I took this pic on my increasingly useful iPhone on Amelia Island, outside of Jacksonville, Florida.

I'm here with a very interesting bunch of folks discussing a framework for policy alternatives and different narratives that could be useful in changing the course of America's Afghanistan policy.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Brookings Institution Turkey Project Director Ömer Taspinar offers his thoughts on the recent wave of arrests of former and current military officials in Turkey.

Taspinar is among the most astute and objective analysts of Turkish politics in Washington and this quick snippet captures the essence of the political events unfolding there.

I helped organize a forum last week at which Taspinar spoke, and the most striking aspect of his presentation was his comment that many secular Turks from the bureaucracy and the military interpret the United States' support for the moderately Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) - as well as Washington's rhetoric that Turkey can serve as a "model" for other Muslim countries - as evidence that the United States is actively supporting Islamism in Turkey.

True or not, this perception contributes to the immense distrust of the United States that persists among broad swaths of the Turkish population.

-- Ben Katcher

This is a guest "note" from Gail Reed, an American journalist based in Havana. Her comments are from an email, published at The Washington Note with her permission, commenting on the recent U.S.-Cuban migration talks and Cuba's declaration released after the talks concluded:

...it seems that the most important points to pick up from the Cuban declaration on the migration talks are:

1) Mutual respect recognized: this may seem like standard language for
such communiqués, but it certainly is not where Cuba and US government talks are concerned. It is highly significant that the Cubans publicly state that an ambience of respect reigned throughout the talks. Chalk up a point to Obama for this one.

2) Wet foot/dry foot policy: this is the policy that has allowed
illegal Cuban émigrés automatic US residency if they reach US soil by any means, plus federal monies to support them during their "adjustment" to US life. This, in sharp contrast to how Haitian refugees, in particular, have historically been treated by US authorities. During the long nightmare of the Duvaliers, later nightmares man-made and natural, they have been systematically mistreated and returned home. The Cuban government considers the Cuban Adjustment Act, which plays favorites with Cubans, to be an enticement for would-be Cuban émigrés who have not received US visas to try to get to the US by makeshift rafts or paying the Miami version of "coyotes". (In either case, this is a dangerous undertaking-as one who witnessed ladies in curlers and bathing suits setting off for Florida on plywood rafts strapped to 50-gallon oil drums during the 90s rafter crisis, I can say many who start out on the trip have no idea how dangerous it can be, not to mention tragedies like those of young Elian Gonzalez.)

3) We can only hope that the talks also gave more opportunity for the
two governments to discuss potential cooperation in Haiti, although the overwhelming presence of US troops does not sit well for Cuba or for most of Latin America, and as such constitutes a political barrier to substantial post-quake cooperation.

-- Gail Reed

Greetings folks. I'm departing Doha in a few hours after having spent an interestin day at the Sheraton here watching the Sudan/Darfur peace agreement signing ceremony -- as well as participating in a significant conference titled "Political Islam: Options and Priorities" sponsored by the Al Jazeera Center for Studies.

I'll post more on the conference when the video of the meeting is posted (though I think most of it will be in Arabic -- we'll see).

Back to DC Wednesday.

Consider this an open thread -- a polite and civil open thread.

No, I'm not pictured in the YouTube video above. I'm on the cutting room floor.

-- Steve Clemons

President Obama's closest handlers -- Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Robert Gibbs -- are under fire from a number of observers, including this one, for deploying the President's political capital badly, failing to animate and empower the considerable policy and political talent they have appointed to key positions on their team, poorly sequencing their policy gambits, and not having "plan B's" ready to go after they threw down the gauntlet on some challenge (Israeli settlements comes to mind), among other sins.

The team is failing on most, if not all, of the major policy challenges that the Obama administration accepted as the defining ones for his tenure. Health care reform is on life support, although one has to give credit to President Obama for commitment for trying to get something done -- though political analyst Charlie Cook has just called this a "Captain Ahab-like" obsession that could sink his presidency. Efforts to recreate America's global leverage have failed by following incrementalist policy paths rather than taking well-coordinated, well-planned strategic leaps on Israel-Palestine and Iran.

The President, while doing much to miss the bullet of a global economic depression, has presided over the resuscitation of Wall Street and many of the firms that recklessly gambled while main street remains precariously near an edge and where many fear the potential of a double dip recession when the stimulus comes out of the economy.

Like any corporation or organization that has a crisis that has undermined the confidence of its constituents, shake-ups are normal. Sometimes the CEO goes, which is not possible or desirable with a President, but a shake-up of the team beneath him -- no matter whether there is legitimate blame or not to be had -- would be a healthy course.

Some critics of my view and others like Edward Luce at the Financial Times, Leslie Gelb at the Daily Beast, and Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake who have written on the "Rahm plus three crisis" say that these people are largely unknown to the American public so getting rid of them buys Obama nothing with the broader public.

This is one of those few cases where the crisis of confidence with elites and those who engineer and craft serious political enterprises are the constituency -- not the grassroots. But the grassroots as well as the political grasstops see and feel Obama's failure to lock in success. In this context, the political stumbling, back-stabbing and brusqueness emanating from the Chief of Staff's office and others close to Obama is toxic and politically crippling.

Obama and his closest advisers have managed to divide their friends and unite their enemies -- and they must turn this around. There are ways to do so that are respectful to Emanuel, Jarrett, Axelrod, and Gibbs -- each of whom are talented in a great number of ways. They don't all need to go. But their monopoly of control and access -- and Obama's own solicitousness of them needs to be replaced by smarter empowerment of smart people in the executive branch and even inside the incumbent White House.

I think Obama needs to do one of his famous meet, greet, and chat dinners with some of his more serious critics -- those who want him to succeed but see serious problems. Obama should use this as a mirror to hold up to himself -- and he should not bring Rahm, Valerie, Gibbs, or Axe to that meeting.

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote a piece on Sunday that seemed to me to channel Rahm. It portrayed Rahm to be a political genius scorned and rebuffed by a naive and inexperienced President. But it joined with Luce, Gelb, and Clemons in raising serious doubts about Gibbs, Jarrett, and Axelrod's performance.

I am convinced in subsequent communications with Dana Milbank that he did not speak to Rahm Emanuel about the piece -- but nonetheless, Milbank's interesting article carries a fascinating narrative of what might have been if Rahm Emanuel had only had his way through a number of policy battles.

Dana Milbank is a top tier journalist, and I don't question at all the integrity of his piece -- and just want to make that clear.

That said, I do believe that Milbank is wrong to celebrate Emanuel in a way that depicts Rahm and his views to be a bloodied "victim" of others on Obama's team.

I would also add that Milbank is wrong about the Gregory Craig affair. The plans to shut GITMO, the identification of the Illinois-based Thomson Correction Facility, and a plan for moving, releasing, deporting, and trying each and every one of the Guantanamo detainees was finished three months after Obama got the keys to the White House.

What was lacking was Rahm's agreement to wring the appropriations needed out of the Congress and to begin a political process to deal with what was clearly going to be a political hurdle absorbing some of the detainees into the American legal system inside formal U.S. borders. Emanuel quashed a plan that had been completed.

It is untrue that the GITMO closing was not possible within a year. It was only not possible because Rahm Emanuel convinced the President that spending political capital on GITMO would undermine them in other policy battles, particularly health care, and forfeit national security points to the Republicans in 2010.

Someone should assemble all the various informed accounts of current White House management into a Faulkneresque portal into that world. All of the accounts, even Dana Milbank's, points to serious dysfunction, missteps, and failure.

Dana Milbank's article, whether he intended it or not, has started a battle among these giants around Obama that is a total antithesis to the kind of culture around Obama in his campaign, at least as reported in David Plouffe's account.

My colleague at the New America Foundation, the Pulitzer Prize winning author and New Yorker staff writer Steve Coll once remarked to me something quite positive about the military and its approach to Afghanistan -- a topic on which Coll and I respectfully disagree and have somewhat different views. But he made a good point on something.

Coll said that when the U.S. military read that it was clearly losing in Afghanistan and that its course was taking it to increasingly worse outcomes, the military had the guts and backbone to fire its commander there, General David McKiernan, and to try another course under General Stanley McChrystal.

The military didn't just dog it out with what appeared to be ineffective leadership and a failed plan.

I don't often recommend that Barack Obama give the Pentagon more attention than he already has because he tends to do more Pentagon-hugging than reforming, but in this case, the example that Steve Coll shared is a useful metaphor for what the White House needs to do with its own team.

Shake things up.

Obama needs to strategically redeploy his closest group of advisers, change up the game, move some others in, and alter their assignments. And then get smart about how he can work forward from the deficit he's now in on policies that his administration needs to pursue -- in a sensible sequence and reestablishing momentum and vision.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note by Stephen M. Walt. The essay, which TWN encouraged Walt to publish after outlines of it appeared in private correspondence, first appeared on Walt's Foreign Policy blog. Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

On Grabbing the Third Rail

Last week a colleague who has been facing repeated and unfair attacks in the media and the blogosphere (for making arguments that cut against the conventional wisdom) sent around an email asking a number of friends and associates (including me) for advice on how to deal with the attacks.

Having been smeared in similar fashion myself, I circulated a list of the lessons I learned from my own experience with "grabbing the third rail." A few of the recipients thought the list was helpful, so I decided to revise it and post it here. If any readers are contemplating tackling a controversial subject--and I hope some of you will--you'll need to be ready should opponents decide not to address your arguments in a rational fashion, but to attack your character, misrepresent your position, and impugn your motives instead.

If they take the low road, here are ten guidelines for dealing with it. (The advice itself is politically neutral: it applies regardless of the issue in question and no matter which side you're on.)

1. Think Through Your "Media Strategy" before You Go Public. If you are an academic taking on a "third rail" issue for the first time, you are likely to face a level of public and media scrutiny that you have never experienced before. It is therefore a good idea to think through your basic approach to the media before the firestorm hits. Are you willing to go on TV or radio to defend your views? Are there media outlets that you hope to cultivate, as well as some you should avoid? Are you open to public debate on the issue, and if so, with whom?

Do you plan a "full-court" media blitz to advance your position (an article, a book, a lecture tour, a set of op-eds, etc.), or do you intend to confine yourself to purely academic outlets and let the pundits take it from there? There is no right answer to these questions, of course, and how you answer them depends in good part on your own proclivities and those of your opponents. But planning ahead will leave you better prepared when the phone starts ringing off the hook and there's a reporter--or even someone like Bill O'Reilly or Jon Stewart--on the other end. Don't be afraid to listen to professional advice here (such as the media office at your university or research organization), especially if it's your first time in the shark tank. It's also a good idea to let your superiors know what's coming; deans, center directors, and college presidents don't like surprises.

2. You Have Less Control Than You Think. Although it helps to have thought about your strategy beforehand, there will always be surprises and you will have to think on your feet and improvise wisely. Sometimes real-world events will vindicate your position and enhance your credibility (as the 2006 Lebanon War did for my co-author and myself), but at other times you may have to explain why events aren't conforming to your position. A vicious attack may arrive from an unexpected source and leave you reeling, or you may get an unsolicited endorsement that validates your views. Bottom line: life is full of surprises, so be ready to roll with the punches and seize the opportunities.

3. Never Get Mad. Let your critics throw the mud, but you should always stick to the facts, especially when they are on your side. In my own case, many of the people who attacked me and my co-author proved to be unwitting allies, because they lost their cool in public or in print, made wild charges and ad hominem arguments, and generally acted in a transparently mean-spirited manner. It always works to your advantage when opponents act in an uncivil fashion, because it causes almost everyone else to swing your way

Of course, it can be infuriating when critics misrepresent your work, and nobody likes to have malicious falsehoods broadcast about them. But the fact that someone is making false charges against you does not mean that others are persuaded by the malicious rhetoric. Most people are quite adept at separating facts from lies, and that is especially true when the charges are over-the-top. In short, the more ludicrous the charges, the more critics undermine their own case. So stick to the high ground; the view is nicer up there.

4. Don't Respond to Every Single Attack. A well-organized smear campaign will try to bury you in an avalanche flurry of bogus charges, many of which are simply not worth answering. It is easier for opponents to dream up false charges than it is for you to refute each one, and you will exhaust yourself rebutting every critical word directed at you. So focus mainly on answering the more intelligent criticisms while ignoring the more outrageous ones, which you should treat with the contempt they deserve. Finally, make sure every one of your answers is measured and filled with the relevant facts. Do not engage in ad hominem attacks of any sort, no matter how tempting it may be to hit back.

5. Explain to Your Audience What Is Going On. When refuting bogus charges, make it clear to readers or viewers why your opponents are attacking you in underhanded ways. When you are the object of a politically motivated smear campaign, others need to understand that your critics are not objective referees offering disinterested commentary. Be sure to raise the obvious question: why are your opponents using smear tactics like guilt-by-association and name-calling to shut down genuine debate or discredit your views? Why are they unwilling to engage in a calm and rational exchange of ideas? Let others know that it is probably because your critics are aware that you have valid points to make and that many people will find your views persuasive if they get a chance to judge them for themselves.

6. The More Compelling Your Arguments Are, The Nastier the Attacks Will Be. If critics can refute your evidence or your logic, then that's what they will do and it will be very effective. However, if you have made a powerful case and there aren't any obvious weaknesses in it, your adversaries are likely to misrepresent what you have said and throw lots of mud at you. What else are they going to do when the evidence is against them?

This kind of behavior contrasts sharply with what one is accustomed to in academia, where well-crafted arguments are usually treated with respect, even by those who disagree with them. In the academic world, the better your arguments are, the more likely it is that critics will deal with them fairly. But if you are in a very public spat about a controversial issue like gay marriage or abortion or gun control, a solid and well-documented argument will probably attract more scurrilous attacks than a flimsy argument that is easily refuted. So be prepared.

7. You Need Allies. Anyone engaged on a controversial issue needs allies on both the professional and personal fronts. When the smearing starts, it is of enormous value to have friends and associates publicly stand up and defend you and your work. At the same time, support from colleagues, friends, and family is critical to maintaining one's morale. Facing a seemingly endless barrage of personal attacks as well as hostile and unfair criticisms of one's work can be exhausting and dispiriting, which is why you need others to stand behind you when the going gets tough. That does not mean you just want mindless cheerleaders, of course; sometimes allies help us the most when they warn us we are heading off course.

One more thing: if you're taking one a powerful set of opponents, don't be surprised or disappointed when people tell you privately that that they agree with you and admire what you are doing, but never say so publicly. Be realistic; even basically good people are reluctant to take on powerful individuals or institutions, especially when they might pay a price for doing so.

8. Be Willing to Admit When You're Wrong, But Don't Adopt a Defensive Crouch. Nobody writing on a controversial and contested subject is infallible, and you're bound to make a mistake or two along the way. There's no harm in admitting to errors when they occur; indeed, harm is done when you make a mistake and then try to deny it. More generally, however, it makes good sense to make your case assertively and not shy away from engaging your critics. In short, the best defense is a smart offense, even when you are acknowledging errors or offering a correction. For illustrations of how my co-author and I tried to do this, see here, here, and here.

9. Challenging Orthodoxy Is a Form of "Asymmetric Conflict": You Win By "Not Losing." When someone challenges a taboo or takes on some well-entrenched conventional wisdom, his or her opponents invariably have the upper hand at first. They will seek to silence or discredit you as quickly as they can, so that your perspective, which they obviously won't like, does not gain any traction with the public. But this means that as long as you remain part of the debate, you're winning. Minds don't change overnight, and it is difficult to know how well an intellectual campaign is going at any particular point in time. So get ready for an emotional roller coaster--some days you might think you're winning big, while other days the deck will appear to be stacked against you. But the real question is: are you still in the game?

The good news is that if you have facts and logic on your side, your position is almost certain to improve over time. It is also worth noting that a protracted debate allows you to refine your own arguments and figure out better ways to refute your opponents' claims. In brief, think of yourself as being engaged in a "long war," and keep striving.

10. Don't Forget to Feel Good about Yourself and the Enterprise in Which You Are Engaged. Waging a battle in which you are being unfairly attacked is hard work, and you will sometimes feels like Sisyphus rolling the proverbial stone endlessly uphill. But it can also be tremendously gratifying. You'll wage the struggle more effectively if you find ways to keep your spirits up, and if you never lose sight of the worthiness of your cause. Keeping your sense of humor intact helps too; because some of the attacks you will face ar bound to be pretty comical. So while you're out there slaying your chosen dragon, make sure you have some fun too.

-- Stephen Walt

(Photo at: http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entries/reaching_out_cuban_people/)

Anya Landau French directs the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative. This post was originally published at The Havana Note.

Last week in Havana, U.S. and Cuban officials met for a second round of bilateral migration talks - talks which customarily happen twice a year following 1994/1995 accords and had been suspended since January 2004. (U.S. and Cuban officials also discussed direct mail service resumption in New York last fall). With no announcement following these latest talks and the Cuban Foreign Ministry accusing the Americans of provocation following the talks, it might seem like we've reached an impasse. But have we really?

