Author: k.callinan

The NYT has been posting some fantastic pieces on Saudi Arabia this year and today’s article was no exception. The United States and Saudi Arabia have had a complicated year – from the JASTA vote, the arms deal, and the “28 pages” – we saw a rift open in our relations with the Kingdom.

Today’s report detailed how Saudi Arabia plays both sides of the conflict in Afghanistan. On one hand, the Saudis are a valuable partner in our fight against the Taliban. On the other, SA allies with Pakistan, who openly supports the Taliban, while wealthy Saudis have funded the Taliban’s resurgence in addition to donating to schools and mosques that promote a fundamentalist ideology.

It’s important to view this through the lens of the region. Saudi Arabia and Iran are in a fight for regional hegemony. Playing both sides of this conflict allows the Kingdom to have a say no matter what the outcome.

This piece in the WSJ, “The Last Diplomat” details how one lifelong diplomat became the center of an FBI espionage investigation. Robin Raphel joined the State Department in the 70s and became a fixture in Pakistani social and political circles. Her close relationships with foreigners was normal for Ambassadors but raised red flags over at the FBI. After the WikiLeaks and Snowden revelations of the early 2010s, the Obama administration set out to crack down on government moles. Raphel was targeted by the FBI for her frequent contact with Pakistanis and the ensuing investigation upended Raphel’s life and left a black stain on the FBI forever.

If you plan on writing your final memo for Angela Merkel, you must read Time’s profile of her from last year. Merkel was named Time Magazine’s person of the year in 2015 and the accompanying profile of her is captivating. It details her life from the beginning as a shy and awkward girl growing up in the Soviet bloc to a brilliant scientist to the most powerful woman in the world.

Jeffery Goldberg’s The Obama Doctrine received a lot of attention when it was published in the spring. One of its highest profile critics was Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State and one of the most consequential statesmen of his time. The Atlantic released a follow up interview with Mr. Kissinger last week and it covered a variety of foreign policy topics from China to the Middle East.

One of Kissinger’s biggest issues with Obama is the credibility argument. Kissinger thought it was necessary to show force in order to force a diplomatic agreement (I’m really simplifying this argument here – it’s much more complex than this) while Obama famously said in the Goldberg article that it’s silly to bomb people for the sake of bombing people.

The most interesting part of the piece for me was Kissinger describing the philosophical differences we have with China. “Some Chinese strategists are in effect saying, “If we were in the American position, would we not at least consider preventing another country from reaching equality?” So that is a latent source of tension…The primary subject they want to discuss—philosophical in nature—is never raised, which is “If we were you, we might try to suppress our rise. Do you seek to suppress us? If you do not, what will the world look like when we are both strong, as we expect to be?” It makes sense for China to think like this. They are on the rise and rightfully paranoid that the U.S. might try to suppress them. Kissinger suggests that our diplomats are not having this discussion to reduce uncertainty, which is concerning and could potentially lead to conflict down the line.

Back in August, the next POTUS gave a speech on ISIS, terrorism, and the Middle East. In the speech, it seemed like he clearly had no understanding of American foreign policy or recent Middle East history. He said we should’ve taken the oil in Iraq, called out Islamic terrorists, and blamed Sec. Clinton and the president for their mishandling of the region.

Take a look at the highlights from PBS – it’s pretty sad to know this guy will be our next president. Who really knows what this man will do as president? I don’t but I’m preparing for the worst.

I won’t be taking my capstone until next fall but I’ve already given some thought as to what I want to research. For some time now, I’ve been fascinated with US arms deals and how American weapons sometimes fall into the hands of terrorists. Trying to avoid the news these days, I wanted to learn about American arms deals and how we can actually end up arming terrorists. I came across two articles in the Times – one from today and another from two years ago.

This article discusses the rampant corruption among the Iraqi military and how plans to arm rebels always go poorly. We’re in a dilemma here, we “need” to arm these militaries, but the corrupt officials that actually receive the arms will sell the weapons to the highest bidder. “If each soldier is supposed to get 100 bullets, he will only get 50, and the officer will take and sell the rest,” Colonel Obeidi said. As he showed a reporter the Austrian-made Glock handgun he obtained from United States forces years ago, he added, “If the Iraqi Army had supplied this, the barrel would explode in two rounds.”

So corruption is one reason American weapons end up in the terrorists hands. Another is the fact that we readily arm “allies” that use our weapons to destroy their enemies.

Take the example of the vicious 20 month war in Yemen. Saudi Arabia has been relentlessly bombing Yemen since March 2015 with the goal of removing the rebel Houthi government from power. Using American weapons that they have acquired through arms sales, they have bombed civilians again and again. Factories, bridges, roads, and even a funeral are all subject to Saudi destruction. This article in the Times explains the damage in Yemen’s war and how American weapons have devastated the country.

Some of the most depressing developments throughout the refugee crisis have been stories of migrants drowning at sea. We all remember the depressing photo of Ayland Kurdi, the toddler who washed ashore on Kos last September. Well today, over 200 refugees are feared dead in a horrific accident off the Libyan coast. More than 4,200 migrants have died this year making the dangerous journey through the Mediterranean to Europe.

A lot of people point to the post-WWI drawing of Middle Eastern borders as one of the primary causes for the conflict we see today. The Sykes-Picot Agreement negotiated by France and England dealt with how to dissolve the Ottoman Empire and led to “the division of Turkish-held Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine into various French- and British-administered areas.”

These lines were drawn arbitrarily with little regard for culture or religion. Here for a quick primer on this agreement is Jon Stewart and his friend, Sir Archibald Mapsalot III:

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/kovgs5/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-sir-archibald-mapsalot-iii

I’ve been writing this entire semester about planning for a post-ISIL Middle East.

This article in Foreign Affairs highlights these divisions and discusses how conflict will linger long after ISIL is defeated. It’s important to note that there are not just disputes between different tribes in Iraq, but even conflicts within groups as well. The Kurds, some of the best anti-ISIL fighters in the region, suffer from severe infighting between the different political groups, the PUK and KDP.

The article points out that things will not be rosy and great in Iraq after ISIL is defeated. It is a constant theme in everything I’ve read this semester on the topic, tribalism and ethnic divisions truly dominate the region and these divisions will remain after ISIL leaves town.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iraq/2016-11-03/iraq-after-isis

 

A lot of disturbing reports coming out of Mosul today as Iraqi forcues continued their march towards the ISIL stronghold. The New York Times reported that ISIL has used civilians as human shields and may have killed nearly 200 people.

The Guardian reported that authorities found “several murdered journalists, the bodies of nearly 50 former police officers, and dozens of dead people thrown into a river nearly 30 miles south of Mosul.”

We can expect to see these types of atrocities as ISIL continues to lose the battle for Mosul.