As a soccer fan, I was thrilled to see that super-star David Beckham is headed to play in LA.  His contract and endorsements will be around $250 million over the next four years, not to mention press and media opportunities for him and his wife.  The eyes of the soccer nation and world are fixated on the deal.  With all that in mind one would think that the fate of Beckham’s new team rests squarely on his shoulders, and that to beat LA all one has to do is beat Beckham.  But any coach worth his salt will tell you that that’s not true; any successful coach would design a way to focus on Beckham without forgetting about the other 10 players that can hurt you.  But this isn’t a soccer blog, so I digress…  

With so much happening in Iraq, and so much contingent upon the new government’s success, it is difficult to take our eyes off the country to focus on other regional issues.  However, while a stable Iraq is key to a stable Middle East, it is not the only key.  There are other regional issues that could continue adding to instability if left unattended to.  Of course, I haven’t said anything that we don’t know.  But with so many things involved in critical government, this is easier said than done.  Say what you will about the Bush administration, but he has managed to keep his bases covered (this isn’t a baseball blog either), providing a lot of focus on Iraq, but not at the expense of other important regional issues. (more…)

Yesterday I listened to Jim Lehrer’s one on one interview with President Bush.  I was simply amazed at the President’s answers.  You can listen to an audio transcript and see a text transcript here.  Despite my revulsion at Bush’s Iraq policy, I’ve always felt that Bush is a pretty gifted politician.  He has always had a real skill connecting with regular people.  Also, his unwillingness to waver in the face of overwhelming opposition is interpreted by many as a positive trait.  At least he sticks to his guns, right?  Well, that may be appropriate for a sheriff in the wild west.  It doesn’t work for complex foreign policy issues.  I accept that Bush has certainly thought a lot about Iraq.  What is tragic is that his answers seem to reflect a jingoistic oversimplistic view of the situation.  He may have a deeper understanding of it.  However, this interview gave me the impression of a man who is grasping at straws trying to gain any traction on a rapidly sinking policy proposal.   

Here Bush is asked about recent deaths in Iraq:

MR. LEHRER: Just today, another 35 people were killed in bombings; 80 over the weekend.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah, there is a difference between – look, death is terrible – but remember, some of these bombings are done by al-Qaida and their affiliates, all trying to create doubt and concern and create these death squads or encourage these death squads to roam neighborhoods….

It amazed me that Bush continues to link the specter of Al Qaeda to the current situation in Iraq.  While I agree that Al Qaeda is a factor in the country, from what I’ve seen recently the bulk of the killing is a result of sectarian conflict.  Even if we got rid of Al Qaeda in Iraq, we’d still have an enormous mess on our hands.  Bush once again plays to the fears of Americans by portraying this as a fight against Al Qaeda.  It’s the same strategy he used in the 2004 presidential campaign even after it had been proved that no link existed by between Al Qaeda and 9/11.  What’s sad is that this fear rhetoric continues today.  (more…)

Every now and then the talk shows do, in fact, perform a public service. There were some noteworthy comments during the holiday weekend. First up, consider this exchange on Sunday’s 60 Minutes with President Bush:

SCOTT PELLEY, co-host: In his first interview since his address to the nation, Mr.. Bush sat down with us at the presidential retreat, Camp David. We also traveled with the president as he explained his plan to the troops and then as he met with families of Americans killed in action. Whatever you think of his policy, after this interview, you won’t doubt that even though Mr. Bush admits mistakes, he’s still a man determined to go his own way.
 
You mentioned mistakes having been made in your speech. What mistakes are you talking about?
 
President GEORGE W. BUSH: Abu Ghraib was a mistake. Using bad language, like, you know, “Bring them on” was a mistake. I think history is going to look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better. No question about it.
 
PELLEY: The troop levels, sir…
 
Pres. BUSH: Could have been a mistake.
 
PELLEY: ….were not–could have been a mistake.
 
Pres. BUSH: Yeah. And the reason I brought up the mistakes, and I–is, one, I–well, that’s the job of the commander-in-chief, and, two, I don’t want people blaming our military. We got a bunch of good military people out there doing what we’ve asked them to do, and the temptation is going to find scapegoats. Well, if the people want a scapegoat, they got one right here in me because it’s my decisions.

(more…)

In an odd twist for a publication whose ideas about a “debate” over Iraq tends to be between those who think the war was a really good idea vs. those who think it was a pretty good idea, but that it was poorly executed, The New Republic online is hosting two people with opposing viewpoints: AEI’s Reuel Marc Gerecht vs. Larry Korb of the Center for American Progress.

Alas, the first round has just concluded, with Gerecht essentially lumping Korb with the “nefarious forces” of “bigoted isolationism.” So much for a genuine debate.

I have had the pleasure of debating Larry Korb on several different occasions, and in truth we agree far more often than we disagree. He is, without exception, thoughtful and articulate, but also polite and respectful, even when his interlocutors are not. I will understand if, this time around, Larry loses his cool.

An attack on Gerecht’s shattered credibility is doubly warranted given the sheer difficulty in trying to deconstruct Gerecht’s arguments. (Indeed, I’m reluctant to use the term, as what Gerecht is really engaged in is more wishful thinking and unsubstantiated assertions flavored with a healthy dose of ad hominem attack against any who question him).

If there is some philosophy underlying Gerecht’s case for the surge, I presume it is found in the following passage:

I can understand–though not appreciate–Americans who don’t want to see Americans dying in Iraq because they value American lives more highly than they do Iraqi ones. This sentiment, more common on the right than on the left, inevitably leads to a bigoted isolationism that allows nefarious forces to run amok. Dressed up by a higher education, it usually depicts most foreigners as too culturally retrograde to sustain liberal and democratic values–and therefore not worth the loss of American life…. Saving people from slaughter, even genocide, isn’t worth the effort for this school of thought, since such calamities are, in part, condign punishment for having retrograde political cultures. Foreigners would have to be real innocents being butchered by easily defeated bad guys before these folks would be compelled to dispatch American soldiers to stop a slaughter. Even if the United States were in part responsible for provoking a humanitarian catastrophe, this group doesn’t feel guilt long, at least not sufficiently to stop the mess, especially if we have to spill much blood and treasure for natives deficient in reasonableness and gratitude.

I’ve taken issue here with the promiscuous use of the term “isolationist” to describe people who prefer to interact in a voluntary, peaceful, non-coercive, way with individuals who happen to have been born/live outside of the United States. But I’m not the only one. (See here and here.)

Still, there inevitably will be some people who believe me to be an “isolationist” because I question the wisdom and the morality of invading and occupying a country that posed no credible threat to U.S. security, and not much of one to U.S. interests. (My continued strong support for the military mission in Afghanistan, and for the use of military assets, where appropriate, in the ongoing campaign against al Qaeda apparently counts for little.)

It turns out that there is a core, and in all likelihood irreconcilable, philosophical difference between me and these Bush Doctrine dead-enders. It has to do with measuring costs and benefits, and specifically with the value one attaches to human life.

Gerecht implies that we ought not to “value American lives more highly than Iraqi ones.”  So, then, is the Constitution to be enforced the world over?  Doesn’t this inevitably lead to the presumption of anything more than a one-to-one death exchange as a moral imperative for U.S. intervention, in all likelihood military intervention? If it costs, say, 500,000 American lives to save 550,000 Darfurians, we must do it, then? 

If my skepticism toward this calculus renders me an isolationist, then so be it.

For what its worth, I still prefer the term “realist” — as in, I care about the lives of others, as well as my own family and friends, and I have a realistic appreciation for human beings’ limited ability to predict the future, and to engineer ideal outcomes. I further believe that military force is a particularly inappropriate tool for shaping such outcomes, and therefore I support war only as a last resort, and only when American security is at stake.

It is a sad commentary on the state of political discourse when I am even required to make such arguments publicly, because they are not assumed to be understood at the outset.

This may seem a minor point amongst the major points being debated in the country today, but it comes up again, and again, and again, and again: the manufacturing of some completely meaningless personal political squabble to distract from substantive debate (remember John Kerry’s “botched joke?).

Case in point. Yesterday Barbara Boxer said this in a hearing to Condi Rice: “Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.”

That’s a fairly straightforward way of pointing out that for all this talk of changing strategies and tactics, foreign policy has a direct impact on a relatively small number of Americans who are bearing a heavier and heavier load, and who are about to be asked to sacrifice some more. But then we get this on the front page of the NY Post, dutifully followed by this lead story on the Fox News website, followed by outraged bloggers.

No doubt, the noise generated in right wing tabloid-talkradio-FoxNews-blog universe will be loud enough to draw small mainstream news items. Sometimes, it even draws an apology (which, in turn, generates more news stories).

This is a big waste of time. Every inch of space dedicate to these stupid games is an inch not being devoted to debate over the real issue – the Administration’s policy in Iraq. Does the NY Post and Fox News really think that this is the most important story of the day?

Think about what is more important and more likely. That John Kerry hates the troops, Dick Durbin thinks U.S. troops are Nazis, and Barbara Boxer hates childless women? Or that President Bush blundered into Iraq, U.S. personnel are ordered to use deplorable interrogation tecniques, and we should pause to consider the strain of extended rotations to Iraq on our military families?

Among the many disgraces of this era of our politics, I hope these phony, manufactured distractions from substantive debate are left behind. Politics may be theatre, but it need not be theatre that is an insult to our intelligence.

I just came across an interesting article in the Washington Post about Bill Richardson’s recent success in getting Sudan’s president, Bashir, to agree to a 60 day cease fire.  This could be nothing at all, considering the history of broken cease fire agreements in Sudan. Or it could actually be the beginning of something substantial.  I don’t know which it is, and I admit that I do have a bit of skepticism here.  However, what struck me most about this story was that Richardson went to Sudan as an individual state governor sent by an NGO, the Save Darfur Coalition, and basically had nothing to bargain away. 

Despite having no diplomatic standing it seems that he might have moved this process further than the Bush administration has been able to do in the past several months.  This, despite the appointment of Andrew Natsios as Bush’s special envoy to Sudan.  It really makes me wonder what kind of pressure the US is really placing on Sudan if a state governor can get a cease fire agreement without the authority to make any concessions.  Perhaps there’s more to Richardson’s visit than meets the eye.  But, my understanding is that he hasn’t been granted any special authority by the US government.  If that’s the case, with all the Bush administration’s strong rhetoric, why hadn’t we been able to get such an agreement sooner?  

As I said before, this agreement may not lead to anything.  But, it could be a step in the right direction.   If this is for real, it will be a tragedy that it took so long in coming. 

Faster than a retreating neocon! More powerful than Dick Cheney with a shotgun! Able to leap self-evident truths at a single bound! (“Look, up in the sky. “It’s a surge!” “It’s an escalation!” It’s a supreme act of futility!”

Yes, it’s the new Bush Iraq policy. George Bush, “The Decider” from another reality, who came to Washington with sensibilities and ideologies far beyond those of normal humans! George Bush, who can change the course of sensible foreign policies, bend logic and common sense in his bare hands, and who, disguised as a United States president, fights a never-ending battle for continuing conflict, death, destruction, and the American way!”

Okay, maybe that was little over the top but probably not any more than the Iraq policy, which President Bush will announce tonight.

Maybe futility is too harsh a word for what Bush is going to propose. Perhaps as Joshua Marshall, over at Talking Points Memo, writes, we should just consider it a ‘punt’ – a strategically meaningless increase in troops meant to allow the president to avoid dealing with the failure of his policy and to lay the groundwork for getting the next president to take the blame for his epochal screw-up.” (more…)

I am not an Africa expert, and perhaps that is why I am confused about U.S. policy in Somalia. So I am using this blog to ask some honest questions, and I hope that our readers (or my fellow bloggers) will help me with some answers in the comments section.

Here’s what I understand to be the core events of 2006 in Somalia, from a U.S. perspective. First, the Islamic Courts movement, a group of fundamentalist Islamists, took over much of the country and started to establish a government, leaving the “transitional government” coalition of warlords in control only of only one major city, Baidoa. The areas controlled by the Islamic Courts enjoyed relative stability, but the Courts also imposed a relatively stringent version of Sharia and restricted Western influences (cigarettes, music) and some traditional Somali customs (chewing Khat) [for this background, see, for example, this New York Times article].

Americans don’t tend to like foreign governments that make such decisions, but the real U.S. policy beef with the Islamic Courts came down to their ties to al Qaeda. In the early years of the War on Terror, the U.S. feared that terrorists driven out of Afghanistan and Iraq would regroup in the chaos of Somalia (before the Islamic Courts took over); that did not seem to happen — perhaps because the terrorists preferred to keep fighting Americans on more central battlefields like Iraq. Nevertheless, some people (like Vance Serchuck at the American Enterprise Institute) seem to think that the Islamic Courts cooperated to a significant extent with al Qaeda, at a minimum “harboring” operatives; the maximal view of al Qaeda involvement (described, though not endorsed, by Niall Ferguson and attributed to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Fraser, here) seems to suggest that al Qaeda’s “East Africa Cell” “infiltrated” Islamist fighters into Somalia to begin with, perhaps leading to the Islamic Courts’ initial military success at taking over much of the country.

These ties apparently led to the second major event of 2006 in Somalia, from the U.S. perspective: some level of support (ranging from “tacit” to “logistical” in various accounts) for the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia that drove out the Islamic Courts and replaced their rule in Mogadishu (and other major cities) with the intermin government’s president. And to the most interesting choice, from my perspective: as Kenya sealed its border with Somalia to prevent the escape of the Islamic Courts fighters (at the request of the interim government and the Ethiopians), the U.S. used naval forces off the Somali coast to try to block Islamic Courts fighters’ escape by sea (see coverage in the Washington Post).

Of course, this strikes me as an extremely challenging mission, given the long Somali coastline and the number of small boats that must normally ply the waters there (for fishing and such). And I’m not sure how hard the U.S. is trying to really “seal” the coast.

But the choice to declare that policy at all seems remarkable to me. Of course U.S. forces generally do their best to chase al Qaeda operatives around the world — specific people who have done the U.S. harm or have tried to do the U.S. harm. But the Islamic Courts must have had many more supporters than the small number of people there who specifically have attacked the United States (or even our allies). Most people fighting in Somalia presumably cared most about stability in Somalia or, perhaps, Islam in Somalia. Somalia is apparently relatively homogeneous ethnically and religiously, but clan (and subclan) differences lead to a constant struggle for power there; some people seem to think that Islam might serve as a uniting and stabilizing force there. If the U.S. is now in the business of rounding people up solely because they supported an Islamic government, are we not substantially expanding the list of adversaries in the War on Terror? I’m certainly not inclined to think someone is an anti-American terrorist just because s/he prefers a form of government in her/his own country that I would not choose for the United States!

Somalia is an interesting country for the War on Terror. Al Qaeda has certainly had deep connections there in the past (apparently dating to the famous “Black Hawk Down” incident). And its chaos has offered something of a test for two widely believe theoried: 1) that “failed states are breeding grounds for anti-American terrorists; and 2) that “failed states offer hideouts and training grounds for anti-American terrorists.” It seems to me that Somalia provides some evidence against theory #1: as far as I know, very few al Qaeda fighters in Iraq or other terrorists around the world hail from Somalia; Somalis are busy fighting for their own future in their own country. And I am dubious of the second theory, but I don’t really know enough at this point to judge. What do we really know about the ties between al Qaeda and the Islamic Courts? And even if there were ties between the two, were those anti-American ties or ties aimed primarily at promoting Islamic rule over Islamic citizens — a frequent goal announced in al Qaeda rhetoric?

Now that the Islamic Courts have been bounced from power, al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has called for jihad against the Ethiopian “crusaders” in Somalia. But what was his view two months ago? I certainly don’t remember resounding calls from the jihadis to “regroup in Somalia to prepare a big fight against the Americans.” Did anyone else notice that directive?

The talk shows were back in full force after the holiday break. Iraq and the Hamlet like question of to surge or not to surge additional U.S. forces to Iraq, which President Bush is supposed to speak on this Wednesday evening, was the topic de jour.

One noteworthy bit dealt with increasing dissent in the Republican Party over Bush policy toward Iraq. Consider this excerpt from CNN’s Late Edition between host Wolf Blitzer and House Republican whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri: 

BLITZER: On this issue of the mission, as you know, a lot of Democrats are critical of the president, but increasingly we’re hearing from Republicans in the Senate and the House who are very critical of what the president’s strategy has been and looks like it still is. Listen to Gordon Smith of Oregon and Heather Wilson, a Congresswoman from New Mexico, both Republicans.
 
U.S. SENATOR GORDON SMITH, R-OREGON: I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs, day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal.
 
U.S. REP. HEATHER WILSON, R-NEW MEXICO: I am not a supporter of a surge to do for the Iraqis what the Iraqis will not do for themselves. I also have not seen a clarity of mission, and I think that’s the greatest weakness that we have right now.
 
BLITZER: She’s a member of the Intelligence committee. As you know, she’s just back from a visit to Iraq. You have a serious problem with your own Republicans. (more…)

As Democrats took control of Congress yesterday there was much talk of bipartisanship in the air.  The New York Times made the observation that this return to bipartisan rhetoric is a time honored tradition that quickly dissipates.  It is true that both parties talk a good game in terms of bipartisanship.  Everyone wants it.  But when it comes down to the hard work of actually listening to the other side, we are frequently left wanting.  Already I see that both parties seem to be returning to their time honored tradition of sidelining opposing views despite yesterday’s public commitment to civility. 

Certainly there is blame to go around for both sides of the aisle.  The two examples that come immediately to mind are the President’s upcoming Iraq plan and the Democrats’ plans for their first 100 hours of legislation. 

It seems that the President will be announcing his new Iraq strategy next week.  Many believe that a major component of this strategy will be a significant increase in troops.  Most polls show that there is a bipartisan consensus amongst the American public that we need to be starting the process of withdrawing troops, not increasing them.  The American public voiced its opposition to the President’s approach in the November elections.  And, finally, the Iraq Study group presented its expressly bipartisan recommendation to start decreasing our military presence in Iraq and to put more effort into a political resolution.  Despite these numerous calls for dramatic change, the change that the President will likely propose is one that has little bipartisan support.  And it seems unlikely that the President will be unable to garner that support.  Iraq is the key foreign policy challenge of the day that can only be resolved with bipartisan support.  The President, however, seems to be convinced that he can push us through this difficult time simply with the support of his most loyal followers.  It’s not going to work. 

Of course, there’s blame to go around for the Democrats too.  It seems that the Democratic leadership has decided that it doesn’t need to listen to the opposition to enact its first 100 hours of legislation.  Of course, as a Democrat, I would be happy to see the party’s legislative agenda enacted as quickly as possible.  To the victor should go the spoils, right?  However, I also realize that this is the attitude that got the Republicans in the place they are now.  We’re told that Republicans will be involved in legislating after the first 100 hours.  I’m guessing, however, that as legislative progress happens it will be increasingly difficult to truly return to a process that involves input from both sides of the aisle.  If you want to turn over a new leaf, you do it immediately, not later when it’s more convenient.  This doesn’t mean that the resulting legislation is simply the average consensus position between the two sides. What it does mean, however, is that we have a change in the way that legislation is discussed and debated.  The opposition party should not simply be locked out.  They should at least have a seat at the table.  I’m talking here less about outcome and more about process – a process which was broken under Republican control, and I fear will continue to be broken under Democratic control.