-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Josh Rogin
Friday, March 18, 2011 - 12:26 PM
Share
At the start of this week, the consensus around Washington was that military action against Libya was not in the cards. However, in the last several days, the White House completely altered its stance and successfully pushed for the authorization for military intervention against Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi. What changed?
The key decision was made by President Barack Obama himself at a Tuesday evening senior-level meeting at the White House, which was described by two administration officials as "extremely contentious." Inside that meeting, officials presented arguments both for and against attacking Libya. Obama ultimately sided with the interventionists. His overall thinking was described to a group of experts who had been called to the White House to discuss the crisis in Libya only days earlier.
"This is the greatest opportunity to realign our interests and our values," a senior administration official said at the meeting, telling the experts this sentence came from Obama himself. The president was referring to the broader change going on in the Middle East and the need to rebalance U.S. foreign policy toward a greater focus on democracy and human rights.
But Obama's stance in Libya differs significantly from his strategy regarding the other Arab revolutions. In Egypt and Tunisia, Obama chose to rebalance the American stance gradually backing away from support for President Hosni Mubarak and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and allowing the popular movements to run their course. In Yemen and Bahrain, where the uprisings have turned violent, Obama has not even uttered a word in support of armed intervention - instead pressing those regimes to embrace reform on their own. But in deciding to attack Libya, Obama has charted an entirely new strategy, relying on U.S. hard power and the use of force to influence the outcome of Arab events.
"In the case of Libya, they just threw out their playbook," said Steve Clemons, the foreign policy chief at the New America Foundation. "The fact that Obama pivoted on a dime shows that the White House is flying without a strategy and that we have a reactive presidency right now and not a strategic one."
Inside the administration, senior officials were lined up on both sides. Pushing for military intervention was a group of NSC staffers including Samantha Power, NSC senior director for multilateral engagement; Gayle Smith, NSC senior director for global development; and Mike McFaul, NSC senior director for Russia. .
On the other side of the ledger were some Obama administration officials who were reportedly wary of the second- and third-degree effects of committing to a lengthy military mission in Libya. These officials included National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was also opposed to attacking Libya and had said as much in several public statements.
Not all of these officials were in Tuesday night's meeting.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called into the meeting over the phone, a State Department official confirmed. She was traveling in the region to get a first-hand look at how the new U.S. Middle East strategy is being received across the Arab world. Denied a visit with Egyptian youth leaders on the same day she strolled through Tahir Square, Clinton may have been concerned that the United States was losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab youth at the heart of the revolution.
When Clinton met with the G8 foreign ministers on Monday, she didn't lay out whether the United States had a favored response to the unfolding crisis in Libya, leaving her European counterparts completely puzzled. She met Libyan opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril in Paris but declined to respond positively to his request for assistance. This all gave the impression that Clinton was resisting intervention. In fact, she supported intervention, State Department official said, but had to wait until the Tuesday night meeting so that she didn't get out ahead of U.S. policy.
At the end of the Tuesday night meeting, Obama gave U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice instructions to go the U.N. Security Council and push for a resolution that would give the international community authority to use force. Her instructions were to get a resolution that would give the international community broad authority to achieve Qaddafi's removal, including the use of force beyond the imposition of a no-fly zone.
Speaking before the U.N. Security Council following Thursday's 10-0 vote, Rice made the humanitarian argument that force was needed in Libya to prevent civilian suffering.
"Colonel Qaddafi and those who still stand by him continue to grossly and systematically abuse the most fundamental human rights of Libya's people," Rice said. "On March 12, the League of Arab States called on the Security Council to establish a no-fly zone and take other measures to protect civilians. Today's resolution is a powerful response to that call-and to the urgent needs on the ground."
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also said on Thursday that the justification for the use of force was based on humanitarian grounds, and referred to the principle known as Responsibility to Protect (R2P), "a new international security and human rights norm to address the international community's failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity."
"Resolution 1973 affirms, clearly and unequivocally, the international community's determination to fulfill its responsibility to protect civilians from violence perpetrated upon them by their own government," he said.
