Bulk the Army or Review the Policy: The Defense Dilemma Posted by Gordon Adams

The Quadrennial Defense Review appears today, the fourth since the Bottom Up Review of 1993. Newspaper columns are going to be filled with discussions of “irregular” conflicts and “catastrophic” threats, and the “long war” Secretary Rumsfeld announced this week at the National Press Club. The underlying debate, though, is going to focus on the Army – is it overstretched and near the breaking point, or is it a “Goldilocks” force – just right for what it is being asked to do. The answer to this question, however, is not “how much should we add to the Army,” but what is the Army for.

From the narrow point of view, there is no doubt the Army is overstretched. Maintaining 160,000 troops in Iraq, plus another roughly 30,000 at sea or in neighboring Kuwait, preparing a next wave of forces to go there, and resetting the forces that came home not only costs a lot (see that $70 b. Iraq supplemental coming this month) but goes well beyond the algorithm the Army likes to use for deploying its forces. Minimally, the Army likes three units for every rotation: one in the field, one getting ready to go, and one coming back to rest, retrain and reequip. In Iraq, it is more like one coming back and one going out, period. Can’t do that without calling up the reserves, so we have done that, with more than 600,000 men and women now on active duty in the Army.

Still more on Latin America Posted by Adam Isacson

I’m just back from a three-day visit to Miami, where I had a chance to take part in two very thorough discussions of security in the Americas. This trip unfortunately kept me from attending the Security and Peace Institute’s conference on Latin America today in New York, which Michael Signer did such a good job of live-blogging.

On Tuesday, I was part of a group of ten NGO representatives who paid a ten-hour-long visit to Southern Command headquarters, where we talked to people in charge of intelligence, operations, exercises, human rights, and Guantánamo, and had a 2 ½ hour discussion with the commander, Gen. Bantz Craddock. On Thursday I sat in on the first day of a two-day conference on “The Challenge of Governance and Security” in the Americas, hosted by Florida International University, the U.S. Army War College and the U.S Southern Command.

Latin America -- Final Live-Blog (VII!) Posted by Michael Signer

The final address is by Jose Antonio Ocampo, the Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs at the UN.  He stresses that the UN has to be firmly committed to democracy in the region. 

He stresses that democracy has to be robust, responsive, and carefully tended.  Corruption, paramilitary tendencies, and other bad political practices (like blackmail) have to be immediately rooted out.

Latin America - Live-Blog VII Posted by Michael Signer

The following was written by Nicole Mlade of the Center for American Progress:

Arturo Valenzuela made the crucial point that the Bush Administration supports democracy in Latin America insofar as it yields a favorable outcome.  Intervening in the Nicaraguan elections to avert a Sandinista victory in 2001 and undermining the negotiations that may have enabled Aristide to remain as Haiti's leader in 2004 offer just two examples of how the Bush Administration selectively supports democracy in the region.

Latin America -- Live-Blog VI Posted by Michael Signer

This Session (whew, this is a lot of blogging -- is this what it feels like to be Matt Yglesias?) is titled "What Can Outsiders Do?" and is moderated by Antonio Aranibar, the General Director of the Andean Community of Nations.

Latin American -- Live-Blog V Posted by Michael Signer

Now we're back in the conference room for a panel on the press, called "What Media Stake in Latin Democracy?"

Tina Rosenberg, a member of the Editorial Board of The New York Times, is moderating.  Her basic question -- why is the press so bad in Latin America?  A lot of the stories are single-sourced, the outlets have mysterious and manipulative owners, and the reporters are easily cowed.  Why?

Latin American -- Live Blog IV Posted by Michael Signer

After a lunch that truly transcended the rubber-chicken fare to which we itinerant political hacks become accustomed (yes, there was asparagus salad, and sea bass served with a little wrapped up lemon, and, yes, a sort of custard thing with brandy-soaked fruit in the bottom -- and wine that didn't come from a box!), we're now ready for our lunchtime address by Jose Miguel Insulza, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States.

Latin America -- Live-Blog III Posted by Michael Signer

We've all finished coffee -- in a crowded room where a multitude of different Latin American accents slipped and slided, and the pastries were finished in about three seconds -- and have sat back down for the second session:  "Is It the Economy?"

Albert Fishlow, a bearded Columbia professor with a shock of white hair, introduces the panel -- and asks why, if the neoliberal economic policies of integration between the U.S. and Latin America are working, is every politician elected in opposition to neoliberalism?

Latin America -- Live-Blog II Posted by Michael Signer

Let's set the scene a bit - -the Harvard Club in New York, mahogany everywhere, chandeliers with little linen lamp covers, a small glassed-in booth in the corner where the translators are sitting, and about thirty folks -- most Latin American -- seated around  a rectangular array of tables.  The doors here are actually covered in leather.

Andre Vitor Singer, a Brazilian political scientist, is speaking -- he says he's optimistic about democracy in Latin America. 

His argument is that democracy is good because it's competitive.  Bolivia is a prime example -- showing that there's not a crisis.   "It's a good moment." 

This was not just a Pollyanna moment, but a cheerleader one.

Latin America -- Live-Blog II Posted by Michael Signer

Louise Frechette, the Deputy Secretary-General, is pitching the UN Development Fund -- invests in new democracies.  "The UN is committed to helping Latin America strengthen its political institutions."  She started in Spanish and, without a hitch, switched over to English -- unclear why.

Listening to her, I find an interesting tension between listening to someone from the UN talk about democratization as the product of collective reasoning and permission from the democratizee, and thinking about how the U.S. does it, at the barrel of a gun.   

Latin America -- "Crisis in Governance" Posted by Michael Signer

I've been Amtrak'ed up to NYC today to live-blog a conference being sponsored by the Security and Peace Institute, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, and the United Nations Development Programme:  "Crisis of Governance:  The International Stake in Sustaining Democracy in Latin America." 

During the day, I'm going to be live-blogging each of the five sessions of the conference. 

The conference, which was put into the works several months ago, has impeccable timing.  The recent ascension of the sweater-wearing Evo Morales in Bolivia, and the constant agitation of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela (among others) have put the topic of democracy and its stability into the brains of everyone who's interested in what democratization really means, and what's happening in this hemisphere.

That all said -- I am not a Latin American expert.  At all.  So I'm going to approach this task and the conference from the perspective I think many of you probably share -- an interested, aware, but ordinary observer.  I did spend a month after college studying Spanish in Costa Rica, but that's more background lighting than spotlight.

OK, so let's go -- I've put on my translator ear thing and am feeling all UN-y.  Please keep checking through the day, and I'll keep you posted on what I'm learning.

Bolton Sends 'em Boltin Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Amb. John Bolton presided over his first UN Security Council meeting today and no one showed up.  On time, that is.

On the first day of the US's month-long Council Presidency Bolton banged the gavel at 10 AM sharp, only to have his 14 colleagues from around the world - used to the Council's normally leisurely cadences - saunter in at quarter after.  The Council membership is balking at a series of proposals Bolton has made for his tenure, including daily morning briefings on security issues from Kofi Annan with notes circulated in advance, and free-form debates in lieu of scripted statements.  In response, Bolton has described his quest for reform as "irresistible force" bumping up against "immovable object."

The funny thing is,  Bolton's right.  The UN is too prone to operate like a laid-back international coffee house.   It hardly seems too much to ask that the 15 people responsible for global peace and security meet to discuss the subject each morning.  UN delegations like written statements because they enable capitals to dictate every word.  But the end result is tedious, repetitive and cautious statements that stand in the way of genuine debate.  Resolving tough issues among a diverse group requires the ability to react and compromise.  Dispensing with prepared statements for routine meetings would make life more interesting, and allow the Council to cut to the chase.

The sad part is that Bolton's confrontational style and lack of allies may well mean that potentially valuable proposals for change fall flat despite their merits.

America's Broken Democracy Posted by Lorelei Kelly

The state of our union is shameful in New Orleans.

I got back from New Orleans this past Sunday. I was there to see relatives--but had plenty of time to drive through miles and miles of abandoned neighborhoods: boats piled on medians, houses piled on cars sitting amidst intersections, a lonely intrepid individual lovingly sweeping his driveway with a windowless white FEMA trailer on blocks behind him. Rescue team graffiti scrawled on every housefront like cliff-notes for the obituary of an entire city.

Here's some of what the president said yesterday:

We're removing debris and repairing highways and rebuilding stronger levees.  We're providing business loans and housing assistance.  Yet as we meet these immediate needs, we must also address deeper challenges that existed before the storm arrived.

Wouldn't it be great if one of those "deeper challenges" were to jettison the anti-government mindset of his conservative base?  And to ask them to quit using that tired old rhetoric about "nameless, faceless bureaucrats" who scheme and waste instead of solving problems.  It is, after all, difficult to have a discussion about inherently government functions with a group of Americans who don't believe in the public sector.

But the dire situation in Louisiana is  not an accident.  It is an outcome.  For thirty years, the conservative movement has seen government as the competition--and like any leveraged buy out, their goal has been to eliminate the competition.  That means privatize the public sector.  Spin it off, flip it, outsource it--preferrably to corporate political allies   Then Katrina hits.

Dr. Rice and the Other State of the Union Posted by Jeffrey Stacey

While all eyes were on the President casting his critics as isolationists in internationalist clothing, the U.S. foreign policy "state of the union" has been promoted over the last two weeks by Condoleezza Rice.  With all the zeal of full-fledged converts, Dr. Rice and her boss have come a long way from being quasi-isolationists in 2000 to adopting what they refer to as a "revolutionary" grand strategy.  In fact, the Administration has pulled off something of a double revolution even before our Secretary of State took up her new post.

Secretary Rice defines the strategy as the pursuit of democratic peace, premised on the notion that democracy is the global panacea to everything from terrorism to bad governance.  Indeed, though she is loathe to mention Woodrow Wilson she is unabashed about describing the strategy as "idealistic" and "optimistic" (and she is quoting Acheson and Truman left and right).  Her transformation from badmouthing nation building and bashing Democrats for not taking rivalries with an emerging China and resurgent Russia seriously is complete.

However, not only is this grand strategy incomplete and a bit naive, but in case you missed it we have now witnessed three different grand strategies from the Bush-Rice tandem.  They began pursuing a strategy in 2000 of--if not quasi-isolationism then--selective engagement, based on balance of power politics and only using the U.S. military if core national interests were at stake.  Post 9-11 the tandem did not adopt a democratic peace strategy; in fact, what became known as the Bush Doctrine rested entirely on the notion that states no longer must wait to act in self-defense but can engage in unilateral pre-emptive attacks if threatened.

Over Their Heads Like a Foul Ball Posted by Heather Hurlburt

I had the pleasure of doing radio commentary this morning with a former Reagan speechwriter who seemed quite eager to insist that this State of the Union had about 36 more hours to live i n the public consciousness.  (He had lots of smart things to say, by the way -- always fun to find a worthy adversary.)

Of course, though, when you explicitly make the speech about world affairs and speak to global audiences, your comments have a much longer shelf life.  What you didn't say -- anything new for Iraqis, any mention of the troubles in Afghanistan, any direct commitment to do anything about Darfur -- And that is, as I have written for our friends over at tompaine.com, not good news for us.

State of the Union Fiction: Curse of Isolationism Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Bush referred a half-dozen times tonight to the dangers of an American retreat to isolationism.  He's adopting a strategy of trying to paint his critics as favoring a retreat to inward-looking policies and a renunciation of America's role in the world.

This is pure hogwash:

- Bush's Critics are Overwhelmingly Internationalists, Not Isolationists - As Charles Krauthammer wrote in 2004:  " Isolationism is an important school of thought historically, but not today.  .  .  Classical isolationism is not just intellectually obsolete; it is politically bankrupt as well. Four years ago, its most public advocate, Pat Buchanan, ran for president of the United States, and carried Palm Beach. By accident."  The most outspoken opponents of the Bush Administration's foreign policy are, on the contrary, committed to multilateralism, to international development, and to global institutions.

- In his 2000 campaign, Bush skated near an isolationist platform -  Though Bush professed opposition to isolationism, it was Condi Rice, not her democratic counterparts, who argued in 2000 that the US should not do nation-building and should not be a police force for the world.  He thought the scope of the Clinton Administration's international involvements - many of which revolved around replacing dictators and building democracy in places like Bosnia and Haiti - was too broad.

- For Nearly a Century, Isolationism has been a Republican,  not a Democratic Platform - Pat Buchanan had a long string of predecessors.   This article details the history of Republican isolationism - and Democratic internationalism - dating back to the 1930s and going up to the Clinton and Bush Administrations. 

-  Flashes of Isolationism are Linked Directly to Bush's Own Policies - To the extent that ordinary Americans are tilting toward isolationism, polls show that such attitudes are linked directly to Bush Administration policies in Iraq.  If it surges, the isolationism Bush rightly dreads will have been born of his own misguided policies, his breach of the public trust, and the strain he has put on the military.

State of the Union Live Blogging IV Posted by Suzanne Nossel

In referencing tools our homeland defenders needs he wants reauthorization of the Patriot Act.  But what about resources?  training?  equipment?

He's onto the wiretaps.  Previous presidents have used same authority - yes, but that was before Congress made doing so illegal.

The famous line:  "if there are people in our country talking to al Qaeda, we want to know about it."   Well, a judge would want to know about it too, so she would authorize a wiretap and make it legal.

Also, if there are ordinary, law-abiding people in our country talking to relatives, friends and colleagues overseas, we don't want them to have to worry about the government knowing about it.  These imperatives need to be balanced.

Back to isolationism again - I hope the folks at the Progress Report are compiling a detailed manifesto about just how false that charge is.

He's onto the economy. 

American economy is strong, but we cannot afford to be complacent.  He references China and India, which is good.  Decries protectionism which is good.  Nothing yet on how to manage free trade.  Says the country could not function without immigrants.  Agree.

Raises spectre of "stagnant and second-rate economy."   Is talking about how to keep America competitive.  This is important stuff.   

But per Bush what is to credit for our competitiveness?  You guessed it - - the tax cuts.  In fact they've brought us the biggest deficits in years, and huge trade imbalances.  He wants to make the tax cuts permanent. 

It's hard to conceive of a  bigger disconnect between rhetoric and sound policy on every issue:  the rhetoric is great, the policies that undergird it are totally at odds with the professed aims.

I'm going to back off unless/until he gets back to foreign policy.

State of the Union Live Blogging III Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Recognizing a lost veteran, Sergeant Dan Clay of California.  This is all important and good. 

Says our offensive vs. terror offers more than military action - need to offer a hopeful alternative of political freedom and democratic reform.  Agree.

Elections are vital but are only the beginning.  Again, I agree and hope team Bush is really beginning to understand this.

Urges Mubarak toward more political openness.  Agree.

Says Hamas leaders must disarm, recognize Israel and work for lasting peace.  Agree.

Says Saudi is taking steps to reform.  Baby steps.

Democracies in the Middle East will not look like our own but "liberty is the right and hope of all humanity."  Agree

Iran:  "a nation held hostage by a small clerical elite that is holding country hostage and supporting Palestinian terrorists . . . Nations of the world must not permit Iranians to get nukes."

This is all right - problem is that everything lies in the implementation and the actions, not the words.  This Administration's methods have persistently undermined these goals.

Again back to isolationism.  This is clearly a label they want to tag on their opponents. 

"For people everywhere the US is a partner for a better life."  That should be true.  That has been true.  That's still true in some places.  But fewer since Bush took over.

It's 9.30 PM and not a word on domestic policy . . .  were they sandbagging?

h

Live-blogging SOTU Posted by Michael Signer

Scattered live-blog thoughts...

"We will not retreat from the world..." what does this mean to Bush?  It's a whole different matter to be isolationist than to be interventionist. 

"Our coalition has learned from our experience in Iraq."  "I will seek out your good advice."  This is odd.  When has he done this?  This is so choppy.  Is he referring just to that one meeting with the ex-Secretaries of State?  This just seems ridiculous.  He can't claim credit for cooperation just by asserting it (although, I guess, this has never stopped him before).

Not-so-subtle dig at Democrats' "defeatism" -- it stikes me, as always, how nimble and savvy this team is at putting the other side on the defensive.  How is a progressive to criticize the path in Iraq without being "defeatist"?  What does that even mean?

"Never falter" -- an excerpt from the Dan Clay letter... I guess this kind of tactic is so tired it's not even shameless...

More in a few minutes...

State of the Union Live Blogging Part II Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Lines on war on terror sound tired - refernces to attacks in Beslan, etc. seem to be taken from an old speech.

"There is no peace in retreat and there is no honor in retreat."  I agree with that, but don't think there's peace or honor in a miguided, mismanaged offensive either. 

Strong push against isolationism.  But who favors isolationism?  He's setting up a straw man trying to act as if his political opponents stand for a US retreat from its commitments around the world.  This is nonsense - we are the champions of internationalism, and historically always have been.  Its the conservaties who came late to the party and still need to learn what viable, successful internationalism entails. 

Talking about Iraq.  Confident in our plan for victory.  Says "we are winning."  In a post soon I'll examine the numerical evidence. 

Says troop reduction decisions will be made by military commanders, not pols in Washington DC.  While there's some merit to that, the principle of political control over the military is vitally important.  Congressional oversight of the war effort is badly needed.

Now calling critics of the war defeatists.  "Hindsight is not wisdom, second-guessing is not a strategy."  Guessing is not a strategy either.

State of the Union Live Blogging Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Gracious opening recognizing Coretta Scott King.

Speaking in past tense about his time in office - sounds almost valedictory out of the box.  Addressing the divisions head-on, which is good.

"Tonight the state of the union is strong, and together we will make it stronger" seems to evince some awareness of what we're up against.

Early mention of economic leadership and trade openness is positive.   He says "US of A will continue to lead."  Does he realize fewer and fewer are following?

"We seek the end of tyranny in our world . . . the future security of America depends on it."  But have we learned anything over the last 5 years about tactics that alleviate rather than exacerbate our threats. 

References need to continue to spread democracy, promote freedom.  Says "we'll act boldly in freedom's cause."  For g-d's sake let's act wisely for a change. 

References wide spread of democracy worldwide.  But when will he wake up to how this impacts the manner in which a superpower should exert its power:  not through fiat, but in a way that's respectful of other countries that are legitimately governed and that deserve and demand a say?  Read my piece in Dissent on Democracy Confronts the Superpower for more.

Early reference to OBL.  Contrary to what many predicted, he is spending considerable time on foreign policy, at least early on.

Pre-blog Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Well, if there can be a pre-buttal, pre-speeches and pre-analysis, there can be a pre-blog.  If the excerpts just posted capture the tone throughout, this is heavy-duty.

"Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal:  we seek the end of tyranny in our world."

That's a considerably expanded course for "stay the course."   

I think -- not tonight, maybe not even when the post-SOTU polls are done, but soon enough -- this sort of thing will trigger a backlash.  Americans are already telling pollsters that they are suspicious of democracy promotion, skeptical of its progress in Iraq and dubious that we can even do anything to improve our own image abroad.  To my mind, this kind of rhetorical overreach unmatched by results will drive people further away from engagement -- and NOT into the arms of progressives.

But we'll see.  As usual, let's hope I'm wrong.

More on FISA Posted by Morton H. Halperin

Michael Signer and I seem to have reached agreement. Progressives need to make clear that they recognize the serious terrorist threat and the need for surveillance; the lawless program needs to be condemned, but we should recognize that there might be a case to permit more surveillance.

Before we can decide that, however, we need to know more about precisely what the administration is doing.  It is now increasingly clear that there are two different programs: One, which administration officials refer to as the program which the President described, and the other, which we still know almost nothing about.

The program which the President described and which General Hayden explained in some detail does not, as he said, involve any new technology or reviewing masses of data for key words  - that is the other program. So first, what more is there to say about the program the President described?

Stop Darfur's Freefall Posted by Derek Chollet

The State of the Union address is one of those policy Chirstmas trees where every pet project and issue wants (and usually gets) its own ornament – Suzanne and Heather’s posts below illustrate how once one gets into the business of listing the many worthy issues, they add up quickly -- and that’s just on the international stuff.  So, in that spirit I’d like to make a wish for my own special ornament: that President Bush says he’s going to do something about Darfur.

With all the pressing issues in the news – Iraq, Iran, Hamas, North Korea – it’s not surprising that what’s happening inside Darfur has moved to the side.  But the next few weeks will be critical – the mandate for the underfunded and beleaguered 5000-troop protection force headed by the African Union is due to expire by March 31, and things in Darfur are only getting worse. 

During the past year, there has been a lot of well-intentioned international activity to help Darfur – but the killing isn’t stopping.  As John Prendergast recently told the New York Times, “Darfur is in a free fall.”

Kofi Annan agrees.  “People in many parts of Darfur,” he wrote last week, “continue to be killed, raped and driven from their homes by the thousands. The number displaced has reached 2 million, while 3 million (half the total population of Darfur) are dependent on international relief for food and other basics. Many parts of Darfur are becoming too dangerous for relief workers to reach. The peace talks are far from reaching a conclusion. And fighting now threatens to spread into neighboring Chad, which has accused Sudan of arming rebels on its territory.”

With the United States assuming the presidency of the UN Security Council tomorrow, the Bush Administration has an opportunity to press for a new and more meaningful policy to stop the killing.  As Kenneth Bacon writes in today’s New York Times (and others have echoed), the United States should use the next 28 days to save Darfur. 

Sixteen Thousand Bob Woodruffs Posted by Suzanne Nossel

In case you're feeling that Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt's injuries in Iraq are receiving too much media attention, go read this NYT piece about some of the relatively anonymous veterans trying to recover from catastrophic injuries that would have killed them in any prior war.   

The story (clearly written before Sunday's attack on the newsmen) explains that Woodruff's injury - shrapnel lodged in the head and brain from an IED - is actually the "signature wound" of the Iraq war.   Depending on how their paths to recovery unfold, Woodruff and Vogt's stories, including the impact on their careers, families and futures could do a lot do draw attention to the plight of others in similar or worse condition.   The availability of adequate resources to care for these veterans and their families over time is a question. 

Some analysts suggest that the number of deaths so far in the Iraq war is too low to elicit a strong public backlash against US participation.   Reading the Times story makes me wonder whether understanding more of what's faced daily by each individual wounded veteran might change that.

More on NSA and Posner Posted by Michael Signer

This is a response to Mort's response to my discussion of Richard Posner's sort-of defense of the NSA wiretapping.  One of the benefits of the Democracy Arsenal crowd is we have folks like Mort who can write things like the following:

I worked hard to get FISA passed in the 1970s because I believed that the government needed to conduct electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes and that it should be done pursuant to a statute and with the court involved as appropriate.   The Ford and Carter administrations identified four situations in which a warrant should not be necessary (emergency, war for 15 days, certain embassy taps, and testing) and they were all included in the bill.

The most I could say along these lines is that, while in my short pants, I considered the implications of the downfall of a President whose second inauguration occurred in the month of my birth.  Mort concludes:

It is impossible to tell if some additional authority is needed since the administration not only did not ask for, but affirmatively said it did not want it.   If after 9/11 NSA needs more authority under FISA or even some additional emergency warantless authority it should say so and we should have that debate.

We cannot have it until we know what they want.  In the meantime we must insist that the law and the constitution be obeyed.

Well, I agree.  I was citing Judge Posner's argument, really, for the sake of argument.  Obviously, laws can't be broken -- and you don't even have to add the modifier "with impunity."  They just can't be broken.  That's what the rule of law is all about. 

Perhaps even more powerfully, you cannot have the executive branch of government making decisions about when the rule of law applies unilaterally, without judicial review or legislative pre-approval.  It's a gross violation of almost every principle of American constitutionalism.  So, yes, it appears to be against the law.  This may well rise to the level of impeachability.

However.

Your State of the Union Checklist Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Anyone else feel like this State of the Union (SOTU) is a little overhyped?

The Wall Street Journal pointed out last week that Bush’s ratings had gone down after at least two of his previous SOTUs, a fact that had escaped me.  The Washington Post says the State of the Union is passe and should be abandoned.  The media has been covering State of the Union previews for two weeks.  Enough, already.

Anyway, if you want a State of the Union parody, click here.  If you want a State of the Union drinking game, click here.  If you want Suzanne's thoughtful list of things Bush should say, click here.

But if you want my top five things to watch for, scroll on:

Democracy Promotion:  It’ll be fascinating to see how this gets finessed in the wake of the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections.  The disappointing showing of moderate and secular Iraqi parties, though equally problematic, is easier to finesse.  Egyptian opposition leaders criticizing us from prison?  No problem.  I’m glad I’m not drafting this section.

Immigration:  For several months now, progressive pollsters have been warning Democratic party leadership that, while policy wonks don’t see immigration as a national security issue, regular Americans do.  The Administration recognizes this dynamic – indeed its pro-business leadership fears getting impaled on it – and will have thought long and hard over its approach.  Progressive response?

Iraq numbers game: My bet is that the President will not brag that troop numbers are down, leaving it to others to do that while he trumpets “staying the course.”  But I could very well be wrong. Iran: can he keep the rhetoric at a low enough simmer to keep talks going and allies on board, or is it impossible to resist playing to the critics on both sides of his Administration?

Overarching Frame:  we’ve had “humble nation,” we’ve had terrorism, we’ve had WMD, we’ve had democracy promotion as foreign policy frames.  That’s four in five years.  I’ll be very curious whether the clever folks in the framing rhetoric workshop trot out another one for us.  My bets are on “stay the course.”  Rove’s comments about the ’06 elections would seem to suggest a return engagement for straight-up terrorism.  But this is the beginning of legacy time, after all, -- and John Ikenberry argues that Bush and Rice are becoming liberal internationalists before our eyes -- so I wouldn’t even be surprised at a new, squishy-sounding paradigm emerging.

I’m on the road this week – Louisville and Des Moines – so will post again after the speech.  Just watch yourselves with those drinking games, huh?

State of the Union: 10 Things Bush Needs to Say on Foreign Policy Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Word is that the President's State of the Union Address this week will focus on domestic issues.  Given the firestorm over the wiretaps, the carnage in Iraq, the frightening results of the Palestinian election, the latest tape from Osama, the war talk out of Tehran, and the mounting chaos on the Afghan-Pakistan border, it's hard to blame Bush for trying to divert attention from foreign policy.  But the truth is that American security is growing more precarious, partly because of Bush's own policies.  Here are 10 things the president ought to say this week.  I'll check back in afterward to evaluate whether he has.

1.  No More Illegal Wiretaps - Illegal wiretaps have trammeled civil liberties, undermined the rule of law, eroded Americans' trust in their government, and wasted thousands of hours of analysts' time reviewing useless transcripts.  The law is clear that to wiretap, a president needs a court order.  There's no evidence that this requirement has stood in the way of the intelligence agencies getting information they need.  While the debates and lawsuits on past practice will rage on, Bush should pledge no more wiretaps without a judge's approval.

2.  No Tolerance for Torture - Bush has never spoken out forcefully on torture.  He should disavow torture by any arm or official of the U.S. government and renounce the practice of extraordinary rendition of suspects to countries that practice torture.  It's painful to recognize that this even needs to be said by our president, but it does.

3.  No Permanent Bases in Iraq - Regardless of what you think about the Iraq war effort, permanent bases are a bad idea.  Analysts of the war on terror are focusing on the role that U.S. troops on Mideast (and Saudi in particular) sand and soil have had in inflaming anti-Americanism.  Though we can debate when to leave Iraq, few doubt that at some point we will go.  But Bush has never said this and it's something both Americans and Mideast need to hear.

4.  No Questioning of Patriotism for Critics of the War - It is McCarthyistic to suggest that it's un-American to question the Iraq war effort.  In the coming year, more than a dozen Iraq war veterans will run for Congress.  Along with John Murtha, John Kerry, and anyone else who has something to say, they sure as hell are going to talk about the war.  For Bush to unequivocally defend the right of all Americans to debate our foreign policy would bespeak a level of self-assurance this president hasn't shown since right after 9/11.

5.  U.S. to Mount Direct, Sustained Engagement in the Middle East Peace Process - While many factors helped foster Hamas' landslide victory in the Palestinian elections last week, the Bush Administration's Mideast policies - its sporadic engagement in the peace process after Arafat's death, its war in Iraq - are among them.  Bush has dispatched Rice to build consensus in Europe on how to deal with Hamas.  But this cannot be another short-lived blitz.  The administration has strong influence on both sides of the conflict. Now is the time to use it.