Being "The Good Soldier" Posted by Ike Wilson

An April 13, 2006 front-page Washington Post article by Tom Ricks is the latest and most public account of what has been a rising disgruntlement among a small but significant number of retired U.S. military officers with current US war-policy and strategy toward Iraq, and a mounting clarion call for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The issue, being dubbed already (and quite prematurely) as the 'General's Revolt' is an important issue on the obvious merits: the questioning of the soundness of not only the intelligence but also the planning that directed the United States' invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the alleged paucity of the postwar planning for Iraq's stabilization and reconstruction, and the effectiveness of Secretary Rumsfeld.  But this tale of "revolt" raises other questions -- questions that go well beyond happenings in and about Iraq; questions that speak directly to the relationship between the American Soldier and the American State, and the proper role and limits of military officers in affairs of politics and war. Behind this so-called revolt belies a deeper question more important to the American Republic than Iraq is or will ever be: what does it mean to be "The Good Soldier" in today's day and age? 

I do not claim to have any answers to this question.  But what I will try to offer is an "insider's" perspective on the debate and to provide some professional soldier insight into the true complexities that make this issue much, much more than what many in the punditry are making it out to be -- a sensational story of a mutiny against the sitting Secretary of Defense . . . a precision attack on Donald Rumsfeld.  The real issue of worry is not the SECDEF or the disagreements of a handful of retired generals, but rather an issue of the Soldier and the State.   

Evil, Alive Posted by Michael Signer

Probably anyone in the Washington area who read the front page of their Washington Post this morning experienced the same sensation I did, reading the right-hand column over my coffee -- a queasy, flat, cold feeling of observing, at a distance, evil.  Zacarias Moussaoui, in case you missed it, testified on his own behalf yesterday, and what he said was so chilling it's just cold:

Taking the stand for the second time at his death-penalty trial, Moussaoui calmly and matter-of-factly said that the sobbing Sept. 11 survivors and family members who testified against him were "disgusting," that the testimony of one man who crawled out of his burning Pentagon office was "pathetic" and that executed Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was "the greatest American."

Do Beliefs Matter? (Not as much as you think) Posted by Shadi Hamid

“We are not going to cut off the hands of thieves, even though they deserve it. We are not going to force any woman to cover her hair; women are doing this by their own choice.” So says Abdul-Aziz Duwaik, the Palestinian Speaker of Parliament for the Hamas-led government. 

This statement is particularly interesting as it brings into focus the contested relationship between belief and action, ideology and practice, between what is and what ought to be in the muddy and sometimes malevolent realm of politics. Islamists believe from a Quranic or Islamic standpoint that alcohol should be banned, women should wear the hijab (headscarf), and that “every inch” of Palestine should be "liberated." However, beliefs such as these, after being subject to the push and pull of the political process, will manifest themselves in policy outcomes which may not reflect the original belief. Hamas believes that the hands of thieves should be cut off, but they aren’t going to cut them off. This simple fact has implications for how we understand the political maneuvering of ideologically driven groups and individuals. 

Much, of course, has been said about the Hamas founding charter which promises the destruction of Israel. Why this pronouncement should necessarily be relevant to the question of how Hamas will govern remains unclear. While Hamas may believe in the destruction of Israel as a matter of religious principle, it does not necessarily follow that their actions or political behavior will reflect this belief. A wide array of domestic and international factors contrain and limit the available policy options of ideological actors. 

When Islamists act politically, it’s not as if they pick up a Quran or some treatise of an obscure 10^th century Islamic scholar and ask themselves, “well, what does 'Islam,' God, or prophet Muhammad have to say about this particular issue ?” Political actors act politically (and rationally – unless, that is, you happen to be the President of Iran).

Americans embrace the "Responsibility to Protect" Posted by Sam Bell

Zogby recently found that a majority of likely voters (3 in 5) believe that the U.S. has a responsibility to end genocide in Darfur, Sudan.   Seven in ten support a U.S. no-fly zone to deter Sudanese aerial attacks and “Support is nearly uniform in both the Republican leaning “Red States” and their Democrat-leaning “Blue State” counterparts.”