What if the two sides are simply communicating the best way they know how? Just the other day, I caught part of the movie Thirteen Days (about the Cuban Missile Crisis) and I was struck by Secretary McNamara's insistence that the U.S. should not simply employ customary "rules of engagement"; rather, McNamara insisted, Kennedy and Khrushev were "communicating" with each other, and that communication - rather than escalation - needed to be the focus.

Let's review: The U.S. and Cuba met in Havana Friday, and according to the Cuban Foreign Ministry (MINREX), discussed migration and other issues. Cuba issued a rather run-of-the-mill statement immediately afterward, that offered no concrete progress but noted that the talks had taken place in climate of respect.

But then, on Saturday, MINREX released another, longer statement, and this one exposed the fault line in the bilateral relationship: Cuba's insistence that the United States not interfere in its internal affairs and U.S. insistence on being supportive of internal democracy and human rights activists.

In its second official statement on the just-completed talks, MINREX fixed this criticism on the U.S. side: (and I'm paraphrasing from Spanish), no sooner than the bilateral talks were finished, than the U.S. delegation convened a group of dozens of dissidents at the U.S. Residence. Prior to the talks, the Cuban Foreign Ministry had urged the U.S. not to use the occasion of the talks to meet with dissidents, which the Cuban side would view as "provocative". Indeed, MINREX called the U.S. action "offensive" and accused the U.S. delegation of being more interested in "subversion" than in creating a climate in which to address the bilateral concerns at hand.

The State Department has released no comment so far on the talks or Cuba's statements (other than to confirm that the U.S. delegation called for the immediate release of an American contractor in jail since December).

Despite the angry tone of Cuba's second statement, MINREX laid out Cuba's short and mid-range priorities for the relationship, and reaffirmed its commitment to continuing to dialogue with the United States in a climate respectful the countries' sovereignty. Some will conclude that Cuba is just looking for any excuse not to make progress. Perhaps that is the case. But what if it's not?

The U.S. and Cuba are just embarking on what will be a long road to improved relations and cooperation. Some things are best said in private, but others must be communicated in public. The key is to make sure that taken together, the messages we send makes sense. Cuba seems to be sending the message, we're willing to talk but not to negotiate our internal system. The U.S. message prioritizes advancing dialogue and also improving human rights in Cuba - what's still unclear is how to do both.

In total, U.S. and Cuban officials have dialogued three times in nine months, and this is perhaps the most tangible progress the Obama Administration can point to in the relationship. The next round of talks should take place this summer in Washington, and the United Nations General Assembly meeting next fall offers another opportunity.

No matter the stern posturing of either side, and apparent lack of measurable progress, we simply do not know what goes on behind closed doors. It may be that no agreements are being signed because we're at an impasse, or it may be that the two sides are slowly coming to understand the parameters for progress to which they are constrained and are even mapping out ways forward. So while we wring our hands and worry that U.S.-Cuban relations have stalled, let's remember, nothing's truly stalled so long as we keep talking.

-- Anya Landau French

This morning in the Washington Post, Dana Milbank challenges Edward Luce, Leslie Gelb, Jane Hamsher and me on our recent pieces explicating the management and policymaking mess among Barack Obama's core team. (Here is my piece.)

Let's set aside for another post the fact that Milbank's column seems to channel Rahm directly. The piece conveys a detailed knowledge of what exactly Rahm advised Obama to do -- and how exactly Obama allegedly rebuffed Emanuel.

So, Rahm, or Milbank on his behalf, seems to be appealing to President Obama to just listen to Rahm more and all will be well.

But then Milbank jumps on the bandwagon of those he starts his piece rebuffing and suggests that the White House dump Gibbs, Axelrod, and Jarrett.

Not even my essay went that far.

This reminds me of a vignette at the tail end of Richard Wolffe's interesting profile of the Obama campaign titled Renegade: The Making of a President in which Emanuel tried to "export" Valerie Jarrett to the U.S. Senate to fill Obama's seat and to pry her away from such constant, intimate proximity to the President.

Seems like via Dana Milbank, Rahm Emanuel is still trying to pry them away.

Today's column starts:

Let us now praise Rahm Emanuel.

No, seriously.

I wondered if there was a foundation in their relationship for this kind of adoration. Well, maybe.

I found this June 2009 profile of Rahm Emanuel by Milbank. Read the whole thing, but here's a bit slug that could explain why Emanuel would send some sizzle Milbank's direction:

For a disciplinarian, Rahm Emanuel was remarkably loose as he sat down to breakfast at the St. Regis hotel yesterday.

On South Carolina's adulterous governor, Mark Sanford: "There's a guy that needed a cigarette."

On talking with his mouth full: "If this was more of a Jewish family, I'd feel fine."

On the woman he wants to run for Senate in Illinois: "She is the 800-pound gorilla here."

Then there was this unusual aphorism coming from a man who worked in the West Wing when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke: "What happens in the Oval Office stays in the Oval Office."

What made this all the more surprising was that President Obama's chief of staff gave this performance at a table with 40 journalists, their tape recorders running, in an on-the-record forum hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

At one point during Emanuel's free-flowing talk, he was discussing the Republicans' woes when a White House deputy press secretary, seated at a table in the back of the room, abruptly sat up in his seat. "Am I getting that look from you that I'm being too political, Bill?" Emanuel asked. Bill Burton protested that this wasn't the case, but Emanuel went on: "I haven't seen you sit up like that in a long time. You were just worried about where this was going, Bill?"

With Emanuel, who floated the incautious view last year that one should "never allow a crisis to go to waste," it wasn't an unreasonable fear. But he returned his focus to his questioners. "I just looked up and I caught this hairy eyeball by Bill," he said, explaining: "I'm trying to repress my political gene as much as I can."

Impossible. Emanuel could no longer repress his political gene than his need for oxygen -- and that is what makes him particularly good at his job. In his hour with the press yesterday, he made a far more cogent case for Obama's agenda, and how the president can get it enacted, than the guy paid to do that, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. Where Gibbs seems to delight in condescension and combat, Emanuel offered a refreshing measure of candor.

On immigration legislation, he admitted that yesterday's meeting at the White House with immigration advocates was "because the votes aren't there" to pass it. "If the votes were there, you wouldn't need to have the meeting, you'd go to a roll call," he said, his legs crossed and his arm draped over the moderator's chair.

He volunteered that Hillary and Bill Clinton made "a big mistake" 15 years ago when they refused to accept a health-care reform measure by Republican Sen. John Chafee (R.I.) that was very close to the first lady's doomed proposal.

And he acknowledged that Obama's dream of bipartisanship may need to be redefined downward. The absence of GOP moderates -- in no small part because Emanuel targeted them when he was running the House Democrats' campaign effort -- "makes getting quote unquote bipartisanship done hard," he said. He proposed that the health-care legislation in Congress could be bipartisan without Republican votes. "This will be bipartisan; there will be ideas from both parties, and individuals from both parties in the final product," he said. "Whether Republicans decide to vote for things they promoted will be up to them."

Emanuel, his hair graying and thinning as he approaches his 50th birthday, took off his jacket and tried to interject wisecracks even before the moderator, Dave Cook, finished his introduction. At the Monitor breakfasts, the guest speakers typically push their plates away to speak; Emanuel ate from his, and occasionally punctuated his remarks with soft burps.

-- Steve Clemons

For a five minute clip selected by the New York Times for posting of a bloggingheads exchange I did with David Frum on Iran stuff, click here.

-- Steve Clemons

Before I get too far into this post, while I don't believe that Rahm Emanuel is serving the Obama White House well as Chief of Staff, I do think he's brilliant and would excel in other roles for the team -- but that is not the purpose of this post.

Given current trends in the country, I can easily imagine "conspiracy theorists" (not me) in the future looking back in history at the Tea Party movement as having been a Rahm Emanuel creation. That would have been, in retrospect, sheer political genius.

After all, looking back in time, one would see that the Tea Partiers were hatched during Obama's time. They successfully hijacked the Republican Party and executed or exiled the best Republican talent. And then, when folks woke to their senses, the Republican Party will have imploded into national irrelevance.

Of course, Rahm did not create the Tea Party movement -- but it is taking pressure off of the Obama administration on a lot of fronts. Obama can achieve nothing and still look like a better option in 2012 than what a 21st century network of pugnacious know-nothings looks like.

Jacob Heilbrunn, author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons captures this in an LA Times oped he's done:

The job of the GOP is to form coalitions with the tea partyers, they say, or go out of business. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele has been playing footsie with the tea partyers, discussing the November election with about 30 of their leaders Tuesday.

Whether the GOP can permanently harness the energies of the tea party, however, is another matter. The insurgent party may well drive the GOP so far to the right that it proves something of an albatross in November. It's also hard to see how the GOP could deliver on the tea party's demand for cutting federal entitlement programs, which is political suicide. Indeed, Republicans might well prove as ineffectual as Democrats in attacking the deficit, which they compiled in the first place during the Bush presidency.

No doubt third parties such as the Know-Nothings have historically enjoyed a short life span in America. Historian Richard Hofstadter famously observed, "Third parties are like bees: Once they have stung, they die." But the tea party may wield a very potent stinger. Its fortunes likely will be bolstered by the towering federal budget deficits that the administration is accruing.

According to conservative firebrand Patrick Buchanan: "Tea partiers now play the role of Red Army commissars who sat at machine guns behind their own troops to shoot down any soldier who retreated or ran. Republicans who sign on to tax hikes cannot go home again."

As conservative veterans urge the GOP to reclaim the small-government mantle, then, the question hovering over them is whether they will successfully harness the volatile insurgency led by the tea party, or will they themselves be swept aside as part of regime change? It would be no small irony if they were displaced by the very kind of insurrectionist spirit they embodied 50 years ago in Connecticut.

I've helped launch a growing "surge of concern" about Rahm Emanuel and others who may be great patriots and loyal to President Obama but who are badly undermining him and the success of his presidency.

But seriously, Rahm, if you did launch the Tea Partiers, or if Axe or Valerie or Gibbs did -- call me. Promise to take off the heat and not tell anyone if you got these folks going.

-- Steve Clemons

I visited Nixon Library & Birthplace Foundation Director John Taylor's interesting blog, The New Nixon, this morning to see what he had posted on General Alexander Haig, whom Taylor knew very well.

There are a set of interesting posts that put Haig's life and role in the context of a tribute to him -- the last at the time of this writing by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Here is the set:

Alexander M. Haig, Jr. 1924 - 2010

Henry A. Kissinger: He Lived for His Country

A Moment in History (Nixon Tapes)

President Obama, Secretary Clinton Praise Gen. Haig

President Obama on the death of General Alexander Haig:

Today we mourn the loss of Alexander Haig, a great American who served our country with distinction.

General Haig exemplified our finest warrior-diplomat tradition of those who dedicate their lives to public service.

He enjoyed a remarkable and decorated career, rising to become a four-star general and serving as Supreme Allied Commander of Europe before also serving as Secretary of State. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton issued this statement:

I was deeply saddened to learn of the passing of former Secretary of State Alexander Haig.

He served his country in many capacities for many years, earning honor on the battlefield, the confidence of Presidents and Prime Ministers, and the thanks of a grateful nation.

On behalf of the men and women of the State Department, I extend my sincerest condolences to Secretary Haig's family and friends. Our thoughts and prayers are with all of them today.

For an alternative perspective, I'd point to Ken Silverstein's Mother Jones profile of General Haig, "Still in Control," in his latter years and the business success the general enjoyed opening doors in Washington and through much of the world. I was mentioned in this piece as I had traveled with Haig to Southeast Asia and of course during and after my tenure as director of the Nixon Center.

From my own vantage point, I will miss General Haig who whenever we would meet at some place or another would take a moment to pull me aside and congratulate me on what I and my colleagues had done in Washington. He would always recount some personal story about a person or experience drawn from his past that had some contemporary relevance.

Al Haig will be ridiculed by some for his statement about being in control during the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan or for his hand in the political culture of the Nixon White House -- but what I think is missing from those appraisals of Haig and some of his fellow travelers was a determined focus on American national interest and keeping the nation stable and internationally credible during a time of crisis and doubt around the world about the U.S.

All one needs is a comparison of Al Haig to Vice President Cheney or his chief of staff, David Addington, and one should quickly see see why Haig was so much better than many in the Cheney-led wing of the Republican national security establishment.

I have to extend my personal condolences to General Haig's family, which must include Sherwood "Woody" Goldberg, who was Haig's long-time personal military assistant, political assistant, business associate, friend, confidante, and adopted son by my count.

Rest in peace, Alexander Haig.

-- Steve Clemons

(photo credit: Bo Elkjaer, Denmark)

TWN reader Bo Elkjaer, based in Copenhagen but also a recent visitor to Washington, submitted this for TWN's "View from Your Window" feature (borrowed with respect and permission from Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish).

Bo Elkjaer writes that this shot was taken at the intersection of Alhambravej and H.C. Oerstedsvej in Frederiksberg in central Copenhagen, Denmark.

Cool.

-- Steve Clemons

It's been a big week for American-Syrian relations, with President Obama taking incremental but necessary steps towards renewing ties between the two countries: naming Robert S. Ford as ambassador on Tuesday, allowing high-level meetings between the State Department's William Burns and Daniel Benjamin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and today word from Politico's Laura Rozen that the State Department has lifted travel warnings against Syria.

To be fair, this all should have happened several years ago. And as Syria expert Joshua Landis points out, these overtures reflect the broader point that attempts to isolate Syria have failed spectacularly:

American isolation of Syria was a big waste of time and effort. It hurt Iraq. It hurt America. And it hurt Syria. Everyone lost...Isolation and sanctions on Syria were always bad policies. They gained America nothing. As I wrote yesterday, even Jeffery Feltman, the State Department's leading policy guy on Syria, admitted that the US had isolated itself by its policies, rather than isolating Syria. The US is engaging, he averred, because sanctions and isolation had failed. Washington has no choice but to get back into the diplomacy game and try carrots rather than sticks.

Landis is right in pointing out elsewhere in his analysis that normalization with Syria will not split it from Iran or bring peace to Israel. For this to happen the US must follow up with concrete action both to integrate Syria into a regional security arrangement and show it is willing to push Israel to get to the negotiating table. Likewise, Israel and Syria must tone down their rhetoric and make the hard choices necessary for peace, such as Syrian concessions on supplying weapons to Hezbollah and Israeli concessions on the Golan Heights.

All in all this week's decisions will not magically repair the Middle East. But they are still a step in the right direction.

--Andrew Lebovich

Gates to Petraeus: IRAQI FREEDOM to become NEW DAWN

National Security high tech intel expert Christopher Tucker, who probably will run the CIA one day, sent me this bit of interesting news.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has agreed to General David Petraeus' request to change "Operation IRAQI FREEDOM" to "Operation NEW DAWN."

The change goes into affect on September 1, 2010.

It sounds a little like "mission accomplished" -- but this time, maybe a good chunk of soldiers really will be pulled back home.

Here is the text of the letter:

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 1000 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1000

MEMORANDUM FOR THE COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND

SUBJECT: Request to Change the Name of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM to Operation NEW DAWN

The requested operation name change is approved to take effect 1 September 2010, coinciding with the change of mission for U.S. forces in Iraq. Aligning the name change with the change of mission sends a strong signal that Operation IRAQI FREEDOM has ended and our forces are operating under a new mission. It also presents opportunities to synchronize strategic communication initiatives, reinformce our commitment to honor the Security Agreement, and recognize our evolving relationship with the Goverment of Iraq.

Robert M. Gates

cc: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

-- Steve Clemons

One of General Anthony Zinni's more tough criticisms of the Obama administration this past year was that it had not placed a high enough priority on issuing its "National Security Strategy" report.

The National Security Act requires the President to issue such a report within 150 days of the start of his or her administration.

Nothing yet.

But Duke University political science professor and Senior Adviser to the Director of Policy Planning at the State Department Bruce Jentleson is one of the people actively working on the project.

Jentleson is one of a few thousand folks now at the International Studies Association meeting taking place in New Orleans right now -- and I hear from a number of other friends here that he is speaking with folks about the effort. That's good news, and Jentleson is someone who has given quality thought to the challenge of shaping national security priorities during a time of significant flux.

But the administration really needs to get this out. In fact, strategy and an organizing framework for a government's national security course really ought to precede the major, defining decisions that commit resources and personnel to foreign policy challenges.

But in this case, it appears that President Obama has been focused on responding to crises at the moment and choosing a course that is disconnected from a compelling strategic course.

It's better to get a comprehensive, well thought out strategic plan done -- rather than rushing it out.

