Underarmored in Iraq Posted by Michael Signer

From Judd Legum at ThinkProgress, an upsetting disclosure:  the Marines killed on Wednesday were traveling in "lightly armored" Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAAV's).  While AAAV's are more heavily armored than the notoriously underarmed Humvee's, they're still not secure enough.

The Marines are doing the best with what they have.  But it's not clear why the upper echelons of our military command -- beginning with Donald Rumsfeld (he of the deathless phrase, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," and, of course, the President -- haven't done a better job of equipping all of our fighting force in Iraq with superior vehicles for the threat of roadside bombs.

The problem is systemic, not episodic.  The Marine Corps Inspector General recently concluded that the Marines' preparation is in desperate straits.  As the Boston Globe reported:

Marine Corps units fighting in some of the most dangerous terrain in Iraq don't have enough weapons, communications gear, or properly outfitted vehicles, according to an investigation by the Marine Corps' inspector general provided to Congress yesterday.

The report . . . says the estimated 30,000 Marines in Iraq need twice as many heavy machine guns, more fully protected armored vehicles, and more communications equipment to operate in a region the size of Utah.

I hope that the President ponders this during his 5-week vacation in Crawford.  I hope he thinks about armor on the Humvee undercarriages when he's clearing brush for the cameras.  I hope when he throws a bone to Barnie, he considers how a bomb rips through the side panels.  When he's grilling by the pool, I hope he wonders about how the torn flesh and broken limbs stems directly from his failure to plan the war's aftermath, and to equip our troops for the mission he sent them on.

UN Reform, and Upcoming Vacation Posted by Suzanne Nossel

A quick post before I head off on a week's vacation.  Earlier this week, in tandem with the announcement on Bolton's recess appointment, came a boast from the White House that - while the new Ambassador's nomination languished - the Administration had swiftly gone about correcting the world organization's flaws such that - lo and behold - UN reform was "well on its way."   

Lee Feinstein seems to agree with this view (or at least the idea that Condi Rice has turned a page in US-UN relations, citing as evidence the U.S.'s opposition to legislation conditioning its dues payments on reform, and the U.S.'s abstention in the referral of the Darfur abuses to the International Criminal Court.

I don't agree.  Opposing the dues reduction was sound policy, a position taken not least because the dues conditionality would make the Administration's life at the UN a living hell.  The decision to abstain on the ICC referral was made only because the Administration was backed into an impossibly tight corner trying to seem tough on Darfur while single-handedly holding the line against any international response to crimes that we and we alone had dubbed genocide.  More details on their calculus here. 

But my bigger quarrel is with the Administration's claim of victory on UN reform.  I applaud Bush and Rice for pushing hard on important issues like the reform of the UN's Commission on Human Rights, the creation of a Peacebuilding Commission and a major treaty on terrorism.   Those are all on my list of high priorities in terms of what needs to be done to turn around Turtle Bay and I am impressed at the vigor with which the Administration has pressed on them.

But truly reforming the UN will take years, not months, and requires a sustained effort to reeducate, reorient and in some cases replace UN staff and the national missions that serve at the world body.   Dealing with ineffectual UN bodies, eliminating waste, making the leadership more dynamic, avoiding distractions, surmounting the vaccuum of political will that surrounds so many important issues, and expediting the UN's effectiveness in the field are long term challenges, as anyone who has served at the UN can tell you. 

A small but telling example appeared in my inbox today courtesy of UN Watch:  UN bureaucrats are opposing the organization's involvement in implementing the Mideast Roadmap as at odds with the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion decrying Israel's construction of a security fence.

The head of UN Watch put it well: 

“The one-sided statement by the rapporteurs poses an obstacle to what has been encouraging progress on Middle East peace, and could not have come at a worse time . . .With Israeli-Arab negotiations suddenly breathing new signs of life—and with Israel making agonizing concessions for peace, even under the continuing fire of Palestinian suicide bombings and rocket attacks—the rapporteurs’ express attack on the UN-sponsored Road Map negotiations is perplexing, and represents a giant step backwards . . .It is a sad day when eight UN officials—citing formalistic arguments over pragmatic principles of conflict resolution—openly oppose bilateral negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians that are taking place under the internationally-recognized Road Map for peace.” 

No one will much care what these experts say, but their behavior illustrates a much more pervasive problem with the UN, and one that will be tough to root out.  It is an example of relatively low level UN officials needlessly wading into politics at the expense of progress on what ought to be one of the international community's highest priorities, a phenomenon that happens all too frequently.   It is also just one tiny piece of evidence that declaring victory on UN reform is at best premature.

On a personal note, I am heading off for a week's vacation.  In my absence, Michael Osborne, a South African lawyer and law professor will be subbing in.  Michael is an advocate at the bar in Cape Town, and handles constitutional law, human rights and immigration law cases.  He has also spent years (as well as this past summer) working in New York City at a major private law firm and, most recently, as a Professor of Law at the New School University.  He and I have had many discussions on politics and international affairs over many years and I've always sensed that he loves America and wants us to defend our interests and put our best foot forward around the world.  I know you'll enjoy hearing from him.   When I get back I've got a lot more to say on Iraq.

Peacegaming in California Posted by Lorelei Kelly

I'm sitting in a hotel business center in San Francisco paying 50 cents a minute--so this will be short.  Just to explain, my brand new shiny and much bragged upon powerbook with WIFI has become a horrid thing and refuses to connect in my hotel...so I've slogged up VanNess Ave and found a Holiday Inn.  Lo and behold, DC follows me everywhere. The Young Democrats of America are having their annual conference here. I'm very happy to report that they have foreign policy on the conference agenda--Middle East issues no less. 

I spent today at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey with the 10 month old Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction Studies.  This week, they are convening their summer game entitled "Humanitarian Operations During Conflict"  in support of the recently formed Coordinator for Stabilization and Reconstruction (CRS) at the State Department.   Particular emphasis in the game is placed on examining how the military, civilian government agencies, non governmental organizations and international organizations need to coordinate and cooperate when planning and executing peace support operations.  The overall objective is to provide the required space for humanitarian activities to be successful.  With an impressive roster of humanitarian organizations, military professionals, civilian government employees and a few academics sprinkled around--the teams will go through three "moves" during the course of the week: information sharing, task divisions and joint planning.  The scenario country  is fictional, but the map today sure looked a lot like Afghanistan. 

It was apparent during the discussion sessions that the military and civilians have a medium-steep learning curve--despite some tensions there was obvious good will and interest in figuring out how to "win the peace".  It was also obvious that military professionals are very interested in handing back at least some of the responsibilities that they've been given over the past 15 years.  Every once in awhile the issue of resouces would surface. Remember, the CRS office at the State Department got its small budget whacked to pieces during this years appropriations in the House of Representatives.  So, the pile-on will continue--to the military's dismay--unless this changes.

So where are we going to find this political constituency? Since I was cranky about the DLC last week, I'm going to pick on lefty activist types tonight.  Now, I'll get grief for this, I know, despite the fact that I've been a good lefty: chained myself to fences, dressed as an MX missile for the Earth Day parade, smuggled western peace propaganda into East Germany in 1989.  But where is the political constituency for this new center at the Naval Post Grad School?  The activist left base is presently busy planning an anti-imperialism "Out Now" march on Washington for September 24th.  I went to a meeting last month where I swear we could have shot an album cover for the Doors.  Great visual, good vibes, but not great strategy for policy influence.  Another peace group is planning a huge DC fandango to lobby Congress for a Department of Peace.  I know the intentions are good--but for Heaven's sake, why don't they organize a conference on helping real live agencies that care about peace?  Like the Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute at the Army? OR the Agency for International development?  OR the United States Institute of Peace? OR the Naval Post Graduate School's new Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction?   

The conference could have a catchy standby theme--modernized for today's world How about  "Peace, Love and Understanding---and some butt kicking as a very, very last resort"

Will write more about the conference once I read through the materials.

Bolton Bits Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Lee Feinstein has a nice roundup over at America Abroad of what Secretary Rice has been doing to improve the US position at the UN before John Bolton gets there.  When you put it all together, Lee, it does sound like a coherent policy.

Before Ambassador Bolton rides off to the wilds of Manhattan, I’d like to propose three lessons the Affair of the Thrown Stapler can teach us.  Two of them are even optimistic:

1.  Even in Washington, there are limits on how bad your behavior to subordinates can be.  My observation of (and participation in) politics, media and non-profits has often led me to wonder whether there was anything that a boss fuelled by self-righteousness and ego couldn’t get away with.  Now we know.

2.  Americans do care about the UN – the Democratic Senators who led the charge against Bolton, and the Republicans who ultimately made the difference, would never have discovered there enthusiasm without the advocacy-generated thousands of letters, emails and phone calls from regular folks way back at the beginning.  Though this ended up as an inquiry into Bolton’s behavior, Bolton’s problems with truth-telling, and the White House’s allergy to document disclosure, it began as good old-fashioned whipping up the citizenry.

3.  It’s good to be king, and really, when it comes to putting in place the people and policies you want, nothing beats winning national elections.  I said months ago that Bolton would ultimately get the job, and that he wouldn’t matter much for US policy.  I believe I was right on both counts.  But I (mis)underestimated how much of a rallying point and symbol Bolton would obligingly allow himself to become.

Call it Mouse-FTA Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Isn't anybody going to call the Bush Administration on its claim that CAFTA marks "a major success?"

The six CAFTA countries (Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua) together make up the US's 13th-largest export market, absorbing $15 billion of US exports annually.  (The booster website freetradeforamericas.org comes up with the marvelous stat that this is more than the US exports to Russia, Indonesia and India combined -- a great example of totally irrelevant demonstration of addition skills.)  Nice, but not exactly earth-shattering.

OK, what's the potential for growth?  Their combined GDP comes in at less than half of Argentina's, one-sixth of Brazil's, and less than one-tenth of India's -- to name a few other places where we don't yet have free trade agreements.  So again, let's rein in our enthusiasm.

And what about the national security argument that President Bush apparently used to peel off enough Republican doubters?  Well, almost 80 percent of the region's products were already being admitted to the US under other trade preference systems.  So we may all hope (except the garment and sugar industries...) that the final 20 percent drives an export boom that lifts Nicaragua, for example, out of its competition with Haiti for poorest country in the hemisphere.  But I, for one, will not be holding my breath.

The truth is, and it would be nice to see someone other than Michael Barone point this out, that CAFTA was an important win for President Bush because he needed a win, NOT because of its earth-shattering impact on US and Central American economies.  Likewise, a loss for CAFTA might have put a final end to Administration hopes of driving through the becalmed Free Trade Area of the Americas on its watch.  Or reviving the current round of WTO talks -- where possible tariff reductions in areas such as agriculture could happen on a large enough scale to make a significant difference for US producers (some for the better and some for the worse) and for the developing-country producers we claim to want to help politically (e.g. Africa and South Asia.)

It might also be pointed out that Administration strong-arm tactics both in negotiating and ratifying this agreement may have done as much to harm as to help the cause of free trade.  But to know that, you'd have to ask the Brazilians, the Argentines, the Indians...

**Update -- Ed Gresser of the Progressive Policy Institute suggests that this 80% figure is unreliable and likely an overstatement.  He adds, "the CAFTA countries weren't getting off as easy as many people think."  Point taken.

Ed's own case for CAFTA predicts "modest" trade benefits and describes the agreement as part of the foundation for a wider hemispheric strategy for the next Administration.  I give Ed credit for honesty and creative thinking, both of which are in short supply.  He is always worth reading.  But I counter that part of the strategy for maintaining a good open trade policy is showing that you can create a discriminating open trade policy.

The Gang of 23 Posted by Derek Chollet

For the past few months much of political Washington as been focused on the maneuverings of the so-called “Gang of 14,” the evenly divided group of Senate Republicans and Democrats that helped end the filibuster/nuclear option showdown over federal judges.  With the Roberts nomination on deck, expect to hear a lot more about these folks in the days ahead.

But when it comes to the national security debate, let’s also look out for the “Gang of 23,” a bipartisan group of foreign policy and defense luminaries that are coming together under the banner of a new organization, the Partnership for a Secure America, that seeks to revive the political center of the national security debate (full disclosure: this organization is being spearheaded with the support of The Century Foundation, whose other efforts include helping us here at DA).  This new organization will be rolled out tomorrow at a National Press Club event featuring the two co-chairs, Lee Hamilton and Warren Rudman, and it is the subject a full-page ad in today’s New York Times.

This kind of bipartisan advocacy effort is hardly new to Washington; in the past few years we have watched the work of organizations like the US Committee to Expand NATO, The Committee on Present Danger, and The Committee to Liberate Iraq work their way through the system, some with amazing success.  The template is common: get an esteemed group to sign on to a set of principles, hold some press events, open a website, start a blog, raise money, publish some op-eds or a report.  Yet what makes this new initiative different is that it seeks to push not just one policy, but to breathe life into a centrist worldview—which, they point out, is a proud American tradition.

But it seems to me that this group’s most important contribution could be to engage the American people in a sensible, solution-oriented discussion about the national security challenges facing our country.  As Uwe Reinhardt pointed out yesterday in a superb Washington Post column, there is a strange detachment between the small slice of Americans who are actually sacrificing to implement our national security policy and the vast majority who are expected to do nothing more than express their support.  It’s been said so many times that it’s a cliché, but we need a national discussion about the principles and priorities of our national security policy that we can all rally around and help implement.  The closer we get to the next election cycle, this will be harder to do, as each side will be tempted to use policy differences for political advantage.  That’s why we have to start now.      

Here are the principles that the Partnership for a Secure America suggest:

“Sixty years ago, a great generation of Americans came together to build a better world from the ashes of war. Republicans and Democrats cooperated in supporting a bipartisan foreign policy to protect the American people against a powerful, long-term threat to our national security. Today, a new long-term global peril faces our country. But growing partisan bitterness is derailing substantive discussion and vigorous debate on national security issues.

We the undersigned, Republicans and Democrats alike, believe that Americans must again come together to make our country, and our world, safer. We call for the reestablishment of the bipartisan center in American foreign and national security policy based on our shared American values. We believe:

• America must be strong to be secure. Our government must work tirelessly to bring terrorists to justice and break up and destroy terrorist networks. But while our strength and security are measured partly by our military might and the courage of our men and women in uniform, they are also enhanced by our unfailing commitment to democracy, justice, and civil liberties both at home and abroad.

  • America must always be ready to act alone when its security interests are threatened. But building strong alliances based on mutual respect and shared challenges, including working to renew and reform the United Nations, will make us more able to protect America’s interests.

• America is not adequately protected from the spread and use of deadly nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. We must expand efforts to secure existing stockpiles of weapons materials in Russia and elsewhere, take all necessary steps to make sure that such weapons do not fall into the wrong hands, and use all effective means to discourage and deter countries from acquiring or using these weapons.

• Our local emergency responders, public health officials, border patrol, and coast guard must be given the resources they need to prevent and respond effectively to terrorist attacks on US soil.

• America’s growing federal debt directly threatens our national security and must be controlled by urgent bipartisan action.

• America must invest far more in energy efficiency and alternative energy technologies to help improve our security, create new jobs, and clean up our environment.

• America and our allies must address global poverty, disease, and under-development in a far more aggressive and comprehensive manner to build a safer and more secure future for all Americans and all people.”

The Perfect Task For John Bolton Posted by Suzanne Nossel

During the first month or two after John Bolton's nomination I wrote reams about him, so I won't revisit all that now (anyone whose curious can just click on the United Nations sub-heading on the Categories menu to the left.  My take on the merits of the recess appointment can be found here.  Bottom line is that I am proud of those on the SFRC for the fight they put up, and eager for a substantive debate this fall over what the Administration will accomplish during this all important General Assembly session devoted to UN reform.

Speaking of reform, I just published an article in the current issue of Dissent magazine arguing that:

Though no one realizes it, Israel may be a linchpin in this year’s historic push for change at the United Nations. Israel’s tortured history at the UN is emblematic of much (though by no means all) of what is wrong with the world organization. Longstanding U.S. perceptions of the UN membership as anti-Western, unprincipled, motivated by petty biases, and dominated by a herd mentality stem largely from—and are given continuing basis by—the body’s history of anti-Israel conduct. An organization that has been too fractured and passive to confront the moral challenges of our time—including Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur—has managed to adopt more than twenty resolutions chastising Israel each year since 1985. The isolation of Israel at the UN has strained the U.S.-UN relationship and undercut the legitimacy of the global body in the eyes of many Americans.

