Iraq Endgame Posted by Derek Chollet

Last weekend’s protests in Washington (and yesterday’s massive sit-in in front of the White House) proved that the anti-war movement is alive and, as Lorelei describes it, rather festive and even witty. 

But here’s the thing: they are going to get what they asked for.  We’re getting out.

The pundits are starting to see this.  Thomas Friedman had it right when asked about this last weekend on Meet the Press (courtesy of TPM Cafe):

“I think we're in the end game now,” he said. “I don't believe we're going to be in Iraq a year from now in the numbers that we are now because one of two things is going to happen….Either this process that's unfolding there now of first a referendum on the constitution and then a parliamentary election is going to play out in some decent way. And if it does, I think you're going to see not only a new Iraqi government want us to reduce our numbers there but there's going to be a huge domestic push here to do that, or it's not going to play out. In which case, it's going to be obvious that this is a fiasco and we're going have to fight our way out of there. But I think we're in a six-month window here where it's going to become very clear and this is all going to pre-empt I think the next congressional election--that's my own feeling-- let alone the presidential one.”

Even more interesting – and significant -- than the shifting attitudes of the Beltway punditry is that this kind of talk is happening at the military’s highest levels.  In yesterday’s Washington Post, David Ignatius reported on what he heard at a Centcom commanders meeting in Doha.  His piece is worth reading in full, but the first two paragraphs pretty much tell the story:

“Posted on a bulletin board at Centcom headquarters here is a 1918 admonition from T.E. Lawrence explaining what he learned in training Arab soldiers: ‘It is better to let them do it themselves imperfectly than to do it yourself perfectly. It is their country, their way, and our time is short.’”

“That quote sums up an important shift in U.S. military strategy on Iraq that has been emerging over the past year. The commanders who are running the war don't talk about transforming Iraq into an American-style democracy or of imposing U.S. values. They understand that Iraqis dislike American occupation, and for that reason they want fewer American troops in Iraq, not more.”

I know what some will argue: how can we believe that we are getting out when Bush is clearly saying that we are not, as he did last week after a Pentagon briefing?  In many ways, that’s the point.  Bush is not going to give the anti-war movement a victory by standing up and saying: I’m wrong, I’m sorry, we’re failing, and now we are going to come home with our tails between our legs.  And I don’t think this is only because of his arrogance: President’s rarely do that (the last I can think of is Ronald Reagan’s pullout of Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing). 

What Bush will do is continue what he has been doing: push the imperfect political process along (in the face of criticism from think tankers and experts), slowly begin withdrawing, and talk up the glass-half-full argument.  He can do this because he knows that even as things tailspin downward in Iraq, as long as our troops are leaving his political opposition won’t have the clout or support to offer the alternative -- to keep our troops there.

Referendum and Next Steps in Iraq Posted by Heather Hurlburt

A very fast airport post recommending this new short piece from the International Crisis Group, laying out what they think would be necessary to avert constitution-related disaster and a slide toward open civil conflict in Iraq:  US-guaranteed negotiations to bring the Sunnis in and make it more difficult for regions (especially the Shiite south) to secede, effectively, from the whole; an end to de-Baathification; and commitments that the parties would take steps after the referendum to remedy some of the elements or absences of the constitution that are most worrisome to Sunnis.

I'm not sure this is truly a realistic option anymore, particularly in the next three weeks, but it does bring the issues into sharp relief.  It also does nothing to answer the question of when the US just needs to get out of the middle of the mess.

Oops, boarding.  Go read it and think about how anyone can get at these key issues, before or after a referendum

Got Democracy? Posted by Lorelei Kelly

The march on Saturday was excellent and hugely gratifying. It looks like 100,000 people showed up (that's a conservative estimate by the DC police chief) I marched with friends from the Community of Celebration, a Christian community outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a mime, a poet and a novelist with her foot in a cast. The marchers were diverse, lots of military families, religious groups and American flags along with assorted anti-globalization activists. Mostly, though, I saw families, parents with their kids from toddlers to teenagers. Here is a list of my favorite signs:

End the Yee Haw Jihad!
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease!
Practice Abstinence, Pull Out Now!
Go Solar, Not Ballistic
Republicans for Impeachment!
Bush: Category 5 Disaster!
The Emporer is Buck Naked
Yee Haw is NOT a Foreign Policy
No Iraqis Left Me on the Roof to Die
Katarina Survivor, FEMA Victim

The anti-anti war protestors lined a good portion of Pennsylvania Avenue. The procession of marchers--as far as I could tell--just waved and gave them the peace sign. The pro-Bush crowd were so outnumbered, many of them looked shell-shocked.

