U.S. Must Adopt Political Strategy In Afghanistan, Says AEI Expert

By Meagan Wiseley - University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service

In a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Thursday, Dr. Frederick W. Kagan, a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, called on the Obama administration to develop a political strategy in Afghanistan as an accompaniment to General Stanley McChrystals request for additional troops and a counterinsurgency campaign.

“We need to know what the administration’s political strategy in this crisis is going to be. Of course it’s not in General McChrystals plan, because it’s not his remit to develop a political strategy,” Kagan said.

“In order to conduct an effective counterinsurgency campaign you have to address the problems of the illegitimacy of the government that fuel insurgency...if the government was seen as legitimate you wouldn’t have an insurgency,” explained Kagan.

Gen. McChrystal’s assessment on the war in Afghanistan called for a “surge” of approximately 40,000 troops, and said protecting the Afghan populations is its highest priority. His assessment also included the key element of partnering with the National Afghan Security Forces (NASF). The assessment concluded that a partnership with the NASF would therefore hold the Afghan government more accountable.

J Alexander Thier, Director for Afghanistan and Pakistan at the United States Institute of Peace said, “I believe apart from the troops, we need to focus much more intensively on this effort to create government accountability and capacity particularly at the sub-national level.”

“Gen. McChrystal has done his homework...what we need to see is the homework for the rest of the effort, which is a political strategy to go along with this,” Kagan added.

Lebanon At Crossroads Following Parliamentary Election

By Michael Combier-Talk Radio News Service

The results of the Lebanon Parliamentary election on June 7th represent a step forward for the country, but sectarian division still exists and may de-stabilize the nation in the future said Middle East experts who gathered at a forum today at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington D.C.

“The fact that the election went smoothly gives us hope...It could potentially put Lebanon on a positive trajectory toward greater reform and reconciliation,” said Mona Yacoubian, a special advisor to the Institute’s Muslim World Initiative.

The opposition, including the Maronite leader Michel Aoun and Hezbollah, did not pick up any seats in Parliament. Middle East Institute Scholar Graeme Bannerman attributed this to the fact that the country’s Sunni population voted mainly in support of Lebanon’s pro-Western bloc, known as the ‘“March 14th Coalition." Bannerman added that “General Aoun’s people lost support within the Christian community.”

Despite the results, Hezbollah still remains a strong influence in the country, and the next government will have to find a way to work with the anti-Western organization said most of the panel’s participants.

“The Hezbollah is positioning itself for a kind of a deal” that will involve a political status quo on the organization’s militarization said Randa Slim, a scholar at the USIP.

Because of the Hezbollah’s control in local districts of Lebanon, the government, led by the ‘March 14 Coalition,' “will be less likely to call in the immediate term for Hezbollah’s disarmament,” added Slim.

Lebanon’s Interior Minister will soon release the county-by-county election results.

Netanyahu’s Unexpected Concession To Obama

By Celia Canon- Talk Radio News Service

In a sharp break from his previous foreign policy, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made key concessions to U.S President Obama in today’s meeting

Still, Netanyahu did not shift his stance on the two state solution which would allow the Palestinians to have their own legitimate territory and the Israelis could keep most of theirs.

Such was the conclusion of former United State Institute of Peace President and CEO and former U.S Ambassador to Israel Samuel Lewis and former Israeli Ambassador to Jordan and the European Union Oden Eran following the analysis of President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s meeting today.

The meeting gained mixed reviews after the analysis of the success of the meeting was observed.

Oren Eran said on Netanyahu that “politically speaking, he passed this particular hurdle but from the press conference at least you an judge that this is not the end of the story.”

Samuel Lewis on his part said “I can’t help saying that we won’t know really know how important this meeting was for some time.”

The meeting was the first between the two nations since President Obama’s election and was significant as it signaled a continuation in the relationship between the U.S and Israel despite the change in the American administration.

Lewis observed that “The number one purpose for Obama and for Netanyahu was the issue of trust, and whether they achieved at the beginning at least a trusting relationship between the two of them that has proved historically to be crucial in this relationship between Presidents and Prime ministers.”

Lewis added that “it hasn't yet been achieved if it’s going to be achieved.”

In addition, Lewis said, “I understood that emissaries were trying to work out a written agreed statement. Well it didn't come out as far as I know, which means they didn't agree, and that I think reinforces my opinion that there were a lot of disagreement in practice.”

However, both Eran and Lewis agreed that Netanyahu made a surprise concession as Eran said, “Obama said that from his point of view, the ability to make peace between the Israelis and the palestinians only strengthen the capability of the international community to wrestle with the Iranian threat.”

Israel’s airstrike on Syria still creating political puzzlement

The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) held a discussion on “Israel’s Airstrike on Syria’s Nuclear Reactor: Preventive War and the Nonproliferation Regime.” In September of 2007, Israel attacked what was rumored to be a partially constructed nuclear facility in Syria, and this facility has remained a subject of speculation in the months following the attack. Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, explained that there was very little information pertaining to this Syrian site immediately after the raid. Now, seven months after the fact, Kimball said U.S. intelligence believes that the site was a small nuclear facility under construction for Syrian military purposes.

David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said that Israel’s airstrike on Syria is a very strange and almost bizarre issue. Albright said that there was no doubt in his mind that a plutonium producing nuclear reactor was being constructed in Syria. He explained that there had been too much debate on whether a reactor was present and not enough discussion on whether Israel should have attacked the site in the first place. Albright also said that The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not been paying enough attention to illicit nuclear trading; evidence had been obtained showing that Syria had used a North Korean trading company in order to get ahold of the nuclear materials needed for the facility.

Avner Cohen, a senior fellow at USIP, agreed with Albright and said the situation was “quite bizarre” and caused a lot of political puzzlement. Cohen explained that this attack was similar to Israel’s attack on Iraq in 1981, but also very different. In 1981, Cohen said that Israel attacked the Iraqi-an site on their own and acknowledged, defended, and justified their actions after the fact. The 2007 attack on Syria, however, was accomplished with communication with North Korea, and was not acknowledged. Cohen explained that not only did Israel not acknowledge the attack, but Syria also said nothing and made no complaints other than an air space violation. According to Cohen, this response of a “very loud silence” is the main difference between the two Israeli-an attacks.

Leonard Spector, the deputy director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, talked about the attacks correlation with Iran. He said that the deliberate silence following the incident does not serve as a “green light” for taking action in Iran. Spector also talked about the Six Party talks and explained that though these talks are making progress, they are still “a far way from home.” Spector said that construction of the nuclear site in Syria was under way during the Six Party talks and nuclear exports with North Korea were taking place during these talks.