Tag: Barack Obama

Turkish-American relations under a new U.S. president

Committed to Change, or Changing Commitments?

by Soli Ozel*

Those who rejoiced in the presidential victory of Barack Obama expect him to hold Turkey to higher standards on human rights, democracy, and rule of law.”

ISTANBUL — Two weeks prior to the U.S. presidential election, the October survey of Metropoll found that nearly 39 percent of Turks wanted Barack Obama to be the next U.S. president and only 14.1 percent wanted John McCain. Of those surveyed, 45 percent were either not interested or thought it did not matter who was elected the next U.S. president.

On the eve of election night, as talk shows on the U.S. elections proliferated across television channels in Turkey, it transpired that many members of the punditry had a high discomfort level with an Obama presidency. Particularly, former diplomatic corps representatives openly displayed their displeasure with such a choice in fear that such a move could jeopardize bilateral relations.

As Amberin Zaman explained in “Turkey and the United States Under Barack Obama: Yes They Can,” indeed the only reason for such animosity was the president-elect’s open support for a genocide resolution. U.S. Senator and now Vice President-Elect Joe Biden’s record on Cyprus and the Armenian genocide resolution, as well as hisKurdophile views (his partiality for a highly autonomous if not independent Kurdistan in Iraq) was also duly noted.

Such a degree of insularity or self-centeredness cannot be very healthy for a country that wishes to play and will be asked to play an important role in regional affairs during the Obama presidency. On the one hand, Turkey and Turks from all walks of life desire to be taken seriously, take pride in their country’s recent performance as a mediator in regional conflicts, and support a more activist foreign policy. On the other hand, there is very little tolerance for acts or policies on the part of Turkey’s allies and friends that may not entirely satisfy Turks’ expectations. This intolerance is particularly accentuated on the issue of the Armenian genocide resolution and the fight against the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) when it comes to the United States.

Many Turks shared the world’s enthusiasm for the election results but this did not stop others from questioning either the authenticity of the president-elect’s image and views, or to doubt that he would make a difference. Some welcomed the change that the Obama administration promised to bring in both the domestic and foreign policies of the United States. They welcomed the possibility of a more cooperative approach to world politics on the part of the new U.S. administration. They also believed that the symbolism of the election for American democracy would help re-kindle the drive for democracy throughout the world that had been discredited under the Bush administration. In short, their logic was that a development that would be good for the world could not be bad for Turkey.

Those who rejoiced in the presidential victory of Barack Obama expect him to hold Turkey to higher standards on human rights, democracy, and rule of law. Precisely for this same reason, others are uncomfortable and would have preferred a Republican administration that would just pay lip service to such issues and shape its relations with Turkey on the basis of strategic and security concerns. Such a U.S. administration would have little to say about the ongoing hardening of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) government’s policy vis-a-vis the Kurds, and its blatant disregard for freedom of expression and of the press. It would not raise the flag on rising police brutality and torture, and would not put undue pressure on the government to revitalize the moribund EU accession process.

No matter which way the Obama administration goes, there is no doubt that a new page will be turned in Turkish-American relations. These relations went through a turbulent period under U.S. President George W. Bush and have only begun to recuperate following the November 5, 2007 meeting between President Bush and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The U.S. president’s decision to provide the Turkish Armed Forces with actionable intelligence about the PKK went a long way in both improving the American image in the country and in re-establishing trust between institutions.

I argued in an earlier analysis piece that both the government and the armed forces were ready and willing to improve relations. On the American side there is recognition that Turkey’s cooperation will be necessary for almost all the thorny issues that the new U.S. administration will tackle, from Iraq to Afghanistan to the Caucasus. The two sides have a clear common interest in coordinating efforts for energy security and for stabilizing the Caucasus.

With such a loaded agenda, the United States and Turkey will need to understand one another’s motives, concerns, and perspectives clearly. Redefining the common interests of Turkey and the United States—a task that was due immediately after the end of the Cold War but was not undertaken—is a necessary step. In the wake of the Iraq war and the many failures of the Bush administration in its policies toward the Middle East, Turkey cannot be expected to put America’s global interests over its own regional interests.