It seems likely that Congress – on the whole, more educated about the crisis than their constituents – would be more supportive of taking action to end genocide.   It’s puzzling that more Congressional action is not directed towards this goal.  There are other foreign policy issues that occupy the attention of members and have a stranglehold on their wallets.   Sensitivities relating to the war in Iraq – the U.S. acting with force in a Muslim nation – make it much more difficult for the U.S. to take a leading role in ending genocide in Darfur, Sudan.  But, that shouldn’t hold us back.   While U.S. and NATO resources are committed to Iraq and Afghanistan, it would not take much to protect civilians in Darfur.  Surely, the U.S. and NATO could spare a small rapid-response force and the few aerial and intelligence assets needed to enforce a no-fly zone.  In the long run, humanitarian intervention in a Muslim country to save Muslim lives will improve American legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world. 

If members of Congress are unsure how their constituents feel about stopping genocide in Darfur, they might look at:

• The quarter of a million dollars raised by the Genocide Intervention Network to support the African Union peacekeepers who are the only line of defense for Darfurians.
• Oregon, Illinois, New Jersey and a dozen universities’ targeted divestment from companies supporting the Sudanese genocidal campaign in Darfur.  (The California State Teachers’ Retirement System divested $14 million on April 6th).
• Tens of thousands of concerned Americans rallying against genocide in Washington DC on April 30th.

As long as Khartoum continues to deny its responsibility to protect its own civilians from genocide, Americans will increasingly call on the United States to take a leading role.

Iran is Not Cuba and Bush is not Kennedy Posted by Heather Hurlburt

So now David Ignatius has jumped on Graham Allison's "Iran is the Cuban missile crisis in slow motion" bandwagon.

I think this is a non-useful and maybe even dangerous comparison for several substantive and political reasons:

1) the core problem, Iran's move toward nuclear weapons, is progressing in such slow motion, if you believe experts outside the Administration, that we have years, not weeks or months, to work with.  This only becomes an immediate threat when we start rattling nuclear sabers -- but saying "Cuban missile crisis" reinforces the idea that the problem requires immediate and comprehensive fixing.  Instead it requires immediate management with an eye toward a long-term solution.  That's different.

2) Ratcheting up the fear level serves the interests of those who are talking nuclear or conventional strikes.  It makes it -- as Allison knows better than almost anyone from his study of the Cuban missile crisis -- harder to back down.

3)  Which brings us to the crucial point:  Bush is no Kennedy.  Rumsfeld is no McNamara.  We don't have even the level of understanding of the Iranian regime that we had of the Soviets (McNamara's account of the Cuban crisis highlights the role of the US Ambassador to the USSR, Tommy Thompson, who had actually lived with Khrushchev briefly.)

4)  An additional point:  I am reminded that, while for people over a certain age the phrase "Cuban missile crisis" evokes sheer terror, for young people it evokes nothing -- except "crisis."  And again, this is a very serious problem that doesn't have to be a Cuban-scale immediate crisis -- unless we choose to make it one.

Happy spring renewal holiday of your choice -- or just enjpy the nice weather.

Beyond Baby Steps for Darfur Posted by Sam Bell

Almost two years ago, July 2004, Congress unanimously declared the crisis in Darfur a genocide. It’s the first time that Congress or the Executive has described an ongoing crisis in this way. As Darfur deteriorates, the characterization as “genocide” has gained widespread acceptance. Unfortunately, saying “genocide in Darfur” has yet to prompt leadership from the American government to protect civilians in Darfur. Instead of improving, the crisis in Darfur has spread to neighboring Chad and American leadership to fight genocide has translated into giving more humanitarian aid than any other nation.

Studying the American failure to stop genocide in the 20^th century, Samantha Power found that “it is in the realm of domestic politics that the battle to stop genocide is lost…[policymakers] reason that they will incur no costs if the United States remains uninvolved but will face steep risks if they engage.” This statement remains true about our efforts to stop genocide today. Despite its courageous declaration two summers ago, neither Congress nor the Executive has been willing to risk any political to support protection for civilians in Darfur. In fact, it’s been like pulling teeth to persuade Congress to maintain the meager status quo.

The United States and its international partners have neither offered a credible threat to compel the Government of Sudan to disarm the Janjaweed militias and stop aerial attacks nor have they deployed a robust force to protect civilians. On Monday, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. will push for as many as 500 NATO advisers to be sent to Darfur. A NATO presence in Darfur raises the possibility of arrests of war criminals and should scare some of the perpetrators.  However, the U.S. is publicly opposed to including the architects of the crisis - senior Sudanese officials - on the list of targets for international action.

The Antidote to Pollster-Induced Paralysis Posted by Shadi Hamid

Joe Klein has an excellent column about the Democratic Party’s pollster-induced paralysis. It got me thinking. A favorite talking point of Democrats is that Americans agree with Democrat policies across the board – abortion, the economy, taxes, education, environment, health care, college tuition, outsourcing, etc. It’s a rather tiresome talking point because it gets things backwards.

Democrats, apparently, are still struggling to learn the most important – and rather obvious – lesson of the last five years of electioneering. Policy prescriptions (for the most part) don’t matter that much. When people vote they don’t ask themselves “who has the most detailed, wonkish policy on health care?” They ask, “which one of these guys do I believe in ?” Or, alternately, since it’s very hard to believe politicians these days, “which one of these guys do I want to believe in ?” “Which one of these guys do I feel comfortable with ?” Of course, Republicans have consultants and pollsters but they act – perception is everything – like they don’t.

If Democrats are right about everything then the inverse of that, presumably, is that Republicans are wrong about everything. Yet Republicans have, over the last 5 years (or, in Congress, the last 12 years), been more successful than Democrats in getting people to vote for them. Hmmm. To quote Leon Festinger, “the existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance.” In other words, people tend to try to reconcile themselves to reality. This, in the case of the Democrats, can be done through two rationalization techniques:

Truth in War Posted by Suzanne Nossel

A persistent trope in the Iraq War coverage for months now are the conflicting accounts about how the fight is really going.   Top officials of the Bush Administration have invariably put a brave face on things.  Underneath, military officials occasionally depart from the party line, including in a newly public January, 2006 report on conditions Iraq’s provinces that is bleak indeed. 

Meanwhile the press reports daily on rising sectarian violence, thwarted reconstruction efforts, and the stalemated the formation of a new Iraqi government.  Politicians who credit these negative facts get tarred for being unpatriotic and undermining of the troops.

Some haze is inevitable in a conflict as complex as Iraq’s.  But the deliberate efforts of the Bush Administration to spin the war cloud the picture.  At the same time, its hard not to acknowledge that in wartime there may be a need to present facts in a way that bolsters morale and instills confidence even when things aren’t going well.   If one believes, as many in the Administration surely do, that remaining in Iraq is essential to the U.S.’s national interests, then arraying facts to facilitate public support for that position is defensible.

At this point, contradictory information is a primary cause of the national confusion and paralysis about what to do next in Iraq.  If President Bush is right, our efforts are paying off and we stay the course.  If you believe Ayad Allawi or Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak civil war is here and our troops are in harms’ way even though the nightmare scenario we hoped to prevent has already materialized in spite of our best efforts.

At what point does the government’s legitimate need to spin give way to the public’s right to a clear-eyed assessment of the costs and benefits of war, and the competence with which a military mission is being conducted?

Its an interesting question and I don’t have a comprehensive answer.  But some thoughts:

The Bush Doctrine in Iran: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb Posted by Bill Perkins

It certainly felt like I was watching a Stanley Kubrick film when I learned that the Bush administration has plans to use "bunker buster" tactical nuclear weapons against Iran to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.  And I might have darkly laughed as I did when I saw Dr. Strangelove, if I did not see in my head the faces of brave men and women I know and knew, and so many I didn't, who have selflessly sacrificed their well-being or even life itself in defense of our nation's policies.  To even keep the nuclear option on the table is an outrage against everything our nation purports to stand for.

The plans were brought to light by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in this extraordinary just-published New Yorker article (and this morning on CNN).  I highly recommend reading the full article, in which he details the alarming behind-the-scenes push within the U.S. administration to destroy Iran's nuclear program, with the ultimate goal of regime change.  Hersh states in the article that

"One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites."