Why Fight For Anyone's Freedom? – Michael Gerson, Washington Post
In the backlash against President Bush's democracy agenda, conservatives are increasingly taking the lead. It is inherently difficult for liberals to argue against the expansion of social and political liberalism in oppressive parts of the world -- though, in a fever of Bush hatred, they try their best. It is easier for traditional conservatives to be skeptical of this grand project, given their history of opposing all grand projects of radical change.
Traditional conservatism has taught the priority of culture -- that societies are organic rather than mechanical and that attempts to change them through politics are like grafting machinery onto a flower. In this view, pushing for hasty reform is likely to upset some hidden balance and undermine the best of intentions. Wisdom is found in deference to tradition, not in bending the world to fit some religious or philosophic abstraction, even one as noble as the Declaration of Independence…
Keeping ‘Bottom-Up’ From Bottoming Out – Greg Bruno, Council on Foreign Relations
… Bolstered by progress in the once-restive Anbar province, Pentagon officials have pinned hopes for a stable Iraq on local tribal leaders’ willingness to turn their weapons against rival militias. President Bush made a surprise visit (AP) to Anbar last month to meet with leaders of that province’s Awakening Council; the so-called “bottom-up” approach to security was highlighted a week later in congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus. Yet opposition to the administration’s preferred security plan is mounting. Anbar tribal leader Abu Risha, the “most prominent figure” (NPR) in the U.S.-led tribal revolt, was killed (American Prospect) ten days after meeting with President Bush. His death preceded an ultimatum from al-Qaeda in Iraq, warning Sunnis they would be attacked if they cooperated with the United States. While the threat hasn’t stopped the strategy from spreading beyond Anbar—to Babil, Baghdad, Diyala, and elsewhere—some experts now question its long-term prospects…
The Lonely War – Rich Lowry, National Review
… This is the lonely war. No one cares about it as much or understands it as well as the men and women here on the ground, who feel — understandably — that they are the only ones even remotely engaged in the fight.
The U.S. government has never brought to bear its resources in a truly national effort to win; the State Department has left almost the entire nonmilitary aspect of the war to the military; the Pentagon’s slow-moving procurement program has an internal clock still set to peacetime; the top brass worry more about relieving the strain on the ground forces than achieving success on the ground; and the Bush administration hasn’t been willing — until too late — to begin to provide a bigger force that would relieve that strain.
On top of this are the members of Congress and senators who show up for visits that seem more about saying they have been to Iraq than truly grappling with the war; the journalists whose reports tend to reflect whatever is the conventional wisdom about the war back in their newsrooms; and supporters and opponents of the war who support their clashing narratives of victory and defeat with the gross simplifications…
Biden’s Gutsy Proposal for Iraq - Scot Lehigh, Boston Globe
… For its part, the administration certainly seemed to realize the symbolic weight such a resolution could carry. The US embassy in Iraq issued a patently disingenuous warning that "attempts to partition or divide Iraq by intimidation, force, or others means" would lead to "extraordinary suffering and bloodshed."
But Biden's isn't a partition plan. Further, the Iraq constitution permits just such a federalized system. Nor is the idea to impose such an arrangement, but rather to work with the UN, Iraq, and its neighbors to promote decentralization.
Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, knows better, avers Biden, who says that on a recent trip to Iraq, he spent hours with Crocker. That's why Biden suspects that the embassy's statement may have been ordered up by the White House to diminish the Senate vote.
"I know that there are a number of serious players in the administration who agree with me, at State and Defense," the senator says. "What I also know is there is very strong pushback from [Vice President] Cheney and from the White House . . . What I hoped this would do was embolden those within the administration who do not agree with the policy of Cheney and company to stand up and push back, now that they know they have a lot of support in the Senate." …
The Silenced Majority – Harold Meyerson, Washington Post
We are condemned, the smart guys tell us, to stay in Iraq. None of the three leading Democratic presidential candidates will pledge to remove all U.S. forces by 2013. In the think-tankocracy of Washington, defense intellectuals of both parties argue that pulling up stakes is not an option.
"Some of the people mentioned as possible defense secretaries under a Democratic White House," The Post's Thomas E. Ricks reported last month, "offer a vision of a U.S. presence in Iraq that does not differ markedly from that of the Bush administration." Even the fantastical idea floated by Defense Secretary Robert Gates -- that U.S. forces should settle into a permanent presence in Iraq as they have in South Korea -- seems to have won at least tacit acceptance among many defense deep thinkers.
Everyone's on board except the American people, but what do they matter? ...
Vale Trooper Pearce – The Australian editorial
When Taliban terrorists claimed responsibility for the death of Trooper David Pearce in Afghanistan on Monday they revealed their despicable motives - to try to force foreign troops out of the country and drag Afghanistan back to the dark ages. While ruling Afghanistan from 1995 to 2001 the Taliban implemented the strictest and most brutal form of sharia law seen anywhere in the Muslim world, with particularly cruel and inhuman treatment of women and girls. Ethnic minorities such as the Hazara were persecuted and slaughtered and, in a visual symbol of religious hatred, the Buddhas of Bamiyan were blown up.
The war in Afghanistan was not a war of choice but an act of collective self-defence. The Taliban not only sheltered Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar from 1995 but supported al-Qa'ida training camps and the terrorist group's increasingly deadly attacks, culminating in those of September 11.
Australian forces are in Oruzgan province as part of a Reconstruction Task Force of engineers and security personnel working on community-based projects. They are there at the invitation of the democratically elected government of President Hamid Karzai and with the authorisation of the UN Security Council, which has authorised the International Security Assistance Force to secure the country. The defeat of the Taliban and of al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan is vital to global security. Australians owe a debt of gratitude to a man or woman who dies serving their country that can never be repaid…
Assessing Our Afghan Goals – Canberra Times editorial
… A careful re-examination of the allied objectives in Afghanistan is essential. Most accounts suggest that a significant proportion of the population support allied involvement. But the troops should not be there simply to support a regime. The Afghan Government, and the foreign aid that is being injected into the country, should be delivering development and services, such as health and education. If, for example, women and girls continue to be oppressed, then one must ask whether the involvement is worthwhile. Is the aid getting through to the progressive and courageous people who are willing to deliver education for all? Some reports suggest that it is not. Are the allies winning hearts and minds? It is difficult to say. And will a democratically elected Afghan government emerge that will be able to govern the country and maintain friendly relations with the west?
At the moment we should persevere in Afghanistan. But there should be continual reassessment with a clear eye on what we hope to achieve.
Stop the Terror in Burma – Laura Bush, Wall Street Journal
… Gen. Than Shwe and his deputies are a friendless regime. They should step aside to make way for a unified Burma governed by legitimate leaders. The rest of the armed forces should not fear this transition--there is room for a professional military in a democratic Burma. In fact, one of Burma's military heroes was also a beloved champion of Burmese freedom: General Aung San, the late father of Aung San Suu Kyi.
As part of a peaceful transition process, the generals must immediately stop their terror campaigns against their own people. They must commit to a meaningful, unrestricted dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and other opposition leaders--including the demonstrating monks, the 88 Generation Students and members of Ms. Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy party. The junta has taken a small, promising first step by appointing its deputy labor minister as a liaison to Ms. Suu Kyi. Now, the regime must release her--and all members of the political opposition--so they can meet and plan a strategy for Burma's transition to democracy.
Meanwhile, the world watches--and waits. We know that Gen. Than Shwe and his deputies have the advantage of violent force. But Ms. Suu Kyi and other opposition leaders have moral legitimacy, the support of the Burmese people and the support of the world. The regime's position grows weaker by the day. The generals' choice is clear: The time for a free Burma is now…
A New Course for Korea – Leon Sigal, Boston Globe
It took a nuclear test by North Korea a year ago today to turn President Bush around, but his change of course on North Korea is already yielding dividends - and not just in reversing the North's nuclear weapons programs. It is also opening the way to peace in Korea and improved security for all of Northeast Asia.
When Bush took power, he came under pressure from hard-liners in the administration and Congress who were spoiling for a fight with China and North Korea. He withstood those pressures and sustained cooperation with Beijing, the key to Asian security.
Hard-liners did get their way on North Korea, however. Far from bringing Kim Jong-il to his knees, they provoked him to accelerate arming. When Bush became president, the North had stopped testing longer-range missiles, had one or two bombs' worth of plutonium, and was verifiably not making more. Six years later it had eight to 10 bombs' worth and was generating still more, had resumed testing missiles and conducted a nuclear test…
Unilateral Naval Disarmament - Seth Cropsey, Weekly Standard
China has been expanding the size of its naval fleet for the same length of time--about 25 years--that the U.S. has been decreasing its Navy. A Congressional Quarterly article warned ominously that China will possess nearly twice as many submarines as the U.S. in 2010, and is likely to surpass the total size of the U.S. fleet five years later--if we do nothing.
In the two years since that article appeared China has continued its decades long annual double-digit defense budget increases: we have done nothing. Notwithstanding several efforts over the past decade to stabilize the diminishing size of the U.S. Navy, the current fleet of 274 combat ships is the same size as it was on the eve of World War I. Even if shipbuilding can be sustained at 7 vessels per year, we will eventually possess a fleet whose numbers equal those achieved just after the Russo-Japanese War. The presidential debates that began half a year ago have considered expensive haircuts and federal support for the renovation of Soldier Field in Chicago. But the fact that the U.S. Navy today is less than half the size it was during the Reagan administration continues to escape serious, sustained attention at the national level…
King Abdullah's 'Openness' Strategy - S. Rob Sobhani, Washington Times
Four leaders of consequence play an enormous role in today's international arena. The presidents of the United States, Russia and China wield tremendous military, political and economic power. The fourth leader is King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who has the potential to bring peace and prosperity to the Middle East due to Saudi Arabia's strategic heft as an energy giant, its heavyweight political status in the Arab world and its critical role in shaping the future of the Muslim world. The king, who enters his third year on the throne, embodies a unique mix of reformist instincts, religious credentials, political credibility and vision for change. In the interest of stability, the United States and Europe must strike a grand strategic bargain with King Abdullah to bring lasting peace to this deeply troubled yet energy-rich region.
Although the United States has expressed concerns about Saudi behavior in a number of areas, King Abdullah is perhaps the only leader in the Muslim world with the credibility to offer an enduring pan-Arab peace deal to Israel that simultaneously empowers the Palestinian people and blasts extremist "deviants" as heretical. For example, the recent announcement by Saudi Arabia that it may join the planned Israeli-Palestinian peace conference in Annapolis was a major boost to President Bush and welcomed by Israel…
Arrogance on Torture Policy Undermines U.S. Interests – USA Today editorial
Is torture ever justified? America has been grappling with that question ever since the9/11 attacks shifted it from the abstract to the real and immediate. On the one hand, it's hard to imagine many Americans feeling much compunction about doing unspeakable things to Osama bin Laden or some associate who might know of terror plots. On the other hand, the United States is supposed to be a beacon of moral, democratic values.
Two distinct sides have done battle on that question within the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001.
In one corner: the Bush White House. Immediately after 9/11, the White House began aggressively trying to lift restrictions on what it could do to people suspected of complicity in terrorism. It portrayed the threat as so great that interrogators should not be barred from using tactics such as simulated drowning.
In that spirit, White House lawyers issued questionable legal opinions, one of which became known as the "torture memo," that restricted the definition of torture to include only acts that could cause organ failure or death. The administration asserted that the Geneva Conventions, which define standards for the treatment of detainees, didn't apply in the war on terror. Just last year, Vice President Cheney allowed that for terrorists, simulated drowning was a "no-brainer." …
‘Special Methods’ Save Lives – Fran Townsend, USA Today
On Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists carried out a sophisticated, well-planned attack on America that resulted in approximately 3,000 deaths and wrenching emotional pain and economic harm to this nation.
This was not the first attack on America or our interests by al-Qaeda; it was merely the most spectacular. After the 9/11 attack, President Bush assured the American people that we would not leave our homeland or our interests unprepared or undefended, and that we would also take the fight to our enemies.
One tool we have effectively applied to uncover the plots of our enemies is the CIA program outlined by President Bush in September 2006. That program to detain and interrogate al-Qaeda operatives has produced vital intelligence used to locate terrorists, disrupt plots and save lives.
It is crucial to remember that al-Qaeda terrorists kill and torture the innocent without remorse. So our interrogation program is tough — as it should be — but does not include torture, and the Department of Justice has determined that it fully complies with U.S. law and our international obligations.
The program is effective and is exceptionally narrow in scope. Of the fewer than 100 terrorists who have gone through the program, fewer than a third required any special methods of questioning….
Worse Than Irrelevant – Washington Post editorial
It’s easy to dismiss a nonbinding congressional resolution accusing Turkey of "genocide" against Armenians during World War I as frivolous. Though the subject is a serious one -- more than 1 million Armenians may have died at the hands of the Young Turk regime between 1915 and the early 1920s -- House Democrats pushing for a declaration on the subject have petty and parochial interests. Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the chief sponsor, says he has more than 70,000 ethnic Armenians in his Los Angeles district. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has promised to bring the measure to a vote on the House floor, has important Armenian American campaign contributors. How many House members can be expected to carefully weigh Mr. Schiff's one-sided "findings" about long-ago events in Anatolia?
The problem is that any congressional action will be taken in deadly earnest by Turkey's powerful nationalist politicians and therefore by its government, which is already struggling to resist a tidal wave of anti-Americanism in the country. Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, called President Bush on Friday to warn against the resolution. Turkish politicians are predicting that responses to passage by the House could include denial of U.S. access to Turkey's Incirlik air base, a key staging point for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Turkish parliament could also throw off longstanding U.S. constraints and mandate an invasion of northern Iraq to attack Kurdish separatists there, something that could destabilize the only region of Iraq that is currently peaceful…
-----
