In a recent article published by the New York Times, David Kirkpatrick traces John McCain’s views about foreign conflicts all the way back to 1974.  During that year, McCain submitted an essay to the National War College in which he argued that the American soldiers held captive in prison camps during the Vietnam conflict often collaborated with the North Vietnamese because of the antiwar movement in the United States.  Fidelity to one’s country, no matter how strong at the commencement of a military campaign, can quickly disintegrate when soldiers perceive that there is little or no public support for a war effort.  In McCain’s own words, detainees stuck in these camps “were easy marks for Communist propaganda” because large portions of the American public did not support the conflict in Vietnam.

McCain doesn’t seem to be saying that the antiwar movement was the sole cause of the traitorous collaboration he experienced as a P.O.W.  Rather, the antiwar movement enhanced the emotional appeal of collaboration in the minds of captured American soldiers by making the war seem pointless and immoral.  How did the antiwar movement accomplish this exactly?  Well, that’s where the fundamental premises of McCain’s argument get a bit difficult to articulate and disentangle.  It seems that the underlying logic goes like this:  Where a conflict like Vietnam comes to seem pointless and counterproductive, it becomes natural and reasonable for the soldiers captured during battle to change sides and support the social and political institutions seeking a quick end to the conflict.  And, if you can convince these soldiers that the war has no sound moral or political justification, ceteris paribus their loyalties and sympathies will naturally tend to shift as they increasingly come to identify with the enemy.  As a result they will begin to proactively collaborate with their sworn enemy, despite the fact that doing so makes them traitors.

(more…)

The Partnership for a Secure America presents

A Bipartisan Foreign Policy

for January 2009

With

Ambassador Tom Pickering

Robert (Bud) McFarlane

Frederick (Rick) Barton

Monday, June 23, 2008, 9 – 10:30 am

1111 19^th St, NW, 12^th Floor, Washington, DC 20036

(more…)

There’s been a bit of discussion recently about the New York Times‘ addition of William Kristol to its stable of op-ed page columnists. I agree with Steve Walt’s analysis (at Salon.com) that Kristol hardly represents a major break from the views already available on the Times’ opinion page: Kristol is a widely read neo-conservative voice who already has an established platform in his magazine, The Weekly Standard, but his advocacy of American primacy — the view that American intervention around the world can make the world a better place and that Americans will be better off if we exercise our power to intervene — is the normal view among leaders of both political parties and among both liberal and conservative pundits.

Sure, they differ at the margins — setting priorities among the various places that the U.S. can meddle or debating the importance of cooperation with international organizations to build legitimacy for interventions — but the general theme is the same. And that consensus breeds complacency, whether it’s sloppy arguments in favor of intervention (note the problems in Brett Stephens‘ history in his critique of Ron Paul’s views on intervention — he misinterprets the U.S. interventions in both World War I and in the Tanker War between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s) or a stunted debate in the presidential campaign (it’s hard to find sensible discussion about Iran or terrorism, for example: do any of the candidates have a coherent view that they can explain about the level of the threat from each?).

The problem with Walt’s call for realist analysis in a leading newspaper of record — analysis that would, indeed, offer something different from the conventional wisdom — is that there are no real candidates for the job. Realists need to cut their teeth as regular contributors to the policy debate elsewhere before they can make it to the New York Times, and academics need to convince young writers to adopt their line; academics have neither the incentives nor the right skills to audition for the job themselves. The leading academics of the previous generation that Walt refers to in his column, people like Ken Waltz and Hans Morgenthau, had sensible things to say about American foreign policy, but they did not have regular gigs as columnists, either. If we can find the realists voices in the current public debate, we should all just do our best to promote their views, adding to the diversity of thought and argument. I try to do my small part through this blog and a few other outlets, but I would certainly appreciate help and recommendations from any source! And I applaud Steve Walt for doing his share, too, even if I think he’s getting a bit ahead of himself in his call forrealists with regular columns.

I was privileged to know Elspeth Rostow for the past two and a half years.  Her office was two doors down from mine at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas.  She welcomed me to UT — and played a big roll in stimulating the new push towards global affairs campus-wide at UT that was what attracted me to move to Texas.  She was dean of the LBJ School in the late-1970s, and she was an important fixture throughout her career. She turned in her grades for the fall semester on Friday, and she passed away Sunday morning. Her insight and wit helped her influence the policy world and countless students (although she probably knew the count; she cared deeply, remembered most everyone, and meticulously followed up). I, along with many others, will miss her.

