Linking Environment and National Security: Law of the Sea Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Last week I had breakfast with a friend who works in the Senate as a national security staffer. In years past, we worked together in Congress and frequently schemed to get issues like climate change onto the national security agendas of staff and Members. Given Al Gore's Nobel Prize, the fact that the Pentagon had released a study linking the two issues, plus the discrediting of much of Bush foreign policy, I asked him about the recent turnaround in perceptions about the seriousness of climate change: was it having an impact on framing the urgency of the issue on Capitol Hill?

He said climate change has bumped up the environment a little bit...but that linking the two essentially remains a tough sell. It helps that the House now has a climate change panel, and that our overdue obsession with energy issues brings the environment in on the margin....but that it was hard to make headway given oversight logjams on issues like military privatization (which was basically ignored for a decade) plus the constant soundtrack on Iraq. Plus the learning curve is made even more steep by the lack of a clear vocabulary, including local anecdotes, linking the environment with national security.

Although the traction is improving, progressives need a long term plan that includes both policy options and a communications strategy that will link environment with security. Like many challenges that involve the common good and extended public deliberation, nothing can be taken for granted since the Right has filled the quiet spaces with an intentional misinformation campaign. We have a chance this week to reverse this situation:

The Law of the Sea Treaty will be considered in the Senate on Wednesday. If you care about broadening the definition of security to include global issues like climate, health, migration or water just to name a few-- then pay attention...

Internet helps Congress: Bushco hates Congress Posted by Lorelei Kelly

I just listened to CSPAN radio's coverage of the Senate Judiciary Hearing today.White House political director Sara Taylor testified. Poor thing, so young to have lost so much of her memory. Harriet Miers didn't show up (taking a page from the Rumsfeld playbook?) and only one Republican Senator was in attendance. A citation for contempt of Congress is in the works...but it has been pretty obvious for the past seven years that today's Executive Branch disdains the fundamental tenets of democracy. We just hear about it now because the Dems have a few microphones turned on.

When I worked on the Hill in the 1990s, the internet was just getting traction...(like many federal agencies, most people had a hotmail or yahoo accounts to circumvent the clunky federal system) Many offices stayed on Word Perfect until this century! It has always been a challenge to manage information on Capitol Hill...After the 9/11 attacks, that became even more dysfunctional, as mail had to be irradiated, messengers were not allowed into the building and the place was not set up for the onslaught of emails that began pouring in. It was like a big vortex of data with no search engines.

Today, electronic communication presents endless opportunity to help Congress in nearly every way, from basic communication to oversight responsibilities.

Check out this new blog that follows climate change on the Hill.
Here's one that uses a wiki technology to compile information and events of the day.

I also ran across a post today at OpenLeft speculating about why only one of nine women congressional candidates challengers won last fall, while nearly all the male challengers did (twenty out of twenty one). I suspect that perceptions on national security has something to do with this.

Is the supplemental debate for naught? Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Before tempers flare about the Democrats backing down from deadlines in the war supplemental (a story with dubious origins btw) the following makes one pause:

OMB Watch has just put out a report on a little-known law -the Feed and Forage Act- that seems to give the President broad powers to fund war efforts- even without an enacted appropriations bill.

So even if the negotiations over the war funding supplemental drag on, the President could meet the needs of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Read it here.

Congress: the Progressive List Posted by Lorelei Kelly

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

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

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

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

FIRST CATEGORY: PROGRESSIVES......

Speaker Pelosi: Heal the Institution Posted by Lorelei Kelly

For the last several years, I have been riding my bike home, out of the Rayburn Building, down the Mall and then along the river to Adams Morgan, the neighborhood in DC where I live. Every evening, I'd stop my bike, turn around at the reflecting pool and say to the lit and glowing Capitol building, "Just hold on, it's going to be okay"

My love affair with the US Congress has existed since I was a teenage intern. And halleluja, we now have the chance to make things right again.

I'm sure I speak for many when I say that those of us who have been working on the inside of Congress over the past decade feel a special gratitude for what happened on Tuesday. Our poor beleaguered legislature  has been so tormented, its processes so polluted, that to simply re-establish basic rules of oversight and participation will seem revolutionary.

I watched the returns come in on Tuesday with a statistics scholar who specializes in the US Government. Like two civics-weenies I lamented about the erosion of the legislative branch while he chimed in about the agencies. All of which--after 6 years of the Bush
Administration-- look like the institutional equivalent of swiss cheese.  From intimidated bureaucrats to over-privatized responsibilities, our government is hurting badly. Many election autopsies had two things in common: 1. that this victory is owed to the
conservative swerve by Democrats and 2. that there is no mandate but lots of opportunity.  I think the first is bunk, this was a progressive victory. But I do agree with number two: The situation is rich with opportunity. With or without the White House, Congress can now establish a governing philosophy that carries on the American tradition of progressive leadership.

Opportunities for Congress:

Get busy repairing the Spirit of the Law while working to restore the letter of the Law: The Pelosi principles of integrity, civility and accountability are good starting points. This imperative is the difference between the moral obligations and the legal obligations of elected leadership. As we've learned, Congress doesn't HAVE to be truly representative. (locking your colleagues out of rooms, denying recognition, not allowing dialogue on the House floor).  The first rule of conflict resolution is to be as generous and inclusive

Five Things Congress Could Do in Six Months Posted by Heather Hurlburt

further to what Shadi and Suzanne have written on what next (ok, maybe we couldn't pass an energy transformation bill in six months, but it'd sure be worth trying):

1.  Homeland Security.  9-11 Commission recommendations, especially (finally) creating stronger standards for chemical plants and other hazardous-material facilities.  If they can't be passed, it'd be clear why.  And oversight, oversight, oversight.

2.  Reinvigorate a real non-proliferation agenda.  The US has been absent or outright hostile to efforts to re-invigorate the global non-proliferation regime for the 21st century.  It's time to turn that around, because the global consensus has never been under more threat, or more needed.  Various experts have put forward ideas on how to create verification and enforcement mechanisms that are relevant to the 21st century. Congress should, as Senator Clinton proposed last week, hold hearings that spotlight the problem and air possible responses.

3.  Energy Transformation.  I don't under-estimate the difficulty of this, but quite a few Senators, D and R (Lugar, Obama, Lieberman, Kerry, Clinton and more), have put forward thoughtful proposals about how to move forward toward a cleaner energy future and away from our dependence on oil and the resulting deformation of our foreign policy.  Several of them are thinking of running for President, so it ought to be in their interest to move something through Congress.

4.  Global Warming.  While they're at it on #3, direct the Administration to re-engage in international climate talks and come up with a next phase proposal.  Have some hearings to start acquainting the public with what that might entail.

5.  Europe.  I'd start thinking now about making sure we send really strong, well-briefed delegations to the various winter security conferences in Western Europe, with the message that partnership is back in business, that we want to listen to our allies but we also have some clear priorities and ideas about how we can move forward on neglected common interests.

Three other, less well-formed ideas:  high-profile inquiry into what more we could be doing to support democracy in Latin America; go back to the many good initiatives on Iraq that got partway through Congress earlier this year, maybe starting with mandating more specific progress reports and benchmarks from the Administration; invite new UNSG Ban Ki Moon down to Congress and have three well-publicized reform priorities to give him (betcha Suzanne could come up with those in a heartbeat).

Oh, and overturn the "global gag rule" that has made our international family planning assistance a nightmare for small rural clinics that are all-in-one shops offering women's health, family planning and abortion services.

"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...

Congress and Iraq: The Lying and the Dying Posted by Lorelei Kelly

"Predatorgate" and the self-immolation of Congress has swept the headlines for the fourth straight day. In that same amount of time, we've lost a 22 Americans in Iraq and civilian carnage is at an all-time high. Meanwhile, tomorrow is the fifth anniversary  of the war in Afghanistan and Congress has slashed funding  for veterans with brain injuries.

Having worked in Congress for the past 8 years,I can say I'm not completely surprised at the majority's undoing. This is a situation where old tropes explain a lot, like absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I have still never found a better report on the degeneration of our legislature than this Boston Globe series  from 2004. It sets the stage for what is happening today.

Until and unless there is a balance of power in Washington, this kind of covering-up, lying and trying to circumvent both laws and ethical conduct will persist.  Speaker Hastert should resign out of embarrassment for what he has presided over. Add to that the extraordinary corruption of the Iraq contracting process, the Katrina contracting process, the selling off of "earmarks", the arrest and jailing of a series of top Congressional staffers turned "lobbyists," the creation of a K street goon squad, shaking down business interests for campaign contributions, the systemic buying off of journalists, the degradation of the committee and budgeting process, the zero oversight, the acceptance of torture, warrentless spying on American citizens. This is a shameful period in our history.   

What's happening today isn't an accident, but an outcome. It points out why liberals need to include a new vision of government--one that unifies us and protects the public--in their message for a changed direction.  No more running on that aw-shucks libertarian platform of the government as the bad guy.

Today's leadership has done far more damage than is evident on the evening news.

Bolton vote pulled Posted by Lorelei Kelly

This from Reuters, posted at 10:20 am today:

(Latest is that Lincoln Chafee is leaning toward a "no" vote)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
on Thursday scrubbed a planned vote on President George W. Bush's bid to keep
John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, did not explain why
the vote on whether to send Bolton's nomination to the full Senate was removed
from the day's agenda and did not say if or when it would be taken up again.

