I am sorry to be late with this weekend review, but I was at a conference the last two days. So let’s briefly review; very briefly, to be truthful, because I’m not sure if I can contain my bile if we look at this blather in detail.

Here up at bat is this week’s designated spinner, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley on THIS WEEK ON ABC commenting on the amendments by Senators John Warner and Richard Lugar calling for the president to start planning now for a redeployment out of Iraq . He is about to engage in what is called damning with faint praise: 

HADLEY: Well, look, these are two serious men and I’ve talked to them about Iraq. We’ll continue to do so.. I think what’s important is to recognize in some sense what they’re not saying. These two men are not calling for an arbitrary deadline for withdrawal or withdrawal schedule. Secondly, they talk about how important success in Iraq is to American security here at home. They made that link. And secondly — and thirdly, they talk about how we’ll probably have to be engaged in Iraq for a substantial period of time.
 
What they’ve called for is to begin now talking about planning and they’ve raised some interesting issues that we need to think about as we see how we might move to a next phase in Iraq when our military forces might have a different role. But the point is that in legislation the Congress adopted in May with the support and cooperation of Senator Warner, a very sensible schedule was laid out, which begins in September with the report from Ambassador Crocker, ambassador in Baghdad, General Petraeus, our local commander, about where we are, an assessment of where our current policy is and recommendations about how to go forward. (more…)

I spent the last two weeks at Washington and Lee University running a program for high school students interested in international affairs called Global Scholar. And here’s what I found out: these young people are interested in the world in more ways than just security. Our core curriculum at Global Scholar follows the standard set of readings and lectures for a college level introductory course on World Affairs. These readings tend to be very focused on security issues and the central question is what strategies states should take to preserve and enhance their power. But the young people in our program wanted to talk about a lot more than hard power. When they had the chance to lead their own discussions and create their own campaigns, they focused overwhelmingly on climate, poverty, business development and health. What I took away from the summer was that young people today care about a wide range of issues and they believe they have a role to play in issues from terrorism to AIDS. Bill Gates recently gave the commencement address at Harvard and I could not agree more with his closing lines:

“You graduates are coming of age in an amazing time. As you leave Harvard, you have technology that members of my class never had. You have awareness of global inequity, which we did not have. And with that awareness, you likely also have an informed conscience that will torment you if you abandon these people whose lives you could change with very little effort. You have more than we had; you must start sooner, and carry on longer.

Knowing what you know, how could you not?”

The following is an excerpt from “Baker-Hamilton 2.0,” an op-ed by Clark Kent Ervin, former DHS IG (now at the Apsen Institute) and Andy Zelleke, of Harvard’s Kennedy School, that appeared in yesterday’s CSM:

In sum, the absence of comprehensive oversight by a body independent of the White House makes for a glaring deficiency in presidential accountability on the gravest of issues. (more…)

Quick update on my inordinately long post from last week: I issued a statement on the interim progress report last Friday, and we have since posted information about an event featuring Sen. Hagel that will take place this Wednesday, July 18th, beginning at 12:30. To learn more, or to register, visit the Cato web site:

 http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=3974

Since March the Stanley Foundation has been involved in a noble campaign that pairs together ideological adversaries to craft bipartisan positions of different foreign policy issues.  This effort, “Bridging the Foreign Policy Divide” is very much needed.  I read with interest the most recent paper on democratic development authored by Francis Fukuyama and Michael McFaul. 

The paper begins by outlining the different arguments for and against democracy promotion as a key tenet of US foreign policy.  In the end, the authors conclude that indeed it does make sense, despite the inherent problems, to include democracy promotion as an important component of US foreign policy for both strategic and moral interests.  I agree. 

Historically, both Democrats and Republicans have heralded the importance of democracy promotion.  Woodrow Wilson proclaimed that, “The world must be made safe for democracy.”  Reagan said, “Democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.”  Many Democratic and Republican administrations have included democracy promotion as components of their foreign policy.  Of course, anyone involved in democracy promotion work knows that Iraq has completely skewed the public’s view of democracy promotion.  Many who once believed in democracy promotion now question whether this is the correct goal.  Those who are involved in democracy promotion activities around the world are hampered both by the failures of democratic checks on power (ie Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) and the fact that the supposed goal of democracy promotion in Iraq has led to mass chaos and death.  If that is what democracy is about, few will be convinced that this is the best path.  (more…)

How do we measure progress in Iraq? Perhaps the better question should be “Why do we bother?”

The White House would like us to not count the deathtoll from horrific terrorist attacks, such as the suicide truck bomb on Saturday that killed more than 150 people. During Wednesday’s press gaggle, Tony Snow assured the assembled correspondents “even though there is still spectacular explosions [sic], the fact is that the disruptions have gone down.”

The Republican president who fashions himself a fiscal conservative would prefer that you not dwell on the costs of the war. Speaking in Cleveland on Tuesday, President Bush predicted “the big fight in Washington is going to be whether or not the budgets that the Congress is trying to now pass is [sic] going to go through.” He assured his audience they would not. “I’ll veto them if they’re excessive in spending.

We can’t have “excessive spending,” after all. As a point of reference, the Iraq war, which has already cost more than $450 billion, is consuming an additional $10 billion every month. If Iraq were a cabinet agency, its annual budget would be larger than all but one other department: Defense.

Another metric is the sickening drip, drip, drip of American casualties. I was moved by Pennsylvania Senator Robert Casey reading aloud the names of the 169 men and women from his state who have been killed. If John Cornyn or Kay Bailey Hutchison were to do the same thing, it would take them nearly twice as long — 329 Texans have been killed in the war.

The equally sickening Iraqi deathtoll defies precise calculation, and even the estimates are the subject of intense debate. 

We can measure political support for the war, which continues to decline, and the growing support for a timetable for withdrawal. Contrast that with voting patterns in the Senate, where Republicans have responded slowly, if at all, to the wishes of their constituents. A carefully crafted and eminently sensible proposal to mandate some reasonable standards for rest and recuperation for soldiers deployed to and from Iraq received the support of seven Republicans, six of whom are facing reelection next year, but ultimately failed to achieve the 60 votes needed.

Equally notable were those who did not vote for the measure, including at least one other Republican who has voiced concerns about the war, and who is also up for reelection in 2008: New Mexico’s Pete Domenici. George Voinovich (OH) and Richard Lugar (IN), despite their recent criticism of the president’s war, ultimately voted to give the White House’s stay the course strategy more time.

But for all this focus on what is happening here, in the United States; for all the talk of Americans killed and wounded; and despite the money spent and the lives lost, the real focus is, and should be, on the Iraqi government and on the Iraqi people. Hence the importance of those elusive benchmarks.

When President Bush announced the so-called “surge” in January, he stressed:

I’ve made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. 

Then was the time to act. It has been more than six months. What progress are they, the Iraqis, making toward their goal of regaining their sovereignty, or seeing to it that the U.S. military presence in their country will eventually come to an end?

Answer: not nearly enough.

(more…)

US policy towards Iraq seems to be heading into a death spiral. The President has no discernible strategy, and so the prospect of holding out for something better seems to be nil. The consequences of leaving, however, especially after the completely incompetent job that the Bush political team has done (in spite of and in detriment to the incredible courage and professionalism of our armed forces) are enormous. The images of what follows our draw down will shake our country to the core. At this point, however, forward is not an option. It is too late for that, and we need an active strategy for minimizing the consequences of our failure. Support for the President is on the verge of collapse, and there is a great opportunity for Congressional Republicans and Democrats to come together to develop a joint plan for going forward that would include a draw down of troops and a much broader diplomatic engagement. Senators Lugar and Biden should take the lead in developing such a plan and getting as many congressional and other leaders to endorse it before going public. The plan could draw extensively on the Iraq Study Group report if necessary. America has failed in Iraq, but we need a bipartisan strategy to rally around for us to move forward.

Yesterday, Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) published an op-ed in the Mississippi Clarion-Ledger in which he defended the now-dead Senate immigration bill as “a work in progress” that was “better than doing nothing.”  It’s hard to argue with such measured enthusiasm.  After all, the simple fact that this country at last paid some attention to the snowballing failure of our border control and immigration systems is a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the senior Senator from Mississippi, the President, Senators McCain, Reid, Kennedy and other unlikely allies backing the effort missed a critical opportunity to achieve real progress.  The opportunity was lost not, as many argue, because of the dogmatic opposition of the far left and the far right to the bill’s compromise position.  Rather, Senate and administration leaders themselves squandered a chance to sell the bill as an even bolder, grander compromise that would have explicitly sidelined extremists on both sides, while addressing the valid concerns of the vast majority of Americans in the middle. (more…)

Maybe because it is officially summer now or maybe it is just the heat, but it all seemed like a bunch of yadda yadda on the talk shows this weekend. Still, with some effort these excerpts seem relevant. Here, for example, is Major General Rick Lynch, the commander of coalition forces operating in the region south of Baghdad on CNN’s  LATE EDITION:

BLITZER: Well, then, can we be specific in terms of the Iraqi military? There are thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi military and police forces that have been trained, albeit in various degrees. How much more time do they need to really step up to the plate?
 
LYNCH: In my battle space, which is the southern belt of Baghdad, in the southern provinces, I’ve only got really two Iraqi security force brigades I deal with. An Iraqi army brigade and an Iraqi national police brigade.
 
The Iraqi army brigade, candidly, is quite capable, very confident, has great leadership, and has great effect in our battle spaces. It’s only one brigade. And you need about another brigade’s worth of troops to be able to secure in that area.
 
Same with the national police on the east side of the Tigris River. We could use about three more battalions of security forces on that side. And they’re not there yet. But the Iraqi forces, you have either got to reposition them or they have got to generate them. (more…)

I was glad to see Jon Wallace write about the continued unraveling of Pakistan over the holiday period. However, I wanted to raise a question about one part of the post. Jon wrote:

“The last two prime ministers, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, enjoy little support in the country (though there have been talks of bringing Bhutto back in a power sharing arrangement) and, to make matters worse, parts of the country are going through a “Talibanization”.
Talking with a close Pakistani friend, and policy/political operator, about Bhutto I found his reaction interesting – while he is no fan of Benazir, he felt that if she returned and stood in free and fair elections her party would win handily.

I tend to agree with his analysis and believe that U.S. policy should include a push for full democratic elections as soon as possible. While some will fear that there is a risk involved with such a move, it seems that the status quo is not something we can live with.

I also wanted to share this comment with you – taken from www.jinnah21.com:

“Religious parties in Pakistan have never been able to get more than 12-15% of the vote in any fairly held general elections, a fact consistently ignored, to their own peril, by the policy makers in United States. They are not expected to do any better if elections later this year were to be fair and all parties and politicians were allowed to participate freely. However, the religious parties have gained steadily under Musharraf. They now enjoy the kind of status they could not have dreamed of in a democratic Pakistan. Contrary to widely held views, military dictators have always needed the support of religious parties and vice versa. Under a dictatorial rule these parties have historically flourished. Both the religious parties and military rulers hold any real credibility with the people of Pakistan, therefore need each other’s support for survival.”