Month: December 2008

Categories
Libertarianism National Security Politics The War on Terrorism

Illegal Drugs and the War on Terror

In researching a post I was working on, I came across a Congressional report from 2004 that I was surprised I hadn’t heard about. Entitled “Illicit Drugs and the Terrorist Threat: Causal Links and Implications for Domestic Drug Control Policy” [pdf], it lists five potential links between drug trafficking and terrorism:

  1. Supplying cash for terrorist operations;
  2. Creating chaos in countries where drugs are produced;
  3. Generating corruption in law enforcement, military, and other governmental and civil-society institutions that either build public support for terrorist-linked groups or weaken the capacity of the society to combat terrorist organizations and actions;
  4. Providing services also useful for terrorist actions and movements of terrorist personnel and material, and supporting a common infrastructure, such as smuggling capabilities, illicit arms acquisition, money laundering, or the production of false identification papers;
  5. Competing for law enforcement and intelligence attention.

The report focuses on how drug trafficking undermines the War on Terror – but it makes clear both the current quagmire that is the Drug War and the ways in which the incentives created by the War on Drugs undermine the War on Terror.

Now at first glance, it may seem as if the War on Terror and the War on Drugs should be benefit one another. After all, a successful policy that made heroin production and trade less profitable or more difficult would deprive the Afghan Taliban from one of their primary sources of cash. A successful anti-smuggling policy would make it harder for drugs to slip across the border as well as terrorists and weapons.

The Bush administration meanwhile has sought to conflate the two wars – for example, by running ads immediately in the aftermath of 9/11 claiming that drug money paid for terrorism ((At the time, the Taliban and Al Qaeda were not making money from the heroin trade however, so this was rather misleading. The Taliban in fact had prevented poppy-farming until they needed it as a source of revenue after they were ousted from power. The commercials based their claims on FARC in Columbia.)) and by repeatedly using measures from the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism measures to go after drug offenses.

But looking more closely, one can see that the War on Drugs has often impeded the War on Terror in these very areas. For example, critics of the Bush administration’s drug policy in Afghanistan believe we are in fact driving poor farmers to seek the protection of the Taliban. By using laws designed for the War on Terror in the Drug War, it undermines claims that the War on Terror is “different” and should unite all of us. By using these new powers more often, law enforcement undermines it’s credibility. It’s a vicious cycle.

    Categories
    Humor

    Whoops…

    This woman deserves a start turn on House, M.D. I want to see House deliver this diagnosis.

    Categories
    Barack Obama Politics The Opinionsphere

    Caroline Kennedy (cont. again)

    Andrew Sullivan – who loyal readers of the blog will know is the reason I began to blog – is hyperventilating today. In a post titled “Less Qualified Than Palin,” Sullivan wants to convince his readers that Caroline Kennedy is like Sarah Palin. But his argument fails miserably to prove the point he wants to make:

    In fact, Sarah Palin was more qualified to be vice-president than Caroline Kennedy is to be a Senator.

    The problem with Sarah Palin that Sullivan more than anyone else made was that she was not a serious candidate in that she hadn’t seriously considered the issues that would be facing her as Vice President. This was the qualification she was lacking that Sullivan rightly harped on. As he wrote immediately after she was announced:

    Yes, Obama is inexperienced in foreign policy. But at least he has thought seriously about it. Do you really believe that Sarah Palin understands the distinctions between Shia and Sunni, has an opinion about the future of Pakistan, has a view of how to exploit rifts within Tehran’s leadership, knows about the tricky task of securing loose nuclear weapons? [my emphasis]

    These are issues that Palin would be faced with as Vice President – and based on her public comments, she hadn’t seriously dealt with the issues. And her lack of serious thought on the issue seemed to be the result of deliberate ignorance – or perhaps incuriousness – as Sullivan pointed out citing George Will:

    Can you name a single newspaper or magazine you currently read? If you can, you are more qualified to be president than Sarah Palin.

    And you can feel him stretching the facts to make his point fit in his recent piece claiming Caroline Kennedy – who can almost certainly name a few dozen newspapers and magazines she reads, as well as a few she has published serious pieces in. The worst example is how Sullivan takes this statement by Kennedy:

    “I’ve written books on the Constitution and the importance of individual participation. And I’ve raised my family.”

    And responds to that sentence with: “Good for you. But so have millions of others.” I presume he only means the latter part. He describes the above defense as “even more painful than Palin’s.”

    Really? Remember this?

    Look – I’m not saying Caroline Kennedy is the best possible candidate for the Senate seat. But the over-the-top criticism by Andrew Sullivan – as well as others – demonstrates a lack of perspective. Caroline Kennedy – with her involvement in constitutional law and education issues – can bring that experience with her to the Senate.

    Kathleen Parker gets to the heart of the issue in a way that defuses Andrew Sullivan’s argument:

    The real rub is that she hasn’t earned it. The sense of entitlement implicit in Kennedy’s plea for appointment mocks our national narrative. We honor rags-to-riches, but riches-to-riches animates our revolutionary spirit.

    Palin paid her own passage unfreighted by privilege. But I and others opposed her spot on the Republican ticket for good reasons, some of which resemble concerns now aimed at Kennedy.

    To wit: It isn’t enough to want the prize. One must be up to the job, in a league with one’s fellow actors.

    In Kennedy’s case, those actors would be senators, not heads of other, potentially belligerent, nations. If appointed, she would be a single vote among 100 and otherwise a placeholder until 2010, when she would have to run for election as any other.

    Which is to say there are three differences here that make all the difference:

    • Kennedy is “a relatively erudite person who has authored several books” including on legal issues while Palin had a “demonstrated lack of basic knowledge…intellectual incuriosity, and… inability to articulate ideas or even simple thoughts [which] all combined to create an impression of not-quite-there.”
    • Kennedy wants to be 1 of 100 senators; Palin wanted to be 1 old man’s heartbeat away from being Commander-in-Chief.
    • Kennedy would need to run in two years on her own to keep the seat.

    These are significant differences – which makes this sentiment all the more jarring, especially from a normally astute observer like Sullivan.

    Categories
    New York City Politics

    Caroline Kennedy (cont.)

    I admit I don’t get the backlash coming from the potential Caroline Kennedy appointment. I don’t feel the anger, the urgency, the outrage at the idea of appointing someone like Caroline Kennedy. I can understand the arguments being made – but, as with all political issues, there is a gut-level response that is driving the issue forward – a gut-level response that is then justified by a variety of arguments.

    Perhaps I’m missing that certain gene that causes people to root against dynasties. I’m not a Yankees fan – but I like their dominance – and I root for them to maintain it, to some extent. I like the fact that the Kennedys are involved in politics – and can usually get elected when they run. If I followed football (soccer), I’d probably be a fan of Manchester United. I don’t think it corrupts either sports or politics when dynasties are present. I don’t viscerally root for the underdog. To be fair – one of the reasons I like dynasties is that they are excellent foils. When the upstart Florida Marlins are playing the dynastic  and storied New York Yankees, it makes the games all the more dramatic. The same was true of Obama when be beat the Clinton machine. I often root for dynasties to do well until they are beaten by a worthy opponent.

    But with Caroline Kennedy, that’s not my feeling. I’m not certain she’s the best candidate Gov. Patterson could appoint. But I think she stands a good chance of being an excellent Senator. Most people seem to agree on this point – even as they oppose her appointment.

    It’s a very odd argument opponents of Caroline Kennedy are putting forward. Most would acknowledge that Gov. Patterson wants her on the ticket because she would be a very strong candidate drawing many voters in 2010, and that she also would be able to raise money easily, including for his reelection. Yet, the opponents maintain that even though Caroline Kennedy would probably do very well in an election, appointing when she hasn’t run for any office conveys a sense of entitlement. Now – if Kennedy wouldn’t need to run in two years, and again two years after that, I feel like this argument might have more weight.

    Categories
    Barack Obama Domestic issues Economics Energy Independence Financial Crisis Foreign Policy Green Energy Health care Politics

    An Ambitious Presidency

    In his interview with Time magazine, Barack Obama listed those issues on which he believes his first two years as president should be judged:

    Domestic Policy

    • Have we helped this economy recover from what is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression?
    • Have we instituted financial regulations and rules of the road that assure this kind of crisis doesn’t occur again?
    • Have we created jobs that pay well and allow families to support themselves?
    • Have we made significant progress on reducing the cost of health care and expanding coverage?
    • Have we begun what will probably be a decade-long project to shift America to a new energy economy?
    • Have we begun what may be an even longer project of revitalizing our public-school systems so we can compete in the 21st century?

    Foreign Policy

    • Have we closed down Guantánamo in a responsible way, put a clear end to torture and restored a balance between the demands of our security and our Constitution?
    • Have we rebuilt alliances around the world effectively?
    • Have I drawn down U.S. troops out of Iraq, and have we strengthened our approach in Afghanistan — not just militarily but also diplomatically and in terms of development?
    • Have we been able to reinvigorate international institutions to deal with transnational threats, like climate change, that we can’t solve on our own?

    Intangibles

    • And, two years from now, can the American people say: “Government’s not perfect; there are some things Obama does that get on my nerves. But you know what? I feel like the government’s working for me. I feel like it’s accountable. I feel like it’s transparent. I feel that I am well informed about what government actions are being taken. I feel that this is a President and an Administration that admits when it makes mistakes and adapts itself to new information, that believes in making decisions based on facts and on science as opposed to what is politically expedient.” Those are some of the intangibles that I hope people two years from now can claim.

