Week in DC: Events

June 8, 2015

Asan Seminar: “The ROK-US Alliance: Facing Missile and Nuclear Threats on the Korean Peninsula”
Date: June 8, 3:00 pm
Location: The Asan Institute for Policy Studies, 1211 Connecticut Ave NW, 8th Floor, Washington DC

Panelists include Choi Kang, Vice President for Research at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies; Thomas Karako, Senior Fellow, International Security Program
Director, Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; and Woo Jung-Yeop, Research Fellow and Director, Washington, D.C. Office of the Asan Institute for Policy Studies.

Register here.

Nigeria in Transition: Prospects and Challenges for the New Government
Date: June 8, 3:00 pm
Location: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington DC

Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari was sworn into office on May 29, 2015, following his pivotal victory in the country’s March 2015 elections. Buhari’s electoral success represented a defining moment in Nigerian political history since, for the first time, an opposition party candidate transitioned to power through peaceful, democratic elections. In advance of his inauguration, Buhari established a set of commitments for his first 100 days in office, which include: boosting economic growth and employment, tackling rampant government fraud, and strengthening the country’s security institutions to contend with Boko Haram and other destabilizing threats. However, as Buhari and his government come into power, several factors—such as a growing fiscal crisis, opaque governance systems, and persistent, dynamic security risks—have the potential to undermine his ability to deliver on these promises.

On June 8, the Africa Growth Initiative at Brookings will host a discussion on the opportunities and challenges facing Nigeria’s recently inaugurated President Buhari and his newly elected government. A panel of Nigeria experts will provide an assessment of the historic nature of Nigeria’s latest political transition, as well as the implications of this shift in power for the country’s development, governance, and security priorities. Amadou Sy will have a conversation with Grant Harris and then take questions from the audience. Witney Schneidman will then moderate a panel discussion, after which he will open the discussion to the floor.

Register here.

Public Forum with Dr. Saleem Al-Jubouri, Speaker of Iraq’s Parliament
Date: June 8, 3:15 pm
Location: United States Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Ave NW, Washington DC

The address by Dr. al-Jubouri, elected last year to lead Iraq’s Council of Representatives, follows USIP events with Iraq’s Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi in April and Kurdistan Regional Government President Masoud Barzani in May. After making public remarks, Dr. al-Jubouri will respond to questions in a discussion moderated by USIP’s acting executive vice president, Amb. William Taylor.

Dr. al-Jubouri will be visiting Washington to meet with U.S. officials and members of Congress at a critical time for Iraq and its international partners fighting the extremist forces of ISIS (also known as the Islamic State). ISIS’ capture of the city of Ramadi and its sabotage of the country’s largest oil refinery, at Baiji, underscore the threat the group poses to the Iraqi people and state. Amid the war, the Council of Representatives is considering legislation on topics—such as the National Guard and the federal court system—that are critical to addressing governance and security problems that gave rise to ISIS.

Dr. al-Jubouri has been a member of the 328-seat Council of Representatives since 2005. He was awarded his PhD with distinction in law and was a law professor at Nahrain University in Baghdad.

RSVP here.

June 9, 2015

Conflict Prevention and Resolution Forum: Crisis in Yemen—What Can be Done?
Date: June 9, 9:30 am
Location: Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, 1740 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington DC

Yemen is in the midst of a complex emergency, with over 1840 civilians killed and over 500,000 people forced to flee their homes. What should the international community’s strategy be for engagement in Yemen? How do we end this current crisis and pave the way for sustainable peace? What can be done?

Register here.

Prime Minister Modi’s First Year: What Was Accomplished and What Lies Ahead?
Date: June 9, 11:30 am
Location: Heritage Foundation, Lehrman Auditorium, 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington DC

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi completed one year in office on May 26. With the economy picking up steam and having logged 19 foreign trips, the Prime Minister has laid the foundation for New Delhi to play a more influential role in global and regional affairs. Join us to hear a distinguished panel of experts evaluate Prime Minister Modi’s first year in office and discuss future trends in India’s domestic and foreign policy.

RSVP here.

Transparency, Governance, and Foreign Policy: Meeting the Challenges in the Americas
Date: June 9, 1:30 pm
Location: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 6th Floor, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington DC

Throughout much of Latin America, the “golden years” of economic growth during the last decade’s commodity boom have given way to economic decline or stagnation. At the same time, a mobilized citizenry is demanding better government performance. These two factors have focused unprecedented attention on rule of law deficits and official corruption. Meanwhile, relations among countries of the hemisphere have grown more complex. As much as the region has welcomed the normalization of U.S.-Cuban relations, the options for international insertion now extend far beyond the Western Hemisphere.

RSVP here.

June 10, 2015

Subcommittee Hearing: Iran’s Enduring Ballistic Missile Threat
Date: June 10, 10:00 am
Location: U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC

The Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa will discuss Iran’s Enduring Ballistic Missile Threat. Witnesses include, Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn, USA, Retired, Former Director, Defense Intelligence Agency; The Honorable Robert Joseph, Ph.D., Senior Scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy, Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security; David A. Cooper, Ph.D., James V. Forrestal Professor and Chair of the Department of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College; and Anthony H. Cordesman, Ph.D., Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Watch live here.

The Shoulder-Fired Missile Threat in the Middle East
Date: June 10, 10:00 am
Location: The Stimson Center, 1211 Connecticut Ave NW, 8th Floor, Washington DC

Despite a decade-long international campaign to reduce the threat from man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), terrorists and insurgents continue to acquire and use these highly effective, lightweight missiles. Among the most severely affected regions are the Middle East and North Africa, where armed groups have acquired MANPADS from looted government depots and international trafficking networks. Most notably, these weapons include recent-generation Russian and Chinese systems not previously seen outside of government control. The use of improvised batteries developed by armed groups also gives new life to older missiles. The panelists will provide an overview of illicit proliferation of MANPADS in these regions, the threat that these missiles pose to military and civilian aircraft, and prospects for mitigating this threat.