But one wonders how many more major decisions President Obama will make in the foreign policy and national security arena without the discipline of the legally required National Security Strategy report.

-- Steve Clemons

(photo credit: Ben Rosengart)

TWN reader Ben Rosengart who has been with us from day one I think has sent in this picture of a car covered in cherry blossoms. Apparently, it's cherry- and plum-blossom season in Berkeley, California.

Ben writes: "Also note the calla lily in the far lower right corner."

Rub it in, Ben. DC is still covered in mounds of perma-snow.

-- Steve Clemons

Editor's Note: Of course, "The View from Your Window" is inspired by Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, and I mimic his great work drawing pics in from readers from time to time. Andrew recently published a set of his reader's "The View from Your Window" as a book.

Tomorrow, former IAEA Director Mohamed Elbaradei moves from Vienna to Egypt, where many want to see him run for the Presidency in future elections (a tough hill to climb given a million barriers). Elbaradei himself has stated he is interested if genuinely open, free elections were constructed.

The new IAEA Director, Yukiya Amano, has issued one of the first Iran related reports in his tenure -- and it's style of presentation seems more technocratic to me.

Nonetheless, a new report that is being circulated privately and which has come my way is titled "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran".

Here is a pdf of the report.

And here are the conclusions:

46. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, Iran has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

47. Iran is not implementing the requirements contained in the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, including implementation of the Additional Protocol, which are essential to building confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding questions. In particular, Iran needs to cooperate in clarifying outstanding issues which give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme, and to
GOV/2010/10 Page 10 implement the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part on the early provision of design information.

48. Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has continued with the operation of PFEP and FEP at Natanz, and the construction of a new enrichment plant at Fordow. Iran has also announced the intention to build ten new enrichment plants. Iran recently began feeding low enriched UF6 produced at FEP into one cascade of PFEP with the aim of enriching it up to 20% in U-235. The period of notice provided by Iran regarding related changes made to PFEP was insufficient for the Agency to adjust the existing safeguards procedures before Iran started to feed the material into PFEP. The Agency's work to verify FFEP and to understand the original purpose of the facility and the chronology of its design and construction remain ongoing. Iran is not providing access to information such as the original design documentation for FFEP or access to companies involved in the design and construction of the plant.

49. Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has also continued with the construction of the IR-40 reactor and related heavy water activities. The Agency has not been permitted to take samples of the heavy water which is stored at UCF, and has not been provided with access to the Heavy Water Production Plant.

50. The Director General requests Iran to take steps towards the full implementation of its Safeguards Agreement and its other obligations, including the implementation of its Additional Protocol.

51. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate.

Bottom line is not surprising: Iran remains in non-compliance and will be a complex challenge.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: Here is the latest AP story on this report which highlights concerns that Iran may be working on military applications of its nuclear program.

(collection of photos from passports of individuals suspected in the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh)

Taylor Marsh has a great post up that pieces together elements of the Robert Ludlumesque intrigue around the recent assassination in Dubai of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.

The story is gripping and sensational -- and could lead either to further tragedies on both sides of the Israel-Palestine divide, or to a breakthrough on how to deal with Hamas.

The UAE government, with which the United States is basically closely tying itself on a great number of fronts but most explicitly recently on a nuclear power and technology agreement, has publicly stated that it believes Israel's Mossad is "99%" behind the assassination and has issued an arrest warrant for Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

Hamas has threatened Israel with revenge.

And UK Foreign Minister David Miliband is "outraged" that forged British passports were used in the plot and promised to get to the bottom of things. I am waiting for the Foreign Minister to blog about his concerns about the case.

But more importantly, Miliband's government as well as the Irish and French governments have demanded information from various Israel ambassadors and representatives of the Israeli government. All eyes are on Israel for this assassination.

Though the Israeli government has not admitted to the deed, when allies like the Brits and French make diplomatic demands, that is a good market indicator of Israel's responsibility.

Why this assassination matters so much -- whether people believe that Israel's right to extraterritorial executions is justified as part of national self defense -- is that Israel and Hamas had been close to an extraordinary deal on prisoner swaps.

Senior Israel government officials have reported to me that in the wake of Iranian domestic convulstions, Hamas has been trying to diversify its relationships and adjust its posture to potentially join a unity government in Palestine that could negotiate with Israel and various Arab and Western stakeholders in the region.

Ironically, the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh -- whose picture will no doubt be added now to a wall of pictured martyrs from the Hamas movement in the headquarters of Khaled Mashal (in fact the wall of martyrs is to my left in the video interview I did above with Khaled Mashal) -- may create such international frustration with Israel for disrupting efforts at regional stabilization and negotiations that there may be a real push to now end the international isolation of Hamas.

I don't believe that the US will be sitting down with Mashal any time soon -- but perhaps it is time that we removed the American veto on someone like French national security adviser to Nicolas Sarkozy, Jean-David Levitte, from meeting and discussing terms with Hamas and how paralysis in the region might be broken.

In fact, I am convinced that it is time for the US to suspend the work of its own envoy, George Mitchell, and to subcontract the operation for achieving a workable, two-state solution and regional stabilization plan in the Middle East to Levitte.

-- Steve Clemons

This was an interesting BloggingHeads exchange for me because neoconservative thinker and FrumForum blogger David Frum and I largely agree that the "hit Iran hard" track in America's current diplomacy could be counterproductive.

Frum supports sanctions on gasoline, so-called "crippling sanctions", whereas I see them more designed to be about the West's emotional and political needs rather than a strategy that would really move Iran to a new course.

I have always been intrigued by the neoconservative network and how it so successfully commandeered the helm of America's national security establishment after having been for many decades mostly a small boutique shop of high octane intellectuals hanging out in Irving Kristol & Gertrude Himmelfarb's apartment.

Frum is someone to watch. Yes, he coined the "axis of evil" line for a key George W. Bush speech and secured as his prize jealousy from a few other Bush speechwriters. But to focus on that and not see more of what he is trying to do today is a mistake.

Frum is a neoconservative but one who is pretty far from the current imperial line -- sort of a cousin among many cousins and grandkids descending from the some of the original conceptualizers of neoconservatism -- Irving Kristol, Albert Wohlstetter, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Seymour Martin Lipset, and a few others.

My hunch is that Frum is watching various others of the more heir apparent royal cousins including Bill Kristol, John Podhoretz, a few of the Kagans perhaps (though I note an exception via Robert Kagan, who is a genuine intellectual rather than an apparatchik), eventually flame out in misguided attempts to surf Tea Party populism and to stay powerful by associating with a growing pugnacious, anti-intellectual movement in American politics.

Frum may be the only neocon with a serious policy shop and Irving Kristol-salon around him after the 2012 presidential race and may have an opportunity to replace the know-nothing brain of a Republican Party whose blustery, intolerant celebration of an anachronistic "whites dominate" nativism with a new set of principled policy positions that could define Republicanism by 2016.

Obviously, a lot can happen between now and then -- and who knows, maybe the Tea Party crowd and someone anointed by Sarah Palin could win in 2012. But at this point, of leading, disaffected neoconservatives -- like Frum, Francis Fukuyama, and I'd add Kenneth Adelman -- Frum is building the most interesting franchise of forward-looking next gen conservatives who reject what they see from their own party. Fukuyama could play this role as well but like Robert Kagan is mostly a writing intellectual rather than one who organizes.

More soon. Greetings to readers at the International Studies Association meeting in New Orleans. I'll be floating around some of the events today at the Hilton. Pittsburgh tomorrow.

-- Steve Clemons

Politico's uber-cool cartoonist Matt Wuerker, a previous Pulitzer finalist, got the call last night that he'd won the prestigious Herblock Prize. Excellent.

I got the news from Matt's wife, Center for Democracy in the Americas Executive Director Sarah Stephens, this morning at 6 am at National Airport departing for Venezuela while I was heading off to New Orleans.

When I get back to Washington, I'll post a cool cartoon that Wuerker has done of this blogger in tribute to his award.

And one of Wuerker's wannabe proteges, Jonathan Guyer, is TWN's cartoonist -- at least for the time being until someone pays him.

Today, Guyer facetiously weighs in on Hillary Clinton's upgrade to Iran's status.

-- Steve Clemons

Former Center for American Progress staffer and former President of the Oxford Student Union Will Straw -- son of Jack, the UK's former Foreign Minister -- returned home to London last year and kicked of the daily policy brief Left Foot Forward.

Left Foot Forward acknowledges Think Progress, affiliated with the Center for American Progress, as its inspiration -- and I get both reports daily. (If you want to sign up for interesting stuff from the Brits, here is the link)

Today, Straw and Co. get into the debate over whether it's irresponsible or prudent today to begin tightening the fiscal gusher.

The flamboyant Richard Branson says yes.

A non-brit but highly respected Paul Krugman blogs no.

And Martin Wolf gives a "hard no."

From Will Straw's interesting email today:

The Telegraph, Guardian and Independent outline how Richard Branson has entered the debate over the deficit in a story broken in yesterday's Evening Standard and followed up on Left Foot Forward.

He said, "We are going to have to cut our spending and I agree with the 20 leading economists who said we need to start this year." But writing about the same Sunday Times letter from a group of economists on his New York Times blog Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman, says, "It's important to be clear that the call for immediate austerity isn't grounded in unarguable economics; in fact, the arithmetic tells you that what Britain does in the next year or two is virtually irrelevant to its long-run solvency."

Martin Wolf agrees and writes in today's Financial Times: "a massive fiscal tightening today would be a grave error."

Wolf's full point punctuated by an extra line makes his warning even more severe:

Moreover, a massive fiscal tightening today would be a grave error. There is a huge risk - in my view, a certainty - that this would tip much of the world back into recession.

Hopefully the Brits and Barack Obama will read up on 1937 and try to avoid making the same ideologically honed mistake again.

-- Steve Clemons

Jim Pinkerton sent a clip from White House spokesman Robert Gibb's Twitter Account to me today stating:

Imagine how the political climate would look today if Obama had spent the last year announcing these kinds of projects.

Couldn't agree more.

-- Steve Clemons

Financial Times Washington Bureau Chief Edward Luce has posted a very good video interview and an analysis of his exchange with Center for American Progress President and former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.

The robustness of Podesta's critiques of the White House's performance is growing. Podesta strongly encourages the Obama team to use his cabinet officials in a way that the White House is now not doing.

Podesta says that the White House has lost the narrative in the country and that this needs to be fixed. He said that this problem can't be fixed "by one speech once in a while." More needs to be done.

Podesta also says that politics in America today "sucks".

Here is Luce's intro and Podesta's comment about serious trouble ahead:

Barack Obama, US president, has lost control of the political narrative and needs to make more use of his cabinet in order to regain it, says John Podesta, the man who headed the president's transition team.

"My friends in the White House would agree with this, that they lost the narrative," Mr Podesta said in an interview for View from DC, the Financial Times' video series from Washington. "Clearly that needs not one speech once in a while: it needs, I think, to be constantly reinforced. And not just by the president, but by his entire team?.?.?.?He's got a terrific cabinet. Use it. Get out into the country and use it."

Mr Podesta, who was also a chief of staff to Bill Clinton, drew parallels with the former president's difficulties in his first two years, which culminated in the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress following the failure of healthcare reform.

When asked whether the failure of this latest attempt at healthcare reform would result in a similar electoral "massacre" for the Democratic party at the mid-term elections in November, he said: "I subscribe to that view."

-- Steve Clemons

With $13 million in campaign funds at his disposal and this week the deadline by which other Democratic candidates must file for the Indiana Senate race, Senator Evan Bayh -- who was runner up to Joe Biden to be Obama's vice presidential running mate -- is bowing out of the 2010 U.S. Senate race.

Add to this that former Senator and US Ambassador to Germany Dan Coats, who has been under strong attack in the state for lobbying and residency issues, seemed to have been slipping as a serious candidate.

This is serious stuff. Bayh, who was a likely win in Indiana, now makes the state a toss-up, if not a takeover by the Republican Party.

This could mean that Democrats could lose Biden's seat, Obama's former seat -- and possibly even Harry Reid's seat in addition to Bayh's.

While I opposed Bayh's selection for the VP ticket and find his views on US foreign policy to often be recklessly hawkish, Bayh was on most issues a deliberative, thoughtful Senator in a very purple state. Those who want to hold a Senate majority that can help give some support to a reworked Obama policy game plan should not be pleased with his departure.

-- Steve Clemons

When I was younger, Valentine's Day was one of the worst days possible of the entire year. When I had girlfriends, I'd usually be dumped either on Valentine's Day or the day before. I broke my foot on Valentine's Day.

Another year, I was hit by a car while on my bicycle in Westwood, California. The driver offered me a Valentine's Day chocolate. One year I had the mumps. The next year I had my tonsils out. Another year, I had my wisdom teeth pulled -- and I was one of those who swelled. When I lived in West Hollywood and was out for Valentine's Day with someone not so special, I got food poisoning.

Have you ever had hepatitis? Not fun. And it's worse on Valentines' Day when you are in the hospital with your dad and a lot of young school girls (much of the Air Base I lived at in Alaska had hepatitis from an infected water supply -- thanks USAF) who wanted to do the Valentine's thing.

One Valentine's Day, I had flown to Berlin to give a speech but all my bags had been lost -- so keynoted the evening to quite a number of octogenarians in jeans and a black long sleeved t-shirt. For Berlin, it was OK -- but no matter how much I said it wasn't my fault, I got these grim looks of disdain from the audience.

Until my current significant other wouldn't allow it anymore, I used to stay home and take the phone off the hook.

Now, in recent years I've slowly been coaxed out of my cave on Valentine's Day -- but then I just saw this ad of the Hug-E-Gram. I really worry for this country.

And I just want you to know that I found this ad which you must see to believe. . .on what day? On Valentine's Day.

Hope you and yours are having a good one, despite my trepidation for this day.

-- Steve Clemons

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bottom line according to Joe Biden, who is effective in this exchange with Meet the Press' David Gregory, is that Cheney is misinformed or misleading. That's charitable.

David Frum outlines what he thinks Cheney should be saying -- and interestingly, Frum basically argues that on GITMO, terror trials, and the like, there is far more continuity from the Bush administration to Obama than there is a new course. Frum is right -- and that is what is disappointing so many.

-- Steve Clemons

There is a potentially eery, disconcerting passage in Dexter Filkins' interesting report on the Afghan, British and American push into the Taliban stronghold of Marja in Helmand Province.

Filkins notes that the opposition didn't really materialize, despite reports that they had recently received reinforcements. This may mean that the Taliban are tactically disappearing into the population, a move that the US also saw when fighting in Vietnam.

From Filkins' article:

On the first full day of operations, much of the expected Taliban resistance failed to materialize. Afghan and NATO troops discovered some bombs, narcotics and weapons caches, but the fighting itself was relatively desultory. There was certainly none of the eyeball-to-eyeball fighting that typified the battle for Falluja in Iraq in 2004, to which the invasion of Marja had been compared.

Abdul Rahim Wardak, the Afghan defense minister, said in a news conference in Kabul that the Afghan Army had suffered no dead at all, and only a handful of wounded. He seemed a little surprised at the day's events.

"Actually, the resistance is not there," Mr. Wardak said. "Based on our intelligence reports, some of the Taliban have left the area. But we still expected there to be several hundred in the area. Just yesterday, we received reports that reinforcements had arrived from neighboring provinces."

It seemed possible that many insurgents had just faded away, or at least were waiting to show themselves. American and Afghan commanders took the unusual step of broadcasting their intention to clear Marja several weeks ago, in hopes that Taliban fighters would leave the city and thus make it easier to take hold of the place.

-- Steve Clemons

John Podesta on Obama team. I am hearing that Financial Times Washington Bureau Chief Edward Luce has a pretty significant interview with Center for American Progress President and former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta coming out on Monday. Luce recently did a video interview with Senator John McCain. One source tells me that Podesta "goes farther" in his critique of the Obama team than his already pretty direct comments in Luce's recent survey of the Obama White House's inner workings.

General David Petraeus' Suit. Earlier this week, I mentioned that I had told General Petraeus at a dinner that he looked quite good in a well-fitting suit and out of uniform but that if I twittered that, it would send a shudder through DC political circles. He laughed. But a source who I think is pretty plugged in tells me that the suit in question was bought off the rack four years ago but looks new because the General has been constantly deployed over the last four years. Fair enough. My broader point (and respectful chuckle) still stands.

Greek PM George Papandreou Fights Back. Papandreou has launched a vicious attack at Greece's holier-than-though EU critics, stating that the EU's financial regulatory incompetency and dereliction of duties allowed the previous Greek conservative government's "criminal record" in falsifying data to go unchecked. Germany's Angela Merkel is going tough on Greece as tensions rise. I am reminded of Fniancial Times' Martin Wolf's admonition last year that Germany is neglecting its hegemonic regional responsibilities in the EuroZone -- and AEI Scholar Desmond Lachman's warning that the Euro could go under.

