Search

Begin New Search Topic Security Political Geography Afghanistan Publishing Institution Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

1. Afghanistan: A View from Moscow

Author:
Dmitri V. Trenin and Alexey Malashenko
Publication Date:
04-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The Afghanistan problem has many angles, but a view from the North—the perspective of Russia—has been missing from many previous analyses. The ten-year-long Soviet military involvement in the country is too often dismissed as having little in common with NATO's current mission. The Soviet Union, after all, has failed, and NATO still plans to succeed. For the Russians themselves, the “Afghan syndrome” continues to be very powerful and warns against any new engagement in Afghanistan. While many in Russia still see developments in Afghanistan in a historical context, however, Russia is entwined in a complex web of relationships with the Afghan parties, neighboring states, and the West. Moscow is an important part of the Afghan equation.
Topic:
Security, Terrorism, and Armed Struggle
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Russia, Asia, Soviet Union, and Moscow

2. Warlords As Bureaucrats: The Afghan Experience

Author:
Dipali Mukhopadhyay
Publication Date:
09-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Despite his commitment to develop a democratic, modern state, President Hamid Karzai placed many former warlords in positions of power, particularly in the provinces. Many observers, Afghan and foreign alike, have decried the inclusion of warlords in the new governmental structures as the chief corrosive agent undermining efforts to reconstruct the state. Indeed, warlord governors have not been ideal government officials. They have employed informal power and rules, as well as their personal networks, to preserve control over their respective provinces. Informalized politics of this kind is the antithesis of a technocratic, rule-based approach to governance and entails considerable costs, from inefficiency to corruption and human rights abuses.
Topic:
Security, Democratization, Government, Sovereignty, War, and Counterinsurgency
Political Geography:
Afghanistan and Asia

3. Thinking Strategically About Russia

Author:
Dmitri V. Trenin
Publication Date:
12-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
U.S.–Russian relations matter again. To succeed where Bush has failed, Obama needs to approach Russia strategically: enhancing cooperation where possible, mitigating conflict where necessary. To prevent new conflict and receive Moscow's cooperation, Washington needs to deal seriously with Russian concerns. Leave Russia's domestic politics to the Russians. To keep Ukraine whole and free, the EU integration way is the way. NATO has reached the safe limits of eastward expansion. To protect against missile threats, a pan-European TMD system—which includes Russia—is the best option. On Iran and Afghanistan, Russia should be treated as an equal partner
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, and International Affairs
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Russia, United States, Europe, Iran, Washington, Ukraine, and Moscow

4. Iran: Is Productive Engagement Possible?

Author:
Karim Sadjadpour
Publication Date:
10-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Although Tehran and Washington appear hopelessly divided, issues of broad mutual concern reveal important overlapping interests. The United States can more effectively support democracy and human rights in Iran with policies that facilitate, rather than impede, Iran's modernization and reintegration in the global economy. The next U.S. president should not immediately seek comprehensive engagement with Tehran, as this might enhance Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's chances of reelection in Iran's June 2009 presidential elections. The United States must deal with those who hold power in Tehran, namely Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Given the widespread mutual mistrust between Washington and Tehran, confidence should be built with negotiations on areas of common interest, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than those of little or no common interest, such as the Palestinian–Israeli conflict or the nuclear issue. When it comes to U.S.–Iranian interaction, the record shows that “secret” or “private” discussions out of public earshot have a greater success rate. Building confidence in the public realm will be difficult, as politicians on both sides will likely feel the need to use harsh rhetoric to maintain appearances. It is imperative that Washington maintain a multilateral approach toward Iran, especially regarding the nuclear issue. Tehran is highly adept at exploiting rifts in the international community and diplomatic efforts to check Iran's nuclear ambitions will unravel if key countries approach Iran with divergent redlines. Powerful spoilers—both within Iran and among Iran's Arab allies—have entrenched economic and political interests in preventing U.S.–Iranian reconciliation.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, United States, Iran, Washington, Middle East, Israel, Tehran, and Palestine

5. Pakistan—Conflicted Ally in the War on Terror

Author:
Ashley Tellis
Publication Date:
12-2007
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Many Americans have blamed the resurgence of al-Qaeda and the Taliban on Pakistan's lackluster performance in the war on terror. Islamabad has indeed been ambivalent, but the convulsive political deterioration in the North West Frontier Province in Pakistan, Islamabad's military ineptitude in counterterrorism operations, and the political failures of the Karzai government in Afghanistan have all exacerbated the problem. Making U.S. aid conditional on Pakistan's performance in the war or undertaking unilateral strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan would inflate suspicion of Washington's motives, and risk casting Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state, as an American adversary. U.S. policy must instead convince Pakistani elites that defeating terrorist groups serves their own interest, while emphasizing that a terrorist attack emanating from Pakistan would push Washington to adopt more painful tactics.
Topic:
Security, Nuclear Weapons, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, United States, America, Washington, Asia, and Taliban