This event serves as the official release for the new report Missing Missiles: The Proliferation of Man-portable Air Defence Systems in North Africa.

RSVP here.

Defense-Industrial Policy Series: Modernizing the Army’s Acquisition Process
Date: June 10, 10:30 am
Location: Atlantic Council, 1030 15th Street NW, 12th Floor, West Tower, Washington DC

Register here.

Nigeria’s 2015 Elections: What Have We Learned?
Date: June 10, 3:00 pm
Location: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington DC

Nigeria’s recent national elections are widely considered the best in the country’s history. Despite predictions of mass rigging and violence, the process was largely peaceful and credible and resulted in the first ever democratic transition of power from one party to another. Please join us for a conversation with Professor Attahiru Jega, chairman of Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission, as he shares his perspective on what went right to ensure the integrity and credibility of the polls in a hard-fought and contentious electoral contest. Professor Jega will offer his assessment of the electoral process and share thoughts on lessons learned-both for Nigeria and other African countries entering similarly contentious, high-stakes elections.

Register here.

June 11, 2015

Building Self-Reliance and Prosperity in Afghanistan
Date: June 11, 9:30 am
Location: Atlantic Council, 1030 15th Street NW, 12th Floor, West Tower, Washington DC

Register here.

Russia and the Two Koreas: Old Friends, New Partners?
Date: June 11, 12:00 pm
Location: Korea Economic Institute, 1800 K Street NW, Suite 1010, Washington DC

RSVP here.

Youth and Civil Society: The Missing Powers in Yemen
Date: June 11, 12:00 pm
Location: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 6th Floor, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington DC

Youth activist and advocacy trainer, Yemen, and Leaders for Democracy Fellow, Maxwell School of Syracuse University Mohammad Al-Shami will discuss the different stakeholders and positions in Yemen and review what is happening on the ground. He will also draw attention to the struggles and consequences that Yemenis face if the conflict continues without an immediate solution. In addition, Al-Shami will highlight the importance of empowering youth movements and civil society in Yemen in order to mobilize the community to promote peace.

RSVP here.

The Future of Drones
Date: June 11, 6:30 pm
Location: Project for the Study of the 21st Century (PS21), Thomson Reuters Conference Room, 1333 H Street NW, Washington DC

Of all the new developments in warfare in the 21st Century, few have been less contentious than drones. PS21 brings together a uniquely qualified panel to discuss the shifting use of drones in warfare and civilian industry. Have they been a force for good or bad so far this century? And how might they be used next?

RSVP here.

Pandora Report 6.7.15

We’ve got stories this week about MERS spread in South Korea and Ebola drugs that may already be in your medicine cabinet. We’ve also got some stories you may have missed.

As a reminder, the Early Registration Deadline for the Pandemics, Bioterrorism, and International Security professional education course has been extended to June 15. For more information and registration, please click here.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend!

South Korea Grapples to Contain MERS as 1,369 in Quarantine

The big story this week is MERS in South Korea. Last week we reported that there were five cases. As of Friday, the number has jumped to 36 confirmed cases and three deaths. Hundreds of schools have closed in an effort to prevent further spreading of the disease, which arrived in a 68-year old index patient who had traveled in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. Many in public health have been surprised by the extent of the outbreak in South Korea because the virus has not been shown to pass easily from human to human and the health care system is “considered to be sophisticated and modern.”

CNN—“‘This is quite unusual. I think this is the only country, apart from those in the Middle East, that has such a number of cases,” said [Dr. Leo] Poon [a virology expert at the School of Public Health at the University of Hong Kong, who worked on the SARS outbreak more than a decade ago]. “It’s not entirely surprising. In the Middle East, people in Saudi Arabia had hospital outbreaks where a few people got infected. It’s a similar situation at the moment.’”

Drugs to Fight Ebola May Already Be in Your Medicine Cabinet, Study Suggests

A team from USAMRIID, the University of Virginia, and Horizon Discovery Inc. have been working to determine if any existing drugs could be used to fight Ebola. Using 2,635 compounds, including FDA-approved drugs, amino acids, food additives, vitamins and minerals they discovered a possible answer could already be in your medicine cabinet—Zoloft and Vascor.

The LA Times—“But Zoloft (also known by the generic name sertraline) and Vascor (generic name bepridil) had more encouraging results. Of the 10 mice that got Zoloft, seven survived for 28 days. Even better, all 10 of the mice treated with Vascor were still alive 28 days after [Ebola] infection. For the sake of comparison, all of the untreated mice that served as controls were dead within nine days.”

Stories You May Have Missed

 

Image Credit: Shikhlinski

Week in DC: Events

June 1, 2015

“Putin. War:” The Making of the Nemtsov Report
Date: June 1, 5:30 pm
Location: Human Rights Campaign, Equality Forum, 1640 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington DC

On February 27, 2015, the Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was assassinated in view of the Moscow Kremlin. Two days prior, he had approached his friend Ilya Yashin to ask for his assistance on a sensitive investigation: tracking Russia’s secret military involvement in Ukraine. After the murder of the former deputy prime minister, Yashin led a group of opposition activists and journalists to piece together Nemtsov’s findings and publish the report in Russia and abroad.

How was the information compiled? What pressures did Yashin and his colleagues face when trying to bring the report to publication? And how do they hope the report will change the tide of Russian politics, and Putin’s actions in Ukraine?

Please join CGI and the Free Russia Foundation for an inside look at the creation of “Putin. War” with Ilya Yashin. Following a May 28 English-language release at the Atlantic Council, this discussion will allow the audience to engage in an intimate discussion with the report’s leading organizer through an open Q&A format.

This discussion is on the record and open to the public. A wine reception will follow. RSVP here.

June 2, 2015

Combatting Extremism’s Contagion: Creating a Counter Strategy and Stemming the Tide of Foreign Fighters
Date: June 2, 8:30 am
Location: United States Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Ave NW, Washington DC

The U.S Institute of Peace and the FP Group, publisher of Foreign Policy magazine and foreignpolicy.com, invite you to the next installment of PeaceGame on Tuesday, June 2, 2015. The fourth biannual PeaceGame will tackle one of the and most challenging of issues confronted by the U.S. government and stakeholders worldwide: the global rise of radical groups and violent extremism.

