Follow AEI and AEI Scholars on:

Good afternoon and welcome to The Rundown. This weekend, violence escalated in Ukraine, Syrian rebels lost the stronghold of Homs, and 2,000 people were killed in a mudslide in Afghanistan. But enough about that; let’s talk about the White House Correspondents Dinner! Did you see Jessica Simpson? Sofia Vergara? Far from bringing Hollywood style to Washington substance, the event managed to bring Hollywood substance to Washington style. Imagine. Have a good week, Your AEI Foreign and Defense Policy Studies team

Tweet of the Week Sadanand Dhume @dhume Intriguing possibility: The biggest hurdle to Rahul Gandhi one day becoming prime minister of India is his sister. #GameOfThrones

In the News American Internationalism Project It’s never a good day for Barack Obama when The New York Times echoes the now conventional wisdom that “[i]t does not feel as if he is exercising sufficient American leadership and power” in foreign policy. In reality, the public’s demand for US leadership remains strong — indeed, stronger than many headlines would have you believe. On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal argued, based on a poll it conducted with NBC, that “Americans in large numbers want the US to reduce its role in world affairs” despite the turmoil in Ukraine, Syria, the Middle East and elsewhere. A grave concern for US foreign policy? Maybe, if it were true. In a Foreign Policy article by Senators Joseph Lieberman and Jon Kyl, cochairs of AEI’s American Internationalism Project, they explain that “The time has come for the advocates of US passivity to stop talking about the popular mandate they never had and to speak honestly to the American people. And it's high time for others to stop cowering before this imaginary consensus. There are real challenges to US security and prosperity out there — from Ukraine to Iran, Syria to China. It's time to give Americans the

leadership they want.” Ukraine On Sunday, as Ukraine’s prime minister was visiting Odessa, a mob stormed a police station in the Black Sea port and freed 67 pro-Russian militants from detention. The Ukraine crisis, conceived and executed by the Kremlin, is part and parcel of Vladimir Putin’s long game. In his most recent Russian Outlook, AEI's Leon Aron explains that “Completing, post-Crimea annexation, the inextricable merger of his physical existence with that of his regime, Putin has stepped on the dictator-for-life escalator from which only physical demise, whether peaceful or violent, provides exit.” Also see Aron's AEIdeas blog post titled “Putin's motivations: A helpful hint for Secretary Kerry.” As the West continues to seek options for Ukraine, John Bolton reflects on what could have been if Georgia and Ukraine had been accepted to NATO in 2008: “Had the Europeans backed Bush in 2008, we might well have deterred Russian military and political aggression in both Georgia and Ukraine. In truth, Europe’s timidity is a real obstacle to a more assertive response to Russian aggression.” Bolton continues, “Obama’s own weakness has created a vicious circle. European fears provide Obama with an excuse not to act, and the failure of U.S. leadership leaves Europe even more reluctant to respond effectively. It may be that Europe is not up to the task, but we will never find out if America does not first at least try to exercise leadership, which Obama has consistently failed to do.” East Asia Thousands of Philippine and US soldiers began annual war games on Monday, the first under a new security pact with the United States, focusing on maritime security in the face of China's growing naval presence in the disputed South China Sea. As the United States continues to downsize military forces abroad, Dan Blumenthal and Michael Mazza emphasize the necessity of maintaining a powerful US presence in the Pacific. “Successful statecraft rests on four pillars,” Blumenthal writes. “Sound strategic logic; high-level diplomacy that produces favorable outcomes; economic leadership; military might to amplify diplomacy. Measured against these criteria, the pivot falls short.” Mazza underscores this argument by explaining, “that the United States is prepared to act in the face of aggression—will be well-received by Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and others. . . . The Obama administration has not exactly drawn a new red line here, but it has expressed an intention to respond to future Chinese assertiveness. Given how active China has been of late, we may soon find out just how serious the president is.” Much of the talk surrounding the conclusion of President Obama’s trip to Asia focused on promises made to Japan over the sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands, his failure to make progress on the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement, and the 10-year defense treaty America signed with the Philippines. But as Paul Wolfowitz notes, President Obama made a largely unnoticed yet critical error while he was in Malaysia. A rare occurrence for presidential visits, President Obama deferred his meeting with Malaysia’s democratic opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim to National Security Adviser Susan Rice. Wolfowitz argues that “by refusing to meet with him, the president appears to be sending a green light to the Malaysian government, whether he means to or not, that it can continue its legal persecution of the opposition leadership without meeting any serious American objection.” For more on President Obama’s trip to Asia, watch John Bolton’s latest interview with Fox News and listen

in on last week’s conference call in which several AEI Asia scholars weighed in on the conclusion of the trip. This week top news sources reported that based on a comparison of China and America’s respective GDP and purchasing power parity (PPP) numbers, China might actually surpass the United States as the world’s largest economy before the end of this year. Yet, as Derek Scissors explains, this is most certainly not the case: “The comparison makes no sense...PPP is supposed to be about purchasing power, as the term indicates, not economic size. Most comparable goods and services are cheaper on average in Bangladesh than in New Zealand. How do we jump from that, to saying Bangladesh’s economy is really (much) bigger than it seems?” Also see Scissors's explanation of whether China can successfully duplicate America’s success in energy production, specifically shale, in the South China Morning Post, as well as further elaboration on the hope and likelihood of economic reform in China. South Asia Although the NATO combat mission in Afghanistan is due to end this year, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called upon the alliance to accept a new mission: stand up to a resurgent Russia. But what about Afghanistan, Pakistan, and democratic India? April 5 marked a milestone for Afghanistan in its journey toward democratic consolidation. Defying threats from the Taliban, 6.9 million Afghan citizens voted for President Karzai’s successor and are now anticipating a runoff in early June. Both competitors have pledged to negotiate with the Taliban, but as Ahmad Majidyar argues in his most recent paper, Negotiating with the Taliban: Lessons from history, this is not necessarily a promising campaign pledge: “The Taliban’s track record of negotiation is replete with deception. In the past two decades, the Taliban has used negotiation more as a ploy to gain political and military advantages than as a way to settle conflicts.” With the United States phasing out its forces and overall presence in the country, Ahmad asserts that “the Obama administration must realize that there is no quick fix to the threat of international terrorism emanating from South Asia and that combating and defeating terrorism in the region require a long-term civilian and military commitment by the United States and its allies.” In the final weeks of India’s parliamentary elections, many are asking, what would a Bharatiya Janata Party victory look like for India's Muslim minority of 150 million? Front-runner Narendra Modi’s reputation with the Muslim population has been a contentious one since violence erupted between Muslims and Hindus in his state of Gujarat in 2002. But as Sadanand Dhume notes: “In an ideal world, they would have the option of backing a candidate supported equally by Hindus and Muslims to perform these tasks. In the real world, they appear to have decided that the best man for the job is Mr. Modi. This is why, a little more than two weeks from now, he will likely be sworn in as India's 14th prime minister.” Also see Dhume's analysis of Modi and India’s Muslim minority in the AEIdeas blog. Middle East Heavy fighting between rival Islamic rebel groups in eastern Syria killed 62 fighters and forced tens of thousands to flee their homes, activists said Sunday. Meanwhile, talks continued over allowing rebels to leave the besieged Old City of Homs. Earlier this week, Secretary of State John Kerry predicted that failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict through a two-state solution would leave Israel an “apartheid-like” state. Danielle Pletka argues that Kerry’s statement is not simply wrong but also discredits the United States as an “honest broker” in the peace process and discourages the Arab world from trusting Washington. To read her full response, click here. On May 13, negotiations with Iran over a nuclear deal will continue. But to what end? Matthew McInnis explains: “IRGC Commander Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari — who initially ardently opposed negotiations — has urged the negotiations team to exploit the ambiguities of the Joint Plan of Action to ensure an agreement that reinforces the Islamic Republic’s national interests…If the nuclear negotiations go as well as expected this month, the Supreme Leader will have renewed confidence both in President Rouhani and in the cohesiveness of his regime.” WATCH: John Yoo discusses US interventionism and religious extremism as a component of his new book, Point of Attack: Preventative War, International Law, and Global Welfare, on Fox News' "Fox and Friends." On Fox News' "The Kelly File," Marc Thiessen helps shed light on recent developments in the Benghazi investigation. Defense In a wide-ranging speech, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel warned NATO members that they would be “judged harshly” if they did not up defense spending. But Hagel’s own standing on the matter is far from clear as the United States has slashed defense dramatically in recent years. As the crisis in Ukraine progresses, US forces and regional allies are concerned about America’s diminishing presence in Europe and are looking to revisit America’s broader military strategy. Air Force General Philip Breedlove, NATO’s supreme allied commander in Europe, and the Pentagon’s European Command have repeatedly attempted to stall cuts to forces and continue to oppose the current strategy of rotating forces from base to base. In a US News & World Report article, Mackenzie Eaglen writes, “There is an important if unspoken difference between forces with an expiration date and permanently forward-stationed troops when it comes to US policy and the intent to signal, assure, deter or influence.” She continues, “Declining US military power in Europe has given way to decreased American diplomatic influence in continental affairs. Since forward-deployed military forces play a critical role in deterrence and other desirable outcomes, reversing course should be an easy and obvious choice for Washington.” At home, the US government is taking an unbalanced approach to spending and prioritizing its forces. In the Air Force, the civilian workforce of 1,400 nearly matches the Air Force National Guard and reserves combined. This only underscores the administration’s failure to follow best practices on personnel. Eaglen explains that “Despite guidance that requires that missions be accomplished with the least cost, incomplete personnel data means that DoD does not currently employ the right mix of military, civilian and contractor workforces." Throughout the course of US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, the possibility of reforming the US acquisition system seemed farfetched at best. But if America continues to remain committed to global engagement, the notion of reform is something that, as Bill Greenwalt writes, “requires a focus on maximizing benefits from the legacy system while concurrently creating a process capable of building a brand new acquisition system.” He concludes that “we are approaching a TINA moment in defense acquisition, and I am not referring to the Truth in Negotiations Act. Think of Margaret Thatcher’s ‘There is No Alternative’ context. The time for real acquisition reform is now.”

Also see Michael Auslin’s Wall Street Journal article on the possible discontinuation of the U-2 Dragon Lady reconnaissance aircraft. Auslin argues, “one day the U-2 will no longer be able to do its mission better than remotely piloted drones. But that day is not here yet, and it is more cost effective and operationally wise to use the best airplane for the job.”

AEI on Campus As part of AEI's on-campus leadership program, AEI foreign and defense policy scholars are talking to hundreds of students every semester. If you know any exceptional student leaders, connect them to Scott.Fyall@aei.org, and we'll tell them more about AEI on Campus Executive Council positions. Executive Council members travel to DC for leadership conferences, network with business leaders and scholars, and host influential thinkers on campus. Learn more here! The priority application deadline for 2014-15 is June 8, 2014.

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research | 1150 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

P: 202.862.5800 | F: 202.862.7177 | www.aei.org @AEIfdp Questions or comments about what you read? Contact Alex Della Rocchetta at adr@aei.org. If you have trouble reading this message, click here to view it as a web page. If you were forwarded this message, click here to sign up for The Rundown.