The evolution of insurgency

This is an interesting framing, though I missed it when it first appeared. From USA Today, November 7, 2004:

T.X. Hammes, a Marine colonel who studies guerrilla warfare at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., says American troops will confront the best fighters a determined enemy has to offer. "Insurgency is Darwinian. Those who are stupid and unlucky were killed early," Hammes says. "Those that survive get tougher. We see this in the enemy's tactics — they figure out what we are doing and they change. They are a very adaptive enemy."

That's my emphasis added.

Actually, I read a similar quote in a recent issue of Time in a waiting room, but couldn't find it on the web.

Others have discussed the fact that insurgencies evolve, including major media outlets and bloggers, but the usage here could be catchy if repeated often: the "insurgency is Darwinian."


Visit this blog's homepage.

Louisville welcomes a blogger

Heather Hurlburt of Democracy Arsenal is coming to Louisville Monday to speak to the local Committee on Foreign Relations. I have a seminar in the evening, which conflicts with the event, so I'm meeting her at the airport and taking her to coffee (well, actually, I'm a tea guy).

She's connected:

From 1996 to 2001, Ms. Hurlburt served in the Clinton Administration. She initially served as a State Department speechwriter and member of the policy planning staff for Secretaries Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright. From 1999 to 2001, she was a Special Assistant and speechwriter to President Clinton.

I listened to one of her coauthors talk while on sabbatical last year. The piece they wrote on nation-building is good.

I'm guessing she will be a part of some Democratic presidential campaign in 2008, advising on foreign policy issues.

Anything in particular I should ask her -- or try to pass along in "netroots" fashion?


Visit this blog's homepage.

Sunday dog blogging

That's Paddy (for Paddington) on the left and Robey (for Darrowby) on the right. The pics are about a month old now.

Sorry for the "green eye."

Visit this blog's homepage.

U.S.: we're number 28!

The results of a comprehensive study are in and the US simply isn't very green. From the 2006 Environmental Performance Index, which was produced jointly by Yale University and Columbia University's Center for International Earth Science Information network (CIESEN):

A pilot, nation-by-nation study of environmental performance shows just six nations - led by New Zealand and followed by five from northern Europe - have achieved 85 percent success in meeting environmental goals ranging from clean drinking water and low ozone levels to sustainable fisheries and low greenhouse-gas emissions.

The report, which has been peer reviewed, ranks the United States 28th over all, behind most of Western Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, Costa Rica and Chile

That text comes from Felicity Barringer's story about the study, which originally appeared in the New York Times.

The report was released at Davos for the World Economic Forum. I don't know whether Billmon will be live-blogging the event again this year. Unfortunately, he's been relatively quiet for weeks now.

In any case, the study looked at 133 nations and is based on 16 different environmental measures. To me, that sounds fairly comprehensive. African, as well as Central and South Asian states score the worst. Pakistan and India were both ranked among the 20 bottom-scoring countries.

Update: An interesting and thoughtful first-hand analysis in regard to Taiwan's relatively high finish can be found here. A bit more technical info (from environmental economist John Whitehead) is available here.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Italy: unwilling

This past week, Italy announced that it will be withdrawing all of its troops from Iraq by the end of 2006. At the start, Italy had provided about 3000 troops to the war.

It has been awhile since I blogged about this, but note:

By July 2004, the Phillipines, Spain and Honduras were gone. Poland had already cut its commitment in half.

In January 2005, I reported Ukraine's imminent withdrawal from Iraq.

April 2005, Poland announced its complete withdrawal. Oh, and the Netherlands was already gone by then -- along with Thailand, Hungary, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, New Zealand and Norway.

Maybe the US should follow the Italian lead on this. Defence Minister Antonio Martino is simply declaring "mission accomplished"!

"The military operation Antica Babilonia [Ancient Babylon] will end its mandate gradually over the course of the year 2006 and the mission will be considered over and accomplished at the end of the year," said Mr Martino.

I guess they didn't hear President Bush's warning in December 2005 (echoed by Karl Rove this week), about how it would be dangerous to "cut and run" as it would "embolden the terrorists and invite new attacks."


