Andrew Sullivan on Charles Krauthammer:

Seriously: it was Krauthammer's buddy Daniel Pipes who wanted Ahmadinejad in power, like many other neocons. They wanted him in power so they could get a pretext for bombing the country. Mousavi would have been a far better interlocutor - and might, with Obama, have changed the dynamics of the region. The idea that Obama was not encouraged by an outpouring of support for reform - which he specifically called for in Cairo - is partisan nonsense.

Reading this, you might mistakenly believe that Sullivan and Krauthammer are policy rivals on the Iran issue. In truth, they are in the same camp: both exaggerate the upheaval in Iran, both think it should force Obama to reconsider rapprochement with the regime, and both gentlemen believe Ahmadinejad's presidency to be "illegitimate." (as if every previous Iranian president were somehow a reflection of democratic legitimacy.)

Go read Krauthammer's comments in full, and tell me they couldn't just as easily have come from The Daily Dish. Aside from Krauthammer's cynical assumptions about Obama's motives, their arguments are almost indistinguishable.

Both Sullivan and Krauthammer now agree that this regime is too evil, too authoritarian and too "illegitimate" to negotiate with -- at least for the foreseeable future. Both were outraged by the Gibbs gaffe.

In Krauthammer, you at least have a certain kind of clarity: don't negotiate, don't recognize, and bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. From Andrew, we learn that Mr. Mousavi - somewhat inexplicably - may have "changed the dynamics of the region," or at the very least would've made "a far better interlocutor" for President Obama.

Well that's certainly reassuring. It's a good thing the Islamic Republic never pursued nuclear weapons while supposedly reform-minded presidents were in office.

Oh, wait a minute...

Posted by Kevin Sullivan at 9:20 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

Elinor Mills reports that the massive denial of service attack that felled Twitter yesterday was aimed at one man who goes by the name of Cyxymu - for a town in Georgia. Apparently Cyxymu was a critic of the Russian government.

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 7:08 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

David Sanger reports that the Obama administration committed additional forces and resources into Afghanistan without clearly articulating what success there would look like:

When President Obama unveiled his new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan in March, he emphasized the importance of these measures.

“We will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable,” Mr. Obama said. “We’ll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan security forces and our progress in combating insurgents. We will measure the growth of Afghanistan’s economy and its illicit narcotics production. And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals.”

All that now seems unlikely to be completed before his field commanders finish their proposals for carrying out their marching orders. Their recommendations were originally due at the Pentagon within the next two weeks, but Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued expanded instructions for the assessment to the commanders last weekend and gave them until September to complete their report.

One of the basic problems confronting the White House is that "success" in the context of Afghanistan is going to look pretty meager. Al Qaeda was driven out of the country in 2001. None of the other issues on the table - clearing out the Taliban, cleaning up the Kabul government - makes America significantly safer from Islamic radicals who can operate from any country around the world. To the extent that we want to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda again, why wouldn't drone strikes and bribes be able to accomplish as much as a full-bore nation building effort?

There is, as Stephen Biddle has said, the issue of Pakistan and the danger it would be in were Afghanistan to collapse. But how realistic is that scenario? Afghanistan was in abject chaos during the 1990s without it threatening the state of Pakistan. Quite the contrary, Pakistan found the situation quite useful as an opportunity to bolster parties it favored.

Another worry for the White House is declining support for the mission, particularly among Democrats. CNN reports:

Forty-one percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday say they favor the war in Afghanistan -- down 9 points from May, when CNN polling suggested that half of the public supported the war.

Fifty-four percent say they oppose the war in Afghanistan, up 6 points from May.

The administration may be able to skate by indefinitely without articulating metrics, but it will need to show results sooner rather than later.

Update: Peter Feaver, who's quoted in the Sanger piece, has more to say on the subject of metrics here.

-----
Photo credit: AP Photos

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 5:50 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

Alex Massie and Daniel Larison take a look at the nationalistic overtones in Mitt Romney's forthcoming book: No Apologies - The Case for American Greatness. As the title makes clear, Mitt Romney will not apologize for America.

What's less clear is whether Romney, or any Republican, can make the case that the same federal government that is too incompetent (and corrupt) to offer health insurance to people under 65 can nonetheless direct the course of world history and bring freedom and democracy to all the world's various peoples and cultures. That message is just a little incongruous, but after running many realists out of the GOP camp and into the Obama administration, it seems it's the one they're stuck with.

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 9:00 PM | Email | Print | Permalink |

The Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, today. It seems the takeaway from the event was his declaration that the "war on terror" is over. Instead, it's just a war on al Qaeda.

The whole speech is worth listening to in full, but to focus on this specific issue. The "war on terror" was always a silly formulation, like saying we're going to have a war on bullets. Terror is a weapon, not an entity. The idea of framing the current situation as a war on al Qaeda specifically has utility insofar as the word war summons us to a certain seriousness about the threat. But it also raises the question of what we're doing in Pakistan, and why we're putting a lot more blood and treasure on the line to battle the Taliban. They're not al Qaeda, but it sure looks like we're fighting a war against them as well.

Brennan argues that we must confront al Qaeda's "allies" - not just the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but around the world. The trouble is, what constitutes an ally? If a group receives funding or advice from al Qaeda in Pakistan to carry out a local attack in Yemen, should we read into that a threat that could eventually strike the homeland? Would the mere existence of groups loosely linked to al Qaeda compel the U.S. to intervene?

The danger with such a strategy is that it will boost bin Laden's program of stitching together localized insurgencies into a pan-Islamic battle against the U.S. By plunging in with aid and arms anytime a local despot cries "al Qaeda!" we could be doing bin Laden's work for him. That's not to say we shouldn't watch al Qaeda's global tentacles, just that we need to look before we leap.

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 6:59 PM | Email | Print | Permalink |

A recurring theme in U.S.-Russian relations for nearly two decades now is that America does not recognize a Russian "sphere of influence" over the countries on its borders. But the Obama administration has seemingly reformulated this position into a more sweeping one: that we reject the very idea that other nations can seek to influence events beyond their borders. Vice President Biden said as much in Georgia, as did Secretary Clinton. During recent testimony to the Senate, the State Department's Philip Gordon said bluntly "We reject the concept of a sphere of influence."

Of course, the administration does not reject the "concept" of spheres of influence. It objects to other nations having a sphere of influence. The U.S. loves having influence over other countries - in the Middle East, in Asia, in Latin America. And there's nothing wrong with that! To the extent that countries have security and commercial interests in other countries, they are going to want to influence those nations. Nothing about this is nefarious. One of the enduring successes of America's Cold War strategy was that we kept key regions of the world (Europe and Asia) under our influence and not the Soviets.

But now that there's no ideology at stake, the situation is murkier.

What the Obama administration wants to say is that Russia's influence on its immediate neighbors is detrimental to U.S. commercial and security interests. But rather than say this outright, and then go about defending the various interests at stake and why we need to lock horns with Russia over them, they retreat to self-righteous platitudes about how they're trying to transcend "19th century" politics. I guess some people fall for this kind of talk, but it doesn't really bring clarity to the issues at stake.

---------
Vice President Biden, speaking in Ukraine. Photo credit: AP Photos

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 7:09 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

The world's oldest profession gets some unusual respect in China, according to a new survey:

Prostitutes in China are considered more trustworthy than government officials, according to an online survey conducted by Insight China magazine. A total of 7.9% of the 3,376 participants in the survey said sex industry workers are trustworthy, putting them at third in the rankings after farmers and religious workers, AFP reported. Soldiers and students came in fourth and fifth respectively, while state-owned newspaper China Daily said on Tuesday that scientists and teachers ranked "way below, and that government functionaries, too, scored hardly better."

Perhaps not surprisingly, the only photos AP was returning with the search word "prostitute" were pictures of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 6:53 PM | Email | Print | Permalink |

Oh yes, you read it right. An African-born farmer is making an improbable run for office in Russia, inspired by President Barack Obama and undaunted by racial attitudes that have changed little in decades.

Joaquim Crima, a 37-year-old native of Guinea Bissau who settled in southern Russia after earning a degree at a local university, is promising to battle corruption and bring development to his district on the Volga River. In Russia, a black man running for office is so unusual that Crima is being called "the Russian Obama."

"I like Obama as a person and as a politician because he proved to the world what everyone thought was impossible. I think I can learn some things from him," Crima said, sitting on his shady veranda in this town of 11,000, where he lives with his wife Anait, their 10-year-old son and an extended clan of ethnic Armenian relatives. Read more in this AP story.

Posted by Yevgeny Bendersky at 3:12 PM | Email | Print | Permalink |

James Downie's Kremlin sources have given us an invaluable look at Vladimir Putin's awesome powers.

UPDATE: The Times now heralds Putin as a "gay icon."

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 11:49 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

With her husband stealing the limelight, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is still getting good marks from this Rasmussen Reports poll:

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters offer their approval while 35% disapprove. Those figures include 31% who Strongly Approve and 15% who Strongly Disapprove.... In terms of personal favorable ratings, there is a huge gender gap. Sixty-one percent (61%) of women offer a favorable assessment of Clinton, but only 44% of men agree. However, the gender gap disappears when it comes to her job performance. Sixty percent (60%) of women approve of the way she’s handled that role as do 57% of men.

-------------
Photo credit: AP Photos

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 10:57 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

The New York Times reports that Russia sent two nuclear-powered submarines to patrol along the East Coast of the United States in "a rare mission that has raised concerns inside the Pentagon and intelligence agencies about a more assertive stance by the Russian military."

Could this be a little muscle flexing by Russia as a down payment on renewed hostilities with Georgia?

Either way, this should serve as a good reminder that it is jarring when a not-quite-friendly nation brings military power right up to your borders. Food for thought.

Update: Daniel Larison offers his thoughts on commentary suggesting that Russia is acting aggressively:

Russia does not have an “aggressive stance toward the U.S.” I’m not sure what one can call this except delusional. Our government arms and trains the military of a neighboring state, which then uses its army to escalate a war with Russia and kill Russian soldiers, and it is Russia that has an “aggressive stance.” Our government bombards a nominal Russian ally for 78 days without just cause, but it is Russia that is the aggressive one. We try to bring every former satellite and province into our anti-Russian military alliance, and it is Russia that is the aggressor. When Russia has the gall to protest against these provocations and aggressive moves, or even dares to retaliate against attacks on its soldiers and the populations under their protection, it is Russia that must be acting aggressively.

See also: Benjamin Carlson.

-----
Photo credit: AP Photos

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 4:48 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

Spencer Ackerman says it's hard to see the damage done to American interests by having President Clinton fly into North Korea for a little hostage rescue. It's not every day I agree with John Bolton, but I think he does raise a legitimate concern about what other hostage-takers are going to expect in the future. If the North Koreans get President Clinton, who will the Iranians want for their hostages?

As for Steve Clemons' (channeling Senator Kerry) suggestion that this is going to crack open a new door in our nuclear negotiations, that too is hard to see. Insofar as it was impossible to negotiate with the North while they were holding Americans hostage, it would seem the stage is set for renewed talks. But nothing about this episode changes the fundamental dynamic of the North's nuclear ambitions.

Nevertheless, and not to sound churlish, it's good to see the hostages released.

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 4:23 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

More polling has come in, now from Rasmussen, on American sentiment toward Afghanistan:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 22% expect the situation there to get better, down seven points from a month ago.

The plurality (41%) says things will get worse in the coming months, an increase of two points since the beginning of July. Another 24% say the situation will stay about the same during that time, up from 21% in the previous survey.

None of this entails that the U.S. wants out - like many other NATO members do - but it does suggest a certain worry about the mission. The administration is also finding a tough sell among left-of-center national security analysts and pundits. Michael Cohen, at the Obama-friendly Democracy Arsenal, has been doing yeoman's work cataloging the "Afghanistan Mission Creep" and you're seeing other writers sympathetic to the administration (such as Spencer Ackerman and Matthew Yglesias) voice concerns. Taken together, I think this confirm's Stephen Biddle's analysis that the administration has a very short window of opportunity to show results.

-------------
Photo credit: AP Photos

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 1:02 PM | Email | Print | Permalink |

Italy has lost 14 troops in Afghanistan and there is now a desire among Italians to bring the troops back home:

The majority of people in Italy want their country’s troops serving in Afghanistan to return home but they have different opinions on when, according to a poll by IPR Marketing published in La Repubblica. 22 per cent of respondents support an immediate troop removal, while 34 per cent say a gradual withdrawal would be better.

Conversely, 37 per cent of respondents oppose bringing Italian troops back from Afghanistan.

On the other hand, New Zealanders seem keener on the mission:

The majority of people in New Zealand agree with their government’s decision to extend the stay of a non-combat military mission in Afghanistan, according to a poll by Research New Zealand. 61 per cent of respondents favour the resolution to keep 140 troops working in reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan until September 2010.

On the other hand, New Zealanders are divided on whether to re-send Special Air Service soldiers back to Afghanistan, following a request by the United States government. 47 per cent of respondents would support this measure, and 44 per cent would oppose it.

------------
Photo credit: AP Photos

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 6:19 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

Anne Bayefksy channels some conservative trepidation over the Obama administration's apparent "acceptance" of a nuclear Iran. She's outdone, however, by David Solway writing at Pajama's Media who unearths the real reason the West has resigned itself to a nuclear Iran:

I am now beginning to suspect that this second alternative may well be the agenda furtively in play. If the Palestinians, the Syrians, and Hezbollah fail to do the job of reducing Israel to inconsequence, Iran remains the default option. I am coming to believe that the actual strategy at work in the official European and Western mind may be to encourage by every covert means, including endlessly protracted and fruitless negotiations, a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran, thus getting rid of the perpetual nuisance which is Israel, appeasing the Arab world, and moving in to rebuild a devastated Iran for eventual, unencumbered oil and trade. The loss in immediate economic advantage would be offset in spades by future economic gains.

This is obviously absurd, but I wonder if this sentiment won't become more prevalent if (or when) the West proves unable to talk or sanction Iran away from its nuclear capability.

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 12:39 PM | Email | Print | Permalink |