American Strategy Program: Publications, Events and More

NY Event: Lessons from Iraq

Communications — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:30:00 -0400

A New America Event
06/17/2008 - 6:30pm

Is there an upside to the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history? Maybe. The current war in Iraq should definitively, permanently settle a handful of critical questions about American conduct in the world. Lessons from Iraq: Avoiding the Next War provides a list of those questions and even ventures some answers in the form of key lessons from Iraq.

Join us for a lively discussion of these lessons with noted contributors. The panel will be followed by a wine and cheese reception and copies of the book will be available for sale.

This event is co-sponsored by the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at NYU, The Nation Institute, and The Century Foundation.

Lessons From Iraq

Ron Tang — Fri, 30 May 2008 01:45:00 -0400

If what is shaping up to be the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history has an upside, it is that the current war in Iraq should definitively, permanently settle a handful of critical questions about American conduct in the world. This book provides a list of those questions and even ventures some answers in the form of key lessons from Iraq.

The idea of assembling lessons as tools for avoiding the next war is less of a stretch than it seems, given the group of writers represented here. They include a Nobel Prize-winning economist; the former chief UN weapons inspector;… more

Daniel Levy in USA Today | "Is Israel Better Off After Bush Presidency?"

Communications — Fri, 16 May 2008 11:49:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Full article

. . . Bush's Mideast policy, the 2003 invasion of Iraq and his willingness to stand tough against unfriendly Arab regimes and Islamists have left Israel in a strategically weaker position today than it was eight years ago, says Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator who is now a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank on global and domestic issues. . . .

"At a mass level, people can go doe-eyed when President Bush repeats these nice, warm, embracing platitudes, but in serious assessments of where Israel is at today versus when Bush took office, I think people are a lot more sober and very concerned about the trajectory of where the region is," Levy says. "People are concerned that America is both so much less respected and feared today." . . .

Bin Laden And Palestine

Ron Tang — Fri, 16 May 2008 11:04:00 -0400

Less than a day after Republican presidential candidate John McCain promised that if he won the presidency Osama bin Laden would be captured or killed by 2013, a message from al Qaeda’s leader appeared on jihadist websites reminding the world that he is alive and well.

Bin Laden’s audiotape message commented on the recent 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel; promised that he would fight for the liberation of Palestine, and told his Muslim listeners that they have a duty to help in that effort.

Was the audiotape an attempt by bin Laden to remain relevant by pushing… more

Jeffrey Lewis in New York Times | "Western Experts Monitor China’s Nuclear Sites for Signs of Earthquake Damage"

Communications — Fri, 16 May 2008 08:47:00 -0400

New America in the News:
Full article

. . . Jeffrey G. Lewis, an arms control specialist at the New America Foundation, a nonprofit research group in Washington, said the military buildings that make up Plant 821 were probably unusually strong compared with civilian structures.

“I’d rather have been in the reactor building than a grade school” on Monday when the quake struck, he said. The site’s various plants “were built as military facilities, and so I wouldn’t be surprised if, by and large, they came through pretty well,” he added. . .

Daniel Levy in TIME Magazine | "Hamas Hysteria"

Communications — Thu, 15 May 2008 09:13:00 -0400

New America in the News:
Full article

. . . "If you're not talking to everyone, you're going to be Chalabied every time," says Daniel Levy, an Israeli who has negotiated extensively with Palestinians, referring to Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi who helped mislead the U.S. into war with Iraq. . .

Grover Norquist on the Next Republicanism

Communications — Thu, 15 May 2008 07:15:00 -0400

A New America Event
05/15/2008 - 12:15pm

On May 15th, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform discussed his new book, Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government's Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives, and entertained questions from an audience at the New America Foundation. An MP3 audio recording can be downloaded below, while video is available at right.