National SecurityTradeoffs--Its not Just the Left Anymore Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Last month, Congress weenies got excited when the Senate unanimously voted to make supplemental spending for our ongoing wars part of the regular budget --and several House Armed Services Members agreed that this was an important discussion. This news is good and bad. Good because it will improve the oversight process (which has nearly broken down completely in the realm of national security)  Bad because, barring new revenue sources (like taxes)  we will completely bust out of our budget caps with war spending stuffed in there (it could be hundreds of billions of dollars more in coming years).  Supplemental spending is deemed emergency, so doesn't have to be offset by reductions in other federal spending.  If this comes to pass and the current gang stays in power--a distinct possibility given gerrymandered districts, sketchy voting machines and astonishingly--citizens who would continue to vote for them--we can kiss every other piece of public service and infrastructure that we take for granted goodbye. Its the government hater/public sector privateer dream. (short aside, I just received an invite  from Heritage Foundation  about "moral reconstruction" post Katrina--the blurb posits that derelict human spirit was responsible for the hurricane's aftermath. Um. No. How about a stripped and demoralized federal government staffed by fraternity cronies?)

But a new and unusual voice has thrown down the glove on national security priorities.  Rep. John Murtha, a "pro-defense" Democrat and hawk has put forward a formidable statement of priorities.  This might be the legitimizing action that will create the sort of guns vs. guns debate we've been waiting for. His July 11th letter to Capitol Hill Colleages begins:

We are spending $8 billion a month in Iraq.  That equates to 2 billion dollars a week, or 267 million dollars a day, or 11 million dollars AN HOUR.

Attached are some comparisons between what we are spending in Iraq as we "stay the course" indefinitely and what those funds could be used for instead.

Here are some of the first tradeoff items:

$33.1 billion/yr    Department of Homeland Security FY 07 budget
(4 months in Iraq)       

$10 billion (1-time)    Equipping commercial airliners with defenses against shoulder fired
(5 weeks in Iraq)        missiles    

$8.6 billion/7 years    Shortage of international aid needed to rebuild Afghanistan
(one month in Iraq)       

Read the rest of the document and dollar comparisons here .  Just as Murtha's statements on Iraq last winter changed the flavor of the debate on ending the war, this sort of document might really help jump start the discussion we need to look at real threats and resources for the post 9/11 world we're in.

Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld Debate: Who is a true Conservative? Posted by Lorelei Kelly

During the Cold War,  foreign policy stopped at the water's edge.  For the most part, elected leaders, in a common cause against an ideological foe, abandoned partisanship to join a united American democratic ideal.  Well, those days are really over.  Late last week the House GOP leadership demonstrated that the water could be a reeking sewer and they'll still take off their shoes and jump right on in.

After last Thursday's  Supreme Court ruling (Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld) that rejected the Bush administration's plan to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, Majority Leader Boehner attacked Democrats who-- upon hearing the ruling-- praised the Rule of Law and acknowledged the importance of cautiously moving forward in the realm of post 9/11 international justice.  Boehner and the GOP echo chamber pounced-- accusing the Democrats of wanting "special rights for terrorists" while acknowledging  how this talking point would rally the conservative base for November 06.  Time to take the gloves off. There is a difference between politics and policy.  Congressional conservatives--in a fit of self-hate for their own institution-- are attacking our constitution.  Their disgraceful talking points are a one-two punch-- for in "rallying" their base, they undermine another great American institution as well--the US military.

This breed of politically partisan rhetoric is not "just politics" . There are no exuses for political talking points that rationalize threats to the  foundation of American democracy. True conservatives everywhere should read this interview  by Reagan appointee Bruce Fein as a call to take their party back.

Today's conservatives in power (as opposed to real conservatives)  love to brag about how they value the military, but the truth is they have few military values.

National Security:pre-election Amnesia Posted by Lorelei Kelly

What a sweet long awaited rejoinder. The Dixie Chicks Album Taking the Long Way debuts at number one on Billboard this week. Hopefully some of those ranters at Townhall will unavoidably have to listen to tunes like "Not Ready to Make Nice" during drivetime radio this week. The song is a reflection on the band's treatment by the scary right in the run up to the Iraq war, when the singers had the audacity to have a critical opinion in public.

Of course, the idea of a critical opinion seems lost on the majority in Congress (that would be its former role: oversight). It appears to be not a worry at all, in fact.  This weekend on Fox News, Senate Majority Leader Frist had an opportunity to discuss all matter of important national security issues, like why the Department of Homeland Security is cutting funding for the two most at-risk cities in the USA: Washington, DC and New York, and kicks New Orleans in the shins as well. Nope, he chose instead to talk about those huge security risks gays and flag burning.  Obviously, Rove has settled into his comfy post-White House job of re-hashing Republican talking points for the next 5 months.   

For a reality check must read: the email exchange between DoD Press Operative Larry DiRita and veteran war correspondent Joe Galloway, which took place earlier this month. Here's a sample of one Galloway response to DiRita:

the question is what sort of an army are your bosses going to leave behind as their legacy in 2009? one that is trained, ready and well equipped to fight the hundred-year war with islam that seems to have begun with a vengeance on your watch? or will they leave town and head into a golden retirement as that army collapses for lack of manpower, lack of money to repair and replace all the equipment chewed up by iraq and afghanistan, lack of money to apply to fixing those problems because billions were squandered on weapons systems that are a ridiculous legacy of a Cold War era long gone (viz. the f/22, the osprey, the navy's gold plated destroyers and aircraft carriers and, yes, nuclear submarines whose seeming future purpose is to replace rubber zodiac boats as the favorite landing craft of Spec Ops teams, at a cost of billions) meanwhile the pentagon, at the direction of your boss, marches rapidly ahead with deployment of an anti-missile system whose rockets have yet to actually get out of the launch tubes. at a cost of yet more multiple billions.

Amen, Joe.  And check out the 2006 Unified Security Budget. (full disclosure, I was on the task force) It suggests trade-off behefits within national security spending (including critical infrastructure, public health and Army stability ops) by reducing the funding for these Cold War relics.  Think Fox news might want a copy?  nah.....

Money where it Matters: Congress Continues to Fail Posted by Lorelei Kelly

I've been travelling back and forth from New York this week--most recently up to Cornell University, where the Peace Studies program is collaborating with West Point, figuring out ways to draw more faculty activity on new security issues.

The theme that came up repeatedly (typical of nearly all discussions of Iraq but post 9/11 policy more generally) is over-militarization of our international policy across the board...an imbalance that will be made even worse this year with a defense budget approaching a trillion dollars (when the war spending is included).

No doubt frustrated by Congress' unwillingness to remedy the shortage on the civilian side, Senator Warner (R, VA) chair of the Armed Services Commmittee, sent the following letter mid-March to all Cabinet Secretaries aside from DoD plus a handful of other offices. (excerpted)

Missing the Boat on Port Security Posted by Lorelei Kelly

For the first time, it seems, the adroit operatives of the Bush Administration have landed in the middle of the intersection of politics and policy--and now know what it feels like to be T-boned by a truck.  Make that a sea-faring vessel.  The sale of six US ports to an Arab company has both  Republicans and Democrats doing cartwheels while hyperventilating while watching their 06 poll numbers.

This is not a wise nor a measured response.  In contrast, it is lazy and opportunistic and does nothing to address the overriding challenge of achieving port security.  Instead of educating the public about needed policy reforms, such posturing scares Americans and brings out the worse kind of isolationism. There's a pattern here. Remember last year, when Congress blocked the sale of American company  UNOCAL to a Chinese buyer but said nothing about our wacky budget and the fact that China owns billions and billions of US debt?  Well, the ports sale goes into the same easy political in-box: If Congress screams enough about selling American property to Arabs, maybe nobody will notice the fact that five years after 9/11 we still don't have a well-funded and comprehensive port security plan.  At least the President has something in mind, the National Strategy for Maritime Security. Congress, meanwhile, is so stingy with the Coast Guard that the agency can't live up to its own congressional mandated port security duties.

Getting the Hill Abroad Posted by Derek Chollet

A few months ago, when the DeLay-Abramoff scandal first broke, I wrote here with concern about the ramifications that these criminal acts might have on something that is entirely legitimate, and in my view, absolutely necessary – travel overseas by members of Congress or their staffs that is sponsored, organized and paid for by outside groups.

Now before the howls start (again), I don’t mean the Scottish golfing junkets or warm water resort research during the winter months.  I’m talking about the trips to policy conferences, meetings with leaders and analysts, and study tours that hundreds of think tanks and advocacy groups arrange and sponsor for members of Congress and Hill staffers. 

Many – most – of these are perfectly legitimate.  The reason so many turn to these trips is because the alternative – taxpayer-funded official travel – has traditionally been even more politically unpalatable.  In fact, outside of those who work on any of the relevant foreign affairs and security committees, travel paid for officially is almost unthinkable. 

We should all want Congress and their staffs to be more informed about the world and the challenges we face.  At a moment when so many justifiably lament the breakdown of legislative oversight in national security, it would be a mistake to do anything but promote more Congressional travel.  Yet what’s happening now is completely predictable: both Democrats and Republicans are racing to propose legislation that would prohibit all outside-funded travel.

If this were to happen without any remedy—like some kind of new official fund to support travel -- I think this would damage both Congress and American foreign policy generally.

An even more worthwhile idea was floated last weekend by former Colorado Congressman David Skaggs.  He suggests creating a private non-profit group, led by a board of former Secretaries of State and Defense, military and Congressional leaders, that would draft guidelines (with public input through hearings) to define whether a trip served a legitimate purpose or was properly financed.  This organization then would offer to review proposed travel by members or their staffs to judge whether they complied with these standards.  This process would be transparent and voluntary, but if implemented, Skaggs correctly points out that it would soon be a political necessity as officials would be worried about traveling without the good housekeeping stamp of approval.   

Sounds like a very good idea, and perhaps even a project that an existing bipartisan group dedicated to promoting national security, like Partnership for a Secure America, might consider taking on.

Caribou best Conservatives! Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Heather's polling comments demonstrate that the public is figuring out that they've been snookered. Although Bush's personal approval gained some ground back, Americans remain dubious about the war.  I wager that his higher personal raings will prove temporary and soon rejoin the Iraq numbers.