Inside the NSC, Power, Smith, and McFaul have been trying to figure out how the administration could implement R2P and what doing so would require of the White House going forward. Donilon and McDonough are charged with keeping America's core national interests more in mind. Obama ultimately sided with Clinton and those pushing R2P -- over the objections of Donilon and Gates.
Congress was not broadly consulted on the decision to intervene in Libya, except in a Thursday afternoon classified briefing where administration officials explained the diplomatic and military plan. Rice was already deep in negotiations in New York.
Obama's Tuesday night decision to push for armed intervention was not only a defining moment in his ever-evolving foreign policy, but also may have marked the end of the alliance between Clinton and Gates -- an alliance that has successfully influenced administration foreign policy decisions dating back to the 2009 Afghanistan strategy review.
"Gates is clearly not on board with what's going on and now the Defense Department may have an entirely another war on its hands that he's not into," said Clemons. "Clinton won the bureaucratic battle to use DOD resources to achieve what's essentially the State Department's objective... and Obama let it happen."
UPDATE: A previous version of this story stated that Vice President Joseph Biden pushed for the imposition of a no fly zone in Libya. Friday afternoon, a senior White House official told The Cable that, in fact, Biden shared the same concerns of Gates, Donilon and McDonough and that those concerns have been addressed by the policy announced by the president.
Getty Images
EXPLORE:AFRICA, ARAB WORLD, MIDDLE EAST, DIPLOMACY, LIBYA, MILITARY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, STATE DEPARTMENT, U.S. CONGRESS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, UNITED NATIONS 
I see the State Department's spin operation is in good working order.
Was this a case of Sec. Clinton using the process to get a passive President Obama to overrule objections of the Defense Department from the other side of the Atlantic, as Steve Clemons suggests? I doubt that, frankly, especially given that Obama has kept Clinton on a relatively short leash on many policy issues. It is more likely that Obama signaled his move toward supporting intervention through the administration's elaborate internal communications network and Clinton accommodated herself to his preferences.
One possibility I had considered now looks remote to me after reading this account. The easiest way to stop Qadhafi now would be for Qadhafi to stop himself -- to make him think crushing the rebels in Benghazi would bring on an American attack without actually setting an attack in motion. It occurred to me earlier that this might be one reason governments opposed to intervention, like Russia and China, had merely abstained from supporting the UN resolution.
However, the Obama administration makes policy by committee, even though the President has the decisive voice. I think this means using the UN resolution as part of a bluff is too subtle a maneuver to have been tried. Nixon's policymaking team (which was often just two people) could have bluffed, and Reagan's might have. Obama's is just too big, too leaky, and too unwieldy for something like that to work.
Do we next target Bahrain? Yemen? If we are going to protect Libyan civilians why not civilians in other African and Middle Eastern States?
This will be a failure on two fronts if: 1. Qadaffi eventually wins anyway 2. Bahrain and Yemen continue to kill their own people who protest and the US does nothing about it. Any credibility gained by helping the Libyan people will be instantly lost if we don't apply the same standards to other nations.
You can add North Korea for isnatnce, where there is a terrible regime starving its own population. But this country has the bomb...
The western powers (with some regional emerging powers) clearly can't be the police of the whole world. The task would be impossible and in many cases, too dangerous.
But in Libya, we have the opportunity to stop a mad dog who poisoned the whole area for decades, who supported terrorism, and who is a butcher for his people.
The Arab League supports a military intervention to stop the slaughter.
So we have a green light to perform a good job there.
In Bahrein, the situation is quite different and complex. The Shiites ask more power, and the fear is that Iran is behind them. I don't think so, but it's what pretends the regime. And the Saudis sent troops to help the government. Saudi Arabia and Barhrein are two key US allies in the Gulf. So if the western powers blamed the violence, a US military intervention is unthinkable there.
A 'reactive presidency' instead of a 'strategic' one? Considering the differences in our relations with nations like Bahrain and Yemen compared to our relations with Libya and the suddenness of events I'm not quite sure what Mr. Clemons wants.
