Across the Aisle » Brian Vogt

Will Senators Have the Midas Touch?

Brian Vogt — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 03:12:48 +0000

In the famous Greek myth, the god Dionysus granted King Midas one wish. Midas knew just what he wanted: anything he touched should turn to gold. Dionysus warned Midas he would come to regret this wish, but the king insisted and Dionysus relented. At first, Midas was thrilled with this new power as he turned his bed, a carpet, and even a flower into his obsession. His elation, however, soon turned to dismay when he tried to eat, only to have his food turn to gold as well. He fully realized the depth of his mistake when he embraced his beloved daughter, killing her by transforming her into a golden statuette.

The moral of the story is clear – beware the future costs of immediate gain. This is a lesson that that Senators should heed this week as the they consider alternatives to the House budget bill.

The House of Representatives proposed drastic cuts to the 2011 foreign aid budget. If the House gets its way, international food aid will be cut by 40 percent, assistance to refugees will be cut by 45 percent, contributions to a global fund to combat AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis will be cut by 40 percent. International disaster assistance would be down by more than 60 percent.

Not only will these cuts lead to preventable deaths around the world, but they will also harm our long-term security interests. This is a classic case of being penny-wise and pound-foolish. The victims of this short-sightedness are not just the famished and diseased overseas, but the members of our very own military here at home.

America’s military is charged with responding to conflict, while our development assistance often targets its root causes: poverty, injustice, and desperation. Left unaddressed, these conditions fuel anger and alienation, and provide fertile recruiting grounds for violent extremists.

Of course, development aid is no magic bullet. But, as Secretary of Defense Gates observed, development aid that helps prevent conflict reduces the need to use military power by contributing to stability and good governance. “If you are able to do those things … in a focused and sustainable way, then it may be unnecessary for us to send soldiers,” Gates said. Nearly 150,000 brave men and women are serving our country in Afghanistan and Iraq and more than 5,500 have made the ultimate sacrifice; cuts to development assistance will put more Americans at risk.

Development assistance does more than save lives; it saves jobs. By strengthening economies abroad, U.S. foreign aid helps lay the foundation for economic growth back home. About 6.9 percent of all U.S. jobs (10.3 million) in 2008 depended on exports. Those jobs could increase as standards of living rise in the developing world and consumers abroad demand more American goods.

Although this money could make a tremendous impact on America’s long-term interests, it’s actually less than one percent of the federal budget. That’s less than Americans spend on their pets every year.

Continuing our investments abroad does not mean ignoring the national debt and the tough choices that must be made. We all understand that our current economic trajectory is unsustainable. In tough economic times it’s tempting to look for quick fixes. The long-term solution, however, must come in the form of entitlement and tax reform, the real drivers of our debt. Cutting foreign aid is but a costly distraction.

In the coming weeks, Senators will have a choice: will they recognize the importance of development assistance to America’s long-term interests? Or, in their zeal to save a few cents, will they follow in the footsteps of King Midas, overcome by the glimmer of gold?

Reason for hope in Egypt

Brian Vogt — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 02:48:58 +0000

In this populous Muslim majority nation, demonstrators were fed up with more than 30 years of authoritarian rule by a former general. The country’s economy was imploding. The military had become an enormous state apparatus that reached its tentacles into all aspects of society, including hundreds of businesses. The President called the shots that were rubber stamped by a compliant legislature. Although there were regular elections, the results were always a foregone conclusion. Opposition voices were stifled. Security forces were known for their brutal treatment of regime opponents.

An emerging middle class, led initially by student activists, demanded reforms. They were fed up with the crony capitalism that enriched the President and his associates while the rest of the country dealt with skyrocketing inflation. Protests spread throughout the country. Before long the President announced that he would not step down but that he would start a transition that would lead to new elections and he wouldn’t run. Unfortunately, after years of repression, there seemed to be dearth of viable opposition leaders.

As the world has watched transfixed on unfolding developments in Egypt, one would assume that the description above refers to the events of the past 14 days. It does not. It describes the 1998 democratic transition in Indonesia. It is remarkable how similar the events appear. Days after President Suharto announced that he would not run in a future election, he received word that he no longer had the support of the military, leading him to step down from the presidency and turn over power to his vice-president, B.J. Habibie.

