A NEW ERA: On Tuesday, voters selected Senator Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States. He won about 53% of the popular vote (a greater share than any non-incumbent since Dwight Eisenhower in 1952), and 364 Electoral College votes to Senator John McCain's 174. His victory ushers in a new era in this country's history, and also a new era in its national security policy.

The Washington Post noted in an editorial published on Election Day that the Iraq war proved not to be a major issue for voters: only 9% of likely voters cited it as their greatest concern, while 51% said the economy was the top issue. In contrast, in the 2006 midterm election, Iraq ranked first among voters' concerns. The Post stated that "[t]he reason for that shift was encapsulated in a story the Post and other news organizations reported without fanfare over the weekend. In October, 13 American soldiers died in Iraq, a total that tied with August for the lowest monthly toll of the war. The number of Iraqis killed was almost certainly also the lowest in more than five years." There was an irony, the Post claimed, in this fact:

The irony is that the reversal of fortunes came about after President Bush ignored the message from 2006 voters and the Democratic congressional majority they elected. Instead of withdrawing U.S. troops, Mr. Bush launched the "surge" for which Republican John McCain had been pressing. Yet the biggest beneficiary of its success is not Mr. Bush, whose popularity is as low as ever, or Mr. McCain, but Democrat Barack Obama. Mr. Obama gained traction early in the Democratic primary campaign by stressing his opposition to the war and support for a 16-month withdrawal timetable. By the time his general election competition with Mr. McCain began, Iraq had faded as an issue. Mr. Obama's withdrawal proposal, which would have triggered a catastrophe in 2007 and still looked irresponsible a few months ago, now does not sound that different from what the Iraqi government and the Bush administration have lately been negotiating.

The Post quite reasonably concluded: "There remain important differences between Mr. Obama's strategy and that espoused by U.S. commanders and Iraqi leaders. We hope that, if elected, Mr. Obama will embrace the prudent conditionality that those commanders support and at which Mr. Obama so far has only hinted." (See also the item below on Iraq's future.)

Obama's plan for Iraq remains to be seen, as do many of his other important national security policies. While some commentators on national security issues have expressed concern about the president-elect's likely policies, the responsible course is to give the new administration the benefit of the doubt in the early going, as it prepares to tackle the monumental challenges that confront it.

Certainly an Obama presidency offers some clear benefits. One is that, in contrast to outgoing U.S. president George W. Bush, Barack Obama is an extremely gifted communicator. Bush had trouble explaining his national security policies even when there was a clear need for them, and this (along with many other factors) contributed to Bush's unpopularity domestically as well as the skyrocketing international resentment of the United States. It will also be healthy for the country to have a definable set of "Democratic" national security policies. The Republican party has held the executive office since 9/11, and many policies related to the global war on terror are popularly thought to be the province of that party alone. Public understanding and discussion of these issues will be improved when we can more clearly see where the two parties agree, and where they disagree.

The past eight years have been quite acrimonious politically, to the detriment of public discourse-and, frankly, to the detriment of this country. Those who think we have magically entered a "post-partisan" era with Obama's election will surely be disappointed. Yet it is my hope, if not my expectation, that the coming presidential term will be less contentious. Debate and disagreement are healthy in a democratic society such as ours, but an ugly personal element has developed that is markedly unproductive. 

A DANGEROUS WORLD: To some commentators, Barack Obama's victory has been a definitive repudiation of the "politics of fear." Though this phrase has vastly different connotations depending on who uses it, the basest form of this view is that terrorism and foreign policy dangers should no longer be seen as "real" issues.

The events of the past week suggest that the world remains a dangerous and complex place. One significant event was Russia's announcement, the day after Obama's election, that it would deploy short-range missiles near Poland:

Russia will deploy short-range missiles near Poland to counter U.S. military plans in Eastern Europe, President Dmitry Medvedev warned Wednesday, setting a combative tone that clashed with global goodwill over Barack Obama's election. In his first state of the nation speech, Medvedev blamed Washington for the war in Georgia and the world financial crisis and suggested it was up to Washington to mend badly damaged ties.... "From what we have seen in recent years-the creation of a missile defense system, the encirclement of Russia with military bases, the relentless expansion of NATO-we have gotten the clear impression that they are testing our strength," Medvedev said. He signaled Moscow would not give in to Western calls to pull troops from Georgia's breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, or rescind its recognition of their independence following the August war.... Medvedev said Iskander missiles would be deployed to Russia's western enclave of Kaliningrad, sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania, "to neutralize, if necessary, a missile defense system." The Iskander has a range of about 280 kilometers (175 miles), which would allow it to reach targets in Poland but not in the Czech Republic-but officials have said its range could be increased. Medvedev did not say whether the missiles would be fitted with nuclear warheads.

There was also a Qassam rocket attack against Israel emanating from the Gaza Strip: "Israel temporarily shut its border crossings with Gaza on Thursday after Palestinian militants fired a Qassam rocket into the western Negev. The rocket struck an open area. The attack, which caused no casualties or property damage, was the latest violation of an Israel-Hamas truce in the Gaza Strip. Hezbollah Palestine, a little-known group, claimed responsibility [for] the attack." This event was not significant in itself: Qassam attacks into Israel are a rather common occurrence. But it is a reminder that neither the dangers nor the complexities of the world are likely to go away anytime soon. 

OBAMA'S AFRICA POLICY: FDD senior fellow J. Peter Pham, an Africa expert, has a positive assessment of the basic objectives that Witney W. Schneidman, co-chair of Obama's Africa advisory group, outlined during the campaign. He sees Obama's Africa policy as an opportunity for bipartisan cooperation:

Achieving U.S. strategic interests in Africa and advancing the just causes like ending the genocide in Darfur, assuring the full implementation of the [Comprehensive Peace Agreement] between the Khartoum regime and the South Sudanese, and resolving the conflict in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo are not Democratic or Republican causes, but American priorities on which both presidential candidates largely converged, even if they differed on emphases.... However, given the recent financial panics and the overall climate of uncertainty with respect to the economy, mustering the political wherewithal to pursue these consensus goals-to say nothing of President-elect Obama's ambitious Africa agenda, including the doubling of America's foreign assistance budget to $50 billion per year-will require that Africa's advocates on both sides of the political aisle work together. And, given the large areas where Democratic and Republican positions on Africa have overlapped, the incoming administration might find that Africa policy might be one are where it can most easily achieve an early success in the drive for "bipartisan unity on foreign policy" that the Obama-Biden campaign has promised to deliver.

More here.

KORDAN IMPEACHED: On Tuesday, the Iranian parliament voted resoundingly to impeach interior minister and Ahmadinejad ally Ali Kordan (188 for, 45 against, and 14 abstentions). The move was not without merit: Kordan admitted to lying about receiving his law degree from Oxford University, but only after he released a purported copy of his degree that was rife with spelling and grammatical errors. Nevertheless, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is standing by his minister, arguing that Kordan's indiscretions do not merit impeachment: "Ministers should only be impeached based on their performance; therefore, the interior minister's impeachment is illegal." According to some reports, Ahmadinejad may even have gone so far as to dispatch a parliamentary representative with bribe money in hand to convince legislators not to vote against Kordan.

The Iranian constitution stipulates that if 11 of the 21 ministers are replaced during the course of a presidential term, then the entire cabinet must face a vote of confidence. Ahmadinejad had replaced nine ministers prior to Kordan's dismissal in an effort to consolidate his power. Thus, the Kordan impeachment pushes Ahmadinejad right to thethreshold.  The run-up to Iran's June presidential elections could be interesting to watch.

WHITHER IRAQ? The Obama administration will confront several questions and challenges related to Iraq. Writing for the Council on Foreign Relations, Greg Bruno notes that we may see "diminishing U.S. influence in Baghdad." He writes:

The immediate focus for Washington war planners will be the terms under which U.S. troops in Iraq operate. A UN Security Council resolution authorizing the presence of foreign forces expires at the end of 2008, and the Bush administration is negotiating with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government for an extension. The status of that agreement has been a political football for months.... Even if the two sides ink a deal on troop and contractor issues before the first of the year, other changes may weaken Washington's influence. On financial issues, for instance, international auditors have enjoyed open access to Iraq's government spending data courtesy of a 2003 UN measure which, like the troop mandate, expires on January 1. These auditors already have announced plan to relinquish oversight of Iraq's books, causing consternation among observers troubled by accounting irregularities such as hundreds of millions of dollars in missing revenue. Joseph A. Christoff, director of international affairs and trade for the U.S. Government Accountability Office, which has audited Iraq's finances, tells CFR.org that closing the door to international auditors will destroy any transparency in Iraq's already controversial expenditures.

Another question confronting the new administration is whether president-elect Barack Obama will adjust his timetable for U.S. withdrawal. Brian Bennett writes in Time:

Senior U.S. military officials will likely advise Barack Obama to adjust his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by mid-2010. While promising a 16-month timetable for getting all U.S. fighting forces out, Obama repeatedly insisted on what he calls a "responsible" withdrawal. Pulling nearly all U.S. troops and equipment out of Iraq in 16 months is "physically impossible," says a top officer involved in briefing the President-elect on U.S. operations in Iraq. That schedule would create a bottleneck of equipment and troops in the south of Iraq and Kuwait where brigades repair, clean and load vehicles and weapons for the trip home, said the official. Others say [the] U.S. could conceivably pull out on that time scale, although that would require leaving more equipment behind. A more important concern [is] that, officers believe the security gains in Iraq would be put at risk if troops were withdrawn before the Iraqi security forces are in a position to protect their own communities and borders.

WHITHER AFGHANISTAN? One of Obama's campaign pledges was to redeploy combat troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. In reaction to his electoral victory, Taliban spokesman Qari Muhammad Yusuf Ahmadi warned Obama against this course of action: "The new U.S. president can begin a new era of peace in the world. Therefore, Obama should withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan.... If Obama sends more troops to the war-ravaged country, Jihad and resistance will be continued."

Meanwhile, Gen. David Petraeus has suggested that Afghan tribes are needed in the battle against Islamic extremists, similar to the way that Iraqi tribes were enlisted. The Associated Press reports:

Afghan tribes are needed as crucial battlefield allies against the Taliban and other extremists in the same way local militias rose up to oppose insurgents in Iraq, the new military overseer of America's two wars said Thursday. The tactic has long been endorsed by Gen. David Petraeus-the former top U.S. commander in Iraq whose outreach to Sunni sheiks helped oust al-Qaida-inspired militants from key areas and sharply decreased attacks. But his latest comments-on his first trip to Afghanistan since taking charge of U.S. Central Command last week-appeared aimed at pressing the Afghan leadership to recognize the need for tribal militia allies at a time when violence in Afghanistan is at its highest levels since 2001

MISSILE STRIKE IN PAKISTAN: On Friday, a suspected U.S. missile targeted the home of a Taliban commander in Pakistan's tribal areas. The Associated Press reports: "It was the latest in a surge of cross-border attacks that a top American general said have eliminated three militant leaders. The strikes have angered Pakistani leaders, who say they undermine public support for their anti-terror efforts. The missiles hit Kam Sam village in North Waziristan region, a stronghold of Taliban and al-Qaida militants blamed for attacks on U.S. troops in neighboring Afghanistan and rising attacks within Pakistan."

And the BBC notes that strikes such as this have been one point of tension between the United States and Pakistan:

One of the issues most vexing to Pakistan is the ongoing missile strikes by US unmanned Predator drones, or UAVs, into Pakistan's tribal areas. Since 1 September, there have been at least 17 of these strikes and, while US officials say al-Qaeda leaders are being successfully targeted, local tribesmen say scores of civilians have been killed. So just how effective are these UAV strikes in degrading al-Qaeda's ability to operate? I asked Nigel Inkster, a former Whitehall insider, now Director of Transnational Threats at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies. "I think that these attacks are having some effect on al-Qaeda leadership. We should bear in mind that the number of al-Qaeda in the tribal areas is not infinite--there are only a few hundred of them. And of them, by no means all have the kind of leadership and organisational qualities that al-Qaeda needs to instigate attacks against the West. So a decapitation policy does make some sense." But the strikes make no sense to the Pakistani authorities, at least not publicly. They see them as an infringement of their national sovereignty and a radicalising factor that is making a lot of Pakistanis angry with both the US and their own government.

 More here.

-- Daveed Gartenstein-Ross