In Defense of Politics and National Security Posted by Patrick Barry

A few days ago, I came across a post by Gulliver at the excellent Inkspots, decrying how the politicization of national security was eroding his will to blog. Judging from the number of posts Gulliver has written since this sad lament, I’m skeptical the situation is nearly as dire as he originally described. What’s less in doubt is his observation that politics and national security are increasingly “bumping up against one another.” 

On a certain level, this has me scratching my head, wondering, “So what?” Politics is how America resolves policy differences in a number of areas. The outcome of a health care or tax policy debate often will carry significant, life-altering consequences for Americans.  Yet we don’t bat an eyelash when these issues are politicized. By that standard, there’s no reason national security should get a pass.

Furthermore, pretending that politics and national security don’t mix can lead to very bad policy outcomes. I’m sympathetic to the view that had concerned or reluctant elected officials invested energy in having a political debate over whether or not to invade Iraq, the country might have avoided a national security catastrophe. (Full disclosure: I work for an organization that was essentially founded on that justification). Sadly, we didn’t have that debate, and the country paid a steep price for it. I put that thought to Gulliver, who replied that the Iraq war was largely the result of a motivated administration pulling the wool over the eyes of the bureaucracy. But that’s precisely why you would want a more vigorous public debate – to reduce the likelihood that an agenda-drive clique can just hijack the process.

But whereas in 2002, politics and national security were not bumping up against one another enough, it seems like now they’re rubbing against each other quite a bit. As Gulliver points out, this shift is vividly exemplified by the Park51 controversy. But sitting on my progressive perch, it’s hard to see what option supporters of religious liberty have but to jump into the fray, however partisan it may be. It’s just not easy to see where a possible compromise can be found when it comes to something so fundamental. So while I agree with Gulliver that this is an immensely frustrating debate, it strikes me that there’s not much choice but to have it.

West Bank Attacks -- The Spoiler's Gambit Posted by David Shorr

In order to demonstrate their opposition to the reopened Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, Hamas is murdering Israeli settlers. At one level, this week's terrorist attacks are inhuman and merciless. At another level, the killings are calculated in their petulance, and I think it's worth pondering Hamas' aspirations as spoilers of peace.

One thought is that when you see Hamas as obstructionist rivals to the Palestinian Authority's Fatah government, they don't look like shock troops of World War IV. Obviously they are a threat to the security of Israelis, which is a constant concern for Israel's security services (which had jurisdiction over the site of the Tuesday attack) and a quandary for the peace process itself. But the threat of attacks on Israeli citizens isn't the same as a strategic threat to the state of Israel. My point is a narrow one: that it's one thing to take the threat from terrorists seriously, and another to ascribe capabilities wildly beyond what they actually have. I'll also stress that in making this point, I have in mind the domestic politics here in the US as much as the situation in Israel.

The other thought regards Hamas' opposition not just to Israel, but to peace. We often tend to focus on the you-can't-make-peace-with-those-people political stance in the conflict, and gloss over the stakes in the status quo. Hamas is attacking this week because peace would be bad for Hamas. For them, the current situation of one state and two fiefdoms is preferable to two states. The talks therefore pose a threat.

And then finally, a serious question of political analysis. As we know, President Obama's decision to jump into Middle East peace with both feet put some of his political capital on the line. We've seen eloquent arguments from Steve Clemons (pro) and Aaron David Miller (con) over the wisdom of this move. My question is about Netanyahu. Obviously he'll be under a lot of pressure from his political base to not succeed in reaching an agreement. I'd like to know whether his optimistic statements about the prospects represent a real investment of his credibility, or whether he can always walk away political cost-free.

You Don't Have to Live Like a Refugee Posted by Eric Martin

While I initially opposed the Iraq invasion, whatever position one held as to the wisdom of that decision at the time, and whatever one thinks of the costs vs. benefits in retrospect (though I tend to agree with my colleague Michael Cohen, as well as Matt Duss, that the costs have far, far outweighed the benefits), there should be less disagreement over the suggestion that we, collectively, owe the Iraqi people what respite and solace we can provide, within reasonable means.

In that light, it was quite disturbing to read Saurabh Sanghvi's Op-Ed detailing the dysfunctional process attendant to granting visas to those Iraqis that have cooperated with U.S government forces and, thus, have legitimate fears of retribution up to and including death (this process is an adjunct to other visa programs that are, in theory, available to displaced Iraqis more generally speaking).  Sanghvi highlights some of the truly labyrinthine bureaucratic obstacles encountered by those trying to secure a visa - a confounding process that has resulted in relatively few successful applications: 

Given such obstacles, it’s no surprise that relatively few people have successfully used the program: an Aug. 12 letter to the administration by 22 members of Congress noted that only 2,145 visas have been issued, even though the program has 15,000 available slots.

While some hurdles should remain in order to prevent fraud, Sanghvi offers commonsense tweaks that would do much to facilitate the process.  Regardless, if we are to err on one side, it should probably be letting in more Iraqis than fewer. Even if some of the Iraqi's gain entry "fraudulently," is there little doubt that conditions in Iraq, even post-Surge, are still quite horrific (with hundreds of civilians still dying each month in political violence) and, thus, that they are justified in seeking shelter abroad?

Granted that Americans can and do have good faith disagreements over the form and nature of any continued U.S. involvement in Iraq, and whether our nation can afford certain of the proposed prolonged commitments, these visa grants are a relatively affordable, and morally sound, offer of assistance to just a handful of the citizens of Iraq that have suffered so much over the past 7+ years. 

It is the least we can do. 

(hat tip to Andrea Nill)

Lessons of Iraq - The Two Andrews Version UPDATE Posted by Michael Cohen

Over at TNR, the always upbeat Andrew Bacevich has an smart post arguing that the United States has learned nothing from the war in Iraq:

The Americans are bowing out, having achieved few of the ambitious goals articulated in the heady aftermath of Baghdad’s fall. The surge, now remembered as an epic feat of arms, functions chiefly as a smokescreen, obscuring a vast panorama of recklessness, miscalculation, and waste that politicians, generals, and sundry warmongers are keen to forget. 

Back in Iraq, meanwhile, nothing has been resolved and nothing settled. Round one of the Iraq war produced a great upheaval that round two served only to exacerbate. As the convoys of U.S. armored vehicles trundle south toward Kuwait and then home, they leave the stage set for round three. 

. . . As U.S. forces have withdrawn, they have done so in an orderly fashion. In their own eyes, they remain unbeaten and unbeatable. As the troops pull out, the American people are already moving on: Even now, Afghans have displaced Iraqis as the beneficiaries of Washington’s care and ministrations. Oddly, even disturbingly, most of us—our memories short, our innocence intact—seem content with the outcome. The United States leaves Iraq having learned nothing.

He's right. But as I noted the other day, the dangerous lesson of Iraq is that we've convinced ourselves that the US can stabilize war-torn environments, we get counter-insurgency and our tactical decision-making can be determinative in ending insurgencies. All of this is poppycock of course, as we are seeing in Afghanistan. And right on cue, Andrew Exum makes the following observation:

I think we have learned a lot, tactically, operationally, and strategically, and I think the American people will in the future be more wary of the kind of military adventurism that led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Bacevich should take heart in this. 

And Andrew wonders why Bacevich is cranky.

Welcome Eric Martin to Democracy Arsenal Posted by The Editors

Dear Readers--

Please welcome our newest blogger, Eric Martin. Eric is the Senior Editor of The Progressive Realist, a metablog about American foreign policy. In addition, Eric is a regular blogger at www.americanfootprints.com, www.obsidianwings.org -- and now, DemocracyArsenal.org. Eric holds a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from New York University and a JD from Fordham University School of Law. You can follow him on Twitter at https://twitter.com/EricMartin24. (He's a Twitter newbie, so please excuse the lack of a picture, followers or Tweets. All of those things are surely forthcoming.)

Eric's first post will appear shortly. As always, thanks for reading.

- The Editors

Can We Get Some Straight Talk on Afghanistan? Posted by Michael Cohen

So I thought President Obama did a nice job in his Iraq speech last night - it sort of threaded the needle of praising the soldiers, while refusing to say that the war was somehow worth it. I was pleasantly surprised that Obama didn't concede to that usual DC refrain of trying to find something positive in even the worst of American behavior. 

But let's talk about Afghanistan, because as is too often the case his words fell woefully short:

Now, as we approach our 10th year of combat in Afghanistan, there are those who are understandably asking tough questions about our mission there. But we must never lose sight of what's at stake. As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists. 

Why does Barack Obama keep saying this? First of all, some remnants of al Qaeda are in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan - but that region is in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has not had a serious presence in Afghanistan for 8 years; Barack Obama knows this and the fact that he keeps fudging the point - well it's not good. And while al Qaeda may continue to plot against us does anyone really believe that this is a serious threat to US security - or certainly a threat worthy of a 100,000 man troop commitment? Even our own intelligence agencies see a greater AQ threat to the US emanating from Yemen then they do Pakistan. 

The President is really close to the line of just misleading the American people about the nature of the threat from al Qaeda and the nature of the current US war, which is almost exclusively predicated on fighting the Taliban.

But then there was this:

As was the case in Iraq, we cannot do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves. That's why we are training Afghan Security Forces and supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan's problems. And, next July, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: this transition will begin - because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people's.

You know what would be awesome - if we could get the President and this Petraeus guy in the same room to hash this thing out, because I detect some daylight between these words . . . and these: 

Petraeus said the commitment in Afghanistan will be enduring, and would not say how many U.S. troops will begin to leave under Obama's July 2011 transition timeline.

"It would premature to have any kind of assessment at this juncture as to about what we may or may not be able to transition," he said. But, he added, any troop movement will be based on the conditions on the ground.

Now I realize I am closely parsing here, but you have Petraeus raising suggestions that the transition to responsibility and even the withdrawal of US troops could be delayed. (That certainly is also the upshot from his Meet the Press appearance last month). Now I realize that it's only natural for the General to keep his options open, but the President is rather declarative here - the transition will begin next July. But it really does seem as though it is the Petraeus language - and not the President's -- that is operative. 

So why does Obama keep saying that the transition will begin next June? And look maybe it will; and maybe he says what he means. I really don't know; but you'd have a hard time finding anyone in Washington who believes that transition will be anything but token.

At some point, the President is going to have to level with the American people about the nature of the US commitment to Afghanistan; he's going to have to stop using misleading rhetoric to make the war in Afghanistan seem like a greater threat to US national security then it actually is; he's going to have to stop suggesting that the war in Afghanistan is about fighting al Qaeda when it's really about fighting the Taliban; his Administration needs to stop sending mixed signals on whether June 2011 means anything as far as a withdrawal of US troops; he's going to have to lay out what the US end game in Afghanistan looks like . . . because to date he hasn't done it.

You know, I'm a huge fan of the President. I think his record of domestic accomplishment is perhaps the most impressive since LBJ; and I generally like and trust the guy. But his record on Afghanistan is, for a lack of better word, abysmal and it's hardly befitting the awesome office that he holds. 

There are legitimate reasons to maintain a troop presence in Afghanistan; there are near-term goals there that are worth fighting for - but increasingly when I listen to the President describe them I feel like I'm listening to a used car salesman trying to sell me a lemon.