Category: National Security

Categories
Economics Election 2008 National Security Obama

A brighter day will come

[digg-reddit-me]

Yesterday, Obama used the storm that accompanied an Obama-Biden rally as a metaphor for these times (continued with sourced remarks he has said before and might have said in that storm as I can’t find the full transcript):

Sometimes the skies look cloudy and it’s dark. And you think the rains will never pass. The young people understand that the clouds – these too will pass, that a brighter day will come. ((From this speech.)) In these tough times, it is that American spirit, that American promise, that pushes us forward. Even when the path is uncertain. It binds us together in spite of our differences. It makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend. ((From this speech.))

If the last few months have taught us anything, it’s that we can all suffer from the excesses of a few. It has taught us that we all have a stake in each other’s success. We all have a stake in ensuring that the market is efficient and transparent; that it inspires trust and confidence; that it rewards those who are truly successful instead of those who are just successful at gaming the system.

I realize that there are some who will say that achieving all of this is far too difficult. That it is too hard to build consensus. That we are too divided and self-interested to think about the responsibilities we have to each other and to our country. That the times are simply too tough.

But then I am reminded that we have been in tougher times and we have faced far more difficult challenges. And each time we have emerged stronger, more united, and more prosperous than the last. It is faith in the American ideal that carries us through, as well as the belief that was voiced by Franklin Roosevelt all those years ago this week: “Failure is not an American habit; and in the strength of great hope we must all shoulder our common load.” That is the strength and the hope we seek both today – and in all the days and months to come. ((From this speech.))

In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.

So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union; and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.

So it was for the Greatest Generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny, and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.

So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines; the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom’s cause.

So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that’s better, and kinder, and more just.

And so it must be for us.

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love. ((From this speech.))

Categories
Election 2008 Foreign Policy Iraq McCain National Security Obama Politics Videos

“You were wrong.”

Categories
Economics Election 2008 Foreign Policy McCain National Security Politics The War on Terrorism Videos

Fun Fact About John McCain #10: A Third Bush Term

A McCain presidency would be Bush III.

On all of the “important” issues, yes – as McCain himself explains:

Categories
Election 2008 McCain National Security Obama Politics The Opinionsphere

Fun Fact About McCain #1: Panicking in a Crisis

[digg-reddit-me]John McCain has a history of over-personalizing and overreacting during crises – which has led a number of top former military officials and others who know him to voice concerns about McCain’s fitness.

True. Between McCain’s taunting of Putin and his scapegoating of SEC chief Cox, he has shown this tendency several times in the past month.
  • As one general said, “I am a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor. I think it is a little scary. I think this guy’s first reactions are not necessarily the best reactions. I believe that he acts on impulse.”
  • As another said, “One of the things the senior military would like to see when they go visit the president is a kind of consistency, a kind of reliability…McCain has got a reputation for being a little volatile.”
  • Conservative columnist and curmudgeon George F. Will wrote of McCain’s reaction to the current financial crisis: “Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama…[The more one sees of McCain’s] impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events the less confidence one has [in him] …It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?”
  • A Republican Senator stated, “The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”
Categories
Iraq National Security Politics The War on Terrorism Videos

Confronting Another Architect of War

[digg-reddit-me]Yet again, Jon Stewart asks the questions no one else does and confronts another architect of the War in Iraq, the noted British liberal and former prime minister, Tony Blair.

Tony Blair: None of this is easy…

Jon Stewart: Look I know, and I do appreciate even having the conversation. No one believes they took the decisions lightly. The only point for me is: nineteen people flew into the towers; it seems hard for me to imagine that we could go to war enough to make the world safe enough that nineteen people wouldn’t want to do harm to us. So it seems we need to re-think a strategy that is less military-based and more [unintelligible].

This exchange comes towards the end of the interview with Blair, which overall, I don’t think was not one of Stewart’s best.

But the catharsis that comes when Jon Stewart confronts these powerful men and speaks common sense to these once formidable powers – it’s hard to describe. Somehow, it is as if he is doing more than anyone to hold the men and women who made the disastrous decisions that led to war in some way accountable.

Part 1 2 of interview with Blair

Part 2 1 of interview with Blair

As I wrote about Stewart confronting Douglas Feith earlier this year:

I’m not sure if it should be so cathartic to see one of the planners of this misbegotten gamble scolded by a comedian. But it was.

Continue reading “Confronting Another Architect of War”
Categories
National Security Politics The War on Terrorism The Web and Technology

Thanking the Jawa Report

I emphatically disagree with The Jawa Report‘s politics. I don’t know anything about the Internet Haganah. I think the attitude towards Islam exemplified by the pictures and headlines you can see by glancing at both sides is almost as medieval as the attitude of islamist extremists towards “the West.”

But if, as is being reported, they are responsible for preventing Al Qaeda from releasing their annual commemorative video on 9/11 – then they deserve praise. Rusty Shackleford of The Jawa Report denies responsibility though:

Neither I nor Aaron are responsible for the take down of al Qaeda’s main forum and two of its sister forums. Reporting that they are down does not mean I’m taking credit. Neither does reporting on it mean that I even approve of taking down al Qaeda’s main propaganda outlet.

But if I was responsible I’d deny it.

He repeats that last phrase several times in the post.

Regardless, if the reports are true. Congratulations. And this liberal, Obama-supporting New Yorker thanks you.

Categories
Election 2008 Foreign Policy Israel McCain National Security Politics Russia

Neoconservatives, gleeful, see Palin as “a blank page”

[digg-reddit-me]
[Photo by amypalko licensed under Creative Commons.]

Tim Shipman, writing in the London Telegraph, reports on the intense foreign policy briefings being given to Sarah Palin. The crowd assigned to brief her consists exclusively of neoconservatives – as was evident in the answers she gave in the Charlie Gibson interview on Russia, Israel, and national security. Most especially was her thrice-repeated formulation about Israel’s defense: “We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.”

She is being groomed to be a female George W. Bush – but even Bush has realist foreign policy voices around him – from Condoleeza Rice to Colin Powell.

As one former White House official working at the American Enterprise Institute put it: “She’s a blank page.”

Think of that – “A blank page.”

They see her as the vessel which will give them influence and will keep them in power. They see her as the best agent to sell their ideas, to accomplish their goals.

“She’s a blank page.”

Lest it be called sexism, let’s remember that George W. Bush was a blank page as well – one that neoconservatives filled with their ideas as well.

And let’s remember that even the Bush administration has turned away from the neoconservative project in the past few years, embracing a more pragmatic approach to foreign policy. And understanding that Sarah Palin has become a political figure in her own right, in many ways, more influential than John McCain, and certainly someone who is seen as the Future of the Republican party. This is an individual who, when asked about the surge explained that she wasn’t really paying attention to such things. She was thrust into the spotlight having formed few opinions of the world, having thought about foreign policy very little, and being ill-informed. Those who directed our disasterous foreign policy see her as a fresh face who can sell their ideas – and as someone who has not studied the matters herself needs a tutor: “She’s a blank page.”

For a writer, there is great possibility in a blank page. As we all look to Sarah Palin – with her combative but warm personality; her shameless ability to sell her lines, to make them her own (like an actress or a car salesman); her unique cultural blend of femininity and feminism – we project onto her our dreams and fears, and it takes quite a lot to dislodge these dreams or fears once they have settled in. This is the essence of politics. It is the core of McCain strength. It is the core of the sense of possibility around Palin. It was what led voters to choose Clinton over Dole, Bush over Gore, and Bush over Kerry. Each side sought to shape the projection of the other, but the essential decision as to who would win was made in a blink. Stubborn facts only gradually affect our projections – as we can see in Bush’s gradual decline in popularity.

But William Kristol, Randy Scheunemann, and other neoconservatives have the opportunity to fill in this blank page with their own dreams and fears – to make their projections reality. “She’s a blank page,” they say, which must terrify the rest of us.

Continue reading “Neoconservatives, gleeful, see Palin as “a blank page””
Categories
Foreign Policy National Security Politics The War on Terrorism

The Lesson We Did Not Learn from 9/11

[digg-reddit-me]On September 11, 2001, our national security state failed to protect us – but ordinary citizens sacrificed their lives to protect the seats of this state on United 93 and emergency responders and ordinary individuals gave their lives to help evacuate buildings. On September 11, the only effective responses were local and often spontaneous.

Yet the Bush administration took a different set of lessons from that day. They looked at what went wrong instead of what went right. The lessons they chose to take from this day have shaped the past seven years.

  • A more aggressive foreign policy. The first lesson the Bush administration took from the attacks on September 11 was that we needed to demonstrate our strength and that if we were “over there” they would not come “over here.” They believed that September 11 taught us that our foreign policy was too defensive – and needed to become more aggressive. The immediate steps they took – military action, economic pressure, and diplomatic pressure to prevent any of our enemies from having a sanctuary – were overdue and necessary. But they believed we needed to be more aggressive – and pursued a preventive war with Iraq (which they deliberately mislabeled as a preemptive war) and sought to transform the Middle East through elections and democracy. According to Bob Woodward, their first instincts after the attacks on September 11 were to attack Iraq – despite the lack of evidence linking it to the attacks.
  • Removing constraints on law enforcement. The second lesson the Bush administration took from the attacks was that if law enforcement had more power and civil liberties constrained them less, then they could have prevented the attacks. Although it was clear that the laws regarding warrants, surveillance, and intelligence-gathering needed to be updated to keep up with the times, the measures passed in the immediate aftermath of September 11 were broader.