The spirit of the march was so encouraging. What a great weekend. AND to top it all off, the Patriots won their game. Perfect.

The Freedom Center, 9/11 and Engaging the Public With Progressive Ideas Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Controversy is coming to a head here in New York City over whether the International Freedom Center (IFC), a planned new museum, will receive the prominent place it has been offered as one of four cultural institutions to occupy a rebuilt Ground Zero.   The debate has ramifications for how September 11 fits into our collective memory, and implications for how progressives put across their policy views.

The story as best as I can make out is this:  Shortly after 9/11, Tom Bernstein, the President of Chelsea Piers and long-time Board Member and Chair of Human Rights First (formerly the Lawyer's Committee for Human Rights) came up with the idea of building a center devoted to exploring and promoting the ideal of freedom on the site of Ground Zero and worked with 9/11 widow Paula Grant Berry to get the project in motion. 

Several nights ago Bernstein was interviewed on NY1 and explained that the hope of the Freedom Center was to ensure that the 9/11 institutions "stood the test of time" and were put into a broader context.  Plans were developed, and the Center - which attracted the backing of numerous well-heeled and progressive New Yorkers - was chosen from among several hundred cultural institutions vying for space on the site.   The IFC is not to be the primary 9/11 memorial museum on the site, but rather a companion to what will be an underground permanent exhibit devoted solely to the events of that day.

But as plans for the Center shaped up, friction mounted.   In June a 9/11 widow named Debra Burlingame published an op-ed blasting the plans.  She objected to the idea that the 9/11 memorial must somehow transcend the day itself, and voiced fear that the Center would offer a "didactic history lesson":

The public will have come to see 9/11 but will be given a high-tech, multimedia tutorial about man's inhumanity to man, from Native American genocide to the lynchings and cross-burnings of the Jim Crow South, from the Third Reich's Final Solution to the Soviet gulags and beyond. This is a history all should know and learn, but dispensing it over the ashes of Ground Zero is like creating a Museum of Tolerance over the sunken graves of the USS Arizona.

She accused Freedom Center organizers of lining up support with "this arrogant appeal: The memorial to the victims will be the heart of the site, the IFC will be the brain."

Groups of 9/11 family members and fire-fighters have lined up behind Burlingame's critique.   I don't know enough to judge whether this started as an orchestrated attack, but it quickly grew into one.  In this National Review article, the IFC organizers are ridiculed as politically correct, anti-American and sex-crazed. 

Last week the IFC planners issued a last-ditch effort to save the project:  a detailed report aimed to counter claims that the Center might display exhibits that were critical of the US, or that it would sideline the events of 9/11 itself. 

Now Senator Hillary Clinton has come out against the museum, saying that she's troubled by the concerns of the relatives and first-responders.  My sense is that the momentum has swayed in favor of the families and fire-fighters, and that the IFC project could soon collapse.

What happened here?  How, in New York City of all places, did a group of savvy, well-intentioned and thoughtful progressives wind up on the wrong side of a debate over the meaning and legacy of 9/11.  It may be unfair to examine the IFC project through the lens of progressive strategy;  its organizers were focused on building an institution rather than a movement.  But  their rocky journey to engage the public in their project may shed light on progressives' larger struggle to put their ideas across to people.

Spinning -- and Dropping -- the Plates Posted by Michael Signer

A follow-on to Suzanne's post... the NYT reports that even President Bush's friends in Saudi Arabia are experiencing the heaves when they watch Iraq convulsing:

"There is no dynamic now pulling the nation together," he said in a meeting with reporters at the Saudi Embassy here. "All the dynamics are pulling the country apart." He said he was so concerned that he was carrying this message "to everyone who will listen" in the Bush administration.

Taking off my partisan hat for a second, I'm truly concerned that the Administration's colossal f-ups in Katrina are going to distract them even more from managing the situation in Iraq well.  From Byron Dorgan's Democratic Policy Committee, a series of over 50 tough questions.  The following 10 are just for starters:

1)     Why did DHS Secretary Chertoff delay the full federal disaster response according to the National Response Plan?
2)     What caused a breakdown in coordination between federal, state, and local government entities? 
3)     Why did the Department of Homeland Security wait so long to request evacuation help from airlines?
4)     Why has Secretary Chertoff refused to take charge of disaster relief efforts? 
5)     Did the Department of Homeland Security have in place a response plan for dealing with Category 4 and 5 hurricanes?
6)     When did DHS receive warnings about FEMA's deteriorating capabilities, and how did it respond? 
7)     Why was DHS Secretary Chertoff unaware that the levees had been breached until a full day later? 
8)     Why did former FEMA Director Brown fail to send personnel to the scene until days after the hurricane hit?
9)     Why did former FEMA Director Brown divert much-needed disaster response personnel to conduct public relations?
10)   Why did FEMA issue a press release urging all fire and emergency response departments not to respond to counties and states affected by Hurricane Katrina unless requested and lawfully dispatched by state or local authorities?

It goes on and on... like, really on and on.

Even with Rove's nimble fingers, I just don't know how they keep all these plates spinning -- which means the country suffers, not just the Republican Party.

Iraq: Hemmorhage on the Homefront Posted by Suzanne Nossel

On the eve of a big anti-war rally slated for this weekend in Washington, CNN/Gallup have come out with a new poll suggesting that support for President Bush's Iraq policy is bleeding heavily.  (the full poll results can be found on www.gallup.com which allows a free 30-day trial).  These numbers are enough to wake up a sleeping President:

- 34% of people polled, a plurality, believe the war in Iraq is unwinnable

- An additional 20% believe the US can win, but won't

- Just 43% believe the US will definitely or probably win

- Just 33% of those polled have a clear idea of what the war is about; 67% do not

- 59% believe we made a mistake sending troops to Iraq

- 63% support a full or partial withdrawal

- Just 32% support the President's handling of the war

- 54% want to cut spending on Iraq in order to fund reconstruction post-Katrina

Most of these numbers look a lot worse for the Administration's policy than they did in early August when Heather wrote this recap.  I wrote a few weeks later about the devastating consequences that would result if Iraq were to become a failed state.  Bush has tried hard in recent months to shore up public support for the war effort, but the absence of any concrete strategy to win, deteriorating conditions on the ground and competing priorities like Katrina seem to doom those efforts to failure. 

While Kevin Drum sees Bush's glass half full and points out that 63% of those polled still see some chance of winning (and that those people will never support progressive calls for a pullout), my question is whether the creeping public pessimism might not be enough to snuff out the possibility of victory, even assuming the President were to suddenly pull a strategy out of a hat.

If Bush cannot turn these trends around, its hard to see how he turns around anything about the Iraq war effort.

Lorelei's critical questions on what all this means for the progressive stance require more thinking to answer.   But in the meantime we should not berate ourselves for not having a tidy answer to the disastrous conundrums this Administration's policies have wrought.

Lecturing China Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I am sure the Chinese will love reading the set of guidelines for their behavior set out by US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick in a speech given last night in New York.   According to the Washington Post's account, Zoellick said the Chinese had created a "cauldron of anxiety" about their intentions, and pressed Beijing to:

• Openly explain its defense spending, intentions, doctrine and military exercises to ease concerns about its rapid military buildup.
• Cease its efforts to direct rather than open markets and to "lock up" energy supplies.
• End its tolerance for intellectual property theft.
• Allow its currency to adjust more to market rates.
• Alter its foreign policy to focus less on national interest and more on sustaining peaceful prosperity, through non-proliferation efforts in North Korea and Iraq and by  pledging more money to Afghanistan and Iraq.   Zoellick also decried China's relationships with Sudan and Burma.

It's not that Zoellick's points aren't well taken; most are legitimate.   But I can only imagine if the tables were turned and the Chinese laid out a comprehensive plan for how the U.S. ought to change its behavior.   From what I know, the Chinese hate having positions dictated to them, particularly by the U.S.   

This may go down well with the tough-on-China crowd at home, but its hard to imagine it will have a positive influence on Beijing (so far the Chinese are doing little more than "taking note" of Zoellick's remarks.  But I doubt it will stop at that).

Rove at the Rally? Posted by Lorelei Kelly

"The liberals were pretty much right on Viet Nam. And what did that get them? They destroyed their reputation on national security for three decades"

This statement--coming from a thoughtful conservative journalist--was like a sucker punch at the luncheon I attended  today.  Especially since our nation is entering another public discussion about ending a painful bout of warfighting.  This weekend, a massive anti-war march is coming to Washington.  I'm not sure yet if I'm going, as I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.  I think protesting the Bush administration's strategic blunder is right-on.  I also think demanding a policy on how we're going to transition from a combat mission to a peace support role is vital. 

My interactions with peace organizations have been encouraging in the sense that they are willing to entertain complex policy ideas instead of "Out Now" slogans.  This rally has the potential to be a positive step forward in encouraging liberal Members of Congress to agitate for an exit strategy.  The rally could be an on-message, problem-solving American exercise in participatory democracy.  But the left has its own strategic blunders to worry about. Which leads me to the question:

Is the organization ANSWER working for Karl Rove?  Only he could hatch a plot to offer up a message  muddling "Palestine Tent" on the mall coupled with an anti-Israel march to the ellipse in front of the Capitol.  So now every elected leader who comes to show support is going to have to bear the wrath of the Israeli lobby and fend off right wingers who love to paint liberals as anti-semitic.

ANSWER is short for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism.  I wonder if they ever considered that one way to stop war is to help progressive leaders become seen as serious policy advocates on issues of national security and defense. (instead of spending time playing "cry uncle" with AIPAC)

We on the left have an interesting predicament.  Our most progressive elected leaders in Congress are more conservative than their activist base.  Our progressive leaders are being pragmatic--actually trying to make progress. ANSWER's  antics hurt us.  We don't have the Fox news buzzsaw to manage perception.  We also don't routinely smear conservatives with a broad brush when their wacky base gets out of hand (like fundamentalist Christians protesting "Queers" at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq)  It's not fair, but we don't. I have read that reports of leftists spitting on soldiers after Viet Nam were highly exaggerated (just like bra-burning, it  took on a mythic quality and added fodder to the conservative cause)   

So we have to be extra careful.

It is vitally important to the future of our nation to have articulate and passionate progressives leading on national security  policy.  Otherwise we will move ever closer to a militarized state.  Our president and his cohorts in Congress are about to  start fiddling with posse comitatus--the law that prevents the military being used for domestic law enforcement.  While the issue deserves discussion, in the hands of this crowd, it's scary.  Without progressive voices getting involved in the debate  about lessons learned in Iraq, our troops will not get  the training and preparation they need for future conflicts,  humanitarian included.  This would be tragic.  Lacking pro military progressive voices, the anti-recruitment drive taking place across the country will be portrayed as the same old anti-military antics on the left. Yes, high school dragoon tactics  are awful,  bounties to join-up are a perversion of service.  BUT, we  civilians are the ones who put the military in this  desperate situation. The buck stops with us, the American public.  They  are desperate because we've forced it on them.

Remember, the military will hardly ever say "no" to a request.  They will do or die until the very end.  This is why we love them but it is also exasperating  for those of us who would like to see military professionals offer more expert advice to policy makers about how to share responsibilities with civilian agencies.  But they are not  the ones who will ultimately establish  the limits placed on themselves.  This is a task for civilian elected leaders.   Progressives must be at the  table, and soon.

Like the military itself,  the average American citizen’s notion of national security is in transition.  The Cold War framework of the nineties has given way to a new era defined by less discernable threats: terrorism, climate change, global pandemics, and a growing energy crisis.   Because increasing numbers of Americans are aware of the need to do things differently, and are unhappy with the polarization of our political system, there presently exists a window of opportunity to reframe the public conversation away from antagonism and toward cooperative problem solving.  In my opinion, this is what a true progressive should focus on.