Absolutely agree, Grant. Things are moving so fast in the Arab world, you have to think on your feet. It makes no sense to criticise western governments for applying different responses to different situations.
That's a good one. 'strategic' is the new 'vote present'
I agree. I think that there is a strategy, combined with careful calibrated tactics, not a one size fits all situations in a quite heterogeneous region. In Libya, a new approach to multilateral engagement is being revealed, combining realism, idealism and multilateralism. It involves a basic recognition that 2011 in North Africa and the Middle East is quite similar to 1989 in the former Soviet bloc (see http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/02/the-week-in-pre-and-review-revolution-in-egypt-and-beyond/). As there and then, outcomes are going to be quite varied and a wise US policy needs to take this into account.
It is was made pretty clear by the White House a week ago that the US would only intervene on humanitarian grounds, and that those grounds did not exist a week ago. It wasn't long ago that most people thought Quaddafi would be pushed out by his own people. There has never been any love lost between Libya and the US, but I think the US Administration thought they were too close to their desired outcome to see the rebels fall now.
I believe it is a little to late. I really think it was more Clinton doing than our president and another thing because of our slothfulness, I think we made quite a few enemies over there. I also think if this is not done right , we will see Al Qaeda quietly move in and create chaos. Whatever is done by the western forces must be done quickly, surgically and with such power, that many would say they western forces tread slowly but they carry a big stick.
What objective? How do we achieve it?
I keep reading how the President will only do this with clear objectives, but I have yet to see anything resembling a clear objective other than "safeguard civilians" which is pretty damn ambiguous in my book. Safeguard them for how long? Safeguard them where? Safeguard them how? Do we have a strategic vision for Libya? Can we possibly safeguard anyone there longer than the next six months without one? What about Qadaffi? Can we safeguard the civilians from a murdering dictator if we leave allow him to rule? If we don't want to allow him to rule, then how do we eliminate him? If we take him out, what do we implement after he is gone (we have a bad habit of getting this part wrong)?
I see an awful lot of wishful thinking going into this and no real practical discussion on where this leads and how we intend to get there. I have more than a little experience with no-fly zones myself and I can tell you it is by no means any kind of a solution. We thought it would be a solution in Iraq right up until Saddam put down a rebellion right underneath our F-16s and F-15s. Then we were stuck with it for several years until that costly war nobody wants to repeat. And yet, until I see anything to the contrary it appears to me we are headed down exactly that same path.
Why are we even having a discussion about what the president may or may not be doing over Libya? He has no clue how to govern or how to conduct foreign policy. The sooner he is gone from office the sooner this country can get back to truly representing democracy and being a beacon of hope for the rest of the world.
There is a reason people around the world are fleeing their own countries and trying to get into the US.
Obama's foreign policy is quite clever and clearsightened
Right on the contrary, I think that Obama's foreign policy is clever and clearsightened. How ne managed the egyptian crisis is a good example. He managed to ease Mubarak's departure without endangering the political stability of Egypt.
True, in Libya, I think that he reacted too late, but he finally took the good decision, pushed in that way by the French and British governments, and the Arab League.
Since his election, he gave a better image of the US in the world, severely damaged by GWB.
It's the response of an individual who hasn't a clue. A broken clock is correct twice a day.
Obama will go down as the worst US president in history. I'm sorry that our political parties are so corrupt that we don't have any real candidates to vote for.
Title of worst president ever has already been claimed
Agree about Obama not living up to (admittedly) messianic standards and having inherited a truly overflowing plate - and I am going back to my policy of never voting GOP or Dem again after this term - BUT the neocons and people like a couple of the commenters just above are too zealous in their condemning of Obama as the worst president ever (which makes it hard to take them seriously).
1. His first term isn't even up yet. Even if you're blind or delusional in regards to the sheer, appalling comprehensive ineptitude of the previous 2-term administration in hindsight, how can you already pass any judgement on Obama's 3 years ? That's just ridiculous.
2. It's very disappointing that Obama ignored even Gates input in regards to authorizing military action and succumbed to either peer pressure or whatever hidden impetus, but at least he didn't go in guns blazing and with total disregard to the prevailing winds of the international community. Not that foreign policy should be a function of popular approval, but I'll take this measured approach to things any day over ham-handed, unilateral misadventures anytime. There can't be anyone here that's seriously looking for another Iraq.
3. Now that come nuance has been established (one hopes), here we go into another morass overseas. Sigh...
Turnaround? HAH! What turnaround?
As I type this, Libyan tanks are rolling into the rebellion's main base. Despite his declaration of a "cease fire", 'ol Muammar hasn't taken his foot off the gas one bit. He knows full well that Barack Obama doesn't have the stomach for a fight. As with everything else he does, this song & dance at the UN to which Obama consented is for nothing more than show. He has no intention of doing anything of real substance in Libya and is probably hoping that the whole thing will just be over soon.
He blew a golden opportunity to overthrow the corrupt, medieval rulers of Iran two years ago, and now he's on the verge of blowing an opportunity to get rid of a global pariah who has the blood of dozens of innocent American citizens on his hands.
God, I can't believe we actually elected this spineless empty suit to the presidency. If John McCain were president, the fighting in Libya would be over by now and Quadaffi would be either dead or in jail. As a close aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was recently quoted as saying "It's amateur night at the White House." No wonder she's publicly telling reporters like Wolf Blitzer that she has no intention of staying on as SOS should Barry O. be lucky enough to win re-election.
November 2012 can't get here fast enough for me.
The attitude toward toward foreign policy of neocons like you is precisely why we have anti-Western terrorism and dissent. If things were done your way, the world would be in a greater form of chaos, and lots more people would be dead or unhappy. Take your narrow-minded, bloody aspirations for a misguided U.S. Christian global empire and shove them up your ass.
Key administration players here seem to be NSC and Rice at UN. Total end-run around State. Expect new SecState in 6 months.
If my understanding is correct, once the UN decided on a No-fly zone resolution the Administration was all behind it with full support. At least that is the order of the reporting. There was no change in thinking, no hashing things out. The President sat and dithered until someone else made a decision. No UN resolution, no Administration action. This will be born out further when Kadaffi violates the resolution and crosses the President's "line in the sand" and the ineffective UN then dithers.
Nothing worse than a Chickenhawk attacking a much weaker nation. Nothing worse than interfering in the internal problems of a sovereign nation.
Obama July 14, 2008, editorial in the New York Times, where Obama wrote, "I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks."
Libya is no imminent threat.
You got it right on the spot, and it's actually quite easy to understand why did USA start the war in Iraq and why is now starting it in Libya.
Both are no imminent threats to USA.
So transparent. But, they are mayor fuel forces (!), and that about sums it up. America is strategically doing this in the spirit of capitalism to became even more stronger. You think this is because of the slaughtered people? How naive can you be after everything in Iraq. Tank, gas, power.... strategic they are well aware of and of course they inside the meetings. And then the made up story for the public. But it's up on you to believe or not their "explanations". They all work together, and the goal is to take advantage and make profit on long terms. To make money, to control gas.
They didn't attack Sudan, Egypt, Tunisya, Behrein, just because they are not important for USA profit goals.
I recommend you all to read a book by Naomi Klein The Shock Doctrine to get a clearer perspective on Americans wars.
You got it right on the spot, and it's actually quite easy to understand why did USA start the war in Iraq and why is now starting it in Libya.
Both are no imminent threats to USA.
So transparent. But, they are mayor fuel forces (!), and that about sums it up. America is strategically doing this in the spirit of capitalism to became even more stronger. You think this is because of the slaughtered people? How naive can you be after everything in Iraq. Tank, gas, power.... strategic they are well aware of and of course they keep inside the meetings. And then the made up story for the public. But it's up on you to believe or not their "explanations". They all work together, and the goal is to take advantage and make profit on long terms. To make money, to control gas.
