The Big Reset?

Mrs. Clinton recently visited Russia's Foreign Minister (Mr. Lavrov) in Moscow with a gift--a big red button. In English, it said "Reset." But in Russian, the word was closer to "overload" or "overcharge." It was, of course, a gaffe. And indeed, whatever translator gave her that button has probably been sacked. Mrs. Clinton was able to laugh it off, but the button may be more telling than we'd like to admit. The Big Reset, with more than just Russia, is off to a rocky start.

Russia: Medvedev and Putin gave Mr. Obama a grand raised eyebrow when Mr. Obama's letter to Moscow was leaked. While the Russians are not thrilled about the missile shield in Eastern Europe, they know the US is much more worried about Iran than Moscow is of Poland. Russia is going to try to squeeze Washington, and by being the first to balk and ask for a deal, the US injures its bargaining position. Now this may be worth it. But exactly how much can the US and Russia cooperate? The BBC has a pretty good article teasing out points of contention and cooperation, but there's not a whole lot that looks like the US and Russia can make relations immediately peachy, unless the US sells itself and its allies out.

Iran: Obama's Iran policy seems schizophrenic. Indeed, he seems to be taking a tough or soft stance on Iran depending on who he's talking to. To the Iranians, he looks to be offering his hand in friendship, trying to open an Embassy, and seeking Iranian help on Afghanistan. At the same time, he is asking the Russians to lean on the Iranians about Tehran's nuclear program, and trying to calm the Israelis on the Iranian issue by promising a tough stance (and calling Iran a "Grave Threat"). Iran has picked up on this, shockingly enough, and has said that Obama is "just as warmongering" as Bush. Mr. Obama is starting to find out that his charisma is not going to get him as far abroad as it does in the US--he cannot simply show up on the scene and improve prickly relations without delivering on policy.

Taliban: Surprisingly, it may be the Taliban with whom the US has the greatest hopes of a serious reset. Mr. Biden may be a bit optimistic when he sees a conversion of 70% of all Taliban fighters given the right incentives, but he has a good point. The Sons of Iraq program helped to end the Civil War in Iraq by giving disenfranchised Sunnis a chance to participate in the government, make enough money to feed their families, and keep their neighborhoods safe. Trying to co-opt moderate Taliban elements is similarly possible. The big difference: In Iraq, Sunni leaders were willing to wheel and deal with the US and Baghdad, and gave the Sons of Iraq program their blessing--the fringe elements were not running the show. In Pakistan, these fringe elements are largely in charge--without their blessing, co-opting the "moderate" Taliban is going to be a fair bit harder.

The US does indeed need a reset with Russia, Iran, and the Taliban, lest life become a lot more difficult in the near future. Obama's recent attempts to cause these resets look largely rhetorical--perhaps he is waiting for lengthly talks before he proposes policy changes. But no reset will happen if policy stays the same--Iran has made this completely clear. This fact will force the Obama administration to have to make a tough choice--while he has an opportunity to make a policy reset, he'll actually have to ask if a good relationship with each of these countries is even possible without placing unacceptable costs on the US or its allies.

Gen. Petraeus to Put US Forces in Back Seat

Before Mr. Obama takes office on the 21st of January, Iraq is going to go through a fair bit of wrapping up. As the DoD map below shows, all but Baghdad (18 of 19 provinces) will have been transitioned to full Iraqi control soon: according to the DoD September Report to Congress, the ceremonies will all happen in early and mid-Jaunary. Baghdad's ceremony will be in May--though it should be noted that its ceremony has been continually pushed back from October 2008.



With Iraqi Security Forces at the front in all of these provinces, Petraeus is likely trying to train them by fire--US forces will be in the back (notably, taking far fewer casualties than when in the front) provoding logistical support and giving advice. This "school for hard-knocks" is going to get Iraqi forces pretty chewed up over the next few months, but it will mean high-speed learning. So far, only a small percentage of Iraqi military forces are capable of full independent operations--logistics, supply, planning, and execution. Most need planning help from the US. Many need US logistics or even military backup. They must wean this dependence by 2011, or they will falter when the US withdraws.

Another reason for the speedy handover is the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA). While US forces don't leave until 2011, they have to get off the streets of Iraqi cities and villages by the end of 2009--during 2010 and 2011, US forces can only act at the behest of the Iraqi government. They will continue to train, but will only get militarily involved when the Iraqis need the cavalry to come in.

