Old World states need to put on their big boy pants and stop relying of the US

NATO’s Chicago summit is only a month away, as highlighted by The Economist in last week’s article, ”NATO’s sea of troubles.” The organization, which has been a pillar of global stability since the end of the Second World War, faces an uncertain future due to the European financial crisis and America’s “pivot” towards Asia. While China’s military build-up and the financial crises may have exacerbated the shift from euro-centric military alliances, it remains merely the next logical progression in a two decade long decline in Europe’s role as a military partner for the US. Europe will eventually have to relearn how to defend itself and project its power without an excessive reliance on US military largesse.

To be sure, Europe is currently beset by a host of challenges, all of which may take primacy of funds and action over concerns about member states’ military capabilities. Limited to negative economic growth, an aging population, war exhaustion with Afghanistan, and a reduced threat from rogue states with new NATO missile defense systems will certainly take some of the urgency away from any discussion on future military improvements. In addition, Europe’s biggest economy and one of NATO’s biggest contributors, Germany, withdrew its personnel from NATO assets in the Mediterranean during the Libya campaign. This opt in/opt out approach to military engagements may fly when the US can act as guarantor of military assets and soldiers for NATO campaigns. But as the US shifts its ever diminishing resources to face the growing security threats in the Pacific, Europe may find both its capabilities and credibility tested when large NATO donors fail to rise to the occasion.

Many have dreamt that a combined European defense force would be the EU’s answer to declining military budgets and a reduced US presence. This remains a pipedream. European military integration has always been the red-headed stepchild of the EU process. This is certainly understandable for a number of reasons. Military integration would require that member states relinquish a certain amount of control over their own protection as well as freedom of action. Member states will remain attached to their own domestic manufacturers, constrained by popular revulsion to military intervention, and crippled by welfare obligations. Yet unless European member states radically increase the share of GDP they spend on their respective militaries, or radically lower their expectations to contribute to global security, Leaders will find that military integration is the only way to ensure the safety of the EU as well as the continent’s near abroad.

European member states of NATO need to decide what future role they desire for the alliance. If they wish to continue to work as a real partner for the US in defending the continent and projecting power, they will need to make some hard choices about their approach to European common defense. “Smart defense” can no longer just be a nifty idea to be implemented at a later time. With that in mind, Europeans will have to consider specialization of certain defense industries within the continent, mechanisms to deter major members (read Germany) from opting out of critical operations, as well as investments in air-defense suppression and other capabilities normally provided by Americans.

The Spy Who Shagged Me

The (in)famous Russian spy Anna Chapman, who was exposed and deported from the U.S. in 2010[1], has come up again in recent news. It's been reported that Chapman and her spy ring were being monitored by the FBI for quite some time, but it was only when Chapman was about seduce a Cabinet member of the current administration that the spy ring was stopped.[2]  An assistant FBI director had previously warned the Cabinet member of Chapman's affiliation, describing her as a "honey trap."

Unfortunately, there are more questions here than answers. Who was the official she was trying to seduce? How close was she to compromising top secret U.S. government information? Why did the U.S. government handle the matter so matter-of-factly? Why did they let so much time pass before making a move to apprehend her? Some sources indicate that it was not Anna Chapman, but another spy--Cynthia Murphy--who was getting close to the Cabinet official.[3] 

As to who the target was, there is speculation around former Director of the Office of Budget and Mgmt Peter Orzag, who curiously resigned in the same month that Chapman's spy ring was exposed. He left for a prestigious job on Wall Street, where sex scandals are all but unheard of.

In related news, the U.S. Ambassador to Russia accused members of the Russian press of hacking his cell phone and Blackberry.[4] He also called Russia a "wild country," something a little unusual for a diplomat to say. Apparently he has been meeting with prominent pro-democracy political figures in Russia over the past few weeks.

Given the recent challenges posed by Russia in the past few weeks (namely vetoing humanitarian intervention in Syria at the UNSC, along with the spy scandals and hacking McFaul's communication devices), it is worth rethinking where U.S.-Russian relations are headed in the near future. Perhaps Mitt Romney's description of Russia wasn't as far off from the truth as we thought...