Visit this blog's homepage.

The impeachment question

Sometimes, it's the question, not the answer, that matters. Peter Dauo:

Should Bush be impeached for violating the Constitution?

Of course, the question has been lingering for a while now.

Remember these past highlights?

"On to Syria!"

The lies about Iraq.

The "Downing Street Memo"?

And now, domestic spying.

Ask someone you know: Should Bush be impeached for violating the Constitution?


Visit this blog's homepage.

US missile strike: "state terrorism"?

Pakistan, as a member of the "coalition of the willing," has learning that the American citizens potentially losing their privacy are not the only "friendlies" being asked to sacrifice in the "war on terrorism." That missile attack earlier this month is provoking all sorts of harsh criticism.

The BBC reported this development:

But nearly two dozen of the country's Islamic parties and right-wing political groups, have made statements expressing outrage and condemnation.

Some have described the bombings as state terrorism, and others have said it is an attack on the entire Islamic world.

State terrorism?

Is that what one calls it when a state launches a surprise "armed attack" on another state and kills a number of innocent people?


Visit this blog's homepage.

War, what is it good for?

Is the US at war? Really?

George Bush has often said something like this during the past couple of years:

This is a dangerous time. I wish it wasn't this way. I wish I wasn't the war President. Who in the heck wants to be a war President? I don't. But this is what came our way. And this is our duty, to protect our people.

Congress never declared war on terrorism, per se. It hasn't formally declared war, in fact, since December 1941.

Would every congressional authorization to use force (think "Bosnia" or "Somalia") legitimize the kind of domestic spying the administration is currently justifying?

The President may not have wanted to be the "war president," but he and other members of his administration realize that it is a terrific way to increase executive power.

On January 24, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that the program to intercept communications without warrants was justified because the US is "at war."

it's about detecting and preventing attacks. And we are a nation at war, and the courts have upheld the President's authority to engage in surveillance. Surveillance is critical to prevailing in the war on terrorism.

In the press conference, by the way, McClellan was being pushed to explain why the administration couldn't be bothered to obtain warrants -- since the relevant law (FISA) even allows the executive branch to obtain them after the surveillance begins!

Senate Democrats, however, certainly aren't buying the "we're at war" line. As reported in the Washington Post:

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said yesterday that [Attorney General] Gonzales and other administration officials are engaging in "revisionist history" by portraying a congressional resolution authorizing military force against al Qaeda as justification for the NSA program.

This debate isn't over and I eagerly await Arlen Specter's hearings on this question.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Wag the finger

Great line of the day, from The Wege about Bush and Jack Abramoff:

"He did not have a relationship with that man."

Thanks to Helmut of phronesisaical for the link.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Confronting Karl Rove

This past Friday night, the man sometimes known as "Bush's brain," Karl Rove, delivered a widely covered political speech before the Republican National Convention. In the address, Rove argued that his party should continue to make national security a partisan issue in forthcoming debates and elections.

I saw this bit on TV earlier this morning:

At the core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security. Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview - and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong - deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong.

Democrats need to confront Rove directly.

Want to know what I'd do as a Democratic strategist or speechwriter in 2006? I'd take Rove's words and reverse "Republicans" and "Democrats" and replace "9/11" with "Iraq." Try this on for size:

At the core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security. Democrats have a post-Iraq worldview - and many Republicans have a pre-Iraq worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong - deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong.

I'd continue:

In Iraq, Republicans used America's tremendous military power to provoke terrorists and create al Qaeda outposts where they did not exist before.

They also pulled important security assets out of Afghanistan before the hunt for al Qaeda, the Taliban and Osama bin Laden was finished. As a result, even today, the future of Afghanistan is uncertain and the main perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks on America remain at large.

Worse, even after learning that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had neither weapons of mass destruction programs nor operational ties to Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush and the other Republicans who control Washington boldly declare that would still make war on Iraq if forced to decide again. They would again choose to make Afghanistan and al Qaeda a lower foreign policy priority than Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

Before the war, Republicans in power in Washington ignored the caution urged by some of America's strongest political allies and they ignored the analysts and policy advisors who were telling them about the likely weakness of the Iraq WMD intelligence data. The President observed millions of people protesting against war in February 2003 and dismissed them as an irrelevant "focus group." Now, Bush and the other Republicans in power ignore the adverse effects of the Iraq war on America's national security.

Promoting liberty in the Arab and Muslim worlds is a tremendous political goal, but there is absolutely no evidence suggesting that the best way to do this is at the point of American bayonets. The far more threatening Soviet Union and its Eastern European empire were brought down by vigilant containment -- not war. South Africa's brutally racist apartheid regime too was ended by the worldwide application of sanction and disapproval -- not war.

If it wants to democratize the Middle East while also fighting a "war on terror," America should be applying the lessons of the bloodless "velvet Revolution," and uneager to repeat the mistakes that lead to the violent insurgency in Iraq. The elections there have been somewhat helpful and promising, but America has lost more than 2200 lives, spent over $200 billion, and has seen its armed forces bogged down in an internal insurgency that even America's military leaders say promises to go on for many, many years.

Iraq was not a "central front" in the war on terror until the Bush administration threw a dart at the Middle East and decided to invade a country that did not pose a significant security threat to American interests. Had that dart landed on Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Egypt, a similar nationalist insurgency would have been created with bloody consequences. Note, however, that the connections to al Qaeda and anti-American terrorism are stronger in every one of these states than they were in pre-war Iraq.

America must be vigilant about the threat from terrorism and nuclear weapons proliferation, but it must also be smart. It must not worsen its security situation by undertaking wasteful and deadly wars against tin horn dictators.

Few states in the Arab or Muslim world are free and democratic and America has a long-term interest in promoting its values in that part of the world. However, the "war on terror" is a separate objective altogether. In fact, the raw data reveal that most victims and perpetrators of terrorism are citizens of democracies.

Obviously, that is not a strong argument against democratization. However, it does demonstrate that the Republicans in Washington misunderstand the threat from terrorism. As the former CIA al Qaida specialist Michael Scheur has repeatedly argued, and many studies demonstrate, terrorists do not hate America because of its freedoms. Terrorists attack America and Americans because they disagree with specific aspects of US foreign policy.

We should not therefore give in to the terrorists, but it makes no sense to create yet another reason for the Arab and Muslim worlds to hate America. And make no mistake about it, the Iraq war is extremely unpopular in the Arab and Muslim world. We may claim to be offering them liberty, but the great mass of people in the Arab and Muslim world see the war as just another western occupation of their land that should be resisted.

The US has never apologized to anyone for invading Iraq under what now amounts to false pretenses. While many other states around the world agreed that Saddam Hussein was a horrible leader who certainly behaved as if he had something to hide, few states agreed that it was a good idea to topple his regime.

Even the top-level Republicans who served in the political administration of George H.W. Bush understood why the war was a risky and bad idea. Their early '90s warnings now seem quite prescient: Bush Sr. feared creating "an unwinnable urban guerilla war." Colin Powell thought that such a war would pose an "unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost and ruined regional relationships." Dick Cheney thought "we would have been bogged down there for a very long period of time with the real possibility we might not have succeeded."

These former leaders were right at the time and it is not at all clear why the situation in Iraq merited a new view. Former Bush Sr. National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft made these sorts of arguments again in the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal in August 2002, but no one listened to him.

What American cannot abide, however, is the failure to learn from this horribly costly foreign policy mistake. In the three and a half years since Republicans in Washington decided to invake Iraq, they are yet to learn the important lessons of that conflict. They continue to say they'd make the same choice again.

With Iran on the international agenda, and problem-states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia still to be addressed, Americans must not give the Republicans another chance to repeat the mistakes of Iraq.

Typical of Rove, he addressed the issue of Iraq by trying to take this strong potential issue for Democrats and turn it against them. He tried to link Democrats to the "cut and run" strategy of "immediate stand down of U.S. troops in Iraq and withdrawal by the end of April."

Democrats must not let Republicans get away with this in 2006. Moreover, they must turn this political issue into a winning campaign point so as to assume the reigns of power and put American foreign policy back on a better course.



Visit this blog's homepage.