Norquist began by analyzing the political landscape of American politics, dividing it into two inimically opposed coalitions. The “Takings Coalition”, comprised of groups with a shared interest in feeding upon the earnings and wealth of others, and the “Leave Us Alone Coalition”, composed of those with a common interest in keeping the government out of their lives. While the components of each coalition contain diverse viewpoints on many issues, all are motivated to cooperate and vote by shared interest in one area: the degree to which a government should interact with the social and financial autonomy of its citizens.

The contrast between these two coalitions represents the ideological divide that will shape American domestic policy for the next several generations, according to Norquist. Their balance of power will decide the direction that American policy moves toward for the next generation. Norquist went on to identify the trends that would alter this balance in the future, including differing fertility rates, the decline of hunting, and the expansion of stock ownership. He also discussed important legislative priorities for the “Leave Us Alone Coalition”, such as portable health savings plans and individually mandated savings accounts.

-Ian McAllister, American Strategy intern

Reports from Lebanon and Video Coverage of the New America Foundation's "Briefing on Beirut"

Communications — Wed, 14 May 2008 11:55:00 -0400

On Tuesday, May 13, the New America Foundation hosted an event featuring two journalists reporting from Beirut on the unfolding security and political crisis in Lebanon. Rami Khouri, editor-at-large of the Daily Star, discussed the large scale political and social trends have led to the current crisis. Nir Rosen, a fellow at the New America Foundation, reported live from the streets of Beirut on the tactical gains made by Hezbollah as well as its broader strategy. They were joined by a panel discussion featuring Daniel Levy, former Israeli negotiator and advisor to the Israeli prime minister's office, and current director… more

Flynt Leverett and Nir Rosen in IPS News | "Lebanon Crisis Shows Hues of Iraq"

Communications — Wed, 14 May 2008 10:55:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Full article

. . . "This is more and more becoming a Sunni-Shi'a conflict. It really does feel like Iraq," said journalist Nir Rosen in a conference call with analysts and reporters at the New American Foundation.

"Sunni militias, backed by the Future Movement, formed over the last year, and have been a complete failure, perhaps because they were fighting for money. They just disappeared and caused a great sense of betrayal and shock among Sunnis," said Rosen, adding that the perceived victimisation of Sunnis had instigated more radical circles in Tripoli to fight against the "apostate Shi'a", that they appeared "eager to start this battle", according to Rosen. . .

Rosen, who is currently in Beirut and accompanied Shi'a Amal fighters as they battled on the streets, described Hezbollah fighters acting "hand in hand" with the army on the commercial strip of Hamra Street in West Beirut. Most of the targets captured by Hezbollah and their allies were subsequently turned over to the army. "They are not trying to change the demographic balance in Beirut, it is to make a show of force to let rival militias know [Hezbollah] could have a real political coup," said Rosen. "Hezbollah's main concern is to keep weapons; it doesn't have much interest in running things in Lebanon." . . .

"Lebanon, in the post Hariri period, is not in any really meaningful sense a democracy. It is a political order rooted in the distribution of political assets along sectarian lines, and the patterns of distribution are way out of whack with demographic reality, particularly with regard to the Shi'a," said Flynt Leverett, once a senior specialist on the Middle East for the Bush administration's National Security Council.

Leverett described the Lebanese political arena as a "sideshow" when compared to the Bush administration's real strategic interests in the region. Washington champions hollow talk about "democracy" as a bulwark against radical influences, he said, but in reality the policy -- what he called the "height of strategic malpractice" -- only serves as an excuse for the U.S. not to diplomatically engage with the countries it must: Iran and Syria.

"[It was a mistake] to latch on to this so-called March 14th coalition -- Cedar Revolution -- in Lebanon and to decide to use it as a fulcrum for trying to leverage various U.S. policy objectives," said Leverett. "What we have done here is basically what we did in the 1980s. We picked a group of Western-oriented Lebanese political actors whom we liked because they kind of looked like us and talked like us," he said. "We decided to array them against people who have real street cred; the results then were disastrous, and I think the results now are proving to be very bad." . . .

Briefing on Beirut

Communications — Tue, 13 May 2008 06:30:00 -0400

A New America Event
05/13/2008 - 9:30am

On May 13th the American Strategy Program brought together five leading experts on Middle East and Foreign Policy to discuss the current crisis in Lebanon: a political standoff between the prominent militia Hezbollah and Lebanon’s government. Those participating in the discussion were Rami Khouri, the Editor-at-large of the Daily Star, Hisham Melhem, the DC Bureau Chief of Al Arabiyah, Nir Rosen, a fellow at NYU’s Center on Law and Security and New America, Daniel Levy, the Director of New America’s Middle East Policy Initiative, and Flynt Leverett, the Director of New America’s Geopolitics of Energy Initiative. Steven Clemons, the Director of the American Strategy Program moderated the event. An MP3 audio recording can be downloaded below, while video is available at right.

Rami Khouri joined the discussion via telephone from Lebanon. He stated that Lebanon was on the brink of change and the Lebanese people had one choice to make: whether they would move towards Baghdad, a violent civil war based on ethnic and religious divisions or Belfast, an inclusive, fair, and functioning government. Mr. Khouri was optimistic that the Lebanese would be able to work out the internal strife and form a pluralistic society that will integrate the Western and Arab ideals that are prominent in Lebanon. He stated that Lebanon was the best hope for Middle East pluralism and could serve as an example for the rest of the region once they move past the current crisis.

Hisham Melhem was less optimistic about Lebanon’s immediate future. He stated that Hezbollah’s armed offense signaled “the beginning of the end of Lebanese politics.” The rise of the militia’s strength and influence represent transformation and the loss of Lebanese liberalism and western orientation. He remained pragmatically hopeful that an accommodation would be reached, yet expressed concern that Hezbollah would become more extreme rather than moderate.

Nir Rosen also participated via telephone from Lebanon. “Nobody really knows what’s going on here,” Mr. Rosen said on the disarray in Beirut. He drew several comparisons to Iraq: the armed occupation of Beirut, by Hezbollah fighters, and the Sunni-Shi’a conflict. Mr. Rosen also believed that the Lebanese army was complicit, either by looking the other way or supporting Hezbollah during their siege.

Flynt Leverett stated that there have been major mistakes in U.S. policy towards Lebanon. By fully supporting the government led by PM Siniora, the U.S. overlooked unfair representation and power-sharing in Lebanon. Mr. Leverett opined that the U.S.’ role in Lebanon has been erosive to its standing in the Middle East.

Daniel Levy offered a few theories as to why the conflict erupted so quickly. It is possible the government miscalculated Hezbollah’s reaction or they were setting a trap for Hezbollah. Mr. Levy said it may have been by virtue of necessity; Lebanon was in a political and ideological stalemate for a long time and needed outside support or intervention.

-Faith Smith, American Strategy Intern

Foreign Policy Follies

Communications — Tue, 13 May 2008 04:15:00 -0400

A New America Event
05/13/2008 - 12:15pm

While one political party offers a bold, coherent, and failed vision for foreign policy, the other has proffered an inchoate and incoherent response that falls far short of a strategy. Matthew Yglesias -- a known "ringleader-of-sorts for the D.C. blogging community" -- suggests looking past both parties to offer a set of tried-and-true approaches for renewed internationalism and U.S. engagement with the world.

Nir Rosen in IPS News | "Bush Tour Diminished by Hezbollah Show of Force"

Communications — Mon, 12 May 2008 11:03:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Full article

. . . "These Sunni militiamen proved a complete failure, and America's proxies in Lebanon barely put up a fight despite their strident anti-Shiite rhetoric," noted Nir Rosen, a regional expert at the New America Foundation who described Hezbollah's offensive as "the death throes of the Bush plan for the 'New Middle East'."

"Now it is clear that Beirut is firmly in the hands of Hezbollah, and nothing the Americans can do will dislodge or weaken this popular movement, just as they cannot weaken the Sadrists in Iraq or Hamas in Gaza," he said. . .

Israel At 60

Ron Tang — Fri, 09 May 2008 08:53:00 -0400

I don't often, or ever really, write about my own relationship to Israel or how I ended up there, but I'll make an exception for its 60th anniversary.

My relationship with Israel started at the time of the ‘good' Iraq war. You remember, the Iraq war whose ambitions were limited to ensuring continued access to Kuwaiti oil -- not the contemporary trifecta effort to own the oil, change the regime, and transform the region.

In January of 1991 I was working in London as the political officer of the Union of Jewish Students, arguing Israel's case on campus (and attempting to do… more

Risks & Rewards of a Multilateral Counterterrorism Strategy

Communications — Fri, 09 May 2008 08:15:00 -0400

A New America Event
05/09/2008 - 12:15pm

In "Building Global Alliances in the Fight Against Terrorism," a new report commissioned by the Better World Campaign, Alistair Millar and Eric Rosand contend that while targeting and capturing terrorists remain at the forefront of the nation's counterterrorism strategy, the United States will need to adopt a much more internationalist approach -- relying on multilateral cooperation for information sharing, enhancing counterterrorism capacities of states big and small, engagement of non-traditional allies, and international legitimacy. But in a changing international landscape, what trade-offs will the next administration face?

This event is co-sponsored by the Better World Campaign, the advocacy arm of the United Nations Foundation.

How Many Nuclear Weapons Do We Need?

Communications — Wed, 07 May 2008 08:30:00 -0400

A New America Event
05/07/2008 - 2:30pm

On May 7th the New America Foundation’s Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative joined AAAS’s Center for Science, Technology, and Security Policy for a discussion on the present and future role of nuclear weapons in U.S. and World security. The event featured Dr. Arnold Kanter, Principle and Founding Member of the Scowcroft Group, Dr. Morton Halperin, Director of U.S. Advocacy for the Open Society Institute, and Dr. Barry Blechman, co-founder of the Harry L. Stimson Center. Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, Director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative, moderated the event. An MP3 audio recording can be downloaded below, while video is available at right.

After a brief introduction, Dr. Kanter began by discussing the need for a new nuclear strategy in the U.S. Drs. Kanter, Lewis, and Halperin are part of a team drafting presidential guidance for the future of U.S. nuclear posture. The paper proposes many revisions in the current policy towards nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation treaties. One suggestion offered is that the U.S. and Russia, as the most heavily armed nuclear powers, should lead the way in disarmament. Dr. Kanter stated that the U.S. should offer security to other parties to prevent them from seeking their own nuclear weapons. He asserted that revising U.S. nuclear strategy would be a three part process beginning with unilateral action by the U.S., hopefully with Russia taking complementary measures. This would be followed by reciprocal responses from other nuclear parties. The final step would be far-reaching and binding measures on nuclear security.

Dr. Blechman responded by stating the need for a radical approach to revising nuclear strategy. He laid out a plan calling for elimination of all nuclear weapons in a twenty year time frame by working unilaterally and within international organizations. Dr. Blechman believes that the current dangers facing the U.S., including nuclear ambitions in Iran and North Korea, require a radical approach rather than the incremental steps proposed by Dr. Kanter.

Dr. Halperin debated Dr. Blechman by claiming that the effort to eliminate nuclear weapons is often misplaced. He also stated that full elimination is an unrealistic goal. The debate should be reframed to answer the question: What kind of nuclear program should the U.S. have in a nuclear world? Dr. Halperin also stated that there are unilateral steps the U.S. can take to discourage proliferation abroad, such as reducing the military stockpile and vowing to cease further testing. The event concluded with a lively debate between the participants reflecting the complexity and broad range of opinions on the topic.

