Answer: in the Watergate Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Question:  Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

This blog is far too high-tone to get into the down and dirty of what seems to have pushed Porter Goss out of the CIA in a big hurry.  But Laura Rozen over at warandpiece has great reporting on the first ripples of implications across the rest of the national security community.  And if you must have the juicy stuff, start with this primer from thinkprogress.

After you've stopped laughing, think about how hard the Iranians are laughing.  That's a real buzz-kill, isn't it? 

More on Moussaoui Posted by Michael Signer

Two perhaps counterintuitive thoughts on the jury's decision not to give Zacharias Moussaoui the death penalty.  I sympathize -- completely -- with the 9/11 victims' families desire to put the man to death.  And I blogged here recently in a post I titled "Evil, Alive" about my feeling that Moussaoui was the sum of evil, whether banal in the Arendtian sense or not. 

But in thinking over the jury's reasoning and the result of the case over the last couple of days, I've come to a couple of additional conclusions.

Money where it Matters: Congress Continues to Fail Posted by Lorelei Kelly

I've been travelling back and forth from New York this week--most recently up to Cornell University, where the Peace Studies program is collaborating with West Point, figuring out ways to draw more faculty activity on new security issues.

The theme that came up repeatedly (typical of nearly all discussions of Iraq but post 9/11 policy more generally) is over-militarization of our international policy across the board...an imbalance that will be made even worse this year with a defense budget approaching a trillion dollars (when the war spending is included).

No doubt frustrated by Congress' unwillingness to remedy the shortage on the civilian side, Senator Warner (R, VA) chair of the Armed Services Commmittee, sent the following letter mid-March to all Cabinet Secretaries aside from DoD plus a handful of other offices. (excerpted)

Heading for the Exits Posted by Derek Chollet

Speaking of Biden...the Biden-Gelb federalism/soft-partition strategy for Iraq has kicked up considerable conversation and debate among the policy cognoscenti.  But one thing that seems to be getting lost amid all the talk about if and how Iraq should be split was Biden’s announcement on the future of U.S. troops there – he says that most should be out by the end of 2008.

According to his speech announcing the plan Monday in Philadelphia:

“…the President should direct U.S. military commanders to develop to withdraw and redeploy almost all U.S. forces from Iraq by 2008.  If the military can do it sooner without precipitating a meltdown, so much the better.  Regardless, the President should make it clear that the direction we’re heading in is out, and no later than 2008.”

This is nuanced shift for Biden, but it is an important one.  Up to now, whenever he has talked about the future of U.S. troops he’s always discussed a drawdown as inevitable given the strain on our forces and their rotational schedules.  The argument has always been that there’s really no decision to make – we have to start getting out so let’s adjust.

But now he’s saying that we should outright plan for a drawdown by a date certain.  In doing so, he has joined many leading Democrats to argue that U.S. troops should be getting out.  In fact this week the Center for American Progress is outlining a similar redeployment strategy (updating their original plan from last fall – before this was fashionable) to be endorsed by Senator Dianne Feinstein, and presumably others.

That’s significant on its own, but what’s interesting to me is that during the past few weeks it has become clearer that this sentiment is shared by a strange bedfellow: Donald Rumsfeld.

Biden Triumphs Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Today I'll cheer Joe Biden -- the Senate has just approvied his amendments to the Iraq military supplemental barring the USG from spending any of the money to either create permanent bases or (and this is really news) establish US control over Iraq's oil infrastructure.

You can find a description of the amendment -- and the many others put forward -- here.

The Parallel Universe of Academia (or, Chomsky's last stronghold) Posted by Shadi Hamid

If the Left wishes to resuscitate itself, it might like to take a careful look at (and in) the halls of the academy. I was reminded of this by Todd Gitlin's perceptive essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education. One cannot begin to count the endless numbers of young, otherwise well-meaning liberals obsessed with orthodoxy and ideological purity. It is, however, orthodoxy of a peculiar kind, one that holds post-modernism, anti-Orientalism, anti-imperialism, “deconstruction,” and other such things as self-evident truths immune, ironically, from criticism. 

Academia really is, in a way, a parallel universe, the only place left in the United States where Noam Chomsky is still quoted as an authority. I have grown tired, to the point of exhaustion, of hearing about the evils of unipolarity, the perpetual, all-enveloping haze of American hegemony, and how victims – real and otherwise imagined – are somehow blameless, always, for the crimes they commit. Morality is a standard to which only the powerful are held. Moral clarity (not to be confused with Bush's distortion of the term) is shunned in favor of “nuance,” or what might more appropriately be described as a  profound intellectual muddiness.

Yes, our history of intervention abroad, particularly in the Middle East and Latin America, is not something to be proud of. As I have written often, the US (to say nothing of France) has consistently indulged in Faustian bargains of an unfortunate kind. However, if we wish to redress past wrongs, then we must ask ourselves how this is to be done. For their part, significant segments of the Left have chosen to disengage from the System and to complain and criticize at every turn, oblivious to the fact that their protestations provide yet more proof of their heightened irrelevance.

It is worth noting that in the run-up to the Iraq war, more than 10 million people throughout the world protested, presumably united against the perils of unwise intervention. They may have been right, but history has the final say, and it happens to judge outcome, not intention. Despite overwhelming opposition, the war still happened and we have had to live with the many consequences. On the other hand, 10-15 people – once Leftist graduate students, now “liberals mugged by reality” (i.e. neocons) – were able to provide the intellectual ammunition for a small but effective movement that would steer US foreign policy in rather interesting, and often destructive directions. Thus, power is not in numbers, but in ideas and the ability of convert them into tangible, sustained action. This is the both tragic and empowering lesson of neo-conservatism’s unlikely ascendancy, as well as its sudden demise.

Divide (Iraq) and Conquer? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

I have been muttering darkly for a while that the American public and at least some of the Establishment wants to be "done" with Iraq, that there is no realistic likelihood of more money for reconstruction, and every likelihhod of fewer troops for security, whatever the Administration says.  I have been frustrated with efforts like the Brookings/Ken Pollack plan that pre-suppose significant new commitments of money and continuing commitment of troops.  I saw Ken present his plan with sobering eloquence to a roomful of progressive candidates last month -- and I watched most of them reject it immediately. 

I have been heard to mutter that I'd like to see a roomful of Iraq experts told they have two years to work with, max, and invited to produce a plan based on that timeframe.

Well, my mother always told me to be careful what you wish for.  In a New York Times op-ed, Senator Joe Biden and former Council on Foreign Relations President Les Gelb do just that.  And what they come up with is a rehash of Gelb's confederation idea, cloaked in a lot of Bosnia rhetoric.

I wish I thought this would work.  And I respect Biden for trying.

Trouble is, they acknowledge that, as in Bosnia, we'd need troop protection in mixed areas.  In Bosnia, three years after the Dayton Accords, NATO had 36,000 troops for a population of 4.5 million; the equivalent number in Iraq, whose population is six times Bosnia's, would be 216,000. Just to remind you, we are currently at 132,000 and, if you believe the US military, going on down.

If I'm not mistaken, Baghdad, Mosul and Kirkuk pose a significantly larger challenge than Sarajevo. Biden and Gelb propose to have all but a "small but effective residual force" out by 2008.

And he and Gelb want more money for reconstruction.  If Biden could tell me how he proposes to get that through Congress, I'd feel better about it.

On the Brink with Iran Posted by Suzanne Nossel

After last Friday’s report by the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Tehran has successfully enriched uranium and defied the UN Security Council’s Friday deadline to halt the process, we find ourselves in a frightening stand-off with an uncontrollable Islamic demagogue bent getting nukes.  I am not an expert on the region, but here’s my take on some things the U.S. ought and ought not do:

1. Do everything possible to position this as a showdown between the Iranand the UN, not Iranand the US– Fortunately, as I’ve described before, Iranians are playing into our hands on this with its flagrant defiance of the Security Council.  China and Russia are unreliable partners when it comes to forceful action but, if positioned right, they will back the proposition that no government can get away with ignoring the Security Council.

2. Align the world’s neutral nations behind a tough UN stance – Behind the scenes, the US and Europe should be working the 30-50 key capitals around the world – Australia, Malaysia, Nigeria, South Africa, Brazil, Poland, etc. – on the idea that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable, and that the time to stop it is now.  While many of these countries have economic and other ties to Iran, they will all recognize that Ahmadinejad is dangerous and is flouting the Council.  Having the support of these neutrals will back up claim #1 above and make it more likely that Moscow and Beijing ultimately come around.

3. Stay close to Europe– This is obvious, but this Administration can't be relied on to choose rhetoric that ensures that no daylight opens up between Washington and Brussels.  Condi Rice’s reference to “like-minded” nations potentially acting outside the UNSC rubric prompted Javier Solana to retort that no European country would take part in such a coalition of the willing.  While Solana is wrong to offer Admadinejad the succor of believing that as long as China and Russia hold out he’s safe, the US should have known better than to beg the question right now.  For time being, the language needed to keep the EU on board starts with the letters U and N.  Other options must remain open, but well in the background in the short term.

4. Hold firm on the idea that Iran cannot dictate to the UN – Ahmadinejad’s latest gambit was to allow robust international inspections, but only if their case is referred back from the Security Council to the IAEA.  It did so because only the UNSC has the power to act – through sanctions or force – in response to evidence of misbehavior.  The Administration rightly rejected this.  Iran cannot dictate to the international community how and where it addresses threats to peace and security.