Over the course of the past decade, Turkey’s policy toward the region has taken a new direction in reflecting political imagination for the region. Favoring diplomatic engagement, egalitarian relations, and regional initiatives, this latest political approach began to take shape at the end of the 1990s but found its full manifestation under the AKP government.

Turkey’s much-appreciated mediation between Syria and Israel, the opening to Armenia, and the desire to play a constructive role between Iran and the United States all stem from this approach.
Based on the president-elect’s preferences for diplomacy over confrontation, there should be plenty of room for the two allies to cooperate. Indeed, in Iraq when troop withdrawal begins, Turkey will be asked to be of assistance.

In Afghanistan, if a negotiated truce is reached that will include the Taliban, Turkey’s historical ties with that country and with Pakistan for that matter might come in handy for the arduous process of nation-building that is the only guarantor of peace and stability in the long-run.

However, it is also imperative that in this new period the mechanics of the relationship change as well. Rather than asking Turkey to cooperate with the United States on policies singularly decided upon in Washington, an effort should be made to devise policies in a more collaborative fashion. Turkey’s myriad connections in Russia and Iran ought to be taken into consideration before Ankara is asked to participate in policies that might harm its vital interests.

Turkish officials and the public in general will look for American support for fair resolution of the Cyprus conflict and for more committed American assistance in fighting the PKK in northern Iraq. Begrudgingly but steadily, Turkey has taken steps to recognize the political reality of the Kurdistan regional government. The chances are high that relations between Ankara and Erbil, the Kurdish regional capital, will not have to go through Baghdad in the near future. However, there are two preconditions for such a development. The first is the isolation, weakening, and elimination of the PKK in northern Iraq. The second is the continuation of the special status of Kirkuk, keeping that city out of sole Kurdish control.

Geopolitical realities seem to have once more elevated Turkey’s importance in American foreign policy decisions. In the past, Turkey’s strategic importance and America’s reliance on it had an inverse relation to the deepening of Turkish democracy. In other words, during the Cold War Turkey’s democratic deficits were not of much concern for Washington. Today, the stability of Turkey necessitates that the country maintain its democratic orientation and that all its political actors (the military, the judiciary, and all its political parties) commit themselves to this goal. One of the major tests of the Obama administration in its relations with Turkey may very well be whether it will treat Turkish democracy as a fundamental good or an expendable one.

If Washington continues to rigorously support Turkey’s EU accession process and insists forcefully that Ankara show the same enthusiasm as it did between 2002 and 2004, it will have passed the test.

——————

Soli Ozel, Lecturer, Bilgi University; Columnist, Sabah Soli Ozel teaches at Istanbul Bilgi University’s Department of International Relations and Political Science. He is a columnist for the national daily Sabah and is senior advisor to the chairman of the Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association. Additionally, he is the editor of TUSIAD’s magazine Private View.

The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF).

About GMF The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) is a nonpartisan American public policy and grantmaking institution dedicated to promoting greater cooperation and understanding between North America and Europe. GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working on transatlantic issues, by convening leaders to discuss the most pressing transatlantic themes, and by examining ways in which transatlantic cooperation can address a variety of global policy challenges. In addition, GMF supports a number of initiatives to strengthen democracies. Founded in 1972 through a gift from Germany, on the 25th anniversary of the Marshall Plan, as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF maintains a strong presence on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC, GMF has seven offices in Europe: Berlin, Bratislava, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, and Bucharest.

November 18, 2008
Barack Obama!

There’s not an armenian genocide during the time

November 17, 2008
Obama Dips Into Think Tank for Talent

The Walt Street Journal

WASHINGTON — The Center for a New American Security, a small think tank here with generally middle-of-the-road policy views, is rapidly emerging as a top farm team for the incoming Obama administration.

When President-elect Barack Obama released a roster of his transition advisers last week, many of the national-security appointments came from the ranks of the center, which was founded by a pair of former Clinton administration officials in February 2007.

The think tank’s central role in the transition effort suggests that its positions — which include rejecting a fixed timeline for a withdrawal from Iraq — will get a warm reception within the new administration.

Richard Danzig (above) and James Steinberg and Susan Rice (below), who all have ties to the Center for a New American Security, are contenders for key positions in the Obama administration.

Michele Flournoy, who co-founded the center with Kurt Campbell, a former Clinton National Security Council and Pentagon official, now serves as its president. She is one of two top members of Mr. Obama’s defense transition team and is likely to be offered a high-ranking position at the Pentagon. Some Obama advisers say she could eventually be tapped as the nation’s first female defense secretary.

Wendy Sherman, co-head of the Obama State Department transition team, also serves on the center’s board of advisers and is expected to land a high-ranking post. Richard Danzig, a front-runner for defense secretary, is on the think tank’s board of directors. Susan Rice and James Steinberg, both of whom are on Mr. Obama’s short list for national security adviser, serve on its board of advisers.

Although most of the center’s staffers are Democrats, its boards include prominent Republicans, and its policy proposals have largely sought to find a middle ground between standard Democratic and Republican positions. On Iraq, for instance, Ms. Flournoy helped write a June report that called for reducing the open-ended American military commitment in Iraq and replacing it with a policy of “conditional engagement” there.

Significantly, the paper rejected the idea of withdrawing troops on the sort of a fixed timeline Mr. Obama espoused during the campaign. Mr. Obama has in recent weeks signaled that he was willing to shelve the idea.

At least half a dozen of the think tank’s policy experts — including John Nagl, a retired Army colonel and a counterinsurgency specialist — are expected to get tapped for midlevel national security positions.

The potential departures mean that the center could be a victim of its own success. “The challenge will be convincing our board, our funders and our staff that we are a going concern and will remain that way into the future,” said Jim Miller, its senior vice president.

Mr. Miller said he is confident the center would weather the departures. Other officials said the center is planning to recruit departing Bush administration officials to fill some vacancies. The center’s budget comes mainly from foundations such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and it also gets some government money to study particular issues.

New presidents regularly raid Washington think tanks for experts and policy ideas. The Reagan administration drew heavily from the right-leaning Heritage Foundation after the 1980 election, while the Clinton administration hired from the left-leaning Brookings Institution.

More recently, staffers at the conservative American Enterprise Institute took senior positions in the Bush administration and drafted some of its signature policies, including the “surge” strategy for Iraq.

The success of conservative think tanks sparked the creation of some left-leaning counterparts, most prominently the Center for American Progress. Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta started it in 2003 with tens of millions of dollars from wealthy liberals.

“The success of Brookings begat AEI. The success of AEI begat Heritage. And the success of Heritage begat CAP and CNAS,” said Murray Weidenbaum, an economics professor at Washington University in St. Louis who wrote a book on Washington think tanks.

Mr. Podesta is now running the Obama transition effort. He also serves on the CNAS board of directors of the Center for a New American Security, which Ms. Flournoy founded along with Kurt Campbell, a former Clinton National Security Council and Pentagon official.

The security center remains a relatively small player, with an annual budget of less than $6 million and about 30 employees including support staff. By comparison, Brookings has more than 200 policy experts, while AEI has nearly 100 scholars and fellows.

Nonetheless, the security center enjoys an outsize public profile here, a function of its media savvy and ability to regularly attract high-profile public figures to its events. In September, it hosted Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, James Baker and two other former secretaries of state at a roundtable event that was carried on CNN. The event made news when all of the officials endorsed talks with Iran, an idea backed by then-candidate Mr. Obama but opposed by Republican challenger Sen. John McCain.

Write to Yochi J. Dreazen at yochi.dreazen@wsj.com

Source: online.wsj.com, November 16, 2008

November 17, 2008
Madeleine Albright: A letter to the next president

[Interestingly this “memo” appeared in a serious right-wing newspaper in UK- food for thought -h]

By Madeleine K. Albright

Congratulations on your success. You have won an impressive victory – but with that victory comes the responsibility to guide a troubled America in a world riven by conflict, confusion and hate. Upon taking office, you will face the daunting task of restoring America’s credibility as an effective and exemplary world leader.

Barack Obama's first job will be to re-establish respect for America

This cannot be accomplished merely by distancing yourself and your administration from the mistakes of George W. Bush. You must offer innovative strategies for coping with multiple dangers, including the global economic meltdown, two hot wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan), al-Qaida, nuclear threats and climate change. In every realm, you will need to recruit a first-rate team of advisers, apply the principles of critical thinking and develop a coherent strategy with a clear connection between actions and results.

Your first job as president will be to re-establish the traditional sources of international respect for America: resilience, optimism, support for justice, and the desire for peace. As you recognised during your campaign, America’s good name has been tarnished. Your message to the world should be that the United States, though unafraid to act when necessary, is also eager to listen and learn.

That first step is important, but you will need to do much more.

Starting on Inauguration Day, you must strive to restore confidence in the economic soundness and financial stewardship of the United States. The October crash proved that our current leaders have lost their way. All eyes are now on you. Pick the right people; show discipline; stick to the rules you establish; and push for an economic system that rewards hard work, not greed.

Overseas, you should begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. If you hesitate, you will be forced _ by an evolving consensus within Iraq _ to do so nonetheless. By initiating the process and controlling the timing, you can steer credit to responsible Iraqi leaders instead of allowing radicals to claim that they have driven us out.

The troops that remain as the redeployment proceeds should focus on further preparing Iraqi forces for command. Despite recent gains, the country is still threatened by sectarian rivalries. These have a long history and can be resolved only by Iraq’s own decision-makers. American troops cannot substitute for Iraqi spine. The time for transition is at hand.

In Afghanistan, an unsustainable stalemate has developed in which the majority of the population fears the Taliban, resents Nato and lacks faith in its government. Given the stakes, you may be tempted to “do more” in Afghanistan, but that alone would be a reaction, not a strategy.

Our own military admits that the current approach is not working. We cannot kill or capture our way to victory. We need more troops, but we also need a policy that corresponds to the aspirations and sensitivities of the local population. Under your leadership, Nato’s primary military mission should be to train Afghan forces to defend Afghan villages, and its dominant political objective should be to improve the quality of governance throughout the country.

Economic development is crucial, and you should encourage global and regional institutions to take the lead in building infrastructure and creating jobs. Diplomatically, you should concentrate on enhancing security co-operation between Islamabad and Kabul. Overall, allied efforts must go beyond killing terrorists to preventing the recruitment of cadre to replace them.

In addition to the Taliban, the reason we are in Afghanistan is al-Qaida, which remains an alien presence wherever it exists. Even its roots in Pakistan are not deep, and the failure of its leaders to articulate a positive agenda has reduced the allure of Bin Laden-style operations even to potential sympathizers. Al-Qaida, still dangerous, is beginning to lose the battle of ideas.

Targeted military actions remain essential, but you should avoid giving the many in the Muslim world who disagree with us fresh reason to join the ranks of those who are trying to kill us. This is, after all, an important distinction. Closing Guantánamo will help.

From the first day, you should also work to identify the elements of a permanent and fair Middle East peace. Cynics are fond of observing that support for peace will not pacify al-Qaida, but that is both obvious and beside the point. Your efforts can still enhance respect for American leadership in the regions where al-Qaida trawls for new blood.

Only effective regional diplomacy can persuade Israelis and Arabs alike that peace is still possible. In the absence of that hope, all sides will prepare for a future without peace, thereby validating the views of extremists and further complicating every aspect of your job.

The dangers radiating from the Middle East and Persian Gulf are sure to occupy you, but they should not consume all your attention. Just as an effective foreign policy cannot be exclusively unilateral, neither can it be unidimensional. You should devote more time and resources to regions, such as Latin America and Africa, that have been neglected.

As a leader in the global era, you must view the world through a wide lens. That is why I hope you will establish a new and forward-looking mission for our country: to harness the latest scientific advances to enhance living standards across the globe.

This initiative should extend to growing food, distributing medicine, conserving water, producing energy and preserving the atmosphere. It should include a challenge to the American public to serve as a laboratory for best environmental practices, gradually replacing mass consumption with sustainability as an emblem of the American way. Such a policy can serve the future by reducing our vulnerability to energy blackmail, while conveying a clearer and loftier sense of what the United States is all about.

Mr. President-Elect, the job once held by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and the Roosevelts will soon be yours. In years to come, you will be required to maintain your balance despite being shoved ceaselessly from every direction, and to exercise sound judgment amid the crush of events both predictable and shocking.

To justify our confidence in you, you must show confidence in us. End the politics of fear. Treat us like adults. Help us to understand people from distant lands and cultures. Challenge us to work together. Remind us that America’s finest hours have come not from dominating others but from inspiring people everywhere to seek the best in themselves.

Madeleine K. Albright was U.S. secretary of state from 1997 to 2001. She is the author of “Memo to the President: How We Can Restore America’s Reputation and Leadership” (HarperCollins, 2008).

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk, 04/11/2008

November 17, 2008
Obama’s Foreign Policy Adviser Brzezinski about Obama

“Very different from most American politicians”

© Mandel Ngan/AFP Zbigniew Brzezinski: "I cannot imagine another country which could have elected someone as uniquely different as Barack Obama is."

He was Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, a hawk in terms of foreign policy. In an interview with Stern magazine Zbigniew Brzezinski explains why President-elect Obama reminds him of John F. Kennedy, what he expects from the new administration’s foreign policy – and why the US will demand a greater European military commitment in Afghanistan

Dr. Brzezinksi, as one of Washington’s ultimate insiders you have witnessed many presidential elections. How did you experience Obama’s victory last Tuesday?

I was with friends, watching television. I had predicted his win. But when it actually really happened, it was exactly 11.01 p.m., I was very moved.

You? During your time as National Security Advisor, you were regarded to be one of the toughest politicians ever.

I saw the faces of so many citizens, black and white, reacting to their choice. And it just dramatized to me, that this was really a historically significant election. We might witness the birth of a 21st century America. In fact, this election could define America as the prototype of an eventual global society.

And why should this be America?

I cannot imagine another country, neither in Europe, neither in Asia, which could have elected someone as uniquely different as Barack Obama is. Barack Hussein Obama is accepted and cherished, really cherished, because he epitomizes the unique diversity of American society and shares the dominant values of that society.

Which are?

Racial equality, a basic commitment to democracy, a notion of elementary social justice. The notion that some people should not be allowed to be as poor as they are – and that some are not entitled be quite as rich as they think they can be.

Don’t you expect a little too much from a relatively inexperienced Senator from Illinois?

I met him last year, and he made the best impression on me of anyone since John F. Kennedy. He is better equipped in intellect and temperament for the highest office than anyone I can think of in recent memory. He is very different from most American politicians.

What makes him so unique?

A kind of intellectual self-confidence, which reflects real intelligence, not arrogance. A friendliness – but with a distance and a dignity. A little patrician, almost. And a calculating rationality. He does not wave the do-gooders flag. He is an idealist, but not an ideologue. He knows, that compromises will be needed.

Will Obama be the President of a superpower in decline?

No. That’s nonsense and often said with a lot of schadenfreude. The matter of fact is, that the era of American superpower stupidity is over, the time of self-isolation. Under President Bush, we acted arrogant, unilateralist and – worst of all – driven by fear. A culture of fear was cultivated by this administration, which replaced the Statue of Liberty as a symbol for America with Guantanamo. America has lost its confidence. This is one of the worst legacies of the Bush era. But that will come to an end now, very quickly.

Obama already claims the dawn of a new American leadership. How could he achieve this while the country faces the worst economical crisis since 70 years?

He will inherit a grim reality. But the painful financial crisis also teaches us an important lesson: without America the world is in trouble. If America is declining, the rest of the world is falling apart. And have no illusions: the German economy will not recover without an American recovery. America can recover without Germany. At the same time, we understand: we have to cooperate with the world in order to do well.

What will be the biggest foreign policy challenges for the new President?

Afghanistan is certainly one of them. There, for he time being, we would need to deploy more troops. But more soldiers are not the solution. The solution is a demilitarization of our engagement.

By negotiating with the Taliban, as Obama already indicated?

By negotiating wit the various groups of Taliban. We should be able to reach local and regional arrangements with them. If they would stop al-Qaeda activities, for example, we would locally disengage.

You are promoting a de facto withdrawal of Nato troops?

No. Nato has to continue our military activities in the meantime. And if we are serious about our alliance and about consultations, we have to be also serious about sharing burdens. You cannot have arrangements, where some soldiers risk their lives day and night and some soldiers cannot even go on patrols at night. That is not an alliance.

Will Obama expect more engagement from Europe, Germany?

The American people expect this. If the Europeans want to give us only nice advise, but expect us to do the heavy lifting – then don’t expect America necessarily to listen to these advises. Europeans will no longer have the alibi of Bush’s bad policy. But let’s be clear: there are no alibis for us any more, either. We will have to consult, share decisions and cooperate.

Russia’s President greeted Obama by announcing he would deploy short range missiles along the Baltic Sea.

Yes, but I think we can relax.

Relax?

Russia is a country with enormous problems. Its leaders should know, that Russia cannot isolate itself from the world or base its foreign policy on the assertion that it is entitled to an imperialist sphere of influence. It is baffling to me, how unintelligent its leaders are. Self-isolation will be destructive for Russia, not for us.

Would you suggest relaxing also in regard to Iran and its nuclear ambitions?

We need a more realistic, a more flexible and sensible approach. We should negotiate; we might negotiate even without preconditions. A successful approach to Iran has to accommodate its security interests and ours. This new diplomatic approach could help bring Iran back into its traditional role of strategic cooperation with the United States in stabilizing the Gulf region. This would be a sensible path.

Interview: Katja Gloger

Source: www.stern.de, 14. November 2008

November 17, 2008
WHAT THE OBAMA GOVERNMENT MUST STRAIGHTEN UP

On November 4 the Democrats have won a big victory and a sort of mandate to straighten up the mess left from the Bush presidency and from the Bush years. Some of the problems are very tough to crack. I really wouldn’t want to be in the Democrats’ shoes right now.

Obviously, the most urgent problem to solve is the economy. I do not think the people who were entrusted with the $700 Billions are sure of what they are doing. Midway, they are changing course. I wish I knew to tell the correct thing to do.. That reminds me about my mother’s paternal grandmother who was in her eighties. Her grand children did not know that she could not read and write, but great-grandma would listen to their reading homework and to their piano-playing and tell them what was wrong, and the kids corrected it. I too don’t know much about that sort of economics, but I am sensing that something is not right. To make things worse, The British P.M. Brown warned that what is being done in the U.S. is typically mercantilist idea and that it will result in a long recession. Besides it is bad capitalism. Why should we, the citizens, pay for the mistakes of big banks who’s top men are spending the money like drunken sailors? Toyota came across the Pacific and defeated our best automobile manufacturers. I thing our car companies have lousy managers. Because, if they have a good idea, like Ford’s Taurus, the engineers and workmen can produce a good car. I had three Taurus in a row and loved them. Why should we give another chance to the same managers with our hart earned dollars to make more mistakes? I hope President Obama will be tighter with our money.

President-Elect Obama promised during the campaign to finish the Iraq war. Both in Turkey and in the United States basic training in infantry takes only three months. With that training soldiers go to war. Iraqi soldiers have been trained for several years. If they are not yet ready to defend their country, it is just too bad. We are not obliged to defend their country. We should pull our forces as soon as possible, and without leaving any bases any where in Iraq. For an end with victory, we have neither the military forces, nor the money, nor the time.

The PKK is a Marxist-terrorist band of Turkish Kurds who have enjoyed safe-haven in Northern Iraq during the tenure of President Bush. From there they have attacked Turkey, killing soldiers and civilians, bombing cities, aiming eventually enlarging Kurdistan into Southern Turkey. Turkey is supposed to be a U.S. Ally . This is no way to treat an ally. This shameful situation must be resolved by the new Obama Government. No wonder that the percentage of pro-U.S. people in Turkey is only 12 %, the lowest in the world.

President Bush has disregarded many International obligations of the United States, which bears our signature, especially the Geneva Convention of treating prisoners of War. The Westphalia Treaty was signed in the17th Century, at a time when the United Stated did not exist yet. But This treaty has been a standard for almost 400 years, that every state accepts. It requires a “casus belli ” for attacking another state such as an attack by that state. President Bush gave himself the right to attack first Iraq, when he suspected that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, had relations with Al Qaeda, and would give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Of course all the three reasons that replaced the casus belli were proven to be non-existent. It would be nice, if the new State Department would announce that United States still honors our commitment to the Geneva Convention and to the Westphalia Treaty and that we will not practice torture.

While President Obama will end the Iraq War, he wants to reinforce our forces in Afghanistan. That is the right move. The war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda must be definitely won. I hope he takes all the important measures needed to strengthen and rejuvenate our armed forces to win that war.

Our relations with Pakistan will play a big role in this effort. The Viziristan part of Pakistan is now a safe-haven for the Taliban. Either the Pakistanis must help us fight the Taliban in that region, or the U.S. must be permitted to enter that region. The basic difficulty is that the heart of Pakistanis are mostly with the Taliban. As part of that campaign Osama bin Laden must be caught.

Iran is continuing to develop its atomic bomb. There, the U.S. has only two options: Learning to live with a nuclear Iran or destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities. A nuclear Iran cannot be a threat to the United States even to Israel. It would be suicidal for Iran to use its nuclear bombs against the U.S. or Israel.. Iran’s religious leaders look like rational men. The only effect would be that Western petroleum men would have to kiss good bye the hope to get their hands on the Iranian oil. Using the other option would definitely start a new war in the Middle East. First Iranian nuclear facilities are mostly under ground and probably are duplicate. Finding and destroying them is not surely feasible. Once a War is started the Iranians will not finish it. We do not have additional forces to fight Iranians and the Taliban at the same time. This situation will not change very much, if the attack is made by Israeli planes.

The trouble with Russia was started by President Bush. The relations with President Putin (Now Prime Minister) were quite cordial. Out of a blue, President Bush announced an anti-missile missile system to be placed in Poland and Czech Republic to meet Iranian nuclear-headed missiles. But Iran has no long range missiles nor nuclear heads yet. To the Russians , it looked like some precaution against Russia and Putin was alarmed. He suggested that the anti-missile missiles be installed somewhere in Azerbaijan or Turkey , or on floating platform on the sea. Those could catch Iranian missiles if there are any, and would not be suspected to be against Russia.. President Bush rejected these suggestions and invited Putin to Kennebunkport in Maine, to his parents’ home to discuss the matter, but he could not convince him. Since then Putin has become pretty unfriendly. President Obama should find out whether we really need those anti-missile missiles, and, if we do, can they be placed somewhere where Russia would not feel uncomfortable. We do not want start another Cold War, do we? Besides, we need Russia politically.

There are other problems that I will discuss at a later date.

……………………………………………………………………………………………..

To Readers’ Attention: Any one who wishes to receive THE ORHAN TARHAN LETTER should sent an e-mail to orhant@verizon.net with his/her full name, e-mail address , and PLEASE phone number, in case there is an interruption caused by the server, or in case of e-mail address change. It is free. Comments are welcome. These LETTERs are also published in AmericanChronicle.com

November 16, 2008