-Faith Smith, intern for the American Strategy Program

Beyond the Torture Debate

Communications — Tue, 06 May 2008 08:30:00 -0400

A New America Event
05/06/2008 - 3:30pm

On May 6th the American Strategy Program hosted an event with Philippe Sands, Professor of International Law at University College London and Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Colon Powell. Mr. Sands was in DC to testify to the House Judiciary Committee about the findings in his new book, Torture Team, which examines the legal implications of the Bush administration’s policy of torture. Col. Wilkerson was on hand for commentary on the subject. The event was moderated by Patrick Doherty, deputy director of the American Strategy program.

Mr. Doherty began the event by declaring the legalization of torture, “a dark and dismal period in American history.” After a brief introduction, Mr. Sands paraphrased his book, which is the story of a single memo, signed by Donald Rumsfeld, authorizing the use of coercive interrogation techniques on Guantanamo detainees. Mr. Sands offered his expertise in international and human rights law to this topic. He stated that “a conscious decision was made to put aside the Geneva Convention” by Rumsfeld and the administration’s legal team, which violated international law. Mr. Sands shared the sense of deep concern abroad that American leadership violated international law and attempted to cover up this violation with legal documents. Mr. Sands then expressed his optimism that America was capable of self-correcting, would find out the truth and require accountability at the highest levels. His recent experience at the House Judiciary Committee confirmed that America was concerned with justice and returning to its core values.

Col. Wilkerson agreed with Mr. Sands claim that a crime was committed, there was a cover up, and that there will be accountability. He opined that there was a need to demilitarize U.S. foreign presence abroad by balancing military personnel with diplomatic. Col Wilkerson also expressed concern about the international view of America at present; “The rest of the world judges us not by what we say, but what we do, and what we’ve been doing has not been good.”

-Faith Smith, American Strategy Intern

The Perils Of Unconditional Engagement

Ron Tang — Fri, 02 May 2008 09:38:00 -0400

The issue of whether or not to engage Hamas boils down to the following question: would such engagement help moderate the organization, or would it simply improve Hamas’ chances of dominating the Palestinian political scene and encourage extremism throughout the Middle East? For now, any engagement that goes beyond achieving de-escalation in Gaza would serve to bolster Hamas at the expense of those working toward a two-state solution.

Those who argue that engagement would bring about a significant change in Hamas’ policies proceed from a faulty assumption regarding the way the organization thinks. Hamas does not reject the two-state solution and… more

Here Comes the Second World

Ron Tang — Thu, 01 May 2008 09:42:00 -0400

This article is adapted from Parag Khanna's book The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order.

The term "second world" has fallen out of use. It used to mean countries of the socialist world; today I use the phrase to refer to those countries in eastern Europe and central Asia, Latin America, the middle east and southeast Asia which are both rich and poor, developed and underdeveloped, postmodern and pre-modern, cosmopolitan and tribal -- all at the same time. This is not a temporary state between third world and first, but a permanent condition in which… more

Wilson and the Founders: The Roots of Liberal Foreign Policy

Ron Tang — Thu, 01 May 2008 06:39:00 -0400

This article is adapted from Widmer’s January 2008 presentation at “The Liberal Foreign Policy Tradition,” a conference cosponsored by CIS, the Woodrow Wilson Center, and the History and Democracy Project.

We can't do much better than reclaiming the Declaration of Independence as a fundamental foreign policy document in American history. We have a tendency to read it in a simplistic way, and to think of it only as a sort of airy declaration of what were then human rights, and a declaration of separation from England. But, in fact, the founders had a fairly well-articulated sense of what they… more

The U.S. Senate: Stalling Hemispheric Arms Control

Ron Tang — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:31:00 -0400

In 1997, President Bill Clinton, standing beside Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo in the Organization of American States’ flag-bedecked Hall of the Americas, declared: “Gun trafficking is an issue of national security for our governments, and a matter of neighborhood security for all of us in the Americas.” The presidents had joined together to sign an OAS treaty known as the Firearms Convention, or by its Spanish initials as CIFTA, designed to end the illicit manufacture and trafficking of guns, ammunition, explosives, and related materials. It requires that ratifying nations create laws (if they do not already exist) that establish procedures… more