Friday, August 11, 2006

It's Time for a Transformation of US Policy in Iraq

Tom Hayden's recent web-post for The Nation (August 9), titled "Iraq is Dying," suggests all the reasons why US intervention in Iraq may now be doing so much more harm than good to the people of Iraq, and to the credibility of the United States around the world, and especially in the Islamic world.

And in case US political leaders of both parties have not yet recognized the writing on the wall for the best way to fight terrorism, here it is:

The strongest way to fight terrorism is to create a credible foreign policy that understands, respects, and treats the Islamic world as a partner in building a more peaceful and just future for all people.


This is the best and strongest policy for marginalizing terrorists over the long run. The current Bush policy agenda of violence and war, rather than of smart negotiation and committed collaboration and partnership-building, is producing terrorists and increasing the terrorist threat, rather than decreasing it. And over the long run, such policy will produce disaster on all sides. The only way out of this disastrous policy mess is a fundamental transformation of policy that recognizes the greatest strength in foreign policy comes from smart and committed collaboration and negotiation to build trust around principles of common humanity and justice.

And the best way to "defeat" terrorism over the short and long run is to stop treating "terror" as a cause and rationale for war (as President Bush did once again yesterday in his response to news of the successful British defeat of terrorism, which came not through war, but through strategic intelligence), and to start treating it as a long-term problem that needs to be addressed through strategic economic, social, and political programs that build solidarities with the Islamic peoples of the world, and invite them to join with us in building together a just world for all, without the imperial pretention that the US can dictate to the rest of the world how that future should be achieved.

(The British were able to detect and prevent a major terrorist plot because they have been using human intelligence to build collaborative partnerships and use strategic intelligence to defeat specific acts of terrorism, rather than to fight an ill-defined "war" on terrorism.)

But as we are seeing in the Middle-East, in spite of the so-called US "war on terror," the fever of war and its terrorizing violence is spreading (all war is terror!--especially in the age of 21st-century weapons!), and unless the people of the world, and especially the people of the US, demand a major change in their government's strategies and policies, this violence will continue to spread. A foreign policy that puts violence and war first, as the way to accomplish foreign policy objectives, ends up looking a lot like terrorism itself, and ends up producing more violence and chaos than it can ever hope to deal with effectively. The end-game, without a major turn in policy, will be disaster not only for the Iraqis, but for the people of the US, as violence increases in the Middle-East, and the US government sends in more of our soldiers to try to deal with it, and to die battling an unwinnable conflict.

And in the mean time all the other major problems that so urgently need to be addressed, such as global warming and the energy crisis, will continue to be ignored by a US federal government "governed" by war.

As Tom Hayden mentions in his report, one of the few signs of real hope for such a turn is the delegation of US citizens from CodePink that was invited to meet with leading members of the Iraqi Parliament over this past week (for a great blog describing the experience of one of the people on this delegation, read this diary posted on Daily Kos (Aug. 6), by JeeniCriscenzo). Tom Hayden was one of the members of this peace delegation, and wrote his piece for The Nation after participating in two days of discussions with the Iraqis in Jordan at what he called "an unprecedented meeting initiated by Code Pink and attended by Cindy Sheehan and a smattering of peace activists that included Iraq Veterans Against the War and United for Peace and Justice." He continues:
That so many Iraqi representatives wanted to meet with antiwar Americans was a hopeful sign. Attending were official representatives of the Shiite coalition now holding power, the minority Sunni bloc, the anti-occupation Muslim Scholars Association, parliamentarians and torture victims from Abu Ghraib. Their broad consensus favored a specific timetable for American withdrawal combined with efforts to "fix the problems" of the occupation as the withdrawal proceeds. Recent surveys show that 87 percent of Iraqis hold the same views.

