Reading Monday April 6

John Oliver Grills Edward Snowden on ‘Last Week Tonight’

Explicit content that may be too off color for some. CNN calls this arguably the toughest interview of Snowden that we have seen. Video at the link.  Here are the key excerpts:

Oliver didn’t pull any punches. “How many of those documents have you actually read?” he asked Snowden with a palpable air of skepticism. “I do understand what I turned over,” the ex-CIA systems admin mumbled.

Not good enough. “There’s a difference between understanding what’s in the documents and reading what’s in the documents… because when you’re handing over thousands of NSA documents the last thing you’d want to do is read them,” Oliver said.

He continued, “So the New York Times took a slide, didn’t redact it properly, and in the end it was possible for people to see that something was being used in Mosul on al Qaeda.”
“That is a problem,” Snowden replied.

“Well, that’s a fu**up,” said Oliver.

“It is a fu**up, and those things do happen in reporting. In journalism, we have to accept that some mistakes will be made. This is a fundamental concept of liberty,” Snowden said.

“Right. But you have to own that then,” grilled Oliver. “You’re giving documents with information you know could be harmful, which could get out there.”

Snowden is stunned to near-silence, not expecting such a contentious line of questioning from the bespectacled late-night host.

Marlow Stern

SHOWDOWN

04.06.15

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/06/john-oliver-grills-edward-snowden-on-last-week-tonight.html?via=twitter_page

Lessons from North Korea

How to Avoid a Nuclear Iran

Conclusion:

Obama seems to have had even less of an interest than Bush in a nuclear deal, let alone in a political settlement, with North Korea. Starting in 2009, Pyongyang staged its second nuclear breakout by pushing ahead with a uranium program and conducting more nuclear and missile tests. Obama only briefly considered resurrecting a nuclear freeze deal and never seriously pursued a settlement with either the ailing Kim Jong Il or the cherubic Kim Jong Un. Obama may leave office convinced he did the right thing with regard to North Korea by not rewarding “bad behavior,” as he said in March 2012, but history is likely to be a harsher judge.

Fortunately, it is not too late for Obama to make the right choices in dealing with Iran. By learning from Clinton’s failure to turn a nuclear deal with North Korea into a political settlement, he can at least try to avoid the same mistake in the Middle East. Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani should seize the opportunity their nuclear agreement has created to forge a political and strategic realignment of U.S.-Iranian relations. From Capitol Hill to Riyadh to Jerusalem, the opposition has already begun to mobilize. With the U.S. presidential campaign season looming, Obama will have to seize the moment by taking bold steps to permanently transform U.S.-Iranian relations. The nuclear deal opens the gateway to normalization, which is the best hope for making sure the nuclear freeze really sticks.

April 5, 2015

SNAPSHOT

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/140704
John Delury
JOHN DELURY is Associate Professor of Chinese Studies at Yonsei University’s Graduate School of International Studies in Seoul, South Korea.

Defining The Relationship

Terminology and the Iran Deal

Excerpt:

All along, the deal has been treated as if the parties will be able to back down at any time, divorcing the agreement from international law and binding obligations. For example, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), author of the controversial open letter signed by 47 Republican senators opposed to negotiations with Iran, has been vocal about the signatories’ willingness to strike down any future deal, indicating that there is little chance any future agreement will be viewed as binding in the United States. Beyond winning over a skeptical Congress, the Obama administration will also need to convince the next president that the framework is worth continuing despite there being no law mandating its execution after Obama ends his term in 2016. Iranian leaders also face the risk of their parliament revoking the deal at any time; Tehran’s governing body has even more leeway over international agreements than the U.S. Congress. If both sides can dismiss the deal at will, without penalty under international law, then former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton (a man not known for his love of international law) might have had a point when he said that “if the deal is that fragile, they don’t have a deal.”