The handover involves more than military control. It also signals full administrative control on the part of the Iraqis, with the State Department playing a purely supportive role. With Gates remaining head of the DoD and Petraeus keeping his post as head of CENTCOM, Bush appointees will be at the forefront of Iraq's endgame through 2011 (barring anything strange). Obama and Clinton will have surprisingly little influence over the Iraq situation, as policies being made now (namely the SoFA and handover timetables) have mostly sealed any questions on the remaining US role. This will free up the "team of rivals" to deal with more pressing crises--Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India are the main points of worry.

A Shameless Digression

The Iowa caucuses were today! I may be a foreign policy wonk, but I have been pinned to my seat, and have been talking lots of speculation about the election with friends. Here's the numbers:

For the Democrats, with 97% of precincts reporting:

Obama, 38%
Edwards, 30%
Clinton, 29%
Everyone else: 3% total

For the Republicans, with 85% of precincts reporting:

Huckabee, 34%
Romney, 25%
McCain, 14%
Thompson, 13%
Paul, 10%
Giuliani, 4%

Now, we all know that Iowa has huge influence on the rest of the primaries, but most influence comes in a candidate's ability to pull surprises or upsets.

Upsets and my speculation for the Democrats:

Obama clearly got a huge win today, and pulled a 7% lead out of a race that should have been wire-tight. Why? Polls only asked Democrats what they thought, where Obama pulled a huge percentage of Independents in Iowa. New Hampshire allows Independents to vote, as well, and I really think it's going to give him the state, rather decisively. The third state, South Carolina, has a large black population, and an (allegedly, I've only heard this by word-of-mouth) a large Oprah following (she's been campaigning hard for him).

Hillary's "war machine" depends a lot on her air of inevitability, and that has been not only seriously wounded this caucus, but might well be dead by the time Obama emerges from South Carolina with a third win. Going into Super Tuesday with that much momentum, Obama's got a very good chance of winning this nomination, and the Clinton campaign will get desperate, launch some increasingly bitter attacks against Mr. Obama, and probably collapse as its largely female following loses hope. While I don't think Iowa typically decides an election on its own, I'm going to predict Obama wins this nomination, in a huge comeback.

For the Republicans, it's largely anyone's game still. Huckabee may have won big in Iowa, but the New Hampshirites really can't stand him. Romney has spent obscene amounts of money and time in Iowa trying to get the early victory, and his campaign is surely quite frustrated at being upset by a relative newcomer--the money seems wasted. Romney has a small lead among Republicans in New Hampshire, but McCain has been crawling back, there in particular, and will draw Independents in the state more than Romney will. I say New Hampshire is up in the air, between these two.

Thompson may have made a good showing in Iowa, but has little chance anywhere else. Giuliani wasn't supposed to do well in Iowa; he concentrated his efforts in Super Tuesday states--but his popularity is waning as he seems to have more baggage than voters previously thought.

Should Romney lose in New Hampshire to McCain (and it's one hell of a tight race), he is probably done for good; his 15.4% approval nationwide is not going to go up from there, and it won't be enough to carry him. Huckabee, if nothing else, has probably finished Romney with his big upset in Iowa.

But what of Huckabee, long-term? After losing New Hampshire, not much will happen before Super Tuesday. While he leads in national polls taken at the new year, Republican talking heads like Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh are campaigning strongly against him. His own baggage is just starting to emerge, and moderate Republicans are probably going to lead a movement of rejecting him. My off-the-record talks with some of the right wing's most powerful pundits have revealed that the Party Elite highly disapproves of Huckabee's "Christian Socialism," and they will fight bitterly to see him finished.

McCain seems like the only guy whose life is going uphill in the Republican party, and after he wins New Hampshire, I think people will start taking him seriously again: despite the "Bomb Iran" musical fiasco. Giuliani has huge leads in some important states, like California, Florida, and New York, but when the heartland comes to vote in Super Tuesday, he's unlikely to run away with the majority.

If I had to put money on a Republican candidate today, it would be McCain--he seems to have some momentum, and his biggest rivals seem to have chewed each other into a chunky pulp. But this speculation has very low confidence, and could change with an aberration with ease.

Either way, this is exciting stuff. This is the most wide-open election since 1952, and I'll be very excited to watch it all. You should be, too.

And you should vote. Really.