The Devil Wears Prada: A Political Parable? Posted by Shadi Hamid

For a brief 90-minute stint on Saturday, I had this huge smile on my face. Well, yes, I was watching The Devil Wears Prada. Those who know me know I read too much into things and that I tend to “project.” Well, as it turns out, I connected with the movie in a very personal, political way.

Andy (Anne Hathaway) – the main character – does what every overly ambitious recent college grad tries to do in DC/NY: find the killer internship or make that one crucial connection that changes everything. She gets a job as Miranda/Meryll Streep's personal assistant (Miranda is the goddess of New York fashion, modelled after Vogue chief Anna Wintour). Andy comes in with good intentions. Her heart’s in the right place, she’s down to earth and seems to have a grasp of what’s important in life. Ambition and idealism, however, can prove a dangerous mix.

Like Andy, we come in thinking that will be able to resist the temptations of the “system” and that our integrity will come out unscathed. But if you want something badly enough, it becomes very easy to make what, at first, seem small, inconsequential compromises. But even small things develop their own momentum. The problem is that most individuals have a low tolerance for cognitive dissonance. So, once you start doing things you don’t believe in or agree with, you have two choices: you can stop, or you can adapt. Most people choose the latter. This is both a subconscious and conscious process. The subconscious part is the more troubling since we don’t really have control over it. For example, let's say your superior at Defense/NSA/etc. keeps giving you assignments you don’t feel comfortable with. If you work on those assignments long enough, you will, inevitably, begin to rationalize, justify, and explain away what you’re doing.

And that’s why I absolutely loved the scene toward the end where Andy and Miranda have a quick but critical "heart-to-heart." Miranda tells young Andy that she sees so much of herself in her. And that's when it hits Andy: she has, without fully realizing it, become the one thing she had always detested. In this movie, it's not too late for Andy to switch gears and make amends. But in real life - and particularly in the world of politics - it too often is.

The Iraq War's Worst Casualty Posted by Suzanne Nossel

It’s a truism today that America’s position as the world’s superpower is shakier than it used to be. The nation’s military is overstretched and unable to take on new commitment. And Washington has made little progress on urgent foreign policy objectives, including stabilizing Iraq, curbing Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear programs, expanding global trade, and ending anti-American extremism in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

The Iraq war has directly caused much of this damage. Financially, it has been a huge drain: The Congressional Budget Office reported in mid-2006 that costs topped $432 billion. Militarily, it has been punishing: The Pentagon admits that the conflict has badly stretched the Armed Forces, with 70 percent of troops scheduled to return to Iraq next year set to serve their third tours. In human terms, the price has been high: nearly 3,000 American troops have died to date.

The war’s dearest casualty, however, has been to America’s international standing, specifically its legitimacy abroad. The Iraq intervention has eroded the esteem, respect, and trust that the United States once commanded on every continent, hampering a host of current policy objectives and putting ambitious and important new goals out of reach. Rehabilitating America’s legitimacy, therefore, will be essential to ensuring that the Iraq war does not exact a permanent toll on American global influence.

International legitimacy is a measure of the acceptability and justifiability of a state’s actions in the eyes of other states and their citizens. Legitimacy, a kind of moral capital, reflects a collective judgment that the assertion of power, through a policy or an action, is valid even if it is unpopular. After all, leadership requires taking the occasional unpopular stand; but whereas popularity is inherently ephemeral, contingent on personalities and temporary alignments of interest, legitimacy is more enduring. It provides a foundation for respect and understanding that can transcend short-term, conflicting goals.

Practically, when America’s purposes are well-founded, openly articulated, and broadly consistent with its professed values, the use of power toward those ends is generally judged legitimate. But when the United States misleads others about its motives, acts on inadequate or selective evidence, flouts its own principles, or unilaterally exempts itself from broadly agreed standards of conduct, its legitimacy suffers.

For a discussion of how US legitimacy was lost . . . and the steps needed to recover it, read my piece in this month's issue of Democracy, A Journal of Ideas (the logon process is swift and free!)  Eager for your comments here at Democracy Arsenal. 

1000+ Iraqi Troops Call For Withdrawal From Iraq Posted by Ali Eteraz

It may not be Bush, the Senate, or the blogosphere, which decides if and when the troops come back from Iraq. It will be the thousands of twenty somethings out there fighting. 1000 and counting American troops, headed by a 29 year old Navy man, are calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

The Nation breaks the story about these American refuseniks: 

For the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq. (Note: A complete version of this report will appear next week in the print and online editions of The Nation.) After appearing only seven weeks ago on the Internet, the Appeal for Redress, brainchild of 29-year-old Navy seaman Jonathan Hutto, has already been signed by nearly 1,000 US soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen, including dozens of officers--most of whom are on active duty. Not since 1969, when some 1,300 active-duty military personnel signed an open letter in the New York Times opposing the war in Vietnam, has there been such a dramatic barometer of rising military dissent.