*****
The qualified Iraqi demands for withdrawal reflect the virtual civil war that has arisen in the wake of the US occupation. Like victims of repeated battery, many Sunnis fear escalating attacks on their civilian population if the streets are dominated by the Badr militia after the Americans leave. They feel pressured by the Americans to abandon their aspirations for a unified Iraqi state, accept minority status in a partitioned country, or join as partners with their American occupiers to fight against pro-Iranian or Al Qaeda forces in Iraq.
The current tragic US "adventure" in Iraq should be understood within the much larger historical context of US intervention that Steven Kinzer has nicely explored in his recent book Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (see interview with Kinzer on Democracy Now here), and in his earlier book, All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (2003). Only by combining historical understanding with democratic political vision and a commitment to reconstructing US policy in a way that respects and pays more attention to the voices and vision of US and Iraqi citizens, than it pays to war hawks and profiteers, will the US ever find an "honorable" way out of this tragic interventionary war.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Progressive Democratic Vision is the New Center of Strength for a Secure and Sustainable Future for All

From New Democratic Agenda:

Republicans (and Republican fellow travelers, such as Lieberman has become) immediately sought to salve their fears about the rising tide of progressive democratic politics symbolized by the Lamont victory in Connecticut by resorting to Orwellian doublespeak that sought to turn new democratic signs of strength into weakness.

Instead of recognizing what the Lamont victory clearly represents--the growing strength of a progressive democratic resurgence in this country that has clear ideas about how to build a strong America by taking our government back from the corporate sycophants in Congress who have been systematically destroying and continually weakening our country, the Republicans would like to deflect attention from their own terrible weakness and failures of policy by Orwellian games of language that deny the reality of democratic strength.

Too bad for them. Because the more Republicans ignore reality and retreat into their Orwellian logic of doublethink--which does nothing to change the realities on the ground--the more disastrous will be the consequences of their policy failures for families in this country and around the globe who seek to live in stable and prosperous communities.

Because progressive democrats champion policies that build an environment for strong, stable, and prosperous communities, it is democrats who now represent the party of strength and true security for American citizens and families. Meanwhile, the Republicans continue to defend and retreat into an Orwellian fantasy-world that seems to celebrate ever-growing levels of counter-violence and destabilization in the name of a so-called "war on terror" where anything seems to be permissable in the name of the weird language and fantasies of "Homeland Security" (even while the real victims of Katrina, of poor health care, of uninsurance, and of poverty and disease, continue to suffer from tremendous ongoing failures of on-the-ground response within our own country).

And this ongoing disaster is what Republicans now seem to call strength and "staying the course."
Unfortunately, reality on the ground declares otherwise. As we are seeing more and more vividly, at the price of an ever-growing toll of death and destruction: "Staying the course" of a failed policy vision and strategy is staying the course to disaster.

So if we want a definition of strength and strong policy that will lead us to somewhere other than disaster, we now need to look elsewhere, and demand that every person we put into office this November will represent our public interests--and demonstrate clearly that they have the ability and the commitment to understanding strength in ways that will benefit rather than harm the public interests of the people of this country and the rest of the world.

As Robert Borosage, of the Campaign for America's Future, has written:
[Lamont's] victory represents a growing voter revolt against the failed policies and politics of the Bush administration and its congressional enablers, particularly the debacle in Iraq. Until a few weeks ago, Lieberman prided himself on being the president's leading Democratic ally in touting the war. After his defeat, Democrats will show more backbone in challenging the current disastrous course and more Republicans will look for ways to distance themselves from the president.

Lamont's victory was propelled by a rising tide of progressive energy—activists who are tired of losing elections to the right and disgusted with cautious politicians who duck and cover rather than stand and fight. Until a few weeks ago, Lieberman exemplified those Democrats who establish their "independence" by pushing off the causes of their own party and embracing the right's agenda. His voters didn't abandon him; he abandoned them long ago. After his defeat, incumbents in both parties may begin to listen more closely to their voters and less avidly to their donors.
(To read more from Borosage, click here)

In an increasingly insecure and violent world, as represented by today's disrupted terror plot, we need political leaders and representatives who will fight for the interests of everyday citizens and families. We need politicians who will not allow corporate money and influence, and the seductions of war profiteering, to distract them from the primary responsibility of promoting policies that immediately begin to build stable and sustainable communities. In a turbulent world, such policy-building will require strong democratic policy vision and the commitment to fight for the common democratic interests of all citizens against the profiteering and exploitation of the many by the few.

It's time for a new progressive democratic politics, and new progressive policymaking vision in this country, and the Lamont primary victory is a clear sign the citizens of this country are organizing to take their government and their country back from those who have been exploiting both for their own narrow profits--to the harm of democracy everywhere.

So to all who would resort to Orwellian doublethink to twist the Lamont victory into a sign of democratic weakness or leftist extremism, we have this to say in return: It's time to wake up from your delusion and face reality. Progressive democracy is the new center of strength for a secure and sustainable future for all, and it is organizing today to win the future back from those who seek to exploit the many and weaken democracy everywhere for the profit of the few.

Wealth spent in the struggle to strengthen the public good and secure the advantages of true participatory democracy for all is wealth well-spent. But wealth spent in the pursuit of making the wealthy more wealthy and powerful while everyone else is allowed to suffer the consequences of this betrayal of the commonwealth, is also a fundamental betrayal of democracy here at home and abroad.

If Lamont's victory is a sign of how progressive citizens across this country, from the poorest to the wealthiest, are learning to invest and organize their resources to take back their government from those who would use wealth and power irresponsibly to betray the public interest, then this victory is a tremendous and hopeful sign of the growing strength and vitality of progressive vision and politics in this country. Because we are the people, and we are the democratic many, we do not need to remain the victims of those who would exploit our tax dollars, our soldiers' lives, and our environmental futures, for private profit. Through organizing our public power, we can take our government back for the good of democracy everywhere.

Because Lamont's primary victory is only a first step, however, and by no means guarantees a progressive Senate victory in November (since Lieberman has declared he will fight Lamont all the way to election day), we need to continue to organize our wealth of resources--financial, but especially our intellectual and imaginative resources--to create a new politics and a new policymaking vision for this country. Such vision and political power will be necessary not only to support the victory of a progressive Connecticut senator, but to make sure that Senator Lamont will have many other progressive colleagues to work with him in the halls of Congress, and that outside these halls each progressive Senator or Representative will know they have a strong network of public support and vibrant energy to back up their struggles to create and implement progressive policies in the halls of Congress in the years ahead.

Getting progressive candidates elected is a necessary first step, but then we need to make sure we give them the tools and the power they need to create and implement the new progressive policies that are so desperately needed to address the tremendous challenges of global warming, poverty, disease, and growing violence that now (thanks in part to the tragically misdefined understanding of "strength" that has defined Republican policy) face all of us in the twenty-first century.

Onward--

Friday, August 04, 2006

"Not Since the Vietnam Era" has the US Army been so Abused

In spite of all the denials and soft-peddling of the desperate situation our country and our soldiers are facing because of the failed foreign policy of the Bush administration, the facts on the ground continue to speak ever more loudly and horribly for themselves, as we see every day in the blood being spilled in the Middle-East. And we learn the reasons why from new books like the one by Thomas Ricks, appropriately titled "Fiasco," and the following--

From policybusters:

The National Security Advisory Group, an advisory group of defense and national security experts chaired by former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, has released a disturbing letter and call for attention to a crisis in the ability of this country to meet its most basic self-defense obligations, as a result of the protracted war in Iraq, poor planning, and inadequate attention to support of the military--

This letter states:
Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army's readiness been so degraded. . . . The administration's willingness to put our nation at such strategic risk is deeply disturbing. And its failure to adequately support the soldiers who are risking their lives for this nation is unacceptable.
In response to this letter, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has said: "Under President Bush and the Republican Congress a large part of our Army could not respond to a crisis. Five years after the 9/11 attacks and with threats to our security evident around the world, this failure to maintain military readiness is unacceptable and dangerous."

And Senator Jack Reed said, "The men and women so bravely serving our nation should not have to worry about whether they have adequate equipment and resources to do their job."

From Today's American Progress Action Report:
TWO-THIRDS OF ARMY BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS NOT READY TO REPORT FOR DUTY: In a letter to President Bush last week, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) warned that the Army is at dangerously low levels of military readiness. "The Army is showing the wear and tear of constant battle after nearly five years of war." Skelton explained, "Army readiness is in crisis. The administration has brought us here because of a lack of planning and a lack of funding. Today two-thirds of the brigade combat teams in our operating force are unready." These combat brigades would be the units, according to Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), that "could be called upon or would be called upon to go to war in North Korea, Iran, or any other country or region."

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush claimed that lack of military readiness should be considered a failure of the White House. "So let’s get something straight right now. To point out that our military has been overextended, taken for granted and neglected, that’s no criticism of the military. That is criticism of a president and vice president and their record of neglect," he said. A group of former defense experts released a letter today, warning, "Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army's readiness been so degraded."
Here is the full text of the Letter to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid from the Defense experts, dated August 1, 2006:
Dear Leader Pelosi and Leader Reid:

We are writing to express our deep concern about the U.S. Army's current state of readiness and to urge you to take immediate action to address this urgent problem. We have recently learned that:

-- Two thirds of the Army's operating force, active and reserve, is now reporting in as unready.

-- There is not a single non-deployed Army Brigade Combat Team in the United States that is ready to deploy.

The bottom line is that our Army currently has no ready, strategic reserve. Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army's readiness been so degraded.

This is particularly dangerous at a time when the United States is engaged in a global effort to counter terrorism and is facing numerous crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iran and North Korea. The lack of a ready strategic reserve in our Army weakens our ability to deter undesired actions by these nations, as well as our ability to respond effectively to such actions.

This degraded readiness condition stems from the heavy deployment of combat forces the Army has sustained these past four years. Predictably, this has resulted in accelerated wearout of large quantities of Army equipment, disruptions in training schedules, and strains on meeting recruitment and reenlistment goals. We called attention to this looming problem in an earlier report, "The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk," January 2006, but that report was met with indifference and denial by the administration. This problem can no longer be denied.

Restoring the Army's readiness requires additional funding, but, inexplicably, the administration is underfunding the Army. It has not requested funding adequate to support the roles and missions envisioned for the Army by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, nor has it provided adequate funding to support the operational demands being placed on the Army today. Remarkably, the Office of Management and Budget recently cut the Army's request for FY06 supplemental appropriations by $4.9 Billion, undermining the Army's efforts to "get well" after substantial equipment degradation and losses in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. We believe this constitutes a serious failure of civilian stewardship of the military.

The administration's willingness to put our nation at such strategic risk is deeply disturbing. And its failure to adequately support the soldiers who are risking their lives for this nation is unacceptable. The readiness degradation that has already occurred could lead to a downward spiral that will take years to correct unless promptly addressed. Under these conditions, it is important for the Congress to step forward to exercise its oversight responsibilities for equipping and training the Armed Services.

Therefore, we call on you to take all necessary steps to address this situation on an urgent basis, including increasing funding to restore the Army's readiness to the levels needed to safeguard this nation's interests at home and abroad. The most immediate opportunity is the FY07 defense appropriations bill that will soon come to the floor of the Senate. We urge you to offer an amendment to increase funding to address the Army's readiness shortfalls. We also suggest that the Armed Services Committees hold hearings to determine the full depth of the readiness problems already manifested in the Army and possibly looming for the Marines.

Sincerely,

William J. Perry
Chair, National Security Advisory Group

Madeleine K. Albright
Graham T. Allison
Samuel R. Berger
Ashton B. Carter
Wesley K. Clark
Thomas E. Donilon
Michèle A. Flournoy
John D. Podesta
Susan E. Rice
John M. Shalikashvili
Wendy R. Sherman
Elizabeth D. Sherwood-Randall
James B. Steinberg
The National Security Advisory Group provides analysis and recommendations on long-term defense and national security issues to the House and Senate Democratic Leaders. Their letter of today builds on their report from earlier this year, "The U.S. Military: Under Strain and at Risk" released in January 2006, available here.