This past semester, I drifted away from the blog. I hope to reinvigorate my commitment, because the issues confronting us are truly interesting. But reflecting on Elspeth Rostow also reminds me of the goal of my blogging. Elspeth embodied many of the aspirations of the PSA. She enjoyed civilized policy debate; she was sharp and witty and did not accept foolish thinking, but she was never mean-spirited, and she presented her thoughts with such clarity that they often helped to resolve disputes — or at least define their parameters in a way that people could see what mattered and what didn’t in their differences. In educating generations of students in the policy-making process, she tried to impart a sense of historical perspective and of the limits of ideology.

In policy-making circles, she might be best-known for her relationship to Walt Rostow, President Johnson’s national security advisor whose theories of economic and political development helped lead the United States into Vietnam. The association with Johnson of course leads many people to think of her as a great Democrat and (not unreasonably) to presume a level of partisanship. But her own national service at the highest level came during the Reagan administration, when she served on several advisory commitees (e.g., the President’s Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations) and was appointed to the board of the U.S. Institute for Peace. I suspect she was an ideal committee and board member, because she had the presence to enforce civility and to control an agenda — to make meetings productive. Her skills and perspective were recognized in both parties.

I will miss seeing Elspeth around the LBJ School, and I will miss her company at dinners and events. But we will all miss her style of discussion and debate. Thinking of her and other greats of her generation may help us to improve our own era of policy-making in global affairs.

This weekend Sen., and presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) made the rounds of the shows. One should give the Senator credit for having rehearsed her lines and gotten her stock responses done. It was so well rehearsed one could believe, if you didn’t know better, that her answers were spontaneous.

And rehearsed or not, some of what she said, was spot on. Take, for example, the tempest in a teapot that Republicans are trying to inflate into something bigger; namely, the MoveOn.org ad that supposedly impugned the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus. Here is what she said on Fox News Sunday: 

CHRIS WALLACE: Senator, you have refused to criticize the Moveon.org ad about “General Betray Us.” In fact, this week you voted against a Senate resolution denouncing it. President Bush said that you and other Democrats are more afraid, his word, afraid, of irritating the left wing and MoveOn that you are about insulting the American military. Does he have a point?
 
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): No, he doesn’t. But I think it’s clear. I don’t condone attacks on anyone who has served our country with distinction and with honor. And I have been very vocal in my support of and admiration for General Petraeus. I did vote for a resolution that made it clear that I do not condone and do condemn attacks on any American, impugning their patriotism, and that includes people like Senator Max Cleland and Senator John Kerry. I think we need to call a halt to any kind of attacks from wherever they come that would go after anyone based on their service to America. But you know, this is not a debate about an ad..
 
This is a debate about how we end the war in Iraq. That’s the debate that I want to be participating in. And I think a lot of people on the other side don’t want us to have that debate..

The host, Chris Wallace, trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, persisted: (more…)

It seems right that this blog, organized by a group that wants to promote bipartisanship in American foreign policy, should take some notice of Karl Rove’s resignation as deputy White House chief of staff (for basic coverage of the resignation, see this New York Times story). While Rove steered away from foreign policy topics in his resignation announcement, plenty of people around the world apparently think that he had a major role in all policy discussions, foreign and domestic. I have no inside knowledge of whether that is true. I don’t even really know if Rove deserves his reputation for always recommending brass-knuckle politics, always rejecting proposals to cooperate with the other party or opposing interest groups, and always looking for political angles rather than seeking the “best policy for the nation” (as if there were some sort of objective definition of “best” in the context of complex policies that serve multiple, often conflicting goals that all Americans would like; life is full of lousy trade-offs). But Rove sure had that reputation as a hard-core partisan, and it deserves some comment on a blog devoted to promoting civility in foreign policy debates if not occasional compromise, cooperation, or even consensus.

Karl Rove would presumably say that he chose to advocate the policies that he did because he felt they were in the best interest of the United States. One can honestly have the view that compromise is weak tea, that it leads to bad policy because half-measures often don’t work. The situation gets a bit more sticky if you knowingly enable a policy that you think will fail, because you think the failure will discredit your opposition; in that case, you are just “doing the right thing” in the long run, even if it’s painful in the short term. In this line of thinking, why compromise? The policy community will come around to the right answer.