   Here are what some of the soldiers are saying: 

"Lisa"--20 years old, E-4, USAF, Stationed at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii: I joined up two weeks after I turned 17 because I wanted to save American lives. I wanted to be a hero like any American child. I supported the war when I joined because I thought it was justified. Only after my own research and the truth coming out did I learn how wrong I was, how--for lack of a better word--how brainwashed I was. Now I know the war is illegal, unjustified and that our troops have no reason for being there. When I saw an article about the Appeal in the Air Force Times I went online right away and signed it and have encouraged others to do the same.

"Sgt. Gary"--21 years old. US Army. Deployed with 20th Infantry Regiment, near Mosul, Iraq: I joined up in 2001, still a junior in high school. I felt very patriotic at the end of my US History class. My idea of the Army was that you signed up, they gave you a rifle and you ran off into battle like in some 1950s war movie. The whole idea of boot camp never really entered my head. I supported the war in the beginning. I bought everything Bush said about how Saddam had WMDs, how he was working with Al Qaeda, how he was a threat to America. Of course, this all turned out to be false. This is my second tour, and as of a few days ago it's half-over. Before I deployed with my unit for the second time I already had feelings of not wanting to go. When in late September a buddy in my platoon died from a bullet in the head, I really took a long hard look at this war, this Administration, and the reasons why. After months of research on the Internet, I came to the conclusion that this war was based on lies and deception. I started to break free of all the propaganda that the Bush Administration and the Army puts out on a daily basis. So far in three years we have succeeded in toppling a dictator and replacing him with puppets. Outlawing the old government and its standing army and replacing them with an unreliable and poorly trained crew of paycheck collectors. The well is so poisoned by what we have done here that nothing can fix it.

So the troops want to leave. There won't be anyone to stop them from coming home. They didn't start the war; but they can end it. Looks like that's what they are doing. The fact that we no longer have a draft, though, cuts both ways when stuff like this happens. On one hand, in an all volunteer army -- like employment at will -- if you quit, its like you are resigning. When you volunteer, on the other hand, when you quit, there's nothing symbolic about it. You just quit your job. My sense is that questioning what the military is doing is more emphatic when civilians who have been drafted do it. I think these guys are really brave for standing up for what they believe in. However, they are likely just to get "fired." In that sense, the lack of a draft cuts both ways.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't say something about the Iraqis. When we leave, what will happen to them? Now that they are caught between a warlord of the Shia variety and warlords of the Sunni variety? Are we going to watch the Iraqis be crushed while we celebrate with those of our troops that have come home. What happens if post-departure Iraq becomes another Darfur. Will we intervene?

Originally posted @ Eteraz.Org

Iran's Velvet Revolution & Why Left Coverage of Iran is Better Posted by Ali Eteraz

I look at a couple of case studies on the blogosphere/print media and try to discern who, the Right or Left, has the better coverage of Iranian democracy and dissent.

In the process I discover the existence of an Iranian Gandhi which is a must-explore-further.

Please go to Eteraz.Org

I also encourage all of you to register to become users since one of my goals is to create more links between the Islamo rank and file with the Left.

Evaluating Iraq Policy through Two Lenses Posted by Jordan Tama

In debating Iraq policy, I'm struck that we often view Iraq through either a strategic or a humanitarian lens. The strategic lens centers our attention on how to pursue the goals of stabilizing the country, weakening Al Qaeda, minimizing Iranian and Syrian influence, and protecting other U.S. interests in the Middle East. The humanitarian lens brings into focus the huge human costs of our intervention in Iraq: the 2900 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis who've been killed, and the 2 million Iraqis who've become refugees.

Each of these lenses is very important. But the strategic lens tends to dominate discussions among foreign policy experts of how to proceed in Iraq, while the humanitarian lens usually frames the arguments of antiwar activists. In this post I'll try to evaluate some key Iraq policy choices through both lenses. (To simplify, I'll use the term “humanitarians” to refer to people using a humanitarian lens and the word “strategists” to describe people employing a strategic lens.)

I start with the premise that humanitarians share the general goal of minimizing the loss of life and other human costs of political violence. This goal can't tell us precisely what to do in Iraq, but, in combination with the strategic lens, it can help us rule out several choices and thereby narrow the range of options we should seriously consider:

1) Continue present policy. Since sectarian violence in Iraq is escalating under current U.S. policy, continuing that policy should clearly be unacceptable to strategists and humanitarians.