This event is now at capacity, but will be live streamed. Journalists requesting credentials should contact Allison Sturma.

Lasers, Railguns, and Unmanned Systems: Navy Secretary Ray Mabus on the Future of the Navy and Marine Corps
Date: June 2, 9:00 am
Location: American Enterprise Institute, 12th Floor, 1150 17th Street NW, Washington DC

The US Navy and Marine Corps serve as the forward edge of American power, influence, and aid by reassuring allies and deterring would-be adversaries. Through the dedication of their sailors and marines, the Navy and Marines have met increased global demand for their services — from disaster relief in the Philippines to presence missions in East Asia to the deterrence of Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf — but not without cost, including longer deployments and deferred fleet maintenance.

How does the Department of the Navy plan to maintain forward presence and meet requirements as demands rise and resources remain constant? How will new technologies such as unmanned aviation, undersea systems, and directed-energy weapons change the way the Navy and Marines deploy and fight?

Please join us at AEI as Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus discusses the future of the US Navy and Marines.

RSVP here.

Rethinking Cuba: New Opportunities for Development
Date: June 2, 9:00 am
Location: Brookings Institution, Saul/ Zilkha Rooms, 1775 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington DC

On December 17, 2014, President Barack Obama and President Raúl Castro announced that the United States and Cuba would seek to reestablish diplomatic relations. Since then, the two countries have engaged in bilateral negotiations in Havana and Washington, the United States has made several unilateral policy changes to facilitate greater trade and travel between the two countries, and bipartisan legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Congress to lift the travel ban. Meanwhile, conversations are ongoing about ending the 50-plus-year embargo and Cuba has continued the process of updating its economic system, including establishing new rules for foreign investment and the emerging private sector.

In light of the significant shifts underway in the U.S.-Cuba relationship, new questions arise about Cuba’s development model, and its economic relations with the region and the world. On Tuesday, June 2, the Latin America Initiative at Brookings will host a series of panel discussions with various experts including economists, lawyers, academics, and practitioners to examine opportunities and challenges facing Cuba in this new context. Panels will examine macroeconomic changes underway in Cuba, how to finance Cuba’s growth, the emerging private sector, and themes related to much-needed foreign investment. Throughout the program, the panelists will take questions from the audience.

Register here.

Iran’s Missile Program
Date: June 2, 10:15 am
Location: Hudson Institute, 1015 15th Street NW, 6th Floor, Washington DC

The Islamic Republic of Iran has the largest and most diverse missile arsenal in the Middle East. Missiles—whether conventional or potentially armed with chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads—enable Iran to pose an asymmetric threat to countries with much more sophisticated militaries. Despite U.N. resolutions forbidding the development and testing of nuclear delivery systems, Iran has continued its missile program unabated. The most recent unclassified government report suggests that Iran, with foreign assistance, could soon flight-test an ICBM capable of reaching the United States.

On June 2nd, Hudson Institute will host a conversation with Representative Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Dr. David Cooper, Michael Eisenstadt, and Dr. Thomas Karako on the extent of Iran’s missile program and its relationship to Iran’s nuclear program. Hudson Adjunct Fellow Rebeccah Heinrichs will moderate the event.

Register here.

June 3, 2015

Korea Going Forward
Date: June 3, 9:00 am
Location: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington DC

Please join us for an international public conference, co-hosted by CSIS and the Korea Foundation, with senior opinion makers, policy makers, and officials to frame the agenda for U.S.-ROK relations going forward in advance of the visit by President Park Geun-hye to the United States.

The distinguished panels will look at the broadening scope of U.S.-ROK cooperation around the globe as well as the challenges on the peninsula and in the region with an unprecedented gathering of experts.

This conference is by RSVP only and all remarks are on-the-record.

Weighing Concerns and Assurances about a Nuclear Deal with Iran
Date: June 3, 12:00 pm
Location: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 6th Floor Conference Room, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington DC

The Iran Project’s new report, Weighing Concerns and Assurances about a Nuclear Deal with Iran, is designed to encourage a balanced bipartisan discussion on emerging arguments for and against a P5+1 deal with Iran on its nuclear program.

Light refreshments will be served at 11:30am. Register here.

What Do Moscow’s Proposed Security Arrangements Mean for Central Asia and the Caucasus?
Date: June 3, 5:00 pm
Location: Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Rome Auditorium, 1619 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington DC

Moscow is aggressively demanding that the West accept a new security architecture that would take account the new “realities on the ground” created by Russia’s de-facto occupation of two Georgian regions, annexation of Crimea, and attempt to create new separatist statelet in Eastern Ukraine.  Our speakers will examine these demands against the death of the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty and the dysfunctionality of OSCE and other elements of the security umbrella that were supposed to maintain peace in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe.  Speakers will also consider the West’s possible responses.

Register here.

June 4, 2015

A Conversation with Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Ambassador Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry
Date: June 4, 9:30 am
Location: Atlantic Council, 1030 15th Street NW, 12th Floor, West Tower, Washington DC

Since Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif assumed office, Pakistan has embarked on a proactive campaign to reach out to its neighbors as part of a larger vision for a peaceful neighborhood. Today, increased high-level exchanges with its neighbors reflect this important policy shift designed to secure Pakistan internally and externally. Building on this momentum, Pakistan is pursuing a number of regional economic connectivity projects, such as the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline, the China-Pakistan economic corridor, and the Central Asia and South Asia electricity project. Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Ambassador Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry will discuss how Pakistan is positioning itself in its quest for regional peace, security, and enduring development.

Register here.

June 5, 2015

Recent Developments in the US-India Relationship
Date: June 5, 11:00 am
Location: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2nd Floor Conference Center, 1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington DC

Ambassador Richard Verma, who took charge as U.S. envoy to India in January, will provide a status update on the U.S.-India relationship and focus his remarks on the progress made in key areas over the past year as well as the challenges that remain. This event will be on the record.

