Sunday, November 09, 2003

Remembering Frank McCloskey

I was deeply saddened this week by the passing of former Indiana congressman Frank McCloskey. Rep. McCloskey was a good friend and valuable ally throughout the Bosnia crisis. He led the fight in the House to pass legislation to lift the U.S. arms embargo on Bosnia, which, against all odds, was passed by the House first in June 1994 under McCloskey's sponsorship. I sat there in the House chamber as the bill was debated, voted on, and passed. I stood next to Frank as republican and democratic leaders and colleagues shook his hand and told him that his passion and commitment made this unlikely passage possible. Unfortunately, Rep. McCloskey was rewarded with losing his re-election bid in the November 1994 Gingrich-led “revolution.” Rep. McCloskey, however, never doubted his decision to support Bosnia, or priorities.

Much of Rep. McCloskey's career after 1994 was spent trying to bring stability to Bosnia and the Balkans.

We all hear too often about how “all politicians are alike” and that they all are self-serving, dishonest and corrupt. The good politicians rarely get the media’s attention. But those of us who have worked closely with members of Congress on Bosnia know that there are many, many politicians who are good, honest people who try to do the right thing. They may not be perfect, but they try to do what is right. We dishonor those good people when we react with cynicism to the political process and reports in the media of those “rotten eggs” who tarnish what should be a noble calling.

Frank McCloskey was an honest politician who tried to do the right thing. He was willing to sacrifice his political career to help people he had no personal connection with prior to traveling there after the war started. He was, in political terms, a hero.

Sunday, October 19, 2003

Time for Change at the Pentagon

Since 9/11, the Bush Pentagon has often been criticized for exhibiting unbridled arrogance. Their successes on the battlefield - at least in terms of defeating an enemy force in Afghanistan and Iraq - combined with their intimidation of some journalists, however, allowed senior Pentagon officials to brush off the criticism with Reagan-like ease.

That is changing. And it should.

President Bush has - months too late - taken control of Iraq policy out of the hands of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. It has been placed in the hands of NSC Advisor Condaleeza Rice. Ultimately, the buck must stop with the President, but so far President Bush has shwon neither the inclination nor the ability to seize the reins.

There was a development this week, moreover, that should send shivers down the spines of all Americans who care about this country, its values, and its ability to carry out the war on terrorism without it turning into a "US against the world" nightmare. And it demands a quick and clear response by the President.

The New York Times on Friday (10/17/03) carried a Reuters report that a senior Pentagon official, Lt. Gen. William Boykin of the Army, who serves as deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence and war-fighting support, has given numerous speeches to religious gatherings in which he made statements that seem to violate our core American values of religious tolerance and democracy, in which power comes from the people:

* He described a Muslim as worshiping "an idol" and described America as a "Christian nation." The U.S. is a country where most of its citizens are Christian. And our values and legal system are based, in large part, on Judeo-Christian traditions and values. But our Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion and one of our core values - dating back to the Pilgrims - is religious tolerance. Gen. Boykin's statements are an insult not only to the millions of Muslims in America and abroad, but they should raise the ire of all Americans who truly care about our country and what it stands for. Government officials - especially senior ones at the Pentagon - shoud never make any statement publicly that even remotely sounds like it endorses one religion or condemns another. Gen. Boykin's statements, left to stand without the President's forceful condemnation, sound like the U.S. government is anti-Islam and establishing a state religion.

* Gen. Boykin, discussing the 2000 election and how President Bush is in the White House even though "the majority of Americans did not vote for him," asserted that "he's in the White House because God put him there..." Excuse me? I thought we left divine right of rule behind in the 17th and 18th centuries when countries like England and France threw off the shackles of absolute monarchies and moved toward democracy. Gen. Boykin, power in this country derives from the people, not a deity. The 2000 election and its results demonstrated the flaws of the electoral college process and some of our voting procedures, not divine intervention. To suggest otherwise as a government official is to undermine the very concept of democracy at a time when this administration is allegedly trying to export that very concept to Iraq and the Middle East.

The response of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was to praise Gen. Boykin's "outstanding record" and to defend Boykin's freedom of speech, noting that Saddam Hussein would "go around killing people if they said things he didn't like." Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "At first blush, it doesn't look like any rules were broken."

Gen. Myers, please read the Constitution. But the real question here is whether or not the Bush Administration will reaffirm its commitment to democracy and religious tolerance - here and abroad - while making sure that the war on terrorism does not become the U.S. vs. Islam.

President Bush must take clear steps this week to right the ship of state:

* Gen. Boykin should be relieved from his duties immediately.

* President Bush should condemn his statements for what they are and state his own commitment to democracy and religious tolerance, reminding the country of his deep respect for Islam.

* The President also should give a public slap on the wrists to Rumsfeld and Myers. They should be reminded that, while loyalty to your colleagues and subordinates is admirable, the first responsibility is to the nation and the values for which the men and women in uniform - some of whom, by the way, are Muslim - risk their lives.

Friday, October 03, 2003

Outting A CIA Officer = Treason

The recent exposure of a CIA agent, apparently by someone in the White House, is treasonous:

* It puts at risk Americans and foreign nationals who worked with or assisted the CIA officer;
* It diminishes the value of the intelligence gathered by the officer in question;
* It makes it more difficult to recruit new officers and agents overseas.

Those responsible must be brought to justice swiftly and punished to the fullest extent of the law. President Bush should make a strong statement - publicly as well as inside the White House - that this action will not be tolerated. He should insure that impartiality is preserved in the investigation by calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to oversee the investigation.

I do not know why someone in the Bush Administration would commit this crime and enganger lives as well as the national security of our country. Is it a symptom of the arrogance some senior Administration officials have exhibited, especially regarding Iraq? If so, President Bush must finally confront this trend and send a clear message: we will not lie to the American people, we will not cover up our errors in judgment or our crimes, we will respect the laws and the intelligence of the American people.

Saturday, September 06, 2003

Bush, Iraq, and Campaign 2004 - Some early warning signs?

Let's all remember: there's a lot of time, still, until the election in November 2004. A lot can happen in 14 months. Things could turn around in Iraq and the economy could find its sea legs.

But a recent Newsweek poll had more than half the respondents said they wanted someone other than Bush elected next year. If someone on the Democratic side should emerge who can tap into this potential voter discontent in an election year, things could get very interesting. Bush is clearly feeling the heat - that's why he's taking the offensive tomorrow night by speaking to the nation about the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. He probably fears that things could really get out of hand later this week when the second anniversary of 9/11 will spark more discussion and analysis of the war on terrorism and how many Americans are frustrated that Osama remains at large and terrorists keep killing Americans and our friends.

Fortunately for Bush, none of the Democrats have established themselves as yet and he still has the dual advantages of being the incumbent and having more money at his disposal. What should cause real concerns for the Bush camp, however, is that the Administration has done little to assuage the three main concerns I believe are causing voters to question Bush's viability as a two-term president:

1. The Administration has a credibility gap thanks to trumped-up evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the war and the subsequent finger-pointing and evasiveness throughout the Bush team. This gap has widened in recent weeks due to the Pentagon's refusal to acknowledge that more troops were and are needed in post-war Iraq to secure weapons facilities, key government installations, the UN, and U.S. troops; to hunt for WMD; to destroy Iraqi stockpiles of conventional weapons; to train Iraqi forces; and to maintain general order in the country until the Iraqis can do so themselves.

2. The price tag of the Iraq occupation is soaring. Some analysts predict that Bush will ask Congress for an additional $60 billion or more to finance just one year of the post-war effort. At a time when economic concerns remain across the country - and the deficit is climbing rapidly - spending $60 billion a year for a mission that clearly will last years but is, to date, failing in some glaring ways is likely to become THE issue of the 2004 campaign unless the economy gets in gear and Iraq starts to look less like Liberia and more like - gulp - Bosnia (which ain't so great, but is a lot better off than Iraq right now!).

3. The war on terrorism has had its ups-and-downs, but in spite of some important successes in terms of capturing senior al Qaeda operatives and, probably, thwarting some planned attacks during the past 24 months, Osama bin Laden remains at large, there is a new round of terrorism in Iraq, and al Qaeda has been able to carry out new attacks against Americans and our friends overseas. The war in Iraq - especially since it the post-war situation has failed to meet the public's expectations so far - looks like a poorly-timed distraction from the real threat.

What can Bush do to address these concerns? Well, that's a tall order, however obvious it might seem:

1. Be honest. Tell the American public that we obviously can't cut and run now in Iraq but that it will take more time, people, and money than we anticipated. But remind them that one of the lessons of 9/11 was that you can't let states fail - remember Afghanistan in the 1990s. We're in Iraq for the long haul. The choice is a stable, perhaps democratic Iraq that will be an anchor in the stormy seas of the Middle East or an Iraq mired in chaos and conflict that could turn out to be the headquarters for anti-American terrorism for the 21st century. The American people - and even most Democrats - will get it and go along. It may annoy them to no end, but they will appreciate being treated like intelligent, rational adults. Many feel like Bush and his team did not treat them that way during the months leading up to the Iraq war.

2. Send the troops you need to Iraq. And send more to Afghanistan, too. Do whatever you have to do to show the American people - and the bad guys - that you mean business and that we are making progress.

3. Do more to beef up security here at home. There are too many reports that suggest that, while we have a nice, new Department of Homeland Security, the Administration seems more intent on expanding John Ashcroft's police powers - and violating civil liberties - than making sure ports, nuclear power plants, and other potential targets are made considerably safer. There will be no escaping blame after the next attack if more serious measures are not taken - and soon.

Friday, August 29, 2003

Slate's Campaign 2004 Field Guide

Slate.Com has a simple but somewhat useful guide to the 2004 campaign. It covers some basics of each candidate and their positions:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085967/

Tuesday, August 19, 2003

Infrastructure and long-term challenges...

Caught a bit of Lou Dobbs' show on CNNfn tonight. In addition to our electrical grid needing a serious overhaul, turns out our water system is similarly antiquated. Upwards of $250 billion needs to be spent in the coming years (as many as 20 years, I guess) upgrading and replacing water mains, etc. Most states expect water shortages within 10 years.

A pet peeve of mine is the lack of greater progress in moving toward alternative sources of energy. Bush's initiative is better than his predecessors have offered, but still woefully inadequate. I'd love to hear a politician/president promise to rid us of our dependence on fossil fuels in 20 years, like JFK promising to get us to the moon in 10. We need vision and a willingness to ask for sacrifices and commitments to take on these long-term challenges. We are an incredibly resilient and adaptable society here in the U.S., but these potential and real problems could prove daunting if left unaddressed.

Keeping things clear in Iraq

The ongoing debate over the Iraq War is becoming a bit simplistic. It is true that the American public will probably decide whether or not the war was worthwhile and justified based merely on three factors:

1. Do we find WMD?

2. Do we find/kill Saddam Hussein?

3. Are we able to bring stability to Iraq with a limited number of American casualties in the next year or so?

But while the public and the media will likely rely on those criteria, it smells of "Monday-morning-quarterbacking." Similarly, the debate over the Bush Administration's use of dubious British intelligence in the State of the Union speech this year also veers off course at times. The issue there is not whether the Administration used bogus evidence to convince the American people to invade Iraq. I do not know a single person who mentioned that evidence in the many heated discussions I had or listened in on prior to or after the war. Even the Bush team stopped mentioning it shortly after the speech. The significance of the use of the British intel is that it shows how careless the Administration was with the facts and the truth as part of its determined effort to justify a war they were intent on having. Lacking any hard evidence or proof from the past several years of Iraqi WMD programs, they were too willing to use anything that came across their desks, no matter how far fetched, poorly supported, or seemingly inconsequential it seemed. Even Colin Powell's presentation at the UN after the State of the Union seemed woefully short on evidence of a major program.

The bottom line on the British intel, however, is that the Bush Administration did not trust that the American people would buy into their own rationale for going to war against Iraq, so now the American people should be hesitant to trust the Bush Administration on just about anything. We'll need to set a much higher standard for corroborating evidence before we trust their economic plan or their next foreign policy adventure.

But, getting back to how we should evaluate the decision to invade Iraq this spring, let's look at the decision on its own merits. As we do so, however, let's keep in mind who bares responsibility for this decision:

* Most of the responsibility must fall on President Bush. Isn't the buck supposed to stop on his desk? It was his call, his mission. He's the Commander-in-Chief.

* Congress tried to absolve itself by giving Bush a blank check last year. Congressional oversight was stunningly understated. This vital check on executive power was missing in action.

* The media dropped the ball on this, as well. The media is the public's last line of defense against being railroaded by an administration with its own agenda. Invesitgative journalism is not what it used to be and too many of the the pundits that clutter the cable networks and talk radio tend to opt for soundbites instead of sound analysis.

* Finally, the American people must step up to the plate and take responsibility. We need to get better at holding our elected officials accountable to us, about asking the tough questions, about being engaged in our country's affairs rather than merely watching the news like it's just another reality TV program.

Now, here's my take on the merits of the decision to invade Iraq this spring:

1. A confrontation with Iraq was inevitable. Iraq had violated or ignored countless UN Security Council resolutions over the course of a decade. The last reliable evidence - from the UN inspectors in Iraq until 1998 - showed a serious effort on the part of Iraq to build WMD and protect their program from the UN inspectors. At some point in time, unless Saddam Hussein suddenly came clean and allowed inspectors to have unlimited access to all facilities and to demonstrate that he had dismantled his programs completely, force was going to be necessary to bring about Iraqi compliance and avoid having the UN look like the League of Nations II. Moreover, if force was going to be used, avoiding an endless dance with Saddam that involved pinprick airstrikes on our part and limited cooperation on his part - a dance that had become tiresome by the mid-90s - regime change would have been the logical goal of any serious attempt to bring about Iraqi compliance. It was not so much a matter of if but when we would need to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. I found myself focusing on this point before the war. I saw this confrontation as inevitable, even if the timing was not particularly logical. But as with so many things in life, timing is everything - or at least critical. And many of us - politicians, journalists and pundits, so-called "experts" alike - downplayed this before the war.

2. War with Iraq was not necessary this spring. In terms of presenting a clear and present danger, al Qaeda was and is a more urgent threat to U.S. national security than Saddam Hussein's regime. Was Saddam a threat? Yes. A serious threat? Most likely. But stopping al Qaeda and finding bin Laden are, in my mind, clearl more urgent needs than the major undertaking in Iraq was. Al Qaeda's continued ability to carry out missions around the world - and bin Laden's continued freedom, even if his freedom of movement is limited to the mountains of eastern Afghanistan and border areas in Pakistan - are further evidence that the Bush Administration moved on to a war they thought they could win easily before they made a full commitment to engage against our foes in al Qaeda. Ultimately, this may be the critical issue. Even if, long-term, we are successful in bringing peace and stability to Iraq, did we need to do it now? Would America - and many of our friends around the world - have been better off if we had focused the people and resources we are investing in Iraq instead on a more robust campaign to defeat al Qaeda? A question impossible to answer with complete certainty, but it certainly seems obvious to me that al Qaeda was and is a more clear and present danger than Iraq was. Having gone this far in Iraq, however, we must not fail there. Which leads us to the next issue...

3. The Bush Administration underestimated - or ignored - the requirements of post-war stabilization and nation building in Iraq. We did win the war - quickly, decisively and at a limited cost to American soldiers. But it seems quite clear that the Administration woefully underestimated the need for rapid efforts to stabilize Iraq immediately after the war and to organize the nation building program that will take years, if not decades to firmly take hold. Hopefully, Congressional inquiries and investigative journalism will eventually shed enough light on how this could have happened. It seems simplistic here, as well, to merely blame it on Rumsfeld's disdain for nation building as a matter of principle. It would seem that great minds at both State and DoD were asleep at the wheel or made some grossly inaccurate estimates of the needs post-war. It also would seem that Colin Powell did not, initially, have the clout he needed to press State's agenda and have a strong voice in the planning; only in the face of immediate chaos after the fighting ebbed did Powell have the ability to assert some of his will. But the decision to go to war this spring must be evaluated, in part, based on whether or not we were ready and well-prepared - not just for the fighting, but for the immediate needs in Iraq after the war and the long road ahead in bringing peace, stability, and maybe even some form of democracy to Iraq. On that score, we seem to have missed the mark.

Is it too soon to tell? Only somewhat. It is clear that the first months of our post-war Iraq planning has been a fiasco in many regards, tragically so for many American soldiers, UN workers, and , lest we forget, the Iraqi people we are trying to help. We did a poor job of securing key Iraqi facilities - including potential WMD sites - and of restoring basic services to the Iraqis. We will need to turn this program around 180 degrees, however, if the long-term prognosis is going to improve.

10 Years Later...

August 23 will mark the tenth anniversary of my resignation from the State Department. I hope in the coming days to share some reflections on the resignation - and those of two of my colleagues that same month - as well as the work I did on Bosnia and the Balkans through 1998.

My life as a teacher seems far removed from my career as a diplomat and Bosnia activist. Yet my resignation was in many ways the first step into the teaching profession. From my first media appearance on CNN that hot August afternoon, squinting into the camera and hoping I would not embarass myself or muddle my message, I have largely seen myself as an educator. With regard to Bosnia, I most often saw my main task as educating and informing the public, the media, and members of Congress about the genocide in Bosnia and steps that could be taken to stop it. I felt most comfortable in that role - whether it be in an auditorium at Stanford University, in a classroom at the Air Force Academy, or in a Senator's office on the Hill. There are few things more rewarding than seeing the "light" go on when someone finally "gets it."

It could be quite exhilarating to be able to fight for a cause I believed in so strongly. The day I resigned was the most empowering experience I have had. Except for a few minutes two weeks later - when I realized that I had a mortgage to pay and no job and that I had given up the only career I had ever had or wanted - I have never doubted my decision to resign. Leading the American Committee to Save Bosnia, the Action Council for Peace in the Balkans, and the Balkan Institute at times restored my faith in democracy by showing that average Americans could affect change in Washington (grassroots lobbying played a vital role in the successful efforts to pass legislation lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia) and that politicians from both sides of the aisle could take a stand and risk political capital mostly because it was the right thing to do (see Joe Lieberman, Bob Dole, Frank McCloskey, Susan Molinari, and others).

It also could be overwhelmingly depressing when another so-called "safe area" came under attack and President Clinton seemed to blame the victims as well as the perpetrators. The persistence of the Clinton Administration in defending its policy of denying the Bosnians the means to defend themselves and pursuing the de facto partition of Bosnia is, I believe, a dark stain on our nation's history and was a source of deep frustration for years.

Sunday, August 17, 2003

Welcome to the Walker-Blog! I will be sharing my thoughts, reactions, and analyses of breaking events and trends in foreign policy and U.S. domestic politics; education (including the use of technology in the classroom); and anything else that catches my eye. I imagine that I will find it difficult to keep myself from commenting on the ongoing AL pennant race, given my lifelong devotion to the Boston Red Sox!