24

If that last post doesn't get you through the rest of the week, then I have a (simple) challenge: propose a drinking game for use during viewing of Fox's "24" TV show.

My wife and I disagree about this. I say the show is too farfetched to watch without such an enticement and she says we're too old for drinking games.


Visit this blog's homepage.

The law of war

I'm too busy right now to post something new, but at the Duck of Minerva, I've blogged about "The Pakistan missile attack." Follow the links I've created and it will lead you to some lengthy comments I've also posted at Tom's always-entertaining Functional Ambivalent.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Foreign fighters

In comments, someone pseudonymously criticized my advice to "pro-war" Democrats for the 2006 elections. I argued that Dems should remind everyone that George Bush himself "flip flopped" on the justification for the use of force in Somalia because the "mission changed." Now that Iraq isn't about WMD or Saddam Hussein's nonexistent operational ties to al Qaeda, Dems could reject the grand nation-building mission without fear of being labeled wimps.

My advice would fail, wrote the commenter, because Republicans would just point out that the US is in Iraq to fulfill the primary post-9/11 mission: "kick terrorist butt."

I offered a fairly detailed response, but wanted to add a bit of data about one key point.

Let's turn this into a question for the post-Saddam era: Who is America fighting in Iraq?

War supporters say that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Full stop. Terrorists are attacking American troops and innocent Iraqis, so the US needs to find them and kill or capture them.

War opponents emphasize the Iraqi nationalists who arguably constitute the lion's share of the insurgency. It is perfectly natural for people to resist foreign invasion and occupation. The President himself said as much. Pre-war, the Pentagon apparently screened "The Battle of Algiers" -- even if they didn't get the film's message.

Which view is more accurate?

The Pentagon says there likely aren't very many foreign fighters in Iraq. USA Today had a fairly good story about this last November 6:

Maj. Angela Hildebrant, a military spokeswoman, said the U.S. military estimates the number of foreign fighters by counting the number of foreigners killed in suicide attacks or captured by coalition forces in Iraq.

Only 3.5% of the 13,885 detainees held by U.S. forces in Iraq are foreigners...

Yet, the Pentagon asserts that these foreign fighters "are often behind the deadliest suicide bombings and provide financing and organization to Iraq's insurgency." I've seen no definitive data that support the claims, but there is anecdoctal support.

Obviously, if the US is fighting terrorists in Iraq, it helps legitimize the mission both at home (with voters) and inside Iraq. That fact should make everyone more skeptical about the Pentagon's claims. The Washington Post had a valuable story November 17:

"Both Iraqis and coalition people often exaggerate the role of foreign infiltrators and downplay the role of Iraqi resentment in the insurgency," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who is writing a book about the Iraqi insurgency.

"It makes the government's counterinsurgency efforts seem more legitimate, and it links what's going on in Iraq to the war on terrorism," he continued. "When people go out into battle, they often characterize enemies in the most negative way possible. Obviously there are all kinds of interacting political prejudices they can bring out by blaming outsiders."

In December, Cordesman (with the Assistance of Sara Bjerg Moller) released a study (warning, pdf) estimating that between 4 and 10 percent of the roughly 30,000 insurgents are foreign.

A Post story from last May 15 revealed that US military analysts do not think the foreign fighters are major terrorists even if they are linked to al Qaeda:

Many of the suicide bombers appear to have been novices in warfare, attracted by the relative ease of access to Iraq and the lure of quick martyrdom. "This is not al Qaeda's first team," said [Col. Thomas X.] Hammes of the National Defense University. "These are the scrubs who could never get us in the States."

In short, the US government knows that the insurgency is overwhelmingly Iraqi, and some officials admit it (on or off the record). The November 17 Post story quotes a military commander in Iraq:

"The foreign fighters' attacks tend to be more spectacular, but local nationals, the Saddamists, the Iraqi rejectionists, are much more problematic," said Maj. Gen. Joseph J. Taluto, commander of the Army's 42nd Infantry Division. His unit, which lost 59 soldiers during its tour here, was based in the northern city of Tikrit, Hussein's home town, before transferring the region to the 101st Airborne Division this month.

