Elections for the European Parliament took place last week. Although results are still being tabulated, the low level of voter turnout is expected to benefit smaller fringe parties, particularly those on the far right. In the Netherlands, unofficial results indicate that the Party for Freedom will become the second-largest Dutch party in European Parliament, capturing 4 of the country’s 25 seats. The party campaigned on a platform opposing immigration and Turkish ascension to the E.U. In the United Kingdom, voters are expected to hand the ruling Labour party a stinging defeat, with a real possibility that the party may place third in European elections. Similarly, in Ireland, the ruling centrist Fianna Fáil is expected to place second behind its center-right rival Fine Gael. 

3. The results of Iranian presidential election scheduled for Friday could hinge on…wait for it…the results of Saturday’s World Cup qualifier between Iran and North Korea. In order to qualify for next year’s World Cup finals in South Africa, Iran must win its three remaining matches: the first against North Korea on Saturday, then against the United Arab Emirates on Wednesday, and finally against South Korea on June 17. A loss either of the pre-election matches could produce a sharp backlash against President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, particularly among the 60 percent of Iran’s citizens under 30—a group already inclined to support his rival, Mir-Hossein Moussavi.

4. In a dramatic sign of just how bad the global economic downturn has become, the government of Botswana was forced to turn to the African Development Bank last week for a record $1.5 billion loan. Botswana has long been heralded as one of Africa’s strongest and best-managed economies. Its president, Ian Khama, has a reputation as a reformer and statesman. But even he has been humbled by the problems faced by the economy of Botswana, which depends on diamonds for 80 percent of its foreign exchange earnings and about 30 percent of its gross domestic product. And as the price of diamonds has collapsed, the country has found itself increasingly facing economic difficulties.

5. On Friday, clashes between police and indigenous Amazonian protestors in Peru claimed more than 30 lives. Peru’s President, Alan Garcia, urged calm, but both sides appear to be escalating a standoff which has been ongoing for two months. At issue are indigenous land right claims, which they feel the government has abrogated in order to attract more foreign investment.

Gates’ New Pentagon Budget

The Obama administration’s Pentagon budget proposal gives some indication about the thinking of the new administration on the role and status of U.S. forces abroad. Most telling is the decision to phase out production of the F22 Raptor and other high profile, high-tech weapons systems. According to Gates, these systems are not suited for the new missions of the U.S. military, which have tended to focus on counter-insurgency operations and nation building. Blogging at Small Wars Journal, Lt. Col. Paul Yingling argues that, “Unlike previous eras of great power politics, the United States now has more to fear from weak states than strong ones.” (His entire talk is brief and makes a compelling case.)

The single-largest obstacle to reforming the military to enable it to address contemporary challenges comes, according to Yingling, not primarily from the military but from the bureaucracy. The F22 Raptor, for example, costs about $360 million per copy. Parts for the aircraft are produced in 44 states, making it a Congressional boondoggle. Members of Congress who have production facilities in their home states are unlikely to oppose the project, no matter how ill-suited the plane may be to current operational needs. As a result, the military gets what Congress wants it to have.

The details of Obama’s plans have not been made public yet, and the quadrennial forces review is not scheduled to be undertaken until next year. Nevertheless it seems clear that we must avoid the temptation to fight the last war. The Cold War is over, and massive state-on-state conflict seems increasingly unlikely. Future threats are far more likely to come from non-state actors, like al Qaeda, or (increasingly) from threats like global climate change or state collapse. And no matter how technologically advanced an F22 is, it’s unlikely to help address those challenges.