Conclusion:

The marathon negotiation sessions achieved a course of action with a 25-year road map and an agreement without a sunset date, providing a strong show of confidence on all sides that any deal will have the full force and effect it deserves under international law. Unlike many other political commitments, the nuclear deal was negotiated against the backdrop of complex legal issues, including a web of national, regional, and UN sanctions. The number of involved parties—national governments, regional bodies, the UN, and the International Atomic Energy Agency—hints at the seriousness of the framework and the upcoming deal. Some of the undertakings each side has committed to uphold within the framework will be irreversible and of a legal nature. Given the sheer complexity of factors weighing in on the nuclear discussion that concluded this week, Iran’s comprehensive nuclear deal is more than a toothless political commitment.

April 5, 2015

SNAPSHOT

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/140707
Farshad Ghodoosi
FARSHAD GHODOOSI is Howard M. Holtzmann Fellow in international dispute resolution at Yale Law School.

THE STRATEGIST’S ULTIMATE MISSION

Good words from Frank:

Thus, my counter-proposal:

To artfully design and coherently link achievable ends, allocated means, effective ways, with acceptable risks to generate, exploit and sustain a competitive advantage against an enemy to secure desired political effects and outcomes.

So with a tip of the cap to Cavanaugh for his initiative. I offer mine above to continue the conversation in our pages. The inclusion of art, coherence,limited means, and competitive advantage are worth considering. They represent the critical elements of strategy and the ultimate test of what a good strategist has to create and sustain.

Frank Hoffman

April 6, 2015 · in Commentary

http://warontherocks.com/2015/04/the-strategists-ultimate-mission/?singlepage=1

BLOWBACK AS NATIONAL POLICY

Conclusion:

America is exceptional. The bold promise to humanity represented by the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence make it so. But exceptional does not mean exemptional. The promise of America on the world stage is not to declare itself exempt from the ideals, principles and rules of law, the violation of which we are so quick to condemn in others. If America is to lead, if America is to help promote stability and security in the world, it has to stop intervening and meddling so much in other societies and instead lead by example. The United States needs a strong and flexible defense, but the word defense cannot mean a blank check for parlor room geostrategists to play with the lives of real people and societies as if foreign policy and diplomacy were a more grandiose version of the board game Risk and an excuse to get invited on Sunday talk shows to prescribe the same failed policies as the panaceas for the messes they have created.

David Wise

April 6, 2015 · in Commentary

     

http://warontherocks.com/2015/04/blowback-as-national-policy/?singlepage=1

Saudi special forces 'involved in Yemen ops'

Excerpts:

(Saudi) Army special forces supplied weapons and communications equipment to militia loyal to President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi in the main southern city of Aden, the adviser told AFP.

Naval special forces provided "coordination and guidance" to enable the loyalist fighters to launch a counter-attack on the rebels.

Special forces "will continue their engagements" with the fighters loyal to Hadi, who has sought refuge in Saudi Arabia, said the adviser, who did not want to be identified.

He said army and navy special forces were also involved in operations against Huthi units that "invaded" Myun Island in the Bab al-Mandab Strait, through which much of the world's maritime trade passes.

04 April 2015 - 17H26

http://www.france24.com/en/20150404-saudi-special-forces-involved-yemen-ops/?aef_campaign_date=2015-04-04&aef_campaign_ref=partage_aef&dlvrit=66745&ns_campaign=reseaux_sociaux&ns_linkname=editorial&ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter

Upset by political gridlock? Blame the baby boomers

By Rick Montgomery 

The Kansas City Star

Published: April 5, 2015

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/upset-by-political-gridlock-blame-the-baby-boomers-1.338582?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+starsandstripes%2Fgeneral+%28Stars+and+Stripes%29

US' war on terror kills over 80,000 people in Pak: report

The 101 page report from the Physicians for Social Responsibility (and others) can be downloaded here.  http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf  Have not seen this discussed in US and mainstream media.  Google the title and you will find it referenced in Middle Eastern and South Asian press, some European fringe outlet and RT (Russia) as well as the usual anti-US media.

http://m.timesofindia.com/world/pakistan/US-war-on-terror-kills-over-80000-people-in-Pak-report/articleshow/46736046.cms

Mar 29, 2015, 06.17PM IST PTI

N.Korea Changes Camouflage of Infiltration Planes

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2015/04/06/2015040600863.html

Need to raise a new corps (Pakistan and an Unconventional Warfare Corps)

Now it is the Pakistani's response to the recent Indian essays about Special Forces (probably just coincidence but it is interesting that both India and Pakistan have articles on these similar topics)   The author has mixed together a number of concepts (as if he was reading FM 3-24 as  the US counter-trerrorism "strategy, and cherry picking from current US debates about the future of warfare),  He has clear, hold, build and disrupt, dismantle, and defeat then calls for an Unconventional Warfare Corps to fight the unconventional threats that Pakistan faces.  And he does seem to provide an interesting and succinct threat assessment:

What are the root causes of what we are up against? Answer: the state-sponsored jihadi doctrine, civilian misgovernance, lack of dispensation of justice, lack of municipal services and a jihadi curriculum.

On a separate note, it is interesting that the author would call for an Unconventional Warfare Corps instead of the more popular Special Forces or Special Operations Forces.  Maybe we should consider renaming Special Forces to the Unconventional Warfare Corps and then we could end the SF versus SOF definition misunderstanding.  Everyone can be called special forces and the Green Berets could become the UW Corps. (note tongue in cheek).  

V/R
Dave

Need to raise a new corps

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-190211-Need-to-raise-a-new-corps

Farrukh Saleem

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 

From Print Edition

We need to recognise that Pakistan is in a state of war – a long war. We need to separate our enemies from our friends. We need a new war doctrine – a Permanent War Doctrine. We need to raise a new corps – the Unconventional Warfare Corps.

In the Pakistan-India of 1965 we lost 3,800 men, 200 tanks and 20 aircraft. In the 1971 Pakistan-India war we lost 9,000 lives, two destroyers, one minesweeper and one submarine (neutral claims as per the Encyclopaedia of the Developing World).

Imagine, Pakistani fatalities over the past decade in the ongoing war stand at 48,659 of which 5,227 were security forces personnel. Obviously, this is a much bigger – and a much longer – war than the ones we have fought in the past. Imagine, we have been in a state of war for more than ten years and are yet to identify our enemy.

The nature of warfare, this time around, is unconventional. Clearly, the combatants are the state of Pakistan versus non-state violent actors (VNSA). The nature of this warfare is such that the distinction between a combatant and a non-combatant is blurring.

The nature of this warfare is such that the distinction between a soldier and a civilian is blurring. The nature of this warfare is such that even the distinction between war and politics is blurring.

Pakistan’s National Security Strategy (NSS) has to have two pillars – one against the external (conventional) threat and the other against the internal threat. We already have two (conventional) strike corps and half a dozen (conventional) holding corps for the (conventional) external threat. This conventional pillar of the NSS has its own war doctrine – and a rather successful one. But this conventional war doctrine is not appropriate for the kind of unconventional long-war that we are up against.

What we now need is an Unconventional Warfare Corps. We need a corps that is technology-intelligence driven. We need a corps with sophisticated tracking and targeting capacity. We need a corps with special reconnaissance capacity. And we need a corps that has a direct action capacity.

Plus, we need a counterterrorism strategy. The classic one is a three-phased strategy: clear, hold and build. The ‘clearance’ component has three sub-phases and all these phases will be the responsibility of the Unconventional Warfare Corps. The sub-phases are: disrupt, dismantle and defeat.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-190211-Need-to-raise-a-new-corps

Empirical Studies of Conflict Project Web Site (ESOC)

Please see below the announcement from my good friend Joe Felter.  I think this resource will be very helpful to analysts, researchers, students and practitioners.  I have looked over the site and it contains a lot of very useful information and data that I think will continually evolve with collaboration with interested parties.  Note the 6 country pages below.

Dear Colleagues,

We are pleased to announce the launch of the Empirical Studies of Conflict Project (ESOC) website, which can be accessed at http://esoc.princeton.edu/ .

ESOC identifies, compiles, and analyzes micro-level conflict data and information on insurgency, civil war, and other sources of politically motivated violence worldwide. ESOC was established in 2008 by practitioners and scholars concerned by the significant barriers and upfront costs that challenge efforts to conduct careful sub-national research on conflict. The ESOC website is designed to help overcome these obstacles and to empower the quality of research needed to inform better policy and enhance security and good governance around the world.

The ESOC team includes about forty researchers (current and former) and is led by six members: Eli Berman, James D. Fearon, Joseph H. Felter, David Laitin, Jacob N. Shapiro, and Jeremy M. Weinstein.

The website is organized by countries and research themes. The six country pages are: Afghanistan, Colombia, Iraq, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Vietnam. The content is structured according to five themes: Demographic/Socioeconomic, Geography, Infrastructure, Public Opinion, and Violence. The website currently hosts about 45 ESOC data files, over 35 ESOC peer-reviewed publications (with replication data), and ten working papers. The ESOC team has also posted links to many external data repositories and external readings that have proven useful for analysis. The website will be regularly updated with new micro-level conflict data and contextual information, as it is compiled and submitted by ESOC researchers.

We are a new and evolving research network with limited staffing resources, so please accept our apologies if we’ve inadvertently overlooked key readings or acknowledgements. We welcome your suggestions on additional materials to host on the site.

Please contact us if you would like to contribute data relevant to ESOC. We are committed to archiving replication data and useful information on all the countries in which we work, and we anticipate expanding our coverage.   Also, please share this resource with your colleagues and others who may benefit from our website.

Analyses can only be as good as the data supporting it. We hope ESOC’s commitment to making more and better quality data widely available as a public good will help raise the bar in the quality of conflict research being conducted and the important policies it informs.

Best regards,

Joe Felter and Jake Shapiro (ESOC co-Directors)

Could South Korea “Save” America’s Relations with Pakistan?

The author admits that the analogy is imperfect.  The analogy does not work for me though I do not have the Pakistani experience to adequately judge (but I spent a lot of time in Korea during the period the author describes) though perhaps there are some lessons that do apply so I will keep an open mind.  One thing my Korean friends tell me and I have heard very senior Korean officials and leaders say this is that Korea and the US really do have shared values and even though our too cultures are very different we have more shared values than we have significant differences.  I cannot imagine Paksitani leaders saying such a thing and meaning it like our Korean allies do.  But I will leave it to the Pakistani experts to judge the analogy.

V/R

Dave

Could South Korea “Save” America’s Relations with Pakistan?

POLITICSREGIONSOUTH ASIATOPICPAKISTAN

December 21, 2012

http://thediplomat.com/2012/12/21/america-is-losing-pakistans-youth/?all=true

By Arif Rafiq

While imperfect, America's experience with South Korea could provide important lessons on how to develop stronger ties with Pakistan.

It might be difficult to overestimate the iniquitousness of Korean pop star Psy's hit single“Gangnam Style.” From supermarkets in the United States to cricket matches in South Asia, “Gangnam Style” has been played and imitated a countless number of times. In an era of viral media, the song has proved to be a cultural epidemic.

“Gangnam Style,” though criticizing materialism in contemporary Korean society, is in many ways the de-facto theme song for Brand Korea, whose exports were once seen as second-rate, but now is giving its Japanese and American competitors a run for their money. Hyundai, Samsung, and K-Pop all signal the emergence of corporate Korea on the world stage. It is a transition that perhaps began with the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul, but is reaching new heights today.

Americans were shocked to learn this month that Psy took part in anti-U.S. rallies in 2002 and 2004 and, in the latter incident, sang lyrics from another Korean band that exhorted his countrymen to “Kill those Yankees.” Not only is the anti-Americanism virulent, but, more generally, the expressly political nature of the lyrics is glaring. Psy contradicts the American stereotype of the apolitical, business or fun-only Asian. But beyond this stereotype, what the shock in the U.S. points toward is an unfortunate American tone-deafness toward the politics — especially the politics at the sub-elite level — of other countries.

Americans were largely unaware of the context of Psy’s past statements (for which he has since apologized). In the 2002 incident, he sang the anti-American lyrics in the midst of an anti-American phase in South Korea, sparked by the killing of two young Korean girls whom they overran with their armored vehicle. They were later acquitted by a U.S. military tribunal. This anti-American fever was also the byproduct of generational change in South Korea.

(Continued at the link below)

http://thediplomat.com/2012/12/21/america-is-losing-pakistans-youth/?all=true