Mo Money, Same Problems

Less than a week after former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan brokered a measured ceasefire between opposition forces and the Assad regime in Syria, talks are underway to begin supplying rebel forces with communication equipment and further financial assistance.  Proponents hope that the new supplies will help rebel forces coordinate movement, leading to less casualties, and that monetary aid will help rebel leaders provide salaries to fights, and may even lead some regime soldiers to defect to the Free Syrian Army rebel group.

Secretary of State Clinton announced on Sunday that the United States was offering a further increase in funding to international organizations for humanitarian assistance, bringing the U.S. total to $25 million, while also detailing that for the first time the United States will be providing satellite communication equipment to help Syrian citizens "evade attacks by the regime" and stay in contact with the outside world.  Molham al Drobi, a member of the Syrian National Council, reports that $176 million in humanitarian assistance, and $100 million in salaries over three months have already been pledged to the rebel troops, and are successfully reaching their recipients through undisclosed mechanisms.  The main supporters of Syrian rebels in the region - Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE - have expressed their concerns that international stalling only strengthens the Assad regime.  Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, echoed these concerns, calling on the U.N. Security Council to act, as there is "no option left except to support the legitimate right of the Syrian people to defend themselves."

With an estimated 9,000 casualties already, critics have questioned whether bolstering rebel troops without directly arming them in the face of increasingly brutal crackdowns by the regime will only lead to more violence.  While a peaceful settlement is of course the optimal outcome, fruitful dialogue with the Assad regime continues to be fleeting, and the aforementioned ceasefire appears to have stemmed the flow of blood only temporarily. Widespread reports of continued shelling in Homs occurring just yesterday demonstrate that the Assad regime has no intention of ending this brutal crackdown.  With China and Russia blocking U.N. measures for direct military intervention, the international communities' hands seem tied.

The status quo is entirely unsustainable though.  Without direct military assistance, rebel forces have no hope of combatting the better equipped Syrian Army.  Furthermore, unlike Egypt, there is little possibility of driving a wedge between the regime and the army, as most military leadership is of the same ethnic background as Assad himself.  While full scale, ground combat assistance, in the vain of Libya, may be the end game, in the intermediate, other options exist.  There is evidence that Saudi Arabia and Turkey, once an ally of the Assad regime, are clandestinely supplying rebel fighters with weaponry and aid.  If U.S. leadership is weary of directly arming rebels groups (rightfully so, as there still remains little transparency as to who would be receiving supplied arms), operating secretly through a third party like Turkey or Saudi Arabia might be a second best option.

Of course supplying arms to rebel fighters is not a guarantor of victory.  Even though the Syrian Army's weaponry is dated by most modern standards, they remain well trained and well equipped.  That being said, the cats is already out of the bag on this one.  Directly supplying arms to Syrian rebels, and assisting in their struggle will only exacerbate fighting, but the Assad regime has shown no sign that they have any intention of coming to the table peacefully.  While Kofi Annan's efforts are commendable, the fact of the matter is that until diplomacy begins to deliver any results, the unfortunate reality is that the U.S. and the international community are sitting by idly as a humanitarian crisis unfolds under their noses.  Arming rebel groups, as unsavory as that sounds, may be the best option in seeing serious progress unfold in this conflict.

U.S. Investigation Over Salala Raid

After two investigations concerning the Salala raid on November 26th last year, the conflict was determined to be attributed to the fog of war and confusion on the battlefield. That day's events resulted in the deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers.

The first investigation was concluded in December. It established that the Pakistani and American forces were both at fault for what occurred. There was a lack of coordination and communication between the militaries involved. The errors in communication and coordination were attributed to the lack of trust from the American side which led to the Pakistani forces not being informed of the location of American troops. Additionally, an operations official under the NATO mission in Afghanistan had been told by Pakistani military officials that the Pakistani border posts were being attacked and it took the NATO official roughly 45 minutes to alert a senior commander.

Meanwhile, there was a detrimental error in mapping which occurred by the American forces. The Americans involved contacted Pakistani forces about the shooting occurring at the border, but they miscalculated their location by approximately 8.5 miles. Therefore, there were informed that Pakistani troops were not stationed at the location. Pakistani border troops fired on the Americans and continued to do so even though they tried to inform them that they were firing on American troops. Overall, the Pakistani leadership rejected the American analysis of the events that transpired and determined that the American troops were culpable for the deaths of the Pakistani soldiers.

This was just the last of a series of events in 2011 which strained U.S.-Pakistani relations. The Salala raid was the final straw for the Pakistani leadership and led to the closing of the NATO supply line. The conclusion of the second investigation about the Salala raid is projected to intensify U.S.-Pakistani relations even more. The goal of the second investigation was to establish if the actions of the American troops warranted punishment. This investigation found that since the soldiers were defending themselves, they would not receive punishment or be charged with any wrong doing.

U.S. military leaders have used the case to focus on the need for better communication and coordination on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, the incident has made Pakistani officials question the relationship with the United States. The parliament is currently debating the opening of the supply line. While most of the legislators have spoken against allowing arms transportation, there is a division in the parliament in regard to opening the supply line for other goods, like food supplies.

Overall the parliamentary debates highlight the negative relationship that has developed between the U.S. and Pakistan. Legislators voiced their demands not only for an apology by the U.S. government for the events of November 26th, but also for an end to the drone strikes. The United States was criticized for having "double standards" in their policies and actions. Moreover, the parliamentarians were united in their opinion that the Pakistani government needs to refuse to go along with pressure from other nations on both domestic and foreign issues.

As the Free SyrianArmy moves towards guerrilla tactics, the Assad regime may not have what ittakes to ‘win hearts and minds’

Earlier this week, Syria’s embattled president, Bashar al-Assad, made an unusual step of accepting Kofi Annan’s peace plan. This would provide two hours of ceasefire per day and humanitarian supply routes to the besieged cities of Homs and Hama. In case you might be confusing this with an actual step towards rapprochement between the Syrian leader and the opposition,violence has increased across the country as sniper attacks and assassinations become de rigueur. Syrian military forces for Assad are capitalizing on momentum won after fighting in Homs and pressing for advantage in this conflict, ceasefire be damned.
The Free Syrian Army seems to be setting in for the long haul, changing tactics to match those used in the Iraqi Insurgency. Car bombs,roadside IEDs, and assassinations are what characterizes the present Syrian resistance. Mr. Assad has managed to turn what had started as a peaceful revolution into a drawn out counterinsurgency campaign.
How can we expect this to play out? It’s doubtful Mr. Assad will try to copy Petraeus’  “WinningHearts and Minds” approach to COIN strategy. He lacks the popular support outside of the Christian and Allawite confessional groups. Years of systematic oppression of Sunni and Shi’a groups will have certainly alienated well over half of the population. Rather, by targeting civilians and combatants along sectarian lines and dealing with disillusioned soldiers, Assad may be attempting a more classic approach to COIN, something akin to the First Chechen war. As with the Chechen war, the opposition is gaining support in the form of soldiers and weapons. Foreign fighters, highly trained from hard fought experience in conducting an insurgency against the US, are streaming across Syria's border with Iraq. Al-Qaeda, hoping to get in on some of that hot, Arab Spring action, has provided both arms and troops for the opposition. All of this suggests that Assad is going to be forced to use an ever more brutal hand in dealing with the insurgency.
The success rate for these violent, repressive COIN strategies is even more dismal than for Petraeus’ warmer, fuzzier approach to counterinsurgency. Yet Assad’s toolbox for retaining power and halting insurgencies remains rather small, which is unfortunate for those who must suffer through the upcoming violence.

A New Kind of Assistance

With news that Syria has accepted Kofi Annan's peace plan, it appears the conflict may have an end in sight. The peace plan details 6 main points to cease hostilities and increase humanitarian aid, and has been supported by both Russia and China, two holdouts in any international action on Syria.  However, due to an obvious lack of foresight, it neglects to address the impacts of international footballers, Lionel Messi in particular.


In case you missed it, Syrian national television took a break from the hostilities taking place to watch la Liga matches this weekend, and in a moment of pure paranoia enlightenment, realized that the rebel forces are being aided by the most duplicitous non-state actors: FC Barcelona.