    So, basically, a rather limited agenda here.

    Categories
    National Security Politics The Opinionsphere The War on Terrorism

    The Judgment of History

    Patrick Radden Keefe mentioned, in an offhand manner, one of the great questions about the transition:

    Even the legal opinions governing the program are still squirreled away in a safe in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. In recent months, the Senate Judiciary Committee and a Washington district judge have ordered them turned over, and the next attorney general should do so immediately.

    He was referring here to the wiretapping program specifically – but it applies to many of the legal rationales in the War on Terror. Dick Cheney and his lieutenants David Addington and Scooter Libby perfected the art of bureaucratic warfare during the first years of the Bush administration. According to Jack Goldsmith as quoted by Barton Gellman:

    They were geniuses at this. They could divide up all these problems in the bureaucracy, ask different people to decide things in their lanes, control the facts they gave them, and then put the answers together to get the result they want.

    In addition – as Keefe mentioned – and as Gellman reported in his book The Angler – Addington kept certain legal documents exclusively in the safe in his office. Not just copies – but the originals, with no copying permitted, and with access to the documents severely limited. (For example, even the attorneys in the National Security Agency responsible for making sure the NSA was following legal guidelines were not permitted to see the legal rationale for their wiretapping program.) As members of the incoming administration attempt to decide what is the best means to deal with the abuses of power during the Bush administration – Nuremberg-style trials? a truth commission offering clemency? the normal legal system? – you have to wonder what steps Cheney and Addington will take. There has been much discussion of whether or not George W. Bush will offer a preemptive pardon to anyone involved in the War on Terror – but less discussed is what Cheney and Addington might be able to do to entirely obfuscate attempts to find out what happened.

    Based on my understanding of Cheney’s personality as described by Barton Gellman – and on his recent interview with ABC News – I think Cheney might want to just get it all out there. He virtually admitted – though not necessarily to the point of taking legal responsibility – that he authorized war crimes:

    He was also asked whether he authorized the tactics used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

    “I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn’t do,” Cheney said. “And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it.

    It seems that Cheney – at least on some issues – is now, and finally, willing to come forward and admit his role. He isn’t willing to admit fault – but seems proud of what he did, and willing to accept the judgment of history.

    Still given the extreme secrecy surrounding even the legal rationale of many aspects of the War on Terror, we may never know if documents are destroyed.

    Categories
    Iraq The Opinionsphere

    Can We Blame the Shoe-Thrower?

    John Dickerson seems about a day too late in offering the conventional wisdom about the American reaction to the show-throwing incident:

    At the very least, I suspect a spark of patriotism will kick in when some Americans watch the tape or see al-Zaidi heralded in the streets as a hero. Hey, you can’t throw shoes at our president, they might say. Only we can throw shoes at our president.

    That was my first reaction certainly – but most other people seem to have either looked on the Iraqi journalist with sympathy or merely commenting on Bush’s dodging ability as was evident in the day after the show-throw. And in the case of Iraq – and Bush’s insouciant, “So, what?” in response to Iraq’s lack of weapons of mass destruction – it’s hard to blame one an Iraqi for wanting to grievously insult our president.

    Can we really be outraged that the man threw a shoe in anger when Bush invaded his country under untrue pretenses and so botched the aftermath of the war? I can’t.

    Beer in Zimbabwe

    The cost of a single beer, photographed.

    Categories
    The Media The Opinionsphere

    David Gregory: Goofily Hollow

    Slate’s Mickey Kaus and Troy Patterson sum up David Gregory’s presense as the new anchor of Meet the Press aptly.

    Kaus:

    Gregory seems not straightforwardly dull, but somehow goofily hollow.

    Patterson:

    It probably makes no difference to the show’s content, but the new face of Meet the Press wears a contented smirk.

    Categories
    Iraq Politics The Opinionsphere

    Only we can throw shoes at our president

    John Dickerson seems about a day too late in offering the conventional wisdom about the American reaction to the show-throwing incident:

    At the very least, I suspect a spark of patriotism will kick in when some Americans watch the tape or see al-Zaidi heralded in the streets as a hero. Hey, you can’t throw shoes at our president, they might say. Only we can throw shoes at our president.

    That was my first reaction certainly – but most other people seem to have either looked on the Iraqi journalist with sympathy or merely commenting on Bush’s dodging ability as was evident the day after the show-throw. And in the case of Iraq – and Bush’s insouciant, “So, what?” in response to Iraq’s lack of weapons of mass destruction – it’s hard to blame one an Iraqi for wanting to grievously insult our president.

    Can we really be outraged that the man threw a shoe in anger when Bush invaded his country under untrue pretenses and so botched the aftermath of the war? I can’t.