It remains to be seen exactly how the this transition in Egypt will play out. But the Indonesian example provides a useful model of what can happen when things go right. Many have observed the the developments in Egypt and questioned if a democratic transition might ultimately lead to an outcome that the United States would regret. Will extremists take control and undo the peace treaty with Israel? Yes, it’s always a risk. But, it’s much less likely than some have predicted. In both Indonesia and Egypt, authoritarian leaders ruled the countries for more than thirty years and intentionally maintained distance between Islam and the state. While it may be tempting to assume that a democratic transition would open the floodgates to the creation of an Islamic state, that is not always the case. In Indonesia, for example, after the fall of Suharto, many political leaders sought to build support by portraying themselves as defenders of Islam. They discovered that although religion is a high priority of most Indonesians, they vote according to many factors. Islamic parties found that they had to moderate their messages and address the daily needs of citizens if they were to expand their electoral support. In this case, the democratic transition has, in large part, served as a moderating force.

For those who maintain that Egypt simply isn’t comparable to Indonesia, it’s particularly interesting to look at a recent Pew poll that examined attitudes towards democracy in the Muslim world. 59 percent of Egyptians and 65 percent of Indonesians indicated that they felt that democracy was the most preferable form of government. Although, there are other differences between the two countries in the poll, the results of this key question were surprisingly similar.

The other factor that will be critical for Egypt is the role of the military. Fareed Zakaria wrote a recent op-ed that argued that the real danger in Egypt in not Islamic fundamentalism, but rather, continued military control of government. The military’s stance over the past two weeks has been encouraging. By not responding to the protesters with violence, the military demonstrated restraint. Whether or not the military is open to reform and a decrease in its role in government remains to be seen. But, for those who argue that militaries never voluntarily relinquish power, it’s important to look once again at the case of Indonesia. Under Suharto, the Indonesian military held 75 reserved seats in the parliament and its dual role in security and political affairs was official military doctrine. After the fall of Suharto, over the past 12 years, the military has slowly but surely given up its political role. It has sold off many of its companies. Granted there is still much to be done. But, the fact that the Indonesian military seems to have accepted a greatly diminished role in government is a notable achievement.

As the drama ensues in Egypt, the outcome is far from certain. The Iranian revolution presents an alarming alternative narrative. However, the many similarities between current situation in Egypt and the democratic transition in Indonesia provide some cautious signs of hope and a possible path forward.

The State of the Union address is just like junior high school

Brian Vogt — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 02:28:57 +0000

Some teachers in junior high school would allow students to sit wherever they wanted in the classroom. Whenever this was the case, undoubtedly we would quickly group ourselves with our friends. The jocks sat with other jocks. The nerds sat with other nerds (generally my group). And the heavy metal thrashers sat with other heavy metal thrashers. As you can imagine, there wasn’t much communication between the groups. Other teachers assigned seats. All the cliques got mixed up and we were forced to interact with people that weren’t in our normal social circles. Although it was uncomfortable at first, I sometimes found myself learning a bit about the people around me. I learned to appreciate Metallica and the identify who was playing in the lineup for the weekend’s football game – not life changing discoveries, but important nonetheless in junior high interactions.

It turns out that the seating arrangements of the upcoming State of the Union address present a situation that is not altogether different from a junior high classroom. Our elected representatives will be faced with a simple question: is it better to sit with my close friends or reach out to to someone who isn’t in my clique?

Traditionally in the tightly choreographed State of the Union address, everyone plays their part. Democrats sit with Democrats on one side of the room. Republicans sit with Republicans on the other side of the room. Democrats stand and clap at their signature issues and Republicans do the same for their issues. Everyone plays their part – a bit like junior high.

Recently, however, something changed. After the tragedy in Tuscon, we’ve all been rethinking the roles that we play. There is a growing realization that there is lack of civility in our public life.

Ordinary Americans work with, socialize with, and go to church with people of many different political beliefs. Unfortunately, our political discourse has been polarized by right wing and left wing media outlets that encourage people to see issues in black and white terms. This harmful discourse was characterized by the outburst of Representatives Joe Wilson who exclaimed, “you lie!”, during President Obama’s last State of the Union address. We see and hear it every day in the partisan attacks on cable news and talk radio.

On Tuesday evening, a number of Democrats and Republicans will be breaking with their respective cliques in an acknowledgment that our discourse has become too caustic and too violent. Several weeks ago, Mark Udall (D-CO) suggested that Democrats and Republicans break with tradition and sit with their colleagues across the aisle. A number of representatives and senators have responded to Udall’s call. John McCain (R-AZ) announced that he’ll be sitting with Tom Udall (D-NM). Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced that he’ll be sitting with Tom Coburn (R-OK). Dick Durbin (D-IL) will be sitting with the junior senator Mark Kirk (R-IL). The entire seven member delegation from Colorado will be sitting together. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) will be sitting with John Thune (R-SD). Bob Casey (D-PA) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) will also be together. There may be others.

It may seem that this all about symbolism and the next day each side will go back to attacking the other. Perhaps that will happen. Some will just call this political theater. But it’s important to remember that politics and compromise are often as much about personal relationships and trust as policy details. Democrats and Republicans sometimes agree on broad principles that guide policy. The different statements of bipartisan agreement that PSA has released are a testament to that. It’s the lack of trust and personal connections that sometimes gets in the way of getting bipartisan legislation enacted. The 24 hour news cycle and partisan media outlets certainly contribute to the vitriolic rhetoric that permeates our policy debates. However, another factor is that our elected representatives simply don’t interact with their colleagues across the aisle on an informal basis as much as they used to. They don’t go to the same church. Their kids don’t play together. They run in different social circles. This may seem overly simplistic, but these interactions really do matter.

No, having congressmen and women from different parties sitting together during the State of the Union address won’t solve all of our problems. There will continue to be substantive debates on policy differences. Those debates are an integral part of our democracy. However, this State of the Union address might be an opportunity to start the process of building trust between those who have different viewpoints. In a divided congress, this trust will be critical in getting anything done in the next two years. Just as assigning seats in junior high helped bridge the divide between the nerds and jocks, so might this one small gesture be a step in the direction of greater civility in our discourse.

A New START needed for an old political game

Brian Vogt — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 02:25:08 +0000

There has been much attention in the lame duck session of Congress on whether Democrats and Republicans will find any common ground. Will they compromise on tax cuts and extend unemployment benefits? During a time of war, will gays and lesbians continue to be denied the opportunity to serve their country in the military? Will the children of illegal immigrants continue to be denied the chance to pay taxes and seek the American dream? There is much work to be done in the final weeks of this year. Democrats and Republicans have different approaches to some of these issues. That’s to be expected. However, there’s one issue on which pretty much all Democrats and Republicans outside of Congress agree – the New START Treaty. Yet, it’s being held hostage in the Senate for purely partisan reasons.

Particularly on domestic issues, there are fundamental differences between the parties that generate intense disagreement. Such discord can be healthy in a democracy as it provides clear choices to voters. What is damaging is when political leaders lose sight of their core values and emphasize winning at all costs. When a policy disagreement becomes a zero sum game in which a win by one’s opponent is considered a loss by the other, gridlock ensues. Before long, the policy matters less than a mark in the win column. This is what has happened with the New START treaty.

Sometimes both sides are at fault. They both dig in their heels. In other situations, one side demonstrates willingness to negotiate and the other sees more political benefit from standing firm. The latter is the situation we face today. The Republican leadership (thought not all Republicans) in the Senate is playing political games with America’s national security.

The New START treaty is a follow-on treaty to the original START treaty negotiated in 1991 under George H. W. Bush that set limits on the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States. Presidents Obama and Medvedev signed the New START treaty in April 2010. Many viewed this as a sign of renewal of US-Russian relations and a small step towards President Obama’s stated goal of a nuclear free future. It would reduce the number of strategic warheads to 1550 from the current limit of 2200 and establish new inspection procedures to ensure compliance. It must be ratified by two thirds of the Senate.

Do Republicans have valid issues with the treaty? Six Republican Secretaries of State think that despite any lingering concerns, it is still worth ratifying. Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker III, Lawrence Eagleburger, Colin Powell, and Condoleeza Rice have all publicly supported ratification. Richard Lugar, a Republican foreign policy authority in the Senate said, “We’re talking today about the national security of the United States of America. [T]his treaty must be ratified and be ratified in this session of the Congress.. . .We’re talking about thousands of warheads that are still there, an existential problem for our country. To temporize at this point I think is inexcusable.” In June, the Partnership for a Secure America released a bipartisan endorsement of 30 prominent Democrat and Republican foreign policy figures of the New START treaty. The U.S. military leadership is strongly behind the treaty according to Secretary of Defense Gates. It’s hard to find people who are against this treaty…. except in the Senate.

But what about the American people? Maybe the Republican leadership is standing up for a groundswell of public opposition to this treaty? Or, maybe not. A CNN poll found that three quarters of the American public supported ratification.

So, what could be holding back the Republican leadership on this issue? Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona has been leading the charge. Every time he has brought up an objection, the Obama administration has gone to great lengths to address his concerns. Kyl argued that modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal must happen in conjunction with the ratification of the treaty. The administration responded with more than$80 billion for modernization during the next 10 years. Whenever objections have been raised, the administration has bent over backwards to address concerns.

When asked about ratification of the New START treaty, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “…. 42 Republicans sent our friends on the other side of the aisle a letter earlier this week saying the two things we need to do first, decide what people’s tax rates are going to be come January 1, and decide how we’re going to fund the government for the next 10 months.” McConnell seems willing to sacrifice national security to get other priorities addressed. No one questions the need to address the tax issue. What is appalling is that McConnell seems to think that Senators are incapable to addressing more than one big issue at a time. He ignores the fact that the previous start treaty was ratified in a matter of days. Or maybe he just wants to hold the New START treaty hostage to benefit a political agenda. Imagine Harry Truman proposing the Berlin airlift and the Republican leadership responding, “Sorry, not enough time to deal with that at this time. Too much on our plate before recess.”

It’s time to stop playing games and get down to business. Our national security depends on it.

Making America More Secure by Balancing the Books

Brian Vogt — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 04:09:31 +0000

If Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democrat Barack Obama sat down for a beer to discuss the state of our country, they would probably agree on one important conclusion: our national security is dependent on the strength of our economy. Eisenhower wrote in his 1953 National Security Strategy, “Not only the world position of the United States, but the security of the whole free world, is dependent on the avoidance of recession and on the long-term expansion of the U.S. economy.” President Obama echoed a similar theme in his 2010 National Security Strategy: “Our strategy starts by recognizing that our strength and influence abroad begins with the steps we take at home. We must grow our economy and reduce our deficit.” The mushrooming national debt threatens not just our individual livelihoods but also our military, diplomatic, and economic leverage around the world.

Unfortunately, real solutions that might address the enormous challenge of our national debt are being drowned out by partisan posturing and soundbites. It’s time that Democrats and Republicans treat our national debt as a real threat to America’s long term security. Just as the two parties have come together to fight foreign foes such as Hitler or Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we need similar resolve to vanquish the national debt. The choices we must make will require sacrifice.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently projected that by the end of the year, the national debt will equal 62 percent of GDP – the highest percentage since World War II. Divided across the population, each citizen would owe more than $42,000. But that’s not the scary part. The CBO also projected that the debt could reach an astounding 185 percent of GDP by 2035. The amount owed by each citizen would skyrocket. This would be catastrophic. To dig out from such a hole, taxes would need to be dramatically increased, entitlements would be slashed, and interest rates would surge. Funding for the state department and the military would not be immune from the cuts. Our economic leverage over other countries would be dramatically reduced. Is this the sort of future we want for our children?

What are the major factors that contribute to this scary scenario? It’s not health care reform. According to the CBO, that actually decreases the debt. The recent stimulus spending contributes to the debt, but because it was temporary, its effect pales in comparison to three other factors. On the income side, a permanent continuation of the Bush tax cuts balloons the debt tremendously over the long term. On the spending side, social security and medicare are the culprits.

Many politicians have been talking about cutting pork barrel earmarks and reducing government waste, fraud and abuse. These solutions are akin to rescuing a sinking ship by bailing water with a tea cup. Unfortunately, few politicians dare talk about a return to the tax rates of the 1990s nor about changes to social security or medicare.

It’s a problem on both sides of the aisle. John Boehner recently said that he was unwilling to compromise on a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts. The newly elected tea party backed Republicans have only one answer to our country’s dire financial condition – tax cuts. Many Democrats are also hoping to wish the problem away. When the chairmen of the President’s debt commission released their proposal for addressing the debt crisis, the knee jerk reaction from Nancy Pelosi was that it was “simply unacceptable.” While there is much to criticize in that proposal, the political reality is that if we are going to address this debt issue, sacrifices will need to be made by all. Pelosi seemed to ignore the impending fiscal crisis. What’s needed in the nation is a serious discussion about tax policy and revenue and expenditure reforms in Social Security and Medicare that would allow these vitally important programs to continue to serve our seniors for generations to come. Both sides need to recognize that the only way anything is going to get done is through a grand compromise. The medicine will be difficult to take and neither party will be willing to stand alone to take the blame for the sacrifices that we’ll all have to make.

When it comes to national security, the United States is frequently in the driver’s seat. In 2001 we chose to go to war in Afghanistan to hunt down Al Qaeda and protect Americans from another attack. Today we are leading the effort to strengthen the international sanctions regime against Iran. If we don’t make tough choices today on both taxes and expenditures, we may soon find ourselves a reluctant passenger in someone else’s car, headed in the wrong direction.

Afghanistan’s Abu Ghraib

Brian Vogt — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:48:46 +0000

General William Tecumseh Sherman said, “War is Hell”. While that’s certainly true for soldiers, recent reports demonstrate that it has also become the reality for a number of innocent civilians. Just a few days ago the outlook for civilians in Afghanistan took a sharp turn for the worse. A Washington Post article described how a Stryker brigade in Afghanistan is accused of killing innocent Afghans for sport. This gruesome and appalling story could be the Abu Ghraib of Afghanistan and the military would be smart to learn from its previous mistakes.

The United States military has gone to great lengths in Afghanistan to prevent civilian casualties thanks to Petraeus’s counterinsurgency doctrine. The doctrine recognizes that this war is not just about winning on the battlefield. It’s about winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan population. I wrote here about the complaints of some soldiers that this doctrine is too restrictive. So far the discussion has primarily been about the degree to which lethal force endangers innocent civilians who might be in proximity to fighting between coalition forces and insurgents. With these recent revelations, it seems that an even larger problem is at hand.

In January through May of this year, members of the 5th Stryker Combat Brigade, Infantry Division formed a “kill team” and followed through on plans to murder innocent Afghan civilians… for fun. In some cases they covered up these murders by faking grenade attacks that supposedly came from the civilian attackers. Military documents describe three murders conducted by this group. What is even more disturbing is the reports of bravado and pride in these killings that harken back to the repulsive photos that emerged from Abu Ghraib. Soldiers serving in Kandahar province have been charged with dismembering and photographing corpses and hoarding a skull and other human remains.

Of course, if these allegations turn out to be true, the actions will receive widespread condemnation. The damage that this sort of behavior can do to the American mission in Afghanistan is immense. Some Afghans might have recognized that civilians could sometimes be caught in the crossfire during battles. They are well aware that a tactic of the Taliban is to hide amongst civilians for protection. Yet, these deplorable actions can have no justification. There can be no excuse for intentionally killing civilians for sport. The fog of war is must offer no comfort here. The only response can be full disclosure along with swift punishment for those found guilty.

Abu Ghraib is a lesson in what not to do. After pictures of detainee abuse surfaced, Americans and many around the world were stunned. Although all expressed moral outrage and President Bush stated that the acts were not indicative of acceptable military practices, those found guilty were let off with relatively light sentences. Some had their military careers ended. Others spent time in prison – though no one has been sentenced to more than 10 years. Brigadier General Janice Karpinski, the commanding officer for the prison was demoted to colonel. No one at the highest levels of command has been held responsible. The murders that happened at Abu Ghraib have gone unpunished. The take-away lesson from Abu Ghraib should be more than, “whatever you do, don’t be stupid enough to take photographs.”

The natural reaction to these atrocities by those in positions of power may be to downplay them and hope they will go away. Unfortunately, the damage has already been done. Better to get the truth out now, punish those responsible, and put in place mechanisms to prevent more such atrocities in the future. The first lesson should be not to ignore warnings signs that arise. One of the accused soldiers confided with his father that innocent Afghan were being murdered by this renegade platoon. The soldier’s father rang the alarm for anyone who would listen but was rebuffed.

We won’t solve the problem by sweeping it under the rug. It’s time to bring swift justice to the accused and ensure that this never happens again.

Too Important to Fail: The Least Bad Call on Afghanistan

Losing the war of ideas at ground zero

Brian Vogt — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 02:43:32 +0000

There is much bipartisan agreement about the nature of the struggle against terrorism. Many have said that this is a war of ideas and will not be won just on the battlefield.

In George Bush’s 2002 national security strategy he wrote, “We will also wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international terrorism.”

Barack Obama spoke in 2007 in a similar manner when he said, “Bin Ladin and his allies know they cannot defeat us on the field of battle or in a genuine battle of ideas.”

Finally, in 2005 John McCain McCain wrote, “To prevail in this war we need more than victories on the battlefield. This is a war of ideas, a struggle to advance freedom in the face of terror in places where oppressive rule has bred the malevolence that creates terrorists.”

The battle we are waging is not just about guns and tanks. It’s not just about overpowering and overwhelming the enemy. Although those are certainly elements of the struggle, the battle is about something much greater. It’s about competing visions of how the world should be. The vision that the United States seeks to promote is a world where differences are settled not through violence but through the rule of law. It’s a society that celebrates diversity and promotes tolerance. It’s a society where Muslims and Christians can live together and worship in their own manner. These are the ideas that so many Americans are fighting and dying for.

That is why the debate that is happening today surrounding the proposed mosque at ground zero in New York is particularly tragic.

In this war of ideas we are seeking to prove to the Islamic world that we are not against their religion. The society we promote is one in which Muslims can practice their faith amidst Christians, Jews, and atheists, peacefully. Yet, this mosque debate is presenting the exact opposite vision of America.

I won’t argue the legality or wisdom of building this mosque. Much has already been said about that. Rather, I think that it’s important to view this debate through the lens of the war of ideas. From that perspective, tremendous damage has been done to the ideal of tolerance and plurality we seek to promote in the Muslim world. Here’s just one example:

Newt Gingrich said the proposed mosque would be a symbol of Muslim “triumphalism” and that building the mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.”

Intended or not, this linking of Nazis and Muslims is disgusting and tremendously harmful. Mr. Gingrich implies that all Muslims will feel triumphant that a mosque is overlooking ground zero…. as if the attacks on 9/11 were conducted on behalf of all Muslims. Perhaps this is not Mr. Gingrich’s intent. Unfortunately, the nuance of that position and the explanation by some that they don’t seek to attack ALL Muslims, gets lost in the weeds. In such cases intent doesn’t really matter. Perception is reality.

Al Qaeda’s narrative is that the West is in a war against Islam. It is justifiable to use all available means in its defense. America’s response is that we are not in a war against Islam. Rather, we are against the violence and extremism promoted by terrorists. Ours is a pluralistic society where we welcome those of all faiths. This was the message that George W. Bush regularly repeated. He said, “Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for…” Unfortunately, the fight that the mosque opponents are waging falls quite neatly into the terrorist narrative. The reports now emerging that more cities across the country are rejecting the construction of mosques further reinforces that position. Nick Kristof makes the point here that Bin Laden is probably reveling in this mosque debate. The longer it goes on, the more Al Qaeda benefits.

Some argue that the whole debate is simply political theater in an election year. If that’s the case, it’s political theater that will ultimately cost us lives.

No related posts.

Where are the helicopters?

Brian Vogt — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:55:47 +0000

Yesterday the Washington Post reported that Pakistan has requested more immediate assistance from the United States to help in the flood relief effort there. Floods have been inundating the northwest region of Pakistan, affecting more than 14 million people according to Pakistani officials. This is the same region of Pakistan that is home to many of the militants that continue to threaten American troops in Afghanistan and seek to maintain that area as a safe haven for al Qaeda. Although these floods are a tremendous humanitarian disaster, they also provide an opportunity to both assist those in need and demonstrate to the Pakistani people that the United States is a partner that they can count on.

A recent Pew poll shows that that this will be a steep hill to climb. Only 17 percent of Pakistanis had a positive view of the U.S. and 59 percent described the U.S. as an enemy. Recognizing that our efforts in Afghanistan will not succeed unless Pakistani militant safe havens are eliminated, this lack of support by the population is enormously troubling. There are a number of reasons for their negative views ranging from U.S. support for previous military dictators to the sporadic nature of U.S. engagement with the country.

The question now is, will we respond quickly enough? The Pakistani government has been unable to address this humanitarian disaster on its own. In this vacuum, militant groups have been rushing to seize this opportunity. So far the United States has sent six helicopters and pledged $55 million. Considering the task at hand and short time available to save lives, I question if this is the best effort we could muster. An important comparison case study is worth examining – the 2004 Asian tsunami.

In 2004 on the day after Christmas, the second largest earthquake ever recorded on a seismograph launched a massive tsunami off the coast of Indonesia. A tranquil sea was transformed into an enormous wave of water that traveled quickly to the coasts of Indonesia, Thailand, India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. The tremendous power of this wave was hidden from sight until it reached the shore. At that point, the water crested upwards and rose to a height of nearly 80 ft as it approached coastal villages in Indonesia. The destruction it unleashed was tremendous. Entire villages were wiped away. Fishermen who had been out to sea returned to find their homes completely destroyed and their family members swept away. Some estimates put the death toll in Indonesia alone at more than 200,000.

Although the destruction caused by this natural disaster was unprecedented, there also was a tremendous outpouring of support from around the world. The United States military sprang into action. The USS Abraham Lincoln carrier battle group was dispatched from Japan to the coast of Sumatra. A total of 48 navy and marine helicopters were utilized and a 1000 bed naval hospital ship was sent to the area. Ten C-130 military transport aircraft ferried relief supplies. By February 2005, then President Bush had pledged $950 million to be used for the humanitarian response and rebuilding.

The justification for this tremendous mobilization of U.S. resources was purely humanitarian, yet the impact on the U.S. reputation in the Muslim majority country of Indonesia was noteworthy. Although it is impossible to determine the true national security benefit of the dramatic change in Indonesia public opinion, it is important to remember that in the several years before the tsunami there was increasing concern about the development of terrorist cells based in Indonesia. Such cells were responsible for numerous deaths in a Bali nightclub bombing. What is clear is that the humanitarian assistance dramatically improved many Indonesians’ view of the United States that had sunk to incredible lows in the post-Iraq invasion period. In May 2003, 15 percent of Indonesians had a favorable view of the United States. By 2006, this had increased to 44 percent. 63 percent of Indonesian reported that the humanitarian assistance improved their view of the United States. Support for Osama bin Laden decreased from 58 percent to 12 percent during the same time period. Today the threat from terrorism in Indonesia has decreased.

When asked about the humanitarian effort in Pakistan, a senior U.S. military official said transfer of additional helicopters, which are in short supply in Afghanistan, would require a political decision in Washington. “Do they exist in the region? Yes,” he said. “Are they available? No.”

It seems that perhaps now is the time to be making that political decision. Such a decision was made to provide immediate humanitarian assistance in Southeast Asia – 48 helicopters and 1000 bed naval hospital ship. Granted, the U.S. has pledged more money than any other country to the flood relief effort in Pakistan. Yet, pledges of aid do little to assist a villager stranded on a rooftop. It’s also a matter of actually getting hardware and people quickly in place to save lives. In that regard, it seems that, so far, we’ve come up short. Is this disaster any less tragic than the tsunami? It’s not just the right thing to do. The tsunami example shows that it can also be a smart strategic move.

Pakistan development held hostage by partisan bickering

Brian Vogt — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:51:00 +0000

Today, partisan bickering is taking precedence over sensible solutions to the AfPak conflict. Apparently, even the safety of American citizens is considered a side concern when it comes to the labor versus business debate that characterizes much of our domestic – and now foreign policy – discourse. Democrats say that they are on the side of the workers and Republicans say that unduly constraining business hurts us all. This debate between the parties has been going on for decades. Unfortunately, this debate is spilling over into the national security realm and we’re less safe because of it. It’s time for D’s and R’s to come together on a simple trade issue that can make a difference in the struggle against extremism.

Here’s what is happening. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) region of Pakistan borders Afghanistan. It’s the home base of Al Qaeda and the many of the Taliban insurgents that stream across the porous border with Afghanistan and attack our troops and destabilize Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden is thought to be hiding away in this remote tribal region. Many believe that if a future 9/11-type attack happens on the United States, its origin will likely be this remote tribal region in Pakistan.

FATA is also one of the poorest and most disenfranchised regions of Pakistan. The literacy rate in FATA is just 17.42 percent, compared to 43.92 percent in the rest of the country. It scores quite poorly on most all socioeconomic indicators – and that’s in comparison to the rest of Pakistan, which is not particularly wealthy to begin with. FATA residents are also marginalized from the political life of their country. They have no elected representatives in a provincial or national assembly who can legislate on local concerns. In this environment, it’s not surprising that extremists have had an easy time recruiting for their cause. No, poverty and marginalization don’t cause terrorism, but they can contribute to an environment where extremism is more likely to take hold.

One step that would help bring FATA residents into the mainstream and out of the recruiting camps of terrorists is economic development. No, it’s not the only answer. Political reforms are also key. I’ve written before on this issue here. But, providing opportunities for FATA residents to improve their lives would be small step in the right direction. Problem is, economic opportunities are scarce in this remote tribal region. Workers are generally poorly skilled and infrastructure is severely lacking.