As can be seen if you squint really hard quite obviously from the video above, the passes and routes followed by Messi, Iniesta and Pedro, when super-imposed on a map of Syria, show the easiest way to transport arms to the rebels.  According to the Independent, the commentary is as follows: 

“Here we see the first stage where arms are loaded from Lebanon. Then they pass through Homs and are delivered to another terrorist. We also see how they warn that they will face some obstacles until they reach Dayr Al Zawr." As Pedro completes the move for Barcelona, whose have a shirt sponsorship deal with the Qatar Foundation, the voice-over says: “Then they are transported by bus to the final destination, located in Al Magadin.”

Of course, this could all be an elaborate hoax, designed to highlight the paranoia present in the current regime, which given the current acceptance of the peace plan is more likely than not.  Even so, its hard, nigh impossible, to watch any sports match now (especially one with the import of the UL-UK match) without watching for potential double meaning. So happy watching, folks!

Bad Brains

Since my last post on the Afghanistan shooting case, the Army released the name of Sgt. Robert Bales and many details have emerged. The New York Times reported that he suffered a traumatic brain injury during a 2010 explosion in Iraq. Earlier this week The Huffington Post reported that on March 20th, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Johnathan Woodson ordered an urgent review of troops who are currently taking mefloquine, a malaria medicine shown to cause troubling psychiatric side effects. In 2009 the Army decided to prohibit any soldier who had suffered a traumatic brain injury from taking the drug.

The Army did not say if Bales was taking mefloquine, but The HuffPo story invites speculation that a combination of past head trauma combined with a medicine known for it's psychosis-inducing side effects could have been the trigger for Bales' alleged rampage.

In the past few years a heightened awareness of traumatic brain injuries has arisen in both military and sports medicine due to ground breaking research on the effects of concussions. In Iraq and Afghanistan many soldiers have survived what would previously have been fatal wounds. Yet surviving these injuries means not only living with bodily disfigurement but also living with the lingering effects of concussive damage to the brain from explosions.

ProPublica has run an investigative series called Brain Wars in which has looked into the effects of traumatic brain injuries in soldiers. It reported last year that the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metric, or ANAN test, which the military had spent $42 million designing, was an ineffective diagnostic tool for brain injuries. Bales likely took the 20-minute long, computerized ANAM test, but obviously it failed to restrict him from a combat deployment.

It is easy to jump to the conclusion that a combination of stress from multiple deployments, the effects traumatic brain injury, and the possible presence of alcohol and/or a notorious malaria medicine combined to form a toxic combination in Bales' head on the night of the incident. While the military should undoubtedly review its procedures for ensuring the mental fitness of its personnel, particularly in combat zones, we should not lose sight of the fact that Bales is still an outlier. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers have served in these wars and most have performed as consumate professionals throughout.

Still, while most mental health problems in the military have not been borne out in such a disturbing manner as a 16-death massacre, the Bales case can serve to spotlight one of the military's major problems. A recent study by the Army Behavioral Health Integrated Data Environment found that suicides by service members increased by 80% between 2004 and 2008. Most of these were enlisted men who had seen combat duty. A joint study by the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Veterans Affairs also found that a disproportionate number of the homeless population are veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems logical that disabilities and PTSD play a significant role in these disturbing suicide and homelessness statistics. The White House, Defense Department, and Congress should push for reforms that ensure that the soldiers fighting the USA's wars are treated with the highest level of care, for both physical and mental injuries. Reworking of the ANAM test is a good place to start.

Obama Looks for Allies against North Korea

This week Obama met with Hu Jintao and talked with Demitri Mevedev, trying to convince them to ratchet up the pressure on North Korea.

Obama hopes an increase in pressure from China and Russia will deter the young Kim Jung-un (or whoever is now in charge in North Korea) from making good on his promise to launch a missile laden satellite next month. However, how likely is it that Obama's attempts to sway China and Russia (who have been less than helpful in Syrian and Iran) will have an impact on the situation? Well that depends on how one measures impact.

If impact means having the two line up behind the United States' tough rhetoric, the answer is "not at all." China and Russia have long denounced the United States' self proclaimed "international police officer" status. While neither country particularly likes the idea of North Korea flaunting its capabilities, any successful opposition to US attempts at coercion undermines the US claim to hegemony in the region.


If impact means it will increase the pressure on North Korea, at least behind the scenes, the answer is "somewhat." While Russia has proven intransigent in its support of rogue states, China has at least made overtures to playing along with the western world. Last month it voluntarily cut imports of Iranian oil, providing extra teeth to US led sanction effort (although Obama has recently removed most of the other teeth). When Chinese and US policy goals align, as they do in this case, China may be willing to change its tactics somewhat to show it is a good faith actor in the world order.

If impact means Obama's attempts will have an effect on North Korean decision-making, the answer is "likely." Knowing full well the unlikelihood of major policy changes from Russia, and China's hesitance to participate in the sanctioning process, Obama likely meant the meetings as signal to the young Korean leader. Engaging Russia and China, shows US resolve on the issue. Not only are they willing to talk tough but the United States is willing to incentivize two countries which North Korean security and economics count on to join in on the effort.

Droning On

This picture, taken last August, shows a side effect of the proliferation of UAVs on the modern battle field.  A C-130 collided with an RQ-7 reconnaissance drone.  Though the C-130 sustained only light damage, it was forced to make an emergency landing and lost enough fuel to make the aircraft off balance on the ground (thus the pallet tied to the wing on the right side of the picture).

Though the skies above military installations and operations have long been partitioned for use by artillery and aircraft into restricted operating zones (ROZs), drones pose a significant problem.  Artillery rounds, in general, follow a predictable path to their target and thus can be given "lanes" through which friendly aircraft know not to travel.  While not as predictable, manned aircraft are given zones in which to operate and also have the benefit of pilots and navigators that can ensure that collisions do not occur.  In the event of multiple aircraft operating within a ROZ, through design or accident, there are also established protocols ensuring that right of way is given and the appropriate actions are taken (in general, smaller aircraft must avoid the larger ones). 

While UAVs must technically avoid manned aircraft (Airspace Management, p. 11), it is understandable that in many situations the controllers simply do not have the situational awareness needed to accomplish this.  The logical solution to this would be to create an object avoidance system for UAVs but this has proved to be a problem even for ground vehicles operating in two dimensions.

As unmanned craft become more common- and potentially more autonomous- on, in, under, and above modern battlefields, sites like this will likely become more common.  While work is being done to prevent collisions, one must realize that this the incident above likely a best case scenario for a collision.  The implications, for example, of the horse-like Big Dog trampling a human that it was supposed to be following would probably even more ugly.  Similarly, a collision involving an armed Reaper drone would also be substantially less benign.

Everyone's Favorite Topic: Social Media and Joseph Kony

The African Union earlier today said it would send 5,000 soldiers to join the hunt for Joseph Kony, whom we discussed last semester as the leader of one of several rebel groups causing grief to Sub-Saharan Africa. Fast forward several months and now everyone with an internet connection knows who Kony is, and is demanding his immediate capture and trial. The mission is to be launched in South Sudan and will last until Kony is caught. This emboldened mission is launched in the same month that the now world famous "Kony 2012" viral video and campaign were launched by Invisible Children, highlighting the human rights abused meted out by Kony to child soldiers and civilians alike. The head of the U.N.'s office in Central Africa said "soaring international interest in Kony had spurred regional efforts to eliminate the LRA."

The growing trend of social media being used to start, fuel, and spread revolutions, human rights campaigns, and democratic movements is something unique to the 21st century. The Kony 2012 video and the immediate results because of the sharing capability of facebook and twitter mean that we are going to see not only an increase in the sharing of social issues, but an increase in the sharing of issues that maybe should not have been shared. However, this makes the market for social media more competitive and should, over time, ensure that only the quality causes make it through. Kony and the LRA were a threat before the video was released, and will remain a threat until captured. However, the video campaign has made his life increasingly difficult and no doubt expedited his capture.

To market, to market, to buy a fat... gun.

http://coat.ncf.ca/ 

Earlier this week, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) released its annual database and report on international arms transfers during the period 2007-2011.  Comparisons with the previous dataset of 2002-2006 reveal a few particularly interesting nuggets of information. 

The top two suppliers remained the same, with the same domination of the market.  The United States accounted for 30% of arms exports, with a volume increase of 24% from 2002-2006; the major recipients were South Korea, Australia and the UAE.  Russia accounted for 24% of all exports, with a volume increase of 12%; its major recipients were India, China and Algeria.  Following the US and Russia, Germany weighed in with 9% of the global share, selling to Greece, South Korea and South Africa; France had 8%, selling to Singapore, Greece and Morocco; and the UK had 4%, selling to Saudi Arabia, the US and India. 

Contributing to the US leadership of arms exports was the order placed by Saudi Arabia for 84 new F-15SGs  and the rebuilding of 70 older F-15Es to current standards.  This was the largest arms deal worldwide in two decades and significantly boosted the US ranking, while also solidifying the US-Saudi relationship.

On the import side, India displaced China as the world's leader in arms imports during the 2007-2011 period, accounting for 10% of global imports.  India purchased primarily from Russia, approximately 80%, but a small amount also from the UK and Israel. Second was South Korea, with 6% of global imports primarily from the US, but also from Germany and France.  Third was Pakistan, with a 5% share, pretty evenly balanced between China and the US.  Fourth was China, with 5% of the market, primarily from Russia, but also France and Switzerland.  Finally comes Singapore, with 4% of the market, from the US, France and Germany.    

Although China was the leader in arms imports during the 2002-2006 period, improvements in the Chinese arms industry led to a growth of 95% in arms exports between the two periods.  China is now the 6th largest supplier of arms to the world, but it remains in 5th place for imports.  According to the report, China gained its growth in exports largely by supplying arms to Pakistan.  However, if China is able to enter another significant market and increase internal development of arms components, it would not be surprising to see China continue to climb the rank of exporters while reducing its imports.  

Two other interesting tidbits are present in the report.   First, Syria's imports of major weapons increased by 580% between the 2002-2006 and 2007-2011 period.  Russia was the primary supplier, with 78% of Syria's imports.  Of course this economic relationship contributes to Russia's reluctance to back a UN arms embargo on Syria.  Second, Venezuela's imports increased by 555% between the two periods, becoming the 15th largest importer instead of the 46th.  Russia again is the primary supplier and has provided Venezuela with a $4 billion credit line for future arms purchases. 

All these data give rise to some serious considerations.  With India and Pakistan in the top 5 ranking of arms importers, how well might that bode for that region?  Is a mini-Cold War forming between these two, willingly backed by Russia and China, respectively?  If so, how might that play out at a global level, with such super-powers possibly in a face-off behind their recipients?  Also, what is brewing in Venezuela?  Why does Chavez see the need for such an enormous increase in weaponry?  What position is Russia planning on playing by supplying the arms?  Because as we all know, supply and demand are the laws driving economics, but markets also give concrete representation to large-scale geopolitical relationships.  

A Scenario

A scenario:

A man rules a country. He has spent the majority of his adult life exercising near complete authority over his little corner of the earth and has profited from this rule. Though some of his people have from time to time expressed their distaste with his rule, they were usually taken care of quickly and in a dramatic enough fashion to show others that this behavior was unacceptable.

Though the Western world considers him a pariah, that does not bother him overly much.  He has garnered friends amongst the other lesser liked countries of the world and has their support when he needs it.

He has had many issues with his neighbor to the South. Though these issues have become outright conflict on some occasions, it is generally preferable to keep the conflict rhetorical and instead take advantage of various international fora and the support of his "friends" to seize the political advantages when they present themselves.  The legacy, however, of these decades of conflict is a very professional and well trained military; one significantly more formidable than those of many of his compatriots.  Still, quietly utilizing informal channels of communication he has slowly been seeking measures that will reconcile his nation with his hated Southern neighbor and give his country a much needed boost internationally.

Then he dies.

He is succeeded by his son.  The heir, educated in Europe amongst the best schools is seen by the international community as something as an enigma.  Though he is largely untested and unproved, he benefits from the ring of supporters that surrounded his father.  They give him advice, but always there is a certain edge to their words for they know that he- the "heir"- is heir only because they condone it.  Thus, the status quo holds and there is no chance of peace.

The man in this scenario is Hafiz al-Assad.  His son, Bashar, was seen by some as a potential reformer after his father's death- a man with the chance to resurrect Syria.  However, surrounded by his father's "old guard," he only made matters worse by escalating his country's involvement with other pariahs like Iran and North Korea, ultimately creating for himself the situation that exists within his country.

Also fitting this mold is the young Kim Jong-Un.  Though he had slightly more time to indoctrinate himself in the mythos of the ruling party than the younger Assad, his creditability is still derived from those around him.  As such, many of his actions seem to be taken largely from the playbook that his father wrote; simultaneously demanding assistance and threatening his neighbors.  The constant stream of rhetoric can be viewed simply as Kim asserting his authority and consolidating his power but it must also be viewed as actions coming from people that likely hold the keys to the Hermit Kingdom.

While there is a vigorous debate in the world over what to do with Syria, thought should also be given to how to prevent the sequence of events that led to this disaster.  Though North Korea is very different from Syria in many ways, today's Kim, much like the Assad of 2000, is bound to his handlers until such a time as they can not unmake his rule.  They will likely use this time- and him- to continue the status quo that keeps them in power and Kim under their thumb.  Over time, Kim will probably also develop a dependency on the current situation and himself be won over by the "wisdom," of those around him, slowly pushing boundaries and limits with the world and South Korea in particular.

To prevent this, all efforts should be made to differentiate the current Kim regime from the previous one in words and in actions.  He should be viewed as an entity separate from his father.  Moreover, focus should fall on him and him alone, as this will ultimately speed up his acceptance within North Korea, hopefully before he becomes indoctrinated by the Cult of Kim.

Afghanistan shooting fallout

I guess spring break means even the biggest stories get passed over on the DS blog, so nothing has been posted about last week's tragedy in Afghanistan, but it's too important for nothing to be said. The reactions have been predictable. Earnestness and sincerity from US officials and incredible anger from Afghan officials and citizens. An important question raised by the shooting spree has been where the unnamed US Army staff sergeant will be put on trial.

Locals as well as members of Afghanistan's parliament have demanded that the soldier stand trial in Afghanistan. Regardless of nationality, anyone who killed Americans on US soil would certainly be prosecuted domestically. Afghans rightfully feel like their judicial system should be allowed the same jurisdiction. Furthermore, building the local rule of law is constantly preached to countries like Afghanistan that the US is trying to integrate into the Western liberalized system.

As of Wednesday March 14th, US officials had made no official decision on where to hold the trial. However, I doubt that this soldier stands trial outside of the US. He has already been returned to the US military prison in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas. Even if trying the soldier in Afghanistan would be doing right by the Afghan people, the US military could simply not allow it to happen. Setting a precedent for trying US personnel locally would seriously breech the trust between military officials and soldiers who engage in combat. Even though the soldier committed an obviously heinous crime well removed from combat duty, US officials would not risk him getting sentenced to a bloody execution in Afghanistan. This would cause great dissension in the ranks of the US military.

This is a messy case, and many questions need to be asked of his commanding officers and the psychological evaluation process, especially for a soldier who was begrudgingly on his fourth tour of duty. There should also be an investigation into the culture of Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington State, from where not only the staff sergeant in question but soldiers involved in the 2010 Afghanistan "thrill killings" hailed.

Who's the bad guy now?

In a recent statement by one of their top government officials, Iran revealed that it would be more transparent with its nuclear program if the West was more cooperative.[1] Mohammad Javad Larijani went so far as to say that Iran would permit permit full transparency and permanent human monitoring of its facilities if it were granted all rights under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which includes the right to peacefully use nuclear technology. But isn't refusing access to the IAEA being uncooperative?

Is this just a continuation of silly Iranian government rhetoric, or is the country actually making an effort to seriously work with Western countries and organizations? The latter is definitely possible considering the amount of public consideration that the U.S. and Israel have given to military action against Iran. And with continued sanctions against them, along with a civil war happening in Syria, Iran might finally be realizing that it has not other option but to cooperate with the West. On the other hand, this isn't the first time in recent weeks that Iran has offered an empty promise.

Transparency and cooperation, he cites, are equally parallel  to each other, but they're definitely not mutually exclusive. It will take a little of one to fuel the other, and vice versa. If Iran and the West are committed to cooperating, one side will have to be the first to show a measure of good faith. It's highly unlikely that Iran will be the first to make such a gesture, so how will the West respond to Iran's statements? Considering that "all options are on the table" with Iran, who knows what could happen next.