Tomorrow will be a big day for a blog about bipartisanship in foreign policy. Or more likely, the “big” posts will start the next day, in the aftermath of the election, when we can try to figure out what the results mean. But even if we are all holding our breath, today’s not exactly the calm before the storm. We have two substantial bits of Iraq-related news to chew on, though they are not on the same scale.

The big news that led all of the major papers this weekend is that the Iraqi court has sentenced Saddam Hussein to death for his role in the murder of 148 Iraqis, retaliation for a 1982 assassination attempt on the dictator (see, for example, the New York Times). This news was hardly unexpected — nor was the sectarian split in the response on the streets of Iraq, for which the Iraqi government prepared by declaring curfews and increasing police presence. Once again, President Bush proclaimed a “landmark event” in Iraq, tired rhetoric after so many other “turning points” that have proven to make little difference. And critics suggested that Bush had somehow engineered the timing for electoral advantage, even though it seems highly unlikely that this announcement could excite anyone to vote one way or the other, since everyone has known for a long time that Saddam was going to be convicted, probably of multiple crimes after multiple trials — assuming that the Iraqis keep him alive long enough to try him repeatedly.

The surprising thing about Bush’s line on the Hussein verdict is that he described it as “a milestone in the Iraqi people’s efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law.” Of course, the tyrant hasn’t been ruling for years, and it’s hard to argue that there’s much “rule of law” in Iraq right now. The Iraqi government doesn’t really function, and the frequency of extra-judicial punishment (usually by grizzly killing) has been increasing. It is hard to imagine that this verdict is going to improve either the functioning of the police that enforce laws in Iraq or the functioning of the legislature that can’t decide on what laws should be enforced. The Hussein trial may be important to history, but surely it is a side-show for modern politics.

Meanwhile, the administration’s spokesmen claim that the other, “smaller” piece of news — an editorial in the Military Times newspapers calling for Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s resignation — is also old hat. Yes, we’ve heard before that some people in the military are starting to question whether they are making any difference as they carry out their missions in Iraq. And yes, the commanders “in the field” have not called for Rumsfeld to resign. But it is hard to think that the commanders’ judgments about the current state of Iraq — and the trajectory of Iraqi government and security — match those of the political leadership. And the folks at Military Times have a strong connection to the troops, so we shouldn’t take their editorial as just “more of the same” from shrill war critics or a liberal media (although, fortunately, I’m not aware that anyone in the administration has used that particular line of defense). (more…)

With polls suggesting the Democratic Party will win control of the House next week, controversy is brewing about Nancy Pelosi’s likely choice—if she becomes Speaker—to chair the House intelligence committee. Recent articles in the Washington Post and New York Times indicate that Pelosi is planning to pass over Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the committee, in favor of the second- or third-ranking committee Democrat. If Pelosi does so, she’ll send a terrible signal that she views intelligence issues primarily as a partisan battleground, weakening Democratic prospects for gaining the American people’s trust on national security.

Pelosi reportedly opposes appointing Harman to the post because she doesn’t think Harman has attacked the Bush administration’s intelligence policies aggressively enough. In fact, Harman has regularly criticized various policies of the administration—including its distortion of intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs and its warrantless surveillance of Americans—but her criticisms have been reasoned and moderate and have been accompanied by constructive policy proposals.

Instead of focusing only on administration abuses, Harman has worked to reform and strengthen the intelligence community by sponsoring bills that would establish a government-wide security clearance system; prohibit military or intelligence officers from subjecting detainees to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; and affirm that the National Security Agency can only conduct domestic surveillance if it receives a court warrant. Harman has also been a leader of congressional efforts to modify provisions of the Patriot Act that infringe excessively on civil liberties, while preserving provisions that facilitate appropriate intelligence collection.

On all of these issues, Harman’s sensible positions fall clearly within the mainstream of American public opinion. Her centrism represents a valuable asset for Democrats at a time when the American people seek pragmatic bipartisan leadership on difficult national security issues. (more…)

Some of our readers may have seen PSA’s ad in the New York Times and Washington Post a few weeks ago on the topic of Darfur.  The ad served as a call to action for US policy makers to be more aggressive in restoring peace to western Sudan.  The ad also acknowledged the role the international community can and must play to facilitate the peace process.  It is this role that I’d like to direct my thoughts toward this afternoon.

The State Department finds itself taking the lead on a number of issues these days.  Iraq tops the list, followed by Iran and North Korea.  In South America, much of our diplomatic efforts are being spent on preventing Venezuela from taking the available seat on the Security Council.  And, though diplomatic efforts with Israel and its Arab neighbors have calmed down somewhat since the beginning of September, violence still threatens the region and, when it is necessary, the US will again take the lead. 

With so much on the agenda, the US has found it challenging to expend the time and resources that the Darfur Crisis deserves.  This is why it is so important for other countries to get more involved in the negotiations process.  President Bush has by no means forgotten Darfur, but with so many large-scale security threats around the world with which the US is so heavily involved, resolution of Darfur requires much more attention by other countries; namely Russia and China.  (more…)