A Map of Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

While the world pays close attention to North Korean missiles, Iran test fired missiles to threaten Israel ("Iran test-fires three new missile types"; Times of Israel; April 13, 2013). Now, see the map below to know where Iran’s nuclear facilities are.

Source: Al Arabiya

Bushehr plant managed to survive the earthquake of magnitude 6.3 few days ago (Quake Hits Southwest Iran, Killing 37; Radio Free Europe; 9 April, 2013)

Japan Needs US Ambassador of Military Veteran, not Caroline Kennedy

It seems that the Obama administration’s appointment of Caroline Kennedy is taken favorably among the public on both sides of the Pacific. As shown in the following video, of CBS News on April 2, the family name of Kennedy nurtures charismatic romanticism which is associated with the tragic legend of an idealist president John F. Kennedy. On this program, historian Robert Dallek commented that the Ambassador Kennedy would represent the best of American culture.

 

 

 

Jun Okumura, Senior Analyst at the Eurasia Group, mentions furthermore, “In this age of rapid communications, the real decisions are made at home anyway,” and “The ambassadors are largely symbols these days. What it does say is that there are no major problems in the Japan-US relationship; it’s still a safe appointment, like to Britain or France” (“Why CarolineKennedy is likely to get a warm welcome in Japan”; Christian Science Monitor;April 2, 2013). Certainly, American presidents appointed political fundraisers to the ambassadors to Britain in reward of contribution to their election victory, as typically seen in the case of Joseph Kennedy.

However, in view of growing security challenges of China and North Korea, and complexity of Okinawa US base issues, some opinion leaders prefer much more professional ambassador to Tokyo. Remember that the Ambassador to Japan represents America’s strategic interests beyond Japan. No other places in the world are so ideally located than the Japanese archipelago to watch security challenges from Hawaii to the Indian Ocean. Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is right to emphasize such strategic value repeatedly. Newly appointed ambassador must be well aware of this.

Despite Kennedy’s popularity, some concerns are raised as she has no experience in diplomacy and public administration. Republican member of the House Foregin relations Committee Dana Rohrabackher says, “It thought it was an April Fool’s joke when I first heard about it, Our economic and national security are based on good will toward Japan. I have nothing against Caroline Kennedy becoming ambassador to, say, Barbados. But Japan is too important for somebody with no experience” (“Kennedy asJapan ambassador raises concerns amid N. Korea tensions”; FOX News;April 3, 2013). Even Clyde Prestowitz, President of the Economic Strategy Institute, who supported Obama in presidential elections, comments this critically. Compared with past ambassadors, Caroline Kennedy is no political heavy weight, and has little knowledge and experience in diplomacy and foreign affairs. Also, he says that she knows too little about Japanese culture and language (“Caroline Kennedy's appointment is not very Kennedyesque”; Foreign Policy--Clyde Prestowitz; April 2, 2013).

I agree to most of the above criticism, in view of Japan’s mistake to appoint Uichiro Niwa, former chairman of a Japanese general trading company Itochu Corporation, to the ambassador to China. But I do not think familiarity with Japanese language and culture so important as Prestowitz says, because current Japanese speak English more fluently and know American culture much more than those in the Edwin Reischauer days. Rather, we have focus on knowledge in security and skills in diplomacy and administration, particularly crisis management. From this point of view, I would argue that the next ambassador to Tokyo be selected from military veterans. Among military veterans, there are so many good candidates who inspire awe and respect to America, from Hawaii to the Indian Ocean.

The armed forces are landmines of good candidates, such as Admiral Michael Mullen, General David Petraeus, General Raymond Odierno, and so forth. If knowledge in Japanese affairs matters, then, Richard Armitage will be on the top list. Even among those who are unknown to the public, many generals and admirals are well qualified to outstare any security challenges rising in the Pacific and the Indian Oceans from Tokyo. Unknown man can become famous instantly, when he accomplishes great achievement. There is no reason to give special preferences for a celebrity. Since current US defense capabilities are shrinking due to budget cut and sequestration, such loss needs to be compensated with knowledge, skills, and personality of politicians and diplomats. Let me show a good example. People see current Russia much greater power than it actually is, and that owes to strenuous image of a KGB veteran Vladimir Putin. A US ambassador to Japan must be a John Wayne to demonstrate American prestige and strength, in order to overcome global and domestic difficulties. This is why I believe military veterans are more preferable to Caroline Kennedy for the ambassador to Japan.

                                             The next ambassador must speak softly, and carry a big stick

Whoever comes to Tokyo, the Japanese side is not in a position to call new ambassador persona non grata, unless he or she is seriously problematic to assume the mission. However, I believe it necessary to reconsider Kennedy’s job credentials on both sides of the Pacific. Some opinion leaders say being a woman is an advantage to deepen bilateral friendship, but gender equality is no priority issue between Japan and the United States today. Nor, do I believe that a princess of hereditary power represents the best of American culture. It is globally understood that a person who really represent the best of American culture and image is a man of man as typically portrayed by John Wayne. In other words, Tokyo needs a US ambassador who speaks softly while carrying a big stick. Remember that South Korea sends Lee Byung Kee, foreign policy advisor to President Park Guen Hye. Whose interest is it, if US ambassador is eclipsed by such brilliant diplomats from all over the world? For vital interests of Japan and the United States, the selection of the ambassador must be reconsidered.

The Iraq War and Its Implication to US Foreign Policy after 10 Years

This is the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War, and I would like to evaluate its cause and impacts on Middle East and global security, and discuss policy lessons for the future. The cause and impacts are closely related. Let me mention commentaries from policymaking insiders. The focal debate to start the war against Saddam Hussein was the threat of nuclear proliferation and its terrorist connections. David Frum, the speech writer of “The Axis of Evil Speech” by President then George W. Bush, narrates deep connections among anti-Western state and nonstate actors. Some people were skeptic to ties between Shiite Iran and Sunni Hamas, and Islamist Iran and communist North Korea. However, they have already turned out to be true. Moreover, the Khan network sold nuclear technology to Al Qaeda, and North Korea helped Syria build a nuclear facility in 2007 (The Speechwriter: David Frum on the Rhetoric of Iraq”; News Week; March 19, 2013).

Saddam Hussein may not have had nuclear weapons when he was defeated by the US-UK coalition. However, IAEA revealed a document that the Khan network offered extensive help for Iraq to build nuclear bomb within three years in 1990 (“Khan’s Bomb Offer to Saddam’s Iraq: Document Showing Iraq’s Interest in Nuclear Weapon Design”; ISIS Online News; April 1, 2010). The Axis of Evil including Iraq was real. Sectarian difference between Iran and Hamas means nothing. The United with Israel, a pro-Israeli civic organization in New York, releases a promotion video to compare Ahmadenejad’s Iran with Hitler’s Germany. Adolf Hitler committed the holocaust as he declared to annihilate Jewish people from Europe. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared to wipe out Israel from the map, and his Iran pursues the nuclear project despite worldwide pressure and criticism. Both Iran and Hamas have common enemies beyond sectarianism. Also, the Fordow accident has revealed deep ties between Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons.

In addition to nuclear threats, democracy and geopolitics are also important. Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton presents an overview of the Iraq War, and he argues that Saddam Hussein should have been removed after the Gulf War for Iraqi and regional stability. Therefore, he argues that it was a necessary mission. Furthermore, the United States faces challenges in Iran and Syria now, because it failed to turn attention to regime changes in both of them after toppling Saddam. Quite importantly, he stresses that Bush never manipulated information about Iraq’s nuclear weapon. It was common understanding among observers that Iraq hid nuclear weapons in those days, and even without WMDs, Iraq could have resumed the project to develop them to become a security threat to the region and the global community (“Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the right move for the US and its allies”; Guardian; 26 February, 2013). Conspiracy theory is still wide spread, but we have to understand that it does not make sense from well outlined analysis presented by Bolton.

For right evaluation of the Iraq War, it is necessary to examine US Middle East policy after liberating Kuwait from Saddam’s invasion in the Gulf War. Like John Bolton, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz comments that the Bush Sr. administration did not help anti-Saddam uprisings, which prolonged continual oppression by Saddam Hussein in Iraq and undermined America’s moral standings. In other words, hyper sensitivity to casualties left confusions in the region untouched, which exacerbated things happening there. Therefore, he criticizes the Obama administration for leaving Iraq too early. See the video of AEI interview on March 19 below.


 


Non-interventionists may argue that Saddam Hussein could have been toppled by his own people, but Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair comments that popular uprisings could have led to conflicts in Iraq much more bloodier than those in Syria (“Blair: Iraq uprising would have been 'worse than Syria'”; BBC News; 19 March, 2013). Blair’s case for intervention gives insightful lessons to Obama’s disengagement policy. For US allies, the Iraq War was a critical occasion to think of relations with the United States. But that is not enough. In acting with America, Blair had a vision of the Middle East after Saddam. However, it seems that the Japanese government did not have such a vision, and simply responded receptively to American and British requests, judging from an interview with Chief Cabinet Secretary-then Yasuo Fukuda. Furthermore, Fukuda even remarked the possibility of information manipulation about nuclear weapons by the Bush administration to start the war with Iraq (“10 Years from Iraq War: Interview with Yasuo Fukuda”; Asahi Shimbun; March 20, 2013). This is what Bolton denies flatly in his article to the Guardian.

I have no idea whether the above argument is Fukuda’s personal view, or the Koizumi administration’s view. Whatever the reason is, there is a sharp contrast between Fukuda and Blair. Apparently, Fukuda speaks as a bystander lacking confidence in the war, while Blair does as a stakeholder. This reflects the positions of both countries. Britain acts as a normal country having the special relationship with the United States, while Japan acts as a non-interventionist country upholding the pacifist constitution. Therefore, Britain joins the American world order, but Japan acts receptively just to solicit security umbrella to the United States. Blair talked about democracy promotion and conflict prevention in the Middle East upon acting with the United States, while Fukuda just talked about strengthening the US-Japanese alliance. Such a stark contrast should be born in mind when we discuss the series of the Armitage-Nye Report.

Above all, Saddam Hussein was overthrown, and nuclear threats of Iraq were removed. In view of the Arab Spring, let me talk about democracy promotion in the Middle East. Despite bitter criticism to Bush’s imperialistic policy, particularly among liberal civil societies, the Iraq War was a real start for the global community to discuss Middle East democratization. Nadim Shehadi, Associate Fellow at the Chatham House, points out that the media are biased with Obama’s policy directions to defy Bush legacies, but he argues that America’s soft power has risen in the Middle East from the time when it was allied with conservative monarchies and police states. An increasing number of Arab youth share American value of democracy, and enjoy American pop culture since the fall of Saddam. The critical point is, Democrats opposed the surge in 2007 to rescue Iraq from sectarian conflicts and terrorism. Today, we know that the surge worked. As Shehadi argues, Bush’s intervention will be reevaluated (“One day the world will thank Bush for shaking up the Arab region”; World Today; February 2013).

Remember the Green Movement in Iran in 2009, which is one year before the Arab Spring. Iranian people chanted for American help to support their quest for democracy, but Obama refused to do so. Senator John McCain criticized such a disengagement policy that disappointed freedom fighters in Iran. However, the quest for democracy is advancing. Even in Saudi Arabia, people are beginning to become aware of socio-economic inequality, and demanding political reforms. Accumulated wealth and religiously conservative mindsets in this country does not divert the passion for freedom away （“A growing divide in Saudi Arabia between rulers, ruled”; Washington Post; March 15, 2013).

Despite such invaluable gains through long and enduring involvement in Iraq, the Obama administration decided to pull out US forces while sectarian divisions make political progress stagnant and Iran’s influence grows in the Shiite region. Charles Krauthammer, Columnist at the Washington Post, comments that the United States lost a key ally that should have been a show case for democracy and a partner to curb terrorist and Iranian threats in the region, because Obama is reluctant to fulfill the role of the superpower. That ruins great sacrifices made during the Bush era. See the video of an interview by National Review Online on March 19.




The implication of Iraq is not just regional but global. Let me quote a final part of John Bolton’s article to the Guardian to conclude this post.

If Obama has his way in Washington's ongoing policy and budgetary debates, America will be withdrawing around the world and reducing its military capacity. This is what opponents of the 2003 Iraq war have long professed to want. If they actually get their wishes, it won't be long before they start complaining about it. You heard it here first.