Register here.

Pandora Report 5.30.15

It was a slow-ish news week, this week with very few small stories but two huge ones about Chemical Weapons threats against airplanes and an inadvertent shipment of live Anthrax spores. We’ve also got a few stories you may have missed.

As a reminder, the Early Registration Deadline for the Pandemics, Bioterrorism, and International Security professional education course has been extended to June 15. For more information and registration, please click here.

Have a great weekend!!

U.S. Military Says It Mistakenly Shipped Live Anthrax Samples

It was a big story this week when live anthrax spores were inadvertently shipped from Dugway Proving Ground—an army facility in Utah—to 19 military and civilian labs across as many as nine states and an overseas site. The shipments were supposed to contain dead spores. Army and CDC officials have emphasized that these shipments pose no risk to the public and there are no suspected or confirmed cases of anthrax infections among lab workers.

NBC New York—“The Defense Department, acting “out of an abundance of caution,” has halted “the shipment of this material from its labs pending completion of the investigation,” [Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve] Warren said.”

FBI Looking Into Chemical Weapons Threats Against Planes

While many of us had a day off from work on Memorial Day, the FBI was investigating threats made against at least 10 flights claiming that chemical weapons were aboard the planes. These included a Delta Airings flight from London Heathrow, a United Airlines flight from Edinburgh, Scotland, and an Air France flight into New York that was escorted to the ground safely by two F-15 fighter jets.

NBC News—“The threats are not deemed credible, but the information has been passed along to the airlines anyway, out of an abundance of caution.

The male caller made threats against at least 10 flights in a quick series of calls to local police around the country. All but three planes have landed with nothing of concern found.”

Stories You May Have Missed

 

Image Credit: United States Government

New from the Biodefense Faculty

On this #FacultyFriday, we’ve got a recent publication from Dr. Trevor Thrall and Pandora Report staff writer Erik Goepner on the fall of Ramadi. They say,

Though a city of moderate strategic value considering its proximity to Fallujah and Baghdad, Ramadi does not spell victory for ISIS anymore than Iraq’s retaking of Tikrit from the insurgents spelled defeat for ISIS (despite suggestions to the contrary from the Obama administration). The battle for Iraq will depend on the ability of the Iraqi government to mobilize enough effective fighting power to stop the ISIS expansion. Unfortunately for Iraq, despite over a decade of U.S. investment in training and equipment, Iraq’s military appears incapable of mustering consistent fighting effectiveness to deal a decisive blow to ISIS on the battlefield.

Their entire piece is available on The National Review, here.

AMERICA’S WAR ON TERROR: DEMOCRACY IS NO PANACEA

America’s goal to democratize Afghanistan started haphazardly, no doubt buffeted by the chaos of the days immediately following 9/11. However, what began as a relative afterthought soon became the perceived cure-all for Islamic extremism—bring democracy to the Middle East and watch the underlying causes of terrorism erode away. As the Bush administration began developing that policy, a fair amount of scholarly research and intelligence (now declassified) was available to assist policymakers.

This is Part 2 of 4 of Erik Goepner‘s paper. Read Part 1 here

The pre-9/11 scholarly research

The pre-9/11 scholarly research could have helped answer two key questions:

  1. Would democracy be likely to succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq?
  2. Would a shift from autocracy to democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq help reduce the number of terrorists and terror attacks?

The research suggested that establishing a functioning democracy would be quite challenging in either country. Regarding democracy in Muslim states, ample research cautioned that many democracy enablers—cultural and institutional—could not be found within Islamic tradition.[1] Several notable scholars agreed obstacles existed, but they assessed them as surmountable.[2] Looking at democracy more broadly, the eminent democracy scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, highlighted cultural factors as determinants of success, cautioning that culture is “extraordinarily difficult to manipulate.”[3] Seven years prior to 9/11, Lipset wrote that successful democracies in Muslim-majority countries were “doubtful.” He argued that an enduring democracy necessitated a connection between efficacy and legitimacy that could be observed by the population. Progress in either the political or economic arenas, he said, would build perceived legitimacy and help cement democracy.[4] With respect to Afghanistan in particular, Robert Barro observed that democracy was unlikely to take hold because of low education levels, the marginalization of women, and the patchwork of different ethnicities.[5] Fareed Zakaria stressed the potential problems associated with ethnic fractionalization and democracy, noting the chance of war could actually increase if democracy were introduced in a country that did not yet have a liberal culture or institutions.[6] Similarly, Amitai Etzioni, a former advisor to President Carter, noted the difficulties of a society jumping from “the Stone Age to even a relatively modern one.” He pointed to the failed experiences of the World Bank and U.S. foreign-aid programs, ultimately concluding that democratic failure would result in Afghanistan.[7] These observations highlight the tension between the legitimate aspirations of President Bush and his national security team and the numerous obstacles that the pre-9/11 research had already identified.

States in transition from autocracy to democracy have more political violence within their borders than do either strongly democratic or autocratic states. In terms of stable, entrenched democracies, the research is divided on whether democracy reduces terrorism more effectively than other forms of government or not. On the one hand, scholars like Rudy Rummel and Ted Gurr contend that democracies provide a system within which grievances can be non-violently addressed, whereas autocracies are much more prone to political violence because they deny their citizens alternate forms of political communication.[8] On the opposite side, researchers like Havard Hegre suggest that democracies are home to increased amounts of political expression, both non-violent and violent.[9] Empirical studies suggest developed and stable democracies do have lower levels of political violence, but so do harshly authoritarian states. Higher levels of political violence, however, tend to occur in intermediate regimes, such as infant democracies.[10]

Based on the pre-war intelligence

The Bush administration planned the Iraq War for more than a year, and authorities have declassified much of the pre-war intelligence. As a result, ample intelligence is now available to the public. Conversely, for the war in Afghanistan, essentially no intelligence regarding governance issues is available since the war came quickly after the 9/11 attacks and the military had no plans for Afghanistan until after September 11th (beyond tactical plans to attack bin Laden).[11] Much of the available intelligence regarding Afghanistan comes from the 9/11 Commission Report, but it does not include useful information for analyzing the decision to democratize. Therefore, only an analysis of the pre-war Iraq intelligence is provided.

