Words Matter Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Our friends over at the Century Fund have published the musings of Mort Abramowitz and myself on why this Administration's rhetoric is such a substantive disaster.

Mort, in addition to being brilliant and idiosyncratic, is an old-fashioned public servant of the "political differences stop at the water's edge" type who was appointed to high positions by Republicans.  When he and I write together, he usually tells me that I am too snarky and partisan.  So I offer our joint thinking as evidence, on the one hand, of just how off the rails things have gotten, but on the other hand how much people who care about foreign policy can actually agree on if they try (and if I save my snarking for the blog.)

The Bush administration is struggling to convince our allies, the Israelis, the Arabs, indeed the world, that it has a vision for an achievable peace in the Middle East. Unfortunately, it is drowning in its own idealistic rhetoric, which has turned on itself and is peopling the world with cynics.

The stated goal of a new, democratic Middle East requires us to stay the course in Iraq and pay long-term attention to the failed states that spawn terror. Each successive rhetorical device is emptying its predecessors of substance—and makes the unenviable task of coming up with policies that work and maintain public support that much harder. The future “promise of a democratic peace” is the glue that holds them together.

Each administration generates its own buzzwords, if only to distinguish itself from the bad guys who came before. But when the nation embarks on and ambitious new enterprise, the words get bigger and the stakes higher. Ever since “making the world safe for democracy” entered the lexicon, the grandiosity of the ambitions must be matched by rhetorical shorthand that offers cosmic significance to the cognoscenti and laudable goals to the country at large. The risks: our rhetoric both raises the real world stakes of the policy and gradually departs from the reality it is trying to shape.

Read the rest here.

Talladega Nights and George Bush's America Posted by Michael Signer

So I wasn't sure if a post on Talladega Nights would be timely, but as the movie is number one in America for the second week in a row, how could it be more timely?

You might not think a movie about an erstwhile NASCAR racer, bedeviled by inner demons and subjected to the wiles of a catty trophy wife, insane children, and fickle fans would be connected to foreign policy.

Oh, how wrong you are.

Depressed About the Middle East? Try Bono Posted by Shadi Hamid

If you’re depressed about all the problems in the Middle East, then you need to have good music to get you through it all. Earlier this morning, I listened to U2’s “Miss Sarajevo” for the first time since May. I played it over and over. In light of this most recent Middle East crisis, it was a beautiful, affecting listen. It is one of those rare songs, political without actually being political, literate without being didactic. It has one hell of a catchy melody. And Luciano Pavorotti’s soaring interlude is absolutely incomparable, like nothing I’ve heard in a mainstream pop song. Inspiring. Check this live version out for yourself. Bono sings:

Is there a time for keeping your distance
A time to turn your eyes away
Is there a time for keeping your head down
For getting on with your day...

        Is there a time for first communion
        A time for East 17
        Is there a time to turn to Mecca
        Is there time to be a beauty queen...

        Is there a time for tying ribbons
        A time for Christmas trees
        Is there a time for laying tables
        And the night is set to freeze

The first time I had ever heard “Miss Sarajevo” was at the U2 concert this past October in the MCI Center. I can’t even begin to describe it (so I won’t). Those of you who have seen U2 live know exactly what I’m talking about. By the way, Bono for Secretary of State?

Stress Relief for a Disorderly World Posted by David Shorr

In this bewildering world of strife and struggle, what's a poor policy maker to do? It's stressful, exerting American dominance in a disorderly world. Fortunately, there is a tonic for these woes: moral certainty. Seriously, let's stop and look at all the troubles that can be alleviated by simply showing global renegades the error of their ways and waiting for them to be replaced by good guys. If you settle for anything less than capitulation, you are shrinking from the imperative to end evil. The only good bad regime is an ousted bad regime.

Once you have decided that the bad guys must go, you don't have to worry about what they do in the meantime. They're on the wrong side of history, the ash heap is over there. Weapons programs, support for terrorists, these are mere symptoms. You can't make deals with these people, it just encourages them, lulls you into a false sense of security. The key thing is to hang tough. No matter what happens, you've got your certainty.

Being certain of your rightness also frees you from having to fret about what you can or can't make happen in the world. The point is, everyone else knows what America can do, they'll get the message. As long as you don't waver, the next move is the other guy's. Meanwhile, moral certainty is its own reward (I mean, in addition to the stress relief).

Moral certainty eases a third and final source of stress: unintended consequences. You always do the right thing, you're sure of it. You do what needs to be done. Whatever you've done, it had to be done, to end evil. Go ahead and let people second-guess; they're cowardly and jealous. You're one of history's actors; the pointy-heads can judiciously study the consequences.

Now, don't you feel better?

National Security Index Posted by Michael Signer

I haven't posted about the Democratic Policy Committee's National Security Index for a while -- a new one just came out and it has some stunners.  Among the most depressing (and not offered in the spirit of schadenfreude, but rather in the spirit of realism, apparently newly popular among Republican Congressmen who actually have to face the electorate this fall):

Number of Iraqis who had access to potable water before invasion: 13 million
Number of Iraqis who have access to potable water, according to the April 2006 SIGIR report: 8 million
Number of the planned 142 health care clinics that actually will be completed under the Army Corps of Engineers $243 million program: 20
Number of the planned 136 sanitation and water projects that will be completed:  49
Number of Iraqi physicians registered prior to the invasion: 34,000
Number of Iraqi physicians who have been murdered or fled the country since the invasion: 14,000
Infant mortality rate in Iraq: (Middle East average is 37, sub-Saharan Africa average is 105):  102

Not fun reading.  Click on the report for more -- especially about our military readiness and North Korea.  I keep thinking back to an SNL episode during the 2000 campaign where they imagined George W. Bush as President and the world basically completely falling apart -- the funniest image was of Bush under his desk as objects fell from the sky outside the window.  Funny scary, that is.
 

The Secret about Secrecy Posted by Michael Signer

This is a day when you'd expect Democracy Arsenalists to  blog about Israel and Lebanon -- but I have nothing brilliant to say, other than that I'm worried because my little sister is there traveling and volunteering (but safely, we hope and pray, in Jerusalem), and that, like every non-expert, I'm simply concerned about radical instability erupting in a region that we've already done our part to destabilize. 

Perhaps due to the enormity of this story, the WaPo buried an important domestic story on page A19 today -- a recently-released GAO study of the Department of Defense's haphazard and too-frequent practice of classifying documents.  The story's lede:

The Government Accountability Office has criticized the Defense Department for sloppy management of its security classification system, including the marking as "Confidential or Secret" material that Pentagon officials acknowledged was unclassified information.

The GAO said in a report June 30 that one of the major questions raised by its study was "whether all of the information marked as classified met established criteria for classification." The GAO also found "inconsistent treatment of similar information within the same document."

Cops on the Metro Posted by Michael Signer

In the blog-as-actual-reportage vein, there were tons of transit police on the Orange Line of the D.C. Metro this morning.  By my count, there were at least eight in the Courthouse station near where I live -- three (with dogs) walking out of the stop as I entered the station, six on the platform, and then another two riding on the car next over from mine.

I guess it's either scary or secure-feeling, depending on your perspective.  I'm not sure what this means, if anything, but figured it would be worth noting.  Anyone out there notice anything similar?

Rachel Kleinfeld at TPM Cafe Posted by Michael Signer

A quick update -- Rachel Kleinfeld, the co-founder and Director of the Truman National Security Project, is guest-blogging for Anne-Marie Slaughter over at TPM Cafe's America Abroad section for the next five weeks. 

As one of our brightest young lights in national security and foreign policy, Rachel will take great advantage of this opportunity, so check over there early and often (and I'd say that even if she didn't just blog on my recent piece for Democracy: A Journal of Ideas!).

Hamdan and the Burden of Democratic Freedom Posted by Michael Signer

I was in the restroom at my firm yesterday when a partner told me about the Hamdan decision -- a little awkwardly, but enthusiastically nonetheless.  He just had to talk about it, I guess, right then and there.  Word swept through other non-legal fora throughout Washington and, I imagine, the rest of the country.  Blackberrys buzzed, people's voices suddenly rose in conference rooms, reporters' eyes lit up.

I really don't want all of the sophisticated folks who read DA to pummel me for simple-minded flag-waving.  Really, I don't. 

But yesterday's decision was really quite extraordinary, not just as a momentary victory for the plaintiff and his legal advocates, but more importantly as a window into something like the soul of modern American democracy.  There was something deeply, uniquely, American about the decision. 

This is important because we are, at this historical moment, in the process of an ambitious but ungainly fit of nation-building by people who really don't seem to understand the internal complexities of modern liberal democracy, especially as practiced in America.  We would all do well -- especially neoconservatives -- to look inward, at the genius of modern American democracy.  We need to understand why democracy works here before we go about, willy-nilly, exporting the skeleton, rather than the muscle, of actual democracy.

North Korea busted: Iraq hopeful? Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Looks like the only thing  that wacky dictator of North Korea  can launch is a blast of hot air across the ocean. Upon examination, the missile launch threat looks pretty bogus. Not that all the hype kept Congress from dumping another 45 million dollars into the Alaskan tundra for the "missile defense" program--which is fast becoming Alaska's mythical creature, like the Sasquatch in Montana or Nessie in Scotland. Lots of almost-sightings, but never the real deal.  This on top of the increasing worry that the military can't make payroll.  Priorities anyone?

Council for a Livable World has put up a clickable record of last week's Senate Iraq debate here.    Hopeful news from Iraq... a political reconciliation proposal is on the table.  A civil affairs friend who was in Iraq last year (and who  still helps train Army troops pre-deployment) credits Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzhad with this breakthrough. This proposal is the first concrete sign of an American/Iraqi civilian-led strategy in Iraq, in fact because our primary military strategy of door-kicking and city flattening has made the reconciliation part nigh impossible.

"Everyone has talked reconciliation but played whack a mole" he tells me. He also thinks
Khalilzad was the first American leader to successfully link the  military strategy to support for a political process...which has brought in the uncomfortable possibility of amnesty. The tradeoff of justice for peace is probably one of the most difficult steps a nation can take...It has an illustrated history just in the last couple of decades. Concilation Resources has a helpful directory of peace accords online. Plus a list of amnesties....a glance through these is a good  refresher in the current accusatory climate over who's in and who's out of the Iraq deal.

Many lament that aggressive "democratization" under the Bush Administration has tainted a key set of American foreign policy values.  This is true and it will take some damage control for us to be believable from here on out. Yet the notion that self-determination yields better outcomes at every level is a worthy national security value--for prevention, post conflict, and we hope in Iraq-- during an identity war itself. We need to get good at dealing with complexity and conflicting identities because these will be the biggest challenges for security in an era of globalization.

Conflict resolution strategies that enable political pluralism were underlying themes for much of President Clinton's national security and military policies--In the military it was called "shaping" stability--more or less a hearts and minds campaign at all times.

As we keep our fingers crossed for Iraq's new leaders and their reconciliation plan, we should also think about how to revise this integrated "whole of government" approach to national security.  Indeed, the US facilitating political conflict resolution must replace preventive war as the centerpiece of today's strategy.  Hopefully this will be the lesson we draw from Iraq's effort.