Al Qaeda in Iraq maintains a presence in the region, he said, "but they're not having much of an impact. Their message is not resonating."

And from State, in the same story:

In Washington, a senior State Department official called foreign fighters "an important element to the insurgency," but added that "it would be a mistake to imagine that this isn't a largely Iraqi-based operation with critical support from foreign elements."

Politics

John Murtha's primary reasons for calling for withdrawal from Iraq are that the US troops are feeding the insurgency and the military is being destroyed by the prolonged engagement. Thus, even if the insurgency is boosted by key foreign elements, that does not mean that the best US foreign policy is built upon counterinsurgency and nation-building. It may be there are insufficient troops to win in Iraq. It may be that there are higher security priorities.

Moreover, even if the foreign fighters are providing critical support for the insurgency, there's bad news for the Republican administration buried in the data. Most foreign fighters apparently come from Saudi Arabia, an alleged US ally in the war on terror and a state very close to the Bush White House:

An NBC News analysis of hundreds of foreign fighters who died in Iraq over the last two years reveals that a majority came from the same country as most of the 9/11 hijackers — Saudi Arabia....The U.S. military also says Saudi Arabia and Syria are the leading sources of insurgents.

Reuven Paz, an Israeli expert on terrorism and Director of Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, published a report last March (warning, pdf) finding that 61% of the foreign insurgents killed in Iraq over the previous six months were from Saudi Arabia (thanks for the link to Evan Kohlmann of The Counterterrorism Blog).

The Cordesman/Moller study found a more varied array of foreign fighters.

Democrats who want to be anti-war in Iraq can nonetheless remain quite hawkish about other global terror and WMD threats -- by focusing more attention on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. As loyal readers know, I've blogged repeatedly that the US is not doing much about the threats emanating from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Numerous national security experts agree.

I'll stand by my original point: Democrats should repeatedly point out that the "mission changed" in Iraq and that the Republicans really don't have an "exit strategy." As a result, America is bogged down in a quagmire that costs billions and doesn't markedly improve US security. The "real" war on terror should be fought on more important fronts.

That does not mean that Dems should allow the administration to change the subject to Iran.


Visit this blog's homepage.

The Iran Solution

Here's a deal: the US offers Iran a promise not to attack, as it did with Cuba in 1962 and offers to ease some long-term sanctions (in place since the fall of the Shah). Moreover, the Iranian effort to join the WTO is allowed to move forward without US objection.

In turn, Iran promises to end the most worrisome elements of its nuclear program (enrichment) and assures ongoing, intrusive access by the IAEA.

Sanctions are going to take time and won't work given Iran's oil export revenues -- and the western need for oil imports.

A military attack is quite risky and likely a very bad idea.

Now, how long will this take?


Visit this blog's homepage.

The Security Council & Iran: Here's a problem

This headline from Reuters Tuesday explains why the Security Council won't be able to threaten Iran very effectively: "World can't afford to lose Iran's oil-US EIA."

A disruption in Iran's crude oil exports because of a dispute over that country's nuclear program would further crimp the already tight global oil market and lead to higher petroleum prices, the head of the U.S. Energy Information Administration warned on Tuesday.

"The market is so tightly balanced, clearly, we can't afford to lose a large supply of crude to the market," EIA chief Guy Caruso told Reuters in an interview.

Sure, I'd prefer economic sanctions to war, but it is really difficult to imagine effective sanctions that wouldn't limit purchases of Iranian oil -- and it's even more difficult to imagine the west limiting the oil market right now.

This past summer, it was widely reported that Iran was a decade away from going nuclear.

Why the rush to confront Iran now? AP's Amy Teibel, January 13:

Israeli officials think Tehran is closer to the "point of no return" in developing weapons than Western countries do, arguing that point is not when Iran might have a bomb, but when it might have the technology to produce the fissile component of nuclear warheads.

Hmmm.

What about nuclear deterrence?


Visit this blog's homepage.

"Pro-war" Democrats and the 2006 Elections

For many months, pollsters have demonstrated that public opinion is turning against the war in Iraq. About 60% of those surveyed by CBS News, over a period of many months, "disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq." At times, nearly 60% of those polled say the war was a mistake, and despite some fluctuations in the results, at least half the population seems to think that the US should never have gone to war in Iraq.