The military and peace activists have much more in common than meets the stereotype.  Both seek cooperation over conflict. Besides the pacifists, both want force to only be used as a last resort.  These are long term strategies that can be dashed by the tactics of groups like ANSWER.

Instead of decrying American imperialism, why not fight for our civilian agencies to have the ability to create international networks of democratic peers like the US military does?

I know it's not emotionally satisfying to carry a sign that says "more judges for Nigeria" OR "Do we really want to be so in hock to China?"  But translating the energy of the peace movement toward these ends is the  monumental progressive challenge.

Elsewhere in the Blogosphere... Posted by The Editors

Our old friend David Adesnik has a helpful roundup of what assorted blogs are saying about the recent North Korean developments--including conservative reaction.

For more insight into this non-binding understanding, click over to Opinio Juris for some legal interpretation.

North Korea: Unravelling already? Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I agree with Derek's analysis, only the plot's thickening by the moment. 

It's hard not to wonder whether yesterday's pathbreaking 6-party accord on North Korean nukes is going to last through the week.  A low-down chicken-egg dispute is now playing itself out on the front pages:  North Korea is arguing that it's obligation to dismantle its nuclear program kicks in only once the US provides it with a light-water reactor for civilian power. 

The Administration (backed by Russia and Japan) says just the reverse:  only once North Korea has verifiably abandoned its nuclear program and joined the NPT will discussions on the light-water reactor even begin.  The language of the agreement itself generally supports the American interpretation:  the obligations on DPRK are fairly firm, whereas the reference to the light-water reactor comes later, and refers only to the matter being discussed "at an appropriate time."

A good-faith misunderstanding?  Not likely.  The Administration has, at least publicly, always been vehement that any enticements offered to Pyongyang reward, rather than incentivize, disarmament.  Would they privately, in the course of talks, have proffered some token on the front-end go get the quid pro quo in motion?  Possibly, but a nuclear reactor is no token and given the history on this issue and the publicity surrounding it in recent days, its inconceivable that any of the six around the table could have misinterpreted the US position on this score.

Moreover, if the North Koreans had confidence in the agreement and viewed it as a breakthrough, even if they did have a difference of interpretation on this point, why go bellicose over it just hours after the deal was announced? 

The most optimistic explanation is that they're trying to build up leverage as discussions move to thorny details such as verification and the fate of North Korea's uranium program.   In other words, they'll ultimately concede on the sequencing, but demand something in return.   But their choice of words suggests this is something more than just a nasty negotiation tactic:

"The US should not even dream of the issue of the DPRK's dismantlement of its nuclear deterrent before providing light-water reactors," said a foreign ministry statement. "This is our just and consistent stand as solid as a deeply rooted rock."

Not clear how they back away from that.

The darker interpretation is that there wasn't much of a deal in the first place. 

[This would hardly be the first time the US finds itself with a loftily-worded document in hand, signed by a foreign nation that professes utter unawareness of - and or fundamental disagreement with - what they just signed.   During my time as a US delegate at the UN I saw similar play out several times, and with countries far less slippery than North Korea.]

Here, the Chinese and South Koreans may have been so eager for progress that they tried to paper over longstanding differences.  With the Chinese chomping at the bit to get the accord announced (see the NY Times' play-by-play that Derek cites), the Administration may have decided to take a chance, hoping that - in order to save their deal - Beijing would later pressure Kim Jong Il to defer his demand for the civilian reactor. 

If Chinese influence on Pyongyang fell short that would, at the very least, defuse the criticism that Washington's lack of focus has afforded the Chinese the upper hand in the Korean Penninsula.   This calculation is consistent with the Administration's relative reticence in trumpeting this deal:  particularly given the political shape their in, if they thought they had a clear victory the Administration would have shouted it from the hilltops.

I have to imagine that Chinese and South Korean leaders and diplomats are doing some serious scrambling behind the scenes right now.  If they can pull a lasting deal out of this morass, that will be a real achievement.