They didn't attack Sudan, Egypt, Tunisia, Behrein, just because they are not important for USA profit goals.
I recommend you all to read a book by Naomi Klein The Shock Doctrine to get a clearer perspective on Americans wars.
And of course back then they were telling that it did have everything to do with 9 11. That was the perfect excuse. And then the change of the story. Same as now. I mean, how such smart professionals working for the biggest and strongest country can make such a mistake??? To realize after the war that the reason for starting it - was totally false! Thatcountry had nothing to do with 9 11.
But psssssst that country is a fuel force. But shut that up.
Honestly, isn't that quite a mistake for USA to make? :D Not even know the real reason for starting a war.
Or, *they* did know that wasn't the reason, but they had to lie to the public, that's why it is called politics.
Same as with Libya. The story will change how situation will progress and USA goals achieved.
*Bahrain*
Its frightening! Obama is taking the U.S. into war, without Congressional approval, against a nation that is absolutely NO threat to the United States. A nation that gave us its programs for weapons of mass destruction. We're told its because civilians are being killed in their civil war? Well if that's why why did Obama tell the world we didn't want to meddle when the Iranians shot Neda down in the street. Iran does threaten the U.S. At least George Bush made a case for going into Iraq and got Congressional approval. Obama is taking our poor debt ridden leaderless nation to war against a nation that doesn't threaten us? Why? Because he looked fooling saying Gadaffi had to go, and Gadaffi didn't go? How many lives will be lost? How many hundreds of billions will Obama adventure cost? How will we get out? Should Congress have to approve this, its not an emergency? What is Obama doing and why?
War? Apparently you haven't been following the announcements. France and the U.K are leading this one and it isn't even clear if anyone intends to send soldiers on the ground. Check the facts.
I truly hope you know that what Obama says is not holy truth.
He says what is well prepared by his people, they tell many things that are just to shush people out, true situation sand theirs goals they keep in their private meetings.
So what is public told is you know rarely the real truth.
We would be shocked to actually know what are they doing. But basically they aren't helping poor Libya people. :D Not as simple as that. It never was.
"At least George Bush made a case for going into Iraq and got Congressional approval."
Based on lies... and he still screwed the pooch in Iraq and Afghanistan. If he's your idea of "professional" you may as well disband the U.S. military and let the Girl Guides defend the U.S.
I guess getting the UN's permission is more important than ever talking to Congress . . . or even having DOD sign on . . . . I mean what can those clowns know anyway?
Well, cruise missiles were admittedly the Clinton approach for pre-9/11 Afghanistan and apparently no tent or camel was safe. No risk, no fuss, no muss. One just hopes that Libyan aspirin factories don't have air defenses.
I'm so glad I'm no longer in uniform right now and am missing the current re-run of Ted Mack's "Original Amateur Hour."
Plan . . . plan . . . who really needs one? With a community organizer in charge, what could go wrong?
Bush Doctrine Revised: Obama puts his stamp
The Western/Saudi/Qatari military intervention in Libya sets a dangerous precedent. The charade of overthrowing regimes and invading countries in the name of democracy was a bloody farce in the case of Bush era. They now don't need to do that. They can just jump on the case where they see a potential for a real democratic change and then guarantee the installation of a puppet regime without having "boots on the ground", as Obama kept warning in White House meetings. They bomb and kill and manage to maintain a high tone of moral uprightness while the puppet Arab League puts its ugly stamp to make it look like an Arab affair. A useful idiot is needed, of course, and Mustafa `Abdul-Al-Jalil is perfect for the role and he has been so chummy with Saudi propaganda as of late. Obama has modified Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: not only maintaining the occupations but guaranteeing long-term presence in both countries. He has also started a war in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen where the US is a major force in the war there. Western enthusiasm for intervention in Libya has never even been explained: why the hundreds of deaths in Egypt or Tunisia did not warrant any condemnation (the State Department did manage to condemn the protesters in Egypt, lest we forget too soon)? Israel manages to kill far more than Qadhdhafi and in shorter periods of time, and we never encounter the "humanitarian" impulse of Western governments there. Western military intervention in Libya is far more dangerous: it is intended to legitimize the return of colonial powers to our region and 2) perhaps as importantly to abort democratic uprisings all over the region. Bahrain of today is the vision for Libya of tomorrow, as far as the West is concerned.