A Lakoff  inspired reflection: The interesting part about GW's poll numbers is how well the conservatives  control their narrative.  The victory language combined with Bush's personal appeal is a tonic for his political base.  Yet conservatives-like any good storytellers--depend on messenger credibility for staying power.  President Bush explicitly depends on his believability as a messenger who reflects strong and decisive leadership.  The public has let him slide on other flaws because this one perception is decisive.  This perception was damaged by Katrina and is being inexorably eroded by Iraq.  Even several speeches in a week won't reverse the nagging sense among Americans that we've been had.

The Republican party is developing interesting fissures...Now, it appears that not even
accusations of being "soft" on defense can keep the party in line.  Here is an Intriguing list of Republicans who voted against the Defense Appropriations conference agreement, something not done lightly.  This year 16 Republicans voted against it, undoubtedly related to the addition of the provision to drill in the Arctic Refuge.  The final vote was 308 yeas, 106 nays and 2
voting present.  Last year the conference report passed 410 to 12.

Republicans voting no in 2005:

Bass
Castle
Ehlers
Fitzpatrick
Hoekstra
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Kelly
Kirk
Leach
LoBiondo
Paul (he always votes against it, as he does against most spending bills)
Petri
Ramstad
Shays
Smith (NJ)

This is a sure sign of nervousness.

Seismic Shift in Congress on Iraq Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Murtha is the grandfather of security issues for the Democrats. He is a former Marine, a Vietnam Vet and generally conservative on defense issues.

"I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy.  All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free.  Free from United States occupation."

November 17, 2005

The Honorable John P. Murtha: War in Iraq

(Washington D.C.)- The war in Iraq is not going as advertised.  It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.  The American public is way ahead of us.   The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction.  Our military is suffering.  The future of our country is at risk.  We can not continue on the present course.   It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. 

General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, “the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.”  General Abizaid said on the same date, “Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.” 
For 2 ½ years I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq.  I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns.  The main reason for going to war has been discredited.  A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait – the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction – but the US forces said they were prepared.  They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear. 

A Budget for Halloween Posted by Lorelei Kelly

With indictments imminent, DC is very jumpy these days--giving everything the John Stewart-esque-Halloween glow of wacky, ironic foolishness.  In this spirit, I will now proceed to link the DDX destroyer and genocide in the Sudan.

But first a little background.   I grew up in the Berkeley Hills--the original nuclear free zone--where we painted peace doves on the walls in elementary school and figured out ways to hide Salvadoran refugees during the pot lucks at church.  When I was 12, my single parented family moved to Northern New Mexico, where big letters on the way into my new hometown read "Roll Your Own Ammo" and little signs linking the United Nations with satan popped up like baby tumbleweeds on the median. Ah, the 1970's. We went from nuclear family to nuclear fallout in 14 months. 

None of this stuff mattered at age 12 because I soon got a pony.  I do however, think it gave me an ability to rationalize contradictions.  But this skill,  for the life of me,  fails to help me understand the priorities of our elected leaders these days.

I've been wandering around town all week thinking about a discussion on the Sudan that I participated in on Monday.  Discussion leaders included both American humanitarians as well as Sudanese citizens.  Mostly, we covered the African Union  mission presently ongoing in the Sudan (called AMIS). It is a ceasefire monitoring mission now 1.5 years old.  Here is a new ICG report on it. The speakers had  just returned from the Sudan and reported that this mission is under serious stress.   The AMIS soldiers are being shot at  and kidnapped and even killed. The government is not providing security.  The government btw, has AK 47s, artillery and  attack helicopters. AMIS has a few RPGs and rifles.  The monitoring soldiers from 5 different African nations patrol in toyota pickup trucks.  Canada has  recently given 105 armored vehicles--which is generous--but split between  64 teams it is spread thin. This mission  is being tested by roaming violent gangs and the Sudanese government, the speakers believed.  They don't have enough wherewithal nor the mandate to enforce stability.   

The AMIS mission is  like a  trip-wire. It is symbolic. The numbers of soldiers is so small that its most important effect is the show of resolve.   It is a vital test-drive of international willingness to stand for something.  We are not only letting them down, we're missing out on an opportunity to blaze the trail on behalf of early warning and response--key policies for combatting terrorism.

I was thinking about this talk today, as I walked through the Capitol South metro station on my way up to the Hill.  Metro stations are full of large advertisements. This fall,  the defense bills have been wending their way through committees.  Hence fighter planes, guns,submarines and lots of gadet laden soldiers float along the walls of most DC metro stations like an X-box dream menu.  Capitol South had a nautical theme. ....

Bludgeoning Democracy Posted by Lorelei Kelly

We won the vote before we lost it.

If anybody thought that Delay's demise might reveal a more deliberative, responsible Congress then guess again.  On Friday afternoon, the hooting on Capitol Hill could be heard from the House Floor and throughout the halls of the Rayburn House Office Building as the majority leadership once again torpedoed democratic deliberation.

The so called   "Barton Bill"  (HR 3893) was brought to vote ostensibly to help reconstruction in the wake of hurricane Katrina.  But this thoughtless boondoggle instead actually damages prospects for security and public health.  It is full of failed policies that didn't make it into the energy bill passed earlier this year.

Policy zombies, excavated from the oil and gas industry talking points graveyard-now live to haunt us once again.  Let's hope the populist dictators of Central Asia and Latin America aren't CSPAN geeks. It would be awful if they decided to emulate us these days.  This vote was held open by the frazzled looking Rep. Michael Simpson despite the fact that all members present had voted, and the bill had lost.  210 yeas, 212 nays.  Yet no gavel fell.  The only possible reason to keep a vote open like this--when every vote has been cast-- is for the majority to dragoon Members, twist their thumbs, and make them return and change their vote to the leadership's liking.  I have no idea what actually happened.  But somehow, with the anti-democratic over-time, the bill squeaked by.

The good part here was that the minority fought back, vocally, and with parliamentary inquiries.  Members of Congress, Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank, John Dingell and Nancy Pelosi, among others, didn't let this abusive behavior go unremarked.   The minority is feeling its oats.  Hopefully it is the start of a trend.

Avian Flu: Steep Learning Curve for Congress Posted by Lorelei Kelly

On Monday, I was visiting a friend  in the House of Representatives--where approximately half of the staff are walking on sunshine and the other half have the sickly look of a pithed biology frog who knows what's coming (those would be the Republicans)  As I sat in the front office, I chatted with the receptionist intern. Hill interns have a much more mundane existence than their counterparts in other branches of government.  They spend a lot of time receiving and opening mail.  Although it's nothing compared to an impeachment trial, this job has become an above average thrill since the anthrax attacks during 2001-2002.  All Capitol Hill mail is now irradiated--the crispy yellow pages and nuked envelope paste adds to the excitement of what lies beneath the letter knife.

Anyway,  while sitting there, I noticed the intern open a pack of wall posters from the Center for Technology and National Security Policy at National Defense University.  They were handsome, instructive public health posters about how to  recognize bird flu and what to do about it.  My mom is a public health nurse, so I looked at them covetously and then watched with dismay as-- PLOP-- they went into the garbage can.   He then moved on to open a stack of boxes, each of which contained several  300 page hardbound volumes entitled "Ronald Reagan: Late a President of the United States"  The books were the  compiled memorial tributes delivered in Congress last June upon the death of Reagan, published by the Government  Printing Office. I noticed there were far too many to be of use in one office.  Maybe China will accept some as barter on our debt.

But back to the avian flu.  Throwing the posters into the trash  pretty much symbolizes how Congress has responded to new security issues since the end of the Cold War.  Global threats in particular just don't fit into the antique structure of Congress, and because they don't fit into the jurisdictions of existing committees, they fall between the cracks. This is particularly true of  trans-national security issues.  Such toics--like avian flu-- cross more than one committee's interests.  If you were to narrow it down,  the committees that handle security are primarily foreign relations and defense.  In Hill speak, the defense issues are handled by the HASC and the SASC.  The foreign relations by the HIRC and SFRC.   These oversight plans and jurisdictions are instructive.  The foreign relations plans are pages and pages long.  The armed services jurisdictions and oversight plans are quite a bit shorter, especially in the Senate where it is one paragraph plus change.  These descriptions don't reflect the fact that the military is involved in just about every important foreign policy issue that exists today.  Lots and lots of issues don't get their full measure of attention because they don't "fit".

I attended the Princeton Project on National Security conference last week along with Suzanne. On Friday,  a happy yelp arose amidst the gathering as one participant announced that the Senate passed legislation on Thursday to add $4 billion to fight avian flu.  This money was tacked onto the defense appropriations bill for 2006.  Now, I think that's great, but why can't we fund a solid and generous public health system like most normal countries?  Countries where public health is a high priority are far better prepared and defended against global pandemics and biological terrorism. Why does avian flu only get the urgency it deserves on a defense bill during wartime?  Something is wrong with this picture.

On a progressive note, check out the House Armed Services site on Committee Defense Review  This panel of Members convenes on a parallel track to the official committee hearings in order to bring up all sorts of new threats and security challenges.  It is bipartisan and, as Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher says, a chance to  "look at what challenges we're confronting rather than weapons programs we want to advance."  Fine words and an auspicious start.

p.s. I rescued the posters from the trash and now they are featured in several Washington offices. I also have a book of Reagan speeches.

Give Them a Roof! Congress and Iraq Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Hallelujah!  Members of Congress--fed up with the calculated indifference of their institution--are initiating a second-track process to discuss how America might move in a different direction on Iraq.   

Led by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA) will convene an unofficial and hearing on Iraq policy. Both Democrats and Republicans have been invited and some 25 Members of Congress have indicated that they will attend. Witnesses will include:

Former Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.), a Vietnam veteran, retired Gen. Joseph Hoar, former commander of the U.S. Central Command, and Tom Hayden, a former California legislator, civil rights activist and specialist on the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Also expected to participate are Ken Katzman, a Middle East analyst at the Congressional Research Service, David Mack, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, and Anas Shallal, founder of Iraqi-Americans for Peaceful Alternatives. 

Let's hope that this activity will mark the day that Congress gets back to its constitutional job of oversight and asking tough questions.   Location on Capitol Hill TBA.  As of this writing, the Republican leadership will not give the organizers a room, so the hearing might take place on the front lawn of the Capitol.

An Exit Strategy is Not a Timeline Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Last week, California Democratic Representative Lynn Woolsey offered an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that asked President Bush to develop a plan as soon as practicable to withdraw American troops from Iraq. Though the amendment was defeated 128 - 300, it drew majority support from Democrats. Here is the text of the amendment.

SEC. 1223. WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM IRAQ.

It is the sense of Congress that the President should -

(1) develop a plan as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act to provide for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq; and

(2) transmit to the congressional defense committees a report that contains the plan described in paragraph (1).

While the amendment was only a sense of Congress asking for the President to provide a plan, it an excellent start. The Woolsey amendment drew majority support from Democrats, 122 - 79. In contrast, it was many years into the Vietnam quagmire before a majority of Democrats could be rallied to call for withdrawal.

Five Republicans bucked the President and joined the ranks of other critical Republican voices. The Kool Aid refuseniks who voted for the amendment included conservative Southerners Harold Coble (NC), Walter Jones (NC) and John Duncan (TN), plus moderate Jim Leach (IA) and libertarian Ron Paul (TX). Jones is the Member who, in 2003, renamed "French Fries" "Freedom Fries" in the House cafeteria. 

See the entire vote here.

The challenge now is to not let this vote get turned into a talking point by the Right--who will claim that the affirmative votes hurt our military because the intend to impose a "timeline" and therefore aid and abet the enemy.  This is a false claim.  The amendment does not require anything so specific, but does require some sort of acknowledged plan or conceptual exit strategy.  Even something as simple as a set of "freedom benchmarks" would be nice and whether or not a permanent American military presence is part of that scenario.

Life in the Kool Aid Jacuzzi Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Small steps forward for the UN: In the interests of documenting UN reform, how's this?:  Recently Kemal Dervis was named head of the United Nations Development Programme despite financial enticements offered to the organization by two other nations with candidates in the running, Japan and Norway. Meritocracy worked.

I agree with Derek about the need for Members of Congress and their staffs to travel abroad. The more international perspectives we can get on Capitol Hill, the better. As a Hill staffer, I experienced both the boondoggle and the worthy educational tour. Sometimes they were truly over-the-top. Awhile back, I was on a trip to view some very expensive military hardware with a group of (mostly Republican) staff. It was like being the Greenpeace observer on a tuna boat--with the crew eating roasted dolphin for dinner. Unbelievable. Over the course of a week, defense industry lobbyists in tow, I found out how easy it was to go from drinking the kool-aid to full-out swimming in the kool-aid jacuzzi. Eeeuw! I had to shower for a week when I returned.  But most of the international trips were to rainy Brussels in January to discuss NATO or the European constitution. Not too sexy, but very helpful.

Congress insanity:  The Hill --when not fleeing incoming cessnas-- is going through its yearly appropriations process--the time when the money is doled out.
Here's how distorted the oversight and budgeting procedure has become: The State Department requests funding through the Defense budget because it is so beleagured and unsupported that it can't get the funding in its own right.  Then the Defense Department transfers the money back to State.  Why? Because Congress only really wants to fund military spending.

Why is our policy making process so out of whack, despite the many warnings from all quarters, criticisms from greybeard Republicans and promises to improve heard across the government? I'm relying once again on the social sciences for an explanation.  Remember intro psychology? More to the point, remember the Stockholm Syndrome?  It is commonly known as identifying with the hostage taker--named after an incident in Sweden in 1973.

Well, both political parties are presently stuck in a sort of Stockholm Syndrome of defense policy, captured by President Bush, his right wing allies, and cowed by his main policy theme: inspirational fear.

Captives of Stockholm Syndrom begin to identify with their captors initially as a defensive mechanism, out of fear of retribution and based on the idea that the captor will not hurt those who cooperate (They won't run those awful ads in my district.) Small acts of kindness by the captor are magnified and are cause for groveling or rationalization (I feel queasy, but, well, he did go to the UN, so let's go ahead and approve of pre-emptive war in Iraq by 77-23 in the Senate and 296-133 in the House.) Capitives also vociferously defend the hostage taker (Zell Miller at the convention.) Rescue attempts are seen as a threat (Quit giving me all those namby pamby alternatives, traitor!)

Putting policy makers in analysis: Foreign Policy in Focus has just released its Unified Security Budget which makes the case that it is pro-military to be against militarization.

"During the last year, the ground under the security debate has begun to shift. A diverse and growing universe of voices, including former national security advisors, representatives of the business community, and the Bush administration itself, now recognizes that expanding the role of nonmilitary tools in our portfolio of security spending is necessary to keep Americans and the rest of the world safe. In the
federal budget, though, where the debate takes concrete form, this shift barely registers. Small increases planned by the administration for some nonmilitary security programs would still leave the overall proportion of resources severely unbalanced."

