Don’t get me wrong. I agree with the aim of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. A nuclear armed-Iran would be a grave security threat to the region and globally. A settlement of the nuclear standoff would be enormously beneficial to international security and to the cause of global disarmament.

Sanctions can help to achieve this result, but not if they are used solely for punishment. To be effective sanctions must be combined with incentives and security guarantees as part of a negotiated diplomatic agreement.

Read my recent analysis of Iran sanctions in Foreign Policy in Focus.

In my most recent posting I counter Daniel Goure’s assertion that drones do not increase the temptation to intervene militarily. I and many others have argued to the contrary, that drones are troubling precisely because they lower the domestic costs of using military force.

We know that concerns about casualties play a role in decisions about military intervention. This is as it should be in a democratic society where leaders are supposed to be accountable to public concerns. Some military operations have been called off because of military casualties, for example after the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut and the ‘Black Hawk down’ disaster a decade later in Somalia. Because of the political sensitivity of military casualties government officials sometimes try to hide the human costs of war.  Drones change these dynamics. The ability to launch military strikes without the risk of American casualties removes one of the principal political burdens associated with the decision to use force.

Consider the military interventions in Pakistan and Somalia. Without the use of drone strikes, the only option for precise military strikes in Pakistan or Somalia would be ground operations. These would be much bloodier than drone strikes and far more dangerous. They would carry a high risk of failure.  If drones did not exist, and invasions were the only option, would the United States really launch major ground operations in Pakistan or Somalia? Highly unlikely. Without drones there would be no campaigns of military strikes against Pakistan and Somalia. And that’s the point. These weapons allow the use of military force in settings where otherwise it would not be an option.

The use of these weapons perpetuates the illusion that terrorism can be defeated by military means. It detracts attention from the political solutions and law enforcement measures that have proven to be more effective for that purpose.

I address these and other critical issues surrounding drone warfare in the current issue of Cato Unbound. Read more here…

We have many mixed emotions on this occasion.  Many of us feel continuing anger that the Bush administration dragged our nation into an unjust, unnecessary, and illegal war.  We share profound sadness at the immense loss of life and human injury and the staggering financial costs resulting from the war. We deeply regret the devastation our nation visited upon the people of Iraq through decades of sanctions and war.  We also honor and respect our men and women in uniform who bore the burden of service and give special gratitude to the many who spoke out against the war. We know that U.S. attempts to dominate Iraq and its oil wealth are far from over. Thousands of U.S. ‘contractor’ mercenaries remain in the country and tens of thousands of troops are nearby in Kuwait and in the Gulf. We know that Iraqi politics are fragile and pervasively corrupt, rife with sectarianism exacerbated by our misguided policies.

These are grim realities we cannot deny, but we also must not ignore the extraordinary importance of the withdrawal of U.S. troops. The Pentagon fought relentlessly to keep tens of thousands of troops and permanent bases in Iraq. Over the years I asked many military officers if they thought U.S. troops would remain in Iraq. Every single one expected that our troops would be in the country for decades. Right up to the very end, senior military officials attempted to gain support for the continued presence of U.S. troops.

The Iraqi people would not stand for it, however. Their elected leaders demanded a deadline for the departure of U.S. troops in the security agreement they signed with the Bush administration in 2008. The al-Maliki government stuck to the December 2011 deadline, despite Pentagon pleadings, because it would have been thrown out of office if it had yielded to U.S. demands.

We in the antiwar movement played a significant role in getting the troops home.  Millions of us organized in the United States and all over the world in 2002 and early 2003 to ‘stop the war before it starts,’ as I wrote in an article at the time. When our protests were ignored by the Bush administration, we continued protesting and organized hundreds of local events and vigils calling for troops to come home. In 2006 we volunteered in congressional elections that produced a sweeping victory for the Democratic Party, a result attributed largely to popular revulsion against the war. In 2007-08 we mobilized in support of Obama because of his stalwart opposition to the war and his unequivocal pledge to bring the troops home. Obama’s vaunted social media campaign grew out of the networks of millions of activists who participated in the antiwar movement. Without the base of support provided by our movement Obama would not have attracted the support necessary to establish his candidacy.

So while this is an occasion of sadness and regret, it is also a time to acknowledge our hard-won victory, and thank President Obama for keeping his word to bring the troops home.

As Juan Cole notes, the party list results differ from the individual candidate results, so it is much too early to say whether the Islamists will dominate the parliament. The Freedom and Justice Party is relatively moderate compared to the Salafi party.  It is unlikely, according to Cole, that the two parties will be able to form an alliance. Dire warnings of an extremist Islamist takeover are premature.

The greatest threat to Egyptian democracy remains continued control by the military. The generals have asserted the right to appoint up to 80 percent of the constituent assembly that will write a new constitution. They have also insisted that, regardless of the composition and form of the new government, the budget and operations of the armed forces will remain exempt from parliamentary control and civilian oversight.

Some may be tempted to see the military as a bulwark against extremism, invoking the original ‘Turkish model’ that began with Ataturk in the 1920s. Over the decades Turkish generals sought to neutralize Islamism and ‘modernize’ the country. A very different ‘Turkish model’ has evolved over the past decade. The generals have returned to the barracks, free elections are now routine, and the moderate Justice and Development Party, led by President Erdoğan, has consolidated civilian democratic rule.  Many in Egypt today hope their country can follow this contemporary Turkish model—the removal of the military from power, and the evolution of Islamism toward political responsibility in a system of guaranteed free elections.

The road ahead will be bumpy and uncertain. Mostly the United States should stay out of the way and cheer for democracy from the sidelines. We can use our influence, however, to pressure the generals to step aside in favor of civilian democratic rule. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have issued statements to that effect. Washington provides $1.3 billion per year in military assistance to Egypt. We should not be afraid to use this aid as leverage to insist that Egypt’s military leaders accept democratic rule. A sign I saw in Tahrir Square recently said it well: “The army should defend the nation, not rule it.”

courtesy of Karen Jacob

The atmosphere in the Square on Friday was almost festive. We saw families with children, vendors selling food and drinks, and everywhere the red, white and black stripes of the Egyptian flag, face-painted on children, and thanks to a group of laughing teenagers, also painted on our hands. It was a diverse crowd, young and old, women and men, middle class and the very poor. We were welcomed and greeted warmly by many.

courtesy of Karen Jacob

The crowd was friendly but determined in its commitment to fulfill the promise of the revolution. There were no speeches but constant chanting from groups throughout the Square, all with a similar message. Military rule must end. “How long will you stay in the Square,” we asked a young woman. “Until the generals leave power,” she replied. “The military should defend the nation not rule it,” said one of the many hand-written posters. An older man explained that the generals who took charge in February have lost their legitimacy and must step aside in favor of civilian democratic government.

Where the revolution goes from here is uncertain. The military council is digging in its heels and refuses to step down. It has appointed a new civilian Prime Minister, Kamal el-Ganzouri, a Mubarak-era apparatchik, but it refuses to accept independent civilian leadership. The generals have issued ‘guiding principles’ for the democratic transition that assert their right to veto constitutional provisions and exempt the military from parliament authority.

The democracy movement will not accept this. It has been reawakened by the events of the past week and will not relent until the military steps aside in favor of a fully empowered civilian interim government—one that can shepherd the country through the parliamentary elections that are now beginning, the constitution-writing process that will follow, and the presidential elections that all hope will complete the democratic transition and bring to power Egypt’s first popularly elected civilian leader.

photo courtesy of Karen Jacob

Just below us we saw soldiers in black uniforms savagely beating an already prostrate demonstrator, clubs repeatedly pounding his motionless form. Was he one of the fatalities? Nearby a young man struggled to wrestle out of the grip of soldiers, staggering under the blows of continuous whacks to his head, arms and shoulders.

We had entered the Square a couple hours earlier from the subway, where we could smell the lingering tear gas from clashes on Saturday. We walked into the gathering crowd without incident and made our way to a nearby bookstore, only to find it closed, windows broken and boarded, apparently damaged during previous street clashes. All along the sidewalk and nearby street the pavement was torn up to provide paving stonesand bricks for protestors to fling at the police and military.

photo courtesy of Karen Jacob

When the melee started we were in the midst of an interview with the learned Dr. Nadia Mostafa, former chair of Cairo University’s political science department. Suddenly we heard shouts and screams from the crowd and sounds of military attack. We rushed to the balcony to survey the unfolding carnage.

As we gazed in shock at the battle below, Dr. Nadia quietly stepped back from the balcony. We turned and saw her sitting alone in her office, hanging her head, shaking it from side to side in dejection. She had just said that the continued clashes were harming the revolution, that unknown forces were at work among the activists and in the military to undermine the revolution and prevent the transition to democracy. No good can come from this, she said. Little could she have imagined that her words would be so quickly and horribly confirmed.

David Cortright and Karen Jacob

The Kabul government’s peace and reconciliation process, which began last year, has ground to a halt, according to the Centre for Conflict and Peace Studies, an independent research center in Kabul. It never had much momentum to begin with, and it was abruptly suspended in September when the head of the High Peace Council, former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani, was assassinated by an insurgent suicide bomber pretending to be an emissary of the Taliban.

The peace process is fake, said a former government official.  The insurgents distrust the government and foreign forces and are not serious about negotiating. The Kabul government has no interest in sharing power with insurgents, and its officials do not want to lose their economic and political privileges.

The United States has made some efforts to encourage talks, but it has also adopted a ‘fight and talk’ strategy, which means shooting at the very people you supposedly want to engage. This is “not helpful to the negotiating process,” said one of the researchers.  U.S. night raids and airstrikes are poisoning the atmosphere that is needed to facilitate meaningful dialogue and confidence building. They are killing mid-level commanders who may be needed to achieve reconciliation.

Pakistan wants a seat at the table and has made clear its ability and intention to derail any negotiating process to which it is not a party.

Meanwhile the average citizen has been sidelined. The Kabul government has not communicated its intentions to the public and seems to have no intention of involving ordinary citizens in resolving armed hostilities. For the Afghan people the transition process has no meaning, said a former official. “The people have no clue” what peace is supposed to mean, he said.

This is the exact opposite of what civil society experts in Afghanistan and the United States have urged. A recent report published by the U.S. Institute of Peace, written by Lisa Schirch of 3P Human Security, lays out parameters for an inclusive peace process that involves all social and ethnic groups within Afghan society. Assuring that Afghan citizens are fully engaged offers a strategy for addressing the underlying causes of the conflict and building a broad base of stakeholders committed to upholding human rights in any negotiated agreements.

In the all-important area of personal security, however, conditions have deteriorated. During my recent visit to Kabul, member of the Afghan Women’s Network said that the situation is more dangerous and uncertain for women now—despite the presence of 150,000 international troops. Insurgent groups have increased their control over many parts of the country.

Foreign military operations are oriented toward battling insurgents, the women explained, not protecting civilians. “No one protects us in the streets,” said one woman. A researcher exclaimed, “I’d rather trust my life to the thieves than the soldiers or police.” We don’t need policies that are created in Western capitals, said another woman. “We need to be involved in designing and monitoring our own security policies.”

Women have equal rights on paper, but in reality their freedoms are being undermined. Women are threatened not only by the Taliban, said the director of a coordinating agency for relief groups, but by Afghan government officials, the very same agencies Western governments are supporting. “Those guys in the government are the ones who passed the family law,” the agency director said, referring to the Personal Status Law adopted in 2009, a measure that legalizes rape in marriage.

The U.S. has concentrated on building the Afghan National Army and National Police, which will soon number 300,000 troops. This huge security force is unsustainable financially, and it has done little to provide security for Afghan women.

The U.S. is creating local police forces, supposedly to enhance security, but these poorly trained troops are responsible for many abuses, including murder, rape, arbitrary detention and illegal land grabs. These crimes are documented in a recent Human Rights Watch report.

As the U.S. and other countries begin to scale back their military involvement in Afghanistan, the challenge for the future will be preserving the gains women have achieved while ensuring greater protection for Afghan civilians, especially women. That will require a shift in strategy away from military combat operations toward a greater emphasis on development and human security.

Entering an active war zone quickens the pulse, but during our brief trip all was calm in Kabul. No attacks occurred in the city, although the steady pace of military operations continued in the provinces, as did reported drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Afghan national police and army troops are visible at many major intersections in Kabul. Amidst the city’s dense traffic we saw a number of ‘technicals,’ Toyota pickups with 4 to 6 armed and uniformed Afghan men sitting in the back, holding automatic weapons and in some instances RPGs.

Only once did we feel vulnerable, while waiting outside the security entrance to a government ministry near the presidential palace, blast walls and guard towers outside all the buildings, our group of six civilians standing exposed on the side of a busy boulevard, warily watching the passing vehicles.

During interviews with more than a dozen Afghan women leaders, researchers, international aid workers and former Afghan government officials, we learned of persistent dangers and threats to the country’s future.

• Afghan women face continuing repression.  They are witnessing the erosion of previous gains as Taliban control spreads in the countryside and reactionary warlord influence increases within the Kabul regime. The government’s own security forces are often responsible for violations of women’s rights.  Check back in a few days for a more detailed account of what we learned.
• The withdrawal of foreign forces will produce an economic crisis for the government of Afghanistan, which remains almost completely dependent financially on the U.S. and other foreign governments, especially to pay for its huge 300,000-person security forces.  I wrote about this funding failure in an earlier post.
• A new security agreement between Kabul and Washington is likely to call for the continued presence of U.S. military forces in the country beyond the 2014 transition deadline. This is seen as necessary to provide security for Kabul, but it could also have the effect of prolonging the insurgency and impeding prospects for reconciliation.

It was clear from what we heard that maintaining security requires more than deploying a large number of troops. It also requires proper governance, functioning courts, the rule of law, and an end to the impunity and abuse perpetrated by Afghan government officials and security forces. If the Afghan people cannot trust their government, no amount of military force will be able to assure genuine security and stability.