Given the way politics about national security and foreign policy are framed in the US, members of the media would probably be surprised to learn that a plurality of respondents say that "the Democratic Party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq."

Politically, for now, the most important finding is this: 85% of those surveyed in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll January 6-8, 2006, replied that "the stituation in Iraq" would be extremely or very important to their "vote for Congress this year."

Election contests are not really on the public's radar yet, but the Denver Post recently (December 28) noted an interesting and simple Democratic strategy -- put an Iraq war veteran on the ballot:

More than 30 Iraq and Persian Gulf War veterans have entered congressional races across the country as Democrats, hoping to capitalize on their military experience to topple the incumbent Republican majority.

In my home district, five-term incumbent Anne Northup is being challenged by Andrew Horne, a Marine Reserve officer who "spent months working with Iraqi security forces and helping with reconstruction and humanitarian efforts."

Wait, before anyone gets too excited, note that the Dems tried something like this in 2004 at the very top of the ballot.

It didn't lead to the results they wanted. Republicans called Senator John Kerry a flip-flopper for voting "for the war" in October 2002, but then later criticizing its prosecution. Kerry had a tough time explaining his vote for the $87 billion before his vote against the $87 billion. And his fate might have been sealed in August 2004, when he said he'd still have voted "aye" even after it was quite apparent that Iraq had no threatening WMD or operational ties to al Qaeda.

So much for the idea that a military veteran can assure electoral success in an election dominated by national security issued and foreign affairs.

I'm confident many Republican strategists are planning to use a similar ploy in 2006.

In October 2002, remember, 29 Democratic Senators and 81 Democratic House members voted for Joint Resolution 114, which was entitled "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." Not all of the "pro-war" Democrats will be up for re-election in 2006, thanks to a scattering of retirements and previous electoral losses. And, because of six year terms, only one-third of Senators stand for election every two years.

Still, dozens of Democrats up for re-election in 2006 voted for the Iraq Joint Resolution and this apparently bipartisan act will provide ammunition for all Republicans against all Democrats. Indeed, the early signs are that Republicans are prepared to use this fact as a stick with which to beat Democrats over the head.

Congress had access to the same intelligence, the President and other members of the administration claim. They also boast that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq, as he posed (allegedly) an ongoing threat to American security.

In short, Republicans argue that the war was an honest mistake, if it was a mistake, because the intelligence was flawed. Moreover, it wasn't a significant error because 9/11 "changed everything" and America has to be prepared to eliminate its enemies even before they fully develop. Iraq had the ability to make weapons of mass destruction and it was lead by a strongly anti-American despot who could have linked to terrorists at any time. Conclusion? Only weak-willed Democrats would continue to fret over a decision made three years ago. Decisive and strong leaders have to shrug off their mistakes and move on to the next fight, which appears to be Iran.

Even though the situation in Iraq is a mess, and the Bush administration is largely to blame for the American presence there, few war critics are overtly embracing a complete anti-war message and calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Many fear civil war and/or state failure, which is entirely reasonable. Nonetheless, a nuanced anti-war message is hard to sell in politics. As I've explained before, that typically works to the advantage of Republicans.

• What can "pro-war" Democrats do to combat the likely Republican strategy in the 2006 election?
• How can Democrats be against the war, without appearing weak?

Well, arguably, George W. Bush provided an electoral answer in the 2000 foreign policy debate with Al Gore. Debate moderator Jim Lehrer asked the candidates about the circumstances when the US should use military force.

MODERATOR: ...I figured this out; in the last 20 years there have been eight major actions that involved the introduction of U.S. ground, air or naval forces. Let me name them. Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo. If you had been president for any of those interventions, would any of those interventions not have happened?

After running through the list for Vice President Gore, Lehrer turned to then-Governor Bush and asked him what he thought about his father's military intervention in Somalia:

MODERATOR: Somalia.

BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.