What the Bush administration learned on September 11 was that we needed to strengthen the national security state to prevent another attack. They believed that a more aggressive national security state could have prevented the attacks.

Yet, they failed to learn any lessons from the only attack that was foiled that morning. While the national security apparatus was in shambles and scrambling to figure out what was going on, they were rescued by a group of citizens with no authority or special information. They were informed of what was going on by friends and family who had learned their information from a free press; the cell phones they used were on an open system  – and those who called did not worry that they were being monitored by the state; the people gathered together – as citizens do in a time of crisis – and acted communally and determinedly. Yet in the aftermath of the attacks, the president seemed to deliberately play down the one element of our society that had prevented an attack – the sense of volunteerism, of community, of active engagement. He said we should shop.

Our national security state should attempt to prevent another September 11, but while doing so, it must be careful not to undermine the very aspects of our society that actually functioned on that morning. The most profound lesson that we did not learn on September 11 was this:

The federal government cannot be everywhere. The best defense of our way of life, of our institutions, of our government, of our people is the American people themselves – properly informed.

[The conclusions of this piece are inspired by Stephen Flynn.]

Continue reading “The Lesson We Did Not Learn from 9/11”
Categories
Election 2008 Law McCain Morality National Security Politics The War on Terrorism

Grandstanding McCain: Despite Fine Words, He Refused to Act on Torture

[digg-reddit-me]
[Image by SoggyDan licensed under Creative Commons.]

On September 16, 2005 a captain in the army wrote a letter to Senator John McCain. The captain had commanded troops in Iraq and witnessed what he described as “a wide range of abuses [of American-held prisoners] including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment.” He attempted to determine what standards governed the treatment of detainees as he reported these abuses up the chain of command – but was given no guidance. He had written to many military and political officials, informing them of what was going on and asking for guidance, despite being told by the military brass that he was committing career suicide. He wrote letters to anyone he thought might be able to help him – but no one responded.

Finally, on Finally, on September 16, 2006, this captain wrote a letter to Senator John McCain. The letter concluded:

…the most important question that this generation will answer [is] Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is “America.” [My emphasis.]

John McCain was so moved by this letter that he pushed for it to be published in the Washington Post, began drafting legislation to stop America from torturing it’s prisoners, and began publicly pushing the Bush administration on the issue in the press. On November 4, 2005, in the middle of this fight Senator John McCain issued a sober call for to reform our intelligence-gathering and

What should also be obvious is that the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women. To do differently not only offends our values as Americans, but undermines our war effort, because abuse of prisoners harms – not helps – us in the war on terror. First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop. Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy – if not in this war, then in the next. And third, prisoner abuses exact on us a terrible toll in the war of ideas, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions. American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we can’t let prisoner abuse tarnish our image.

Senator McCain concluded his remarks by echoing the army captain:

We should do it not because we wish to coddle terrorists. We should do it not because we view them as anything but evil and terrible. We should do it, Mr. President, because we are Americans, and because we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. America stands for a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will we win. I have said it before but it bears repeating: The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don’t deserve our sympathy. But this isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies, and we can never, never allow our enemies to take those values away. [My emphasis.]

Responding to criticisms that he was being overly moralistic in attempting to prohibit Americans from torturing, McCain told George Stephanopoulos said:

In that million-to-one situation, then the President of the United States would authorize and then take responsibility for it

Despite heavy criticism from the right-wing, McCain had proposed what became known as the McCain Anti-Torture Amendment (and later the Detainee Treatment Act.) ((All told, the position outlined and taken by McCain to this point is a serious one – and one which I mainly agree with.)) The right-wing excoriated McCain for leaving America defenseless and the Bush administration pleaded with McCain to amend the language of his amendment, threatening to veto any measure that impinged on the president’s authority to torture people. Under great pressure, McCain limited the bill’s specific language to only cover the military, leaving out the CIA. Although the bill called for an end to all torture of prisoners by Americans, it only gave specific and binding direction to the military. Further undermining the anti-torture provisions, President Bush issued a signing statement that suggested the law violated the Constitution and that it should not be considered binding.

In 2006, the Bush administration began to push for a bill that concerned the issue of torture. McCain initially requested that the bill include the explicit protections of the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration conceded to McCain’s requests and included these protections, but undermined this passage with a provision that gave the president authority to determine what acts were consistent with and inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions. Again, McCain’s stand against torture won him plaudits, but only served to authorize the president’s power to use whatever methods he personally deemed “not torture”.

In February 2008, a number of top Democrats on the Intelligence Committee became concerned that the CIA was continuing to torture prisoners despite assurances by the administration to McCain that they had stopped those practices due to McCain’s public pressure. The Democrats sought to close the loophole left by the McCain Anti-Torture Amendment, and reaching out to McCain for support, they were surprised to be rebuffed.

McCain explained his opposition to what became known as the Feinstein Amendment, saying that the current law was sufficiently clear and that:

We always supported allowing the CIA to use extra measures…

He continued to repeat his claim that:

I obviously don’t want to torture any prisoners.

Yet, despite reports of ongoing torture, he refused to back a law with teeth that would actually prevent torture. His first two attempts had been considered noble failures by human rights activists who worked with Senator McCain. They admired him for standing up to the Bush administration and calling on America to be better – and even if he hadn’t actually accomplished what he had set out to do. Now – with a Democratic Congress ready to push the issue and actually pass an enforceable law ending official American torture, McCain balked. He even suggested the president veto the bill if it was passed. Such was the moral authority he had built up on the issue that his standing against the amendment effectively quashed it.

What does it say about a man’s character that he hears the call of injustice and composes a powerful defense of American values and becomes the public face of opposition to torture – and then he accepts a compromise that gives him only a symbolic victory? And then, given another chance to put an end to this practice he has condemned in no uncertain terms, he again mounts a public defense and accepts a symbolic victory that reinforces the position he has condemend? And then, given a chance to support a bill that would truly end torture, he opposes it and encourages the president to veto it? His words promise so much more than his deeds deliver. ((As with Georgia.))

While Senator John McCain was the only official Captain Ian Fishback reached out to that responded to his call for leadership, McCain failed the test Captain Fishback put to him. McCain chose to “sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security” and  give up some part “of the idea that is America.” He accepted plaudits and symbolic victories, but when given the chance to act on his fine words and professed ideals, he declined.

I admired the McCain who fought against torture when no other Republican would. I admired him despite the compromises he made. I could not admire the way he declined to back up his words once the opportunity was given to him.

Both the liberal law professor Glenn Greenwald and the conservative columnist Andrew C. McCarthy use the same word to describe McCain’s opposition to torture: “grandstanding.”

N.B. This post was written in the midst of an obviously contentious election campaign – one in which I had strongly considered supporting John McCain but after careful evaluation, had come to the conclusion that Barack Obama was the only candidate suited to our current challenges. While I stand by the content of the post, in retrospect, the tone is a bit overheated. That said – the fact that McCain would backtrack on this issue that was at the core of his reputation for moral authority is a testament to how this issue has become one of the issues in the new “culture war” – this one over national security. 

Continue reading “Grandstanding McCain: Despite Fine Words, He Refused to Act on Torture”
Categories
Election 2008 Foreign Policy McCain National Security Politics Russia

“We are all Georgians!”: Fantasy as Foreign Policy


[Photo by World Economic Forum licensed under Creative Commons.]

[digg-reddit-me]Steven Lee Myers of the New York Times reported yesterday on Cheney’s visits to former Soviet states:

Mr. Cheney, who visited Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine this week to express American support, offered no new proposals either, but he described the conflict as a new test for NATO that required a unified response.

This has been the baffling and fundamental flaw of the neoconservative approach to foreign policy. How America responded to 9/11, how America endured the occupation of Iraq, how America responded to the Iranian’s development of nuclear weapons, how America responded to Russian aggression in Georgia – each of these represented – in the words of Bush, Cheney, McCain, and other neoconservatives – a “test” of America’s and our allies’ resolve.

Yet – the neoconservatives only offer a single way for America to pass each of these tests: Escalate matters until America can plausibly threaten to use military force.

That was America’s justifiable response to 9/11. It was the Bush administration’s strategy with Saddam Hussein. It has been Cheney’s strategy for containing Iran. It is McCain’s strategy for confronting Russia. The reason neoconservatives are so eager to use military force – instead of diplomacy, containment, alliances, creating and living by systems of rules for international affairs, or economic pressure – is that they believe America’s military might can solve any problem. They are correct that our military superiority ensures that we can defeat any other military on the planet. But what they do not acknowledge is that the military is a blunt weapon and that without a draft, it can only be deployed under limited circumstances and for limited periods. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate these lessons – yet McCain, Bush, Cheney, and company do not seem to have noticed.

Thus, McCain invoked Kennedy’s defense of Berlin when Russia invaded Georgia – saying, “We are all Georgians!” Kennedy had proclaimed, “Eich bin ein Berlinier” to demonstrate our resolve to the Soviet Union – that if they tried to take Berlin, we would protect it as if it were our own home. McCain, by saying that we are all Georgians, was committing the United States to take military action against Russia. Yet, if that is his plan, he has not admitted it. If it is not his plan, then he has not been following the advice given by his hero, Teddy Roosevelt:

Speak softly, and carry a big stick.

McCain talks a good game – but if he means half of what he says, we’ll have more than one new war on our hands by the time he’s through. Either way, he’s not the president I’m hoping for.