Kate Palmer's blog

When Michael "Scott" Speicher's F/A-18 Hornet was shot down over Baghdad in the wee hours of America's first war in Iraq, on Jan. 17, 1991, no one imagined that the story of his disappearance would end in a Washington, DC, boardroom. Fortunately, it hasn't.

The Navy pilot, father of two, and native of my own Jacksonville, Florida, was the first American lost in the first Gulf War. The night his plane crashed, the Pentagon and then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney declared him killed in action. It was a decision that Speicher's family and friends have fought for years. Because his remains were never found, many experts have been led to believe that he was captured, not killed, that fateful night. Evidence surfaced--including his initials scratched into an Iraqi prison wall--that forced the Defense Department in 2001 to declare him "Missing in Action" instead. When the more recent U.S. war and takeover of Iraq failed to explain definitively what happened to Speicher, the Pentagon prepared to close the case. His family vehemently opposed that move.

Last week, the ongoing saga over his whereabouts took a dramatic turn, when a Naval review board decided that Speicher's case should remain open and more evidence should be collected. Now, the decision will be left up to the secretary of the Navy, who will have the final decision on the case before he leaves office in less than a month.

It's an interesting case for many reasons, most important of which is that it could serve as a test case on how not to handle the recovery of missing military members during and after a time of war. We here at Passport will be watching.

Photo: Getty Images 

JUNG YEON-JE/AFP/Getty Images

First, we heard news that Kim Jong Il failed to appear at a parade marking North Korea's 60th anniversary. We were told that Dear Leader was seriously ill after possibly suffering a stroke.

Now, we hear that the man who has held his country hostage since assuming power from his father in 1994 is on the mend. Granted, that last bit of news is coming from the country's propaganda-peddling press officials.

Whether or not this latest North Korean pushback is bogus, the Hermit Kingdom can't delay its post-Kim fate forever. But what will it look like? A younger Kim stepping up to take his father's place? Mass chaos and refugees fleeing across the Chinese border? Reunification with South Korea? It's anyone's guess.

Some guesses are more educated than others, though. So I asked a man who knows the regime well to describe what he thinks is going on behind the scenes right now. Kim Hyun Sik, Kim Jong Il's former Russian teacher and author of a powerful essay about Kim in the current issue of FP, explains that the jostling for power may not involve the usual suspects: 

If proven true, the latest news that Kim Jong Il is seriously ill, perhaps having suffered a stroke, will bring significant changes to North Korea. Should Kim suffer an extended bout with illness and be unable to govern, the most likely candidate to fill the ensuing power vacuum right away is -- contrary to widespread speculations of another father-to-son succession -- Kim’s brother-in-law, Jang Sung Taek, 62. For long, Jang stood at the epicenter of Pyongyang politics as Kim Jong Il’s right-hand man. 

Jang's influence grew so strong that he was purged nearly five years ago. But last year, Jang was restored to his former position as a key decision-maker on personnel. His two brothers hold power over the military and oversee the state's most sacred site, Kim Il Sung's mausoleum. Jang enjoys a good reputation among ordinary North Koreans and is widely respected even by defectors. Jang may even choose, as a "regent" to groom in the short term, either Kim Jong Il's eldest or second son. But, for now, in the "day-after" scenario, the world can expect to see Jang in the spotlight.   

We'll definitely be watching. Stay tuned.

Adam Blenford/Flickr/Creative Commons

Few Westerners have had the chance to witness what China is building in Africa. From Angola to the Sudan, the Middle Kingdom’s reach throughout the continent is growing by the day. And, for several years, Swiss journalist Serge Michel got the chance to document Africa’s relationship with its new patron.

In the current issue of FP, Michel shows firsthand what happens when a budding superpower meets the poverty, corruption, and fragility of Africa. It’s a fascinating look at what China has been able to accomplish in a place other powers have all but abandoned—and a glimpse into what happens next. But it’s also one that raises as many questions as it answers. Luckily, Serge Michel will respond to your questions next week. So read “When China Met Africa,” and send your questions to letters@ForeignPolicy.com by Sunday night. We’ll send the best on to him. Don't forget to check back on May 30, when we'll post his responses.

JUSTIN SULLIVAN/Getty Images

It's that time of the year again, when the steady stream of "year's best" lists start to trickle into your favorite papers and magazines. In case you missed it over the weekend, though, the New York Times released one of my favorites, their "100 Notable Books of 2007."

FP's book review section, In Other Words, looks only at works that have not yet been published in the United States, allowing us to discuss important political and literary conversations outside America's borders. But it's also important to look back at the new U.S. books on foreign policy that have been stirred debate, inspired new ideas, influenced policy, and made people think.

The Times list highlights a few of these from 2007: FP contributor Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes, Ishmael Beah's Long Way Gone, Helen Epstein’s The Invisible Cure, and FP contributor Rajiv Chandrasekaran's Imperial Life in the Emerald City, to name just a few.        

But, with so much material this year, it's little wonder the Times couldn't fit all the best books on international affairs in its list. In my humble opinion, there are quite a few excellent foreign-policy books that also shined in 2007:  

• Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present, by Michael B. Oren

• Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War, by Bob Drogin

• The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War, by David Halberstam

• Monstering: Inside America's Policy of Secret Interrogations and Torture in the Terror War, by Tara McKelvey

What were your favorite foreign-policy books this year? How about the most overrated? Best from outside the States? Send us some suggestions, and we'll put a list together of Passport readers' books of the year. It should make for easy holiday shopping for your favorite student, wonk, or politician.

Our November/December cover story, "The War We Deserve," has provoked a good deal of controversy about who bears responsibility for the war on terror and its offspring in Iraq. Arguing that the political demands Americans make of their government—low taxes, limited military engagement, an all-voluntary Army—inevitably lead to the kind of war Americans find themselves in today, Roberts questions the very relationship they have with their government.

Now, it's your turn to ask the author about his article. Do you agree that Americans have sacrificed too little and asked for too much in this age of global terrorism? Do you believe the real fault for any mismanagement of the war on terror lies with the administration that pursued it? Send us any questions you have for FP author Alasdair Roberts by 6 p.m. this Thursday, November 15, and we'll post his answers at ForeignPolicy.com on Tuesday, November 20.

This is your chance to join the debate. Don't miss it!

ROSS KINNAIRD/Getty Images Sport

Quick moves, right? But some Islamist fundamentalists also apparently see the British soccer star and the American singer as beloved cultural symbols whose deaths would bring the West to its knees. It's a tactic Joseph Stalin apparently tried to pull more against another powerful American symbol more than 50 years ago.

As legend has it, Stalin threatened to assassinate the Duke in an effort to silence the ardent anti-communist and deal a crushing blow to the American cultural machine against the backdrop of the Cold War. This being the new millennium, though, Beckham and Timberlake were threatened not by the Soviets but by Islamist radicals with Internet access and a grievance against Western cultural imperialism. The threat came in the form of a video posted on YouTube. According to several Web sites following the story, it was a British al Qaeda-linked group tied to exiled cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed that posted the video.

Watching the video, though, it doesn't exactly seem like the most sophisticated of plots. There's a shot of Eminem in a newspaper with the headline, "This Is the Way to Hellfire." There's a photo of 2-Pac underneath the words, "Servant of Shaytaan." And a smiling Beckham is juxtaposed with the question, “What Made u Among the Losers?” In the end, it looks more like a low-budge PSA than a serious wake-up call to Western civilization.

Worse yet for the would-be killers, this over-the-top exchange from Fox News suggests they made have made another monumental miscalculation: "Isn't this an instance where you might be rooting for the terrorists?"

Like all the candidates in the expanding field of presidential hopefuls, Rudy Giuliani is reaching out supporters, friends, and acquaintances, asking them to help fund what will likely be the costliest election in U.S. history. "America's mayor" is staking his campaign on counterterrorism and national security issues. And who better to relate to the threat of Islamist extremism than Israel? Which is why "JoinRudy2008.com" donation letters are popping up in the in boxes of readers of the Jerusalem Post:

Dear Friend,

As a longtime friend and staunch supporter of Israel during my entire public life, I want to share with you my deep concern for the Jewish state and ask for your support as I campaign to become the next President of the United States....

I promise you that if elected President, I will make sure this country remains on offense against terrorism. But I need your help and support to get there. Will you consider giving $1,000, $500, $250, $100 or $50 to my campaign?...

I stand by Israel and I'll never embrace a terrorist like Arafat, a tyrant like Ahmadinejad, or a party like Hamas.

Giuliani's stand against terrorism is commendable. But campaign contributions from foreign nationals are against U.S. elections laws. True, the Jerusalem Post is distributed in the United States as well as in Israel and online, and has many U.S. readers. Yet it seems a bit distasteful to appeal directly to readers of a foreign newspaper—even from a U.S. ally as close as Israel—for money. Put it this way: Imagine the reaction if John Edwards or Barrack Obama sent a plea to readers of Le Monde asking for support to strengthen ties between the U.S. and France? I'm guessing it would prompt a bigger outrage than a $400 haircut. 

The U.S. military has seen the enemy, and it is Web 2.0.

Explaining a ban on 13 popular websites, including MySpace, YouTube,  MTV, and Pandora, Gen. B.B. Bell, head of U.S. Forces Korea, complained that the popularity of these "Web 2.0" sites "impacts our official DoD network and bandwidth ability, while posing a significant operational security challenge."

Those are certainly valid concerns, but blocking access to soldiers' social sites hinders the communication between troops and their families and friends back home that is vital for morale. And in a larger sense, the Pentagon might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater with this move. Too often, the military and the White House complain about the lack of positive stories coming out of Iraq, whether because of liberal media bias, or just the plain news value of bombings over new schools. Yet here's an organic opportunity to air the accomplishments, and yes, struggles, of those in the battlefield with the entire world. And they're shutting it down?

Of course, this kind of transparency shouldn't come at the cost of national security, and locations of troop movements ought to be off-limits. But that's the kind of thing to be handled case by case. After all, even President Bush has sung the praises of personal blogs and social networking as a source for positive news from Iraq. Maybe the military could take a cue.