Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Follow Carnegie
- Search
- Global Resources
Global Centers
Languages
On July 26, the parents of Jeffrey Lucey, an Iraq vet who committed suicide, filed suit in Massachusetts against the Department of Veterans Affairs for "wrongful death" and "medical malpractice." The Luceys could win their case. In April 2007, the VA's Inspector General concluded that the VA Medical Center in Leeds had made mistakes in dealing with Jeffrey Lucey. But the questions about this case go beyond the already well-documented incompetence of the Veterans Administration. They involve the effect of the Iraq war on the mental health of American soldiers.
Is the United States out of the intervention business for a while? With two difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a divided public, the conventional answer is that it will be a long time before any American president, Democrat or Republican, again dispatches troops into conflict overseas. As usual, though, the conventional wisdom is almost certainly wrong.
The years immediately following the end of the Cold War offered a tantalizing glimpse at a new kind of international order -- one in which nations would grow together or disappear altogether, ideological conflicts would melt away and cultures would intermingle through increasingly free commerce and communications. It was the end of international competition, the end of geopolitics, the end of history. But it was all something of a mirage.
The U.S. plan to sell over $20 billion worth of weaponry to Arab allies, to counter Iran's ascendance, attempts to contain Iran and force it to spend money on an arms race instead of developing its economy, intimidating it into bankruptcy. One major flaw in this plan is its failure recognize that Iran's growing influence is not due to hard power but to its use of soft power and militias.
The United States and India announced the completion of negotiations on the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal on July 27. Carnegie Senior Associate Ashley J. Tellis has been widely recognized as one of the core individuals who made the U.S.-India nuclear deal possible. A recent Indian Express article by Pranab Dhal Samanta discusses the individuals and crucial moments that provided the political climate for the two countries to reach an agreement.
The Bush administration is concerned that China's "blue-water navy" could encroach upon American prerogatives in the Pacific. Human rights activists demand the release of thousands of Chinese political prisoners. American consumers are up in arms over tainted Chinese pharmaceuticals, toothpaste, and dog food. But what is most worrisome about China is how it has ascended as a world economic power.
On Jan. 11, 2007, a Chinese medium-range ballistic missile slammed into an aging weather satellite in space. The resulting collision not only marked Beijing's first successful anti-satellite (ASAT) test but, in the eyes of many, also a head-on collision with the Bush administration's space policies.
The premise of the United States' current strategy in Iraq — that a political solution would follow if the violence could be reduced — is false. What is underway today in Iraq is a natural and inevitable struggle for power. The American presence delays what will eventually happen anyway.
Dr. Ashley J. Tellis, who has been intimately involved in the negotiations of the Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement, believes 'this is the last chance the two sides have to get the impasse over the 123 Agreement resolved and get going on the next phase of the deal before problems arise with the Congressional calendar.'
If foreign consumers — and their governments — believe that Chinese products are unfit for consumption and the Chinese government is not taking effective measures, they will curtail Chinese imports significantly. The “Made in China” label, now synonymous with low prices, could quickly lose its consumer appeal.
Stay connected to the Global Think Tank with Carnegie's smartphone app for Android and iOS devices