Angry Arab Blog
Saturday, March 19, 2011
obama's war for oil is about 2012
Obama has learned what every president for over 100 years has had to learn...the world runs on oil and will continue to do so for at least another generation, instability in the middle east causes oil prices to rise, high fuel prices will kill a president's re-election hope....and therefore war to maintain stability in oil rich countries is sometimes politically necessary
This might very well be true, but...
... until we're ready to significantly make changes to our consumptive and wasteful lifestyles, it's not entirely fair to condemn our public officials for simply playing the re-election game. I'm sure if you and I had the wherewithal to back a pro-environmentalist, pro-humanitarian candidate from a grass roots level on up and walked or took public transportation more or elected to forego some niceties to which we've become addicted and to which we feel entitled, the the winds of real change might actually be in the air.
So, not anytime soon...
Chalk up another loss for the West in its "War on Terror."
@Khalid, it's not possible. Europe will end the war in Libya soon, even when they attack by air strike only.
America has proven that it's party leadership really has no influence on it's Foreign Policy. Obama went from condemning military presence and action in Iraq and Afghanistan before being elected to increasing troop presence in Afghanistan to throwing American into another large scale military conflict oversees which will cost more money, resources, and allies that we have to spare...
If the greatest American threat is from a terrorist group obtaining WMD's than why are are supporting an ousting of a US friendly leader who has completely given up his WMD program, provided invaluable information in regards to underground WMD activity, and cooperated in just about every regard since. What incentive doe this give North Korea or Iran to ever come full circle with their programs....
No we have troops and/or resources being spent in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Bahrain, and Libya while our economy if bleeding out domestically. We cannot afford to take action against Libya. I am as concerned about human rights violations as anyone else but we certainly do not jump into ever human rights violation across the globe and Libya does not merit enough potential benefit to legitimize US military action.
What exactly are we doing in Libya and where will our involvement lead us? I've not heard answers to those questions. I do know however that the main Naval assets in the arena are not carriers but are instead amphibeous invasion ships and this brings one of my concerns to the fore. I worry alot that this little operation could turn into the kind of humanitarian operation we saw in Somalia 20 years ago. Our Marines don't need to be there. Why are the amphibious warships, the USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce, there if we're not planning on putting boots on the ground? What are we thinking?
Sarkozy snookered Hillary and Hillary snookered Obama with help from some of her friends like Kerry and McCaine and of course don’t forget Lieberman…..Obama promised during his campaign he wouldn’t warmonger , yet he started a new war with 2 war already going…..when our best friend and ally Japan needs our help so they get back on their feet as soon as possible….because China has nothing to worry about now ……Obama is out of the country and gave orders for war……snookered the Arabs in …they thought a no fly zone means a no fly zone, why the UN must have laughed behind their backs ...and we the american people have to watch helpless what this in my opinion monster is doing….we should not let him back in to our country… in my opinion, .we should impeach him during his absence so he can find his calling , being a preacher man in South America….he keeps talking to other countries about self determination and the will of the people, yet he goes over our heads here in america and makes war without consulting our representatives in Washington...
President Obama wanted to wait until he saw which way the wind was blowing. Based upon his actions, he saw he had France and the UK in agreement, but it was the Arab League's indorsement he wanted. He got it and turned on a dime. Obama will not overturn a Muslim Republic (Iran) but he will in a dictatorial Muslim state. Now, the biggest test yet, what will he do in Syria? Iran is busy building a Naval port in Syria for one purpose only: Israel's destruction. Keep your eyes on Turkey, ole Recep Erdogan is the key player in the Muslim world and President Obama wants to be admired by the Muslim world. At last but not least, George Bush at least consulted congress before he attacked Saddam Hussein.
John Hudson reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(38)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE