National Security

Governor Bill Richardson, one of America's most experienced diplomats, weighs in today with a thoughtful op-ed on Iran in the Washington Post:

The recent tentative agreement with North Korea over its nuclear program illustrates how diplomacy can work even with the most unsavory of regimes. Unfortunately, it took the Bush administration more than six years to commit to diplomacy. During that needless delay North Korea developed and tested nuclear weapons -- weapons its leaders still have not agreed to dismantle. Had we engaged the North Koreans earlier, instead of calling them "evil" and talking about "regime change," we might have prevented them from going nuclear. We could have, and should have, negotiated a better agreement, and sooner.

As the International Atomic Energy Agency just confirmed, Iran has once again defied the international community and is moving forward with its nuclear program, yet the Bush administration seems committed to repeating the mistakes it made with North Korea. Rather than directly engaging the Iranians about their nuclear program, President Bush refuses to talk, except to make threats. He has moved ships to the Persian Gulf region and claims, with scant evidence, that Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. This is not a strategy for peace. It is a strategy for war -- a war that Congress has not authorized. Most of our allies, and most Americans, don't believe this president, who has repeatedly cried wolf.

Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate. But it is a good way to start a new war -- a war that would be a disaster for the Middle East, for the United States and for the world. A war that, furthermore, would destroy what little remains of U.S. credibility in the community of nations.

A better approach would be for the United States to engage directly with the Iranians and to lead a global diplomatic offensive to prevent them from building nuclear weapons. We need tough, direct negotiations, not just with Iran but also with our allies, especially Russia, to get them to support us in presenting Iran with credible carrots and sticks.

The Post reports this morning on some new, interesting thinking by Senator Biden and other Senate Democrats to revisit the original Congressional authorization of our war in Iraq. 

While I think there is a lot of merit in this emerging approach, I am not convinced that describing what is happening in Iraq as a "civil war," or "sectarian violence" is the most accurate way to be describing the complexity of what is happening there today.  For example, the importance of rising regional tensions between Sunnis and Shiites - a major new dynamic in the Middle East, and one that I'm not convinced we have come to terms with yet - is captured yet again in this story in the Times.  

The Times also features an op-ed today by Abbas Milani that lays out a very plausible path forward for our policy towards Iran.  It concludes with this strong graph:

War and peace with Iran are both possible today. With prudence, backed by power but guided by the wisdom to recognize the new signals coming from Tehran, the United States can today achieve a principled solution to the nuclear crisis. Congress, vigilant American citizens and a resolute policy from America’s European allies can ensure that this principled peace is given a chance.

Wherever we go from here, I am proud of those leaders in both parties who have not accepted the failed approach of the Administration, and working, diligently, to chart a better course for our policy in the Middle East.

At the end of the last Congress Senator John McCain successfully led the fight to pass something called the Military Tribunal Bill.  Among other things, it stripped anyone in the US who is not a current citizen of their habeas corpus rights. 

Practically what this means is the President can now detain non-US citizens indefinitely, even those here legally, without judicial review.  If this sounds extraordinary, it is. 

The Times weighs in with a strong editorial, American Liberty at the Precipice, calling for these fundamental rights to be restored.  Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel, also weighs in on this issue and other issues related to Military Tribunals, torture and rendition.   Both should be read to gain a better understanding of this important legislative opportunity this year. 

I strongly believe that the coalitions working to improve our immigration system need to take up this effort too.  There should be little doubt that unless this remarkable legislative overreach is fixed, it will deter future immigration to the US, and may even cause current, legal immigrants to leave. 

I've been a little suprized that those businesses heavily dependent on foreign workers have not been more vocal in their opposition to what Senator McCain and the President have done.  It not only is a betrayal of America's historic commitment to liberty and the rule of law, but in the modern global economy, it will undermine the business model of many of our fastest growing and most important companies.

Additional note - As a friend just wrote in, there is a deep irony behind this.  While Senator McCain may be working to grant legal status to 11 milliion undocument workers in the US today through is strong leadership on comprehensive immigration reform, his Military Tribunal Bill ensures that when they become legal they will still lack one of the most fundamental rights guarenteed to previous immigrants since the founding of our country.   

Distressing news from the Justice Department today.  Apparantly Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and co. are too busy stripping Habeas Corpus rights, defending torture, and firing highly qualified federal prosecutors to find time to effectively fight terrorism.

Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found that only two of the 26 sets of important statistics on domestic counterterrorism efforts compiled by Justice and the FBI from 2001 to 2005 were accurate, according to a 140-page report. The numbers were both inflated and understated, depending on the data cited and which part of the Justice Department was doing the counting, the report said...

The analysis is the latest to find serious faults with the Justice Department's terrorism statistics, some of which have been featured prominently in statements by President Bush or the attorney general as evidence of the terrorist threat and the department's successful efforts to combat it.

The data are used to justify expenditures and explain to Congress and to the public how the Justice Department is using its resources to protect the country against terrorist attacks, officials said.

And what are they doing to fix the problem?  Papering it over it appears:

The Justice Department said in a statement that it has already made most of the improvements suggested by Fine's office and that the U.S. attorneys' office would rename its "anti-terrorism" category to remove the implication that every case involves terrorism.

In recent days the Administration has brought to our attention how Iranian operatives, the Quds Force, are aiding Shiite militias in Iraq.  You can see Tim Russert question Tony Snow about this here. 

But what about Pakistan? Their intelligence services have long aided the Taliban, and appear to be doing so again.  The Times has a major story today about how Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are regrouping, and regaining some of their former operational strength from a new base camp in Pakistan.  Another story details how a recent bombing in Iran was likely to have come from operatives based in Pakistan.   As I wrote yesterday, there have been many stories in recent months about Sunni insurgents inside Iraq, some allied with Al Qaeda and some not, have been receiving financial support from Sunnis in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East.  These insurgents, of course, have killed many more people in Iraq than the Shiite militias, and are considered far more dangerous. 

Why is all this activity by Sunni extremists equally troubling to our government as what is happening with the Quds Force? In our current desire to isolate Shiite Iran, are we looking the other way on the growing strength of radical Sunni elements in the Middle East? Are we shooting for some kind of balance, believing the Shiites have a grown a little too powerful, so we need to let the Sunnis regroup? But aren't these radicals the same ones who attacked us on 9/11, are the ones who we are surging to subdue, and whose growing power requires more troops in Afghanistan?  

As those in Congress, of both parties, who have been bravely fighting the President these last few weeks look to their next act, my hope is that their goal is to create a new strategy for the Middle East that makes sense of all this.  While focusing on troop levels is important, our goal should be to force a big conversation about a new strategy, one that now must deal with this very new dynamic unleashed by our actions, the growing regional struggle for power between the Sunnis and Shiites.  Redeploying the troops is a tactic - but what is the strategy?

If you didn't see Chuck Hagel yesterday, I strongly recommend watching his opening statement.  It is powerful. 

If he runs for President he is going to be a formidable candidate.

Earlier today Hillary released what her campaign says is the first in a series of web video statements.  Called Hillcasts, this one is on Iraq.  You can see it here. 

In this cycle political video is migrating from 30 second spots to the web and eventually to mobile phones.  It will be interesting to see what form these videos take.  On TV videos are 30 seconds.  The video Hillary released today is 3 minutes.  Is this a good length? For her site? For youtube? For mobile media? As a former television producer I am fascinated to see the creation of this new whole form of political communications - non TV video - one which is being embraced with great intensity in the early days of politics 2007. 

As the House is wrapping up 3 days of debate on a non-binding resolution opposing the President's decision to send roughly 20,000 more US troops to Baghdad, I wanted to share with you three of the most absurd moments of the debate. 

First, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) takes a machete to logic and argues that a vote to rebuke the President is actually a vote for the stay the course in Iraq.  I wish this was tongue-in-cheek, but I'm not sure the earnest, Rand Corporation-quoting, "Democrat Party"-referencing, gentleman from Sea island, Georgia is capable of it.

Next, we have Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) of anti-Muslim discrimination fame.  Here's Virgil explaining how voting for the resolution would condemn us to live in a country where our money reads "In Mohammed We Trust," and "the green crescent flag of Islam flies over the Capitol and the White House."  Virgil Goode has no idea the 19th century is over, really. 

Finally, there is Rep. Don Young (R-AK), who quoted a fake Abraham Lincoln quote, and now refuses to retract it.

Another remarkable story, coming from the government, challenging the neocon view of the world. 

Among the many telling graphs: "I am not satisfied with the readiness of our non-deployed forces," Schoomaker told the Senate Armed Services Committee, noting that the increased demands in Iraq and Afghanistan "aggravate that" and increase his concern. "We are in a dangerous period," said Schoomaker, adding that he recently met with his Chinese counterpart, who made it clear that China is scrutinizing U.S. capabilities.

We've written before about the fact that the 20,000 new troops the President is deploying to Iraq will go there without proper equipment.  Now the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have written a letter to the President on the subject.  The press release is below.

For Immediate Release

Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2007

CONTACT:  Jim Manley / Rodell Mollineau, Reid, 202-224-2939

                Brendan Daly / Nadeam Elshami, Pelosi, 202-226-7616

 PELOSI AND REID DEMAND ADEQUATE ARMOR AND EQUIPMENT FOR TROOPS IN IRAQ

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi today sent the following letter to President Bush, urging him to take the necessary steps to ensure that the tens of thousands of soldiers being sent to escalate the war in Iraq have the armor and equipment needed to perform their mission and protect their lives. Unfortunately, reports suggest that the President is once again sending troops into Iraq without adequate supplies and support. Democrats, who join the overwhelming majority of Americans in opposing the President’s escalation, believe the men and women serving bravely in Iraq should receive the equipment and support they need and deserve.

Quotes from the letter:

“As Iraqi leaders bicker, the violence in Iraq continues to inflict casualties on our troops at unacceptably high rates.  Equally disturbing is the fact that thousands of the new troops you are sending to Iraq as well as those already there will apparently not have the armor and equipment they need to perform the mission and reduce the likelihood of casualties.”

“Mr. President, it is wrong to deploy troops to the Iraqi theater until they have the up-armored Humvees, equipment, lodging, training and other support required to carry out their mission.  We hope you will work with us to make sure that they do.  Our troops and their families deserve nothing less.”