The policy choice to promote democracy appears to have discounted significant portions of the pre-war intelligence. In August 2002, a CIA report noted that Iraqi culture has been “inhospitable to democracy.” The report went on to say that absent comprehensive and enduring US and Western support, the likelihood of achieving even “partial democratic successes” was “poor.”[12]

In late 2002, the CIA provided a slightly more optimistic assessment which said most Shia would conclude that a “secular and democratic Iraq served their interests.”[13] At the same time, though, a DIA report asserted that Shia preferences could not be accurately assessed because of the fear and repression they lived under.[14] Several months later, the CIA released another assessment indicating the potential for democratic stability would be “limited” over the next two years, but a US-led coalition “could” prepare the way for democracy in five to 10 years.[15]

Additionally, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) published two Intelligence Community Assessments in January 2003, which the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence described as the “best available ‘baseline’” of prewar assessments on postwar Iraq.[16] The reports described democratic concepts as “alien to most Arab Middle Eastern political cultures.”[17] The NIC also noted “Iraqi political culture does not foster liberalism or democracy.” As a result, they assessed the potential for the democratization of Iraq as a “long, difficult, and probably turbulent process.”[18] In a particularly prescient set of comments, the NIC assessed that “political transformation is the task…least susceptible to outside intervention and management.”[19]

Considerable scholarly research and intelligence were available to policymakers before the decision was made to aggressively pursue democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the broader region. The numerous cautions contained in the intelligence and research, however, were either missed or ignored.

Next week, part 3 will examine the research published since 9/11 in light of the decision to pursue broad democratization. Erik Goepner’s full paper is available here.


[1] Alfred C. Stepan, “Religion, Democracy, and the ‘Twin Tolerations,’” Journal of Democracy 11, no. 4 (2000): 47.
[2] Niloofar Afari et al., “Psychological Trauma and Functional Somatic Syndromes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Psychosomatic Medicine 76, no. 1 (January 2014): 2–11; John Esposito and John Voll, Islam and Democracy (Oxford University Press, 1996).
[3] Seymour Martin Lipset, “The Centrality of Political Culture,” Journal of Democracy 1, no. 4 (1990): 82–3.
[4] Seymour Martin Lipset, “The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited: 1993 Presidential Address,” American Sociological Review 59, no. 1 (February 1, 1994): 6, 17.
[5] Robert Barro, “Don’t Bank on Democracy in Afghanistan,” Business Week, January 21, 2002, 18.
[6] Fareed Zakaria, “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy,” Foreign Affairs, December 1997, 35.
[7] Amitai Etzioni, “USA Can’t Impose Democracy on Afghans,” USA Today, October 10, 2001.
[8] W. Eubank and L. Weinberg, “Terrorism and Democracy: Perpetrators and Victims,” Terrorism and Political Violence 13, no. 1 (March 1, 2001): 156.
[9] Eubank and Weinberg, “Terrorism and Democracy.”
[10] Håvard Hegre, Tanja Ellingsen, Scott Gates and Nils Petter Gleditsch, “Toward a Democratic Civil Peace? Democracy, Political Change, and Civil War, 1816-1992,” American Political Science Review, no. 01 (March 2001): 42; Daniel Byman, The Five Front War: The Better Way to Fight Global Jihad (Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, 2008), 158–9.
[11] The 9/11 Commission Report, 135–7, 208, 332.
[12] United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report on Prewar Intelligence Assessments About Postwar Iraq (Washington, D.C., May 25, 2007), 103.
[13] U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report on Prewar Intelligence, 100.
[14] U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report on Prewar Intelligence, 93–4.
[15] U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report on Prewar Intelligence, 97.
[16] U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report on Prewar Intelligence, 4.
[17] National Intelligence Council, Regional Consequences of Regime Change in Iraq, January 2003, 30.
[18] National Intelligence Council, Principal Challenges in Post-Saddam Iraq, January 2003, 5.
[19] National Intelligence Council, Principal Challenges in Post-Saddam Iraq, 9.


Image Credit: Library of Congress

Week in DC: Events

May 26, 2015

Europe and the Iran Nuclear Deal
Date: May 26, 10:00 am
Location: Atlantic Council, 1030 15th Street NW, 12th Floor, West Tower, Washington DC

The Atlantic Council’s Iran Task Force invites you to a discussion with the Ambassadors of Britain, France and Germany about the role of the “E-3” in negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran, and the implications of a comprehensive long-term deal for European relations with Iran.

Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) appear to be on track to reach a comprehensive nuclear agreement by a June 30 deadline. If negotiations succeed, they will reflect the role of three European countries – Britain, France and Germany – which began engaging Iran about its nuclear program more than a decade ago. The E-3 ambassadors in Washington will discuss the history of the talks, the role their countries played, and the outlook beyond June 30.

The Iran Task Force, chaired by Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat, seeks to perform a comprehensive analysis of Iran’s internal political landscape, its role in the region and globally, and any basis for an improved relationship with the West. It is supported generously by the Ploughshares Fund.

Register here.

Next Generation Dialogue on Industry and Defense: Rethinking Research and Development for the Department of Defense
Date: May 26, 10:00 am
Location: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2nd Floor Conference Center, 1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington DC

The Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group at CSIS is leading a series – the Next Generation Dialogue on Industry and Defense – to reinvigorate the dialogue between the DoD and industry on significant shifts underway in the defense sector.

This event will focus on the major challenges and opportunities that confront the research and development enterprise serving DoD.

Register here.

The Consequences of the Emerging American-Iranian Nuclear Deal
Date: May 26, 12:00 pm
Location: Hudson Institute, 1015 15th Street NW, 6th Floor, Washington DC

Since the Obama administration’s announcement of a nuclear framework with Iran, America’s allies in the Middle East have voiced concerns that the deal offers far-reaching economic concessions to Tehran while doing little to reduce that regime’s basic nuclear infrastructure and capabilities. Israel and Saudi Arabia, in particular, question the wisdom of providing billions of dollars in near-term sanctions relief to an expansionist neighbor that already exerts effective control over four Arab capitals. And third-party governments throughout the region are obviously nervous about a plan whose best-case scenario involves the removal of all nuclear sanctions against Iran within 15 years — at most. What will be the consequences should such a plan take effect?

Will Middle Eastern powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey feel impelled to initiate nuclear weapons programs of their own? With the borders of this turbulent region already in flux, how might the accord reconfigure the strategic map and domestic political dynamics of the Middle East? Will a further-empowered Iran improve — or restrict — America’s effectiveness as an honest regional broker and security guarantor in the future?

On Tuesday, May 26th, Hudson Institute and the Rabin Chair Forum of George Washington University will host a lunchtime discussion about these and related questions surrounding the U.S.-Iranian “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” (JCPOA) — which the White House is expected to sign in late June — with Senior Fellow Lee Smith and Efraim Inbar, director of Bar-Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

Register here.

Pakistan: The Citizens’ Fight for a Voice
Date: May 26, 12:00 pm
Location: Atlantic Council, 1030 15th Street NW, 12th Floor, West Tower, Washington DC

From school children to rights activists, individuals from all walks of life have become targets of violence in Pakistan. With the attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar to most recently the murder of leading human rights activist Sabeen Mahmud, Director of The Second Floor (T2F) in Karachi, those trying to give a voice to the voiceless are being silenced. Despite facing Taliban threats and potential arrest, Mohammad Jibran Nasir is leading a citizen’s movement against terrorism. He believes growing religious strife in Pakistan is part of a global phenomenon, and can be countered through a persistent and shared effort. Nasir will discuss the roles and responsibilities of government, non-state actors, and citizens in countering religious intolerance, sectarian violence, and terrorism, and how finding solutions in Pakistan could lead the way for a global citizen’s movement against the violent extremist narrative for the twenty-first century.

Register here.

May 28, 2015

What a Conservative Victory Means for Economic Policy in the United Kingdom
Date: May 28, 11:00 am
Location: Heritage Foundation, Lehrman Auditorium, 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington DC

The recent Conservative Party victory in the United Kingdom’s General Election could have major implications for economic policy across the Atlantic. No longer in coalition, how will the Tories change their legislative economic program? Which policy priorities will expand and which will be scrapped? What does the future hold for UK-EU relations? Has austerity helped or hurt Britain’s economic recovery? Is London’s financial industry waxing or waning?

Join us as we discuss the implications of a new government for Europe’s second-largest economy.

Register here.

Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin’s War in Ukraine and Boris Nemtsov’s Putin. War.
Date: May 28, 2:00 pm
Location: Atlantic Council, 1030 15th Street NW, 12th Floor, West Tower, Washington DC

Russia is at war with Ukraine. The war’s toll—more than 6,000 dead, tens of thousands wounded, and nearly 1.3 million displaced persons—is the direct result of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s efforts to establish control over Ukraine. Putin continues to deny Russia’s military involvement, though the evidence that the Kremlin is directing the war is overwhelming.

Please join the Atlantic Council and the Free Russia Foundation for the release of two independently produced reports: Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin’s War in Ukraine and the English language release of Boris Nemtsov’s, Putin. War., onThursday, May 28, 2015, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. at the Atlantic Council (1030 15th St. NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC, 20005).

The Atlantic Council report, Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin’s War in Ukraine, provides irrefutable evidence exposing the breadth and depth of Russian military involvement in Ukraine’s east. Drawing upon publicly available information, the report documents the movement of Russian troops from training camps into Ukraine. It also demonstrates that many artillery strikes on Ukraine originate in Russia and examines the wide array of Russian military equipment in the hands of so-called separatist forces.

Boris Nemtsov, the Russian opposition leader murdered in view of the Kremlin in Moscow on February 27, 2015, reached the same conclusion: Putin’s war is being fought in Ukraine at the cost of Russian lives. Published posthumously in Russian, Nemtsov’s report, Putin. War., will be released for the first time in English by the Free Russia Foundation.

Citizen journalism has been vital in documenting Putin’s illegal actions in Ukraine. The Atlantic Council encourages anyone that may have found their own evidence hiding in plain sight to post it on Twitter under #PutinAtWar.

A panel discussion will follow the report presentations.

Register here.

May 29, 2015

Saudi Arabia’s Leadership Changes: Implications for Stability and Energy Markets
Date: May 29, 10:00 am
Location: Atlantic Council, 1030 15th Street NW, 12th Floor, West Tower, Washington DC

Last month, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman reshuffled his cabinet and appointed a new line of succession in a major reorganization of the top echelons of power in the kingdom. Following the announcement, reports indicated that the state-owned oil giant, Saudi Aramco, would be restructured to operate independently from the Saudi oil industry. Coupled with low oil prices, geopolitical instability in the region, and distrust over Iran’s nuclear program and regional ambitions, the kingdom’s new geopolitical reality raises several important questions: What impacts will the recent leadership changes in Saudi Arabia have on the global energy order and regional stability and security? Is the restructuring of Saudi Aramco indicative of future changes within Saudi Arabia’s energy sector? How will the outcomes of the Camp David meeting between President Obama and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) leaders and a potential June P5+1 agreement with Iran influence Saudi actions in the region?

Please join us on Friday, May 29, 2015 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. for a discussion on these critical issues. Panelists include Dr. Anthony H. Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, The Hon. Francis Ricciardone, Vice President and Director of the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, and Dr. Jean-François Seznec, Visiting Associate Professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. David Goldwyn, President of Goldwyn Global Strategies and Chair of the Atlantic Council Energy Advisory Board, will moderate the discussion and The Hon. Richard Morningstar, Founding Director of the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center, will deliver welcome remarks.

Register here.

Pandora Report 5.24.15

Two quick updates before we get into the weekly wrap-up.

First, the Early Registration Deadline for the Pandemics, Bioterrorism, and International Security professional education course at the GMU Arlington Campus has been extended to June 15. For more information and registration, please click here.

Second, we here at Pandora Report wanted to let you know about a new website designed to provide resources for biosecurity professionals and practitioners and key stakeholders. The International Biosecurity Prevention Forum (IBPF) brings together the world’s leading experts from the health and security communities to share expertise on key biosecurity and bioterrorism prevention issues. Registering to join IBPF is free and easy. Go to http://www.ibpforum.organd click the “Request Membership” button to request an IBPF member account. Members get access to a discussion section and projects, resources, and best practices submitted by other members. Contact the IBPF support team at IBPForum@ic.fbi.gov if you have any questions or problems.

Now, onto the news. This weekend we have stories about British nuclear submarines, anti-vaccine legislation in California, the development of bird flu vaccines, and other stories you may have missed.

Enjoy your Memorial Day weekend!!

Britain Investigates Sailor’s Disaster Warning Over Nuclear Subs

Able Seaman William McNeilly—a weapons engineer who served aboard HMS Vanguard, one of the four British submarines carrying Trident missiles—wrote a “lengthy dossier” released on the internet which says that the “Trident nuclear defense system was vulnerable both to enemies and to potentially devastating accidents because of safety failures.” McNeilly has since gone AWOL and both police and naval officials are trying to locate him.

The Japan Times—“The Royal Navy said it totally disagreed with McNeilly’s “subjective and unsubstantiated personal views,” describing him as a “very junior sailor.” But it added it was investigating both his claims and the “unauthorized release” of his dossier. “The naval service operates its submarine fleet under the most stringent safety regime and submarines do not go to sea unless they are completely safe to do so,” a spokeswoman said.”

A Blow to Anti-Vaxxers: California Approves Forced Vaccination Bill

By now, we all know that the measles outbreak that started last winter at Disneyland was a result of unvaccinated individuals. In California, the State Senate has passed a bill which limits parent’s use of the “personal belief exemption” in order to get out of getting their children vaccinated. Under the bill, parents who don’t get their children vaccinated would not be able to send their kids to state-licensed schools, nurseries, or day care centers.

State Column—“Only children who have a medical reason for why they can’t be vaccinated would still be allowed to attend schools without receiving their vaccinations under Senate Bill 277, which was sponsored by a California Sen. Dr. Richard Pan (D-Sacremento), a pediatrician, and Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), a former school board member and the son of a survivor of polio, according to a Forbes report.”

Vaccines Developed for H5N1, H7N9 Avian Flu

Findings appearing in the Journal of Virology indicate that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Center of Excellence for Emerging and Zoonotic Animal Diseases have developed a vaccine for both H5N1 and H7N9—two strains of avian influenza which can be transmitted from poultry to humans. The vaccine was developed by cloning the Newcastle disease virus and transplanting a small section of the H5N1 virus into it; the same method was used for the H7N9 vaccine.

Toronto Sun—“‘We believe this Newcastle disease virus concept works very well for poultry because you kill two birds with one stone, metaphorically speaking,” Richt said. “You use only one vector to vaccinate and protect against a selected virus strain of avian influenza.’”

Stories You May Have Missed

  

Image Credit: UK Ministry of Defence

NDAA Update: The House Says Keep the A-10

By Greg Mercer

There are many fights and quirks intertwined with the National Defense Authorization Act.  One of them is the A-10 Thunderbolt II (sometimes called the “Warthog”) close support aircraft.  A lot has been made of this particular aircraft, given the Air Force’s desire to phase it out of combat and eventually replace it.  Congress, however, appears to have different plans.

An amendment to the NDAA introduced by Martha McSally (R-AZ-2) in the House Armed Services Committee prohibits the Air Force from using appropriated funds to retire, store, or replace any A-10 aircraft—effectively mandating that the Air Force maintain at least its current stock of 171 A-10s.  Planes, of course, need pilots (well, most of them do), so the amendment also requires that the Air Force not “make significant reductions to manning levels with respect to any A-10 aircraft squadrons or divisions.”  This means that not only does the Air Force have to keep the planes, it has to keep flying them too.  The Air Force has warned that maintaining the A-10 will mean cuts to other programs.

This isn’t an indefinite measure, though.  The amendment calls for an outside study commissioned by the Department of Defense to explore options for retiring and replacing the aircraft.  The Air Force can continue to explore retirement of the A-10—a clearly articulated goal—but it must do so on Congress’s terms.

What, then, motivates Congress?  While mandating the continued operation of the A-10, seemingly against the wishes of the Air Force, might paint Congress as a backwards facing, wasteful organization in contrast to the Air Force’s progressive, cost-saving efforts, this definitely isn’t a fair take on the relationship.  After all, the Air Force also recently asked for 1000 more Air-Launched Cruise Missiles at a cost of $9 billion.  So, it’s not as if the Air Force is desperate to save money at every turn.

Two possible Congressional motivations stand out: First, the A-10 is currently operated by 16 Air Force, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve Command squadrons throughout the United States—those are plenty of constituent jobs.  Second, members of Congress were likely impressed by the A-10’s record in Iraq and Afghanistan, where its close support role was used to support troops in combat.  While this might not represent a statistical study of its effectiveness, the A-10 has an obvious reputation of saving lives.  Thus, Congress likely views A-10 retirement as something that isn’t yet broken, and doesn’t need fixing.  The Air Force disagrees.

It’s a frustrating situation, but it also calls out the need for checks and balances in military priority setting.  We’ll find out more about the fate of the A-10 when the House NDAA is voted on and reconciled with the Senate version.

Image Credit: U.S. Air Force

America’s War on Terror: Democracy is No Panacea

Nine days after the attacks of September 11, the President George W. Bush declared America’s war on terror had begun. Over time, the spread of freedom and democracy came to be seen as key objectives of the war. Freedom and democracy, it was thought, would be the solution to Islamic extremism.[1]

This is Part 1 of 4 of Erik Goepner‘s paper. 

Afghanistan

The goal of democratizing Afghanistan came haphazardly. As U.S. policymakers prepared to launch strikes to root out al Qaeda, they did not initially plan to conduct regime change in Afghanistan. Planning efforts left open the possibility that the Taliban might cooperate sufficiently and, therefore, be allowed to remain in power.[2] Soon after the CIA initiated covert operations, however, it became obvious regime change was coming. The first formal expression of regime change appears to have occurred at an October 3 meeting. At that meeting, Secretary of State Colin Powell said he wanted leadership in Kabul available to fill the void left by the removal of the Taliban, leadership that represented all of the Afghan people.[3] The U.S. launched its first airstrikes four days later.

The Taliban had to go, but what a future Afghan government might look like received scant attention early on. Part of the disconnect resulted from the rapid success of military operations. Within the first week of airstrikes, Pakistani and U.N. officials began pressuring the U.S. government to slow the Northern Alliance advance. They wanted an interim government in place before the Northern Alliance took Kabul.[4] Despite those attempts, the Northern Alliance did enter Kabul and establish a quasi-government before a broad-based, internationally recognized interim government could be appointed.

On November 10, President Bush spoke before the U.N. General Assembly, where he articulated his support of U.N.-led efforts to broker a post-Taliban government that would represent all Afghans.[5] A month later, the U.N.-brokered talks concluded in Bonn, Germany. The talks aimed to place the various Afghan groups front and center, with the U.N. and international community taking a supporting role.[6] Afghans would govern themselves, assisted by a light international footprint to help bolster their capacity.[7] The final agreement read, in part, “Acknowledging the right of the people of Afghanistan to freely determine their own political future in accordance with the principles of Islam, democracy, pluralism…”

Hamid Karzai took the oath as interim President of Afghanistan on December 22, 2001.

Iraq

Five years before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Congress and President Clinton enacted a law authorizing 97 million dollars for opposition forces who would remove Saddam from power and promote democracy in Iraq.[8] The Bush Administration, though, needed little encouragement. By this point in the War on Terror, buoyed by perceived success in Afghanistan, the President frequently spoke of America’s responsibility to free the oppressed.

In January 2003, the President Bush met with several Iraqi dissidents. They articulated a favorable picture of what a post-Saddam Iraq might look like. Each spoke optimistically regarding democracy’s future in Iraq, noting the technological skills of the citizenry while discounting what they perceived as overblown commentaries regarding the Sunni-Shia split. When the President asked about the possibility of the U.S. being seen as imposing its will, they had no response.[9]

On March 4, Doug Feith, the Under Secretary of Defense, briefed the President and the NSC on U.S. objectives in Iraq. Moving Iraq towards democracy was high on the list. Iraq, they hypothesized, would soon serve as a model for the region. U.S.-led coalition airstrikes began March 20, 2003.

Eight months after the invasion of Iraq, President Bush presented a “new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East.”[10] The President’s lofty ambitions for the Middle East could be interpreted as politically motivated perhaps, but the consistency of his message and his passion on the subject suggest he truly did perceive a responsibility to liberate the oppressed. Whether feasible or not, whether politically motivated or not, President Bush appeared to believe that bringing freedom to other nations was the right, and necessary, thing to do.

In June 2004, the United States transferred power to an interim Iraqi government and elections were held in January 2005.[11]

After the Elections

After the first elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush intensified his calls for democracy in the Middle East. Promoting democracy became a cornerstone of his War on Terror strategy. [12] Mentions of freedom, liberty, and democracy can be found throughout his speeches during that time. His 2006 National Security Strategy celebrated the “extraordinary progress in the expansion of freedom, democracy, and human dignity” that had occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The January 2006 elections that brought Hamas to power, however, may have had a tamping effect on the Bush Administration’s push for broader democratization in the region. The Hamas victory, along with electoral inroads by the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah, brought a chorus of criticism against the President.[13]

Efforts to democratize Afghanistan started haphazardly, but what began as a relative afterthought in Afghanistan soon became the perceived cure-all for Islamic extremism.

Next week, part 2 will examine the decision to democratize in light of the intelligence and scholarly research available in the run up to both wars. Erik Goepner’s full paper is available here.


[1] Council on Global Terrorism, State of the Struggle: Report on the Battle against Global Terrorism, ed. Lee Hamilton and Justine A. Rosenthal (Washington, D.C: Council on Global Terrorism : Brooking Institution Press [distributor], 2006), 83.
[2] Bob Woodward, Bush at War (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003), 130.
[3] Woodward, Bush at War, 191–2.
[4] Peter Baker, Molly Moore and Kamram Khan, and Washington Post Foreign Service, “Rebels Delay Move Against Kabul; Devising Plan for New Government in Afghanistan Becomes Priority,” The Washington Post, October 11, 2001, sec. A.
[5] George Bush (United Nations General Assembly, New York, November 10, 2001), http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011110-3.html.
[6] Simon Chesterman, “Walking Softly in Afghanistan: The Future of UN State-Building,” Survival 44, no. 3 (September 2002): 39.
[7] Chesterman, “Walking Softly in Afghanistan,” 38.
[8] Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack: The Definitive Account of the Decision to Invade Iraq (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 10.
[9] Woodward, Plan of Attack, 258–60.
[10] Mark N. Katz, Leaving without Losing: The War on Terror after Iraq and Afghanistan (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012), 23–4.
[11] Dominic Johnson and Dominic Tierney, Failing to Win: Perceptions of Victory and Defeat in International Politics (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2006), 245.
[12] Raphael Perl, Combating Terrorism: The Challenge of Measuring Effectiveness, November 23, 2005, 4.
[13] Steven R. Weisman, “Bush Defends His Goal of Spreading Democracy to the Mideast,” The New York Times, January 27, 2006, sec. Washington, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/ 27/politics/27diplo.html.

 

Image Credit: U.S. Army