So, how to give a leg up for these workers who already have the cards stacked against them? Many developing countries rely on textiles to start the climb up the economic ladder. One suggestion that was put forward by the Bush administration was to demarcate Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZs) in the FATA region that would eliminate U.S. import duties on goods produced there – textiles in particular. This could, very quickly, give a distinct advantage to textiles produced in the tribal area – a potential economic boost to workers in this region who so sorely need it.

This is where U.S. partisan bickering comes into play. Democrats have put forward a House bill that sets up these ROZs that includes a number of labor protections. In the Senate, Republicans and Democrats are feuding over whether those protections should be included. You can guess who is on which side. David Ignatius describes the debate here. Rather than taking the big picture national security view, both sides seem determined to make this issue the model for future trade arrangements. That view is short sighted.

Granted, Kim Elliott argues here that this legislation could be much improved if it were expanded to all exports (not just textiles) and expanded beyond just the FATA region. This is all true. This makes our failure to even enact this limited legislation even more tragic. Surely there is a way to move beyond this tired old debate between labor and business for the sake of national security? It’s time for a rationale compromise on this issue. No, this legislation alone won’t eliminate the threat of terrorism or solve the conflict in Afghanistan/Pakistan. But, it’s a small part of the long-term solution.

Rules of Engagement

Brian Vogt — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 02:02:01 +0000

With the dismissal of General McChrystal and the appointment of General Petraeus to lead the effort in Afghanistan, there has been much speculation about how this change might affect the conduct of the war. There has been a consistent message from many American troops in Afghanistan – the rules of engagement are putting them at risk and they must be changed. It is important that such concerns of the troops be examined. They are bravely risking their lives every day. However, at the same time, we must recognize that the broader principle of civilian protection will not change under Petraeus. Because civilian protection is a key component of Petraeus’s counterinsurgency doctrine, if we were to toss this out the door, it would undermine the entire Afghan strategy.

This is not to say that the manner in which civilian protection is carried out shouldn’t be reviewed and modified. I was encouraged by Petraeus’s comment today in his Senate hearing when he said,

….I am keenly aware of concerns by some of our troopers on the ground about the application of our rules of engagement and the tactical directive. They should know that I will look very hard at this issue.

George Will wrote in a recent column about the difficulties an NCO was having in conducting a mission. During a night time mission in Afghanistan, the NCO’s unit was coming under fire. He called for a 155mm howitzer round to illuminate the enemy’s position. The request was denied because there was concern that the “illumination” shell could harm civilians.

I don’t agree with Will’s conclusion that it’s time to begin “disentangling U.S. forces from this misadventure”. However, the anecdote does provide a glimpse of the daily realities that our troops are facing and the decisions that are made every day that can put our troops and/or nearby civilians in danger. Many troops have similar stories of how a decision by a higher authority put them at greater risk in order to protect civilians.

In most wars the US has fought, this hasn’t been an issue. War was about destroying the enemy with overwhelming force to compel surrender. This doctrine led to the complete destruction of numerous cities in Japan during World War II either with fire bombing or nuclear bombs. In Afghanistan, our goal is different. The enemy is not a nation state, but rather a band of brutal extremists. Although we have become more adept at killing them, they will not be eliminated until the local populace rejects them and eliminates their safe havens.

Today’s counterinsurgency conflicts require that we rethink our approach. The doctrine in many ways is counter intuitive. Here are a few such paradoxes from Petraeus’s counterinsurgency manual:

1. The more you protect your force, the less secure you are

2. The more force used, the less effective it is

3. The more successful COIN (counterinsurgency) is, the less force that can be used and the more risk that must be accepted

4. Sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction

5. The best weapons for COIN do not shoot

6. The host nation doing something tolerably is sometimes better than us doing it well

7. Tactical success guarantees nothing

Of course we need to ensure that our soldiers are able to protect themselves. There is no question about that. Petraeus is right to examine the ways in which the counterinsurgency doctrine is being implemented on the battlefield. Even the best doctrine implemented incorrectly can lead to loss of life. However, this must be examined through the lens of counterinsurgency doctrine that recognizes that we will never win this war if the Afghan population turns against us. The key to this review will be determining how that can be accomplished while ensuring that our soldiers can fully protect themselves when in harms way. Getting this balancing act right will be a tremendous challenge. If anyone can get do it, Petraeus can.

No related posts.