Channeling Joseph McCarthy Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

Today kicks off another intensive week of hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the New START accord.  Rose Gottemoeller, chief negotiator of the treaty, and Ed Warner, DoD’s representative for the negotiating team will appear before the committee today at 2:30pm EST.  This will be the second time this duo testifies to the SFRC—the first meeting was a closed session. 

I’m expecting one of two outcomes.

1.     Other than Dick Lugar, most GOP senators won’t bother to show up.

2.    The hearing turns into a political circus, with critics interrogating the negotiators about “secret deals” with the Soviets…errr, Russians. 

Neither of these options are particularly appealing, but given the state of the current debate and the fact that critics have absolutely no support, these are the two most likely outcomes.  Critics are desperately seeking something to latch onto—they need a scapegoat so that their political ploys aren’t so transparent.  Their latest attempt?  Murmurs of secret, back room deals with the Russians.  Cue the creepy music. 

Conservatives’ long-standing obsession with missile defense has triggered the recent accusations.  The New START agreement, like START 1 and nearly every arms control agreement since the Kennedy administration, contains language that allows either side to withdraw from the treaty if they believe their national interests have been threatened—a provision which, by the way, allowed the Bush administration to withdraw from the 1972 ABM treaty in 2002.  This reality hasn’t stopped the critics who are hell-bent on finding some sort of ground on which to base their opposition.  Neither has Dick Lugar’s explanation that the non-binding perambulatory statements are essentially “editorial opinions.”  Instead, critics are launching attacks based on deeply rooted, outdated suspicions.  Joseph McCarthy would have been proud.  In a SFRC hearing last week, Senator Kaufman asked the former National Security Advisors for George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, General Brent Scowcroft and Stephen Hadley, if they believed a super-secret deal had been made:  

Senator Kaufman:  Do you think there's some kind of secret deal, I mean, that's going on, which is what's also implied by many of the critics?

General Scowcroft:  No, I would say that on both sides this is an issue of domestic politics.  And the treaty is amply clear. It does not restrict us. Would the Russians like it to restrict us? Yes, of course. But there isn't -- I don't think there's substance to this -- to this argument.

Mr. Hadley:  I don't think there's secret understanding.

Every single national security expert who has appeared before the SFRC has supported ratification of New START.  The National Security Advisors of both Bush presidents explain that any suspicions over a “secret deal” are simply a result of “domestic politics.”  Maybe the critics won’t show up after all.

Kristol and Fly vs. The World Posted by Patrick Barry

Adam Serwer is definitely right to cast doubt on Iraq invasion proponent turned Iran invasion proponent Bill Kristol's credibility. Kristol's vociferous support for what he thought would be a consequence-free war against Iraq pretty seriously undermines Kristol's ability to cheerlead for a consequence-free war against Iran.

But another reason to doubt Kristol's credibiliy is that pretty much everyone and their brother thinks what he's saying goes completely against U.S. interests. I'm not kidding. This literally comes down to Jamie Fly and Bill Kristol versus everyone else:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen said in April:  "I worry, on the other hand, about striking Iran. I've been very public about that because of the unintended consequences of that... The diplomatic, the engagement piece, the sanctions piece, all those things, from my perspective, need to be addressed to possibly have Iran change its mind about where it's headed." [Admiral Mullen, via Reuters, 4/18/10]

General David Petraeus, CENTCOM Commander: A military strike "could be used to play to nationalist tendencies...There is certainly a history, in other countries, of fairly autocratic regimes almost creating incidents that inflame nationalist sentiment. So that could be among the many different, second, third, or even fourth order effects (of a strike)." [Gen. David Petraeus, 2/03/10]

Michael O'Hanlon and Bruce Riedel:  "The strike option, however, lacks credibility. America is engaged in two massive and unpopular military campaigns in the region. Given Iran's ability to retaliate against the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is simply not credible that we would use force in the foreseeable future." [O'Hanlon & Riedel, 2/28/10]

Alternatives on Afghanistan . . . Yes Virginia, They Exist Posted by Michael Cohen

Responding to my recent TNR piece, Gregg Carlstrom argues that part of the reason the left has been silent on Afghanistan is that there aren't really many good alternatives - other than stay the course or withdrawal.

But this is a problematic arguments on two accounts. As I noted at TNR, "for the left to argue that there are still no good alternatives on Afghanistan is an implicit indictment of their own failure to come up with one." It's not as if the left hasn't been calling for more resources to be devoted to the Afghan fight since what, 2004? In six years, you'd think there would be a few other ideas out there other than COIN and withdrawal.

Yet, at the same time there are people out there floating alternatives to our current policy - most of whom are not generally associated with the left. At Carnegie Endowment, Gilles Dorronosorro has been a lone voice in the think tank world calling for a change in strategy. In this recent piece he makes the case for political negotiations.

Last fall, Austin Grant Long laid out what a counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan might look like.

Here's Sean Kay arguing for containment, rather than COIN.

And here are two pieces yours truly has written: one calling for a regional prioritization approach and thus a smaller US military footprint in the South and a focus on strengthening the Karzai government in the North and West. The other arguing that the US should pivot quickly from the planned, if misguided, offensive in Kandahar to political negotiations.

You may not agree that all these approaches are good ideas or even have a chance of success . . . personally I like some combination of all of them; a mix of containment, continued CT efforts, particularly in Pakistan, a pullback of troops from the South and focus on consolidating efforts in the North and West and an immediate move toward political negotiations.

But the argument that there is a black and white choice between withdrawal and staying the COIN course is simply not accurate and does not reflect the intellectual ferment occurring on the question of strategic alternatives for Afghanistan.

If Crass Politics Trump our National Security, Then What? Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

Well, it won’t be pretty. 

There are nearly 23,000 nuclear weapons in the world.  Together, the United States and Russia hold nearly 95 percent of those weapons.  The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) will limit the number of nuclear weapons held by the two largest nuclear powers in the world.  The treaty facilitates transparency and stability between the U.S. and Russia.  Its streamlined verification regime allows the U.S. to inspect and monitor the Russian arsenal—a critical component of our national security.  New START also bolsters U.S. credibility and strengthens the global nonproliferation regime—a key element to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons. 

Unless of course, “The Party of No” decides to play political games.

Then our window into the Russian arsenal goes up in flames, our strategic relationship is severely damaged, and any and all international legitimacy is wiped clean. 

To date, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has held six hearings on the New START Treaty.  Every single national security expert who has appeared before the committee has recommended ratifying the agreement.  A majority of those who testified are former senior Republican officials—the likes of James Schlesinger, Henry Kissinger and Stephen Hadley.  In accordance with his prestigious arms control record, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) has also endorsed the treaty, saying “I support the New START treaty and believe that it will enhance United States national security.”   He is the only Republican senator to do so. 

What’s more—as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "The New START Treaty has the unanimous support of America's military leadership-to include the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of the service chiefs, and the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, the organization responsible for our strategic nuclear deterrent.“

So with this kind of support, would anyone really vote against it? 

We really shouldn’t have to ask that question.  Unfortunately, some Senators are more interested in playing politics that defending our national security.  The ramifications of this could be devastating.  This isn’t just a yes-or-no vote.  This treaty is tied directly to our national security and the failure to ratify New START would be disastrous. 

Former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State to Presidents Nixon and Ford, Dr. Henry Kissinger urged senators to look at the agreement through a different lens, that is, a world without New START:

“In deciding on ratification, concerns need to be measured against the consequences of nonratification, particularly interrupting a process that has been going on for decades, the relationship to the NPT and to the attempt to achieve a strategic coherence.

And so for all these reasons, I recommend ratification of this treaty…”

Kissinger further elaborated on the dangers of rejecting New START: 

“This START treaty is an evolution of treaties that have been negotiated in previous administrations of both parties. And its principal provisions are an elaboration or continuation of existing agreements.

Therefore a rejection of them would indicate that a new period of American policy has started that might rely largely on the unilateral reliance of its nuclear weapons and would therefore create an element of uncertainty in the calculations of both adversaries and allies.

And therefore I think it would have an unsettling impact on the international environment.”

Former Defense Secretaries William Perry and James Schlesinger also testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  James Schlesinger, also known as “The Secretary of Everything” said it was “obligatory” to ratify New START.   Both agreed that rejecting the accord would severe consequences:

As Dr. Schlesinger observed, failure to ratify this treaty "would have a detrimental effect on our ability to influence others with regard to, particularly, the nonproliferation issue."  Dr. Perry further commented that "If we fail to ratify this treaty, the U.S. forfeits any right to leadership on nonproliferation policies."

Over the past few weeks alone, the United States has leveraged its leadership role to pass a final document at the NPT Review Conference—where over 180 states unanimously supported a final document that strengthens the Non-Proliferation Treaty—the first time in ten years that we’ve seen that level of support, the United Nations Security Council, to include Russia and China, also voted to sanction Iran for its continued defiance and refusal to answer questions regarding its nuclear program, and Russia announced that it had cancelled the sale of its S-300 missiles to Iran.

If the United States Senate fails to provide its advice and consent to ratify the New START accord, it will be because some senators blatantly ignored the advice of our top national security experts and because they chose a political talking point over our national security.  And that’s not a game. 

Real Security for Israel Posted by Moran Banai

Moran Banai is the Policy Director for Middle East Progress.

The Israeli raid of the ship the Mavi Marmara, which ended with the deaths of nine protestors, is a potent symbol of why Israel’s current policy toward the Gaza Strip is unsustainable. Right now Iranian ships are on their way to attempt to break the blockade, forcing what could be an ugly confrontation on the high seas between the two adversaries. Whether it will be governments or activists who try to force the situation, the Israeli government will have to decide over and over whether to stop the ships, which could result in similarly violent situations, or let them through, which would effectively break the naval blockade and undermine Israel’s ability to ensure that no weapons are brought into Gaza by sea.

What is now becoming more clear is that Israel’s Gaza policy also does not achieve its stated purposes. Isolating the people of Gaza has not made them less amenable to Hamas. Nor has it weakened Hamas. Nor will it make Israelis secure in the long term. As many people who care about Israel’s security, including President Obama, have begun to argue, the lesson learned from the Mavi Marmara incident is that Israel must rethink its strategy; it must develop a policy that lifts the closure on Gaza without harming Israeli security or accruing too much to the benefit of Hamas. Israel has begun to ameliorate the situation over the last few months in cooperation with the United States and others and it has sped that up further in the past few weeks. Now is the time for the world to build on this progress and work with Israel to change its policy.

World Cup on the IR pitch Posted by Heather Hurlburt

As last Friday’s intentions to work gave way to the World Cup hysteria, we here at Democracy Arsenal decided to engage in a parlor game wherein we thought about how the Cup matches would play out if they were contested on the geo-political and geo-economic pitch instead of a grass one. Here’s how we thought a few of the duels would go:

France vs. Uruguay. Realists: France crushes Uruguay.  21st century globalists: Wonder about Uruguayan deposits of rare minerals used in hybrid batteries… and then realize Bolivia has those deposits, not Uruguay… are embarrassed… and hand the match to France.

Soccer score: Ended in a tie.

Algeria vs. Slovenia. Sure, Algeria’s far bigger and endowed with mineral wealth.  But this is a battle of the civil wars.  Algeria: 1960s battle with France creates great literature and film, along with a still-misshapen society and state.  Slovenia:  1990s battle with Serbia yields pseudo-Hapsburg yodels, NATO and EU membership. Slovenia takes it.

Soccer score: Slovenia wins 1-0 over Algeria.

Paraguay vs. New Zealand. Globalizers admire New Zealand’s economic staying power and newfound embrace of ethnic and cultural diversity. Realists wonder who the hell let these two into the tournament.

Spain vs. Chile. Realists say:  former imperial mother country and NATO member has the edge over distant Chile.  Globalizers say: bond downgrade and bailout rumors are two own-goals too many.  Adios, Espana.

USA vs. Algeria. Another battle of the imperialist slayers.  Historians will recall that the Team US dispatched the Barbary pirates off the Algerian coast in one of its first appearances in international competition.  USA in a repeat.

North Korea vs. Brazil. Realists: North Korea has a nuke. Game over. 21st-Century globalizers: North Korea’s players would likely collapse on the pitch from starvation. Meanwhile, Brazil as an up-and-coming global economic power would vanquish the hungry, impoverished Koreans with passion and style.

So far no worldview has come out on top. Lots of matches still to go though...

That Absurd Afghan Mineral Story . . . Posted by Michael Cohen

James Risen has the comedic goods:

The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

Are you kidding me? The New York Times printed this crap. And exactly how clueless are the leakers at DoD? Did they somehow think that this "blockbuster" story would change attitudes about Afghanistan after every day last week there was another article about precisely how bad the mission there is going?

As Blake Hounshell notes over at FP, this is not a new story - the information backing it up has been out there for years. And apparently the $1 trillion is not public either; instead its something a helpful Pentagon task force came up with.

But even if this is true, so what? How many years would it take to put in place an infrastructure to develop and mine these natural resources? And if you think Afghanistan is corrupt now (only Somalia is worse!) imagine how it will look after this? Congo has tons of natural resources; so does Angola. How's that working out for them?

There is nothing in this story that changes the fundamental incoherence of the current mission in Afghanistan. There is nothing here that will change the dynamics on the ground in Afghanistan and the reality of a corrupt, illegitimate Afghan government, an adaptable insurgent force and a June 2011 deadline for the commencement of US troop withdrawals.

The only thing this story shows is the desperation of the Pentagon in planting pie-in-the-sky news stories about Afghanistan and trying to salvage the lost cause that is our current mission there.

If Hamid Has Lost Confidence Why Haven't We? Posted by Michael Cohen

Over the past year of writing on the US war in Afghanistan I don't think I've come across a crazier, more game-changing article than Dexter Filkins piece in Friday's New York Times (the quote below is from Amrullah Saleh, the recently departed Afghan intelligence chief).

“The president (Hamid Karzai) has lost his confidence in the capability of either the coalition or his own government to protect this country,” Mr. Saleh said in an interview at his home. “President Karzai has never announced that NATO will lose, but the way that he does not proudly own the campaign shows that he doesn’t trust it is working."

 . . . The Americans and their NATO partners are pouring tens of thousands of additional troops into the country to weaken hard-core Taliban and force the group to the bargaining table. Mr. Karzai appears to believe that the American-led offensive cannot work.

This really is as far down the rabbit hole as we can get in Afghanistan. Consider for a moment that the US mission in Afghanistan is oriented around the goal of extending the legitimacy of the Afghan government. And yet that same government believes this mission is, in fact, a doomed exercise.

Contrast, for a moment, Filkins reporting with the words of Frank Ruggiero, the senior United States Embassy official in the south, who speaking of the upcoming Kandahar action (offensive is no longer the operative word) said that its goal is:

To make sure “the government at the most basic level, the district level, is able to provide some services so that people who are sitting on the fence are able to say, well, the government has something to offer.”

But what if the Afghan government has nothing to offer - something, by the way, which has seemed fairly clear for several years now.

And if, as the article argue, Karzai wants to strike a deal with the Taliban or even, rather amazingly, the Pakistanis than why aren't we laying out the red carpet for him? Make a deal Hamid; tell the Taliban they can't allow any al Qaeda in Afghanistan; and then let the US get the hell out.

But at this point if Filkins reporting is even half correct how is it possible for the United States to possibly justify any further military engagement in Afghanistan? How can sending even more troops into Kandahar be justified in any way shape or form? Quite simply, it can't.

And per my TNR article on Friday, if there is any progressive blogger out there still on the fence about  speaking out and urging the President to change course in Afghanistan this article is your permission slip.
There exists at this moment a unique and transformational opportunity to apply political pressure on this White House to call off this ridiculous offensive in Kandahar and salvage what has become an incoherent and disastrous policy in Afghanistan.

It just needs a push . . . .

National Security Strategy, Political Strategy Posted by David Shorr

Interesting new polling results from Third Way and Democracy Corps (no relation). It's definitely worth reading the whole accompanying memo, Toward Renewal and Leadership. Meanwhile, I'll offer some reactions. First, given the positive trends in public receptiveness to progressive foreign policy, Democrats should be standing taller on national security. There's really no need to mimic the other side's shallow, robotic incantations about strengthandresolve or change the political subject to domestic policy -- an ingrained Democratic habit that National Security Network was founded to break. The president's foreign policy approval rating has been holding steady above the 50% mark, the Republican advantage on national security is narrowing, and the poll finds that progressive arguments are quite persuasive to voters, particularly independents.

Second, Democracy Corps-Third Way highlight a good straightforward message on terrorism, though I think they miss a key underlying point. The memo recommends that progressives "talk about gains in combating, capturing, and killing terrorists." Good advice. As I see it, the strength comes from speaking to the challenge at a practical level. This is about catching or killing terrorists and disrupting their plots -- not about World War IV, 'realizing we're at war,' or understanding the inherent violence of the Muslim faith. During the last Iowa caucuses, I had dinner with a retired military officer who was surrogate-ing for Chris Dodd's campaign. When the surrogate said Democrats could gain a lot more support among the military, I asked why. One answer was that Democrats respect professionalism and professional expertise. Ron Suskind wrote a whole book,The One Percent Doctrine, about how this applies to counterterrorism. The book is essentially a compare-and-contrast between Dick Cheney's manic 'do everything possible no matter what the consequences or effectiveness' and the painstaking day-to-day work of, well, combating and capturing terrorists.

Third, the memo also advises emphasizing measures to strengthen and support the military. Again this is an approach that highlights professionalism. As Democracy Corps-Third Way argue:

One reason this message works is that it talks about the Democrats' efforts to improve military effectiveness -- not simply efforts to improve the treatment of veterans, important as those efforts are. It is a message that talks about our troops as warriors, not victims. When Democrats stress the steps they are taking to improve the equipment, training, and battlefield effectiveness of our men and women in uniform, they make real gains in the public's readinesss to trust them with America's security.

To which I would add the importance of giving the troops wise and well-considered missions to carry out. Good stewardship of the military is about giving them the right tools for the job, but also the right jobs. This is different from 'support our troops, bring them home,' since the essence of their being warriors is that they're ready to answer the call and be shipped out. This is about embracing the responsibility for making the right call. It always mystifies me when conservatives like President Bush and others show so much deference to "the commanders on the ground" -- which is a complete inversion of the principle of civilian control of the military. I think it's important to talk about this aspect of political leaders' judgment, for one thing, because the defense budget is fiscally unsustainable. While this approach of saying we civilians are in charge may sound at odds with respect for professionalism, I'd only reiterate that in a system of civilian control, the warrior's honor is in the willingness to execute the commands that come down from the civilian top of the command chain. (To cite one more book, my thinking was influenced by Michael O'Hanlon and Kurt Campbell's Hard Power.)

Fourth, Democracy Corps-Third Way encourage progressives to keep drawing contrasts with the Bush-Cheney policy and tout the recent progress in building international cooperation. My own take on the progressive-conservative contrast, The Responsibilities Are Mutual -- The Strategic Tenets of International Cooperation, was published back in April by Center for American Progress. And any reader of this blog has read my repeated stress on the importance of American public discomfort with the international mistrust toward the United States. Today, I just want to add thoughts on the conservative talking points about supposed American declinism.

And since we're talking about opinion polls, let me put it in terms of a polling question. Which of the following statements do you agree with:

a)  The United States is meeting greater resistance of its international aims because we aren't being insistent enough in making demands or forceful enough in compelling others to comply, or

b)  Ever since the end of the Cold War, there has been a steady dilluting of authority at all levels -- making many different players feel less constrained by those "above" them and making it harder even for a superpower to get what it seeks in the world.

The specter of supposed declinism conveniently forgets the failure of neoconservatism's command-and-demand foreign policy to achieve any of its aims, alienating most of the world along the way. Progressives need to keep hammering home that international help, support, and cooperation are absolute necessities in today's world.

A Bit More on the Left and Afghanistan Posted by Michael Cohen

There have a number of thoughtful comments on my TNR article today. Andrew Exum has a good post over at abumuqawama although I think he is perhaps a bit unfair to the CAP folks. Spencer, as usual, makes some smart points. I'd advise reading his entire post one thing he said merits a response:

I get the impression that Michael is less interested in the descriptive question than he is in making the normative case that liberals ought to break with the Obama administration over Afghanistan.

Obviously for regular DA readers this seems like a pretty fair judgment - my view on the incoherence of our Afghanistan strategy is well-documented. But actually this is not completely correct.

I would like to see more progressives break with the Obama Administration . . . but mainly because that seems to be a pretty accurate view of how many progressives actually feel about the war. My rationale for writing this piece was the disconnect that I have seen between progressives who privately express fear and despair over the President's strategy and their public reluctance to criticize it. This is something that I have seen since I began writing about Afghanistan a year ago; liberals have been, for the most part, loathe to speak out even when harboring private misgivings. On few other issues either domestic or international has that been the case.

Now in fairness Spencer is an exception to that rule. So too is Andrew Exum. But in my experience few people I speak too either in government or out; progressives or conservatives have much confidence in the current strategy . . . and yet as news has gotten worse from Afghanistan there have been few evident voices on the left expressing concern. If anything, it is folks on the right, who are now treading in the water of opposition to Afghanistan policy. And that, in my view, is a progressive failure.

Tim Fernholz over at the Tapped blog really seems to grasp this point; and in particular the difference between attention to Afghanistan and critical analysis. It's also a worthy read.