- All
- Economics
- Environment
- Security
- Law & Institutions
- Politics & Society
- U.S. Policy
- Defense Policy
- Domestic Politics
- Foreign Policy
- Obama Administration
- GW Bush Administration
- Clinton Administration
- GHW Bush Administration
- Reagan Administration
- Carter Administration
- Ford Administration
- Nixon Administration
- Johnson Administration
- Kennedy Administration
- Eisenhower Administration
- Truman Administration
- FD Roosevelt Administration
- Pre-1932 Administration
- Grand Strategy
- Legal Issues
- Foreign Aid
- Public Diplomacy
- Govt. Institutions
- Homeland Security
- Intelligence
- Economics
- Environment
- Security
- Law & Institutions
- Politics & Society
- U.S. Policy
- previous-disabled
- Page 1of 22
- next
Somalia's government has recently made gains against the militant group al Shabaab. But those will prove fleeting if it does not find a way to address the organization's grievances and bring moderates into the fold.
If confirmed, Mehsud's death could cause the Pakistani Taliban to break apart. Several actors, including the Pakistani government, the Afghan Taliban, and al Qaeda, appear ready to step in and mediate between factions. In every scenario, fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan would become more difficult.
Iran is holding terrorist leaders as an act of defense -- so long as it has them, al Qaeda will likely refrain from attacking Iran. But the strategy also has a defensive component -- if the United States or Israel bombed the country, it could employ al Qaeda in responding.
In accepting the Nobel Prize in 1949, William Faulkner asked, "There is only the question: When will I be blown up?" A device capable of annihilating humankind fundamentally altered the way states calculated their relationships to the rest of the world.
At first glance, that the Pakistan-based Haqqani network is missing from a U.S. list of terrorist organizations is puzzling. But the criminal syndicate differs in form, function, and focus from most groups that make the terrorist list. Moreover, listing the organization might not achieve serve U.S. interests.
The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan is driven largely by domestic politics. That is a privilege of a country that is both rich and safe. But the United States has security interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan that, despite its best attempts, it will not be able to ignore.
In Afghanistan, the United States faces a choice: either establish a permanent administrative and security presence, or stand back and risk the country becoming a haven for organized criminals and terrorists. Staying forever won’t work, so Washington must accept the risks of withdrawal.
Judged by any yardstick, Afghanistan has made little progress since 2001. The United States and its allies have bred an overly centralized and ineffective government in Kabul that is hooked on foreign aid and struggles against a resurgent Taliban. Without serious reforms, the next ten years could be worse.
In Afghanistan, even minimally accountable democracy may soon be beyond reach. If so, some form of constrained warlord rule will be the most that's achievable.
Obama's self-imposed deadline to close Guantánamo within a year of taking office is long past, and it now appears that the prison camp will continue to house detainees indefinitely. Why Guantánamo remains open is a story of cynical congressional politics and bureaucratic inefficiency.
- previous-disabled
- Page 1of 22
- next