2) Adopt the "80% solution." Dick Cheney is reportedly advocating an 80% solution in which the U.S. would throw its support behind Iraqi Shiites and Kurds, enabling those groups to cement their dominance of Iraq. Strategists should reject this proposal because it would infuriate Sunnis throughout the Middle East, potentially doing long-term damage to our relationships with key Arab countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Humanitarians should reject this morally reprehensible option because it would have America look the other way as Iraqi death squads slaughter Sunnis on a massive scale.

Refusing to Accept "Reality" Posted by Shadi Hamid

While I’ve been off-roading in the Emirates and relaxing on the gorgeous beaches of Sharm el-Sheikh, it appears that Ali, Marc, and Lorelei have been busy with something infinitely more useful but perhaps less fun – provoking a serious, fascinating debate on the future of liberal interventionism.

I’m late to the game, but let me say a few things. First of all, I’m not convinced, as Lorelei and Marc suggest, that there is anything approaching a broad consensus among progressives on foreign policy. There is a real, significant divide on crucial questions regarding the uses and abuses of American power, the role of idealism in foreign policy, and, yes, democracy promotion in the Middle East. Now, it may make sense in the interest of unity to de-emphasize these differences, but that doesn’t make them any less real. I’ve made similar points before here and here, so I'll leave it at that.

I think one of the most interesting "dividing lines" not only among those on the Left but between realists and anti-realists such as myself is how we perceive “facts on the ground.” Rachel Kleinfeld, co-founder of the Truman Project, wrote in comment #20 to Ali Eteraz’s original (flame-throwing) post that “belief should never trump facts on the ground.” Now, I know exactly what Rachel means by this and it’s an important thing to say after 6 years of an administration that doesn’t seem to have any grasp of reality.

However, if we take the statement literally, then I actually disagree with it. I think there are cases where belief should trump facts on the ground. And I think this is fundamentally what separates interventionists from anti-interventionists. Interventionists look at the way things are in, say, the Middle East, and say: dictatorship is not right and, therefore, we cannot and will not accept it. We cannot accept it (from a moral standpoint) because then we are complicit in a grave injustice. More importantly, accepting the “facts on the ground” in such a case would be a betrayal of the very essence of what it means to be American. This is not why our parents came to this country.

Quite often, when I bring up democracy promotion, people will say exactly what I expect them to say: “be realistic, Shadi.” Then they go on to explain in a very long-winded way why the Arabs are incapable of democracy or why Americans are incapable of promoting it. They say, “America has been supporting Arab dictatorships for the last 60 years. Why do you expect that to change now?” Or worse: “maybe democracy isn’t appropriate for the Arab context” (presumably because Arabs are somehow less deserving of the one thing that God has granted all men: the inalienable right to make their own decisions and to determine the course of their own destinies).

Truman Truce Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Okay, the Truman stuff is getting boring. This site is already way too wonky. It needs to stop. I'm copying here a letter I received from an individual who, I believe, represents a good way to restore balance.  I'm hoping that sharing it here can serve as a truce.
BTW, I'm just going to have a tiny rant:  We really have no "Left" in the USA. Although we should.  I have worked with an actual revolutionary Left.  They were not scary nor interested in making pipe bombs in the basement. They were decent people being shafted by their government. This was East Germany.  I've worked with the left of the Left here in the USA also, in the House of Representatives.  Never have I heard one of them say something anti-military, disloyal, or even "weak" on defending the USA.  They may let their rhetoric get blurred by idealism occasionally--but that's the worst of it.  And you know what?  THEY HAVE BEEN RIGHT. On the war, on our budget priorities, on climate change, on economic inequality, on long-term thinking, on individual freedom and citizen responsibility, on taking care of veterans, on taking care of our roads, bridges, ports (otherwise known as critical infrastructure).  I could go on and on....

Here's the letter...

Am I a Truman Democrat? Are You? Posted by Marc Grinberg

As movements grow, they tend to be defined by friend and foe in ways that pervert reality.  I do not suggest that this is done with evil intent.  Individuals simply have an interest in describing ideologies as they want them to be, often obscuring what they actually are. 

In the past two years, as the Truman National Security Project developed and grew, it has all to often been the victim of such mischaracterization.  As Truman Project founder Rachel Kleinfeld argued in response to a post by Matt Yglesias in response to a post by Ali Eteraz, if you "want to understand what we are about, our own website and writings are the best place to look."  So let's go to find out what a Truman Democrat really is.

Truman Democrats believe in core universal liberal values: equality of opportunity, civil and human rights, the possibility of progress, the importance of a just society, etc.  But if all liberals share the same values/desired ends, then how does one liberal differ from another?  The answer is implementation.  In both domestic and foreign policy, disputes among liberals occur in the process of developing policies, that is, liberals disagree about how to best pursue their values/ends.  We see this in education policy, welfare policy and, obviously, foreign policy.

Truman Democrats differ from others in their understanding of processes of international relations and thus their assessment about how to best achieve liberal foreign policy goals.  To clarify what beliefs underly the Truman approach to national security, we look to the website and Truman Project writings:

Truman Democrats believe that the pursuit of American national interests (as defined by liberals - this means they include not just security and American material interests, but also our values and the well-being of all humans) requires, in no particular order:

1. Active American involvement in the world, with all our tools of power
2. The promotion of real liberal democracy
3. Robust military and intelligence capabilities
4. Strong alliances and active involvement in international organizations
5. Legitimate international behavior
6. Free trade
7. International development
8. Comprehensive policy coordination

Many of you will read this list and agree with each of these beliefs.  Then welcome, you are part of the Truman Democratic movement.  This doesn't mean that you necessarily share specific policy views with me or, say, Mike Signer (I sometimes disagree with him too).  Truman Democrats are not defined by policy positions - you will find Truman Democrats on all four sides of most current issues.  Instead, Truman Democrats are united by a set of beliefs that define a general approach to national security. 

It becomes clear, then, how Truman Democrats differ from the various conservative and alternate liberal approaches to foreign policy.  Neocons, for example, may agree with 3 and 6, but would disagree with our other beliefs.  Conservative realists may agree with 1 and 3, but would disagree with the rest.  Some liberals may agree with 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8, but disagree that America needs a robust military capability, that we should promote free trade and that America should at times intervene militarily.  If we understand the Truman approach this way, then it is clearly not neocon-lite.  It is distinctly liberal.

The foreign policy debates among liberals are real, but lets not pretend that there is a simple dichotomy between interventionists and isolationists.  The vast majority of our readers, I believe, agree with the foundational beliefs of Truman Democrats.  I would even venture a guess that most Democratic Members of Congress (from the Progressive Caucus to the Blue Dogs) agree with the Truman Democratic approach.   Of course we don't all agree on policy.  Some of the hottest debates today are among Truman Democrats - between Brian Katulis, Ken Pollack and Les Gelb on Iraq; between Wendy Sherman and Bill Perry on North Korea.  But we are united on how we broadly approach national security.  And as we enter 2007 in the majority, this is good news.

Congress: the Progressive List Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Here is the post from last week that I skipped because technology failed me while I was in New Orleans:  But first my weekly rant:

This article at Oneworld  makes the depressing case that the Dems will not change much on defense--that their ideological clinginess will keep those monster Cold War weapons programs in the budget.  Has anybody else noticed the over the top  Lockheed Martin, "We Never Forget Who We Work For" ads lately?  I can almost see the slobber on my TV set after they play.

One more thing and I'll hush.  I was at an event last week that included a Defense Department speaker who was asked about the future of the military in peace and stabilization type missions (the implication being that today's military is lacking and or not really interested).  He said that we need to "incentivize" these new missions so the defense industry would be interested.  Um.  WHAT?!!!!  How about telling these corporations--who live on the taxpayer's dime--to do what you tell them to do?  hmmmm...civilian oversight. What a concept.  Keep in mind, World War II was won and the Air Force was created through a helpful partneship between industry and government.  Where is that corporate patriotism today? Skiing in Aspen, I suppose.  Or maybe clipping the topiary on the Fairfax County farmette.  You can bet its somewhere they can forget who they are working for.

Okay, back to my post. We need to continue to make the case that last month's election were a progressive victory. My fellow political junkie Darcy Scott Martin  recently sent me a list of victorious candidates categorized by progressive potential. I'm going to be keeping an eye on these folks and hopefully finding an angle on their national security (I'm not kidding about the wiki ) platforms. Will they be new strong voices or, will they take the path of least resistance and stay away from the issue? Approximately a third of the newly elected members coming in are full fledged progressives.  They are:

FIRST CATEGORY: PROGRESSIVES......

Bits from Army and Congress Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Here are the new Democratic Members of the Armed Services Committee in the House of
Representatives.

Congresswoman-elect Nancy Boyda of Kansas Congressman-elect Joe Courtney of Connecticut Congressman-elect Brad Ellsworth of Indiana Congresswoman-elect Gabby Giffords of Arizona Congresswoman-elect Kirsten Gillibrand of New York Congressman-elect Hank Johnson of Georgia Congressman-elect Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania Congressman-elect Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania

I am working with a couple of techie friends to set up a wiki   for me and readers to collaboratively work on individual national security profiles of new Members of Congress, particularly the progressives.  Having detailed background information on Members' interests may well help create a more effective political constituency for those of us seeking changed priorities and a better strategic concept (It can't be too hard to beat pre-emptive war, after all).

Speaking of change, I received a nice list of websites from the Army War College this week. They've started an email notice list to create a better network for those who care about about Stability, Security, Transformation, Reconstruction and Peace Operations  (hold your breath for the acronym)   SSTR&PO. Write me off site if you'd like more info on how to get on this list.