UN secretary-general Kofi Annan is seeking to restore the UN’s credibility after an era of scandal and paralysis. In March he issued a set of recommendations based on the work of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change he set up to propose reforms. Although Annan’s proposals do not directly address Israel’s anomalous position, they do get at certain conditions that have contributed to the ostracizing of Israel. If implemented, these measures should begin to show that the organization is serious about reform. At the same time, simply enacting the Annan reforms will not root out entrenched patterns. The reforms should go hand in hand with a political push led by the United States to put Israel on an equal footing with the organization’s 190 other states. If Israel’s standing does not improve after a major reform effort, Secretary-General Annan and the High-Level Panel will have failed to check the organization’s worst impulses, and the UN’s credibility crisis will persist.

The continuation is posted here. 

Given that one of his signature credentials for the UN post was over-turning the organization's notorious Zionism is Racism resolution, if the Administration is right that Bolton can be effective at the UN, why not have him tackle the betterment of Israel's status at the world body?  Let him show us what he can do.

10 things that matter more to the fight against terror than a new acronym Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Anne-Marie Slaughter at America Abroad, Fred Kaplan on Slate, Sid Blumenthal on Salon and the mainstream media have been buzzing this week about President Bush's pivot away from the language of Global War on Terror (GWOT) and toward the so-called Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, aka GSAVE. 

For the record, led by Derek Chollet, we here at DA were writing about this months ago, opining here and here about what was - until Madison Avenue had its way - known as the Global War on Extremism (I personally think we all ought to stick with the Elmer Fuddish but factual GWOE rather than buying into the boosterist GSAVE).

Most commentators judge the rebranding of the fight against terror to be more politics than substance.  So, in a month of dastardly attacks from London to Sharm el Sheikh to Baghdad,  let's not let this bit of spin doctoring obscure all that needs to be done to shore up an anti-terror fight that is targetting an ever more complex, and constantly changing enemy.  Here are 10 priorities:

1. Wage the War of Ideas in Earnest - The Administration has until now resisted calling the war on terror is a fight over values and purposes.  That ideas play a role is, after all, potentially in tension with the view of Islamic terrorists as nihilistic and devoid of reason.  But while the core of extremist terrorist groups may be a fanaticism too deep and immutable to be tackled with reason, beliefs and viewpoints certainly do matter in the outer spokes of terrorist support networks, to the ordinary people who either grant or deny terrorists the funds, political support and safe harbor they need to operate.  These are the people we need to appeal to and pry away from their terrorist sympathies.

2. Recognize that U.S. Soldiers and Prison Guards are the Frontlines of Public Diplomacy - In waging a battle over ideas and perceptions among ordinary populations, what we do matters more than what we say.  Like it or not, our military, our prison guards, and our private contractors are on the frontlines of public diplomacy.  They do us proud much of the time, but the lapses that have occurred - some more than accidental - have hurt us badly by playing right into the worst fears and misperceptions about the United States.  But the Administration remains in denial on this score.

3. Get Politics Out of Homeland Security - The shameless pork-barrelling of this month's Homeland Security budget dealt a blow to the anti-terror efforts.  Whereas the 9/11 Commission and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made a compelling case that funds be strictly apportioned on the basis of threats, the Senate decided on its own formula that shortchanges New York, California, and our ports and nuclear facilities for the benefit of unlikely terrorist targets like Wyoming, Idaho and Maine.

4. Put Forward A Clear Strategy For Iraq - Without a strategy to achieve U.S. goals in Iraq, no matter what we call the fight against terrorism, many Americans will fear that we are losing on the most important front.  This is not because we are fighting terrorists in Iraq to avoid fighting them here.  Rather, inadequate planning, a shaky justification for war, and inadequate global support have enabled America's enemies to use the struggling Iraq effort as a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment.   Bush claims to be committed to seeing Iraq through to stability, yet this week's talk is of a pullout.    More on what needs to be done here and here.

5.            Refocus on Counter-Proliferation - Everyone agrees that the gravest terrorist danger is that posed by a nuclear weapon in terrorist hands.  Yet as Peter Scoblic writes in the latest New Republic (tip to Matthew Yglesias) the Bush Administration is doing a dismal job responding to this threat.  To encapsulate, the Administration's focus on countries' intentions (good or evil) has eclipsed efforts to hold in check their capabilities, with the result that while we've deliberated over the potential for regime change in places like North Korea and Iran, they've continued to build their nuclear capabilities unfettered by the flawed non-pro regimes that Bush has done little to try to improve.