(Non-campaign) Bumper Stickers Posted by Michael Signer

I'm down in Charlottesville for a few days coordinating the get-out-the-vote programs for a few Shenandoah Valley counties for James Webb (and there my partisan comments end, thank you to our 501(c)(3) status), so I unfortunately can't blog very much this morning.  But, in the few seconds I do have between creating some last-minute flyers and handling a billion phone calls, I thought I'd point everyone's attention to an interesting post by Bruce Jentleson over at TPMCafe.  Jentleson is writing about whether progressives need a "bumper sticker" type of message on national security, and concentrates on the "liberty under law" idea generated by the Princeton Project on National Security.

We hear a lot about the need for a single concept and phrase like containment both to win the “big ideas” debate and work politically as a bumper sticker. This has been part of the discussion of the Princeton Project on National Security (PPNS) over on The Book Club, both with some critics saying the PPNS Report has too many issues and priorities and not one overarching one, and Anne-Marie Slaughter and John Ikenberry making the case for “Liberty Under Law” as their core organizing concept and integrating strategy.

While we do need core ideas and strategies that are not just laundry lists of position papers, they need to strike the tricky balance of being simple but not simplistic. Clear and integrating enough to be the forest, and not just the trees of this and that issue, but also not denying the complexity that is reality. I have some differences with Liberty Under Law as a core macro-idea and strategy, for later discussion. Here my point is more addressed to the PPNS critics who lapse into rose-colored history about how much and how well containment really worked as the Cold War’s single organizing concept.

I myself kind of like Liberty under Law because it gets at the critical importance of constitutionalism, but I still think the underlying concept of whatever bumper sticker phrase we use should highlight the importance of America's strength and moral leadership.  I'd be partial to something along the lines of "A leader the world wants to follow" -- or, maybe more simply, "The World's Leader" -- or, really, really simply:  "Leadership." 

But then maybe I've got really short bumper stickers on the brain... OK, back to the campaign!

Understanding the Liberal National Security Problem Posted by Marc Grinberg

With poll after poll showing Americans are looking for a new foreign policy direction and the litany of foreign policy failures of the past six years, you would think that conservatives would be running away from security to something they have the advantage on, like...well, something. So why is it that the Rove team has decided to make national security the issue of next week’s mid-term election?

The answer lies in the fact that even while the public may agree with liberals (note: I use liberal and progressive interchangeably) on the specifics of national security policy and may recognize the massive failures of the Administration, when it comes to pulling the lever or punching the chad, their intuition is that they cannot trust liberals with their safety.

Jeremy Rosner has some good suggestions for this "third national security election" over at The Democratic Strategist.  My focus is on the long term.

For liberals, this is a problem of appearance (messaging), rather than substance (policy), and it stems from numerous factors, including post-Vietnam American political history and the success of the Republican strategy of fear. But most important, I believe, are the (mistaken) beliefs that liberals: 1) Don’t take national security threats seriously; 2) won’t do what needs to be done to keep America safe; and 3) aren’t sincere when they take strong positions on national security. My posts over the next few days will address all these issues.

What is central to my argument is that the liberal national security problem is not one of policy, but of communications. Liberals politicians and center-left think tanks have plenty of good policy ideas (so good, in fact, that many have been stolen – and then perverted - by conservatives).  But, liberals fail when it comes to the message and delivery.  They lack a national security narrative – that is, a story about why they believe in the policies they do and why the American public should trust them with their safety.  The problem, then, is not in their product, but in how they sell it.

Developing this narrative and fine-tuning their message and delivery is a vital issue that liberals should be concentrating more on in the coming years. Groups like the National Security Network and the Truman National Security Project are already working on this (full disclosure: I am a Principal of the Truman Project) . But more support is needed. Liberals have recognized that they must set up an infrastructure to match that of conservatives, but their focus to date has been on policy. Now they need money and people on the marketing side.

It appears this post has inadvertently turned into a call to arms – so get to work.

Speaking of Apologies: Neo-Cons and the Army Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Yesterday's over the top White House rumpus over Senator Kerry's flubbed line  about troops in Iraq is truly ridiculous. It was a dorky mistake but in no way merits a new swiftboating of Democrats.  The calls for apology coming from left and right alike are, well, they are just silly.  The idea that any variety of lip service will somehow "support" our troops--after what we've done to them--is laughable.  Kerry is a conservative fist-magnet and conservatives are desperate to change the subject from our real problems the week prior to the election. Problems like the fact that our fine military institution has lowered standards to meet recruitment goals, is now accepting 42 year olds and mediocre high schoolers and that this is causing the decay of the entire institution.  (did I mention the ranks of the Army being infested with white supremists?)  Lots of things to apologize for. Bad jokes not among them. That the media even covered this gaffe is pathetic.

How about a collective apology from civilians for not paying attention-- throughout the 1990's-- to what our military has been doing? Like implementing the majority of our post Cold War foreign policy, from building girls schools, to AIDs prevention to (horrors!) peacekeeping and peacebuilding around the world. How about an apology for not ever devising a truly new grand strategy when the Soviet Union fell apart? Now we have an Army that doesn't have enough down to Earth items like body armour or Farsi speakers but continues to be the organizational home for that space-weenie fantasy missile defense?

Only this year did the military put forward a new counter insurgency doctrine  Only last November, did the DoD come out with a directive  stating that stability support is as important as combat in today's missions.

BTW, an article that ran last week about the Army budget deserves major attention. Seems it has been muffled because of its lousy timing.(meaning elections) In short, Republican appointee, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England has given a figure for the Army budget that is $17.8 billion dollars short of the amount Army leaders say is required to execute its part of the current military strategy. Read the whole article here. . Progressives, check out the new organizations out there that are breaking down the notion of "strong" on defense. Look who gets the F grade  when defense issues focus on human resources.  And jump on this NOW.  The neo-cons are onto it. In his convenient revision of recent history, Joshua Muravchik  at AEI makes one important coherent point about the importance of human resources in the military. That we've focussed on technology at the expense of human beings.

A lame joke is so nothing compared to this strategic blindness. The Iraq war is a mess, yes. Afghanistan's woes a missed opportunity...but our current leadership has put our very military institution in peril.  Who is going to apologize for this?

"When Congress Checks Out" Posted by Heather Hurlburt

My inbox is just full of goodies today...  I try very hard not to act as a pass-through for press releases, but I'm making an exception for this Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann article which is to appear in the next Foreign Affairs.  The red-and-blue political analyst duo make an extensive and thoughtful case for the assertion that

congressional oversight of the executive across a range of policies, but especially on foreign and national security policy, has virtually collapsed. The few exceptions, such as the tension-packed Senate hearings on the prison scandal at Abu Ghraib in 2004, only prove the rule.

(This appears, by the way, to be drawn from a broader book they've done on Congressional oversight.)  Interestingly, they trace the beginning of the decline to the GOP's re-taking of Congress in the 1990s.  Somewhat counter-intuitive.  It certainly felt to those of us inside the Clinton Administration that we were been foolishly but extensively overseen by Congress.  But I'll look forward to reading the whole thing -- and, more important, seeing how a closely-divided Senate opts to mend its ways starting in January...

How Can A Progressive Talk To An Islamist Posted by Ali Eteraz

It is inevitable that the tyrants (and oligarchs) in the Muslim world -- Musharraf, Mubarak, the Hashemites, the Ayatollahs, Zine el Abidine of Tunisia -- will be toppled. In some places, the vacuum will be filled with another tyrant. Yet we have finally realized that the short-term and superficial stability that a tyrant provides is "chump-change" in the face of the dictators' horrifying human rights records, and of their ability to create a vast class of militant Muslim revolutionaries (who then rage against us).

In other words, progressives have realized that the kind of people that should fill that vacuum ought to be people who a) value democracy b) value constitutionalism and c) value human rights. This is where you guys at Democracy Arsenal have been so important -- because you have been able to sell this simple idea. If there is one way to distinguish a Conservative from a Progressive in terms of foreign policy today it is this: a Conservative (Neo-Con) is willing to leave power in the hands of a Muslim tyrant while a Progressive thinks that is patently idiotic (but may not have any idea of what he or she wants instead).

The problem arises that it in large parts of the Muslim world (excluding Turkey), those who have the power to affirm propositions a, b, and c, tend not to look like us, act like us, or share our "liberal" values. If anything, with their social conservatism, they remind us of "backwater" hill-billies. With their protectionist economic policies, they remind us of the worst of the old school isolationists we guffaw over. With their stubborn adherence to their religion, and their use of religion as an identity, they remind us of the Christianists we here are trying to boot out of office. They aren't really down with gays, down with drinking, tolerant of Brittney, willing to turn a blind eye to swinger's clubs, nor encouraging of stripperobics, or what we like in our art. Ever since 1979, when these Islamists first showed their face, Progressives have had no idea how to deal with such people, and as a consequence, the Conservatives, by alternatively evoking them as fearful (Iran) and using them as mercenaries (Taliban) have been able to define foreign policy with respect to the Muslim world.

What Progressives need --  now more than ever -- is leverage with the democratic Islamists. But how in the  world does a Progressive get leverage over people who are so conservative?

We can't send them tapes of Velvet Underground. We can't show them good American porn. We can't offer them a Christianized liberation theology. They don't know who Coltrane or Miles Davis are (nor care). The method of culture-war that we used to stoke  the Soviet Bloc underground-democrats doesn't work with people so (freaking) conservative.

So then how are we going to get leverage? How to speak to them if they are just going to dismiss as a bunch of atheist hedonists?

The answer has two parts: i) social work, ii) money.

i) Social Work is easy. The Progressive ace in the hole has always been its populist impulse, its affiliation with the downtrodden, and its receptiveness to the actual material needs of people. We can talk to the conservative (but democratic and constitutionalist) Islamists by showing them the goodness of our actions.

ii) Money is hard. There are two major impediments to Progressives being able to use money to their advantage. First, we simply don't have that much money. Second, those of us who do have money have no interest in sending it to the Muslim world because no one wants to become subject to the latest version of P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Have you ever noticed how much money we give to African civil groups and how little to Muslim civil groups? It isn't because we like poor Africans more than we like poor Muslims. It's because we aren't going to get interrogated or inquisitioned. Gates and Soros pump money everywhere -- Africa, Latin America, India, China -- but not into civil service groups in the Muslim world. Today's Progresives have to fix that.

How, pray tell, am I expected to go to Pakistan and say to the democratic Islamists that people in America support them if these people have never received a single dollar of American "approval." Progressives have to look into the financial transfer laws currently in place and tweak them (a list of approved Islamists might be a start). Post 9/11, the assumption has been that all Islamists are terrorists. This is, like, so not true. Progressive insiders need to create a new list of 'approved' groups. If there is a legislative cause that Progressives insiders need to take up with the forthcoming Democratic house, it is this.

Who "lost" Iraq? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

As much as I cheer every time another prominent cheerleader for the Iraq war leaves the ship, I kind of wish conservative military commentator Ralph Peters had stayed where he was. 

Today he fires an impressive and dismaying salvo on the topic in USA TODAY.  He describes the invasion as "noble," but incompetently done.  But then comes this:

...for all our errors, we did give the Iraqis a unique chance to build a rule-of-law democracy. They preferred to indulge in old hatreds, confessional violence, ethnic bigotry and a culture of corruption. It appears that the cynics were right: Arab societies can't support democracy as we know it. And people get the government they deserve.

For us, Iraq's impending failure is an embarrassment. For the Iraqis — and other Arabs — it's a disaster the dimensions of which they do not yet comprehend. They're gleeful at the prospect of America's humiliation. But it's their tragedy, not ours.

That's not "the soft bigotry of low expectations."  That's just bigotry.  Does what happened in the American South after the Civil War prove that the South "can't support democracy as we know it?"  No.  Latin America has a number of rather solid democracies today that looked quite dubious 20 years ago.  Israel didn't spring from 1948 a fully-formed democracy, to choose a Middle Eastern example.

What did all those places have that Iraq hasn't had?  Years -- decades, in fact -- of relative peace, strong external support and internal cohesion.  (Obviously, Israel had less of the first and more of the last.) Institutions that developed internally and indigenously.  Functioning economies and national institutions.

For consistency's sake, I should point out that this is also why I'm dubious about Shadi's democracy-building agenda. 

But it's sheer self-delusion to think that this all went astray because of the Iraqis, and not because of our failure to understand how difficult this would be for us and the Iraqis to pull off after all Iraq's existing institutions were destroyed -- an understanding that, in my opinion, should have led us not to try it in the first place.

I'm guessing that conservatives will go through a lot of this among themselves.  That's not in itself a bad thing, but let's set the bar a little higher than this, shall we?

Besides, Ralph, if "people get the government they deserve," what does that say about you and me?

He does have one very thought-provoking line.  I suspect it's an over-simplification, but one worth considering.

And contrary to the prophets of doom, the United States wouldn't be weakened by our withdrawal, should it come to that. Iraq was never our Vietnam. It's al-Qaeda's Vietnam. They're the ones who can't leave and who can't win.

** Addition 3pm:  Just found this link to a CNN clip of House Majority Leader Boehner blaming... our generals!  Who says defeat is an orphan?

An apology "to my fans" for my long absence from the site -- the good news is that there's been lots of work out there for progressives lately.

Marc Grinberg and Ali Eteraz Guest Blogging for DA Posted by Shadi Hamid

I'd like to welcome Marc Grinberg of the Truman Project and blogger Ali Eteraz to Democracy Arsenal, where they'll be guest blogging for the next two weeks or so. If you haven't already, make sure to check out the important work the Truman Project is doing on national security. Also, schedule a visit to Eteraz's always provocative "Muslim reformist" blog Unwilling Self-Negation, recently nominated for an International Best of Blogs Award.

To our readers, don't cut these guys any slack.

The War on Ramadan? Posted by Shadi Hamid

Writing from Egypt, Zvika Krieger has an interesting piece in TNR about the commercialization of Ramadan (Islam’s holiest month), and the “Islamist” attempt to safeguard its “purity.” As long as you're not too conservative, Ramadan in Egypt is good fun: a lot of parties, eating/gorging, hanging out with friends and family, and, more generally, doing as little real work as possible (Egyptian bureaucrats have notoriously short working days that become even shorter during Ramadan. I remember reading an article which claimed that the typical Egyptian bureaucrat averages 7 minutes of actual productivity per day).

Anyway, this is a fun passage:

A 50-inch flat-screen television overhead plays music videos of the Killers and Nine Inch Nails, while waiters weave aimlessly around the booths. As the sun dips below the Nile, a Red Hot Chili Peppers video is unceremoniously interrupted--the guitar solo replaced by a solemn, baritone voice. "In the name of Allah, the most merciful," it begins in Arabic. Selected verses from the Koran are recited over stark images of pilgrims in Mecca. Within minutes, the Red Hot Chili Peppers return.

While it’s nice to think that the Red Hot Chili Peppers and the Koran are, in fact, compatible (and I suspect they are), it's also evident that there's a bit of cultural schizophrenia going on here. Contradictions abound. The West is both hated and loved.

This past summer, when I was in Egypt, I went to the beach with my cousins and some of their friends. It was a posh, exclusive resort, reserved for Egypt’s secular elite, a way for them to escape the dirt, dust, and depression of Cairo. It was a parallel universe designed to feel like, well, a parallel universe. My accented Arabic, while steady, belied the fact that I was the lone American in the group. One day, a couple of them were letting off some steam about the Israel-Hezbollah war and praising Nasrallah as some kind of Arab Christ figure. After I cast doubt on the purported wisdom of Nasrallah and his self-serving provocations along the Israeli border, the conversation soon shifted, inevitably, toward a discussion of America, "the Jews,” 9/11, and a variety of nutty conspiracy theories. Few things amaze me, because I’ve heard most of it before, but I always get angry when thoroughly Westernized Egyptians whose whole way of life is shaped by their love of American culture, start saying that they’re happy that 9/11 happened or that “we deserved it.” Then there was one interesting character who cited Syriana and Lord of War as evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, with a straight face no less.

David Letterman gets Iraq Wrong Posted by Shadi Hamid

You got to respect David Letterman taking it to Bill O’Reilly on Friday night. The tense exchange was certainly fun to watch. But something that Letterman said - or didn’t say - made me feel really, really uncomfortable.

They were discussing the Iraq war. O’Reilly in his usual abrasive way asked Letterman “do you want the United States to win in Iraq?” To my surprise (and dismay), Letterman appeared totally unable to answer the question and paused, as if really having to ponder the options. O’Reilly then added that “it’s an easy question.” Letterman, in what may have seemed like a good response to daily Kossacks but in my mind was rather pathetic, replied “it’s not easy for me because I’m thoughtful.”

I’m all for nuance and embracing complexity since most things in life are not, in fact, black and white. But, come on! Do you want the US to win in Iraq? What answer could you possibly give but “yes.” Letterman’s response captures all that is wrong with the hard left’s approach to foreign policy. It’s reactionary, simple-minded and all too often descends into laughable self-parody. Moreover, if I was living in some Red State watching Letterman doing his best John Kerry impression, I would probably freak out and pull the lever for the Big Red (elephant).

Yes, I dislike O’Reilly just as much as the next liberal, but let’s not lose sense of what’s at stake here. The Iraq War is not about scoring points against conservatives – it’s about trying to do what's best for the Iraqi people who deserve and demand more than the spectacle of disaffected liberals using Iraq as an excuse for reactionary Buchanesque forays into foreign policy.

Hard Power/Soft Power/Smart Power Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Hand-wringing has already begun over how progressives can capitalize on the public collapse of faith in the Bush Administration's foreign policies to sustain a political advantage that will endure beyond November 7.  George McGovern has resurfaced to claim that if running now on an antiwar platform, he'd win.  Others insist progressives not cede the credibility they've won by embracing hard power and rejecting "cut and run."

We're closer than we think to a strategy that makes policy sense and will strengthen public trust in our ability to handle foreign affairs.  Dozens of books and articles written by progressives converge on key points:  embrace of American military power coupled with a clear-eyed view of its advantages and limitations; vigorous, activist diplomacy - bilateral and multilateral; far-sighted efforts to build institutions and structures that will fortify U.S. interests against threats and counterweights into the future. 

My own version was an April, 2004 article in Foreign Affairs entitled "Smart Power."  It takes on the Administration's one-track militaristic foreign policy.  While not rejecting Joseph Nye's emphasis on "Soft Power" - diplomacy, cultural influence, and moral suasion - it argues that these cannot stand alone in an era of deadly threats.  The piece coins "Smart Power" as a synthesis of hard and soft, arguing that America's military and economic preeminence and its cultural and ideological appeal need to be tied together in a brand of power that reinforces both.

There are countless other formulations better than mine:  two good relatively recent ones are the Center for American Progress' Integrated Power and the Princeton Project's Forging a World of Liberty Under Law. 

In recent weeks, as what remained of the conservative foreign policy consensus has disintegrated, a critical segment of the American public now seems ready to embrace ideas like these.  They know unilateralism, arrogance and over-reliance on the military won't work.  They are seriously concerned with threats from terrorism, a violent and chaotic Middle East and nuclear proliferation.  They know that stronger alliances and more effective diplomacy will advance US interests.  They have faith, though not blind faith, in America's purpose and its capabilities. 

They will be receptive to cogent foreign policies that reflect these beliefs, and this is exactly what progressives have to offer (in the meantime, the Administration has started to embrace some of this out of necessity, but so far the public is sophisticated enough not to be impressed).

I don't believe Iraq will be the test, in the sense that the key focus must be a unitary, detailed plan for escaping the quagmire.  The public understands that Iraq is so far gone that proposals can now only aim to be the best of the worst, and so fluid that any prescription will be out of date by the time it hits hits Baghdad.  This is why not having a consensus progressive formula has not hurt to date.  The public is tired of an Administration that has pretended to have answers at every turn, and won't fault progressives for failing to do the same.

So now a short list of 5 issues where progressives are well-positioned to build public support based on existing policies, and 5 areas where more work needs to be done: