Promises, Promises

Barack Obama’s speech before a joint session of Congres tonight (video) was expansive in scope and evocative of hope (transcript).

To call it ambitious would be an understatement. Three major policy thrusts were put forward, each of which is designed to enhance the long-term prospects for our economy. In health care, the president proposed reforms intended to take the burden off both families and businesses by reigning in costs and eliminating waste. In energy, he promised a long overdue reversal of our dependence on oil and a concomitant effort to enable the growth and development of alternative energy sources. In education, he pledged that every American will be able to afford a college education and that by 2020, America will once again lead the world in the proportion of citizens with a college education.

On the financialal front, Mr. Obama said his administration was working to shore up the banking system and get credit flowing once again. On the fiscal front, he said that old ways of hiding government spending would come to an end, that earmarks and wasteful or ineffective programs will be terminated, and that future generations won’t be burdened with an overwhelming debt. Att the same time, he promised that no one making under $250,000 a year will have their taxes raised and that taxes will be cut for 95% of the American people. He also noted that beginning not this year, but next year, the federal budget would be gone over line by line to eliminate waste and earmarks.

The biggest challenge Obama faced was to renew confidence in the economy. Rhetorically, he did exactly that; the speech was stirring and highly encouraging. In reality, however, one wonders whether a single speech, no matter how brilliant, can have any lasting effect on a disheartened public. Both the speech and the speaker were Reaganesque; no one can say whether it’s morning in America again, but for an hour at least, if felt that way.

In foreign affairs, the president promised a new era of engagement, with aggressive diplomacy replacing unilateralism. At the same time, he threw down the gauntlet to our enemies, insisting that those who wish to harm us won’t be allowed to plot against us from safe havens anywhere, particularly from Pakistan. He declared that Guantanamo Bay will be closed and that most of our troops will be withdrawn from Iraq while maintaining order in that country.

There were three overt rebukes of the Bush administration. On torture, the president made an unequivocal declaration that the United States does not torture (implying, of course, “any longer.”) The Joint Chiefs of Staff and John McCain were among the first to stand and applaud, and rightly so. The president made a pointed reference to the squandering of the balanced budget Bush inherited from Bill Clinton, and another to the Bush administration’s mismanagement of the $700 billion dollar bank bailout.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the speech was its invocation of hope. Whether that hope is more realistic or fantastic remains to be seen. What President Obama didn’t make clear was how, short of divine intervention, we can do everything he promised while at the same time reducing the budget deficit and chipping away at the national debt.

Mr. Obama appealed to the promise of America, which he called the most powerful force for progress on earth.

The promise of America isn’t built on promises, however.

Talk is cheap. What the president promised tonight won’t be.

Newsprism

Palin Attacks Obama’s Patriotism with Bush-like Eloquence

Newsprism has strongly denounced the excesses of media liberals in attacking Sarah Palin (here and here, for example.)

Now that she’s finally been allowed to step into the media spotlight, however, her rhetoric is beginning to look like a cross between the shallow silliness of Rush Limbaugh and the amoral cynicism of Karl Rove.

On Friday, she took a shot at Obama’s patriotism by suggesting that a single quote about the war in Afghanistan, taken out of context from a 2007 campaign appearance, should disqualify the Democratic nominee from leading our armed forces.

Here’s the Obama quote, which was a response about how we could better use troops stationed in Iraq:

We’ve got to get the job done (in Afghanistan), and that requires us to have enough troops that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.

And here’s Palin’s response:

Some of his comments that he has made about the war that I think may — in my world — disqualifies someone from consideration as the next commander in chief. Some of his comments about Afghanistan and what we are doing there, supposedly just air-raiding villages and killing civilians.

First of all, John McCain and the vast majority of the military and intelligence communities all agree that we need more troops in Afghanistan. Second, Obama is spot on in noting that we’re alienating key elements in Afghanistan—recent protests against collateral damage demonstrate that fact. Third, Palin incorrectly implies that Obama was accusing our forces of atrocious behavior, a backhanded jab at his patriotism that, probably by design, invokes similar accusations made by Vietnam war protestors. Fourth, Palin’s grammar and syntax sound more like a fumbling high school debater than a candidate for the vice presidency.

Obama’s choice of words was unfortunate and highly vulnerable to being twisted by Swiftboaters and those obsessed with superficial canards like lapel pins. But to suggest that a single line disqualifies him from being our Commander-in-Chief is laughable. In fact, even that bastion of liberal reporting, FoxNews, notes that

Republicans lashed out at (Obama) at the time, though the Associated Press published a fact-check shortly afterward that showed, by their count at the time, Western forces had killed 286 civilians in the country, compared with 231 killed by militants in 2007. 

Today, based on a front-page article in the New York Times, Palin made a similar attack that attempts to link Obama with sixties radical and Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers:

(Obama) is not a man who sees America as you see America, and as I see America. Our opponent, though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect — imperfect enough that he’s pallin’ around with terrorists who would target their own country. Americans need to know this. … I think, OK we gotta get the word out. This is in fairness to the electorate we gotta start telling people what the other side represents.

First, while Obama served on the board of a charity with Ayers, the Democratic nominee has strongly condemned Ayers, calling him “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.” The phrase “pallin’ around with” mischaracterizes the relationship between Obama and Ayers. Second, guilt by association is a classic form of character assassination that could be used against anyone who’s spent any time in public service. Third, using a violent radical to exemplify “what the other side represents” is downright dishonest and unethical. And fourth, there’s that Bush-like inability to put together a sentence that would pass muster in a high school English class.

Again, FoxNews, to its credit, plays it down the middle with a counterpoint:

The Times article she mentioned concluded that Obama and Ayers did not appear to be close.

The McCain campaign is taking the Straight Talk Express straight down the low road, and for the time being, Palin is doing the driving.

Newsprism

Tina Fey Rips Sarah Palin on the Bush Doctrine—but the Joke is on Liberal Hypocrites

Tina Fey’s impersonation of Sarah Palin on last night’s Saturday Night Live was spot on, and the humor in the show’s opening sketch focused as much on Hillary Clinton’s monomania as on Palin’s inexperience.

The idea that Sarah Palin “doesn’t know what (the Bush Doctrine) is,” however, reveals a glaring degree of hypocrisy among liberal commentators.

For years now we’ve heard liberals rightly condemn the Bush administration for its repeated waffling on the rationale behind our invasion of Iraq. Are we there to protect ourselves from WMD? To create a presence in and stabilize the Middle East? To free the people of Iraq? To counter Iranian hegemony in the region? To spread democracy across the globe?

The so-called Bush Doctrine has had at least four iterations since the invasion, as Charles Krauthammer made clear immediately after the interview with Charles Gibson in which Palin (gasp!) hesitated and asked for clarification when asked her position on that Doctrine. Liberal commentators jumped on Palin’s hesitation as if a split second of thought were clearcut evidence of absolute ignorance. Ditto her question to Gibson about the Bush Doctrine: “In what respect, Charlie?”

Palin’s question, far from demonstrating ignorance, showed that, unlike Gibson, she understood the ambiguity of the question. Which Bush Doctrine are we talking about?

The joke here isn’t on Sarah Palin; it’s on liberal hypocrites like the Queen of Catty Maureen Dowd who decry as “sexist” overly harsh criticism of female Democrats, yet jump on Mrs. Palin at every chance.

Newsprism

Looking for the Most Embarrassing Moment in Presidential History? Mission Accomplished!

Like Babe Ruth’s home run record, Bill Clinton’s “shot heard ’round the world” looked certain to remain the Most Embarrassing Moment in Presidential History for a long, long time. Then came George W. Bush.

Five years ago today, Bush, codpiece and all, landed a fighter jet onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared victory in Iraq. Not only was his declaration premature, he made it beneath an enormous banner reading, “Mission Accomplished.”

Like Clinton’s moment of infamy, Bush’s was truly revealing. If Clinton is an egomanaical self-absorbed sex addict with the morals of a (one-eyed trouser) snake, Bush is a deeply insecure arrested adolescent who’s used the US military as a prop for his own self-aggrandizement. The very idea of using fighter jets, an aircraft carrier, and an entire crew of sailors as backdrops in a swaggering draft dodger’s PR stunt is as pathetic as it is ludicrous.

Just as Clinton denied his boner, saying “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” while he wagged his finger at the nation, Bush now denies the “Mission Accomplished” banner referred to the war in Iraq. The Bush administration claims the banner referred to the mission of the USS Lincoln itself; White House spokesperson Dana Perino continued that farce yesterday, saying

President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said ‘mission accomplished’ for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission.

A banner with those words on it would have been as long as a Babe Ruth homerun.

Sometimes it’s the biggest egos, and sometimes the smallest, that require the most stroking.

Newsprism

Bush Administration Going Down in History—and Down and Down and Down

If journalists write the first draft of history, historians write the final one. Judging by two polls of historians conducted by the History News Network, one four years ago and the other last month, Bush has gone from bad to worse—and maybe, to worst.

In 2004, 415 historians were surveyed on Bush’s legacy. 81% believed the Bush administration would be judged a failure compared to 19% who believed it would be judged a success. 12% went so far as to say Bush would go down as the worst president in American history.

In 2008, 109 historians were surveyed. 98% believed the Bush years would be judged a failure compared to less than 2% who believed they would be judged a success. A staggering 61% said Bush would go down as the worst president in history.

The History News Network may not be the most objective source, but dismal evaluations of Bush aren’t confined to HNN. Eminent Princeton historian Sean Wilentz wrote in Rolling Stone two years ago that

George W. Bush’s presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace…. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.

Wilentz is joined by presidential historian Douglas Brinkley of Tulane University, who in December, 2006, wrote in the Washington Post that

it’s safe to bet that Bush will be forever handcuffed to the bottom rungs of the presidential ladder. The reason: Iraq … which is an unmitigated disaster.

Many will dismiss the nearly unanimously negative judgment of Bush as evidence of the liberal leanings of historians.

While the field does harbor a preponderance of liberals, historians as a group are notoriously cautious and circumspect, waiting for the historical record before pronouncing judgment. In addition, nowhere near 98% of histrians are liberal, meaning that the vast majority of moderate and conservative historians agree with their liberal colleagues.

Besides, as the most historically grounded conservative commentator, Pat Buchanan, notes, George Bush is anything but a conservative (see here, here, here, here, and here.)

Here’s a sample of the historians’ evaluations of Mr. Bush:

Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill.

With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct. When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency.

…the paranoia of Nixon, the ethics of Harding and the good sense of Herbert Hoover…. God willing, this will go down as the nadir of American politics.

His domestic policies have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.

George Bush has combined mediocrity with malevolent policies and has thus seriously damaged the welfare and standing of the United States…

His administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States enjoyed enormous support around the world. President Bush squandered that goodwill by taking the country into an unnecessary war of choice and misleading the American people to gain support for that war. And he failed utterly to have a plan to deal with Iraq after the invasion…. Mr. Bush inherited a sizable budget surplus and a thriving economy…. Bush transformed the surplus into a massive deficit. The tax cuts and other policies accelerated the concentration of wealth and income among the very richest Americans. These policies combined with unwavering opposition to necessary government regulations have produced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Then there is the incredible shrinking dollar, the appointment of incompetent cronies, the failure to react properly to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, the blatant disregard for the Constitution—and on and on.

James Buchanan, Millard Fillmore, move over. Your failures appear to have been misoverestimated.

Newsprism

GAO, ABC, MSNBC Release Nature of Sensitive Military Equipment Available Online

The General Accountability Office (GAO) released a report today detailing the nature of sensitive military equipment for sale at online sites like eBay and Craigslist.

The report was prepared by the Special Investigations Unit of the GAO for the House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, which held a hearing today. Chairman John Tierney was prominently featured in a subsequent news release entitled “Investigation into the Sale of Sensitive, In-Demand Military Equipment and Supplies on the Internet.”

Most of the equipment in question, such as aircraft parts, night vision goggles, antennae, and chemical/biological protective gear, could jeopardize technical secrets if it fell into the hands of enemy military forces capable of sophisticated reverse engineering.

One relatively simple piece of equipment, however, would also allow individual terrorists or insurgents to easily masquerade as American soldiers, putting both soldiers and missions at risk. Stolen military uniforms, much like police badges and uniforms, have been available on the black market for some time; this specific piece of equipment, however, is small and simple; it’s the size of a name tag and is made to be used with special night vision goggles that allow US forces to operate at night with a huge advantage over the enemy. Unlike the more complicated equipment, it could potentially be copied by terrorist or insurgent organizations or cells.

ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson aired a story containing the nature of the equipment in question yesterday evening after a copy of the report or some part of the report was apparently leaked.

Today MSNBC, as well as cnet.com and fcw.com, also published the nature of the equipment.

That the GEO and the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs would alert God only knows how many terrorists and insurgents to both the existence of this equipment and its availability is highly questionable. Moreover, the release of the report has significantly increased the demand for this “sensitive, in-demand military equipment,” raising its value considerably.

Raising the value of such equipment can only increase the rate at which it is being stolen and sold on the Internet.

The fact that so few news organizations chose to publish the nature of this particular piece of equipment is heartening; ABC and MSNBC, however, should surely have shown more restraint.

Newsprism

Bush Announces Exit Strategy, Timetable for Withdrawal

In a speech today at the White House (transcript), a relatively sombre and downcast President Bush (video) announced his exit strategy and timetable for withdrawal from Washington, DC: on January 20, 2009, at precisely noon, Mr. Bush will leave office barring unforeseen circumstances.

At that time, a new president—if the Petraeus/Crocker hearings were any indication, Barack Obama—will inherit the war in Iraq, which Mr. Bush said is “not endless.”

“Not endless” is about as optimistic as the president could be. His hopes for a positive conclusion to the war were sketched out using “if” and ”would” rather than “when” and ”will,” an indication that he isn’t able to realistically predict, or even define, victory:

if we succeed in Iraq, after all that al-Qaida and Iran have invested there, it’d be a historic blow to the global terrorist movement and a severe setback for Iran. It would demonstrate to a watching world that mainstream Arabs reject the ideology of al-Qaida and mainstream Shia reject the ideology of Iran’s radical regime. It would give America a new partner with a growing economy and a democratic political system in which Sunnis and Shia and Kurds all work together for the good of their country.

The fact that after all the US has invested in Iraq the situation there is increasingly untenable is already being touted as a victory for the insurgents and jihadists who continue to tie up our armed forces. A “watching world” has seen terrorist attacks increasing across the globe, due in part to outrage over the arrogance of launching an unnecessary, unjustified pre-emptive war against an already desperate and isolated Iraq. As for transforming Iraq into a prosperous, democratic, and unified ally, one wonders if the happy Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds will all be riding unicorns across rainbows to fields of cotton candy.

On the other hand, the president admitted that failure in Iraq would bring about dire consequences:

If we fail there, al-Qaida would claim a propaganda victory of colossal proportions and they could gain safe havens in Iraq from which to attack the United States, our friends and our allies. Iran would work to fill the vacuum in Iraq…. This would diminish our nation’s standing in the world and lead to massive humanitarian casualties and increase the threat of another terrorist attack on our homeland.

The “propaganda victory” Mr. Bush refers to has already been accomplised by al Qaeda and the Sunni and Shiite insurgents, who’ve fought the world’s only remaining superpower to a draw using geurrilla tactics and improvised weapons and strategies. Iran has already been made the dominant force in the region, and our standing in the world, both economic and moral, declines daily. As for “massive humanitarian casualties,” one wonders what the president considers the nearly 100,000 dead, the two to four million displaced, the ethnic cleansing, and the decimation of Iraq’s already fragile economy—not to mention the cost in American dead and wounded—to be.

The sole silver lining in Bush’s remarks was directed at soldiers deployed to Iraq after August 1, who will serve the traditional 12-month stint rather than the current 15-month stint that has strained our military to the breaking point. This change in policy, however, hints at the damage the Iraq quagmire has done to the military, which the army openly acknowledges and which has left us increasingly vulnerable.

President Bush essentially slathered lipstick on the proverbial pig this morning. Even the centrist Christian Science Monitor characterized the speech as a defeatest hand-off to the next president, who will have to re-define “victory” and come up with a plan for a responsible withdrawal.

The president seems almost delusional in his stubborn refusal to admit what an astronomical miscalculation he made in launching an invasion of Iraq.

All that was missing today in the White House’s Cross Hall was another banner reading, “Mission Accomplished.”

Newsprism

Has ABC News Put American Soldiers in Danger?

ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson aired a story tonight about sensitive American military equipment being available on eBay and other Internet sites.

Included in the story was a segment on a technology that allows American soldiers to quickly identify each other, thereby minimizing friendly fire casualties. The knowledge that this technology exists and is available online could enable the enemy in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere to appear to be American soldiers, clearly putting our soldiers in jeopardy.

Newsprism won’t publish any details of the technology in question; ABC News made a substantial error in judgment by doing so.

Newsprism

Good News, Bad News from Iraq

In Congressional hearings yesterday, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker painted a bleak picture of the situation in Iraq more than five years after the US invasion (transcripts.)

The good news: After five years of occupation, minor progress has been made as violence is abating somewhat and political compromise is on the rise.

The bad news: General Petraeus called the progress on the security front “uneven” and noted that ”the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory and innumerable challenges remain … Moreover, as events in the past two weeks have reminded us, and as I have repeatedly cautioned, the progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible.” Speaking metaphorically, Petraeus added, “We haven’t turned any corners, we haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel. The champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator.”

Petraeus also asked that troop drawdowns be suspended as the security situation could easily deteriorate at any time. An increase in bombings in Iraq seems to shadow the limited troop withdrawals already underway.

 Violence in Baghdad is on the upswing despite the limited success of the “surge” strategy implemented early last year. Attacks on the fortified Green Zone have increased, killing and wounding dozens of American soldiers. A curfew is in effect in the Iraqi capitol.

Shiite on Shiite violence has risen markedly as militias vie for supremacy throughout Iraq. Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric who controls Iraq’s largest militia, is threatening to suspend a crucial cease-fire as American and Iraqi forces clash with Shiite insurgents in Sadr City, the section of Baghdad where his power is centered.

Ambassador Crocker offered few examples but said the political situation is “moving in the right direction” but is not “linear.” He called political progress “uneven” and “frustratingly slow.”

Iran’s influence in the region continues to increase, further destabilizing the political situation in Iraq, where the Iranians hope to establish a friendly Shiite-dominated government rather than the coalition government envisioned by the US. Iran also continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Recent violence in the critical port city of Basra demonstrates the ability of Iran to exacerbate the conflict between Shiites and the coalition government.

In short, the steep price paid in American lives and treasure has purchased less than nothing as the US invasion appears to have benefitted our staunchest enemy, Iran, while severely damaging our reputation in the world, eroding our alliances, weakening our military, and further empowering global jihad.

President Bush remains optimistic, citing a few oases of positive developments amid a desert of death and destruction.

The president has accomplished one mission: proving beyond doubt that fools rush in where wise men (like his father and Colin Powell) fear to tread.

Newsprism

Follow General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker (Virtually) Live

Bloggers and news organizations are following the Petraeus/Crocker hearings today in (almost) real time (see here, here, and here; live video here.)

The Congressional hearings feature all three remaining presidential candidates questioning four-star General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s testimony on the situation in Iraq.

Newsprism

Green Zone Means “Go” to Shiite Militias

Two American soldiers were killed and another 17 injured in a rocket attack on the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad this weekend.

Another American soldier was killed and 14 more injured in a separate attack in Baghdad as violence erupted between Iraq’s army and Shiite militiamen loyal to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Iraq’s government is pressuring al-Sadr to disband his Mehdi Army, the largest, most sophisticated and well-armed of Iraq’s many militias. Prime Minister al-Maliki has said that unless the Mehdi Army disbands, al-Sadr’s powerful following won’t be allowed to participate in upcoming elections.

The violence represents a new phase in the American occupation of Iraq in which instead of Shiite and Sunni factions attacking each other, rival Shiite factions vie for supremacy against each other and the Shiite-dominated parliament. This new phase has American forces scrambling to meet yet another strategic challenge in a war that defies traditional military planning.

The apparent decline in security in Baghdad, which had been somewhat pacified in the wake of President Bush’s surge strategy, will be part of contentious hearings on Capitol Hill this week. Both Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are scheduled to speak before House and Senate committees.

Observers of the American presidential race can expect the flareup in Baghdad to be used as a political football by both sides. Most Americans, however, will remain purposefully ignorant and apathetic about this most complex and relevant war.

Meanwhile, as of this writing, both CNN and MSNBC prominently feature the deteriorating situation in Baghdad in their online reporting, while The Drudge Report and FoxNews make no mention of it.

Newsprism

100 Years Is a) The Length of the Campaign, b) McCain’s Age, or c) A Moral Obligation

It sure feels like this presidential campaign has been going on for a century, and according to the late night comedians, John McCain was 100 when he gave his first speech in front of the Tower of Babel. 

But the answer, despite what Democrats want to make of a single sound bite, is c., a moral obligation. We have a moral obligation to insure that Iraq returns to its pre-invasion stability and stays there. If that means maintaining an American military presence there for 100 years, as McCain insists (video,) so be it.

When we invaded, we threw Iraq into chaos. If we leave prematurely, as both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have promised to do, Iraq could descend into a Cambodian-style bloodbath, and some of that blood would be on our hands.

A bill sponsored by Obama early last year would have had all US combat brigades out of Iraq by this coming Monday, March 31. In a speech this week, Hillary Clinton mischaracterized McCain’s “100 year” quip four times and said, “my plan is … to remove one to two brigades a month (text.)”

Neither Obama nor Clinton seems to understand the realities on the ground in Iraq; neither seems willing to defy the anti-war sentiments that predominate in the Democratic Party.

To leave Iraq in its current condition, or in any condition we can realistically expect to see in the foreseeable future, would not only be profoundly immoral, but would put us a greater risk of terrorist attack. And at greater risk of skyrocketing oil prices. And at greater risk of a Middle East meltdown. And at greater risk of metastasizing global jihad.

You can oppose the launching and execution of a war and still acknowledge the moral obligations that that war entials.

Newsprism

Pat Buchanan Gives George Bush a History Lesson

Who better to give George Bush a painfully overdue history lesson than Pat Buchanan?

As much a historian as a pundit, Pat doesn’t pull any punches in his latest must-read column.

Buchanan begins,

On reading George Bush’s discourse to the New York Economic Club last week, Cicero’s insight came to mind: “To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child.”

With Iraq entering its sixth year, the dollar sinking to peso levels, the economy careening into recession, and 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens roosting here, Bush alerted us to what really worries him:

“I’m troubled by isolationism and protectionism … (and) another ‘ism,’ and that’s nativism…”

Buchanan proceeds to lay out the historical results of what Bush belittles as ”isolationism, protectionism (and)… nativism”—a dynamic global power inrivaled in wealth, power, and influence. A litany of Bush’s failures follows, concluding with this incisive summation of Bush’s philosophy:

In smearing as nativists, protectionists and isolationists those who wish to stop the invasion, halt the export of factories and jobs to Asia, and stop the unnecessary wars, Bush is attacking the last true conservatives in his party.

Which is understandable. For after the judges and tax cuts, what is there about Bush that is conservative? His foreign policy is Wilsonian. His trade policy is pure FDR. His spending is LBJ all the way. His amnesty for illegals is Teddy Kennedy’s policy.

The real tragedy of the Bush misadministration is that so many of its failures could have been avoided if the president had grounded his decisionmaking less in an obsession with power politics, and more in a conservative  understanding of American history.

Newsprism

F.U.B.A.R.

Exactly five years ago, the US invasion of Iraq began with an overwhelming air assault, “Shock and Awe,” intended to minimize civilian casualties and Iraqi military resistance. The strategy was both humane and effective, unlike nearly all that has followed. (Previous posts here at Newsprism have addressed the lessons we can learn from the war and its astronomical economic, political, and humanitarian costs.)

The War has predictably become a central focus of the presidential campaign, with both Democratic contenders promising to draw our troops down substantially and in short order, and the Republican nominee calling for an open-ended committment that could last decades. Neither approach is tenable, the one risking a bloodbath on the order of the Cambodian “killing fields,” the other risking a slow bleed of American lives, treasure, and stature. Meanwhile, the media obsess on trivial gaffes that suggest Barack Obama doesn’t know about al Qaeda in Iraq, or John McCain doesn’t know that Iran is predominantly Shiite.

In the midst of these political calculations and media molehills, more sober and non-partisan voices should be heard.

In an interview with the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations, Daniel Serwer, the Executive Director of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, believes that a drawdown is inevitable—we simply can’t sustain the current force. Serwer believes that our next president will inherit a force of around 130,000, an improved but still unstable security situation, and a slowly improving, fragile political situation. His hope is that nascent glimmers of political compromise will take hold in time for provincial elections, and that a sense of Iraqi nationalism will ease the tensions between Shiites and Sunnis. Serwer, a career diplomat specializing in the resolution of ethnic and religious tension, is at best guardedly optimistic, though he sees a long slog towards an uncertain outcome ahead.

Dr. Frederick Kagan, a military historian working with the non-partisan American Enterprise Institute, argued forcefully for, and accurately predicted the success of, the Bush surge to secure Baghdad. He’s recommended that in order to consolidate that success, we must accept longer tours for our troops, more reconstruction funding to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, a concerted national effort to recruit new soldiers, an expanded fighting force, and an aggressive push for unity between the warring Shiites and Sunnis. The bottom line for Kagan is American resolve; he calls for “a national commitment to victory in Iraq” and predicts that “failure in Iraq today will require far greater sacrifices tomorrow in far more desperate circumstances.”

Neither Serwer nor Kagan can or would predict the outcome of attemps to reconcile the Shiite and Sunni factions that have in effect divvied up Baghdad and the nation through sectarian violence. Our efforts to this point have sought to facilitate reconciliation, which may or may not be possible. Even if these longstanding and bitter enemies could forge a governing coalition, establishing a democracy wouldn’t be a given. In fact, the best case scenario might be a divided Iraq along the lines of post-WWII Berlin, with neither side practicing anything approaching democracy.

The latest attempt at reconciliation is off to a bad start this week as both Shiite and Sunni factions are boycotting or walking out amid escalating sectarian violence.

In his speech at the Pentagon today, President Bush, seeemingly undaunted, continued to preach his gospel of freedom, democracy, and peace:

…we’re helping the people of Iraq establish a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. A free Iraq will fight terrorists instead of harboring them. A free Iraq will be an example for others of the power of liberty to change the societies and to displace despair with hope. By spreading the hope of liberty in the Middle East, we will help free societies take root — and when they do, freedom will yield the peace that we all desire.

Bush’s idealism flies in the face of the most prescient voice speaking on this war, Colin Powell’s. After removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1992, Powell, then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote “US Forces: Challenges Ahead,” which is currently published online in its entirety by the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations. In the piece, Powell explained why the first Bush administration chose not to invade and occupy Iraq, choosing instead a strategy of containment:

The Gulf War was a limited objective war. If it had not been, we would be ruling Baghdad today—at unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost and ruined regional relationships … Would it have been worth the inevitable follow up: major occupation forces in Iraq for years to come and a very expensive and complex American proconsulship in Baghdad? Fortunately for America, reasonable people at the time thought not.

The best minds in America only offer vague hopes that we can succeed in Iraq. The whole debacle could have and should have been avoided. Neither party has a credible plan to retreat with honor or to win.

That’s the true tragedy of this war: we can’t leave without losing our honor and committing a cowardly and immoral act, we can’t stay in sufficient numbers to achieve our stated objectives, and there’s no such thing as a reasonable compromise between the two courses.

The next president will inherit the worst strategic blunder in American history.

Newsprism

Iraq—Five Years and Some Accounting

Five years into the costly Iraq War, the most compelling question is still the initial one: why? Why invade a nation that hadn’t attacked us and didn’t pose a credible threat to us? Why set the reckless and arrogant precedent of pre-emptive war?

The Bush administration has trundled out a series of reasons.

The initial reasoning went like this: Saddam Hussein is working on weapons of mass destruction that could threaten American interests. This reasoning was backed by Condi Rice’s statement that we don’t want the proof of Hussein’s WMD to be a “mushroom cloud” and Dick Cheney’s theory that even a 1% chance of a WMD attack justified invading and occupying Iraq.  Five years on, it’s become clear that the threat was significantly and intentionally exaggerated. As for Cheney’s “1% Rule,” such absolutism and arrogance cannot be taken seriously; can you imagine a world where every nation followed that doctrine?

A second reason involved the suggestion, made repeatedly by administration officials, that Iraq had some connection to al Qaeda and/or the 9/11 attacks. This suggestion has also been repudiated. Saddam’s secular Baathist Party was hostile to the sectarian fundamentalism of al Qaeda and vice-versa. No credible connection between Iraq and either 9/11 or al Qaeda has ever been uncovered.

A third reason is Bush’s alleged crusade to spread freedom and democracy to the Arab world. This is either the height of naivete, or the height of cynicism. Only a naive misunderstanding of how democracy takes hold and develops would lead one to honestly believe it could be imposed militarily on a fractious nation like Hussein’s Iraq. Only the most brazen cynicism would lead one to use freedom and democracy as rhetorical flourishes masking a cold economic and geopolitical calculation.

Considering the political costs of this invasion and occcupation—the elevation of Iran to regional supremacy, the sundering of the fragile truce between Iraq’s Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, the destabilization of the region and its oil exporting capacity, the loss of America’s moral authority, the erosion of American civil liberties—shouldn’t we be revisiting the real reasons behind what many consider the greatest strategic American foreign policy mistake ever?

And why do we as a nation continue to ignore the costs of this war for the Iraqi people? The tally of documented civilian deaths is approaching 90,000. The number of casualties is probably five to ten times that number. Between two and four million Iraqis have been displaced. Countless millions have been psychologically traumatized in Iraq, and an entire generation has been denied the progress and prosperity the war has delayed or destroyed.

Consider those human costs, and the real reason for the invasion takes on a truly questionable character.

The real reason for the invasion was to establish a front on which to fight al Qaeda and jihadism far from our own shores. President Bush has said as much, with hardly a ripple of reaction: “We will fight the terrorists overseas so we do not have to face them here at home.” We lost 3000 people on 9/11 when a conspiracy planned and executed by mostly Saudis operating in Afghanistan pierced our homeland. Now Iraq has lost 90,000+ and has been set back decades in its development while Bush literally kisses the cheeks and holds the hands of the Saudis, who, along with Exxon and friends, enjoy unprecedented profitability.

Wouldn’t it have made more sense to put even a fraction of the resources we’ve expended in Iraq into Afghanistan, where the Taliban is making a comeback, instead? Deposing Saddam was a noble and desirable goal; wiping out the entire Baath Party infrastructure was neither justified nor desirable, however, unless the real goal was to create anarchy for an extended period during which al Qaeda and its allied jihadists could be fought in a place of our choosing.

We chose Iraq as our battlefield, not as our enemy.

Meanwhile, we’ve suffered 4000 deaths and 40,000 serious injuries, and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz has estimated the eventual monetary cost of the war at three trillion dollars.

Can any reasonable person justify that kind of disproportionate and wrongly-targeted response?

One man who continues to call Iraq a just war is George Bush, whose ill-conceived and reckless use of force had at least one silver lining: the president, absent from combat when he had the chance, got to land a real live fighter jet onboard a real live aircraft carrier.

Mission accomplished, sir. That was one expensive photo op.

Newsprism

Related news satire at Timeless News

Note: This is not advocating withdrawal from Iraq. I’ve written about the conundrum that makes this war such a profound tragedy: it was immoral to invade in the first place, but it would be at least as immoral to withdraw before a stable Iraq emerges, which might be never.

Only One Candidate Can Unite the Country

Six months ago, he was given little if any chance of winning the presidency. He’s crossed the aisle again and again to unite disparate constituencies. His courageous adherence to principle has earned him both admirers and enemies.

Of the three candidates left in the race to the White House, he’s the only one whose conciliatory philosophy and record of compromise can unite the country.

The question is, with all his vulnerabilities and shortcomings, and with all those powerful enemies, can he win?

When Richard Nixon ran against John Kennedy in 1960, Nixon was clearly the more experienced and vetted candidate. Kennedy’s good looks, charm, and message of change won the day, however.

When Gerald Ford ran against Jimmy Carter in 1976, Ford was clearly the more experienced and worldly candidate. Carter’s outside-the-beltway persona and message of change won the day.

When Bob Dole ran against Bill Clinton in 1996, Dole was clearly the more experienced and honest candidate. Clinton’s charisma and message of change won the day.

When the electorate clamors for change, as is the case after seven years under George Bush, a less experienced candidate who captures that desire for change can defeat a less charismatic candidate with far superior credentials and judgment, especially when the latter is associated with the status quo. A primary reason for that is the dominance of television, which thrives on image and energy and change, in introducing candidates to the people.

TV reduces a three-dimensional world to two dimensions, often leading to one-dimensional thinking. The candidate whose image shines on television and whose message of change resonates with the people is clearly Barack Obama.

But it is John McCain who has the edge in foreign policy and legislative experience. It is John McCain who has openly defied the kingmakers in his party and was among the first to call for the ouster of Donald Rumsfeld over missteps in Iraq. It is John McCain who has crossed the aisle time and time again, most notably when he teamed with liberal Democrat Russ Feingold on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, and with liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy on the Kennedy-McCain immigration reform bill, and with Kennedy and John Edwards on the patients’ bill of rights. McCain has also crossed the aisle concerning judicial nominees and warrantless wiretapping (unlike Clinton or Obama,) he’s defied the Bush White House on torturing prisoners, and he worked with Joe Lieberman on climate change legislation.

It is the moderate McCain, a Henry Clay-like compromiser, who can best unite a deeply divided country…

If, in this age of surface and style, he’s given the chance.

Newsprism

Lessons Learned from Presidents Past

Is George Bush’s surge in Iraq working? Is the Iraq War winnable? Should we have invaded Iraq in the first place?

In columns published in The Washington Post last week, liberal Michael Kinsley and conservative Charles Krauthammer paint very different pictures of the situation in Iraq. Kinsley’s “Defining Victory Downward” states it bluntly: the surge has not succeeded in achieving its stated goals, and the ill-conceived war is winnable only if you define winning in the most generous of terms. Krauthammer’s “Democrats Dug In For Retreat” is just as blunt: the surge is the centerpiece of considerable progress in Iraq, where the US can achieve crucial foreign policy goals if only liberal Democrats like Kinsley don’t succeed in derailing that progress.

Somewhere between Kinsley and Krauthammer lies the truth, and the tragedy, of this war. Kinsley and the left are correct in believing we never should have invaded Iraq; Krauthammer and the right are correct in believing we can and must win there.

Invading Iraq has led to hundreds of thousands of casualties, millions of refugees, an empowered Iran, a destabilized Middle East, a discredited America, and an inflamed Muslim world more prone to extremism. But leaving Iraq prematurely would be at least as disastrous, and immoral, as invading prematurely was: more casualties, more refugees, greater Iranian influence, a more destabilized region, and a discredited America even more vulnerable to terrorism.

George Bush combines the worst attributes of two presidents with global ambitions, namely, the humanist idealism of Woodrow Wilson and the nationalist bellicosity of Teddy Roosevelt.

If only President Bush’s world-changing ambitions had been tempered by realism and humility.

When leaving office, two more presidents made clear what their experience in the office had taught them. George Washington warned against foreign entanglements, and Thomas Jefferson against unseemly concentrations of power in the hands of one man.

Newsprism.com