This document underscores the need for more soft power--economic aid, rule of law support, diplomacy--in other words, the power to attract others to our interests.  But it also moves beyond the traditional liberal "guns versus butter" framework and moves forward with the guns versus guns debate.

So now everyone is on the same page about the need for more soft power to balance out our military dominance--neo-cons and liberals. A true test of this belief will be if President Bush aligns his administration and the Republicans on the Hill with his rhetoric, and follows it up with demonstrated political will. Although many military professionals are talking about the need for change, few civilian elected leaders stand up for real difference. 

There is no obvious political constituency for soft security and team Bush squandered a great public education opportunity to talk to Americans about new threats and different priorities during campaign 2004. Instead, he skewered John Kerry repeatedly for saying that defeating terrorism will require a law enforcement and an economic strategy. His campaigned continued this absurd line of reasoning despite the fact that his own administration testified to the same end in Congress. 

For policy, then, The Stockholm Syndrome is self-defeating.  But not for elections. At least not yet.

Congress Abroad Posted by Derek Chollet

Having spent the last week on vacation in Ireland, it has taken me awhile to clear the cobwebs (ok, I really mean the Guinness) out of my head.  But a week out of Washington does wonders and, as always, provides a different perspective on the scandals that fuel so much of what happens here.

No, thank god, I did not hear or mention the name John Bolton once while abroad.  But one name that came up was Tom Delay – as I’ve written elsewhere, the Europeans are completely obsessed by all things Bush, and are intensely interested in all the maneuverings of those around him, especially those from Texas, and those who they see as pulling the strings: the likes of Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, and yes, Tom Delay.

Delay’s troubles have been the scandal of the season here in Washington, much to the delight of Congressional Democrats (especially the besieged House Democrats) and progressives everywhere.  The details of the scandal are dizzying – involving Indian casino gambling, Scotland golf getaways, Moscow meetings, and the activities of one of the most infamous Beltway Bandits, Jack Abramoff – and the heart of issue is one of Washington’s oldest and enduring problems: influence peddling.

But the reason I started pondering this is not because I’m thinking about what to do about the House ethics committee debacle or whether or not Delay should go down, but what the unintended effects of all this might be for a responsible Congressional role in foreign policy.

You see, Delay is in trouble (in this scandal at least) because of who funded some trips he and his staff took overseas.  Now these trips have all the trimmings of good old-fashioned boondoggles, but a worry I have is that the effects of this scandal will make legitimate Congressional travel abroad (and by that I mean traveling to meet with foreign leaders, see our troops, attend policy conferences to discuss issues, or see challenges first-hand) harder – and therefore more rare – because everyone will be worried about getting into trouble or getting caught up in some political payback for Delay’s fall.

Having worked on Capitol Hill and having done a bit of official travel both with a Senator and on my own as a staffer, I can tell you that the environment up there is, for the most part, already one of extreme caution when it comes traveling abroad.  For many, the trouble just isn’t worth it.  Some offices even have a blanket policy of not allowing any travel overseas that is paid for by someone else – a think tank, foundation, etc.  But the problem is that other official travel – that paid for by the American taxpayer –is just as unattractive to many members of Congress.  Given the potential for such trips becoming a political liability (especially when members are “in-cycle,” or up for reelection), they just choose to stay at home.

A decade ago, we went through a version of this – remember the Gingrichites coming into Congress bragging about how many of them did not have passports?  This helped create an atmosphere of isolationism in Congress that plagued the Clinton Administration.  There is already evidence that the Delay scandal has created a similar chilling effect on the Hill by making the issue of travel politically toxic again.

A Congress that stays at home is not good for the institution, and it’s not good for our foreign policy.  In fact, at a moment when the world is becoming more interconnected and our challenges abroad becoming more complex, creating a more isolated Congress is just perverse.

So what do we do?  I think that we must seek a bipartisan effort to create some sort of compact regarding legitimate congressional travel.  Part of the problem has been that the rules are riddled with loopholes (which those like Delay appear to have used), and what we need are clearer rules of road to define what is above the board and what is not.  We also need a strong endorsement from current and former Congressional leaders (from the likes of Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, John Danforth, Tom Daschle, Al Gore, etc) as well as former Presidents and Secretaries of State about the value of legitimate Congressional travel -- and clearly defining what that is -- and the responsibility members of Congress have to remain engaged and informed abroad.

According to today’s Washington Post, the House leadership is talking of doing some things along these lines – including by implementing the sensible policy of requiring prior ethics committee approval before a trip – but so far they are not including the Democrats in these plans.  This is a huge mistake.  For the good of Congress and the country, this is one issue where we have to demand that our leaders rise above partisanship and do something for the greater long-term good.  Ok, I know, maybe that’s the optimism of my vacation (or the Guinness) talking – but at least we can hope.