Consider the poor, lowly, unappreciated fact. Rarely are those who stick to the facts invited to an A-list party and those who do are usually derided as nerds. Ronald Reagan said, “Facts are stupid things.” Albert Einstein said, “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”

But like them or hate them people agree that if you are going to have a debate over policy there should at least be agreement on the honest and objective facts, so you have an as up to date understanding of reality as possible, and then you can debate over what to do. Well, almost everyone, but not, evidently, the Bush administration, and especially not when it comes to Iraq.

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that an administration that happily suppresses and distorts facts about issues ranging from the environment to the budget would do the same on Iraq, but it is dismaying.

Case in point is the administration’s latest quarterly report to Congress issued last month by the Pentagon, “Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq.” Or, as comedian Rodney Dangerfield would say, “take my quarterly report, please.”

This report is “deeply flawed” and “fundamentally false.” What’s that, sniping from some partisan Democrat, you say? Hardly. Those words are from Anthony H. Cordesman, who holds the holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He has formerly served as national security assistant to Senator John McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and as civilian assistant to the deputy secretary of defense.

(more…)

Chris Preble noted in his recent post about Iran that last week was a rough week in foreign affairs. But this week suddenly seemed to be on a much more promising trajectory: Abu Zarqawi was killed in Iraq, and the Iraqi government finally appointed ministers of defense and the interior. It is hard to know, though, how cheered we should be. I suspect we should all believe what we believed before about American policy in Iraq: if you thought we should stay in Iraq (or escalate), the news this week is unlikely to discourage you; if you thought we should leave Iraq (“immediately” or in a more gradual withdrawal), the news probably should not change that assessment, either. (more…)

There’s been much ruckus raised recently about a speech by UN Deputy Secretary General, Mark Malloch Brown.  Basically Malloch Brown criticized the US arguing that the US has only fitfully engaged with the UN.  When it does, it has only been reluctantly, and to advance its own agenda. 

Ambassador Bolton appealed to Kofi Annan saying, “I’ve known you since 1989, and I’m telling you this is the worst mistake by a senior U.N. official that I have seen in that entire time.”  Referring to that comment as the worst mistake by a senior UN official since 1989 is quite a mistake in itself!  Bolton’s hyperbole reveals his grandstanding.

While I agree that it may seem out of character for an international civil servant to so blatantly call out one of the UN’s member countries, when one looks at the context this does seem quite understandable.  Malloch Brown was speaking particularly to a US audience and was therefore understandably speaking about US policy towards the UN.  I would expect a similar approach if he were speaking, for example, to a Russian audience.  Speaking to such an audience he would likely criticize Russian relations with the UN and this would make sense.  Why is it that criticisms of the US should be so taboo?  (more…)

There is little to be optimistic about recently, but I saw a glimmer of hope in the Bush administration’s decision to open direct negotiations with the Iranian government. I had planned for the past few days to write about it, but I appear to be a day late and a dollar short. Kudos especially to Eugene Gholz for his very thoughtful post last week – and for painting a dark lining on my silver cloud.

If I can add just one thought, it would be that of my Cato colleagues Ted Carpenter and Justin Logan, who over a month ago called for the United States to offer Iran a “grand bargain”: ”full normalization of relations, including a public promise not to attack it, restored diplomatic relations, and normalized economic relations. In return, Iran would need to give up any prospect of building a nuclear arsenal. Iran would be required to immediately open its existing nuclear program to unfettered international inspections.” (You can also listen to Ted’s recent podcast on the “Iran Policy Shift.”)

(more…)

A thought:

I’ve been involved in public service all of my adult life. When I started my career, I thought that the life’s work of my generation of public minded citizens would be to build on the foundation laid by the previous generation of Americans.

With all of the problems that have been created over the past five years, I now believe that the work of my generation will be to begin to address all of the new problems we have created – from the implications of the mess in Iraq to our debt to America’s loss of standing in the world.

This is not a partisan issue because no matter what we think of the captain, we’re all on the same ship.

I’d appreciate any thoughts readers may have on this.

One of the features that has popped up in magazine after magazine since 9/11 is the “What does the world think of America” bit. A little bit out of the box, Granta had an interesting slate of writers tackle the question, albeit often via the predictable lines of criticism. The Atlantic sent Bernard Henri-Levy in the footsteps of Tocqueville for a very long journey. Recently, the American Interest held a symposium on the American image to further get at the question of what everyone thinks about us, and what we should do about it. And this is just the tip of the feature iceberg for the newsprint, public opinion polling, and books that have dealt with variations on this theme.

Generally, the message goes something like this: America is almost culturally omnipresent, overly militaristic and imperialist, and maybe a tad stupid (albeit with caveats about what good memories people have of travelling in America, and about how people might like us again if we had a new President). And – thanks in part to that infamous polling showing that over 50% of Amerians thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 in the run-up to the Iraq War – most people think Americans are either uninformed about the world, or belligerent in a “with us or against us” way (wonder why they think that?..)

Yet I think it’s time to look a bit more carefully at what Americans actually think. Most opinion samples show a more nuanced American view of the world, such as this useful summary from PSA. Too often, Republicans fall back on a simplistic America-first way of speaking that is actually more simplistic  than what Americans really think.  Democrats are often afraid to fully articulate a view of America’s role in the world – and thus lump together patriotic necessity (kill the terrorists!…) with criticism of Republicans (…but don’t alienate the world). Meanwhile, policy experts and policy makers spend a lot of time renaming who we’re fighting (al Qaeda, terrorists, Islamists, Islamo-fascists, Sadammists, insurgents, jihadists, etc…) – an interesting debate that has little resonance in the rest of the country.

Five years after 9/11, it would be refreshing if politicians engaged Americans in a discussion of how we look at the world instead of merely talking down to them, or talking around the issue. Because if you went to each of the 50 states, I don’t know what answer you would get to simple questions like: “Who are we fighting in this war? What should America’s role in the world be?” And if politicians won’t do that, maybe we would benefit if magazines did a few feature pieces on that.

The stars seem aligned to bring needed institutional, financial and management reforms to the United Nations.  Indeed, the US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, who has made reform his centerpiece talking point, has the perfect arsenal backing him up: He has the stage as the US Permanent Representative, he has the mandate within the State Department, he has a bipartisan goal, he has NGO support and he has the President’s backing. Better yet, he’s got real progress in New York with a UN Secretary-General who has proposed dozens upon dozens of reforms, an agreement at last fall’s World Summit endorsing wide-ranging reforms, a fine list of achievements already pocketed and US allies ready to go for more.

So why isn’t the Ambassador Bolton saying what reforms he is twisting arms to get at the United Nations?  And why are we about to face a crisis that, in a worst case scenario, would shut down the UN?

In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Senators seemed stumped as to why this rare opportunity for reform seemed to be passing us by with no clear agenda. What is the list of reforms the US is pursing in New York? asked Senators on both sides of the aisle. The Ambassador offered no clear list.   (more…)

People of many political stripes are excited that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is working today with the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese to craft a package of “carrots and sticks” to offer Iran — and that she has offered to negotiate directly with Iran if the Iranians first suspend all nuclear enrichment. Some cheer because they advocate diplomacy as the principal tool of American foreign policy (at least we’re talking); others celebrate the turn towards working with allies (multilateralism rather than presumably arrogant and fruitless unilateralism). But unless you’re most concerned about process rather than outcomes, I’m skeptical that this news is anything to celebrate.

Two blogs illustrate some of the reaction. Dan Drezner is opimistic: in line with his academic writing about international institutions and economic sanctions, he hopes that working with allies will give our threats more teeth, and he also suspects that diplomats talking in the right forum can find mutual agreement. Bruce Jentleson is wary that the diplomatic initiative is just a ploy — that the U.S. isn’t serious about looking for a solution — but his underlying view is that a diplomatic solution is possible or even likely, if we make a good faith effort.

But think about what diplomacy as a tool of statecraft can hope to achieve. (more…)

Note to esteemed members of Congress; Georges Santayana said it best, “those who forget history are condemned to repeat it “ So, given that on the foreign policy front much of your attention is focused on the Persian Gulf region, specifically Iraq, where history is being made every day let’s ask that you keep recent history there in mind as you consider U.S. policy towards neighboring Iran.
 
Hmm, let’s see, Iraq; a country that the United States chose to invade when it did not have to, in a war of choice, not of necessity. It did so under a rationale that turned out to be invalid, or as a kid today would say, bogus. Said war has not only inflamed Arab nations and large numbers of Muslims worldwide it has also cost the Untied States critical international support among other Western nations and actually strengthened al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups.
 
So, given all that I don’t think it is too much to ask that both sides of the aisle cool their jets and rhetoric on the subject of Iran’s nuclear program. There are lots of silly things being said. One might expect that from Republicans, if only to stay on message with the executive branch but Democrats?

In January Sen. Bayh (D-IN) introduced a resolution that started with “Iran is precipitating a grave nuclear crisis with the international community that directly impacts the national security of the United States.” Really? The last time I checked it was the United States that was saying that all options were on the table, including military force. (more…)