Merging the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF): A Strategic Imperative
Abstract : Afghanistan has provided the International community the opportunity to demonstrate the power of democratic nations in fighting tyranny. NATO's International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) has played a critical role in Afghanistan since the first international peace keepers arrived in 2002. The American presence under Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) has another national agenda in Afghanistan. Tension between these operations as to scope force structure and mission adds an interesting international dynamic to these military missions. The US advocates merger of OEF and ISAF with the caveat that this consolidation must have two points as a mandate: first a mission to destroy Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces and second to assist the Afghanistan government with opium eradication. Given the opposition by many European capitals to a direct combat role for ISAF progress toward a consolidated NATO command has been difficult. That being said ISAF has made progress with the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) and the recent decision by the Alliance to expand NATO presence by over 10,000 troops is proving successful in creating a more stable Afghanistan. The merging of OEF and ISAF will provide the U.S. with the strategic flexibility to draw-down forces in Afghanistan to meet further National Security threats.
Can alliances combat contemporary threats?
Hopefully, the international system will be transformed over time into one that is more cooperative—in other words, one in which alliances are less necessary. Until then, alliances will exist but will be legitimate only if they serve solely to provide collective defense.
The Timing of Tax Transparency
Fairness in the administration of the tax law is the subject of intense debate in the United States. As recent headlines reveal, the Internal Revenue Service has been accused of failing to enforce the tax law equitably in its review of tax-exempt status applications by political organizations, the international tax structures of multinational corporations, and the estate tax returns of millionaires, among other areas. Many have argued that greater “tax transparency” would better empower the public to hold the IRS accountable and the IRS to defend itself against accusations of malfeasance. Mandatory public disclosure of taxpayers’ tax return information is often proposed as a way to achieve greater tax transparency. Yet, in addition to concerns regarding exposure of personal and proprietary information, broad public disclosure measures pose potential threats to the taxing authority’s ability to enforce the tax law.Given the competing values of accountability and enforcement, what tax return information should be observable by the public? This Article argues that timing matters. The IRS continually engages in enforcement actions ex post, after taxpayers have pursued transactions and claimed tax positions, such as by conducting audits or settlements. But it also frequently engages in actions ex ante, before taxpayers pursue transactions and claim tax positions, by issuing advance tax rulings to and entering into agreements with specific taxpayers. While current law appears to require public disclosure of certain types of ex ante tax administration, many forms of ex ante tax administration remain concealed from public view. This Article argues that documents related to a specific taxpayer’s tax affairs that reflect ex ante tax administration should be publicly accessible as a means of accountability, but that documents that reflect ex post tax actions should remain private in order to preserve effective tax enforcement. Further, this Article proposes that the public should have access not only to ex ante tax administration actions where the taxing authority grants taxpayers’ requests, but also to those actions where the taxing authority denies such requests, even if it does so without issuing an official written determination, a concept it defines as “dual tax transparency.”The Article then applies this analysis to several types of ex ante tax administration that are currently obscured by the curtain of tax privacy: withdrawn private letter ruling requests, adverse tax-exempt determination letters and advance pricing agreements. It concludes by exploring approaches to improving the accountability of the IRS regarding its ex post tax enforcement other than public disclosure of tax return information.