As my colleague Laura Rozen just reported on The Cable, Jeh Johnson is Obama's pick for DoD general counsel. It's a fantastic choice. I worked for Jeh when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the New York City Bar Association, and found him to be nothing less than brilliant, incredibly fair, and an all-around nice guy.

Johnson brings a long resume to the job. He spent three years as federal prosecutor, was general counsel for the Air Force under Clinton, and was the first black partner at New York firm Paul, Weiss. He was also special counsel to John Kerry's campaign in 2004 and served as an advisor and fundraiser to Obama from beginning of Obama's run.

Johnson "is an exceptional legal mind," says one former Pentagon intelligence official in an e-mail. Congrats to Johnson. This is a great pick from the transition team in a week that could use a few more.

Is there no problem a surge can't fix? Michael Chertoff tells the New York Times that the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to build a fence and boost security on the Mexican border aren't just about immigration, they're also to keep Mexico's drug violence on the other side of the border. If it does spill over, they have a plan:

"We completed a contingency plan for border violence, so if we did get a significant spillover, we have a surge — if I may use that word — capability to bring in not only our own assets but even to work with" the Defense Department, Chertoff said in a telephone interview.

Officials of the Homeland Security Department said the plan called for aircraft, armored vehicles and special teams to converge on border trouble spots, with the size of the force depending on the scale of the problem. Military forces would be called upon if civilian agencies like the Border Patrol and local law enforcement were overwhelmed, but the officials said military involvement was considered unlikely.

I'm glad that DHS is paying attention to the unfairly overlooked drug violence in Mexico, but I doubt that U.S. military personnel operating in the southern United States would be any more effective at combating drug traffickers than the 45,000 troops that Mexico has deployed in its own territory. Or, for that matter, the Colombian military's U.S.-funded efforts.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Photo: Mike Lutz/DHS via Getty Images

Four new names over at The Cable.

The Japanese paper Asahi Shimbun reported today that the Japanese Diet (parliament) will consider amending the country's pacifist consitution to allow the use of force against pirates.

Since the end of the World War II, the Japanese constitution has stipulated that its military hold only non-combat roles. Is this a first step on the way to bigger non-combat roles or even combat for Japanese troops in places like Iraq and Afghanistan?

"This is like putting your little pinky in the water -- or even maybe your big toe," says Gerald Curtis, an expert on the Japanese military at Columbia. "Piracy is an opportunity to do something that isn't really the use of force to settle an international [problem]."

If Japan is ready to take the fight to the pirate, they're just in time. The United States announced today that its Navy will head up a new 20-country coaltion of boats to fight piracy off the Somali coast. Some of the countries in that coalition "did not have the authority to conduct counter-piracy missions,” according to the Navy's statement. Defense department spokesman Lt. Col. Patrick Ryder clarified for me: "There were some nations who were members of [the task force] who were not able to conduct counter-piracy operations based on their national charters." The countries in the coalition have not been announced yet, but that certainly sounds like a description of Japan.

The U.S. taskforce has an impressive roster, including two ships, two aircraft, and the 1,000 personnel on ships assigned to "assist" the operation, according to Ryder. The mission will collaborate with the EU mission already deployed.

As for tactics, Ryder includes "increased patrols of heavily trafficked areas, enhanced planning and coordinated execution of operations, hard intelligence and demonstrations of force."

Sounds like they read Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper's advice. Time to kick some pirate booty!

Photo: U.S. Navy 

You didn't think that just because of our fancy new Web site, we'd slack off on the print edition did you? The latest issue of Foreign Policy is on newsstands now and it's packed full of exciting content.

As you can tell from the cover, the big theme of this issue is the monumental challenges facing President-elect Barack Obama. First up is Afghanistan: Nathaniel C. Fick and John A. Nagl, co-authors of the Army's influential counterinsurgency manual, write an updated edition tailored to the Afghan front. For the same package, FP Executive Editor Susan Glasser interviewed Gen. David Petraeus shortly after he took command of CENTCOM about the challenges of Afghanistan.

Then there's the economy. Five economists who predicted the financial crisis -- including Nouriel Roubini who called it in FP last March -- explain what we're in for next. Their take: "The Worst is Yet to Come." William Easterly also explains the implications of the crisis for the world's poor in "The Poor Man's Burden" and journalist Carla Power explains how the new field of Islamic finance is coping with the crash.

Why can't Israel and the Palestinians make peace? According to Gershom Gorenberg, it's the settlements, stupid. And if you thought that there was anything the new administration could do to stop climate change, Bill McKibben explains why you should think again.

How's Obama going to confront all these problems? According to FP editor Chris Brose, he's going to preserve more of the Bush administration's approach than you might think. New ideas are certainly needed though, and the new Think Tank Index ranks the institutions that will provide them.

Of course, check out old favorites, Prime Numbers, Inbox, and Net Effect, as well as the new books feature, Early Read.

And if you're a fan of Foreign Policy, you should definitely consider subscribing. A full year of the print edition plus full access to digital archives is only $19.95.

Jimmy Carter argues that the latest Israeli-Palestine conflict was preventable.

Kevin Peraino says Fatah will be the big loser as Hamas is pummelled. 

Martin Peretz thinks an Israeli-Palestine cease-fire would be a band-aid on a laceration.

Daniel Henninger has a New Year's Resolution for finance: don't be stupid.

The Economist worries that the "Enron"-esque scandal in India exposes wider corruption.

For more news and commentary from around the world, check out FP's continually updated Must Reads feed every day.

I argued a few days ago that Hezbollah has no interest in provoking a war with Israel over the situation in Gaza. But that doesn't mean they aren't at risk of getting one. At least three rockets were launched from South Lebanon into Israel this morning, landing near the town of Nahariyeh.

The rockets were likely fired by Palestinian militant organizations based in the refugee camps, not Hezbollah. Still, the rockets put Hezbollah in an awkward position. Hassan Nasrallah, after announcing that his group "will not abandon the fight or our weapons," cannot easily condemn the rocket attacks. Note that Hezbollah's initial denial of responsibility for the rocket attacks did not come from the group itself, but from Tarek Mitri, the government Information Minister. Nasrallah may not want a war, but he has placed himself in a position where he cannot oppose one.

Today's rockets lightly injured two Israelis. Though the IDF responded with mortar fire, they seem ready to shrug off the event as a minor incident. But if a subsequent attack hits a school or a hospital and the casualties are in the dozens, Israeli retaliation might be far more severe. And that could very easily drag Hezbollah into a conflict, whether they want one or not. The rockets being fired are primitive, unguided devices -- whether they hit military targets, unpopulated areas, or civilian neighborhoods is simply the luck of the draw. Cruelly, the fate of many innocent people in Lebanon largely depends on where these rockets happen to land.

Photo: ANWAR AMRO/AFP/Getty Images

I hate to diss the folks at Pajamas TV, who were nice enough to let me come on recently to promote our worst predictions list, but sending Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher to cover the war in Gaza seems like a questionable decision:

Mr Wurzelbacher, 34, says he will spend 10 days covering the fighting in Gaza and explaining why Israeli forces are mounting attacks against Hamas.

He told WNWO-TV in Toledo, Ohio, that he wants "go over there and let their 'Average Joes' share their story".

If you're a little fuzzy on Joe's foreign policy views, just recall that he agreed with a voter on the campaign trail that a vote for Barack Obama was equivalent to a vote for the death of Israel.

Meanwhile, the Internet is still anxiously awaiting Joe the Blogger's debut. Joe the merchandiser is going strong though.

Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

A table-tennis match on Jan. 7 in Beijing marked the 30-year anniversary of the establishment of normalized diplomatic relations between China and the United States on Jan. 1, 1979. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, center left, and China's Vice Foreign Minister Wang Guangya, center right, attended.

In April 1971, China invited the U.S. table-tennis team to visit in what Time magazine called "the ping heard round the world." One of the Americans was then 15-year-old Judy Bochenski Hoarfrost, right, who returned today to play veteran Chinese player Qi Baoxiang, left. The 1971 visit launched an era of "Ping-Pong diplomacy," and according to Time, "Probably never before in history has a sport been used so effectively as a tool of international diplomacy." Obviously, with the 2008 Beijing Olympics, it hasn't been the only time China has used sports to try to improve its image.

See also:

• Chinese President Hu Jintao dominates at the Ping-Pong table.
• The FP photo essay, "China's 30 Years of Economic Overdrive," marks the reforms set in motion by Deng Xiaopeng.

Peter Boone and Simon Johnson urge want a bolder version of Obamanomics.

Michael Idov warns Russian protests don't foreshadow a democratic awakening.

Christopher Dickey says Bush's democratic push was hypocritical in the Middle East.

John Redwood begs interest-rate-setters to let banks make a profit.

Etgar Keret thinks proportionality debate has no place in Israeli-Palestine.

For more news and commentary from around the world, check out FP's continually updated Must Reads feed every day.

Best Defense blogger Tom Ricks recently found out that Steven Metz, chairman of the Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College and Best Defense commenter, was sending e-mails to colleagues in 2005 telling them to "avoid Tom like the plague" because of his coverage of the war in Iraq. Then just last year, Metz asked Ricks to blurb his new book.

Good thing Ricks has a blog now. (Incidentally, he also has by far the most bad-ass author photo on the Internet.)

Update: Metz responds.

As part of our expansion, Foreign Policy is now hiring for positions working on both the print edition and Website.

We're currently accepting applications for the jobs of entry-level editor, Web development director, and editorial researcher. If you've got a passion for international affairs journalism, the requisite skills for any of these positions, and fresh ideas about how to improve the magazine, you should definitely get in touch.

With Gaza suffering and Eastern Europe shivering, one person seems to be in a perfect position to take advantage of both crises: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Not suprisingly, Iran is taking the lead in expressing the Islamic world's anger over the Israel's actions in Gaza and Ahmadinejad has been right in the thick of things.

The president has been losing some popularity lately as the financial downturn has highlighted his dismal economic record. The anti-Israel outrage is providing him a boost, just when he needed it the most:

Whether or not Iran's Gaza strategy wins points on the international front, Israel's offensive has been a domestic windfall for Ahmadinejad and his circle of hard-liners, analyst Javedanfar said. On Tuesday, the president submitted to parliament a controversial bill to eliminate decades-old subsidies on fuel and electricity.

"This will make him even more unpopular," Javedanfar said. "But the Gaza affair is a gift to him, which he will use to distract the Iranian people from the economic [pain] about to hit them."

Ahmadinejad got another gift this week as the Russo-Urkainian gas-pricing dispute led to supply disrputions in Turkey. Iran is already Turkey's second-largest gas provider, sending 18 million cubic meters of gas per day. With the Russian supply looking questionable, Ankara has increased their order for Iranian gas. With the Gazprom spat becoming an annual occurence, can it be long before European countries start taking a second look at Iran as an energy source? Recovering oil prices can't hurt either.

Things may be looking up for Ahmadinejad, which is to say, down for everyone else.

Update: Al Qaeda's having a pretty good week too, says Marc Lynch.

On Monday in Washington, President Bush made one last ditch attempt for Darfur: he held talks with the least-worst person he could.

That person was Salva Kiir, who is both the Vice-President of Sudan and President of Southern Sudan. Hours earlier, the administration announced it was authorizing an emergency shipment of supplies to Darfur from Rwanda using two C-17 cargo planes. Another 240 containers of goods will be moved from ports into Darfur to help the fledgling UN-African Union peacekeeping mission.

That leaves me with two questions: Will the supplies do any good? And what exactly is the United States hoping to achieve?

First the supplies: The UN-AU hybrid mission is only at 63 percent of its strength, more than two years after the force was authorized, wracked with one difficulty after another (as if patrolling a space the size of France wasn't hard enough.) Cars and equipment have been stolen; fuel was siphoned from planes at night. Journalists have told me that Sudanese government forces are responsible.

But after months of quietly thwarting further deployment, the Sudanese government has finally swung open the door, "leaving the ball on the side of the UN," International Crisis Group Horn of Africa Director Fouad Hikmat tells me. It's up to UN member countries, particularly the U.S. which provides over a quarter of the budget, to handle the logistics of sending in peacekeepers. Will they be able to make a difference? Hikmat's read: "This is very very very good."

At first glance, it looks like President Bush is trying to cement his legacy as a genocide fighter. But if Bush is thinking Darfur, why meet with Kiir, a Southerner with little record in the region?

Country-wide voting is scheduled for Sudan this year -- part of a 6-year Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the decades long war between North and South Sudan in 2005. The light at the end of that long tunnel for Southerners is a vote on secession in 2011. If all goes according to plan, they'll vote on whether to remain autonomous, or become independent.

Like many Southerners, Kiir favors secession. But countrywide elections have to happen first -- and Darfur is in no shape to hold them. "[Southern politicians] for a long time weren't involved in Darfur, they were focused inward," Hikmat tells me. Now, they see they should become engaged because Darfur is a very serious threat to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement [and their secession vote]."

One more complication: the International Criminal Court may soon issue an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir. That makes Kiir the international powerbroker with the most credibility.

So Bush's and Kiir's interest may be right in line. For now. The U.S. should think long and hard about whether they want to back a secession, an outcome that Kiir favors and that Khartoum will certainly fight to prevent. It is an open secret that both South Sudan and the Khartoum government are arming in anticipation of the referendum in 2011. Yet another dilemma for the new President to look forward to.

Photo: Dennis Brack-Pool/Getty Images

I'm not really a cat person, but this is still just mean:

Islamic militants posted sarcastic comments on an extremist Web site Tuesday ridiculing a recent announcement by First Lady Laura Bush that the family's cat had died.

The online comments were unusual on the site that usually focuses on official statements by al-Qaida and other militants. Commentators, who must be registered members of the site, frequently post their opinions, but normally the topics are humorless.

But on Tuesday, one commentator, called Dark-Side, sarcastically urged followers to offer condolences for the cat.

"For God's sake, could someone tell us where the wake is to be held?" the online commentator wrote.

What did the cat ever do to them?

Anyone know how to say "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated," in Japanese? Not suprisingly, the land of the rising sun blows away the competition on IEEE Spectrum's robot density map:

I guess it's impressive, but this sort of thing makes me very worried for them.

(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)

The debate continues on Steve Walt's "thought experiment." Today, David Rothkopf joined Chris Brose in taking on Walt's hypothetical Jewish Gaza. Ross Douthat also weighed in over at the Atlantic. Walt seems to be taking the impressive buzz he's generated in his blogosphere debut in stride and has just posted a follow-up experiment.

But it's not just Israel's critics who can play the analogy game. Blogging for Haaretz, Bradley Burston proposes this one:

A fanatical religious party wins a string of elections in Mexico's northern states, then stages a civil war to drive out the federal government and take full control.

The party's charter demands the return to Mexico of the occupied territories of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Texas.

Firing homemade rockets and more advanced projectiles smuggled in from Iran and China, the party's gunners can hit a total of one of every seven Americans, or 43,598,000 people, in a broad swath which includes Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Albuquerque, Austin, San Antonio and Houston, and Las Vegas.

In all of these areas, pre-schools, grade schools, and universities are all forced to shut down. Families sleep in bomb shelters, and return to them several times a day during air raids. Businesses are shuttered, and the economy shuts down.

I dunno. I must admit I'm a little confused by which part of Mexico corresponds with which Palestinian faction and the model pretty much ignores five decades of Israeli history.

I find this need to put Israel in context by pretending that it's something else a little strange. Why, in order to understand this country's situation, do we need to imagine that Israelis are actually Arabs, or that the Palestinians are Mexicans, or that Israel never existed, or that it existed but was in Alaska?

Analogies and hypotheticals can be useful for putting a complicated situation in context, but can also be dangerous if you're altering your perception of reality in order to fit your chosen narrative. In a conflict as ideologically divisive as Israel/Palestine, they're rhetorically useful but pretty rarely enlightening.

Believe it or not, Israel is a real place. So is Gaza. No theoretical construct is going to absolve either side of responsibility for inflicting violence or get them any closer to a resolution. 

Who'd have guessed it? U.S. President George W. Bush might be going down as the greatest protector of the seas ever. Later today, he is to announce the establishment of the "largest area of protected sea in the world." Commercial fishing and mining will be largely prohibited in protected zones of the remote Pacific that include some of the most biologically diverse locations on Earth.

Critics say that any benefit from the establishment of protected areas will be cancelled out by the effects of greenhouse gases and climate change. Nevertheless, Joshua Reichert of the Pew Environment Group told the BBC that Bush has "protected more special places in the sea than any other person in history."

It just might be another achievement to add to Bush's legacy.

Photo: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images