Peacegaming in California Posted by Lorelei Kelly

I'm sitting in a hotel business center in San Francisco paying 50 cents a minute--so this will be short.  Just to explain, my brand new shiny and much bragged upon powerbook with WIFI has become a horrid thing and refuses to connect in my hotel...so I've slogged up VanNess Ave and found a Holiday Inn.  Lo and behold, DC follows me everywhere. The Young Democrats of America are having their annual conference here. I'm very happy to report that they have foreign policy on the conference agenda--Middle East issues no less. 

I spent today at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey with the 10 month old Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction Studies.  This week, they are convening their summer game entitled "Humanitarian Operations During Conflict"  in support of the recently formed Coordinator for Stabilization and Reconstruction (CRS) at the State Department.   Particular emphasis in the game is placed on examining how the military, civilian government agencies, non governmental organizations and international organizations need to coordinate and cooperate when planning and executing peace support operations.  The overall objective is to provide the required space for humanitarian activities to be successful.  With an impressive roster of humanitarian organizations, military professionals, civilian government employees and a few academics sprinkled around--the teams will go through three "moves" during the course of the week: information sharing, task divisions and joint planning.  The scenario country  is fictional, but the map today sure looked a lot like Afghanistan. 

It was apparent during the discussion sessions that the military and civilians have a medium-steep learning curve--despite some tensions there was obvious good will and interest in figuring out how to "win the peace".  It was also obvious that military professionals are very interested in handing back at least some of the responsibilities that they've been given over the past 15 years.  Every once in awhile the issue of resouces would surface. Remember, the CRS office at the State Department got its small budget whacked to pieces during this years appropriations in the House of Representatives.  So, the pile-on will continue--to the military's dismay--unless this changes.

So where are we going to find this political constituency? Since I was cranky about the DLC last week, I'm going to pick on lefty activist types tonight.  Now, I'll get grief for this, I know, despite the fact that I've been a good lefty: chained myself to fences, dressed as an MX missile for the Earth Day parade, smuggled western peace propaganda into East Germany in 1989.  But where is the political constituency for this new center at the Naval Post Grad School?  The activist left base is presently busy planning an anti-imperialism "Out Now" march on Washington for September 24th.  I went to a meeting last month where I swear we could have shot an album cover for the Doors.  Great visual, good vibes, but not great strategy for policy influence.  Another peace group is planning a huge DC fandango to lobby Congress for a Department of Peace.  I know the intentions are good--but for Heaven's sake, why don't they organize a conference on helping real live agencies that care about peace?  Like the Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute at the Army? OR the Agency for International development?  OR the United States Institute of Peace? OR the Naval Post Graduate School's new Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction?   

The conference could have a catchy standby theme--modernized for today's world How about  "Peace, Love and Understanding---and some butt kicking as a very, very last resort"

Will write more about the conference once I read through the materials.

Bolton Bits Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Lee Feinstein has a nice roundup over at America Abroad of what Secretary Rice has been doing to improve the US position at the UN before John Bolton gets there.  When you put it all together, Lee, it does sound like a coherent policy.

Before Ambassador Bolton rides off to the wilds of Manhattan, I’d like to propose three lessons the Affair of the Thrown Stapler can teach us.  Two of them are even optimistic:

1.  Even in Washington, there are limits on how bad your behavior to subordinates can be.  My observation of (and participation in) politics, media and non-profits has often led me to wonder whether there was anything that a boss fuelled by self-righteousness and ego couldn’t get away with.  Now we know.

2.  Americans do care about the UN – the Democratic Senators who led the charge against Bolton, and the Republicans who ultimately made the difference, would never have discovered there enthusiasm without the advocacy-generated thousands of letters, emails and phone calls from regular folks way back at the beginning.  Though this ended up as an inquiry into Bolton’s behavior, Bolton’s problems with truth-telling, and the White House’s allergy to document disclosure, it began as good old-fashioned whipping up the citizenry.

3.  It’s good to be king, and really, when it comes to putting in place the people and policies you want, nothing beats winning national elections.  I said months ago that Bolton would ultimately get the job, and that he wouldn’t matter much for US policy.  I believe I was right on both counts.  But I (mis)underestimated how much of a rallying point and symbol Bolton would obligingly allow himself to become.

Call it Mouse-FTA Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Isn't anybody going to call the Bush Administration on its claim that CAFTA marks "a major success?"

The six CAFTA countries (Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua) together make up the US's 13th-largest export market, absorbing $15 billion of US exports annually.  (The booster website freetradeforamericas.org comes up with the marvelous stat that this is more than the US exports to Russia, Indonesia and India combined -- a great example of totally irrelevant demonstration of addition skills.)  Nice, but not exactly earth-shattering.

OK, what's the potential for growth?  Their combined GDP comes in at less than half of Argentina's, one-sixth of Brazil's, and less than one-tenth of India's -- to name a few other places where we don't yet have free trade agreements.  So again, let's rein in our enthusiasm.

And what about the national security argument that President Bush apparently used to peel off enough Republican doubters?  Well, almost 80 percent of the region's products were already being admitted to the US under other trade preference systems.  So we may all hope (except the garment and sugar industries...) that the final 20 percent drives an export boom that lifts Nicaragua, for example, out of its competition with Haiti for poorest country in the hemisphere.  But I, for one, will not be holding my breath.

The truth is, and it would be nice to see someone other than Michael Barone point this out, that CAFTA was an important win for President Bush because he needed a win, NOT because of its earth-shattering impact on US and Central American economies.  Likewise, a loss for CAFTA might have put a final end to Administration hopes of driving through the becalmed Free Trade Area of the Americas on its watch.  Or reviving the current round of WTO talks -- where possible tariff reductions in areas such as agriculture could happen on a large enough scale to make a significant difference for US producers (some for the better and some for the worse) and for the developing-country producers we claim to want to help politically (e.g. Africa and South Asia.)

It might also be pointed out that Administration strong-arm tactics both in negotiating and ratifying this agreement may have done as much to harm as to help the cause of free trade.  But to know that, you'd have to ask the Brazilians, the Argentines, the Indians...

**Update -- Ed Gresser of the Progressive Policy Institute suggests that this 80% figure is unreliable and likely an overstatement.  He adds, "the CAFTA countries weren't getting off as easy as many people think."  Point taken.

Ed's own case for CAFTA predicts "modest" trade benefits and describes the agreement as part of the foundation for a wider hemispheric strategy for the next Administration.  I give Ed credit for honesty and creative thinking, both of which are in short supply.  He is always worth reading.  But I counter that part of the strategy for maintaining a good open trade policy is showing that you can create a discriminating open trade policy.

The Gang of 23 Posted by Derek Chollet

For the past few months much of political Washington as been focused on the maneuverings of the so-called “Gang of 14,” the evenly divided group of Senate Republicans and Democrats that helped end the filibuster/nuclear option showdown over federal judges.  With the Roberts nomination on deck, expect to hear a lot more about these folks in the days ahead.

But when it comes to the national security debate, let’s also look out for the “Gang of 23,” a bipartisan group of foreign policy and defense luminaries that are coming together under the banner of a new organization, the Partnership for a Secure America, that seeks to revive the political center of the national security debate (full disclosure: this organization is being spearheaded with the support of The Century Foundation, whose other efforts include helping us here at DA).  This new organization will be rolled out tomorrow at a National Press Club event featuring the two co-chairs, Lee Hamilton and Warren Rudman, and it is the subject a full-page ad in today’s New York Times.

This kind of bipartisan advocacy effort is hardly new to Washington; in the past few years we have watched the work of organizations like the US Committee to Expand NATO, The Committee on Present Danger, and The Committee to Liberate Iraq work their way through the system, some with amazing success.  The template is common: get an esteemed group to sign on to a set of principles, hold some press events, open a website, start a blog, raise money, publish some op-eds or a report.  Yet what makes this new initiative different is that it seeks to push not just one policy, but to breathe life into a centrist worldview—which, they point out, is a proud American tradition.

But it seems to me that this group’s most important contribution could be to engage the American people in a sensible, solution-oriented discussion about the national security challenges facing our country.  As Uwe Reinhardt pointed out yesterday in a superb Washington Post column, there is a strange detachment between the small slice of Americans who are actually sacrificing to implement our national security policy and the vast majority who are expected to do nothing more than express their support.  It’s been said so many times that it’s a cliché, but we need a national discussion about the principles and priorities of our national security policy that we can all rally around and help implement.  The closer we get to the next election cycle, this will be harder to do, as each side will be tempted to use policy differences for political advantage.  That’s why we have to start now.      

Here are the principles that the Partnership for a Secure America suggest:

“Sixty years ago, a great generation of Americans came together to build a better world from the ashes of war. Republicans and Democrats cooperated in supporting a bipartisan foreign policy to protect the American people against a powerful, long-term threat to our national security. Today, a new long-term global peril faces our country. But growing partisan bitterness is derailing substantive discussion and vigorous debate on national security issues.

We the undersigned, Republicans and Democrats alike, believe that Americans must again come together to make our country, and our world, safer. We call for the reestablishment of the bipartisan center in American foreign and national security policy based on our shared American values. We believe:

• America must be strong to be secure. Our government must work tirelessly to bring terrorists to justice and break up and destroy terrorist networks. But while our strength and security are measured partly by our military might and the courage of our men and women in uniform, they are also enhanced by our unfailing commitment to democracy, justice, and civil liberties both at home and abroad.

  • America must always be ready to act alone when its security interests are threatened. But building strong alliances based on mutual respect and shared challenges, including working to renew and reform the United Nations, will make us more able to protect America’s interests.

• America is not adequately protected from the spread and use of deadly nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. We must expand efforts to secure existing stockpiles of weapons materials in Russia and elsewhere, take all necessary steps to make sure that such weapons do not fall into the wrong hands, and use all effective means to discourage and deter countries from acquiring or using these weapons.

• Our local emergency responders, public health officials, border patrol, and coast guard must be given the resources they need to prevent and respond effectively to terrorist attacks on US soil.

• America’s growing federal debt directly threatens our national security and must be controlled by urgent bipartisan action.

• America must invest far more in energy efficiency and alternative energy technologies to help improve our security, create new jobs, and clean up our environment.

• America and our allies must address global poverty, disease, and under-development in a far more aggressive and comprehensive manner to build a safer and more secure future for all Americans and all people.”

The Perfect Task For John Bolton Posted by Suzanne Nossel

During the first month or two after John Bolton's nomination I wrote reams about him, so I won't revisit all that now (anyone whose curious can just click on the United Nations sub-heading on the Categories menu to the left.  My take on the merits of the recess appointment can be found here.  Bottom line is that I am proud of those on the SFRC for the fight they put up, and eager for a substantive debate this fall over what the Administration will accomplish during this all important General Assembly session devoted to UN reform.

Speaking of reform, I just published an article in the current issue of Dissent magazine arguing that:

Though no one realizes it, Israel may be a linchpin in this year’s historic push for change at the United Nations. Israel’s tortured history at the UN is emblematic of much (though by no means all) of what is wrong with the world organization. Longstanding U.S. perceptions of the UN membership as anti-Western, unprincipled, motivated by petty biases, and dominated by a herd mentality stem largely from—and are given continuing basis by—the body’s history of anti-Israel conduct. An organization that has been too fractured and passive to confront the moral challenges of our time—including Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur—has managed to adopt more than twenty resolutions chastising Israel each year since 1985. The isolation of Israel at the UN has strained the U.S.-UN relationship and undercut the legitimacy of the global body in the eyes of many Americans.

UN secretary-general Kofi Annan is seeking to restore the UN’s credibility after an era of scandal and paralysis. In March he issued a set of recommendations based on the work of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change he set up to propose reforms. Although Annan’s proposals do not directly address Israel’s anomalous position, they do get at certain conditions that have contributed to the ostracizing of Israel. If implemented, these measures should begin to show that the organization is serious about reform. At the same time, simply enacting the Annan reforms will not root out entrenched patterns. The reforms should go hand in hand with a political push led by the United States to put Israel on an equal footing with the organization’s 190 other states. If Israel’s standing does not improve after a major reform effort, Secretary-General Annan and the High-Level Panel will have failed to check the organization’s worst impulses, and the UN’s credibility crisis will persist.

The continuation is posted here. 

Given that one of his signature credentials for the UN post was over-turning the organization's notorious Zionism is Racism resolution, if the Administration is right that Bolton can be effective at the UN, why not have him tackle the betterment of Israel's status at the world body?  Let him show us what he can do.

10 things that matter more to the fight against terror than a new acronym Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Anne-Marie Slaughter at America Abroad, Fred Kaplan on Slate, Sid Blumenthal on Salon and the mainstream media have been buzzing this week about President Bush's pivot away from the language of Global War on Terror (GWOT) and toward the so-called Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, aka GSAVE. 

For the record, led by Derek Chollet, we here at DA were writing about this months ago, opining here and here about what was - until Madison Avenue had its way - known as the Global War on Extremism (I personally think we all ought to stick with the Elmer Fuddish but factual GWOE rather than buying into the boosterist GSAVE).

Most commentators judge the rebranding of the fight against terror to be more politics than substance.  So, in a month of dastardly attacks from London to Sharm el Sheikh to Baghdad,  let's not let this bit of spin doctoring obscure all that needs to be done to shore up an anti-terror fight that is targetting an ever more complex, and constantly changing enemy.  Here are 10 priorities:

1. Wage the War of Ideas in Earnest - The Administration has until now resisted calling the war on terror is a fight over values and purposes.  That ideas play a role is, after all, potentially in tension with the view of Islamic terrorists as nihilistic and devoid of reason.  But while the core of extremist terrorist groups may be a fanaticism too deep and immutable to be tackled with reason, beliefs and viewpoints certainly do matter in the outer spokes of terrorist support networks, to the ordinary people who either grant or deny terrorists the funds, political support and safe harbor they need to operate.  These are the people we need to appeal to and pry away from their terrorist sympathies.

2. Recognize that U.S. Soldiers and Prison Guards are the Frontlines of Public Diplomacy - In waging a battle over ideas and perceptions among ordinary populations, what we do matters more than what we say.  Like it or not, our military, our prison guards, and our private contractors are on the frontlines of public diplomacy.  They do us proud much of the time, but the lapses that have occurred - some more than accidental - have hurt us badly by playing right into the worst fears and misperceptions about the United States.  But the Administration remains in denial on this score.

3. Get Politics Out of Homeland Security - The shameless pork-barrelling of this month's Homeland Security budget dealt a blow to the anti-terror efforts.  Whereas the 9/11 Commission and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made a compelling case that funds be strictly apportioned on the basis of threats, the Senate decided on its own formula that shortchanges New York, California, and our ports and nuclear facilities for the benefit of unlikely terrorist targets like Wyoming, Idaho and Maine.

4. Put Forward A Clear Strategy For Iraq - Without a strategy to achieve U.S. goals in Iraq, no matter what we call the fight against terrorism, many Americans will fear that we are losing on the most important front.  This is not because we are fighting terrorists in Iraq to avoid fighting them here.  Rather, inadequate planning, a shaky justification for war, and inadequate global support have enabled America's enemies to use the struggling Iraq effort as a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment.   Bush claims to be committed to seeing Iraq through to stability, yet this week's talk is of a pullout.    More on what needs to be done here and here.

5.            Refocus on Counter-Proliferation - Everyone agrees that the gravest terrorist danger is that posed by a nuclear weapon in terrorist hands.  Yet as Peter Scoblic writes in the latest New Republic (tip to Matthew Yglesias) the Bush Administration is doing a dismal job responding to this threat.  To encapsulate, the Administration's focus on countries' intentions (good or evil) has eclipsed efforts to hold in check their capabilities, with the result that while we've deliberated over the potential for regime change in places like North Korea and Iran, they've continued to build their nuclear capabilities unfettered by the flawed non-pro regimes that Bush has done little to try to improve.

Patience on Iraq's Constitution Posted by Michael Signer

The Looking-Glass War continues... from the assiduous folks at the Democratic Policy Council, another installment in Iraq's tragicomedy of errors -- and a key insight:  maybe Iraq ought to complete their constitution until after American troops are withdrawn, thereby allowing a secular constitution to emerge, rather than the pressurized, reactive theocratic document now being hastily (and defensively) drawn up.  More on this below. 

It turns out that in the FY 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (as originally noted by Kos), Congress required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress "that identifies security, economic, and Iraqi security force training performance standards and goals, accompanied by a notional timetable for achieving these goals."

Instead of providing an honest, constructive assessment of the situation, DOJ, shockingly, cobbled together an ideologically freighted, disingenuous fretwork of facts, a sort of mirage of Iraq.  One is put in mind of the following dialogue:

"Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!"

"Yes, I have."

"Look!"

"It's just a flesh wound."

So.  On the report DOD ultimately filed -- 10 days late -- was as politicized and rigged as everything else in the Iraq War so far.  To wit:

Claim: The report claims that "one key measure of progress toward the establishment of a constitutional and democratic government in Iraq is therefore the timeline and political process" set forth by the United States, the United Nations, and the transitional Iraqi government in March 2004 (p. 3). By this standard, the political process "is on track as demonstrated by the January 30 election and successful formation of the TNA [Transitional National Assembly] and the Iraqi Transitional Government." (p.4.) The report consistently refers to progress made toward completing a draft of Iraq's constitution as an indicator that the political process is still on track.

- Fact: There is a risk that the Administration may be focusing on speed to the detriment of quality in the drafting of the Iraqi Constitution. Leading experts have called upon the Iraqi drafting committee and the U.S. to extend the constitutional drafting process to ensure that the constitution that emerges is one that fully protects the rights of all Iraqi citizens and toward which the Iraqi people can feel a sense of ownership and pride. As an International Crisis Group report pointed out, "while there are downsides to delay, they are far outweighed by the dangers of a hurried job that could lead to either popular rejection of or popular resignation to a text toward which they feel little sense of ownership or pride." (6/8/05)

The Administration has instead pushed the drafting committee to finish by August 15, no matter the consequences. There are reports that quality is suffering. The New York Times has reported that "a working draft of Iraq's new constitution would cede a strong role to Islamic law and could sharply curb women's rights." (7/20/05) And the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recently wrote to Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, to express concerns that the draft constitution "limits the equality of women and Iraq's international human rights obligations;" "makes no reference to the right of freedom of religion;" and "provides no guarantee of freedom of thought or conscience." (7/26/05) These reports demonstrate that, while delay is fraught with its own consequences, progress on the political track is far more complicated than simple adherence to artificial deadlines. Addressing at the outset key issues in the content of the constitution is also critical to success.

Knowing what's actually going on in Iraq is most critical in the most important effort now going on:  the drafting of the constitution.  Above and beyond the training of security forces and the building of civil society, successful constitution-making is the sine qua non of successful nation-building in Iraq. 

The constitution will knit together all the disparate pieces of Iraq society, and it won't work unless all the stakeholders have bought into the process, and the final document.  It would be better to be honest about the difficulties at the outset than to find out in a year or so that the document either (a) will fragment under internal strain, (b) will lead to poor human rights, especially for women.

Right now, as the WaPo reports, the Iraq constitution is veering in a highly theocratic direction, in contrast to Turkey or Egypt: 

[M]ariam al-Rayyes, a Shiite member, said Islam will be the state religion and a "main source" for legislation in the constitution.

"It gives women all rights and freedoms as long as they don't contradict with our values," she said. "Concerning marriage, inheritance and divorce, this is civil status laws. That should not contradict with religious values."

More here from NYT. 

It's not clear why Iraq should have a constitution premised on sharia law.  Political expediency, in light of the Administration's artificial deadline, has forced Iraqis to accept the emotionally compelling narrative of creating a religious state to rebut the notion that American secular/Christian decadent imperialism has totally dominated Iraq.

Regardless of your party, everyone has to concede that convincing Iraqis that secularism is in their interest would be a difficult task in any event.  But with Karen Hughes taking her sweet time to get on the job of helping our image in the Middle East, why should we push this first and most important cart in front of the parade? 

Indeed, why finish the constitution before the ultimate American withdrawal of troops?  It took the United States of America, after all, 11 years between the repudiation of the British to complete our own national constitution. 

It hardly seems our security interests (allegedly reflected in the deadline's urgency) justify a finished product that creates both a worse human rights environment and a more fanatical state.

Hard to know what the Black Knight would say about that.

The IRA Puts Down Its Guns Posted by Suzanne Nossel

The IRA formally announced a cessation of its armed struggle, vowing to use only peaceful means to pursue its political aims.  This is a potentially momentous announcement, and one not to be overlooked in evaluating the progress of the war on terrorism.  If this is a sign that Islamic extremists have discredited terrorist tactics in the eyes of groups that were once quite comfortable with violence against civilians, that is no small matter.   

In theory, such a shift of mindset could lead to a reduction in terrorism as groups that do have concrete political aims conclude that by resorting to terrorist means they will utterly isolate and deligitimize themselves.

One problem, of course, is that there is little sign of such a shift in mindset in the Middle East, the source of most of the world's terrorism.  The Iraqi insurgency rages, and Palestinian terrorism seems to be back on the upswing on the eve of the Gaza withdrawal.  Articles like this one and this one reprinted on Watching America (one links to a Dubai television broadcast reporting that “The American's oppressive, inhuman, and undemocratic behavior in recent years has led to the creation of martyrdom-seeking movements everywhere”) point to the widening gulf in perceptions about terrorism between the west and the Mideast.

That the circle of those who reject terrorism may is widening in Europe and elsewhere represents an achievement.  But at the same time it may be shrinking in the Middle East, with the result that the overall threat to the U.S. and our allies could be greater and not lesser than when the fight on terror formally started nearly four years ago.  One step forward two steps back?

Hillary, Take it Back! Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Okay, now that I've come to terms with the fact that raising yucca plants and goats in New Mexico may be a fine career switch for  me, I must comment on the recent DLC proposals--contained in the new issue of Blueprint called "How America Can Win Again" put forward and roundly endorsed by many Democrats in Congress,  including Senator Clinton. Liberal bloggers are an editorial target in the issue--which has caused all kinds of fine rumpus online.

First, there's the call to unity"Less than four years ago, the attacks of Sept. 11 united Americans like no event since Pearl Harbor. For a brief, shining moment, country -- not party -- was all that mattered."

Yes, politics is ugly, but it was the rabid ideological pyromaniacs of the conservative "revolution" in 1994 that paved the path we are treading today. Maybe politics are polarizing further because some liberals have finally realized that since we're not even allowed in the ring anymore we might as well stand and fight on principle. The prevailing conservative mind-set is NOT a two-way street. It thrives on absolutes. As my dad (a former Republican) said --their ownership society is "I have mine and now I want yours!"  After watching this president and his cohorts on Capitol Hill bully their way into Iraq, and the conservative leadership of Congress capitulating on its own prerogative of checks and balances--I think some serious rabble rousing may be in order. They started it.

"We challenge Washington to increase America's Armed Forces by 100,000 troops. Iraq isn't the last war we'll have to fight, and we need a bigger army. We need to challenge more Americans to serve, and give them the means to do so. "

Okay, now stop this calling for all these new troops. This is a throwaway line unless you tell me exactly what items in the defense budget you are willing to cut in order to pay for the personnel.  Even the Defense Department has now cast into doubt the F22 and the Joint Strike Fighter. Why? WE CAN'T AFFORD THEM. Also, this expansion of troops assumes the normalization of pre-emptive war and you'd think that our experience in Iraq would diminish that option somewhat. Our future looks like Afghanistan, not Iraq.

The DLC could contribute much more to the debate by calling for a Manhattan Project-like effort to counter the problem of improvised explosive devices (IED) and embarass the defense industry for being such slackers about real warfighting needs. Or how about convening a joint conference with the Air Force entitled "Beyond Airpower"?  Secretary Rumsfeld is right about smaller, expeditionary forces being the need of the future. Where he's wrong is to stress technology over human beings as the way to achieve it. We need commanders who can take a city and then reorganize their battalion on the spot to restore the city. No Flash Gordon widget can do that.

"Washington ought to close the revolving door, so that members of Congress and administration officials can't become lobbyists as soon as they've left office."

Agreed. But there should also be much stricter controls on military officers who retire and then go into the defense industry. Yes they provide reality tested advice, but they also contribute to the hypnotic chant that more defense spending will purchase more security.  Who wants to argue with a military professional? Why doesn't the DLC help create an entire think tank for returned soldiers and retiring officers who would like to make a living doing something other than shilling for Boeing? Like advising policy makers?

"We challenge Washington to put its own house in order. It should cut congressional and nondefense staff by 10 percent, reduce federal consultants by 150,000..."

This one requires a little cognitive mapping.  This is trying to get a little bit of the "we hate government, too" action away from the Norquist trolls. Congress is broken. It is overwhelmed. It can no longer even perform basic functions of oversight. We need more talented congressional staff across the board, not less. Besides, if this order is carried out with the Republicans still in power, guess who is going to take it in the shorts?  How about roundly standing up for all public service? The reason we have so many consultants is because of the malarial fevered downsizing promoted by conservatives for thirty years.  The Agency for International Development is little more than a contracting shell because it has been stripped of its permanent professional specialists: the institutional memory so vital for capacity building is lost along with them.  Even the conservative's sacred cow--the military itself-- is being sacrificed in their "free market" . Witness the privatization of military duties in Iraq and the morale busting salary differentials that go along with it.

The overall problem with the DLC's ideas is that there's not much new in them. In the security sections, they still rely on the military to solve all our problems for us. Knowing this is the furthest thing from being "anti-military".  Civilians need to grow up.  Indeed, at the Marine's Irregular Warfare conference a few weeks back, one of the sessions inspired a lively Q and A.  It was about the military's ability to foster conditions leading to stability and IPB (Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield). Because Marines generally don't worry about manhood issues during policy discussions (unlike Karl Rove) it became clear that paying attention to   psychological and societal aspects of a culture is vital--as is institution building.  The military is in a process of learning backward. One marine said "if we had done the planning for phase four (rebuilding) we would not have fought this war."

It was the smartest thing I've heard in a long, long time.

Planning the Post-war Posted by Suzanne Nossel

A CFR Task Force has come up with a good report on post-conflict stabilization with ideas on how to fund and organize U.S. efforts to preserve peace and get countries back on their feet after violent conflict.  We've been talking about that here for months.   The report counts 6 such missions in the last 12 years, beginning with Somalia and points out that post-conflict work has become an integral part of U.S. defense.

The unfortunate part is that the Administration has underfunded even its very limited bureaucratic response to post-conflict needs.   Signs suggest that we may face more missions for which we are ill-prepared before we invest the money and attention required to bring post-conflict operations up to the standard we uphold for military operations.