Actually, few people seem to pursue this “let your opponents hang themselves” strategy in American politics. One might have imagined the Congressional Democrats supporting the surge on those grounds: we hope you’re right, President Bush, that this will work out, and even if we are skeptical, we will give you everything you ask for so that when / if the policy fails, you cannot say “it would have worked if only the Democrats had not undercut it with their complaints and equivocating.” But the Democrats did not do that. They resisted giving the administration the rope, so if the policy hangs, die-hard Republicans will be able to blame the Democrats.

If Rove could have pulled off a political strategy like that, then he is, indeed, unusual — both in his strategic thinking and his tactical skills. Maybe that’s why even just his name generates so much hostility and fear, because he is, indeed, reputed to be highly strategic and highly skilled.

(more…)

It is sad that the national (and ultimately national security) issue of the inappropriate and possibly illegal activities of Attorney General Alberto Gonazales has become another unnecessary victim of partisan rancor in Washington. By voting yesterday to block a no-confidence resolution, Senate Republicans seem to have put party loyalty ahead of the national interest. At a time when the United States is struggling with a domestic and international perception that we no longer support basic issues of rule of law, the cloud over Gonzales is increasingly harmful to our country’s position in the world. Perhaps it is time for the employees of the Justice Department to take matters into their own hands in order to protect and preserve our nation’s commitment to rule of law. A petition by justice department employees to be released to the press might read something like this:

As career members of the Justice Department, we respectfully call on Attorney General Gonzales to step down from his post. Our commitment to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of our country. By supporting the detention without due process of American citizens in Guantanamo, Cuba, and by inappropriately interfering with the work of U.S. Attorneys, Attorney General Gonzales has undermined that basic principle of our democracy. The replacement of Attorney General Gonzales with an individual better able to defend and protect our commitment to the rule of law would be an important step towards reestablishing perceptions of our government within the Justice Department, across the United States, and globally.

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. 

David Broder had an interesting column in today’s Washington Post about the loss of an important Republican moderate, Jim Leach.  As a Democrat, I have to say that I was quite happy with the results this past November 7.  However, as someone who also sees the need for bipartisan consensus building between moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats, I am saddened by Leach’s loss.

I spent 5 months in Iowa working on the Howard Dean campaign in Iowa and came to know Leach’s successor, David Loebsack, who was quite active in the Lynn county Dean campaign.  He was a well known local expert on international relations.  I know that David will do a fantastic job and am also happy to see him gain a voice in our Congress.  Nevertheless, it saddens me that this must come at the price of eliminating moderate Republicans such as Leach.  Leach was one of the few Republicans who broke with the President on the Iraq war resolution.  Broder mentions that Leach was sometimes known as the conscience of Congress for not accepting any PAC or out of state contributions.  (more…)

It seems like only yesterday that the front pages of every newspaper in the country were dripping with headlines about Washington sex scandals.  Oh wait…that was yesterday.  Let me be more specific.  I’m referring to the Oval Office circa 1998 when then-president Clinton found himself the subject of a year-long investigation surrounding accusations of sexual misconduct and perjury. 

There were many unfortunate consequences of the scandal, individually and politically.  Among the latter, and perhaps overshadowed by other surrounding issues, was that the story diverted Washington’s attention (not the least of which was the White House’s) from pressing Foreign Policy concerns.  This distraction occurred in two different ways.  First, it took up an incredible amount of time and resources.  Instead of meeting with foreign policy officials, the President was meeting with lawyers.  Instead of taking a delegation to Eastern Europe, he was taking the witness stand.  You get the point.  Second is that the events drove the wedge been Democrats and Republicans even deeper into the aisle.  The word “Liberal” was to “Immorality” as “Conservative” was to “Witch Hunt.”  And of course, we all member speculation about whether the White House was “wagging the dog.”

Almost a decade later, the circle of life on Capitol Hill has come…well, full-circle, landing this time in the office of Congressman Foley.  In all fairness, it isn’t his fault that Washington is still waking up to the sound of a Republican alarm clock with an Abramoff-DeLay hangover.  But while recent Republican scandals have all but demanded skepticism and mistrust from fellow Republicans and Democrats alike, Foley’s behavior has no excuses and the public deserves to know. (more…)