President Obama was right to give his speech punctuating the end of US combat operations in Iraq from the Oval Office as opposed to one of the military academies.

In his speech tonight, the President said:

Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country. This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq's Security Forces and support its government and people. That is what we have done. We have removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We have closed or transferred hundreds of bases to the Iraqis. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.

Obama stated:

Today, our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.

But the President needs to realize that the 50,000 residual forces left behind in Iraq will still cost about $50 billion a year -- without even considering the ongoing health and after-field deployment costs for these forces in the long term.

And of course, we are now spending more than $100 billion per year in Afghanistan in a country whose GDP is $14 billion.

The US cannot restore its health with a hemorrhaging of resources and money that large.

-- Steve Clemons

As the first direct Israeli-Palestinian talks in two years approach, it seems that enthusiasm and hope for a deal decrease again and again. Years of violence, failed talks, and now uneasy calm punctuated by continued settlement growth in the West Bank and confrontations spurred by this growth have led to an environment of grim, limited determination; it seems increasingly that both sides come to the table knowing what they must do, but unwilling, or unable, to actually do it.

In some ways, the situation is ripe for talks. Israelis seem to be growing increasingly uneasy with the settlement enterprise, there is at least tepid (albeit, very tepid) pressure from the White House for a resolution, and today the New York Times reports on the economic growth and emerging political and security stability in the West Bank long demanded by Israeli leaders as necessary for a peace deal.

And yet all of the structural and political obstacles to a two-state solution remain; an extension of even the partial settlement freeze currently in place past the end of this month is in doubt, the political will of Israel's current leadership is in doubt, and violence from militant groups, disaffected Palestinians, and Israeli settlers could easily disrupt even a fledgling agreement. As the director of the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program and TWN publisher Steve Clemons, and Middle East Task Force directors Daniel Levy and Amjad Atallah argued in a media call this afternoon, the local, regional and international stakes are desperately high, and a solution will require serious leadership in Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Washington.

Undoubtedly, though, the hard sell will be Israel. Daniel Levy has an excellent piece on the upcoming talks over at the Huffington Post describing his pessimism, optimism, and pessimism over the prospects for a political solution:

On balance, however, Netanyahu's actions and statements do not suggest a man standing at the precipice of a bold move to peace and de-occupation. Netanyahu formed an extreme right-wing coalition out of choice not necessity, insisted on those settlement expansion exemption clauses, has refused to enter negotiations with the Palestinians or Syrians on the basis of previously achieved advances, and is insisting on security arrangements, timelines, and unreciprocated and unilateral Palestinian acknowledgement of Israeli claims.

The tantalizing thing that Obama will have to deliver here is an Israeli political yes. A solution cannot be imposed on Israel, clear choices can though be presented. If there is an Israeli yes to real de-occupation gestating somewhere in the Israeli public and body politic, then it is not going to emerge on its own, that much is clear today. If the Israeli yes is there, it is going to take a c-section to bring it out into the world, and the only available surgeon is President Barack Obama.

The U.S. will have to be smart in the content of the plan it is proposing, both sides have rights and need to emerge with dignity, de-occupation will have to be real, and Israel's legitimate security concerns will have to be met--but not more than that. The context in which the plan is proposed is no less important than its content. The administration will need to remove the mist from its eyes on Palestinian political realities and address those shortcomings. The Palestinians can be allowed or even encouraged to rebuild a unified, inclusive, and capacitated national movement. At the same time, the very real asymmetries between representatives of an occupying power and representatives of an occupied people should be built in to the structure of peacemaking--substituting for unreasonable or unreachable demands on Palestinian capacity where this is needed to advance a two-state outcome. And all of this would be helped not hindered by taking a broader, comprehensive approach to peacemaking and advancing a plan that incorporates Israeli-Syrian, Israeli-Lebanese, and overall Israeli-Arab peace.

To deliver that Israeli yes, the right question will need to be asked--one rooted in guaranteeing Israel's future, that does not avoid real clarity, real de-occupation and hard choices, one that is well-marketed, and that crucially re-calibrates the incentives and disincentives for Israel of the status quo versus the peace option. When President Obama is ready with that plan and with that message, he should get on a plane and take it directly to the Israeli people. This week might just prove to be a milestone in that journey.

-- Andrew Lebovich

George Soros is working hard behind the scenes to help the Obama administration realize that a billion dollars spent now, carefully, and in a structure that could create a systemic improvement in Indus River water management helping India and Pakistan would be greatly welcomed by the currently besieged victims in Pakistan of historic-level flooding and help preempt a greater tilt towards instability in South Asia than already exists.

I won't go into the detail of the Soros plan as it would be best if it became the Richard Holbrooke plan, or the Hillary Clinton plan, the Kerry-Lugar plan, or the Singh-Zardari plan, but I am satisfied that in contrast to so many schemes I hear in which people advocate a billion being thrown here or there -- the critical need 'now' combined with a unique opportunity for the United States to constructively improve the lot over the near and long term of people who don't think well of America makes great sense.

Now that we are spending monthly figures in Afghanistan that surpass $100 billion per year, it seems to me that a well-managed $1 billion investment in Pakistan would do much to improve the political environment in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- large portions of the peoples of which respectively mistrust the U.S.

In the latest issue of the New Yorker, South Asia expert and New America Foundation president Steve Coll writes:

Pakistan's floods--like the tsunami that swept across Indonesia's northern provinces in 2004--threaten to set the country's economic growth back by years. For the United States, preventing such an outcome should be recognized as a strategic as well as a humanitarian imperative. So far, the Obama Administration has displayed all the right instincts, by rushing relief to civilians, affirming the primacy of the country's elected leaders, and galvanizing other governments to pitch in. As the waters recede, and the immediate crisis passes, however, the challenge will be to muster international investment to repair Pakistan's infrastructure and catalyze its economic recovery.

The agricultural market towns in the flood zone--Ghotki, Jacobabad, Shahdadkot--are not notable breeding grounds for international terrorism. They are home instead to the marginal lives of another Pakistan, one poised for many years between aspiration and collapse--that of landless laborers, tenant farmers, bus drivers, and shopkeepers. These Pakistanis belong to no war party and live in peaceful indifference to the United States. To help reimagine their future, and that of their country, the place to begin is to come unconditionally to their aid.

Coll is right to identify this crisis as one with significant strategic consequence -- and the U.S. would be smart to pivot quickly on this, which it has not yet done despite credible efforts by Richard Holbrooke to try and generate attention among his colleagues in the administration.

Lt. General John Allen, Deputy CENTCOM Commander, led the effort to provide relief after the December 2004 devastating tsunami in Southeast Asia.

John Allen might be the right Department of Defense point person to work with Holbrooke to help secure something along the lines George Soros is trying to stand up to both help current flood victims and create a preventive system for managing such crises in the future.

An added benefit along the way is that this effort could help build some much needed trust between Pakistan and India.

-- Steve Clemons

Today is Ben Katcher's birthday, and Ben, well known to TWN readers as a contributing editor here, is preparing for a new life in Istanbul.

Today is also the day that Mother Teresa said was her birthday as she was baptized on August 27th, though born on August 26th (100 years ago). Lyndon Baines Johnson was born today. So too one of my best friends in junior high school -- both of us then sopranos in a funeral home boys choir -- Nicholas Scogna, who is now off living a good life in Florida. And another friend in later years, Brian Strom. Brian and I didn't sing. He played the trumpet, and we ran.

Pee Wee Herman (Paul Reubens) was born today as well. Happy birthday Pee Wee!

Former Nebraska Senator and New School President Bob Kerrey was born today. He and his team are interested in possible shifts in US-Cuba policy and Bob will soon head the Motion Picture Association of America. Very cool job. (Samuel Goldwyn was born today, Bob.)

And lastly. . .was just walking on a street in Shanghai and saw that Tom Ford's next store is opening there. Happy Birthday Tom.

So, all best to all of you, particularly Ben Katcher who is off to Turkey soon and should be blogging here before long -- and yes, it's my day too!

-- Steve Clemons

Templo Beth-Shalom in Havana, Cuba (Photo credit: Anya Landau French)

This post originally appeared at The Havana Note. An earlier version, "In Cuba, a Hostage of International Brinksmanship," appeared in today's Jewish Daily Forward, the online home of the weekly Forward. Arturo Lopez-Levy is a lecturer and doctoral candidate at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies of the University of Denver. Mr. Lopez-Levy worked as analyst for the Cuban government between 1993 and 1994 when he resigned from his post. Between 1999 and 2001, Lopez-Levy was secretary of the Bnai Brith in the Cuban Jewish Community.

Alan Gross, a Jew, an American, a U.S. AID contractor, has sat in a Cuban prison for more than eight months. Jews, whose entire history is bound together by stories of exile and return, captivity and freedom, mourn his confinement and long for his release. Cubans who have been weary bystanders for decades in the games of brinkmanship between their government and ours know a political pawn when they see one. Concerned policy makers in Washington have now taken a hostage of their own; some have made their votes on legislation to end America's failed and feckless ban on travel to Cuba contingent on Gross's release. None of this is likely to shorten his hard experience living under the "hospitality" of Cuba's government.

Why is Gross in prison? While the U.S. has intervened in Cuba to control its government or shape its system for more than a century, this story has more recent roots. The Bush administration produced two reports in May 2004 and July 2006 about how to "liberate" Cuba. The reports recommended a package of irresponsible measures to move the moderate and independent activities of Cuban civil society toward the regime change strategy envisioned by Section 109 of the Helms-Burton law. The U.S Congress approved an annual budget of tens of millions to use U.S agency for International Development contracts for this purpose - an approach that has continued under the Obama Administration.

Dr. Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland has conducted a really fascinating poll of Arab public opinion, showing persistent support for a two-state solution while at the same time rising acceptance of an Iranian nuclear weapon, among other things.

From 12:15 pm - 1:45 pm TODAY, the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force will host Dr. Telhami along with Task Force co-directors Daniel Levy and Amjad Atallah for a discussion of the poll's findings, as well as possible implications for the series of challenges facing the Obama administration in the Middle East and beyond. The event will livestream here at TWN, and those who wish to see the event in person can RSVP here.

-- Andrew Lebovich

Despite the flurry of initial applause from groups ranging from AIPAC to J Street to the Israel Project to the American Task Force for Palestine that direct negotiations were resuming between Israel and Palestine, pessimism has been the order of the day since. As one senior White House official recently told me, this just gets us back to the previously messy status quo.

One has to give credit to President Obama for not ducking this problem -- which he probably could, at least for a while. Obama chose Senator George Mitchell on his second day in office, pushed a showdown which he lost on settlements with Prime Minister Netanyahu, made the lack of progress between Israel and Palestine a key point of focus during his September 2009 UN General Assembly remarks, and is now inviting regional leaders as well as Quartet Representative Tony Blair to give this effort another shove.

By cajoling the Palestinians and Israelis to engage, Barack Obama is again putting himself in the vulnerable position of another potential battle with Israel's Prime Minister -- and this time Obama can't afford to lose.

As with Khrushchev and Kennedy, the Soviet premier took the first couple of rounds -- but Kennedy came out on top.

Beyond what ultimately happens in these peace talks, Obama needs to prevail over any pugnacious obstinacy by Netanyahu.

-- Steve Clemons

Buddy and Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner send their regards.

-- Steve Clemons

(The Overton Window)

This is a guest post by Peter Daou who previously served as Internet Director for Hillary Clinton for President. Daou publishes the Daou Report.

The Glaringly Simple Formula for Rightwing Dominance of our National Debate

There is a simple formula for rightwing dominance of our national debate, even when Democrats are in charge: move the conversation as extreme right as possible, then compromise toward the far right. It's negotiation 101.

And it's completely lost on Democrats.

It's what John Boehner knows that Obama and Democrats can't seem to get a clue about:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) will call Tuesday for the mass firing of the Obama administration's economic team, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and White House adviser Larry Summers, arguing that November's midterm elections are shaping up as a referendum on sustained unemployment across the nation and saying the "writing is on the wall."

In one fell swoop, this is the starting point of a conversation. For Democrats it would be an end point -- if they ever reached it.

It's no accident that in 21st century America, torture has been mainstreamed, climate denial has taken firm hold, book burning, racial dog whistles and brazen religious intolerance are part of our discourse and par for the course. This is how the right plays the game, using Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox, Drudge, blogs, chain emails, talk radio, etc. to shamelessly and defiantly drag the conversation as far right as possible.

Forget the thousand explanations pundits have offered for the administration's beef with the left; this is the single biggest reason the left is furious with Obama: that one by one, he has willingly and unnecessarily bargained away the progressive positions that would move the national debate back to the center. After all, the counterweight to the right is not the mushy middle, it's the principled left. Did progressive bloggers really think Obama was going to establish a single payer health care system, bring all Bush warmongers to justice, stop the looting of the poor by the ultra-rich, revitalize the environmental movement, undo Bush-Cheney's executive power excesses, bring about true social justice and stop needless wars? No. They're far more jaded and pragmatic than anyone admits. But at least make those the debate points rather than ditch them unilaterally.

As I've argued, it matters not one iota if Obama is a progressive at heart. What matters is that Democrats run away from the left like it's the plague while Republican run to the right like it's nirvana. The net effect is that the media end up reporting far right positions as though they were mainstream and reporting liberal positions as thought they were heinous aberrations. And you wonder why America is veering off the rails?

-- Peter Daou

This is a friendly public service announcement for young (between 25 and 32 years), policy-minded folks interested in national security affairs. The Center for a New American Security is holding its second annual competition for fellows in its Next General National Security Leaders Program.

John Nagl, one of General David Petraeus' star proteges, and former Senate Foreign Relations Committee (under Jesse Helms) and National Security Council (under G.W. Bush) senior staff member Steve Biegun head up the program -- which despite their collective lack of realist DNA -- is nonetheless an outstanding opportunity for folks.

I highly recommend this fellowship, which will expose the fellowship awardees to a wide swath of thinking on national security strategy -- even my own. Big plus if you subscribe to any notion of cost/benefit calculations in thinking through America's strategic choices. (. . .joking!)

Here is the CNAS announcement:

CNAS Announces Second Annual Next Generation National Security Leaders Program

Washington, D.C., August 23, 2010 - As part of its mission to prepare and foster the next generation of national security and defense leaders, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) is pleased to announce the launch of its second annual Next Generation National Security Leaders Program.

Applications for this year's program must be submitted by Friday, September 3, 2010. See more information about the application process below.

For the second successive year, CNAS will gather potential future national security leaders to participate in a series of frank and open discussions on immediate and long-term national security and foreign policy challenges. The Next Generation National Security Leaders Program will consist of a bipartisan group of emerging analysts and practitioners who will participate in a series of events aimed at developing a shared understanding of the nation's security interests and international priorities.

During the year-long program, Next Generation Leaders will engage with influential figures in the national security field in a series of candid dinner discussions on several of the most pressing issues the United States faces, as well as contribute to collaborative writing projects with their fellow Leaders. Next Generation Leaders will also have the opportunity to participate in variety of CNAS-hosted events.

The 2010-2011 program will again be led by CNAS President John Nagl and Steve Biegun, corporate officer and vice president of international governmental affairs for Ford Motor Company, former senior advisor to Senator John McCain, and CNAS advisory board member.

Applications for the program are being accepted now through September 3, 2010. Click here for more information.

-- Steve Clemons

During the battle over John Bolton's US Senate confirmation to serve as US Ambassador to the United Nations which resulted in "no vote" and thus his early resignation from a recess-appointed position, I received a lot of sensitive information from incumbent and former staff members of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, which at best, has a checkered reputation as a defender of global religious rights and seems frequently to be more focused on rolling back Islam. The material dealt with the treatment of employed Muslims and alleged discrimination.

Both because the material was incomplete and because those giving me the information were fearful of the repercussions for current employees and put constraints on the use of the material that would have made it more hearsay than definitive, I didn't use it.

But I've been skeptical of the Commission since.

Mother Jones' Nick Baumann and David Corn have more in an important piece profiling the views of some of the Commission Members and their hostility to the so-called Ground Zero Mosque.

They write:

President Barack Obama has declared that a group of moderate Muslims have the right to build a community center in lower Manhattan, two blocks from the site once occupied by the World Trade Center towers. Yet representatives of a wholly US government-funded outfit have joined the vociferous opposition to the Park51 or Cordoba House project that critics have dubbed the "Ground Zero Mosque." A leader of this group--which receives $4.3 million a year from the government--has even proclaimed that the community center could be a front for Islamic terrorism. That's not all: the same agency, the US Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCRIF), has been the subject of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint for allegedly discriminating against Muslim employees.

The commission was created by Congress in 1998 to monitor religious freedom around the world and scold countries that aren't meeting religious freedom obligations outlined by international human rights treaties. Its sole source of funding is the US government; it is empowered to make recommendations to the president about policy decisions related to issues of religious freedom. Recently, the commission has decried Vietnam for its systemic violation of religious freedom and slammed China for its repression of Uighur Muslims. But leading conservative members of the commission have supported the opposition to the Cordoba House, essentially joining those who want to deny New York Muslims the freedom to build their religious and cultural center at this particular site.

In a recent piece for National Review Online, Nina Shea, one of USCIRF's nine commissioners (who are selected by the president and congressional leaders), wrote that instead of "a cultural center for all New Yorkers," the "mosque" project could be "a potential tool for Islamists"--suggesting it would be a hotbed of jihadism that, among other things, spreads the literature and ideas of Islamic extremism. She compared the leaders of the Cordoba House project to convicted terrorist Omar Abdel Rahman (the "blind Sheikh") and accused Fort Hood and Christmas Day bombing coordinator Anwar al-Awlaki. (Shea's piece, as of Monday, was no longer showing up on the NRO site.)

When National Review reconsiders, well, it's clear lines were perceived to be crossed.

The term "McCarthyism" has been overused, but this mosque controversy seems to me to be contributing to a new variant of McCarthyism in which those defending the rights of religious freedom, moderation and tolerance in the US -- rights embedded in the founding documents of the country -- are labeled as appeasers or as flacks of Islamic interests, or weak, or anti-Semites; the list of labels is extensive.

Islam is going to be here for a long time -- and it's important for Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and secularists like me to figure out a way to embrace Muslims and their faith just as other faiths are embraced in this society.

But on the subject of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, it has not done its job in a long time.

Either Congress needs to review its roster of Commissioners and, ironically, purge the religiously intolerant.

Or it is time for both houses of Congress to zero this account.

-- Steve Clemons

The big news today is of course the announcement from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have been invited to Washington at the beginning of September to engage in the first direct talks between the two sides in two years.

The stakes are high on a regional and international level, but Clinton's announcement left many things up in the air, by refusing to endorse the pre-1967 boundary as the starting point for negotiations on borders, and leaving so-called "final status" issues, like the fate of Jerusalem, land swaps, and settlements, to be brought up when Netanyahu and Abbas decide to do so.

Still, the onus is on the United States to bring the two sides together, as President Obama will have to deal with the backlash if talks fail. As Daniel Levy, the co-director of the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force said today:

[Clinton's] announcement covered very familiar ground, following a playbook that has been tried many times and found wanting. Instead of terms of reference to guide negotiations we received today a guest list for a September 1 White House dinner - even the chaperons for that dinner have a decidedly retro ring to them - Jordanian King Abdullah and Egyptian President Mubarak. Today's announcement could have been an opportunity to introduce some clarity to proceedings and to jumpstart real decision-making (by for instance, defining border talks as being based on '67 lines with one-to-one land swaps). Rather we were served ambiguity, and not it seems of the constructive variety...

...What today's announcement has done is to raise expectations given the one-year deadline placed on the resumed talks. Yes, deadlines have been missed before, but this time the US national interest in resolving the conflict has been placed front and center and there is now broad consensus that the two-state option is passing its sell-by date. It was the Obama administration that insisted on the direct talks format as the way forward, and the ball will now be in their court to produce results.

TWN Publisher Steve Clemons will writing quite a bit about the upcoming talks as August rolls on, and he will be on Al Jazeera English at 7:00 pm tonight to discuss the prospects for Middle East peace and more.

-- Andrew Lebovich

Nicholas Maliska is a research intern with the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative.

Rumors that the Obama Administration is preparing to announce measures that will ease travel restrictions to Cuba have been circulating for several weeks, but the news now seems to be official with multiple knowledgeable sources indicating that the announcement will come within the next week or two.

The scope of the changes is still unknown and could range from a limited loosening of restrictions on specific licenses back to where it was during the Clinton years to permitting general licenses in all twelve categories of travel, which would facilitate the greatest amount of non-tourist visits to Cuba. The changes will certainly be the biggest development in U.S. policy towards Cuba since President Obama announced the easing of restrictions on Cuban American travel and remittances to the island in April 2009 and will send a long overdue signal that the Obama Administration takes Cuba policy seriously.

In the context of U.S.-Cuban relations more broadly, some analysts have been framing this development in the context of a tit-for-tat diplomatic maneuvering with the Cuban government. Earlier this summer after negotiations with the Catholic Church in Cuba, Raul Castro announced that 52 political prisoners would be released (26 of which have been freed and sent to Spain thus far). The easing of travel restrictions, they say, is Washington's response to the release of the political prisoners.

However, these changes have likely been in the works for some time as Julia Sweig, director of the Latin America program at the Council on Foreign Relations indicated in a recent Washington Post article: "It's a little easier to do it, given the political prisoners' release. But I think they were going to do it anyway."

Those looking at the Obama Administration's announcement as a move in a tit-for-tat framework will expect another gesture from the Cuban government in turn (such as the release of Alan Gross, the USAID contractor imprisoned since last December) before the U.S. makes any further changes. Yet, prompt actions and reform have not been characteristic of the Castros, who have already outlasted ten American Presidents.

The U.S. should not wait on the Cuban government to make further changes that benefit the Cuban people and are in our national interest. The U.S. should continue to readjust its policies to utilize our best asset, the American people, to engage with the Cubans and help in turn to develop a more open Cuban society.

-- Nicholas Maliska

(President George W. Bush speaking at the 50th anniversary re-dedication of the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C.)

Slate's Dave Weigel has a nice clip quoting former Bush administration Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and current Director of the George W. Bush Institute James K. Glassman.

Weigel writes:

[James K.} Glassman, who served as undersecretary for public diplomacy under George W. Bush, also believes that the controversy over the planned Islamic community center will hurt the U.S. image among Muslims abroad.

And he believes that Obama's task, like his predecessor's, is to replace the conspiratorial narrative about a United States as an enemy of Islam with one in which a tolerant, freedom-loving country does right by Muslims.

Reading between the lines with Glassman as a proxy for the former President of the United States -- the man who despite launching wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, who regularly met with and coordinated policies with Arab and Muslim leaders, and who did not allow the pugnacious, bomb-them-now wing of his White House prevail in the latter years of his presidency -- would have offered no less support for the Cordoba Mosque near Ground Zero than New York Michael Bloomberg or President Obama at the White House Iftar dinner.

In my view, James Glassman is right on target, and I applaud his willingness to speak out on this from his perch at George W. Bush Central.

And now, speaking out as Arab American and Muslim American Republicans, a group of Washington notables has sent an open letter to their colleagues and friends in the Republican Party:

Dear Republican Colleague:

We are writing to you today as loyal Americans who are active members of the Republican Party. We also happen to be proud of our Arab American and Muslim American contributions to the Republican Party.

We are deeply concerned by the rhetoric of some leading members of our party surrounding the construction of the Muslim Community Center in downtown Manhattan. These comments are not only constitutionally unsound, they are also alienating millions of Arab American and Muslim American voters who believe, as we do, in the principles of our party - individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law.

As you know, our party has had a long history of inclusion - beginning with our great President Abraham Lincoln, whose leadership on the slavery issue was monumental, and continuing through President George W. Bush whose public statements and actions on the differentiation between Islam and the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 were critically important. We are particularly proud to note that President Bush appointed more Arab Americans and Muslim Americans to his administration than any other president in U.S. history.

That being said, it perplexes us as to why some vocal members of our party have chosen to oppose the construction of a cultural and religious center on private grounds. Not only does the First Amendment to our Constitution protect the right of these private citizens to worship freely, it also prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. Our party and the leaders in our party should not be engaged in judgment issues of the location of a cultural center and a house of worship in direct contravention of the First Amendment.

While some in our party have recently conceded the constitutional argument, they are now arguing that it is insensitive, intolerant and unacceptable to locate the center at the present location: "Just because they have the right to do so - does not make it the right thing to do" they say. Many of these individuals are objecting to the location as being too close to the Ground Zero site and voicing the understandable pain and anguish of the 9-11 families who lost loved ones in this horrible tragedy. In expressing compassion and understanding for these families, we are asking ourselves the following: if two blocks is too close, is four blocks acceptable? or six blocks? or eight blocks? Does our party believe that one can only practice his/her religion in certain places within defined boundaries and away from the disapproving glances of some citizens? Should our party not be standing up and taking a leadership role- just like President Bush did after 9-11 - by making a clear distinction between Islam, one of the great three monotheistic faiths along with Judaism and Christianity, versus the terrorists who committed the atrocities on 9-11 and who are not only the true enemies of America but of Islam as well? President Bush struck the right balance in expressing sympathy for the families of the 9-11 victims while making it absolutely clear that the acts committed on 9-11 were not in the name of Islam. We are hoping that our party leaders can do the same now - especially at a time when it is greatly needed.

While we share the desire of all in our party to be successful in the November elections, we cannot support victory at the expense of the U.S. Constitution or the Arab and Muslim community in America. As President Lincoln so eloquently stated in his famous speech: "a house divided against itself cannot stand."

As proud and patriotic Americans, we are grateful for all the rights our U.S. citizenship allows us, and we will always do our best to not only protect our rights but the rights of all others as well. May God Bless our nation, our freedoms, and our party.

David Ramadan
Vice Chair, Ethnic Coalitions, Republican Party of Virginia

Sherine El-Abd
President, New Jersey Federation of Republican Women

Randa Fahmy Hudome
Associate Deputy Secretary of Energy, Bush Administration

George Salem
Solicitor of Labor, Reagan Administration

Suhail Khan
Chairman, Conservative Inclusion Coalition

Samah A Norquist
Senior Advisor to Arab and Muslim Outreach, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Bush Administration

My late professor, mentor, and friend, Hans Baerwald, taught me that one never really knows the "norms" of a political system unless that system is observed under stress.

Today, we are seeing behaviors emerge in American political life that violate the basic social contract of what this country is about and seeing too much of a tilt towards the possibility of mob rule.

When George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Michael Bloomberg are all essentially on the same side of an issue and the mob out there is trying to lynch American values -- it's time for us to wake up and defend what is right in this country and speak out against what is wrong.

I hope this minority group of Republicans -- including James Glassman as well as the Arab American Republicans and Muslim American Republicans listed above -- eventually work back to hijack their party from those doing such harm to it today.

And Senator Harry Reid would be wise to also read this letter -- as he no doubt will soon be hearing from Arab and Muslim Americans in his own constituency.

-- Steve Clemons

This morning I received an email from former Israel Labor Party Deputy Leader and former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh. It started "To my Muslim friends - Ramadan Karim".

Sneh maintains a friends mailing list for his thoughts and articles, and I'm honored to be included -- and appreciate very much that in a time that the United States is twisting itself in moral knots over the false debate about a mosque near the World Trade Center site in New York that Sneh -- a leading Jewish Israeli statesman -- is reaching out to his Muslim friends.

He sets a better example of intellectual and cultural openness than many US political leaders (with a blind spot or two).

Although some of Sneh's views are divergent from my own, particularly on Iran -- which he thinks is an irrational nation to its core bent on the annihilation of Israel, I always read him and take him seriously. He was one of those whose comments recently appeared in Jeffrey Goldberg's important Atlantic Monthly article "The Point of No Return." (My response to Goldberg appears here.)

But it is not about Iran that Sneh writes today; it is about "Israel and Jordan." (unfortunately the link to the article is not yet up on the Haaretz website. I will post as soon as available.)

After remarking about how Israeli concerns about a dangerous "Eastern Front" buffering Jordan and Israel had been transformed to one of quite and stability, Sneh writes:

In the sixteen years that have passed since that ceremony in the Arava valley, Jordan has carefully ensured that its border with Israel remains quiet and safe. The efforts of the Jordanian army and Jordanian intelligence have prevented terrorist penetrations from the eastern side of the border. The effort is impressive and so are its results. We have never publicly expressed our thanks to the Kingdom of Jordan; I hope that by other channels we did so.

Of late, official spokesmen are again mentioning the "Eastern Front". It's not as though we are short of security worries; on the other hand, this is not an entirely groundless concern. The military vacuum that will be formed after the exit of most of the US forces from Iraq, and the growing Iranian hold and influence on Iraq, give a certain justification for these fears, though the threat is neither tangible nor immediate.

Yet those who are truly worried--and the statements I have mentioned come from sources inside the government--have work to do. The thing most needed now, even without summoning up the "Eastern Front" from our strategic memories, is to strengthen Jordan, militarily and politically.

This is enlightened thinking from a former senior Israeli politician. Sneh calls for Israel to remove its opposition to Jordan developing its uranium resources for civilian use and also suggests that Israel support Jordan's efforts to refurbish an oil pipeline from Mosul to Haifa, moving Iraqi oil through Jordan to the Mediterranean. In what was news to me, the US is also allegedly helping to finance and construct a security wall between Jordan and Syria -- which Sneh thinks should be extended to the border between Jordan and Iraq.

And Sneh concludes:

And finally a point of morality. It would be best if for once we did not act ungratefully toward one of our few allies in the Middle East.

I want to commend Ephraim Sneh for his tone -- and to tell those who have given up thinking and listening in the US for bluster and screaming -- that there is something important when an Israeli leader can reach out and Americans, particularly Republican leaders at the moment -- but I'll add Senator Harry Reid to the mix -- can't manage a similarly enlightened posture.

The one missing hole in Sneh's article is that while he recognizes that Israel can do a lot to change the temperature in Jordan, the biggest help would come in doing more to resolve the Israel-Palestine standoff and to pull the plug on the ongoing expansion, military protection, and tax subsidization of illegal settlements in occupied territories.

I know that Sneh is actually a strong proponent of a two state outcome resulting in a secure Israel and viable, contiguous Palestinian state. But this is not something to leave out of the equation when it comes to helping Jordan achieve greater security and normalcy.

Until the toxic Palestinian situation is resolved, Jordan and Israel may be better than half-way friends but can't ever be full friends.

-- Steve Clemons

Slate's Dave Weigel has posted on a very interesting interview that he did with Republican icon and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist.

In an argument that I had not seen anywhere, Norquist argues that Republicans fought hard to win enhanced legal rights for faith-based organizations when engaged in disputes with local and regional government authorities. And now, he argues, they are undermining one of their most notable accomplishments.

Weigel writes:

In an interview just now, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform made a point about the "ground zero mosque" controversy that I hadn't heard before. One reason that opponents are going to have trouble legally preventing Park51 from building its Muslim cultural center is that, in 2000, a Republican Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

It's not that this was a partisan effort. It passed by voice vote in the House and Senate, and was helped through the higher body by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). The goal of the legislation, supported by a coalition of religious groups, was to respond to the Supreme Court's ruling in Employment Division Department of Human Resources v. Smith and give churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship more power in disputes with local and municipal authorities.

"This was one of the great victories of the religious right," said Norquist. "And now some people want to scrap it to make this point?"

In another good posting by Weigel at Slate, Norquist continues:

"Republicans will lose Jewish votes by focusing on a mosque in New York."

"You're not just going to lose Muslim votes," said Norquist, who has long argued that Republicans should win those voters. "You're going to lose Jewish votes, Indian votes, Buddhist votes. Every member of a minority group looks at a situation like this and says, oh, the people hitting this minority will eventually start hitting me."

I wonder if anyone shared Weigel's interview with Harry Reid before he began pointing the wrong direction.

-- Steve Clemons

Al-Khan Al-Ahmar school was built using recycled car tires.

This is a guest note by Fadi Elsalameen, Executive Director of The Palestine Note, the website where this post originally appeared.

Can you imagine defending your land and resisting occupation with windmills, solar panels, and recycled car tires? If you live in Palestine, this is not an eco-Utopian dream - it is the reality of a few West Bank communities squeezed by settlements and occupation.

The Israeli occupation uses force and unjust policies to intimidate and drive out Palestinians from their land. The land is then taken and annexed to nearby Israeli illegal settlements or outposts. To drive out the local Palestinian populations in the West Bank, the occupation denies Palestinians water and electricity, and destroys any effort to build schools, clinics or homes.

So, if you can't use traditional materials to build and are denied electricity and water, which nearby illegal Israeli settlers use day and night, what do you do? You do as the Palestinians do - go green and eco-friendly. You get your electricity from windmills and solar panels, you build your schools from recycled car tires, and you refuse to give up your land.

"This school was built from wood and concrete and destroyed twice by the Israeli occupation. It is now built from car tires and gets its electricity from solar panels on the roof," Dr. Sabri Saidam, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' technology adviser said describing Al-Khan Al-Ahmar primary mixed school.

The primary school serves 54 boy and girls up to the 4th grade in the Al-Khan Al-Ahmar area outside Jerusalem. Once the students reach 4th grade, they have to go to Jericho for the rest of their schooling. Parents who can't afford to pay for their children to commute to Jericho prefer their kids repeat the 4th grade several times rather than go to Jericho for the 5th grade.
Israel aggressively denies this community and many others permission to build houses, schools, or any structure that could help them stay on the land. "My father was arrested, and his bulldozer was confiscated by the Israelis, and we were fined five thousand dollars for trying to level the ground because we want to build a school for our kids," Al-Khan Al-Ahmar resident Mohamad Jahaleen told us.

What is encouraging is that the Palestinian government is paying very close attention to these communities. Dr. Sabri Saidam, accompanied by Palestine Note, Minister of Local Governance Dr. Khaled Alqawasmi, and adviser to the prime minister Dr. Jihad Najjar visited several endangered communities in the West Bank and promised to assist them with solar panels and windmills to help them stay on their land.

I believe it is important to make this effort successful on a larger scale throughout Palestine by creating a "green fund." Such a fund help not only endangered communities but all Palestinians throughout the territories benefit from green technologies.

There are already green businesses in Palestine that could serve as the foundation for such an initiative - MENA Geothermal is one such example. According to experts in green technology in Palestine, a fund of less than 10 million dollars would go a long way toward encouraging Palestinians to lower their energy consumption and dependence on Israel. So the question remains, where is Palestine's green fund?

-- Fadi Elsalameen

My home in Cuba.

This is a guest post by Anya Landau French, who directs the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative. This post originally appeared at The Havana Note.

Remember this gem from then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fisk in 2004?

"An individual can decide when they want to travel once every three years and the decision is up to them . . . So if they have a dying relative, they have to figure out when they want to travel."

Naturally, we all applauded a year ago when President Obama finally implemented new rules that meant that U.S. policy would help reunite, instead of further divide, thousands of Cuban families, whether for beach vacations or deathbed visits.

But there was still, of course, a catch. If you have loved ones on the island but you aren't related by blood or by marriage, you're out of luck. That's the position I find myself in today. For years, I've traveled to Cuba to conduct research and to help translate the Cuban reality, warts and all, back to the U.S., where so few of us have the opportunity to get to know the largest island in the Caribbean, or the wonderful people who live there. And in that time, I've made friends so close they have essentially become family to me and I to them. And so it was with deep sadness that I learned this weekend that one of them has passed away.

I find myself not only sad, but angry. Angry that a man who was like a father to me never got the chance to actually meet my father, or my husband (whom he was so happy to learn of when we found each other), or my adorable nephews back in the U.S., whose photos we all pored over together, year after year, when my work would bring me back again to the island. I'm angry, too, that my government allows me travel to to the island for work I plan months in advance, but when it most counts, I'm powerless to be with my loved ones right now during this difficult time.

Never more than now have I personally felt the damage our travel ban can do. In spite of the foibles of our two governments, in spite of all of the water under the bridge between our two nations, there must be so many people just like me, who first traveled to Cuba as part of an exchange and ended up making lasting bonds with the warm and open people we encountered there.

I often wonder if Dan Fisk regretted those infamously callous words of his, in justifying the separation of Cuban families across the straits of Florida. That policy is gone, but there's much more the Obama Administration and Congress could do to bring our two peoples closer. To say that the time has come to end the inhumanity would be an understatement. That time came years ago. One can only hope that U.S. policymakers are finally as ashamed of our idiotic, hurtful policy as I feel today.

-- Anya Landau French

And I thought it was only my weimaraner that did this!

-- Steve Clemons

President Obama gets it right on the Mosque at Ground Zero during his remarks at last evening's White House Iftar Dinner. Was very pleased to see that our good friends Representatives Keith Ellison and Rush Holt were at the dinner.

Yours truly was quoted by Sheryl Gay Stolberg in this morning's New York Times on the issue and Obama's remarks. Despite the controversy, I thought that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's remarks on this Ground Zero Mosque were definitive, compelling and gave the President an important fellow traveler in doing the right thing standing for religious freedom in this country.

From the President's speech:

Indeed, over the course of our history, religion has flourished within our borders precisely because Americans have had the right to worship as they choose - including the right to believe in no religion at all. And it is a testament to the wisdom of our Founders that America remains deeply religious - a nation where the ability of peoples of different faiths to coexist peacefully and with mutual respect for one another stands in contrast to the religious conflict that persists around the globe.

That is not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities - particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.

We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who have led our response to that attack - from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us always remember who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for. Our enemies respect no freedom of religion. Al Qaeda's cause is not Islam - it is a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders - these are terrorists who murder innocent men, women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion - and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

That is who we are fighting against. And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms - it is the strength of our values. The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish. The laws that we apply without regard to race or religion; wealth or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us - a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.

-- Steve Clemons

Today's New York Times carries a profile of the challenges facing "today's generals," after nine years of war in the Middle East and South Asia. According to the author, for these generals:

Mastery of battlefield tactics and a knack for leadership are only prerequisites. Generals and other top officers are now expected to be city managers, cultural ambassadors, public relations whizzes and politicians as they deal with multiple missions and constituencies in the war zone, in allied capitals -- and at home.

The increased demands help to explain how the two most recent American commanders in Afghanistan, among the most respected four-star officers of their generation, lost their jobs. And they are prompting the military to revamp the way it trains and promotes its top officers.

"They must be 'pentathlete' leaders," said Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior commander in Afghanistan. As Iraq and Afghanistan have proved that a commander must stretch to master nuances of international alliance accord, local governance and tribal politicking, the military has revamped its training ranges and its curriculum.

Strong scores in mock battle in the deserts of California or in swampy Louisiana are no longer the lone measurement. Fake villages with irascible, faux tribal leaders and proxies representing the competing agendas of government agencies and nongovernment organizations are all in play to test a commander's expanding set of required skills.

While I don't disagree with much of this, there needs to be a touch more perspective on just how "new" this kind of general is. While the current 24-hour news cycle allows for scrutiny of the tiniest comment or action from anywhere on the globe, it is an exaggeration to imply such a stark difference between combatant commanders or even the way we fight war now and before.

There is ample precedent in American history for removing generals who were deemed ineffective, insubordinate, or simply did not click with their Commander in Chief. And while the author acknowledges that commanders like Eisenhower had to deal with alliance politics and command nuances, they also had to deal with military governance of whole countries, population control and administration, reconstruction and development, and even dabbled in cultural understanding before "COIN" had a name. After all, one of the best-known works of anthropology, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, was written so that U.S. troops could better understand (and thus administer) occupied Japan.

None of this is to say that the responsibilities and pressures on combatant commanders are not different now. As a result of changing media pressures and different expectations, a commander must speak, and sometimes behave differently, than his predecessors. But history shows that war is not a binary between options like "COIN," and "Counterterrorism," and just as Gen. Petraeus is not a pure military strategist or practitioner, neither were those who fought before him.

-- Andrew Lebovich

This is a guest note by Fadi Elsalameen, Executive Director of The Palestine Note, the website where this post originally appeared.

Ramallah - For three years, Salam Fayyad, the Prime Minister in the West Bank Palestinian Authority (PA), has been a focal point for Mideast debate.

As an unelected official, he is reviled by Hamas and democracy activists alike for taking over the PA after the disillusion of the 2007 Palestinian unity government. He is also said to have alienated many within Fatah, the party of President Mahmoud Abbas, who see him as a limit to their influence in the West Bank.

But he has also won praise from other segments of society and adoration among Western commentators for his program of reforming, broadening and rebuilding Palestinian institutions, a process he says is a step toward founding a Palestinian state.

Yet his state-building program, too, has come under scruitiny, prominently with the release of a study in July by Nathan Brown of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which argued that Fayyad's program is lagging in key areas such as the rule of law, and that his efforts are proceeding in an "authoritarian context."

Confronted with these and other criticisms, Fayyad has an unflinching, some would say misguided, faith in himself and his program, which he sees as having "transformative" potential.

"This is a state-building track," he told Palestine Note's Fadi Elsalameen in an interview at his Ramallah office.

He added that his efforts are "supposed to ensure readiness for statehood. We think it's going to take us two years to get there. It's a bit ambitious, but doable despite the occupation. To end it, to end it means that--that's the dynamism of this--build, build, build despite the occupation to end it."

So great is Fayyad's confidence in the power of his own plans that he believes popular support for them could eventually be the key to reuniting the PA.

"Political parties, Hamas included, will find themselves compelled to go along," with his state-building vision, coupled with hoped-for progress in peace negotiations, Fayyad said. "Or they resist and they start to pay dearly in political terms, a very, very heavy political price associated with going against that trend."

Fadi Elsalameen: How do you respond to Nathan Brown's Carnegie Endowment study that criticizes your program?

Salam Fayyad: It's a question of building up capacity. It cannot be taken literally or nominally as building institutions that did not exist before. Especially when he says that the issue was maintenance of existing institutions. That's a badge of honor. Fixing, reforming, maintaining--that's very much the nature of the task. Reform, upgrading capacity, getting those institutions better able to deliver services, maintaining them. All of these are elements of the state-building effort. To complete the task of getting ready for statehood. So to suggest we are building things from scratch, I never said that. The program doesn't say that, but when you're talking about building up capacity to govern ourselves effectively, that could mean introducing new institutions. But it certainly focuses on bringing up capacity of existing institutions.

In terms of infrastructure, there, of course, have been lots of new things. You can't say, "They're just maintaining existing infrastructure." Over the span of two years, we implemented 1,000 community development programs, especially in rural areas, long-marginalized and most devastated by war, settlement activity, and whatnot. It's going to take us about half the time to implement the next batch of 1,000 projects--we're almost halfway through. You know, we celebrated project 1,000, I said afterward the next 1,000 projects will take us only one year. Before the year is out, I said, we're going to have another 1,000 such projects. And we are more than halfway through that mark already today, and I am certain we are going to make it. This will involve water, electricity, new schools, road networks, rural roads, the recreation center that your colleague started in Nablus [Tomorrow's Youth Organization] for the refugee camp. People have a lot of opportunities now that did not exist before. That really enters under the heading of 'new.'

And it's very much related to the need to enhance the capacity of our people to withstand the adversity of occupation. On the way to statehood, on the way to freedom, you don't do these things--people do not have adequate education and services. They want to leave if they could. Just exactly the opposite of what we need to be doing. With all due respect, it's very superficial [Nathan Brown's argument]. I can better understand and better relate to those who assert that this is the other side of Netanyahu's economic peace coin. At least there is some thinking that went into making that statement that I cannot really dismiss as being superficial. It's wrong, I disagree with it, but at least there's a little bit of thought process that I can see leading to that conclusion. But here, to say, "Oh, there are no new institutions," that's almost childish. I don't know who funded this work, and it does not really... [have] any degree of scholarship. It's just really weak. How can you do that? And on the basis of what? Anecdotal stuff? "I talked to people." Who are they? I would like to know how many people he talked to. Forget about whom he talked to, but how many people he talked to. Assuming it's an unbiased sample, how many people did he talk to? How long did he stay here, to form these impressions? And it's not true that it's only Ramallah. We started this campaign in Nablus. So, this is way too superficial, if you ask me. Way, way too superficial.

Although I have had the clip above for days in a queue, I am embarrassed that I am just seeing this powerful exchange now.

It is simply remarkable to watch and hear former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson make the clearest, strongest case for the full civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans -- indeed, all Americans -- that I have ever heard.

Fox's Chris Wallace tried hard to trip up Olson, and that's his job -- but he just couldn't do it.

Olson is a busy lawyer, with many more cases than this one to deal with -- but would be great to have him on Don't Ask/Don't Tell.

Huge thanks to Ted Olson for the extraordinary role he is playing in reshaping the American civil rights environment.

-- Steve Clemons

In an important article titled "The Point of No Return" to be published in The Atlantic tomorrow, national correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg recounts something many people didn't realize at the time and still have a hard time believing. President George W. Bush knocked back Dick Cheney's wing of the foreign policy establishment - both inside and out of his administration - that wanted to launch a bombing campaign against Iran. In a snippet I had not seen before, Bush mockingly referred to bombing advocates Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer as "the bomber boys."

George W. Bush was showing his inner realist not allowing his own trigger-happy Curtis LeMays pile on to the national security messes the US already owned in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But that was several years ago. Today, there is a new US President, more Iranian centrifuges, and a different Israeli Prime Minister - and Bibi Netanyahu seems closer to a Curtis LeMay, John Bolton or Frank Gaffney than he does to the more containment-oriented Eisenhowers and George Kennans who in their day forged a global equilibrium out of superpower rivalry and hatred.

Today's New York Times features a dispatch from Portugal today, discussing the amazing growth as well as the pitfalls of Portugal's rapid transition in building its renewable energy capacity. Nearly 45% of Portugal's energy will come from renewable sources this year, outpacing many other countries, including the United States:

Although a 2009 report by the agency called Portugal's renewable energy transition a "remarkable success," it added, "It is not fully clear that their costs, both financial and economic, as well as their impact on final consumer energy prices, are well understood and appreciated."

Indeed, complaints about rising electricity rates are a mainstay of pensioners' gossip here. Mr. Sócrates, who after a landslide victory in 2005 pushed through the major elements of the energy makeover over the objections of the country's fossil fuel industry, survived last year's election only as the leader of a weak coalition.

"You cannot imagine the pressure we suffered that first year," said Manuel Pinho, Portugal's minister of economy and innovation from 2005 until last year, who largely masterminded the transition, adding, "Politicians must take tough decisions."

Still, aggressive national policies to accelerate renewable energy use are succeeding in Portugal and some other countries, according to a recent report by IHS Emerging Energy Research of Cambridge, Mass., a leading energy consulting firm. By 2025, the report projected, Ireland, Denmark and Britain will also get 40 percent or more of their electricity from renewable sources; if power from large-scale hydroelectric dams, an older type of renewable energy, is included, countries like Canada and Brazil join the list.

The United States, which last year generated less than 5 percent of its power from newer forms of renewable energy, will lag behind at 16 percent (or just over 20 percent, including hydroelectric power), according to IHS.

The growing gap between the U.S. and other countries in producing renewable is interesting to see, but more telling is the article's explanations for why so little progress has been made in this country, an alternate combination of aging infrastructure, lack of political will, and pressure from energy lobbying groups. Indeed, it is telling that much of what the article says for why America is not further expanding its development of renewable energy has to do with political considerations.

This is not to say that America can emulate the Portuguese or other European models for energy development; as the article points out that many American energy grids are out-of-date and require serious upgrades, our great distances and suburban sprawl make energy transfer complicated, and even the "successful" European models for energy development, especially solar energy, require huge subsidies to stay solvent. As I have written, I recently visited a massive and state-of-the-art solar panel factory in Saxony, where after a lengthy presentation on the company's growth and market share in Germany and around the world, a company spokesman still admitted that without government subsidies it would be difficult to continue their development and production.

Still, moving forward we must make sure that it is economic, infrastructure, and environmental concerns that determine how we develop renewable energy sources, rather than political ones.

-- Andrew Lebovich

The Huffington Post's Dan Froomkin has highlighted a powerful video montage by his colleague HuffPost video editor Ben Craw on comments made by then-Senator Obama on Iraq in 2007 & President Obama on US policy towards Afghanistan.

There are many notable moments in this constellation of past commentary -- but the heaviest zinger is when then Senator Obama, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asks Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about benchmarks for America's increasing troop deployments to Iraq.

He asks:

"At what point do we say: 'Enough'?"

Exactly.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note by General Asad Durrani, who previously served as the head of Pakistan's ISI, or Inter-Services Intelligence. Durrani later served as Pakistan's Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany and to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Double or Quits

A soldier can do better than dying on the battlefield in pursuit of paradise -- he can send his adversary to hell.

That at least was once the unofficial American doctrine. Diplomats too occasionally dispatch each other to hell; the British traditionally in a manner that the adversary looks forward to the journey. The subtlety was lost on Pakistan.

Though often persuaded to go to hell, at times all expenses paid, the country keeps turning back from the brink. The British Prime-Minister therefore decided that the time for diplomatic equivocation was past and this enfant terrible had to be told in no uncertain terms that it was playing a "double game".

We were indeed not amused, but can now be blamed for "double standards". Earlier we had applauded David Cameron when he fired the first shot from his double-barrel: blamed Israel for turning Gaza into a prison. It was more than a diplomatic gaffe. For him it could be politically fatal. We should make amends and encourage the young Prime-Minister to carry on catching the bulls from their horns.

It is not because I wish him more trouble with Israel or with his political opponents. I also must acknowledge that but for the diplomatic mambo-jumbo we may at times be in serious trouble. If you have to convey a piece of your real mind about your nemesis, it was better done with a preamble; like "how highly we admire him or her". And just in case you had no idea about the status of a case in your charge, "it is under our active consideration" would save many a blush. I still believe we would be better served with some straight talk; Pakistan more than all the others.

If we, for example, were to wish the Afghan Taliban -- our best bet to get the region rid of the US-led Alliance -- all the luck, anyone believing in stating things "as they are" would be much impressed. If we could also add that since many of our troubles began with the arrival of the foreign forces, we were now willing to facilitate their departure, some of them would jump at the offer.

And just in case we did not have the courage to convey that a number of groups targeting us were sponsored by our so called allies, we could always leak an odd document to the Wikileaks. Indeed, it would be nice if countries like China, Russia and Iran also expressed their discomfiture with NATO's meddling with the New Great Game.

The Brits too would be delighted. They would dump all the debris of the last decade on the senior partner, hang some of its poodles now under trial (like they used to execute generals and admirals who lost wars in faraway places), and make up with their old friends, the Afghan Tribesmen.

The Americans too could benefit. They will finally get a chance to get even with "Big Money" that has run the country to bankruptcy, mortgaged its future to China, and created the most expensive war machine in history that routinely loses to ragtag warriors in this postmodern warfare.

And who knows, India may also concede that the real reason it was dragging its feet on reconciliation with Pakistan was that the price for peace exceeded the cost of status quo.

On second thought, this conversion to the true faith does not seem to be a good idea. It would deprive us of all the fun in conducting international relations, of running with the hare and hunting with the hound, and in letting our emissaries run wild in pursuit of refining diplomatic doublespeak.

In due course, Mr Cameron too would give up his new found enthusiasm for calling a spade a spade; latest, when the former US Defense Secretary William Cohen reminds him of the lesson he learned from an illustrious British diplomat, Lord Robertson: "now that you have joined the circus, learn to ride on two horses".

When the Prime-Minister was admonishing us for looking "both ways", his Indian hosts should have recalled what their own "showman of the century" taught them about life: "it is a circus, in which one must move and look in all directions".

Double-crossers!

-- Asad Durrani

Fareed Zakaria's dramatic rebuke of the Anti-Defamation League for opposing a mosque at the Ground Zero construction site replacing the 9-11 destroyed World Trade Center in New York raises obvious questions about who else has been honored by the ADL and how these recipients feel about the high profile controversy.

As he explains in his commentary above, Zakaria is not just hitting ADL on the head but rather returning the Humphrey Medal and $10,000 prize as an effort to encourage the organization to regain its credibility by recognizing that it made a mistake. This is a principled move by Zakaria and holds open the hope that ADL will pivot back towards the ethical track it has long been on.

I don't necessarily believe in follow-the-leader behavior and don't know if other recipients of the Humphrey Medal would be in the same position as Zakaria to easily return a large cash prize years after the fact. But knowing how other recipients feel about the ADL controversy and the Cordoba mosque could be instructive and important.

Barack Obama is occasionally photographed carrying a weighty and important book around with him. One of those books -- which he seemed to carry around for nearly a year (it is a very long book at 738 pages) -- was Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 by my New America Foundation colleague Steve Coll.

Another book that Obama took very seriously and had his pic snapped with is Fareed Zakaria's The Post-American World.

What Obama likely learned from Coll's book is that Afghanistan would be a tough grind, one that America couldn't easily walk away from without running the risk that the drama in that region will come knocking on America's door if not dealt with. What the President learned from Zakaria is that the tools of American power are severely diminished, that enormous global doubts exist about the United States and its future course, and that foes and allies alike are not doubling down on American leadership but are rather placing new bets.

I just received an email from a leading public intellectual on US foreign policy who just returned from Israel and Palestine and reported that there were "construction cranes all over Ramallah."

The source commented that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is getting something right. According to the source, he's building up the state even before there is a State.

I worry that what goes up can be blown up either by those left out of the political equation inside the Palestinian scene or be blown up through Israel incursions, but I remain cautiously hopeful that the infrastructure and urban development continue.

On another front a friend from the American Task Force on Palestine alerted me to this new resource for those interested in documents and materials related to Palestine state-building. This is the link.

-- Steve Clemons

Israeli media is reporting that former Clinton administration Secretary of Health and Human Services and University of Miami President Donna Shalala was "humilitated" at Ben Gurion International Airport. What makes matters a bit more complicated for Israel is that she was there to help protest the "academic boycott" of Israel.

Secretary Shalala was held for some two and a half hours in her view because she had a Lebanese last name, was not apparently reported in a VIP registration system, and had no "handlers" from Israeli organizations assisting her.

Deputy Foreign Minister and former Israel Ambassador to the US Danny Ayalon has "agreed that a new protocol will be drafted that will keep incidents to a minimum."

But this should not be just about VIP treatment in Israel. This kind of incident occurs in the United States frequently as well as Israel, and probably in other countries. Stories abound not just about time delays but about the gruff treatment that US customs officials handle those they hold back.

I wrote some time ago about the US Customs treatment of German Green Party Chairman Cem Oezdemir at Dulles Airport -- and when traveling through much of the Middle East, I constantly hear about VIPs and just regular folks who succeeded in getting visas nonetheless being subjected to equivalent forms of "humiliation" as Shalala apparently received while in Israel.

When I have been in Israel on my own and not under official sponsorship, I too have been subjected to pretty serious scrutiny. I once answered a question honestly that added an hour or so to my time. The young lady security screener asked (as I was departing Israel), "what place of worship do you belong to? a church in your community?" I responded, "I don't do religion." Red flag.

That said, I was treated with great respect by the Israeli screeners who frequently apologized for how long the search of my bags and perhaps my past were taking. But they were the epitome of politeness -- and I got through.

I went to St. John's Episcopal right across from the White House after this trip -- just so I could claim it next time in Israel -- but there is a deeper problem about the treatment of folks at borders, particularly the American border that I hope those angered by the Shalala case think about.

While many may be justifiably irritated by ethnic profiling and screening at Israel's airport, the spotlight should equally be held on US airports.

-- Steve Clemons

Is it possible that even the center-right tilting viewing audience of Fox news programs is also open to significant upgrades of gay civil rights? That is what a surprising new, unscientific survey of a Fox web audience seems to be showing.

With pleasure, I direct you to this interesting Fox News online poll in which at the time of this posting 300,499 votes had been cast.

The poll poses the following issue and question:

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Prop. 8, California's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. Do you agree with the judge's decision?

Kudos to Fox for asking this important question straightforwardly.

Although Fox notes that this is not a scientific poll, the response thus far strongly affirms the decision by Judge Vaughn Walker to strike down the California anti-same sex marriage Proposition 8.

Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has now filed a brief with the courts calling for gay marriages to immediately resume.

Here are the current responses to the Fox poll:

Yes -- Prop. 8 violates the Constitution. 71.1% (213,547 votes)

No -- Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I don't care what the judge thinks about the Constitution. 24.8% (74,455 votes)

I'm not sure but shouldn't the voters views count for something? 3.6% (10,812 votes)

Other (leave a comment). 0.6% (1,685 votes)

Total Votes: 300,499

I have mixed feelings about online polls, but I voted in this one.

No matter which side of the issue you find yourself on, I'd encourage you to vote in this poll given the very large number of participants (you can only vote once).

-- Steve Clemons

CNN show host and Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria has returned $10,000 and an award he was presented by the Anti-Defamation League in 2005 after ADL's opposition to a mosque at the rebuilt World Trade Center site in New York.

This is exceptional leadership on an important moral issue that I want to salute. We don't see people of Fareed Zakaria's stature taking stands that often as they tend to run from risk rather than embrace it.

This from a report at Huffington Post:

"Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize," Zakaria writes in next week's Newsweek. "I was thrilled to get the award from an organization that I had long admired. But I cannot in good conscience keep it anymore. I have returned both the handsome plaque and the $10,000 honorarium that came with it. I urge the ADL to reverse its decision. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain a reputation."

We at TWN urge Abe Foxman and ADL to change course as well.

-- Steve Clemons

Some Republicans and Democrats can get their heads together now and then.

When I had the privilege of working for Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) in the US Senate, I had just moved over from serving as founding Executive Director of the Nixon Center for Peace & Freedom, later renamed (thankfully) "The Nixon Center".

Senator Bingaman at the time, along with his chief of staff Patrick Von Bargen, were asking key questions about the structure of international trade and finance and why such large bilateral deficits were building between the US and respectively Japan and China. University of Chicago-trained neoclassical economists regularly parroted the line that bilateral deficits were "meaningless" and would be balanced out over time with other global trade partners -- and would on a bilateral basis rise and fall, appearing and disappearing in a highly fluid global economic environment.

Bingaman's and Von Bargen's questions then are even more relevant today -- and given the time on the clock since, it's clear that the economists who argued that deficits were meaningless or that a job is a job is a job -- whether working as a wallet maker or a nano-technology app developer -- were wrong.

But Jeff Bingaman, even though skeptical about how the global economy was working in real rather than ideological terms, never turned his back on international engagement. In 1996, Bingaman, Von Bargen and I traveled to Japan, South Korea, China, and other parts of Asia. This, then, was an annual trip supplemented by his personal trips to Guatemala and trips to Europe, Russia and more. Bingaman, now Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy, remains deeply engaged and interested in international affairs.

And while most Senators and Congressman make a point of pushing 95% of their available press time towards the Bartlesville news outlet (in the case of Oklahoma) over the demands of the Yomiuri, Le Monde, Al Jazeera, or the People's Daily, Bingaman is one that does make time for international media.

The Nixon Center as well was stacked with big personalities who were then and remain deeply committed to America's engagement in global affairs. While the Nixon Center is actually fastidiously non-partisan and has key Dems and Republicans engaged with it, it's hard to hide all of its Republican stripes when in fact the institution's inspiration and founder was a powerful two-term winning Republican President of the United States.

My point is that there are Democrats and Republicans -- lots of them -- committed to robust international engagement, to smart foreign aid, and to coherent and sensible U.S. international public diplomacy.

But just as when I worked for Bingaman in the Senate and there were some Democrats and more Republicans who looked at having a passport as a political liability, many in the Tea Party movement are a manifestation of a similar pugnacious nationalism that disdains international institutions and US engagement abroad.

One of the major bipartisan NGOs committed to internationalism in Washington is the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition. I attended the USGLC's gala dinner last year featuring NBC's Andrea Mitchell and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

But the guy who really impressed me was the charismatic Republican Congressman from Illinois, Aaron Schock -- who went on stage and made a case as strong as any liberal internationalist I have heard for the hard core national interest reasons that the U.S. should support global affairs and engagement -- and yes, foreign aid budgets.

Aaron Schock is a serious player on the way up -- and too many are distracted by his better than average looks and youth. I didn't support his approach to Honduras (for the most part) that he seemed to have jointly worked out with Senator Jim DeMint -- but that is beside the point. Schock is thinking hard about smart policy, not just coasting with his new found power and privileges in Washington.

If the USGLC can bring Hillary Clinton and the Republican House Deputy Whip together to sing from similar playbooks, then I have time for this private sector initiative to promote public support for international engagement.

If you are in DC (and if not, I am sure that there will be "live streaming" that I will arrange to have run here at TWN), you might want to attend the annual USGLC 2010 Washington Conference (registration information here) that takes place September 28-29, 2010 at Washington's Grand Hyatt.

I would support this meeting whether I was speaking or not -- but I happen to be on the program along with NBC Meet the Press' David Gregory, Under Secretary of the Treasury Lael Brainard, US AID Administrator Rajiv Shah, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, and the indefatigable Joshua Rogin -- who writes Foreign Policy's "The Cable".

-- Steve Clemons

This just in from my friends at UPI:

'Oldest' man actually died 32 years ago

TOKYO, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- A man thought to be Tokyo's oldest resident at 111 years old actually died more than 30 years ago and was left to mummify in the family home, a report said.

Officials discovered the body of Sogen Kato in a room in an apartment in the city's Adachi Ward and believe his family may have kept his death quiet so it could continue receiving his pension benefits, Tokyo's Mainichi Daily News reported Thursday.

Family members told officials the man shut himself in the room in 1978 after telling them he wanted to become a "living Buddha," the report said. Instead of being more than a century old, Kato was probably 79 years old when he died.

His family continued to receive pension benefits of about 18.5 million yen ($215,000) from the time he died until his death was discovered. A transportation official who visited the home every year for 17 years to deliver a free pass said she was never allowed to see Kato.

"What a sad world it is when people can overlook the death of someone who is not living alone as an elderly person but in a family," the unnamed transportation official told Mainichi.

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

This just in from CNN:

-- Alleged Israeli agent to be tried in Germany over charges relating to the murder of a Hamas leader in Dubai.

G. John Ikenberry has written some of the most impressive work I have seen on how world powers -- no matter how powerful -- can see their power "bounded" by others in the international system.

This seems to be happening to the United States -- but also to Israel.

This is what I wrote about the assassination of Hamas military wing commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in February 2010.

-- Steve Clemons

While I'm not surprised that the Pentagon has barred Michael Hastings from a previously approved "embed", they are not handling this well and are messing up again.

The President and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates should intervene and order the Pentagon to invite Michael Hastings back into the embed fold.

This from Mike Allen's Playbook in Politico this morning:

BULLETIN -- Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone contributing editor who wrote "The Runaway General," tells Mika [Brzezinski]: "Unfortunately, I recently received a letter from the public affairs staff denying me access to an embed that had been approved in June. ... I was scheduled to go on this embed in September. I just received a letter that said I was now DISapproved from going on that embed with the 101st Airborne. So I think that was a very unfortunate decision that was a direct result of the article about General McChrystal."

Hastings played a vital national service in exposing the toxic disdain some in McChrystal's command had for their US government partners in Afghanistan as well as for allies.

Allowing the Pentagon to continue to block Hastings reinforces the notion that he was the bad guy in this -- not the person who was fired by the President of the United States.

Note to National Security Council team -- this is one you should turn around.

It's not wise to punish the media who actually helped bring vital information to the nation and to the White House. Had McChrystal's team continued to operate, tensions between the key U.S. partners in Afghanistan would have become even more destructive.

-- Steve Clemons

America and Japan: the cutest military alliance in the whole world.

Occasional blogger Gen Kanai sent me this fascinating note referencing a CNNGo post by Matt Alt about manga cartoon love and the US-Japan security relationship.

From Gen Kanai:

This is pretty amazing.

For years, foreigners have tittered over the Japan Self-Defense Forces' cuddly mascot character, Prince Pickles.

But now the United States military has upped the ante by producing an entire manga-style comic book celebrating the strategic relationship between the two nations.

Could this be the beginning of a new era of "mutually assured cuteness?"

Entitled Our Alliance; A Lasting Partnership and available for free download from the U.S. Forces Japan website, it casts the politically charged relationship as a metaphor in which a cuter-than-cute little boy named Usa (get it?) visits the home of his equally cuter-than-cute Japanese friend Arai Anzu (say it aloud: "alliance.")

You can see the manga here.

It's unfortunately only in Japanese but the visuals express a lot.

Gen

The zinger in CNNGo's Matt Alt's great snip is:

"Our Alliance" skirts any discussion of protests or criticism, casting the relationship in an almost blindingly positive light. Helpful little Usa scoots around Arai's home stomping on cockroaches and extolling the "efficiency" of Japan's work alongside the more powerful United States.

The only question is, if this is all a metaphor, who or what precisely do those cockroaches represent? Perhaps that will be answered in the follow-up issues, which are due to come out over the course of 2010.

-- Steve Clemons

Nearly two and a half million other views have seen this -- but I had not.

The Toshiba Space Chair Project?

Make sure you watch until the very end.

Will be interesting to see how China beats this.

-- Steve Clemons

Hat tip to Gen Kanai for this and his excellent blog.

The Bilerico Players have put together this slightly odd -- but highly informative -- animated exchange between a mocked-up Judge Vaughn Walker and a legal counsel supporting the anti-same sex marriage Proposition 8, which was Judge Walker struck down.

Worth the seven minutes.

-- Steve Clemons

University of Vermont Political Science Professor F. Gregory Gause, III, writing at the Foreign Policy/Middle East Channel, is pessimistic about Saudi Arabia King Abdallah's efforts to woo Syria away from Iran and reconstitute the Riyad-Cairo-Damascus Arab triangle.

Gause argues that the Arabs' divergent threat perceptions vis-vis both Iran's regional ambitions and the best way to bring pressure to bear on Israel will prevent collective action.

He concludes that:

The recent hopes for a revival of the Arab solidarity of the 1970s are therefore destined to be dashed on all scores. King Abdallah is playing the long game with Syria, hoping over time to move it away from its alliance with Iran. (After failing in his earlier policy, in conjunction with the Bush Administration, of isolating and pressuring Assad.) But until there is a fundamental reassessment in Damascus about its regional role, Arab cooperation is bound to be a limited, issue-specific, and a short-term phenomenon. That means that no one should expect any significant all-Arab initiatives on the Arab-Israeli peace process any time soon. It also means that Iran will not face a unified Arab front in opposition to the expansion of its regional influence or to its nuclear ambitions.

-- Ben Katcher

(click image for larger version)

Jonathan Guyer is a program associate at the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force and the official cartoonist of The Washington Note. He blogs at Mideast by Midwest.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen certainly caught our attention on the Sunday talkies. All options with regard to Iran "on the table."

-- Jonathan Guyer

This is a guest post by Parag Khanna, A Senior Research Fellow at the New America Foundation and author of The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order.

Khanna is pictured above with his team mates who drove this ambulance in an 8000 mile Mongolia charity rally.

From London to Mongolia...in an Ambulance

Ulanbaatar, Mongolia - At last year's TED Global conference, I presented a series of "invisible maps" showing how the world's borders and gravities of influence are constantly shifting, often without us noticing.

One slide depicted China's sly encroachment on Mongolia's rich natural resources, leading me to dub the country "Mine-Golia." This caused quite a stir here in Ulanbataar, where I've just arrived after completing the 8000 mile Mongolia Charity Rally.

My team (including a Russian-American private equity investor, a professional female rally driver, and a DC-based public relations consultant) and I began in London in early July, getting behind the wheel of 1991 Land Rover Defender 137 which had been converted by the British Army into an ambulance.

We quickly dubbed her "Betsy," and after some false starts and break-downs en route to the Chunnel, we arrived in Calais (France) and hauled across Western Europe. Polish and Russian mechanics work faster, cheaper, and better than their "Old Europe" counterparts, and we took full advantage as Betsy's fuel filter and ignition switches needed replacement. Meanwhile, our quick stops for sleep and media appearances allowed us to soak in Warsaw and Moscow, which pulse with energy amidst late summer sunsets.

Anyone who has driven across Turkey knows that the "real" or "other" Turkey begins east of Istanbul and Ankara. As I wrote in The Second World, the same is true for Russia.

Heading south from Moscow, we stopped at Kazan, site of Europe's second largest mosque (behind Istanbul's Blue Mosque). During the past decade's oil boom, Tatar provincial authorities cleverly negotiated retaining a greater share of extractive sector profits, turning this once "third capital" of Russia into a mini Muslim Moscow. Even as Moscow vacillates between tightening its grip on governors versus allowing them free reign, Moscow itself seems peripheral as one enters the periphery.

Tatarstan's maneuvers are emblematic of psychological trends outside the core Slavic Russia of the country's northwest region. The Caucasus territories have delivered nothing but trouble to Moscow since independence, especially Chechnya and Dagestan. Moving eastward across the Ural mountains into Asian Russia provides the ultimate geographic reminder of the diffuseness and fragility of Russia's grip on its "other" self. Americans need to be reminded that Russia has ten time zones--that's 2.5 times more than the U.S.

It takes about two weeks at an average speed to cross Russia, but you have to fight for almost every mile on sometimes head-splittingly bumpy, unpaved roads. It costs Russia a great deal to maintain its gargantuan size, an investment Russia has made little priority of since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin and Medvedev waffle on domestic investment, while the finance ministry is tight with the purse strings. Meanwhile, the final 2000 kilometers to Russia's easternmost outpost of Vladivostok is barely passable--yet China lies so close.

After the steel town of Cheryablinsk and former nuclear science center of Novosibirsk, Siberia (north and northeast of the vast border to Kazakhstan) presented an endlessly enchanting vista of wheat fields and forests. We encountered ever more Altai and Buryat peoples, whose identity--like that of the now independent Kazakhs, Uzbeks, and other nations of Central Asia--was largely ignored by Sovietologists. The further east one goes, the more one finds right-side steering wheel cars (like ours) bought surplus from Japan and cheaper flight options to China than to Moscow--both a metaphor for Siberia's amorphous identity.

After a couple of days respite in Irkutsk and Baikal, the world's largest and deepest freshwater lake and a uniquely diverse eco-system, we headed south to the Mongolian border. Mongolia is precariously wedged between Russia and China, historically "Finlandized" by the former and increasingly so by the latter, for whom it is a captive supplier of iron ore, copper, and other metals. In a lecture here and in meetings with senior officials, I've emphasized that Western diplomats and bankers should support the Mongolian government and firms to negotiate more favorable deals and set-up futures funds to manage mineral wealth, all important ingredients to maintaining and strengthening Mongolia's sovereignty.

You too can help countries with small populations and high potential like Mongolia. Our "Ambulance to Mongolia" team blog has our trip diary and more information about the Mongolian medical system, and donations can be made on our team site.

-- Parag Khanna

The news Saturday that after years of failed negotiations the United Arab Emirates will ban the data and email service on Blackberry phones after October 11 without an agreement allowing the Emirates to monitor the currently encrypted data raises fascinating questions about how authoritarian governments cope with emerging technologies.

While the UAE government has argued that security concerns and national sovereignty allow it to set rules regulating commerce, American officials and NGO's alike have cried foul over the human rights implications of the forthcoming ban. From an Al Jazeera article on the subject:

As they stand, BlackBerry services allow users to "commit violations without being subject to legal accountability," the UAE Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRA) said in a statement on Sunday.

Some have accused the UAE of trying to censor BlackBerry phones because the government cannot easily monitor them...

...After the TRA warned in July that BlackBerry phones posed a threat to national security, Reporters Without Borders accused the UAEof viewing BlackBerry services "as an obstacle to its goal of reinforcing censorship, filtering and surveillance".

The group said that a ban or block on the BlackBerry would be "a serious mistake and utterly inconsistent on the part of a country that aspires to be a technological leader in the Arab world".

But the problem is not just one of freedom, though that is a serious issue; it is also about the Emirates' economic viability. While it seems that the estimated 500,000 Emirati Blackberry users may learn, with a sigh of regret, to deal with the ban, it is less clear how the nearly 100,000 visitors who pass through or stop in the Emirates daily will deal with a sudden gap in their email and a slow-down to their ability to do business.

While people often talk about bans of YouTube and Facebook, the Blackberry ban could put a real dent in the Emirates' competitiveness globally. And while I doubt this move will kill the Emirates' role as a commercial and travel hub, it could cause some people to take their travel and operations elsewhere. Coming on the tails of Dubai's real estate crash, any reduction in the flow of travelers and others could be enough to cause damage, to not only the Emirates' money flow but also to their image. As Jonathan Shainin, a former editor of the UAE's The National newspaper noted on twitter, "All I need to know about the proposed BlackBerry ban is that it makes the UAE look foolish."

It will be interesting in the coming months to see who blinks first, and whether or not the power of mass communications are enough to sway governments trying to balance a globalized existence with closed government.

-- Andrew Lebovich