Health Care Reform Lobbyist Hypocrisy. The Sunlight Foundation's Paul Blumenthal goes after Obama White House for hypocrisy in nailing down key agreements on health care reform legislation with the same corporate interests and lobbyists -- particularly Billy Tauzin -- that candidate Obama specifically harangued during his presidential race. Watch the video clip and read the piece.

Goldstone. Just came by this website for those interested in a defense of the UN Report on War Crimes in Gaza (2008-09), the so-called Goldstone Report. . . .And an opposing view. And another.

-- Steve Clemons

Several years ago, I met with the Deputy Director of the Policy Planning staff of China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and I asked him what he was working on -- and what China's grand strategy was.

His reply: "We are trying to figure out how to keep you Americans distracted in small Middle Eastern countries."

It's pretty memorable when one can joke and be truthful at the same time. China has had opportunities throughout the world open up to it easily -- mostly because of systemic American inattention to much else beyond its war slogs. The Obama administration, which in its first year in office, has managed high level presidential and cabinet level face time with leaders around Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East has done a lot to correct the impression from the G.W. Bush years that America has completely checked out from the rest of the world -- but there still is a sense that American pretensions in the world are more veneer than real.

Now read in full (on the extended page) a short, brilliantly written report titled "Strategic Contraction Replaces Arrogance: Chinese Analysis of the Quadrennial Defense Review" by Li Shuisheng at China's Academy of Military Science on the Pentagon's recently released Quadrennial Defense Review.

This is a very sobering "offshore perspective" on American power.

The introduction starts with a quick tip of the hat to the Obama administration for greater pragmatism and less arrogance than the George W. Bush years - but also says that Obama's course is leading to the strategic contraction of the U.S.:

After the United States was bogged down in the Afghanistan War for more than eight years and in the Iraq War for more than seven years, in early February, the Obama administration published its first "Quadrennial Defense Review" (QDR). This was a report submitted to US Congress by the US Department of Defense every four years as required by law, and was also a framework document for the future building of the US military.

Against the background of being deeply mired in "one crisis and two wars", this year's report somewhat restrained the usual "arrogant style" appearing in the previous QDR reports, epitomized the more pragmatic defense policy pursued by the Obama administration, manifested the trend of the United States' strategic contraction to a certain extent. The report also revealed some noteworthy new changes in the US military building.

The author also sees what this writer has argued: that American obsession with Afghanistan and an ever-expanding quest to stamp out Islamic insurgencies will "further chip away at the United States' strength, aggravate its strategic adversity, and increasingly narrow the room for maneuvers on other issues." The author writes:

The report, for the first time, mentioned that winning the currently ongoing wars was a priority task for the US military, and also the top priority in the consideration of the US Department of Defense on the defense budget, the defense policy, and military modernization. To stress the importance of winning the current wars, the report took this as the primary objective of the US defense strategy. While the counterterrorist wars lasted over a long time in an undecided condition, the US military actually faced the question: Which should be the priority, winning the current wars or coping with future threats?

In the period of Rumsfeld, the US military stressed that both sides were priorities, but the efforts for coping with future threats was put to a more important position, and stress was actually laid on speeding up the military transformation through the counterterrorist wars. However, with the continuing worsening the battlefield situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military changed this line of thinking, and laid greater stress on winning the current wars and coping with the instant threats. In April 2009, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pointed out in a speech at the US Naval War College that the primary task of the Department of Defense was to prevail in ongoing wars rather than just continuously making war preparations.

The reasons for the change of the US military's thinking lay in following factors. First, as the current wars dragged on over a long time without a decisive outcome, this would further chip away at the United States' strength, aggravate its strategic adversity, and increasingly narrow the room for maneuvers on other issues.

The full essay follows:

(Photo: United Nations Development Programme's Photostream)

This is a guest note by Johanna Mendelson Forman. She is a senior associate of the Americas Program and the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Today is the one month mark since a devastating earthquake leveled Port au Prince, a city of close to 2 million people. In the 30 seconds it took to demolish the National Palace, most of the government ministries, and about two-thirds of the houses, Haiti is still a country in extremis.

With over a half a billion dollars in aid already on the ground in the form of humanitarian relief, this poor, but proud nation, is still reeling from losing at least 2 percent of its population. With over 200,000 dead, and the number rising, and with an equal number of citizens injured, the task of rebuilding is hardly a vision, let alone a strategic one. If hope exists it is only to compare what happened in Haiti with the 2004 Tsunami in Southeast Asia. With a similar death toll, and several countries affected, there has been progress in reconstruction, prevention, and even legislation to address responses to natural disaster in Indonesia. Let's hope that similar types of initiatives arise from this Caribbean tragedy.

Recovery from any disaster is difficult, but for Haiti it will require a complete rethinking of development. If the mantra before the earthquake hit on January 12th was to help Haitians go "from misery to poverty," it is difficult to find the words that will characterize this attempt to build a new nation. Former President Bill Clinton, now the UN Special Envoy to Haiti, remarked that we must:"build back better." What will "better" consist of?

In 2004 Haiti was on the verge of state failure after the government of President Bertrand Aristide succumbed to mob violence that forced his departure from office. Haiti found itself once again under the protection of a UN Peacekeeping Operation, MINUSTAH, fourteen years after a U.S. led multinational force had deployed to help monitor the first democratic elections that had put President Aristide in office in 1990.

Even when a democratically elected government returned in 2006 headed by President Rene Preval, Haitians are still living with a peacekeeping force to provide the security that the state remains incapable of sustaining.

Over the last year there had been a feeling of hope and progress. Haiti was emerging from the devastation of the September 2008 natural disasters, 4 hurricanes that destroyed a city and ruined any plans to rebuild the economy. It was this more secure and stable environment, guaranteed by 9,000 UN peacekeepers and police, that attracted over 400 investors led by President Clinton to tout the potential for a public private partnership approach to Haiti.

Economist Paul Collier, who had been recruited by the UN to assess the potential for Haiti's economic development, suggested that things were brighter given Haiti's geographic location in a good neighborhood, where the size of the U.S. market was a definite plus in attracting more businesses to invest.

Today Haiti is the scene of one of the largest humanitarian operations in recent history. A $10 billion five year assistance program has been proposed to support Haiti's recovery. What will this mean in the short term? More of the same? Projects that do not endeavor to sustain gains in development? Will new investments work to decentralize a country whose entire focus has been only on its capital, Port au Prince? Or will this time be different.

President Obama moved swiftly to use all the tools of the U.S. to respond to this earthquake. It has been a true 3-D project: defense, development and diplomacy. By doing so he also provided a sharp contrast to the Bush administration's weak and insufficient efforts to help New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. What we are really witnessing in this Haiti recovery is a broader demonstration of the Obama policy of engagement, not only in this hemisphere, but with our friends and allies. Yes, a disaster of this size is more than any one nation can handle alone. And if President Obama is true to his commitment to multilateralism then this crisis in Haiti may serve as a platform for fulfilling the promise of the Summit of the Americas of 2009 - partnership not patronage.

Stay tuned for the next episode.

-- Johanna Mendelson Forman

Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL-21) has announced that he will not seek reelection in November. There is speculation that his brother, Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL-25), will shift districts and run for Lincoln's vacated seat because it is more Republican dominant.

The two brothers, who were once nephews by marriage of Fidel Castro, are fervent anti-Castro activists who have been opposed to most efforts to dismantle the still active Cold War posture between the United States and Cuba. But times are changing, and the monopoly that the Diaz-Balarts and their close allies had in Congress on US- Cuba policy is eroding.

The most likely successful Democratic party candidate for either of these districts is former Cuban American National Foundation executive director Joe Garcia, who ran unsuccessfully against Mario Diaz-Balart in the last election but came closer to dislodging him than any other opponent. Garcia is a key architect of President Barack Obama's successful connection with Miami-based Cuban Americans who were helpful in delivering Obama Florida in the presidential election.

Joe Garcia, who was recently appointed to head the Office of Minority Economic Impact for the Department of Energy, needs to run for office. While my own view and his about US-Cuba relations differ, he too is a proponent of change in the relationship and a strong believer in building agricultural and commercial trade, greater national security issue coordination, and people to people exchange between Cubans and Americans.

Running for office is very disruptive to one's personal life -- and Garcia has just moved to Washington after his last effort.

But while he thinks changes in US-Cuba relations need to be filtered through Miami, and I think that US-Cuba relations should be done through the lens of higher level national interests, there is absolutely no doubt that he is the only candidate who could change the dynamics in Miami and put US-Cuba relations on a healthier, 21st century track.

Joe Garcia really needs to run. Those of you who know him -- tell him.

-- Steve Clemons

Bill Clinton has been hospitalized, according to a blitz of news alerts moments ago.

We hope that he will be OK and recover quickly. The world and America are not done with him, not to mention all of his current responsibilities in helping to generate massive aid for Haiti.

President Obama is still greatly appreciated and admired around the world -- but the two places on the globe where Clinton is loved more than Obama and where the President should consider applying the unique skills of Bill Clinton are in North Korea and Israel/Palestine matters.

Hopefully, this is relatively minor, but hospitalizations nowadays are never minor it seems.

-- Steve Clemons

Yemen's government has just released a statement that it has reached a truce with the Houthi tribes in Northwest Yemen.

This is very significant on a number of fronts as it helps de-commit significant military and economic resources Yemen is committing to deal with insurgency problems in the North while simultaneously dealing with growing al Qaeda related challenges in the South. This news will also decrease tensions with Saudi Arabia -- and also neutralizes some concerns about Iran animating Houthi misbehavior in the region to put pressure on Saudi Arabia.

The six agreed conditions that both sides have agreed to are:

The six agreed-upon conditions include the opening of blockaded roads, demining of roadsides, withdrawal from civilian districts and avoiding interfering in the affairs of elected local authorities, returning looted civilian and military equipment, releasing Yemeni and Saudi detained civilians and military personnel, abiding by the Yemeni constitution, law and order, and refraining from any attacks on Saudi Arabian territory.

It's good to see progress somewhere in the world. Now for some momentum perhaps?

The full Yemen Government press statement follows:

(photo credit: Brian McKeon)

Senate staff member Brian McKeon snapped this great shot of sledding at the US Capitol during the great blizzard of 2010.

And for those trying to be irritated at a government that is shut down, these sledding pics were taken Saturday. . .just to clarify.

-- Steve Clemons

I really like Tommy Sowers -- and while I normally don't post appeals to support this Congressman or that, I couldn't help it in this case.

Sowers, a former Special Forces officer who did deployments in Kosovo and Iraq, was also a new media and politics instructor at West Point. He's now running for Congress as a Democrat in Missouri's 8th District.

Some people have a soft spot for candidates and babies. I have a soft spot for dogs -- and candidates who are smart policy thinkers.

I think Sowers would be good in Congress.

-- Steve Clemons

I recently had the opportunity to participate in a small dinner with CENTCOM Commander General David Petraeus and his wife Holly. These sorts of discussions are nearly always off the record -- but the fact that they happened is not off limits.

Petraeus was not in uniform but rather wore what looked to me to be a brand new, perfectly tailored dark suit. I joked to him that if I Twittered that out of two dozen or so times I had seen Petraeus that this was the first time I'd seen him out of uniform, an ice cold shudder of fear would spread quickly through some political circles in DC.

In August of 2007, I wrote a piece stating that folks should keep an eye out for the possibility that General Petraeus might run for President in 2012. In April 2008, Steven Lee Myers wrote a solid New York Times follow up titled "The Political General" referencing my earlier take.

Recently, legendary newsman Arnaud de Borchgrave resuscitated the topic of an Eisenhoweresque future for the counterinsurgency guru in his piece, "President Petraeus?"

Petraeus was recently named as one of Foreign Policy magazine's top 100 global thinkers, and as U.S. News & World Report's "Washington Whispers" notes, he is going to be speaking in May 2010 at the annual American Enterprise Institute dinner receiving the Irving Kristol Award.

In January 2010, Public Policy Polling revealed that while Obama held a ten point lead over a potential wild card race against Petraeus, the General had some strengths. But the pollsters also noted that many in the American public just didn't know enough yet about Petraeus to form an opinion:

Finally our blog readers voted for David Petraeus as our wild card Republican this month and his numbers come out as a mixed bag. He has the largest deficit against Obama, trailing 44-34. But at +13 his net favorability is better than the President or any of the other Republicans we tested. The problem for him is that the numbers break down 25/12- 63% of voters in the country don't know enough about him to have formed an opinion. Who knows if Petraeus would actually have any interest in going into politics, but if he did he would be introducing himself to many voters for the first time.

President Obama himself, according to what some of his aides have reported to me, is quite taken with David Petraeus and respects his approach and thinking.

Petraeus has also been respectful of the President -- although when pushed at a recent forum about how he might react to a Presidential decision on Afghanistan that the General might not have liked, Petraeus offered a cryptic rather than clear response. (see above video)

At the "First Draft of History" meeting sponsored by the Atlantic Monthly/Atlantic Media Group, the Newseum, and the Aspen Institute, Petraeus when asked if he would support the President no matter what the result of the strategic review on Afghanistan responded that he "would continue to give the President the best professional military advice he could." Contrast that with Defense Secretary Robert Gates responding to the same question, "We will salute and execute [the President's] decisions faithfully and to the best of our ability."

But after spending an evening with General Petraeus and watching him closely for a number of years, there is no way that this intelligent leader -- with whom I have some disagreements but respect -- could be comfortable with the Tea Party takeover of the Republican political machine.

There is always the possibility that a core of reasonable Republicans like Michael Bloomberg, James Baker, Olympia Snowe, Chuck Hagel, Alan Simpson, John Whitehead, Peter Peterson, Rita Hauser and others will try to rekindle classic Republican sensibilities by fighting to re-hijack their party back in an Eisenhower-like campaign with Petraeus at the lead. Remember that Eisenhower clinched the Republican nomination by promising to be the President who though he knew war would end the Korean War. Petraeus knows Afghanistan and Iraq -- and though it seems hard to envision today could be the kind of leader promising to end those wars if Obama proves unable to do so.

But there is another option that intrigues me and seems more realistic than imagining the iconic David Petraeus running for President -- and that is his running for Vice President.

I think Vice President Joe Biden has done an outstanding job and of all the big guns in the Obama White House, Biden has done the best job of outperforming expectations. He had given President Obama much needed counsel, not always taken regrettably, but counsel that Obama needed to show the American public he was getting. Biden has been the key agent behind the scenes in moving Iraq's elections forward. He has scored a lot of wins -- not reported -- in the nuclear/WMD controls arena. Biden has worked with Gates in stabilizing an awkward and complex relationship with Russia -- and his counterpoints on the Afghanistan surge, in my view, remain compelling.

But Biden is going to have to find a way to hold his spot in 2012 because others are going to be gunning for it.

As I look at it now, Hillary Clinton who has now said that she will not do more than one term as Secretary of State would be a natural candidate for the Obama VP slot. Her franchise is not completely in the control of the Obama team yet, but moving Hillary closer to the White House (although her private home on Whitehaven Street is actually a couple of hundred feet closer to the White House than the VP residence at the Naval Observatory) would finalize Obama's takeover of all the key political franchises in the Democratic Party -- starting with Daley's machine, Daschle's machine, Kennedy's machine, Edwards' machine, and then the Clintons'.

But General David Petraeus, in his business suit, lurks out there. Obama seems to be concerned about looking like he is weak on national security. The Republicans -- at Cheney's constant goading (and now Sarah Palin's) -- seem to want to continue to play politics through fear-mongering.

Obama could neutralize the possibility that he faces a Republican party challenge by David Petraeus by inviting the General on to the 2012 ticket as a Democrat.

Crazy? Perhaps.

But inviting potential rivals into his tent is becoming a standard Obama trademark -- much as he did by appointing Republican Governor of Utah and former G.W. Bush administration Deputy US Trade Representative Jon Huntsman, Jr. to serve as US Ambassador to the People's Republic of China.

And get this, The Washington Note has learned that David Petraeus has not voted since 2002 -- not because he doesn't care to vote -- but reportedly because he wants to keep his eventual political options and political loyalties open.

This is a soldier for whom all options are on the table and who is keeping his powder dry.

My hunch is that whether Obama sticks with Vice President Biden or pivots to someone else, Petraeus will be on the short list of those considered.

-- Steve Clemons

Kevin Sullivan's Real Clear World is aggregating some thoughtful commentary on Iran on 22 Bahman, the anniversary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Washington Note also started the day with a great essay by Shane M., the anonymous student who reported on Iran's electoral turmoil from Tehran though he is now back in the United States.

Real Clear World starts with an exchange with Hooman Majd, author of The Ayatollah Begs to Differ: The Paradox of Modern Iran. Majd recently spoke at a forum at the New America Foundation titled "What Does the Iranian Public Really Think?".

The entire piece is here, but this is a snapshot:

"To some Ahmadinejad represents a break from the corruption of the past. He has also not been particularly vocal - as the Revolutionary Guards and some hard-line clerics have been - in denouncing protesters. He often says he is unhappy people are in jail and that "we are all Iranians," which plays well amongst his supporters who may not be supportive of the brutality of the crackdown.

There is no doubt, of course, that the middle and upper-class youth who are protesting and getting arrested, beaten or killed are heroes to their peers and to Iranians outside Iran, but I'm not sure that Iranians in general, inside Iran, are viewing the issue in those terms. Society has become more polarized, and within families even there are those who support the Green Movement and those who support Ahmadinejad."

RCW's next profiled commentary is from RAND Corporation's Alireza Nader on the Iranian Green Movement, sanctions and the future of the Islamic Republic.

Here is a clip:

"The Islamic Republic has historically functioned as a system that represents various factional viewpoints; Khamenei's support for Ahmadinejad and the rise of the fringe right, especially within the Revolutionary Guards, have disturbed this system of factional politics. The vitality of the Green Movement has also led to discord within the conservative and "principlist" political groups that have traditionally supported Khamenei. Many of these elite may now view Khamenei and Ahmadinejad as having endangered the Islamic Republic."

-- Steve Clemons

of the great blizzard-caused government shutdown in Washington, we are all beginning to go a bit crazy.

We have apparently surpassed all records now -- beating the snow blitz of 1888-89 for the amount of snow the DC region has experienced during a season. And we have more on the way on Monday.

My friend Rick has decided to taunt me with this winter photo just taken outside his door in Venice, California.

And now back to thinking about our Afghanistan follies.

-- Steve Clemons

(This picture was taken by Shane M. in Tehran on Bahman 22 in 2009. Shane writes about the pic: "I'm always interested in the folks found that are found around a spectacle. I asked these guys if I could take a picture and they readily agreed. The flower was his idea.")

This is a guest note by an anonymous student who reported here at The Washington Note on Iran's recent election turmoil from Tehran. The high quality of his essays landed him spots on National Public Radio and the New York Times. He has gone on to write for Salon, Time, and other outlets. Shane M. is back in the United States working on his doctoral dissertation, but he offers this thoughtful piece on Iran's "22 Bahman," which is today.

The pictures depicted were taken by Shane M. on 22 Bahman last year. His bravery in reporting about Iran's post-election convulsions was greatly appreciated by readers here at The Washington Note.

The Iranian Revolution Looks Back on 22 Bahman

Iran turns 31 on Thursday, give or take a few thousand years.

As part of the official commemorations for the anniversary of the 1979 Revolution, or what is known in Iran as the "ten days of dawn" (daheye fajr), state television broadcasts archival footage from that period, including scenes and images unimaginable the rest of the year: There are men with Western ties and women without Islamic hijabs. Secular housewives march in the streets with Hezbollah university students. Jimmy Carter toasts the Iranian monarch in Tehran, and Ayatollah Khomeini meets with American journalists in France.

Every year, the hapless Shah is brought back to life, resurrected by state media only to be chased out of Iran once again, while on another channel Khomeini descends from the sky and into our living rooms on the wings of an Air France passenger plane, returning to Iran after many years of exile. The footage reminds us that revolutions can produce strange combinations, and that our collective memory of those days will forever come in passe? hues and sepia tones (will there ever again in history be revolutionaries decked out in wide-collar three-piece suits and feathered hair?).

We watch this history replayed every year on television, but the Revolution is not about history. It is a thirty-one-year old story cut out of sequence, edited back into the programming, made current. One thing that must be understood about Iran, about living here, is that the Revolution is never officially discussed as a finished event. Here, revolution is transitive, a work still in progress. Last year a reporter asked a young man-on-the-street regarding his opinion about the Revolution on the occasion of its 30th anniversary. The man replied that he wished to be around in 90 years to see the Revolution at 120. One hundred twenty. Such talk is surely dissonant to ears conditioned to think of revolutions as conclusions. It is perfectly normal here. Here, revolution is transitive.

There is purpose to this. There are those who argue that by permanently mobilizing the population the regime uses the Revolution as an instrument of rule. This may be true but I think that there is another way to look at the annual celebrations. Like the mourning rites of Ashura, the Revolution is treated as a sequence of events in history that must be retold and most importantly, re-enacted.

Revelation comes but once, be it on the plains of Karbala thirteen centuries ago or in the streets of Tehran during the winter cold of 1979, but redemption requires that the faithful regularly reprise the moment of grace.

So every year we spool the story back to 1979 and over ten days the state leads society in public ritual. Public because salvation can?t be achieved sitting alone in the confessional or in front of the television. It?s why turnout is important for this regime, be it at the ballot box or in an anniversary march. Having the masses show up somehow proves that the Islamic Republic is blessed. It all culminates with the great gathering on February 11, the 22nd of Bahman by the Iranian calendar. In Tehran the crowds converge on Freedom Square, the site of massive rallies during the 1979 Revolution and where most recently millions gathered last June to demand that their vote be recognized.

The state organizes the march but it cannot control the meanings that people attach to this day. After so many years, the 22nd of Bahman has become as much a national day of gathering as it is a political rally. Television shows the angry speeches denouncing the West, but out in the crowd the atmosphere is often festive. You are just as likely to run into bundled families out for a stroll as you are to find militant basijis marching in formation along the route.

The streets are filled with vendors selling food and all along the route are the ubiquitous balloon sellers, men slowly floating through the crowd wrapped in globes of all shapes and colors. It is not uncommon to see people dressed as Mickey Mouse or Winnie the Pooh, pausing to give hugs and take photos with the many children out in the crowd.

Just days ago former president Mohammad Khatami likened the Revolution to a train in motion. Defending the Green Movement against accusations of treason and supporting the right of the opposition to gather peacefully this coming Thursday (already there is word that security forces are preparing for some three million of the "Greens" will attend).

Khatami stated that "Those who groundlessly accuse protesters of subversion are voluntarily or involuntarily derailing the Revolution from its correct track, and they call into question the principles of the Revolution."

We should pay close attention to Khatami's words. Like the 22nd of Bahman, the meaning of the 1979 Revolution belongs to no one person or group. 1979 is not a break in history, nor for that matter is 2009 its correction, but are rather constituent parts of a struggle for democracy that reaches back over 100 years. It is a mistake to think that the protestors that will show up tomorrow do so because they all reject the Revolution.

Instead, many of these protestors will march because they too seek redemption. For them as it is for the authorities, the Revolution is not yet over but remains a work very much in progress.

-- Shane M.

For those who want to see more, this pdf prepared by Shane M. includes 49 pictures that he took and annotated at the Bahman 22 celebrations in Tehran in 2009.

All the snow we have had piled on in Washington reminds me of my days as a kid living at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska -- near Fairbanks. We had massive walls of snow then -- but we are getting there in Washington.

This is Lucy, who is pretty tired of the filibuster, but otherwise pretty happy. She owns Asia expert Amy Searight.

Back to shoveling.

-- Steve Clemons

Former US Congressman Charlie Wilson has died at age 76.

Wilson was a 12-term Member of the US House of Representatives representing Texas' 2nd District.

Wilson's strong advocacy of US support of mujahadeen in their quest to repel Soviet forces in Afghanistan were the subject of the book and movie "Charlie Wilson's War".

Wilson's adoption of the anti-Soviet crusade in Afghanistan became the CIA's largest covert operation and helped empower what are now the Afghan Taliban that American and allied forces are fighting today. After the Soviets withdrew, Wilson lamented the collapse of American interest in supporting the Afghan people as they tried to rebuild their society and lives.

-- Steve Clemons

The pic to the left was taken by a friend who is the head chef at the Italian Embassy and whose igloo is just down the street from mine. The second from a friend and Washington Note reader in Northern California.

-- Steve Clemons

At the highest levels of the US military, a quiet discussion is going on about putting in place a legal framework that would permit the US government to strip American citizenship from terrorists.

The case of Las Cruces, New Mexico born al Qaeda commander Anwar al-Aulaqi, who has been a key organizer and recruiter for the terrorist organization in Yemen is the primary driver of this exploration of possibly modifying US law to allow "de-citizening."

As the Washington Post's Dana Priest recently revealed, al-Alaqi was added recently to a short list of other Americans for whom there are kill orders in place.

A senior Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has told me that to his knowledge, there has been no serious discussion in the Committee of stripping US citizenship from terrorists, but a senior Pentagon official has confirmed that some in the military are exploring the upsides and downsides of such a more routenized mechanism for stripping citizenship.

A national security attorney who serves in an advisory capacity to President Obama has reported to me that there is no legal way for the US military or the government to strip citizenship from Americans.

But Eugene Volokh, exploring in a Salon article the case of American gone al Qaeda adventurer John Walker, writes in 2001 that "8 U.S.C. § 1481 : US Code - Section 1481" may provide such a mechanism.

As Volokh then wrote pondering whether a terrorist could be stripped of his US citizenship:

Maybe. A federal statute says that a citizen loses his citizenship by "serving in the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States" but only if he does so "with the intention of relinquishing United States [citizenship]."

This topic can be more ably discussed by sharp legal minds like Jeffrey Toobin, Jeffrey Rosen and Glenn Greenwald -- but it seems to me that establishing a regularized legal framework specifying that alleged terrorists be stripped of US citizenship so that the military can deal with those de-nationed individuals differently reminds me of the kind of legal gray area that Cheney national security adviser David Addington loved to create.

By posting this question, I trust that others will review other cases and the legal background of this question of stripping citizenship in times of war -- and weigh in.

The Pentagon's top stars are mulling over this issue now and just beginning to probe receptevity in the administration and among some in Congress.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note by Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and co-founder of The Baseline Scenario. Johnson is also a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and a member of the CBO's Panel of Economic Advisers. With James Kwak, Simon Johnson is co-author of the forthcoming 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown.

This post has previously appeared at Huffington Post and at The Baseline Scenario.

President Obama Confused on CEO Compensation

Bloomberg today reports President Obama as commenting on the $17 million bonus for Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase and the $9 million bonus for Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs,

I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,

and

I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.

Taken separately, these statements are undeniably true. But put them together in the context of the Bloomberg story - we have to wait until Friday for the full text of the interview - and the White House has a major public relations disaster on its hands. [UPDATE: See the complete exchange below.]

Does the president truly not understand that Dimon and Blankfein run banks that are regarded by policymakers and hence by credit markets as "too big to fail"?

This is the antithesis of a free-market system. Not only were their banks saved by government action in 2008-09 but the overly generous nature of this bailout (details here) means that the playing field is now massively tilted in favor of these banks. (I put this to Gerry Corrigan of Goldman and Barry Zubrow of JP Morgan when we appeared before the Senate Banking Committee last week; there was no effective rejoinder.)

Not only that, but the incentives for the people running these megabanks is now to take on reckless amounts of risk. They get the upside (for example, in these compensation packages) and - when the downside materializes - this belongs to taxpayers and everyone who loses a job. (See my testimony to the Senate Budget Committee recently; there was no disagreement among the witnesses or even across the aisle between Senators on this point.)

Being nice to the biggest banks will not save the midterm elections for the Democrats. The banks' campaign contributions will flow increasingly to the Republicans and against any Democrats (and there are precious few) who have fought for real reform.

The president's only political chance is to take on the too big to fail banks directly and clearly. He needs to explain where they came from (answer: the Reagan Revolution, gone wrong), how the problem became much worse during the last administration, and how - in credible detail - he will end their reign.

What we have now is not a free market. It is rather one of the most complete (and awful) instances ever of savvy businessmen capturing a state and the minds of the people who run it.

Is this really what the president seeks to endorse?

-- Simon Johnson

Update:

The transcript of Obama's exchange on bonuses

Q Let's talk bonuses for a minute: Lloyd Blankfein, $9 million; Jamie Dimon, $17 million. Now, granted, those were in stock and less than what some had expected. But are those numbers okay?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They're very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That's part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we've seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.

Q Seventeen million dollars is a lot for Main Street to stomach.

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don't get to the World Series either. So I'm shocked by that as well. I guess the main principle we want to promote is a simple principle of "say on pay," that shareholders have a chance to actually scrutinize what CEOs are getting paid. And I think that serves as a restraint and helps align performance with pay. The other thing we do think is the more that pay comes in the form of stock that requires proven performance over a certain period of time as opposed to quarterly earnings is a fairer way of measuring CEOs' success and ultimately will make the performance of American businesses better.

This is a guest post by Lawrence B. Wilkerson exclusive to The Washington Note. Wilkerson is the former Chief of Staff at the Department of State during the tenure of Secretary of State Colin Powell, for whom Wilkerson was a 16 year aide. Wilkerson is a member of the Director's Council of the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program.

The Wrong Instrument

There's an old saying in my part of the country that if you choose to wrestle with a pig, two things can happen and both are bad: you get dirty and the pig loves it.

First Lady Michelle Obama, appearing on Larry King Live, proved as versatile and smooth as usual by demonstrating that she understands the gist of this saying when she refused to wrestle with Sarah Palin. Michelle simply refused to characterize Palin as the latter had done her husband, the President. Mrs. Obama was correct from another perspective as well: Palin, rapidly becoming with Rush Limbaugh the leader of the kooks in America, would not even make good bacon.

On a much more serious note, Jane Mayer has done the same thing with Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol, Michael Goldberg, Mel Sembler and others who have struck up the campaign to denigrate President Obama for his allegedly light touch on terrorism. Ms. Mayer simply destroys them.

Whether listening to her long interview on National Public Radio today (9 February) or reading her devastating indictment of these truly frightening folks in The New Yorker ("The Trial", 15 February 2010), one cannot escape the clear fact, now well established particularly in the field of torture and abuse--of both people and the law--by the Bush/Cheney team, that Ms. Mayer not only does her homework, she carries a wicked weapon in the form of her pen.

Citing such facts as the Bush administration's having put 147 of the total 150 terrorists with whom it dealt into the U.S. court system--and not into the military's courts, tribunals or commissions--and having faired rather well there; of that same administration's reading of Miranda rights to terrorists; and of its rather consistent failure when it strayed from the rule of law and from the President's responsibility to be not only commander-in-chief but also the principal enforcer of the nation's laws, Ms. Mayer deftly spears the Republicans now speaking out against Obama's policies. They are at best hypocrites and at worst themselves giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

As Ms. Mayer also points out, Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, and Zacarias Moussaoui were both tried and convicted in civil court. Rudolph Guliani, as Ms Mayer records, said of the latter trial: "I was in awe of our system. It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial."

More telling, however, is Ms. Mayer's almost glancing catalog of crimes committed by the Bush/Cheney team. This, of course, is a subject I know something about. Incompetent battlefield vetting of detainees, murder of detainees at Bagram in Afghanistan, detention of innocent people at Guantánamo, abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib, renditions to secret prisons, and a host of other crimes and mistakes mar significantly the Bush/Cheney record.

Ms. Mayer covers almost in a casual backward glance how such activities ultimately played into the hands of Osama bin Laden and al Qa'ida.

Every time America failed to live up to its own values it gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Truth be told, Dick Cheney may well have represented a greater threat to the long-term security of America than a ragged band of terrorists ever could. Ms. Mayer demonstrates why.

One thing that she misses--through no fault of her own, to be sure--is what I as a soldier cannot help but point out. The instrument of policy to which I devoted my life, war, was the wrong instrument to use against terrorism. Just as "the war on poverty" and "the war on drugs" are illogical distortions for largely partisan political reasons, so is "the war on terror". But such resorts to the ultimate instrument of policy are also terribly frightening, particularly with respect to terrorism. There are several reasons why I as a soldier of 31 years make these points.

First, wars when undertaken should never be unwinnable from the start. Anyone believing poverty can be eliminated--no matter how laudable the goal--or that drugs can ever be defeated entirely, is naïve to the point of being dangerous, particularly so if in a position of power.

It is the same with terrorism. Terrorism has been with the human race for over 4,000 years; it will be with us for the next 4,000 should we be so fortunate to last that long. The best we can hope to do is what the UK, India, Sri Lanka, Israel, and a host of others have done or are doing: bring terrorism to a manageable level.

If you want to demoralize a military and ultimately destroy it, assign it repeatedly to unwinnable wars.

Some argue, including Dick Cheney, that nuclear weapons have changed all of this, that the potential for a terrorist group to explode such a weapon in a major US city requires the scrapping of our Constitution and a move toward tyranny and permanent war. This is purest hogwash. If we could contend with thirty thousand Soviet missiles aimed at the heart of America without losing our democratic federal republic, how can a band of terrorists succeed in causing it to happen?

These terrorists can achieve such a superhuman feat only if we have decided that Patrick Henry was wrong; that "Give me liberty or give me death" has transmogrified into "Give me security at any cost--including my liberty." Though I know well we have some amongst us, I refuse to believe we are a nation of such cowards.

Second, when George Bush declared war on terrorists, he elevated them automatically to the status of warriors. That is one reason why there has been so much difficulty with the Geneva Conventions and other aspects of what we in the armed forces call the law of war. More significantly, elevating bin Laden and his group to warrior status gave them precisely what they wanted: holy warrior status, involved in the great fight against the infidels.

Whether we as Americans believe this or not is immaterial. That a sizeable portion of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world--particularly the young ones--believe it, makes for far too many potential suicide bombers.

Treating terrorists as criminals, on the other hand, gives them just the status such people deserve who kill innocent men, women, and children for political purposes. They are criminals.

Yes, there needed to be military action--not necessarily "war"--against the Taliban in Afghanistan (and any al-Qa'ida that got in the way) because the Taliban represented a state sponsor (yes, we had given diplomatic recognition to the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan before 9/11). But once that action was complete, the military action--other than Special Operations Forces in selective instances--should have slowed down markedly.

Of course Iraq should never have been invaded either; but that is a totally different matter--which, incidentally, had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.

The terrorists, according to President Obama's team, are right back where they belong: criminals of the most heinous nature to be tried and convicted in a court of law and punished accordingly.

Now if we could only get our armed forces back where they belong.

-- Lawrence B. Wilkerson

Snow Storms & Roads

In snow-challenged Washington, DC, Nebraska Avenue and the roads around Vice President's Naval Observatory home are immaculate, completely cleared of snow and ice -- but the major artery of Massachusetts Avenue is a horizontal snow slush, barely plowed. DC Mayor Adrian Fenty would probably be in bigger trouble with citizens if there were not another ten or so inches of white stuff on the way giving him 'another chance' to get the city's infrastructure back in operation after a storm.

The Washington Post Reaches Out to A Realist

Well, jiminy cricket, I just learned that Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel has started a weekly "online" column for The Washington Post. Appearing in the actual paper still has its benefits -- particularly when so much of the in-paper editorial offerings and the opeds assembled by Fred Hiatt and Jackson Diehl are of a neoconservative or liberal interventionist (neocon of the left) tilt. But something is better than nothing -- and Vanden Heuvel, who too many confuse as a hard core lefty, is actually one of the smartest "progressive realist" commentators in the country. Katrina once told me at a swank Hamptons party that "realism had become the new ideology of the left." And she is and was right. (Here is her first installment.)

Dianne Feinstein's Famous Chairs

I had occasion to chat with Senator Dianne Feinstein last night -- a hero in my book in the aftermath of the Harvey Milk assassination -- and learned that her home in the Spring Valley district of Washington should probably become a historic site at some point. I don't think she would mind my sharing this -- but said that when folks come over to her place, she is nearly always asked right away to show where Barack and Hillary sat in her home to work out their post-primary postures. At the dinner we were at last evening, she pointed to two modest but still regal high-back stuffed chairs that looked like the ones in her place. Senator Feinstein said that she was thinking of putting plaques on the chairs that said who sat in what chair and where. Two thoughts: Someone should convince the President and Secretary of State to go resume their positions in those chairs and get a great Annie Leibovitz photo. Second, perhaps Senator Feinstein should donate the chairs to the Smithsonian National Museum of American History?

British Ambassador to US Nigel Sheinwald Tires of Snow Shoveling and Gives Major Speech Tonight in Austin

I was up near the British Embassy both yesterday and today -- ghost town there in an embassy sense. The stalwart bronzed Winston Churchill still has about 18 inches of white stuff on his head and arms -- sort of a warrior snow man.

But just got word that UK Ambassador to the US Nigel Sheinwald is speaking in Austin tonight at the LBJ Presidential Library outlining support for General Stanley McChrystal's action plan in Afghanistan.

According to Sheinwald's office:

Ambassador Sheinwald will lay out the case for a successful political strategy to support the military strategy being carried out by ISAF under General McChrystal. He will say that political success in Afghanistan depends on three factors: reassuring the Afghan people about our commitment, splitting the coalition that makes up the insurgency we face, and promoting security in the wider region around Afghanistan. He will reiterate that a political solution is as important as a military one, and make the case that the Taliban need to be outgoverned as well as outgunned.

"The war in Afghanistan and the related challenges we face across the border in Pakistan constitute the top foreign policy and security priority for the British Government. The reason is simple: like the US Administration, we believe that we must prevent Afghanistan from becoming once again a safe haven for Al Qaeda and international terrorists who plan to do us harm.

"And what are we doing to ensure that this risk is lowered? After several reviews, both the Obama Administration and the British Government have come to the same conclusion: to ensure that this area does not become a safe haven, we must help and support the government of Afghanistan to secure its own territory against militancy and terrorism. We have adopted, with the Afghan government, a comprehensive, politically-led counter-insurgency campaign. Simultaneously, in Pakistan, we need to support the government's efforts - certainly through security and intelligence help, but also through economic and social development, and long term nurturing of Pakistan's political and institutional structure. [...] "When the Taliban were in power, they broke Afghan society so badly that it was easy for Al Qaeda to take root. Our task, therefore, is to help the Afghan people strengthen themselves and their society to the extent that they are robust enough to repel Al Qaeda without the need for several tens of thousand international troops on their soil. [...] "We are not just focused on making Afghans feel safer in their beds at night. We need the people of Afghanistan to want to take ownership of the future of their country. The polls consistently tell us that only around 6% of the Afghan people want the Taliban back in power. But the evidence is clear that many more than that are unwilling to turn their back on the insurgency in case the Taliban do return. [...] "So we need to build up their trust in a government which is seen to be acting against corruption and aiming to govern competently. In the words of our Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, "the Taliban need to be outgoverned, not just outgunned". This part of the political strategy is designed to build up the capacity and effectiveness of Afghanistan's government, both in Kabul and out in the provinces and districts; training and equipping provincial and district governors; distributing aid money more effectively; and addressing the deficit in justice by providing both financial and practical support.

Here is the rest of the speech.

Ambassador Sheinwald makes much sense here -- but one wonders how the US, even with allies, can even pretend to achieve such a holistic, ambitious agenda in Afghanistan when the President of the United States can't get a health care bill through Congress.

I want President Obama, General McChrystal, our British allies, and others to succeed -- but not to doubt somewhat this ambitious agenda given current performance trends would be irresponsible in my view.

-- Steve Clemons

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I did a short interview with NBC Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd yesterday about the essay I did based on Edward Luce's Financial Times account of things going awry at the inner core of the Obama administration.

Todd also mentions both my piece and Luce's in his "First Thoughts" column this morning. Todd and his team write:

*** Obama's inner circle: We should have mentioned these two pieces earlier -- in the Financial Times and the Washington Note -- that make some key observations about Obama's inner circle, and are getting a fair amount of buzz. One excerpt: "The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing, [observers] say. In dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington - most of them given unattributably in order to protect their access to the Oval Office - each observes that the president draws on the advice of a very tight circle. The inner core consists of just four people - Rahm Emanuel, the pugnacious chief of staff; David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, his senior advisers; and Robert Gibbs, his communications chief... With the exception of Mr Emanuel, who was a senior Democrat in the House of Representatives, all were an integral part of Mr Obama's brilliantly managed campaign. Apart from Mr Gibbs, who is from Alabama, all are Chicagoans - like the president. And barring Richard Nixon's White House, few can think of an administration that has been so dominated by such a small inner circle."

Other interesting reactions and thoughts can be read at Digby's Hullabaloo, pieces by John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay at AmericaBlog, at Peter Feaver's Foreign Policy blog, and this morning in The Hill.

Also check out Jake Tapper's take at ABC's Political Punch.

There are also a number of sites -- some very interesting ones -- that take exception to the thesis that Luce and I have both put out there and who think that Obama's team is getting most things right -- or that this kind of palace intrigue article is at most entertaining and at worst malicious. I just want to be up front that there are other views out there -- and my intent is not malicious -- but rather to put a mirror up to the White House and have the President take a good look at how his presidency is quickly sinking.

In my view, he needs to do what Richard Wolffe in his book Renegade: The Making of a President said Obama likes to do when the President knows he is losing and that is, like in basketball, change things up.

-- Steve Clemons

(President Barack Obama, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and fellow NATO leaders step down from a photo platform April 4, 2009, following their group photo at the NATO meeting in Strasbourg, France. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Stephen Herzog, writing at World Politics Review, argues that NATO should reconsider its intention to develop contingency plans to defend Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania against Russian attacks.

According to Herzog, the operations are unnecessary because NATO is fully prepared to respond to a Russian attack. Moreover, such an attack is highly improbable and carrying out a contingency plan is only likely to generate hostility in Moscow.

He says:

The Atlantic Alliance and Russia need to work together to solve some of today's toughest problems. These issues include fighting terrorism, preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, cracking down on transnational crime, and reducing global numbers of nuclear weapons. Real cooperation cannot occur so long as both sides treat each other like enemies. NATO should abandon the idea of developing provocative defense plans that have little basis in geopolitical reality. But cooperation is not a one-way street. Russian leaders need to tone down their rhetoric and look for avenues of collaboration, not confrontation.

The dilemma Herzog identifies highlights a key problem connecting many of the United States' strategic challenges. America is - to use Walter Lippmann's term - "insolvent." That is, its overseas commitments outweigh its foreign policy resources.

The fundamental issue with strategic implications is that the United States is burdened with massive security and political commitments throughout the globe that entail enormous political and economic costs.

The situation in the Baltic States is analogous to the conundrum in East Asia, where the United States continues to provide huge amounts of arms to Taiwan that benefit the Taiwanese and American military contractors at the expense of U.S.-China relations.

Adjusting America's "legacy commitments," must be part of the United States' long-term strategy to reorient its foreign policy for the post-American international order, in which issues like NATO defense preparations and Taiwanese military sales cannot obstruct America's higher-order strategic imperative of developing a new "social contract" of baseline global interests with Russia, China, and other major global players.

-- Ben Katcher

Representative John Murtha (D-PA) took on the Swift-Boat crowd. He was an old-line, earmark oriented defense industry hawk who eventually opposed the Iraq War. He died today at 77.

From an official release from his office:

Congressman John P. Murtha (PA-12) passed away peacefully this afternoon at 1:18 p.m. at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, VA. At his bedside was his family.

Murtha, 77, was Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

First elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in February of 1974, Murtha dedicated his life to serving his country both in the military and in the halls of Congress. A former Marine, he became the first Vietnam War combat Veteran elected to the U.S. Congress.

This past Saturday, February 6, 2010, Murtha became Pennsylvania's longest serving Member of Congress.

John Murtha, rest in peace.

-- Steve Clemons

(Obama's Core Team at press conference on Obama administration's 100th day; photo credit: Bill O'leary, Washington Post)

Financial Times Washington Bureau Chief Edward Luce has written a granularly informed insider account about those who hold the keys to the inner most sanctum of Obama Land -- Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs, Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod.

It's a vital article -- a brave one -- that interviews "dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington".

Most are unnamed because the consequences of retribution from this powerful foursome can be severe in an access-dependent town. John Podesta, President of the powerful, adminstration-tilting Center for American Progress, had the temerity and self-confidence to put his thoughts publicly on the record. But most others could not.

Mark Schmitt, executive editor of the liberal magazine American Prospect, wrote that "Luce has written what seems to me the best and most succinct rundown of what's gone wrong in the White House, with particular attention to the role of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel." But some of the big aggregators out there -- Mike Allen at Politico and ABC's The Note among others -- didn't give Luce's juicy and lengthy essay any love.

Why not? Allen is a good friend of mine and tries to keep a good balance between tough-hitting political stuff but also goes out of his way to give strokes to those in the White House he can -- particularly "Axe" -- who is a regular in Mike's daily Playbook. I try to do the same to be honest and have a particular thing for Bill Burton's wit and was pleased to see Rahm Emanuel giving David Geffen rather than Rick Warren lots of hugs during the Inauguration eve fests.

But this Luce piece is unavoidably, accurately hard-hitting, and while many of the nation's top news anchors and editors are sending emails back and forth (I have been sent three such emails in confidence) on what a spot-on piece Luce wrought on the administration, they fear that the "four horsepersons of the Obama White House" will shut down and cut off access to those who give the essay 'legs.'

But in the too regularly vapid chatter about DC's political scene, serious critiques of the internal game around Obama not only deserve review on their own merits but have to be read -- because Obama is not winning. He is failing and people need to consider "why".

Any serious survey of the Obama administration's accomplishments and setbacks over the last year has to conclude that the administration is deeply in the red.

If current trends continue, this once mesmerizing Camelot-ish operation will be be seen in the history books as the presidential administration that -- to distort slightly and inversely paraphrase Churchill -- never have so many talented people managed to achieve so little with so much.

The entire article needs to be read, but to set the stage here is the beginning of Ed Luce's portal into the heart of today's Obama machine:

At a crucial stage in the Democratic primaries in late 2007, Barack Obama rejuvenated his campaign with a barnstorming speech, in which he ended on a promise of what his victory would produce: "A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again."

Just over a year into his tenure, America's 44th president governs a bitterly divided nation, a world increasingly hard to manage and an America that seems more disillusioned than ever with Washington's ways. What went wrong?

Pundits, Democratic lawmakers and opinion pollsters offer a smorgasbord of reasons - from Mr Obama's decision to devote his first year in office to healthcare reform, to the president's inability to convince voters he can "feel their [economic] pain", to the apparent ungovernability of today's Washington. All may indeed have contributed to the quandary in which Mr Obama finds himself. But those around him have a more specific diagnosis - and one that is striking in its uniformity. The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing, they say.

In dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington - most of them given unattributably in order to protect their access to the Oval Office - each observes that the president draws on the advice of a very tight circle. The inner core consists of just four people - Rahm Emanuel, the pugnacious chief of staff; David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, his senior advisers; and Robert Gibbs, his communications chief.

Two, Mr Emanuel and Mr Axelrod, have box-like offices within spitting distance of the Oval Office. The president, who is the first to keep a BlackBerry, rarely holds a meeting, including on national security, without some or all of them present.

With the exception of Mr Emanuel, who was a senior Democrat in the House of Representatives, all were an integral part of Mr Obama's brilliantly managed campaign. Apart from Mr Gibbs, who is from Alabama, all are Chicagoans - like the president. And barring Richard Nixon's White House, few can think of an administration that has been so dominated by such a small inner circle.

"It is a very tightly knit group," says a prominent Obama backer who has visited the White House more than 40 times in the past year. "This is a kind of 'we few' group ... that achieved the improbable in the most unlikely election victory anyone can remember and, unsurprisingly, their bond is very deep."

John Podesta, a former chief of staff to Bill Clinton and founder of the Center for American Progress, the most influential think-tank in Mr Obama's Washington, says that while he believes Mr Obama does hear a range of views, including dissenting advice, problems can arise from the narrow composition of the group itself.

To hit some of the later highlights, Luce speaks with political giants 'inside' the Obama tent who suggest that Rahm Emanuel lost track of the importance of communicating to the public about health care, despite some success in legislative deal-making. While Luce doesn't explicate this topic, I would also suggest that Rahm pulled the plug on shuttering GITMO, which had a good plan on paper, but was unwilling to move the political wheels to get that done -- not understanding that this was a key pillar of progressive political support for Obama.

The article goes on to document how people like Health Secretary and former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius were kept off television -- along with others like Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Add to this others that Luce does not name -- including important voices like Paul Volcker and Austan Goolsbee on Obama's economic team, who saw their public voices choked off by a media-dominating Lawrence Summers with support from Robert Gibbs and Rahm Emanuel.

In a particularly cutting depiction of Emanuel, Luce writes:

Administration insiders say the famously irascible Mr Emanuel treats cabinet principals like minions. "I am not sure the president realises how much he is humiliating some of the big figures he spent so much trouble recruiting into his cabinet," says the head of a presidential advisory board who visits the Oval Office frequently. "If you want people to trust you, you must first place trust in them."

I will never forget when Rahm Emanuel laughingly responded well within earshot of several national media (and this blogger/writer) at an Inaugural bash to an inquiry if Emanuel was enjoying putting Tom Daschle on the basement floor of the White House in a non-descript office pretty far from the President. Emanuel joked back glibly that Daschle had to be happy with any office in the White House because "any square inch of real estate inside the White House -- no matter where it is -- is more valuable than anything outside it."

Compare this flippant meanness and hubris to the tone of Obama campaign manager David Plouffe's depiction of the campaign in Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama's Historic Victory and one couldn't imagine more different worlds. Plouffe describes a campaign with a "no assholes" rule -- one where good policy would be pursued -- not just what was a winning political hand.

Luce's brief paints a picture of even a well-meaning, policy-focused "Obama the man" being warped out of shape by "Obama the team." Recounting some of the antics during Obama's November China trip, Luce recounts:

The same [dismissal of his key policy advisers in lieu of his political entourage] can be observed in foreign policy. On Mr Obama's November trip to China, members of the cabinet such as the Nobel prizewinning Stephen Chu, energy secretary, were left cooling their heels while Mr Gibbs, Mr Axelrod and Ms Jarrett were constantly at the president's side.

The White House complained bitterly about what it saw as unfairly negative media coverage of a trip dubbed Mr Obama's "G2" visit to China. But, as journalists were keenly aware, none of Mr Obama's inner circle had any background in China. "We were about 40 vans down in the motorcade and got barely any time with the president," says a senior official with extensive knowledge of the region. "It was like the Obama campaign was visiting China."

One wonders why Valerie Jarrett was on the trip in any case. As head of public engagement for the White House, it would seem she should have a rather full plate meeting the demand of the many groups around the United States that want to feel like they are connecting with and being heard by the Obama White House.

I see Valerie Jarrett a lot -- often at Georgetown's power crowd restaurant, Cafe Milano.

In fact, one night when I was at the annual gala dinner of Jim Zogby's Arab American Institute -- an important evening for leading figures from the Arab-American community to connect with the Washington political establishment -- Jarrett was on the docket to be the major keynote speaker of the entire night.

Jarrett, however, had to modify her schedule because of what she said were "urgent duties that were calling her back to the White House right away" and so she gave a few minutes of laudatory comments toward the Arab American community before most people were in their seats between reception and sitting down for dinner. My hosts that evening said that they were mainly interested in hearing her and asked me if I wanted to depart with them for Cafe Milano. I said sure -- and wow -- there Ms. Jarrett was.

Maybe she did stop at the White House between the JW Marriott and the Georgetown hot spot. That was possible -- but it would have had to be a nano-second drop by.

Compare this to President Bill Clinton giving the major keynote remarks in March 1995 at the Nixon Center's opening conference in Washington at the Mayflower Hotel when Clinton came early for a VIP reception, stayed for the entire sit down dinner, gave a 90 minute long speech, and mingled with folks after.

People can tell when you are focused on them in a serious way -- and when you are giving them a cursory glance.

There are things that happen in politics -- and Valerie Jarrett does have important duties and a schedule that is probably always in constant flux -- so I don't want to take my critique too far.

But one thing essential to understand is that the kind of policy that smart strategists -- including by people like National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other advisers like Denis McDonough, Tom Donilon, James Steinberg, William Burns, (previously Gregory Craig) -- would be putting forward is getting twisted either in the rough-and-tumble of a a team of rivals operation that is not working, or is being distorted by the Chicago political gang's tactical advice that is seducing Obama towards a course that has not only violated deals he made with those who voted him into office but which is failing to hit any of the major strategic targets by which the administration will be historically measured.

President Obama needs to take stock quickly. Read the Luce piece. Be honest about what is happening. Read Plouffe's smart book again. Send Rahm Emanuel back to the House in a senior role. Make Valerie Jarrett an important Ambassador. Keep Axelrod -- but balance him with someone like Plouffe, and get back to putting good policy before short term politics.

Set up a Team B with diverse political and national security observers like Tom Daschle, John Podesta, Brent Scowcroft, Arianna Huffington, Fareed Zakaria, G. John Ikenberry, Brent Scowcroft, Joseph Nye, Rita Hauser, Susan Eisenhower, Katrina vanden Heuvel, John Harris, James Fallows, Chuck Hagel, Strobe Talbott, James Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and others to give you a no-nonsense picture of what is going on.

And take action to fix the dysfunction of your office.

Otherwise, the Obama brand will be totally bust in the very near term.

-- Steve Clemons

-- Steve Clemons

My friend Tracy Russo was involved with launching this brand new Department of Justice website today -- just before a hard-hitting winter snow storm shuts down a lot of DC this weekend.

The site emphasizes transparency and openness by explaining how to make Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and posting links to records management information, declassification, Congressional affairs, and the like. You can also "Share Your Ideas" about transparency.

At first glance, this looks like a good new resource.

However, I hope some of the fifty or so Guantanamo detainees who are being sentenced to further "indefinite detention" won't be hidden off in some non-transparent box somewhere.

Come to think of it, for those of you who are so inclined, you might want to "share your ideas" about the detainee challenges, or other matters, on the website. Be polite and respectful -- and link your proposals to "transparency and openness."

Check it out.

This site seems could be useful in making some real progress in the right direction when it comes to knocking down some walls of what became under Bush/Cheney a very opaque national security state.

-- Steve Clemons

My close pal, Chris Nelson, who was essentially blogging before there were blogs publishes the uber-insider Nelson Report (not online and available only to those who pay a super high subscription fee or who feed him insider political details that offset the $$).

I have an arrangement with Nelson that allows me to republish parts of his report that I find sizzling (it actually sizzles all the time but vanity prevents me from running his reports every day).

Today, Chris Nelson provides a Faulkeresque two-sided interpretation of a phone call between Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and China Vice Premier Wang Qishan.

One version has it that Geither said America just isn't going to take China's currency manipulating mercantilism anymore -- and the other is that Wang told Geithner that if America didn't keep taking it, then there would be a sizable void at the next Treasury auctions.

But best to read this direct from Chris Nelson:

The Nelson Report -- 5 February 2010

GEITHNER/WANG QISHAN PHONE CALL.....two versions

SUMMARY: preceding the President's talk to US business persons about the pressing need for China to allow the RMB to be revalued, Treasury Secretary Geithner called his Chinese counterpart, Wang Qishan.

Content of the call? Two Versions

From the US: Geithner warned Wang that patience here has expired, and that if China does not launch a solid move toward rebalancing by the end of March, Obama will authorize Treasury to "cite" the PRC for currency manipulation in the twice annual report to Congress, first due in April.

Chinese version: Wang told Geithner where he could put it, and seemingly threatened a pullback on T-bill purchases, and retaliation on US exports to China.

The fuller story. . .

US-CHINA RMB...on the "one phone call/two countries" chat noted in the Summary, the two versions are not mutually exclusive, since the alleged Chinese response
is substantially that made in public in December by Premier Wen.

And as we've reported, senior Treasury officials were in Beijing prior to this week's excitements, relaying US concerns, and putting China on notice that revaluation was now the #1 US econ/finance issue for this year. Sources now indicate Treasury's "take" on the militant Chinese response reflects one of two things:

Either a) there has been a clear State Council decision not to move and Wen is telling us all about it, loud and clear, or b) China's domestic politics requires a period of strident "remarks" to the outside world before they actually do move, on their own terms, so it will look like it isn't because the foreigners said to do so.

Sources also indicate Geithner himself was considering going over to Beijing in recent weeks. The Chinese allegedly said, in essence, if you come, we will be forced to embarrass you, so don't come...that won't be good for managing the currency issue.

We'd comment that this point of view, if accurate, is encouraging in the sense that it confirms a continued Leadership determination to not let things slide out of control...and it may also help explain Geithner's optimistic remarks to senators yesterday.

However, sources also report what one calls "a rather furious debate" going on in China at the moment about all this between factions who see themselves as inflation fighters, "vs" the exporters and state planners.

Loyal Readers with insights...please don't be shy.

Our Report items on the currency situation generally prompt a lot of informed response, informed in the sense of coming from real economists and China analysts who really understand this stuff...and not just the politics of it on both sides.

One sample last night, from an anonymous expert, picking up on the "don't push me in public" point:

"Regarding the RMB, it has been in China's macro-economic interest for many years to allow the RMB to float (or at least have a lightly managed float). Trying to manage the Chinese economy while having the RMB tied to the dollar takes away a significant monetary tool from the Chinese government. This has been said to the Chinese several times ever since the currency issue arose and the Chinese have acknowledge this for many years.

Thus, this is certainly no epiphany now and Secretary Geithner is not the first to say it. Also, one of the biggest challenges in engaging with China on the RMB issue is whether raising the issue in a more public and forceful way will either finally convince the Chinese leadership to allow it to float or make them less likely to do so out of concern that they would appear to be bending to the U.S."

And this from another close observer on what might work, or not:

"We should all keep in mind that a Chinese revaluation of 5-10% would solve little. For them, it's about managing hot money inflows. As part of a revaluation, they will unquestionably continue to protect their exports by ramping up subsidies, including the VAT. To be meaningful, a Chinese revaluation would need to be more significant...note Bergsten et al are still talking a possible undervalued range of up to 40% relative to the dollar."

We should note the response yesterday of Heritage Foundation China economist Derek Scissors, who warns/worries that even a revaluation in excess of 40% wouldn't meet Obama's hopes:

"Chris...do we care about exports or net exports (the trade surplus)? From July 2005 through June 2008, the RMB rose 20% against the dollar. And post-appreciation H108 US exports to China were 90% larger than H105 (pre-appreciation). Success!

But the H108 trade deficit was still 30% larger than the H105 deficit. Is that kind of result going to make the President and, especially, Congress happy? There's no chance the Chinese will proceed with a revaluation big enough to do what Congress wants."

So summing up on revaluation...this discussion shows why we really need to watch to see if the Administration's financial adults (Summers, Geithner, Volcker, etc.) advise Obama that the time has come to really go after the RMB as a strategic issue.

Congress has been pushing "currency legislation" for several years, now, and we've often noted in prior Reports that the sort of bill to watch would allow the Commerce Department to push CVD cases calling currency misalignment an "actionable subsidy".

Advocates of that approach predict it would provide far more effective leverage than taking China to the WTO, or citing China as a currency manipulator under U.S. law.

Needless to say, this notion is why we have frequently reported on the "headline risk" vs "real risk" factor in currency legislation. Should Obama become so frustrated with China's pace of action on the RMB that he authorizes a CVD approach, it wouldn't just be Wall Street predicting a firm Chinese response...aka "a trade war".

An concerned observer ruefully concludes:

"But if we want to get this done [get China to meaningfully revalue], we aren't going to get there by 'citing' China in a report to Congress. That's a very ineffective tool, or taking them to the WTO...either action would basically set up an extended 'negotiation' with no real 'teeth'."

OK, so what should the Administration be doing?

"More multilateral pressure (not the WTO, but using the G7, G20, APEC, etc.) and bringing together the developing countries, who are really getting hammered by the undervalued RMB (so much for China being a 'champion of the developing world'!), and carefully calibrated bilateral pressure..."

Let's leave last word for tonight to that good Republican lad, Derek Scissors, who adds this "larger" concern:

"The Obama Administration wants to support exports. Not all exporters can be supported; this naturally and inevitably involves picking beneficiaries of government aid. At the same time, the President has declared a desire to dissuade companies from certain other forms of international activity, through tax increases. There is a huge difference in degree between this and Chinese industrial policy, but is there a difference in kind?

The President could support exports by cutting related or general corporate taxes. Instead, he's going to enlarge the government to support exports and enlarge the government again through levies to discourage outsourcing and investment overseas. I can't wait to find out that some of the companies being taxed for their "bad" international activity are also being subsidized for their "good" international activity."

The Nelson Report

-- Steve Clemons

So, the administration says that 'official unemployment' falls to 9.7% from 10.0% but that the economy still shed 20,000 jobs.

The real story here is that a class of worker that the administration mostly ignores but which Leo Hindery has been pointing a screaming headlight at -- unemployed, plus underemployed and discouraged workers -- are working a bit more, at least some of them.

Hindery actually has a more interesting story to tell in what is happening with "real unemployment" which has dropped from 19.1% last month to 18.4% for January 2010.

Those people working cut back hours are apparently working more than they were, but as of yet, an overall number of new jobs is not being created.

I am going to post Leo Hindery's Monthly Jobs Report here and follow it with Council of Economic Advisers Chair Christina Romer's report distributed by the White House.

First, Leo Hindery's January 2010 "Real Unemployment" Report:

Friends,

Using its Current Population Survey of non-farm jobs, the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics just announced this morning that in January 2010 "U.S. employers decreased [non-farm] payrolls by 20,000 jobs and the unemployment rate fell to 9.7%."

It noted that there are now 14.8 million unemployed workers, and that since the recession began [in December 2007] employment has decreased by 7.8 million. (I should note that in its report the BLS also revised down sharply its December 2009 job loss figure to 150,000, from an originally reported 85,000 drop.)

As we have been noting, the monthly BLS announcement regarding unemployment:

· uses only a survey of households rather than much more accurate payroll data;

· excludes changes in employment among the nation's 11.1 million farm and self-employed workers, even though these two categories represent more than 7% of the civilian labor force; and

· most important, does not take into account the 14.4 million workers who are part-time-of-necessity [8.3 mm], marginally attached [2.5 mm], or out of the labor force because they are "discouraged" [3.6 mm].

Our "Summary of U.S. Real Unemployment" makes these three adjustments; it also identifies average weeks unemployed, job openings, and the real jobs 'shortfall'. With the three adjustments made:

· The number of employed workers in all three categories of employment - non-farm, farm and self-employed - increased by 541,000 in January.

· The real unemployment rate is 18.4%.

· The number of real unemployed workers in all four categories of unemployment - BLS, part-time-of-necessity, marginally attached, and discouraged - totals 29.3 million.

· The number of real unemployed workers has increased by 12.5 million since the start of the recession. (In contrast, we should have been creating a net 2.7 million new jobs in the past 25 months just to keep up with the natural growth of the labor force of around 108,000 workers per month.)

· The economy is short 21.3 million jobs in order to have a real unemployment rate of 5%, which would generally be considered 'real full employment'.

(Much of the national press now uses our real unemployment numbers, except some still leave out discouraged workers despite the fact that this huge category is arguably the most effectively unemployed of the four unemployment categories - this omission leads to a rate of 16.5% instead of our overall real unemployment rate of 18.4%.)

The current average number of weeks unemployed is at least 30.2 and the number of workers unemployed at least a half year is at least 9.9 million [i.e., BLS's figure of 6.3 mm plus the 3.6 mm discouraged workers]. (Note: These two numbers are much better measures of real employment health than is the more publicized rolling four-week average of initial unemployment claims, which at around 450,000-500,000 workers is at best a very limited snapshot of the true state of the economy.)

Kindest regards,

Leo Hindery

Now from the White House:

Statement by Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer on the Employment Situation in January

On the Employment Situation in January

While unemployment remains a severe problem, today's employment report contains encouraging signs of gradual labor market healing. The unemployment rate fell three-tenths of a percentage point and employment rose in a number of industries, though overall employment fell slightly.

The unemployment rate declined from 10.0 percent to 9.7 percent. This decline occurred despite a modest rise in the labor force. The broadest measure of the unemployment rate, which includes all persons marginally attached to the labor force and workers working part time for economic reasons, fell almost a full percentage point. Obviously, the unemployment rate remains unacceptably high, and is even worse for certain demographic groups such as teenagers and black or African American workers.

Overall payroll employment declined 20,000 in December. This total reflects substantial variation across industries. Employment in manufacturing rose for the first time since January 2007, led by an increase in employment in motor vehicles and parts. Employment also rose in retail trade and in temporary help employment. Employment fell, however, in construction and state and local government.

Even as today's numbers contain signs of the beginning of recovery, they are also a reminder of how far we still have to go to return the economy to robust health and full employment. Indeed, with the benchmark revision announced today, we now know that the total job loss over the recession was more than 1 million larger than previously estimated.

That is why at the same time that he released a plan for reining in the budget deficit over the medium and long run, the President has called on Congress to enact responsible, targeted actions to jump-start job creation. His proposals for a small business jobs and wages tax cut and a new program to encourage small business lending are important steps to help the businesses that are essential to robust job creation. Today's numbers showing continued decline in construction and state and local government employment emphasize the importance of two other of the President's priorities--continued infrastructure investment and additional aid for strapped state and local governments.

There will likely be bumps in the road ahead. The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and subject to substantial revision. Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative. It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains.

Bottom line: American workers are not out of the woods yet by a long shot. And when one looks at a looming $200 billion in shortfall in state budget revenues ahead in 2010, which will have significant destimulative effects, there are another 3 million jobs slated to be cut rather than created.

-- Steve Clemons

Actually, he hasn't yet, but Obama should.

The Obama team has not had a very good month.

From GITMO to health care, to bickering behind the scenes about Paul Volcker's bank regulation efforts, to China policy, and making any progress on any international initiatives, the administration's "magic" has been collapsing.

But Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), by placing a "hold" on ALL Obama nominees who need Senate confirmation has so overstepped the line between what is fair and what is outrageous, that Obama's team got an unintended assist.

And the reason for the hold?

Federal contracting to bolster Alabama production of a new fleet of tankers to replace aging tankers (see exchange with Finlay below) -- i.e. pork.

I recommend a big box of chocolates from Obama to the Alabama Senator and his team.