A few moments later, Bush elaborated on his view of nation-building:

I thought the best example of a way to handle the situation was East Timor when we provided logistical support to the Australians, support that only we can provide. I thought that was a good model. But we can't be all things to all people in the world, Jim. And I think that's where maybe the vice president and I begin to have some differences. I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission, and it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple billions of dollars, and I'm not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before.

So, Democrats, there you have it.

It's OK to support a well-intended military mission -- and then reject it later because the "mission changed" to "nation-building." The costs of attempted democratization are high and the benefits are often dubious. The President's views on Haiti were widely shared and an updated Iraq version might well resonate with voters.

If liberal hawks supported the Iraq war in 2003 because they genuinely feared WMD and al Qaeda, so be it. To oppose the war now, run some clips of Governor Bush explaining the circumstances when it is acceptable to change one's view.

Moreover, Dems can claim that they want to save the military. The burgeoning threat from Iran proves the need to have a military not bogged down in a political backwater by insurgents (and "dead enders") who don't have weapons of mass destruction.


Visit this blog's homepage.

King for a day

From Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech, August 28, 1963:

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

This speech is also available on the State Department's website (where I also obtained the photo). It's a terrific speech, obviously.

Speaking of the U.S. State Department...American representatives walked out of the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which was held in Durban, South Africa during the first week of September, 2001.

Given the terror attacks of the following week, people may have forgotten about the conference and the U.S. walkout. If one searches the White House website using "World Conference" and "racism," the only mention is by Laura Bush at the International Lion of Judah Conference, October 2004:

When the World Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa became a theater for anti-Semitic expression, President Bush ordered the United States delegation to walk out in protest, and I'm glad he did.

Search for "Durban" on the official website and a handful of press conference references appear, but none since early September, 2001. It is basically forgotten.

This is what the 2001 conference actually said (pdf of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action) about Israel:

63. We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation. We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and call upon all States to support the peace process andbring it to an early conclusion;

64. We call for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region in which all peoples shall co-exist and enjoy equality, justice and internationally recognized human rights,and security;

65. We recognize the right of refugees to return voluntarily to their homes and properties in dignity and safety, and urge all States to facilitate such return;

...

151. As for the situation in the Middle East, calls for the end of violence and the swift resumption of negotiations, respect for international human rights and humanitarian law, respect for the principle of self-determination and the end of all suffering, thus allowing Israel and the Palestinians to resume the peace process, and to develop and prosper in security and freedom;

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, claimed in advance of the meeting that the conference participants had already embraced the "Zionism is racism" theme from past debates -- but the Durban Declaration does not contain the word "Zionism" and I have noted the only two times Israel is noted in the text.

The ADL website plays up this charge as well, noting strong language by some protesters and NGO representatives, as well as anti-American and anti-Israeli banners and political cartoons -- but the real concern seems to have been that some official government speakers equated Israeli treatment of Palestinians to South African apartheid.

The Durban Declaration mentions the crime of apartheid half a dozen times, but at no time mentions it in the context of Israel or the Palestinians.

Israel does occupy land it took in war, which is contrary to international law, and is in violation of over 30 UN Security Council resolutions (by the count of Professor Stephen Zunes of the University of San Francisco). And the plight of the Palestinian people is a major international issue. Even President Bush says Palestinians deserve their own state...

Like Dr. King, I'll quote the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."

Enjoy the holiday.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Europe: CIA renditions are illegal

The Scotsman ran a story Saturday that isn't getting much play in the US:

US policies in the war on terror are contravening international laws on human rights, a top European investigator says.

"The strategy in place today respects neither human rights nor the Geneva Conventions," said Dick Marty, the head of a European investigation into alleged CIA prisons in Europe.

"The current administration in Washington is trying to combat terrorism outside legal means, the rule of law."

Marty, a Swiss politician leading the probe on behalf of the Council of Europe, said there was no question that the CIA was undertaking illegal activities in Europe in its transportation and detention of prisoners.

The Council of Europe is a 46-member state organization that was established to "defend human rights, parliamentary democracy and the rule of law" and now casts itself as "the guardian of democratic security."

In short, they take the question of law quite seriously.

The US has observer status.


Visit this blog's homepage.