ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Yglesias

What Does The UN Block?

For even more coverage of the Daalder/Kagan op-ed see Mark Leon Goldberg, who points out that in the post-Cold War era the UN Security Coucil actually authorizes the deployment of troops fairly frequently. It’s refused to do so twice, and one of those times was Iraq, so by any reasonable criteria adopting a “listen to the UN” rule wouldn’t have been superior to what was actually done in the world. One might add that a far larger problem than inability to secure UN approval for worthwhile missions is the unwillingness of member states to contribute sufficient resources to authorized missions.

Last, one should note that the Daalder/Kagan alternative of using force when our “democratic partners in Europe and Asia” agree and, indeed, “even when some of our democratic friends disagree” arguably means that Iraq fits the test. We didn’t get much meaningful help from any country other than the UK, but the formal coalition was quite broad and included Albania, Australia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, and Turkey among European or Asian democracies.

In other words, if you think the main lesson of Iraq is that we need to pretend we’ve learned important lessons while adhering to the same basic doctrines, then this is a great proposal.

Yglesias

“Holiday”

Mike Crowley, seeking vacation-themed music videos in honor of the Iraqi parliament’s decision to defer political reconciliation and focus on taking a holiday instead, offers us Madonna’s “Holiday.” I’ll counter with Green Day’s “Holiday.”

It turns out that there doesn’t seem to be a video for Weezer’s “Holiday,” which is probably my favorite song with that title.

Yglesias

“Europe and Asia”

Commenter DivGuy notes that the Daalder/Kagan op-ed I panned earlier today is even more cynical and wrongheaded than I’d guessed:

I like how it’s “democracies in Europe and Asia.”

Because if they included Mexico or Brazil or South Africa, there would be a small chance of intervention being vetoed. (And, of course, how stupid is Daalder to think that Kagan would respect France’s veto in a future debate over intervention?)

Exactly. But this is precisely the problem. A lot of folks — normally disgruntled former Iraq hawks, but also including Daalder who I think never backed the war — seem to be grasping for an international mechanism that would provide legitimacy but somehow also never block actions the US government wanted to take. Obviously, though, this isn’t going to work. The idea that some international organizations say-so might grant legitimacy to something or other is inextricably bound up with the idea that the IO might say no.

Yglesias

Toward a Sustainable Defense Posture

F-22ARaptor%201.jpg

The Project on Defense Alternatives has a report out, “Toward a Sustainable Defense Posture” arguing for some modest reductions in America’s currently gargantuan defense budget. Specifically, they say that “Cutting two air force fighter wings and two navy fighter wings (along with their associated aircraft carriers) can save the nation more than $60 billion over the next five years.” More than enough to finance America’s share of a global universal education plan with plenty left over for mosquito nets or clean drinking water or whatever else you like.

UPDATE: Now with working links!

Bush Administration Backpedals From Its Public ‘Confidence’ In Maliki

bushmalikis.jpgIraq’s political crisis is worsening as Sunni ministers have completely abandoned the government. Allegations have long persisted about Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s connections to Shiite militias, and regime is quickly crumbling from a lack of political effectiveness.

But Maliki continues to remain in power, largely propped up with the “confidence” and support of President Bush:

Bush reaffirmed confidence in al-Maliki and said there were some signs of progress toward a unified government. “Yeah, I’ve got confidence in him, but I also understand how difficult it is.” [Bloomberg, 7/12/07]

Tony Snow: “What we’ll say on the record is, the President has confidence in Prime Minister Maliki.” [White House briefing, 11/29/06]

Megan O’Sullivan: “Both leaders talked about the Maliki government, with the President saying that he really has a lot of confidence in Maliki and he’s very pleased with how Maliki has performed over the last hundred days.” [White House briefing, 9/19/06]

Now it appears the Bush administration is allowing its confidence in Maliki to slip. At the State Department briefing this afternoon, spokesman Sean McCormack repeatedly refused to assert that the administration now has “confidence” in Maliki:

QUESTION: Do you still think that al-Maliki is the right guy to lead this…

MCCORMACK: He is the person that was elected by the Iraqi people. And it was decided upon among the leadership of the various political factions he would be the prime minister. [...]

QUESTION: But do you think — you’re not as vested in most places like you are in Iraq. So are you still confident in al- Maliki’s leadership?

MCCORMACK: Look, there’s a lot at stake, absolutely, for the Iraqi people, for the future of the Middle East. And Prime Minister Maliki is the person that was elected by the Iraqi people to lead Iraq. And we’re working closely with him. [...]

QUESTION: It’s kind of conspicuous that you’re not willing to say that you’re confident in him, even if you’re standing by his side.

MCCORMACK: You know, again, it’s not a matter of getting the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval from the United States government or any other government. Ultimately, this government has to act on behalf of the Iraqi people.

The fact that the administration is backing away from Maliki is a concession that the premise of its “surge” strategy is failing. Back in January, when he first announced the escalation, Bush explained that purpose of increasing U.S. forces was to help advance Iraqi political transition and national reconciliation.

Yglesias

Sadism in, Garbage Out

You owe itself to read Jane Meyer’s brilliant expos© of the systematic use of torture and detention without trial by the US government in full, but here’s some key excerpts:

Gonzales informed Pearl that the Justice Department was about to announce some good news: a terrorist in U.S. custody€”Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Al Qaeda leader who was the primary architect of the September 11th attacks€”had confessed to killing her husband. [...] There were no named witnesses to his initial confession, and no solid information about what form of interrogation might have prodded him to talk, although reports had been published, in the Times and elsewhere, suggesting that C.I.A. officers had tortured him. At a hearing held at Guant¡namo, Mohammed said that his testimony was freely given, but he also indicated that he had been abused by the C.I.A. (The Pentagon had classified as €œtop secret€ a statement he had written detailing the alleged mistreatment.) And although Mohammed said that there were photographs confirming his guilt, U.S. authorities had found none.

A surprising number of people close to the case are dubious of Mohammed€™s confession. [...] Asra Nomani [,] Special Agent Randall Bennett, the head of security for the U.S. consulate in Karachi when Pearl was killed [,] And Judea Pearl, Daniel€™s father[.]

€œK.S.M. is the poster boy for using tough but legal tactics. He€™s the reason these techniques exist. You can save lives with the kind of information he could give up.€ Yet Mohammed€™s confessions may also have muddled some key investigations. [...] Colonel Dwight Sullivan, the top defense lawyer at the Pentagon€™s Office of Military Commissions, which is expected eventually to try Mohammed for war crimes, called his serial confessions €œa textbook example of why we shouldn€™t allow coercive methods.€

The Phoenix Program, from the Vietnam War. Critics, including military historians, have described it as a program of state-sanctioned torture and murder. A Pentagon-contract study found that, between 1970 and 1971, ninety-seven per cent of the Vietcong targeted by the Phoenix Program were of negligible importance. But, after September 11th, some C.I.A. officials viewed the program as a useful model.

One psychologist advising on the treatment of Zubaydah, James Mitchell [...] Steve Kleinman, a reserve Air Force colonel and an experienced interrogator who has known Mitchell professionally for years, said that €œlearned helplessness was his whole paradigm.€ Mitchell, he said, €œdraws a diagram showing what he says is the whole cycle. It starts with isolation. Then they eliminate the prisoners€™ ability to forecast the future€”when their next meal is, when they can go to the bathroom. It creates dread and dependency. It was the K.G.B. model. But the K.G.B. used it to get people who had turned against the state to confess falsely. The K.G.B. wasn€™t after intelligence.€

€œAt every stage, there was a rigid attention to detail. Procedure was adhered to almost to the letter. There was top-down quality control, and such a set routine that you get to the point where you know what each detainee is going to say, because you€™ve heard it before. It was almost automated. People were utterly dehumanized. People fell apart. It was the intentional and systematic infliction of great suffering masquerading as a legal process. It is just chilling.€

According to sources familiar with interrogation techniques, the hanging position is designed, in part, to prevent detainees from being able to sleep. [...] An American Bar Association report, published in 1930, which was cited in a later U.S. Supreme Court decision, said, €œIt has been known since 1500 at least that deprivation of sleep is the most effective torture and certain to produce any confession desired.€

€œWaterboarding works,€ the former officer said. €œDrowning is a baseline fear. So is falling. People dream about it. It€™s human nature. Suffocation is a very scary thing. When you€™re waterboarded, you€™re inverted, so it exacerbates the fear. It€™s not painful, but it scares the shit out of you.€ (The former officer was waterboarded himself in a training course.) Mohammed, he claimed, €œdidn€™t resist. He sang right away. He cracked real quick.€ He said, €œA lot of them want to talk. Their egos are unimaginable. K.S.M. was just a little doughboy. He couldn€™t stand toe to toe and fight it out.€

Ultimately, however, Mohammed claimed responsibility for so many crimes that his testimony became to seem inherently dubious. In addition to confessing to the Pearl murder, he said that he had hatched plans to assassinate President Clinton, President Carter, and Pope John Paul II. [...] [E]ven supporters, such as John Brennan, acknowledge that much of the information that coercion produces is unreliable. As he put it, €œAll these methods produced useful information, but there was also a lot that was bogus.€ When pressed, one former top agency official estimated that €œninety per cent of the information was unreliable.

So in summary, what they’ve hit upon is a protocol based on the best practices developed by Soviet and medieval torturers alike to accomplish torture’s traditional goal — the extraction of false confessions — and seem to have wound up with a bunch of false confessions. Which, of course, is precisely what you’d expect to wind up with if you thought for a minute about why governments have, historically, resorted to the systemic deployment of torture.

Perino: FISA Bill Simply ‘Returns Law To Its Original Intent’

Yesterday, President Bush signed into law an expansion of his domestic spying powers, legislation that the Washington Post called “as reckless as it was unnecessary.” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino appeared on Fox and Friends this morning to defend the new law, saying it was the “bare minimum of what Mike McConnell, the DNI, said he needed.”

She added, “And I see today that some people are saying that this is a wild expansion of powers for the president. That could not be further from the truth. Only in a Democratic spin room could they come up with expansion of powers when you have to — when what we actually did was return the law to its original intent.” Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/08/perinofisa.320.240.flv]

Perino is the one who has been spending too much time in the spin room. The White House-backed legislation goes far beyond the original intent of FISA. It gives Gonzales “sole authority” to spy on people “reasonably believed to be outside the United States.” Instead of the FISA court overseeing the program and ensuring the protection of Americans’ civil liberties, Gonzales and McConnell have full responsibility. The role of of the court is nothing more than a “rubber stamp.”

Additionally, the White House rejected a narrower bill agreed to by both McConnell and the congressional leadership, which contained “three points” McConnell said the Bush administration “needed.” “We had an agreement with DNI McConnell,” said Stacey Bernards, spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), “and then the White House quashed the agreement.”

Read more about FISA in today’s Progress Report, and sign up to receive it in your inbox each day HERE.

Transcript: Read more

Yglesias

Who Could Have Guessed

I, for one, am totally shocked to learn that the Bush administration’s efforts to flood the Iraq war zone with weapons hasn’t so much generated law, order, and security as it has created a situation where “U.S. military officials do not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this year as part of an effort to train and equip the troops.”

This is the kind of thing that makes proposals to refuse to admit defeat in Iraq by maintaining an indefinite “train & equip” mission there so potentially dangerous. Introducing more and more weapons and expertise in using them into the civil war dynamic runs the risk of just making things worse. The good news, however, is that as best I can tell from the article the GAO thinks things are better in 2006-2007 than they were in 2004-2005. The bad news is that the especially bad period for the equipment program when “weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures” came “when security training was led by Gen. David H. Petraeus, who now commands all U.S. forces in Iraq.”

Photo by Flickr user Joe Logon used under a Creative Commons license

Yglesias

The View From Beijing

Speaking of possible Sino-American enmity, one good way to ensure that 21st century geopolitics is dominated by conflict between the United States and China would be to listen to listen to Ivo Daalder and Robert Kagan about legitimacy (via Brian Beutler):

The traditional answer, the U.N. Security Council, no longer suffices, if it ever did. Under the United Nations Charter, states are prohibited from using force except in cases of self-defense or when explicitly authorized by the Security Council. But this presupposes that the members of the Security Council can agree on the threat and the appropriate response. From Rwanda to Kosovo to Darfur, however, and from Iraq to North Korea to Iran, the Security Council has not been able to agree and has failed to act decisively. Its permanent members are deeply divided by conflicting interests as well as by clashing beliefs about the nature of sovereignty and the right of the international community to intervene in the internal affairs of nations.

If not the Security Council, then who? The answer is the world’s democracies, the United States and its democratic partners in Europe and Asia. As the war in Kosovo showed, democracies can agree and act effectively even when major non-democracies, such as Russia and China, do not. Because they share a common view of what constitutes a just order within states, they tend to agree on when the international community has an obligation to intervene. Shared principles provide the foundation for legitimacy.

What is a patriotic Chinese defense official supposed to make of the idea that the United States claims that it and its key allies should be permitted to invade any country anywhere without China’s agreement while China, presumably, can only intervene with the approval of UNSC P-5 members like the US, France, and England? It would be one thing to try to read the Kosovo precedent as saying that NATO won’t give China a veto over actions in its own backyard.

But to survey the wreckage in Iraq, and conclude that despite the lessons seen there we can’t defer to the UN (even with an exception for self defense) on the grounds that the UN might sometimes say no is very weak tea. Meanwhile, for all this talk of an alliance of democracies, I see no particular sign that India, South Africa, Brazil, etc., are actually clamoring for a more interventionist United States or Russia’s marginalization on the world stage. I don’t say we should give China and absolute veto over US policy, but if we don’t want China to become an enemy we need the international rules of the road to be something a responsible Chinese leader could possibly accept. Two-tiered sovereignty that classes China among the disfavored nations isn’t going to cut it.

  • Comment Icon

Yglesias

Ron Paul is Making Sense

Here’s the video. He’s pointing out that the people now telling us something awful will happen if we leave Iraq are the very people whose dim understanding of Iraq has us in the current jam:


Ronpaul
Uploaded by krs601

The best part of the clip, though, is when Mitt Romney interrupts with the nonsensical question “has he forgotten 9/11?” I’m not sure anything better sums up the vacuity of conventional present-day conservative thinking about national security than that intervention: the presumption that, somehow, endless invocations of that horrible crime will justify anything at all, no matter how unrelated, how pointless, or how counterproductive it may be.

  • Comment Icon

Yglesias

The China Factor

Moira Whelan reminds me of an easily overlooked moment during the YearlyKos Democratic debate when Barack Obama emphasized that thought China is in some sense a competitor, it’s not an enemy of the United States and we should strive to avoid turning it into one.

I wholeheartedly agree and think this is by far the biggest issue in this campaign that nobody’s talking about. Sentiments about China policy tend not to break down along straightforward party lines. I think Bush’s China policy has been mostly okay (certainly a triumph compared to most of the other things he’s done) whereas neocons like Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan saw a “National Humiliation” in Bush’s unwillingness to gin up a war with China over the EP-3 spy plane incident. Under the circumstances, it’d really be nice to hear what some different candidates think about this issue in some level of detail, but instead Obama made this brief remark and then we heard about China (from him and from the others) in purely economic terms rather than as a foreign policy issue.

Photo by Flickr user Mooney47 used under a Creative Commons license

  • Comment Icon

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up