-- Steve Clemons

In this short interview during his Washington visit, Kenya VP Kalonzo "Steven" Musyoka speaks impressively about his participation in the National Prayer Breakfast, about concerns on Kenya's border in Somalia, about the limits of military responses in failing state situations, and about the views of Kenyans toward US President Barack Obama.

This was one of my favorite chats I have done thus far for the New America Foundation and The Washington Note. If you want to watch more of Vice President Musyoka and Kenya National Assembly Speaker Otiato "Kenneth" Marende in a longer program held yesterday at the New America Foundation, follow this clip.

-- Steve Clemons

The New America Foundation/Iran Initiative is hosting an event today to discuss what the Iranian public really thinks on key issues and the implications for US foreign policy.

Since the Iranian elections last June, there has been no shortage of commentary surrounding Iranian public opinion, but comparatively little evidence-based analysis.

WorldPublicOpinion.org (WPO) will present the findings of an in-depth analysis of twelve well-documented polls from three different sources addressing the central questions of whether the Iranian people perceive their government as illegitimate, how they voted in the June 12th election, and how the opposition views the US and Iran's nuclear program.

This event will STREAM LIVE today from 12:15pm - 2:15pm simultaneously here at The Washington Note and at The Race for Iran.

The full agenda is below.

Panel #1: Analysis of the Polling Data

Steven Kull
Director
WorldPublicOpinion.org

Jon Cohen
Director of Polling
Washington Post

Panel #2: Implications for U.S. Policy

Flynt Leverett
Director, Iran Initiative, New America Foundation
Publisher, The Race For Iran

Hooman Majd
Author, The Ayatollah Begs to Differ

Barbara Slavin
Author, Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S., and the Twisted Path to Confrontation

moderator
Steve Clemons
Director, American Strategy Program
New America Foundation
Publisher, The Washington Note

-- Ben Katcher

NOTE; THE START OF THE EVENT HAS BEEN PUSHED TO 10:15 AM EST

The New America Foundation/American Strategy Program is hosting an event today featuring the Kenyan Vice President Kalonzo Stephen Musyoka, as well as the Speaker of Kenya's National Assembly Kenneth Otiato Marende and Kenya's Minister of Cooperative Development and Marketing Joseph W.N. Nyagah.

The delegation will provide an understanding of the fragile situation in Somalia and its implications for both Kenya and the United States.

For more background on this topic, see my post from yesterday.

The event will run from 10:00 am -11:30 am and will STREAM LIVE here at The Washington Note.

-- Andrew Lebovich

(An Iranian bank note modified by Green Movement member; A re-write of a saying on the left side, which says 'Iranian people will find "knowledge" no matter where - Prophet Muhammad' - changed to say 'Iranian people will find "justice" no matter where'; photo credit: NIAC Insight)

This is a guest note exclusive to The Washington Note by Iran expert and well-known diplomatic correspondent Barbara Slavin, author of Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S. and the Twisted Path to Confrontation.

Barbara Slavin will be speaking today at a New America Foundation forum titled "What do Iranians Really Think?" featuring New America Foundation Geopolitics of Energy Initiative Director and Race for Iran publisher Flynt Leverett, World Public Opinion Director Steven Kull, Washington Post Director of Polling Jon Cohen, and Iran expert and The Ayatollah Begs to Differ commentator Hooman Majd. Steve Clemons will moderate the meeting which starts at 12:15 pm today and will air live here at The Washington Note

Dawn of a New Iran?

Iran is now marking the "10 days of dawn" - the period from Feb. 1 to Feb. 11, 1979 that began with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's triumphant return from exile and ended with the fall of the Shah's last government. During these days, Iranian state television typically runs old footage of adoring crowds greeting Khomeini and of the Shah's soldiers firing on peaceful protesters during the final days of the revolution. This year, however, the bloody bits are not on view.

An Iranian acquaintance tells me that state TV is only showing "calm rallies" from the 1978-79 uprising. "They are focusing on the people who were totally obeying Khomeini," my friend says, and also deriding those who "betrayed the revolution" and who later fled or were executed by the regime.

The message for Iran's restive populace is clear: forget staging another revolution.

The regime wants Iranians to behave themselves on Feb. 11, "Revolution Day," when crowds are encouraged to go into the streets in support of the government. In Tehran, thousands usually congregate in Freedom Square, the central plaza where the Shah erected a huge white concrete arch to celebrate Iran's pre-Islamic achievements and to glorify his soon-to-be ended rule.

I've been to three Revolution Day celebrations in Freedom Square and I know the drill: The president gives a rousing speech proclaiming Iran's independence and decrying evil foreigners who conspire against it. A man known as "the minister of slogans" leads the crowd in chanting "Death to America," "Death to Israel" and "Death to" whatever other target is annoying the regime at the time. Peddlers mill about selling candy and balloons. School kids and factory workers, who are given the day off, are bussed into the square to fill out the frame for state television and foreign media.

This year promises a different sort of spectacle. Despite the pointed propaganda on TV -- and the execution this week of two political prisoners -- hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iranians are likely to take to the streets to demand their civil and human rights.

The government will be hard-pressed to distinguish loyalists from the opposition in the throngs. Will authorities arrest people wearing green? In the past, students bussed to Freedom Square have worn green headbands proclaiming Iran's right to nuclear energy.

But green is now the color of the movement that has swept Iran since presidential elections last June 12 gave a fraud-tainted "landslide" victory to incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Coverage of this year's event in Freedom Square presents another quandary for the government. Foreign media is almost certain to be heavily restricted and Iranian state media will likely censor any protests. But that will not stop citizen journalists with cellphones from capturing images and sending them around the world via social networking sites.

For sure, there will be clashes. Another Iranian acquaintance tells me that the government is refusing any compromise despite conciliatory feelers in recent days from opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi.

If the opposition, which has already shown its power on Jerusalem Day, Students Day and Ashura, manages to dominate the scene on the Islamic Republic's most important national holiday, it will be a powerful boost for the Green Movement's morale and momentum.

No one can say how long Iran's creaky theocracy cum military autocracy will survive this outpouring of popular outrage and frustration. Mass arrests, selective assassinations and even prison rapes have only fed the opposition's anger and resolve.

For those who have been privileged to spend time in Iran among its extraordinarily welcoming people, this is a moment of great hope and anticipation. Iranians deserve a better government and perhaps in the not so distant future, they will finally get one.

-- Barbara Slavin

(US President Barack Obama chairing a historic session of the United Nations Security Council on 24 September 2009)

There is a giddiness that has taken hold in some foreign policy circles in Washington that the Obama administration is showing more courage all of a sudden and is finally breaking away from its courtship of China and is flirting with unilateral paths to ratcheting up pressure on Iran.

This new trend is evident in pushing forward a large arms sale package to Taiwan, in a planned Obama meeting the Dalai Lama, and in Hillary Clinton publicly chastising China's minimalist participation in global efforts to redirect Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions.

The US Congress has also quickly pushed an Iran Sanctions bill that after passing both the Senate and the House of Representatives now goes to reconciliation -- but this bill is outpacing important and fragile coalition building efforts on Iran strategy involving the Europeans, Russians, Japanese, and yes -- even China.

There are some who worry that America's eagerness to throttle Iran without respecting and working through the resolutions machinery of United Nations will undermine the ability of other key powers -- particularly Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Japan -- to maintain public support for America's position. Some in Europe are worried that American unilateralist tendencies are perking up again.

The larger trends in both China policy and on Iran are worrisome. In the China case, America -- all of a sudden -- seems to be tethering itself to policies designed to frustrate China's own political and policy goals, inevitably raising the price of China's cooperation with the United States on other vital fronts and undermining the chances of the US achieving some of its most important global objectives.

Dealing with China can be frustrating -- particularly as China continues what is mostly a mercantilist path to its own development -- with little appreciation for how its economic course is undermining global economic stability.

But a presidential meeting with the Dalai Lama, who I agree is a symbol of peace and tolerance around the world, should not be confused with real power nor be seen as an event that helps the US achieve its higher ordered goals.

Power is earned by the achievement of goals and objectives that the US sets out for itself. Most of these goals -- whether in changing the vector of Middle East instability, establishing a new global arms control and WMD nonproliferation regime, or achieving binding protocols on climate change remediation -- will require support from other key global stakeholders. That means China. That means Russia. And that means ongoing maintenance of vital European relationships.

The US-China relationship has veered from being overly acquiescent to Chinese priorities and sensibilities to now what looks like American spitefulness towards China -- with no sense of underlying strategy of what America's core national security and economic objectives are and how these converge or diverge from Chinese interests.

In the economic sphere, America and China need to engage in a serious work out effort that simultaneously decreases the most dysfunctional parts of massive economic imbalances but that also helps to restore American growth, innovation, and consumption. But that takes balance, trust building and strategy.

That's not the course the US is now on in the antics we are seeing all of a sudden from the Obama team.

The Obama national security group is no doubt frustrated with China's foot-dragging on a number of key issues, particularly Iran and climate change, and to some degree is threatening Chinese leaders with the prospects of instability in its relations with the US.

But the problem with that strategy is that America's planned health care overhaul, America's homeland investment and revitalization efforts, and America's multiple wars are financed today by China. China's economy is rapidly growing -- and China is ascending in terms of global power.

The US needs to get back to thinking through key interests and needs to find ways other than public humiliation and international embarrassment to manage a complex relationship with a rapidly more powerful China.

Without multilateral efforts that include China, the US may get giddy and intoxicated by the self-righteous fumes of asserting its positions on climate, or Iran, or terrorism -- but ultimately, the US will achieve nothing.

-- Steve Clemons

(Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note and directs the New America Foundation's American Strategy Program and Great Powers Initiative. Clemons can be followed on Twitter @SCClemons)

Today's altogether unsurprising (and not necessarily consequential) announcement from the al-Shabaab group in Somalia that they have joined al Qaeda will undoubtedly focus attention on the extremist group and their ongoing battle with Somalia's embattled provisional government.

While a formal relationship between the two will undoubtedly spark fear in the west of an al Qaeda presence on both sides of the Gulf of Aden, al Shabaab's growth has had a much stronger impact on its neighbor to the west, Kenya.

Kenya has been uneasy about al-Shabaab for some time, owing not only to the shared border with Somalia but the hundreds of thousands of ethnic Somalis, both citizens and recent immigrants, in Kenya. The Kenyan government has reacted to the potential threat with mass arrests of Somalis and by deporting an extremist Jamaican preacher who had taken up residence in the country.

If you are in Washington tomorrow, the New America Foundation will be hosting a high-level Kenyan delegation to discuss the situation along the Kenyan-Somali border.

The event will run from 10:00 am-11:30 am, and will feature a presentation from Kenya's Vice President Kalonzo Stephen Musyoka, and comments from the Vice President, the Speaker of Kenya's National Assembly Kenneth Otiando Marende and Kenya's Minister of Cooperative Development and Marketing Joseph W.N. Nyagah.

The Washington Note publisher and New America Foundation/American Strategy Program Director Steve Clemons will moderate the conversation, which will STREAM LIVE here at The Washington Note.

-- Andrew Lebovich

Signs in Arabic, Tamazight and French outside of Tizi Ouzou, Algeria.

This post originally appeared at The Majlis Blog.

A recent Fox News blog post advertising the possibility of a "new ally in the war against al-Qaeda" stopped me dead in my tracks. The article suggests that the U.S. government ally with Kabyles in Algeria (a Berber people with their own language and culture) in order to fight off al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).

In particular, the author cites terrorism analyst Walid Phares' view on why the Kabyles would be good allies in the fight against al-Qaeda. Phares makes a few rather egregious claims to support this idea, noting that Kabyles, "are mostly secular and believe in democracy, and could become an efficient ally against the Jihadists." He also calls the Kabyles, "Indians of North Africa" and said that in order to fight al Qaeda and maintain our commitment to "democratic values and fundamental rights," we must support Kabyle desires for autonomy.

There are more problems with this post than I can deal with at the moment, but several jump out at me.

For one thing, Phares' statements on the Kabyles are disturbingly neo-colonial. The assertion that Kabyles are inherently "secular" or "pro-democracy" are buzzwords employed by certain Kabyle leaders playing to a western audience, that also smack of the historical "Kabyle myth." This term denotes the view held by many colonial-era French leaders and officers that Kabyles were more secular and open to republican values than Algerian Arabs, and thus would prove more accepting of French "civilization." Of course, Kabyles living in France were some of the first to agitate for independence or autonomy for Algeria during the 1920's and 30's, and Kabyles played key leadership roles during the Algerian War of Independence.

Kabyles make up a sizable portion of the Algerian population, not only in the mountainous region to the east of Algiers, but also in the capital itself. While they have had serious problems with Algeria's central government since independence and have also faced brutal oppression, the movements preaching Kabyle autonomy are not broad-based and hardly represent a Kabyle majority view. The Berber language Tamazight is an official Algerian language, and Kabyles are a part of Algeria's social and cultural fabric, rather than isolated "Indians" living in mountain strongholds.

The next question is whether or not an autonomous and supported (I assume this means "armed") Kabylia would be an ally against al-Qaeda. AQIM in the north (separate from the Sahel AQIM wing) has for the last two years operated almost entirely in Kabylia, sometimes in the country but sometimes in populated cities like Tizi Ouzou. I have seen no indication that Kabyles are particularly fond of AQIM, but it is doubtful whether the group would be able to operate there at all without at least passive acceptance from locals. And as the anonymous Algerian blogger The Moor Next Door noted in 2008, some Kabyles accept AQIM because of their dislike for the central government that AQIM is ostensibly fighting.

And while there are signs that Kabyles have grown weary of al-Qaeda's presence in Kabylia, interfering in Algerian affairs would make dislodging AQIM more, not less, difficult. In the original article, former Ambassador to Algeria Ronald Neumann points out that the Algerians would regard any attempt to grant Kabyle autonomy as a fundamental threat to the government, one that would endanger our relationship with Algeria. Moreover, increased Kabyle autonomy could remove many of the very security forces confronting AQIM in Kabyilia, leaving the region more open to terrorism on the basis of flimsy and ill-informed ethnocentric arguments.

To be clear, this post is not meant to pass judgment on Kabyle autonomy, or whitewash the terrible post-independence history of interaction between Kabyles and the central government. But if we are going to seriously discuss security issues in other countries, it must be done with care towards the nuances of a country's internal political and ethnic dimensions, and not based on reductionist ethnographic theories.

-- Andrew Lebovich

China

America is going to experiment with a tougher line with China.

Helene Cooper has a very insightful piece in today's New York Times (which is great despite quoting this writer) that notes that the Clinton and GW Bush administrations started off badly with China and then moved into a smoother course. Obama started out smoothly and is now moving into rapids.

Norway

Norway's Embassy in Washington has just announced its Facebook and Twitter pages.

In fact, Norway has a whopping three twitter pages. A year from now, I'll have to see which are most active. On Norway-US politics, Norway-US culture, and a hybrid of stuff.

United Kingdom

UK Ambassador to the US Sir Nigel Sheinwald and his wife, Lady/Dr. Julia Dunne throw some of DC's best parties -- small dinner parties on the patio; slightly larger nice deals with 30-35 around a very intimidating formal table, garden gatherings, huge boisterous affairs with everyone from this blogger to Colin Powell to Hillary Clinton to Wolf Blitzer to Elise Labott and Chuck Hagel in the room -- and they are all really fantastic. Yes, I like to go.

And the Embassy is looking for a new "head chef" who not only enhances the Sheinwalds' shine at all of these gatherings but whose responsibilities would no doubt include overseeing a large daily operation for the very big Embassy.

I know who the Sheinwalds & Co. should hire. I actually really do -- but won't write the individual's name here.

This spot calls for not just someone who can cook well, but someone who can cook brilliantly and keep a daily operation feeding hundreds and hundreds going with a smile -- and someone who is part of that British food pivot trend where all of a sudden British food is prepared in memorable, somewhat unexpectedly un-American and un-French creations.

The Ambassador and his team should have some fun with this and select the "head chef" via some sort of star search process -- like in Iron Chef. (Let me be a judge!)

The Brits are on Twitter too -- and Facebook. And here is Ambassador Sheinwald's blog.

Australia & Indonesia

Barack Obama is going to both in March -- to Indonesia to remind Americans what a diverse and eclectic cat he is, and to Australia to check in with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who is more and more vital to the US in dealing with China, climate change, and a mountain of other issues in which Obama needs someone who can straddle our world -- and theirs.

-- Steve Clemons

The New America Foundation is hosting an event this evening that focuses on the state of civil liberties and human rights in Russia under the Medvedev/Putin regime.

The event features Russian Human Rights Lawyer and Director of the International Protection Center Karianna Moskalenko as well as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Michael Posner.

Foreign Policy Magazine Executive Editor and former Washington Post Moscow Bureau Chief Susan Glasser will moderate the discussion.

The event will stream live on The Washington Note TONIGHT from 5:30 pm - 7:00 pm.

-- Ben Katcher