The Kissinger-Cheney Coupling Posted by Shadi Hamid

Like Jerry, I was also quite alarmed when I first heard awhile back that Kissinger was advising the Bushies on foreign policy. But I was also quite surprised. "Henry the K" (Jerry - I've never heard him called that before, but I like it). In any case, Kissinger is an arch-realist, someone known for his refined indulgence of dictators, and for a keen disregard for what foreign countries do to their own citizens (i.e. kill them) as long as they toe the line on U.S. strategic interests, narrowly-defined.

On the other hand, Cheney, one has been led to believe, is a neo-con, or perhaps a neo-neo-con. But he quite evidently is not - and was never - a "true believer" like Wolfowitz; he has not been known to wax particularly eloquent about the struggle for Arab democracy, a la Bush circa January 2005, and he seems to share with Kissinger a carefully-cultivated disdain for the weak coupled with a sweet tooth for authoritarianism (not only abroad, but also at home). Still, Kissinger always seemed to me a rather unnatural match for an administration that, at least rhetorically, appears to heap scorn upon realism and realists (i.e. Baker/Scrowcroft). I suppose the key qualifier here is "at least rhetorically."

Henry the K With Nothing To Say Posted by Jerry Mayer

Now, look--I love the Washington Post, the paper I grew up reading and still read almost cover to cover every day.  But my friend and colleague David Hart encouraged me to blog about the Post's worst chronic problem: the inexplicable gift of prime Post editorial real estate to Henry Kissinger, that stale windbag and likely war criminal.  Today's piece, which could not be located online (they have mercy on their online readership, I guess), is a typical meandering bit of historical revisionism.  I guess they let him write whatever he wants, and what he wanted to do today was to continue to pound at his critics--about 1969-73, with some tangential references to Iraq.

Given that Kissinger is frequently, and justly, accused of unnecessarily prolonging the Vietnam War, many of us found it alarming that he was the principal outside advisor to the Bush administration on foreign policy.  Worse, just as he did during Vietnam, he thinks at least half the blame, if not more, for the difficulty we face in Iraq should go to those disloyal Americans who are criticizing the president and making victory difficult!  Damn those nattering nabobs of negativism!

If Cheney and Bush want to learn how to break domestic and international law, lose a war and damage American prestige, they have found their appropriate expert. 

Dick Cheney: Of the outside people that I talk to in this job I probably talk to Henry Kissinger more than just about anyone else - he comes by I guess at least once a month and I sit down with him.
Woodward: And the same with the President?
Cheney: Yes, absolutely.
(woodward, being interviewed later on 60 Minutes, said this--)
Woodward: In Iraq he declared very simply, victory is the only meaningful exit strategy. This is so fascinating. Kissinger is fighting the Vietnam war again. Because in his view, the problem in Vietnam was that we lost our will. That we didn't stick to it. 

I can understand why Cheney and Bush would want to talk to Kissinger; who better to give a sympathetic ear to these incompetents? But why does the Post continue to print his op-eds, many hundreds of words longer than they allow even former presidents?

Peter Pace the Piper Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained his last-minute decision not to reappoint Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace on the basis that Pace's Senate confirmation battle would amount to a "divisive ordeal" focused on the past rather than the future.  Gates claimed he had every intention of renaming Pace until he consulted with Senate leaders who signalled that the nomination hearings would amount a contentious examination of the Bush Administration's Iraq policies as carried out by Pace.

This rationale places the blame in the exact wrong spot, inplying that overly aggressive Congressional oversight is costing the US government the best-qualified person to lead the war effort.  The truth is the opposite:  that Pace's leadership will wither under scrutiny means he isn't the right person to tackle one of the toughest jobs in memory for the US military. 

There's something distressingly ostrichlike about Gates' avowed reluctance to subject Administration policies to further Congressional scrutiny.  His comments all but confess that Pace's record is vulnerable.  Given that, his professed wish to reappoint Pace must be called into question. 

Gates' comments are most charitably read as a nice way to telegraph the real reason why Pace was pushed aside.  When a policy or project is in need of sweeping overhaul and dramatic changes in direction, having the architect of the status quo in the room can be a real hindrance.  Though that person, Pace in this case, will provide valuable history, knowledge and expertise, it is almost impossible for them to resist justifying the choices and decisions that led to the current mess.  The need to pay due respect to such rationales and judgements can slow or derail the effort to break from the past and find a more effective path forward.  In order to fix what's gone on during Pace's watch, in other words, his colleagues and successors will need to offer their unvarnished opinions of Pace and his efforts, something that won't happen if he's still in charge.

Gates' comments can probably be forgiven as an effort to show respect and politness while showing a loyal soldier to the door.   By showing deference to the man, Gates has freed himself from having to show deference to the policies.  Let's hope he sees it that way.

G-8: Not Just One Queasy Stomach Posted by Heather Hurlburt

This entire G-8 meeting, which was to have been an opening showcase for France's Sarkozy, a farewell love-in for Britain's Tony Blair, and a chance of global warming redemption of President Bush, is looking like a big bunch of nothin' to me.  Sure, that's often the case, but you'd have thought there were several leaders with the incentive to do more, our own included.

Here's the most positive spin I could find on the climate change language:  "wait and see."

The $60 billion commitment for Africa is $30 billion of previously-pledged US money and $30 billion of new pledges from European nations that are behind on their previous pledges... and NGOs which have up to now been supportive of the G-8 process are hopping mad.

I am exasperated," Irish rock star and anti-poverty campaigner Bono told Reuters. "I think it is deliberately the language of obfuscation. It is deliberately misleading."

Le Monde claimed that there was "agreement reached" on Darfur, but the language doesn't look like anything to get excited about to me:

We underline that there is no military solution to the conflict in Darfur and fully support the efforts of the special envoys of the UN and the AU [African Union] to restart negotiations with a view to reaching a political agreement.

Ditto Iran and North Korea, unless I missed something.

And on Kosovo's final status, the Russians gave nothing, no statement, nada, zip, zero.  (Trying to make an early mark, Sarkozy proposed that the sides have six months to work something out and, if they failed, the independence-with-lots-of-oversight proposals of UN mediator Martti Ahtisaari would go into effect.  Cute.  But nyet.)

No wonder W. stayed in his room this morning.

Legitimacy Synonymous With Democracy? Posted by David Shorr

One of the latest papers in the Stanley Foundation's Bridging the Foreign Policy Divide project is a piece by Ivo Daalder and Robert Kagan on America and the Use of Force: Sources of Legitimacy. I agree with much in the paper (disclosure: I"m a co-editor), but when they argue that only democratically elected governments can lend legitimacy at the international level, I see a real problem.

The authors take the emphasis on regime character to its logical extreme: undemocratic governments are members of the international community at our sufferance. Now I'm no neo-realist, but to me, this dismissal of the Westphalian order is liberal internationalism run amok. And as we try to revise the concept of sovereignty to hold leaders accountable for how they treat their own people, I actually see the Daalder-Kagan position as a threat to the emerging -- and important -- Responsibility to Protect norm. It's the difference between viewing the Community (Concert) of Democracies as a long-term project, which is a fine thing, or seeing it as a soon-as-we-can-slap-something-together replacement for the UN, which is not such a good idea.

An Urgent Letter from Egypt Posted by Shadi Hamid

I just got an email from Saad Eddin Ibrahim, one of Egypt's most prominent and courageous pro-democracy activists. Amr Tharwat, an employee of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies (which Saad Eddin founded), was arrested just over a week ago. Saad Eddin writes:

[Amr Tharwat] has been in Egyptian custody for one week now, along w/ four other family members, and we have been able to discover nothing about his specific whereabouts or what he is being charged with.  We at the Ibn Khaldun Center consider his arrest as simply another manifestation of the current regime's complete disregard for human rights and basic human liberties.  Please do all you can do through whatever channels you have at your disposal to pressure the Egyptian government to release Amr and his family members.

This is not just about Amr. This is about a rapidly deteriorating situation in Egypt, the second-largest recipient of US aid. This is about Egypt's autocrats - led by strongman-for-life Hosni Mubarak - who have mercilessly done everything in their power to destroy the Egyptian opposition. So what will we do? As Americans, we have a responsibility to speak out, particularly as close to $2 billion of our money goes to the Egyptian regime each year.    

As I wrote earlier this week, Congress is set to debate and vote on foreign aid levels as part of the foreign operations appropriations bill. The full committee mark-up is scheduled for this Tuesday, June 12. Rep. David Obey (D-WI), Tom Lantos (D-CA), and Nita Lowey (D-NY) are three Democrats who have taken an interest in this issue, with Obey and Lantos, in particular, having supported reductions in aid to Egypt. If you would like to call their offices to urge them to take action on aid to Egypt, please do. Phone numbers: Obey (202-225-3365), Lantos (202-225-3531), Lowey (202-225-6506). To learn more about this issue and what congress can do about it, see here.

Global Economy, Global Primary Posted by Heather Hurlburt

I've got a piece up on TomPaine.com expanding on my argument that progressives ought to want more and varied debate on global issues in the primaries, not less:

Telling progressive candidates to focus on domestic issues has been a longstanding staple of the political consultant’s talking points. But that’s been wrong for a while now. Wrong because many working people’s issues are international, or globalized, issues. Wrong because Americans are telling everyone who’ll listen that they want a change in how America acts in the world. And wrong because a whole class of candidates proved in 2006 that progressive candidates can make national security work for, not against, them as an issue.

Jewish and Arab Americans Think Alike about the Middle East? Posted by Jerry Mayer

Well, not exactly. But via Andrew Sullivan, I found this great new poll, in which the authors found remarkable areas of agreement between Jews and Arabs in the US:
***
The poll is yet another, and this time quite stunning confirmation that both groups want an American administration that is actively engaged in Middle East peacemaking, support a two-state solution, an end to occupation and freeze on settlements, and see a peace agreement as a U.S.strategic interest. A thumping 68 percent of Jewish Americans, and 64 percent of Arab Americans, say they would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who promised to take an active role in the peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians. While fully 80 percent and 77 percent respectively rate President Bush's handling of the conflict as not effective
***
In an academic article I wrote a few years back, I showed that Christian fundamentalists were Israel's strongest supporters among the American public. This latest poll contributes to my belief that American Jews are actually more moderate in their support for Israel, compared to fundamentalist Christians. I would argue that they are better friends of Israel, because you don't show your friendship to Israel by encouraging it to hold onto as much of the West Bank as possible. You show your friendship by doing what is necessary to bring peace, which means removing most of the settlements. A lot of American Jews are to the left of Likud, but not so many Christian fundamentalists are.

Aid to Egypt: Time for Congress to Take a Stand Posted by Shadi Hamid

An article of mine on the question of cutting U.S. aid to Egypt is out today at the American Prospect. The basic problem is this: We support Egypt's dictatorship to the tune of nearly $2 billion of aid each year. And the political situation in the country continues to deteriorate. The Islamist and secularist opposition alike are being crushed, and the Bush administration refuses to do anything about it. Now that it's appropriations season, it is time for congress to lead on this issue:

The time of year has again arrived when the U.S. Congress considers funding levels for foreign aid. But this year is different. Democrats control a majority in both the House and Senate and, for the first time in more than 12 years, will have the opportunity to set the agenda on this critical issue.

2007 has seen a continued deterioration in the political situation in the Middle East. Democrats have been preoccupied with a contentious debate on Iraq war funding, which has split the caucus in recent weeks. But beyond the war, 2007 has also been marked by the resurgence of Arab autocrats, who have strengthened their grip on power, and embarked on a sometimes brutal campaign against their opponents. There is no longer any "Arab spring" to speak of. Most troubling is the unfolding situation in Egypt, one of America's closest allies in the region and the second-largest recipient of U.S. aid.

Since January, the regime of longtime President Hosni Mubarak has unleashed an unprecedented wave of repression on opposition parties and civil society. The regime has recently focused much of its ire against the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest opposition group in parliament (it holds 88 seats), imprisoning hundreds of its members and freezing the group's financial assets. The smaller secular and liberal parties, such as the Al-Ghad party and the Kifaya movement, have been similarly crushed.

"They'll follow us home" and other McCain spin Posted by Jerry Mayer

So in tonight's debate, McCain said this (this is from my own ears, not from a transcript so caveat auditor)

“I am convinced that if we fail and we have to withdraw they will follow us home, it will be a base for Al Qaeda….there is no doubt in my mind that this will become a base for terrorism and there will be chaos in the region. "

And here we have yet again the Republicans planning for the "stab in the back" meme when we inevitably leave Iraq in a mess. Then, if there is ever a subsequent attack on these shores, not only will Republicans try to blame us for losing the war, but for making us less safe.

But this is just ignorance. The only thing empowering Al Qaeda in Iraq is our presence. The Iraqi people seem to hate Al Qaeda. It is, after all, Al Qaeda more than any other group that has engaged in a massive suicide bombing campaign that has bled all three major ethnic groups (although primarily Shia).

If we leave Iraq, McCain is right about one thing. There will be chaos in the country. But in the midst of it, things will quickly go badly for AQI. They cannot make a compromise with the majority Shia, and the Kurds hate them. Their support among Sunnis has never been strong. The Iraqis will take them out, faster and more brutally and more capably than we could. I suppose if no government establishes any civil order for more than a year in Anbar, we might see a small terrorist rump state develop, but even that would be short lived. There will be no Taliban-state in Iraq for any length of time.

And McCain was also right in his ringing (and rehearsed and recycled) line about "presidents don't lose wars, parties don't lose wars, nations lose wars." Yes, they do, wars that unwise presidents and corrupt and clueless parties choose, in this case.

Our loss in Iraq will be rightfully perceived as a grave defeat for America. But there is no victory plan worthy of the name, so we are destined for defeat, now or soon or in the long term. Ilan's blistering and prescient evisceration of Petraeus' coming report is spot-on. We are strong enough that we can choose the timing and the nature of our defeat. That is all the choice Bush has left us. In my work for the State Department, I think I've met well over 30 Iraqis here in Washington. I've shaken hands with mayors from each of the three main groups, and even some Chaldean Christian leaders from Iraq. And since 2003, they all asked me if we would stay. I have been warning them since 2004 that we might not. I want to retch every time I think that part of our leaving will mean that many of those people and their families will be lined up against a wall and shot (if they're lucky, without torture preceding that). Executed because they trusted George W. Bush and America to get this right.

When that happens, expect McCain and others to blame the Democrats for their deaths. However, it is this administration and the war supporters in both parties who really will have those brave Iraqis' blood on their hands.