Main speakers will include:

Philip Auerswald

 Senior Fellow in Entrepreneurship at the Kauffman Foundation and associate professor at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University. He is the author of several books, most recently The Coming Prosperity: How Entrepreneurs Are Transforming the Global Economy, out next month;

Nathan Hodge

Author of Armed Humanitarians: The Rise of the Nation Builders and a DC-based writer who specializes in defense and national security; and

Peter Choharis

International lawyer and investor, and an adjunct fellow at ASP. He is the founder of Choharis Global Solutions—affiliated law and consulting firms that assist U.S. and foreign companies and governments on investment, dispute resolution, and compliance issues.

moderated by:

Joshua Foust

Fellow at ASP who researches the role of market-oriented development strategies in post-conflict environments, and the use of market forces as a strategic foreign policy planning. He is also a columnist for PBS and The Atlantic Monthly.

The current system of aid and economic development is broken. Not just in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but around the world, the U.S. has proven incapable of reliably developing the economies of post-conflict societies – wasting billions of dollars and thousands of lives in the process.

ASP has been a leader in discussing the national security implications of supporting entrepreneurship in asymmetric operations. Last year, we published “Expeditionary Economics: A New Approach to Foreign Aid,” as a benchmark for thinking about new ways to strategically support the development of business communities to support national security.

There is a widespread recognition that something must change in the way America relates to failed states. Learning how to support struggling economies, instead of pouring money into massive reconstruction projects, is possibly a way of achieving effectiveness in an austere budget environment.

We hope you can join us.

The briefing will take place on Thursday, February 16, 2012 at ASP’s office, 1100 New York Ave., Suite 710W. 

The briefing will begin promptly at 12:30 PM. Please arrive by 12:15 for registration.

Sandwiches will be served.

Please Reply by Tuesday, February 14 to RSVP to this event as space is limited.

To RSVP for this event, email events@americansecurityproject.org.

ABOUT THE AMERICAN SECURITY PROJECT

The American Security Project is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy and research organization dedicated to fostering knowledge and understanding of a range of national security issues, promoting debate about the appropriate use of American power, and cultivating strategic responses to 21st century challenges. For more information, visitwww.americansecurityproject.org.

ASP fellow Joshua Foust was one of the panel members at a Center for National Policy event entitled “The End of the Afghan War: Talking with the Taliban and What Comes Next”. The other panel members included Michael O’Hanlon, a senior Brookings Institute fellow and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security Paul McHale.

One of the major talking points was the planned talks with the Taliban.

Concern was raised by the panel that the Taliban is a decentralized organization and that even if agreement is reached with one part of organization, there is no guarantee that the rest will follow along. Furthermore, negotiating with the Taliban will only solve part of the problem with an ineffective Afghan government and a deteriorating US-Pakistan relationship yet to be resolved. Also, it was noted that any negotiations with the Taliban would likely be overshadowed and affected by the looming 2014 NATO pullout date.

Another major question asked was what would be a reasonable standard for success for the Afghan war. Mr. O’Hanlon stated that Afghanistan should meet a “Colombia standard” where the insurgency is contained in part of the region but is not a major threat. The situations in Colombia and Afghanistan are comparable given the presence of narcotics in both regions and members of a neighboring country being complicit in supporting the insurgency ( i.e. Venezuela and Pakistan). However, the “Colombia standard” feels like an attempt to break even and given the resources that have been sacrificed in Afghanistan, justifying this standard to the American public would be difficult.

Mr. McHale mentioned that personal security was paramount and under the presidency of Hamid Karzai, it was not currently being provided. At first glance, personal security being the standard for success is an honorable idea. On the other hand, it is complicated to both define and achieve this standard without additional investment and time which may not be likely given the current recall of 23,000 US troops this summer. At today’s panel, Mr. Foust did not present his views on a reasonable standard of success but his opinion was laid out in an ASP white paper where he lists  “deny Al Qaeda safe haven” and “build up the Afghan security forces and the government so they can take responsibility for their country’s future” as reasonable goals.

The overall sense of the discussion centered on the idea that the current situation in Afghanistan has improved in comparison to previous years. The situation in the northern and western part of Afghanistan has improved while the situation in eastern Afghanistan has deteriorated. Unfortunately, most of the discussion seemed to be focused on troop levels and military success rather than a political solution.

Mr. Foust said that

“Politics is the U.S.’s Achilles heel in Afghanistan. We, as a country, never put in the hard work to understand them at a local, regional, national, and international level”.

Despite some improvements, the consensus was that a reasonable standard of success cannot be achieved by NATO’s pullout date of 2014 without additional changes within the region. It was mentioned during the panel that stability in Afghanistan is vital and if that is true, then this discussion would like be only be one of many in the future.

Joshua’s paper on metrics for the US measuring success in Afghanistan can be found here.

Our 2010 report for our signature series  “Are We Winning: Measuring the Progress in the Struggle Against al Qaeda and Associated Movements” can be found here.

Maura R. O’Connor / http://www.miller-mccune.com:

Some development and security experts have lauded the teams as an example of what the U.S. has done right in Afghanistan. Joshua Foust, a fellow at the American Security Project, writes, “They’re doing the difficult, and quite ‘unsexy’ teaching-the-Afghans-to-fish kind of work that will actually achieve some sort of local stability and long-lasting economic development.”

ASP Fellow Joshua Foust writes:

Inexplicably, Berdimuhamedov seems determined to proceed with the trappings of a normal election no one will acknowledge as such. At this point, the only question is what percentage of the vote he will choose to accept. Other Central Asian dictators have not shied away from impossible margins, such as Nursultan Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan (95 percent) and Islom Karimov in Uzbekistan ( 88 percent). Wll Berdimuhamedov meet or beat his 89 percent from 2007? Will he go higher, to lend the appearance of inevitability to his oppressive regime? Or will he go lower, to try to create the false sense of political dynamism?

It is the ambiguity over such bizarre questions—literally how much effort will a tyrant go to create the illusion of choice for his renewal of power—that makes studying Central Asia so surreal and fascinating. The fate of Turkemenistan has global implications. Its geography, nestled between the Caspian Sea, Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia and Kazakhstan to the north, give it strategic importance, even if its official neutrality limits what actually happens politically.

This article is available online.

Summary:

On Tuesday, after months of denying it was interested in participating in formal talks to end the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban indicated it would consider opening a political office in Qatar. A political office would give mediators from the U.S. a legitimate contact for Taliban members. No details have been given about when these negotiations would begin, or what would be bargained for. This step also implies that there will continue to be some kind of Taliban presence inside Afghanistan.

Joshua Foust, correspondent for The Atlantic and a fellow at the American Security Project, explains what this could mean for U.S.-Afghan relations.

Click here to listen…

ASP Fellow Joshua Foust writes:

The upside to this system of drones, administration officials insist, is that al Qaeda has been crippled, and that it has created an intense strain on the ability of terrorists to carry out plots. And this is undoubtedly true — the drone war has achieved its immediate purpose of thwacking bad people. But do we really understand the true cost of this form of warfare?

In the countries where the drone system is most active — Pakistan and Yemen — relations with local governments and communities are awful, and perceptions of the United States could barely be any worse. There is agreement seemingly only on the need for long distance killing, and even then — especially in Pakistan — there is a great deal of contention…

Beyond the political consequences, the drone program also imposes severe bureaucratic costs. Within the U.S. Intelligence Community, various lethal targeting programs are heavily classified, compartmented, and SAPed — meaning, they are mostly closed off from each other. This is one reason why the CIA and JSOC maintain separate, non-overlapping kill lists in Yemen. It also means it is practically impossible for anyone, in any position including the top of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to exercise proper oversight over the program. In other words, we have created an unaccountable killing machine operating at an industrial scale…

The rest of this article is available online.

A Changing NATO for a Changing World

John Adams / American Security Project / The Atlantic

Twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO can point with pride to its history. But can it point with confidence to its future? NATO’s viability in the 21st century depends on applying the lessons of the past, but it also depends on seeing the present clearly.

What Nuclear Weapons Cost Us – It’s the Right Time for a Debate

Joel Rubin / Ploughshares

The debate over the extent to which the U.S. government is committing itself to spending vast sums of taxpayer dollars on nuclear weapons and related programs over the next decade is in full force in Congress, inside the administration, and in the media. Ultimately, this estimate provides both the public and American policymakers with an additional tool to debate the type of future they want for their country. We look forward to exploring these strategic security and financial questions in the days ahead as this issue makes its way into the public eye.

 Dear Internet: It’s No Longer OK to Not Know How Congress Works

Clay Johnson /  http://www.informationdiet.com/

Joshua Kopstein, is right: it’s not ok to not know about something before legislating or regulating it. The confessions by members of Congress that they are “not nerds” is frustrating at best because these guys, the guys that are regulating the Internet can’t tell a server from a waiter.

Foreign Relations Committee Releases Comprehensive Report On Central Asia And The Transition In Afghanistan

SCFR

As part of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s ongoing oversight of U.S engagement in Afghanistan and the broader region, Chairman John Kerry today released a report examining Central Asia’s critical role in Afghanistan.

Latest developments in Arab world’s unrest

AP

Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan

 EPA unveils rules limiting mercury, other power plant toxics

Andrew Restuccia / The Hill

EPA estimates the standards will prevent 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks and 130,000 cases of childhood asthma per year.

On the ASP Flashpoint blog:

About the American Security Project: The American Security Project is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy and research organization dedicated to fostering knowledge and understanding of a range of national security issues, promoting debate about the appropriate use of American power, and cultivating strategic responses to 21st century challenges.

For more information, visit www.americansecurityproject.org. info@americansecurityproject.org

How the Fall of the Soviet Union Changed the News Media

 By Carolyn Deady / American Security Project / The Atlantic

American TV would never cover breaking news the same way again. International media coverage of the historic events in Moscow on December 25, 1991, was a first for world broadcast news. Earlier in the year, Ted Turner’s Cable News Network had a television news victory. A decade after its founding, CNN, surpassed the “Big Three” American networks — ABC, CBS, and NBC — in ratings with its coverage from inside Iraq during the Gulf War. The 24-hour news network had come into its own. That Christmas Day, CNN got its next major scoop in Moscow.

Exclusive: Secret U.S., Taliban talks reach turning point

 Missy Ryan, Warren Strobel and Mark Hosenball / Reuters

After 10 months of secret dialogue with Afghanistan’s Taliban insurgents, senior U.S. officials say the talks have reached a critical juncture and they will soon know whether a breakthrough is possible, leading to peace talks whose ultimate goal is to end the Afghan war.

As soldiers leave, U.S. diplomats face huge Iraq challenge

 Andrew Quinn / Reuters

As the last American soldiers leave Iraq, the U.S. State Department assumes the reins of a complex and risky operation, the success or failure of which could determine whether the costly nine-year U.S. engagement with the country finally bears fruit.

Iraq, a War Obama Didn’t Want, Shaped His Foreign Policy

 Mark Lander / New York Times (17 Dec 2011)

President Obama has made good on his campaign pledge to end the Iraq war, portraying the departure of the last troops as a chance to turn to nation-building at home.  But from Afghanistan to the Arab Spring, from China to counterterrorism, the lessons of that war still hang over the administration’s foreign policy — shaping, and sometimes limiting, how the president projects American power in the world.

 Oh and of course:

Kim Jong-il, North Korean Dictator, Dies

CHOE SANG-HUN and DAVID E. SANGER / New York Times

SEOUL, South Korea — Kim Jong-il, the North Korean leader who realized his family’s dream of turning his starving, isolated country into a nuclear-weapons power even as it sank further into despotism, died on Saturday of a heart attack while traveling on his train, according to an announcement Monday by the country’s state-run media.  Word of Kim’s death sent shock waves through North Korea’s Asia neighbors and reverberated around the world, reflecting the unpredictable outcome of an abrupt leadership change in one of the most opaque and repressive countries. North Korea is technically still at war with South Korea and the United States after nearly 60 years and has few friends besides China.

 Kim Jong-il: double rainbows, fear of flying and Godzilla – 10 things you might not know

Danielle Demetriou in Tokyo / Daily Telegraph

Airlifted lobster, double rainbows and fear of flying: the unusual world of Kim Jong-il, North Korea’s late leader

On the ASP Flashpoint blog:

About the American Security Project: The American Security Project is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy and research organization dedicated to fostering knowledge and understanding of a range of national security issues, promoting debate about the appropriate use of American power, and cultivating strategic responses to 21st century challenges.

For more information, visit www.americansecurityproject.org. info@americansecurityproject.org

Source: The Atlantic, 16 of Dec /2011

ASP Senior Fellow Joshua Foust is a featured author.

The mid-2000s also saw Russia emerge from its slumber. Under Presidents Vladimir Putin and then Dmitri Medvedev, Russia slowly revived its campaign for influence in the region, gaining concessions from the Central Asian rulers and sometimes challenging the U.S. for access and resources. As of 2011, Russia and the U.S. could best be called frenemies in Central Asia, with Russia chafing at the continued American presence even while its officials worryabout the consequences of an American withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Viewing Central Asia as a competition for influence, however, misses the point; that is a contest that America could probably never win. Instead, what’s emerging is a tenuous collaboration: Russia and America working together to support and develop the region. Unthinkable 20 years ago, this new alignment of interests has the potential to be far more transformative than the fall of communism ever was.

This article is available online here.

Source: The Atlantic,  15 Dec, 2011

ASP Senior Fellow Michael Cohen is a featured author.

Twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the world is a freer and more open place. From the former Soviet republics and the buffer countries of Central and Eastern Europe to Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Far East, the fall of the Soviet Union has led to a cascade of political and economic advances rarely before seen in human history.

For all the challenges to global security we face today, they pale in comparison to the threat of superpower war and the proxy battles that defined the four decades of ideological and geopolitical conflict between East and West. The fall of Soviet Russia, for all of its many positive ramifications, helped to end the constant danger of a war that would truly and catastrophically “end all wars.” A more complex but decidedly more secure and safer world has replaced it.

This article is available online here.