The Range of North Korea’s Nuclear Missile

In view of the missile test by Kim Jong-un last December (“Onesmall step for Kim Jong Un”; CNN News; December 13, 2012), newly appointed secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced to boost missile defense system that the Obama administration cut in the first term (US to boost nuclear missile defence tocounter N Korea; BBC News; 16 March, 2013).  See the map below. Now, US territory Alaska is within the range of North Korean missile.

The threat of North Korea has grown to the level of the Pearl Harbor attack. The Fordow incident (“North Koreans among 40 dead atIran nuke plant”;WND; February 3, 2013) indicates the fear posed by the Axis of Evil primarily constituted of North Korea and Iran. How do we manage dangerous ambitions of both nuclear rogues?

America’s Strategic Re-Pivot to Europe and the Middle East

It seems that the second Obama administration is making a strategic re-pivot to Europe. During the Munich Security Conference, Vice President Joseph Biden launched a new initiative to boost trans-Atlantic ties. Since the Obama administration articulated strategic rebalance to Asia, in view of withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, Biden’s speech surprised the media. Biden called for close trans-Atlantic partnership in Middle East security from Mali to Syria and Iran, and mentioned Europe the cornerstone of US foreign policy (“Biden calls Europe 'thecornerstone' of USforeign policy”; Stars and Stripes; February 2, 2012). In addition to security, Biden proposed a free trade deal with Europe. Since Europe is the largest economic zone in the world, the rise of Asian economies does not necessarily overshadow the Atlantic ties. Europeans welcome Biden’s Munich speech (“Opinion: US rediscovers Europe”;Deutsche Welle; 3 February, 2013).

Following the Munich speech, President Barack Obama expressed his support for formal talks for a free trade agreement with the European Union in the State of the Union speech (“Obama injects optimism into trade deal”;Financial Times; February 13, 2013). A US-EU FTA would represent more than 40% of world GDP and nearly 50% of world foreign direct investment, while a Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) represents “only” 26% of world GDP. The proposed trans-Atlantic FTA is beyond job creation for the United States. On the other side of the Atlantic, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister David Cameron push for a trade pact with America. Also, both trade deals across the Atlantic and the Pacific are intended to promote liberal political values through economic activities (“EU-US Free TradeAgreement: End of the Asian Century?”; Diplomat; February 20, 2013).

As if showing America’s re-pivot, Secretary of State John Kerry is visiting Europe and the Middle East as the first trip abroad since his inauguration. Remember that his predecessor Hillary Clinton selected Asia for her first official visit (“Travel to Europe and the Middle East February 24, 2013 to March 6, 2013”; Department of State). In an interview of Andrea Mitchell Reports in NBC News on February 22, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen said that Kerry was expected to listen to requests by European and Middle Eastern allies on this trip. Currently, the United States faces common security challenges with them, notably, Syria and Iran. See the video below.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Last June, NATO summit in Chicagoimpressed disunity of the alliance and the lack of US leadership. It remains to be seen whether the trans-Atlantic alliance will be re-invigorated by the Munich speech and Kerry’s first trip.

The most important thing for US strategy is not a pivot to a specific region but fulfillment of global security responsibility, that is, maintaining the two MRC (major regional conflict) standard. Daniel Goure, Vice President at the Lexington Institute, raises a concern, “The continuing decline in real defense spending posed a larger problem for defense planners seeking to maintain a credible two-MTW capability.” 　Quite ironically, investment decline in military modernization pushes up the cost of equipment maintenance, and lowers the capability of conducting simultaneous global operations. Goure points out that the Bush administration tried to overturn such a trend even before 9-11 terrorist attacks (“The Measure of a Superpower:A Two Major Regional Contingency Military for the 21st Century”; Special Reporton National Security and Defense, Heritage Foundation; January 25, 2013). The Obama administration’s defense cut and withdrawal from the Middle East, notably Iraq and Afghanistan, raises critical concerns whether the United States is willing to fulfill the role of the superpower. More importantly, American defense against China has not been build up sufficiently under the pivot to Asia, as McKenzie Eaglen, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, argues (“Nearing coffincorner: US air power on the edge”; AEI National Security Outlook;March 2012).

The re-pivot to Europe and the Middle East can be interpreted as reconsideration of the above mentioned polices. Obama’s proposed cut of US troops in Afghanistan after complete transition of security responsibility in 2014 was bitterly criticized. Before the meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Washington, DC, the Obama administration even thought of stationing fewer troops in Afghanistan than Britain does (“Some in administration push for only a few thousand U.S. troops inAfghanistan after 2014”; Washington Post; January 8, 2013). Senator John McCain commented that drastic reduction of US troops in Afghanistan would be interpreted as American weakness in the War on Terror, in an interview with CBS News onJanuary 13. Vali Nasr, Dean of the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, mentions more critically, “If you’re Karzai, you’re basically now facing the same calculation that Maliki did in Iraq. If you’re not willing to stay in large numbers, why do I need you? ” (“PrioritiesAre Far Apart as Karzai and Obama Meet”; New York Times; January 10, 2013). The Obama administration announced to maintain 32,000 troops until Afghan presidential election in April 2014, but Pentagon press secretary George Little announced, "The administration is still reviewing options and has not made a decision about the size of a possible U.S. presence after 2014", and said "We will continue to discuss with Allies and the Afghans how we can best carry out two basic missions: Targeting the remnants of [al Qaeda] and its affiliates, and training and equipping Afghan forces"  (“Panetta:Final 32,000 American troops out of Afghanistan after 2014 elections”; DEFCONHill; February 22, 2013). Considering strategic sensitivity, Afghanistan will be a litmus test for the Obama administration’s engagement in the Middle East and vision of superpower role.

If the United States is to take well balanced strategic emphasis as the global superpower, rather than a Pacific regional power, that will be beneficial for Asian allies like Japan, Australia, South Korea, and so forth. Let me talk about this further in detail. Excessive pivot to Asia can marginalize Europe, and make it inward looking. But Asia needs major European powers along with the United States to manage geopolitical ambitions of China and nuclear North Korea. In addition, Middle East security is an issue of common interests for both Asia and Europe. Among them, Islamic radicalism is the most imminent threat. In the Algeria hostage crisis this year, terrorists attacked non-Muslim foreigners, both Asians and Westerners. Historically, Islamic radicals raided not Christians and Judaists, but also Hindus and Buddhists. Their terrorism is not resistance against “Western crusaders”, but defiance to secular and liberal world order. Energy security is another reason why Asia needs America’s balanced strategic emphasis. Emerging economies in Asia depend on oil and gas import from the Middle East, and US pullout from the region does not work for their interests. Also, we have to note that the Noda administration of Japan made a deal with Central Asian countries on gas supply. In this case, Afghan is a potential route for pipelines in the future. Moreover, Iran’s connection with North Korea has become apparent in the Fordow accident as two North Koreans were killed (“North Koreans among 40 dead at Iran nuke plant”;WND; February 3, 2013).

In view of global Great Games in this century, premature US withdrawal from the Middle East and downturn of the trans-Atlantic alliance can provoke geopolitical challengers like China, Russia, and other emerging powers to defy American supremacy. Let me mention a historical analogy. In World War II, the fall of Singapore eroded British prestige, not just in Asia, but in Europe and the Middle East as well. But unlike Britain in early Pacific War, current America is not defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, some Pacific nations like Japan share more common political interests with Europe than its neighbors. As an old ally to the United States and a major industrialized democracy, Obama’s shift to emerging economies in the name of the pivot to Asia can lead to relative decline of Japan’s importance to America.

Military strength itself is not necessarily almighty to boost America’s global position, but that is the key to maintain US preeminence over geopolitical challengers. The most critical problem is not strategic balance but defense cut. Particularly, the sequestration will impose critical restrictions on US foreign policy options. David Frum, Contributing Editor at News Week, denounces some fiscal conservatives among the Republican Party such as Representative Paul Ryan, as they remarked that they were eager to force a budget sequester in March. In view of fatal consequence of the additional spending cut on defense, Frum urged defense hawks to act to stop the sequestration (“Defense Hawks, America Needs You Now”; Daily Beast; January 31,2013). Military operations and equipments are not the only victims of this defense cut. Administrative and logistical tasks, and civilian employment are also sacrificed (“Budget Crisis Impact Laid Out By U.S. Navy”; Defense News; January25, 2013). In addition, training will be curtailed drastically (“Army: 78% OfCombat Brigades Will Skip Training Due To Sequester, CR”; AOL Defense; February5, 2013). Those negative impacts will pose considerable constraints on US foreign policy to manage crises on two fronts simultaneously. In order to avoid this, the Foreign Policy Initiatives sent an open letter to leaders of the Democrat andthe Republican parties at the Senate and the House on February 19. However, the White House and the Hill failed to reach an agreement.The sequester starts from a 20 percent pay cut for military technicians  (“Sequester causes military spending cuts”; WTHI-TV News; 2 March 2013).

The world needs America capable of managing crises on two fronts. From this perspective, we should welcome Washington’s policy turn suggested by Biden’s speech at Munich. There are no reasons for the United States to act like Britain at the time of the fall of Singapore. Obama’s failure to manage partisan split has undermined America’s leadership on the global stage. The Munich speech and Secretary Kerry’s first official trip may be the start of restoring the trans-Atlantic alliance and Middle East involvement. The combined effect of sequester and strategic re-pivot needs further observation.

Both Leaders and the Public Need Understandings on Crisis Management

In view of increasingly diversifying nature of security threats to untraditional areas, crisis management capability has become an important credential for national and corporate leaders. However, they learn it on OJT basis mostly, and fundamental concept of it is not sufficiently taught in college and graduate courses. Come to think of it, basic notions of other policy agendas, such as economics, foreign policy, defense, public administration, and so forth, are core subjects of social science in higher education. New security concepts after the Cold War necessitates more understandings on crisis management prevailed among the global public.

The way of dealing with crisis differs by actors by actors. Stark differences are seen between state actors and non state actors. State actors are authorized to use force as the last resort to resolve the crisis. On the other hand, unlike the East India Company in the era of colonial mercantilism, non state actors today are not armed to defeat insurgents, terrorists, and whoever threatens their vital interests. Therefore, sovereign state has ultimate resources in crisis management. The public needs to be well educated to watch, exert influence on, and cooperate with the government.

Let me talk about two cases. One is a natural disaster without precedence, which is the Fukushima accident in 2011, following the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. This is the first incident of human history that nuclear power plant was hit by natural disaster, and unlike Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, no instruction manuals assumed such a thing. Criticism to Japanese Prime Minister-then Naoto Kan spurred as the media and the public were upset with the crisis. They were obsessed with specific errors in his conducts, but failed to discuss his policy and administration skill to manage the crisis.

The other case is a man-made disaster, which is the In Aménas hostage crisis in Algeria this year. Though victims were multinational, the Bouteflika administration of Algeria attacked the site to defeat terrorists without sufficient consideration to global standards for safety of the captive. The Algerian government did not even consider requesting foreign intervention to help their troops, though American, British, and French Special Forces are more skilled to execute the mission to balance counterterrorism and hostage safety.

We, including the media know too little about crisis management. Thus, we may make a wrong judgment about the conduct of leaders in crisis. In other words, we can evaluate on going situations quite emotionally. Therefore, it is necessary to promote understanding and awareness on crisis management. Think tanks and private foundations can host forums and lectures on to educate the public. Preferably, these events should be open to anyone through internet videos, not just accessible to closed members. Also, fundamental concepts of crisis management should be taught in more college courses from undergraduate level. Good national and corporate leaders need comprehensive and systematic understanding of this area. It is too dangerous that training for crisis management is substantially dependent on OJT. 

Why Should Obama Reconsider Withdrawal From Afghanistan?

President Barack Obama announced massive troop cut in Afghanistan at the joint press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai on January 11. Is this strategy right? See the following two videos.

In terms of military strategy, Frederick Kagan, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, comments that sufficient number of frontline bases are indispensable for helicopter operations in remote areas. If troops are cut substantially, those bases will be concentrated on Kabul, which makes it difficult to attack terrorist bases in the Af-Pak border area.

Senator John McCain criticized that President Barack Obama’s decision overruled advises from the army as in the case of Iraq, in an interview with CBS News on January 13. Such disengagement will be interpreted as the weakness and reluctance of the United States in the War on Terror. This would ultimately pose negative impacts to US national security.

Both politically and militarily, Obama’s post 2014 strategy needs to be reconsidered.