Thursday, April 08, 2004

The 9/11 Debate - Clarke Hits the Mark

The ubiquitous Richard Clarke has sparked an intense debate over the Bush Administration's attitudes and policies toward terrorism before and after 9/11. Clarke, in my opinion, hits the mark on two counts:

* It seems clear, based on the public record to date, that the Bush Administration did not treat terrorism and the al Qaeda threat as seriously as it should and could have prior to 9/11. Al Qaeda had attacked U.S. targets overseas on several occasions - and apparently was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center - and there was significant evidence that a major attack - possibly here on our own soil - was imminent in 2001. Whether or not going to "battlestations" - regular cabinet-level meetings, a Presidential directive to make our counter-terrorism efforts a top priority, existing and additional intelligence gathering and analysis resources being tasked to those efforts - would have prevented 9/11 will never be known. But clearly our chances of preventing it were greatly diminished by not going to "battlestations."

* The Bush Administration's immediate focus on - if not obsession with - Iraq after 9/11 was ill-timed and diverted resources and attention from the war on terror. Senior Bush Administration officials - it seems quite evident - forced a linkage between Iraq and the War on Terrorism, and even strongly encouraged the bureaucracy to find a link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. Our efforts to stabilize Afghanistan, find Bin Laden, and diminish Al Qaeda's capabilities have obviously been limited by the diversion of our military and intelligence assets to Iraq.

Where Clarke misses the target is with regard to the Clinton Administration's record. Al Qaeda attacked us several times on Clinton's watch, yet "battlestations" for the Clinton team meant meetings, pin-prick airstrikes in Afghanistan, and little more. Did Clinton do more than Bush II? Yes. Did Clinton take it seriously enough? No.

That should not be used to absolve Bush of his failures. Two wrongs never make a right. But let's make sure Clinton does not get a passing grade, either. That's important for history and it's important in terms of analyzing what went wrong and how we can try to avoid making the same mistakes again.

Clarke's other problem is that he is an easy target for the Bush smear campaign. He's not terribly pleasant, his book publication was clearly timed to coincide with the 9/11 Commission hearings, and he is getting more TV exposure than Janet Jackson's "costume malfunction." Plus, his buddy is Kerry's national security advisor. But no matter what they say about Clarke and his motives or agenda, the bottom line is whether or not what he says rings true and if the Bush Administration can credibly refute what he says. So far, Clarke seems to have hit his mark, and all the Bush Administration can do is attack him - not refute what he charges.

Friday, March 19, 2004

More tragedy in Kosovo - Clinton's Legacy

News reports this week suggest that Kosovar Albanians are now "ethnically cleansing" some Serbs in Kosovo in anticipation of an eventual political carve-up of the province. The unfortunate but all too predictable effects of failed U.S. policies in the Balkans during the Clinton Administration are still being felt.

In order to rid himself of the Bosnia "mess" before running for reelection, Clinton basically swept Bosnia under the carpet by forcing a partition agreement on the parties (well, Milosevic had actually designed the plan and Croatia's then-President Franjo Tudjman made out well, too! So in reality it was forced only on the Bosnians themselves...) and inserting U.S. troops to prevent further fighting and to implement the accord.

Among many others, a major flaw in the Dayton Peace Accords was that they rewarded genocide. Milosevic's allies in Bosnia got half the country - the half they had brutally "cleansed" of non-Serbs during the 3 1/2 year war. Bosnia was, in theory, still a whole country, but in practice the Serb Republic in Bosnia would function as a separate entity on a day-to-day basis. And U.S. troops were tasked with protecting and enforcing the gains of genocide.

Having seen that the U.S. and its European allies would not intervene to stop or punish genocide, he then launched another genocidal attack, this time in Kosovo, a formerly-autonomous province in Serbia. Milosevic's forces - the same ones who had committed the crimes against humnanity in Bosnia and, earlier, in Croatia - began to kill and force from their homes Kosovo's Albanian majority. Eventually, Clinton bowed to public pressure - and the threat of a wider Balkan-wide conflict - and launched a bombing campaign against Serbia. Milosevic capitulated and removed his troops. The disaster in Kosovo eventually contributed to Milosevic's ouster.

Now, the more radical elements of Kosovo's Albanian population are seeking to do what the U.S. allowed, encouraged and facilitated in Bosnia - the partitioning of the area along ethnic and religious lines through the forced removal of populations. Can we honestly be surprised that some in Kosovo would think this a logical and sensible course of action, given the framewrok we established through the Dayton Accords in Bosnia.

Clinton is almost four years removed from office, but his legacy - bloody as it is - endures...

Terror in Spain - Don't Appease the Terrorists!

Fareed Zakaria has another thought-provoking article in this week's Newsweek:

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/032204.html

In this article, Zakaria notes that, for many terrorist organizations, violence is an end in and of itself. This certainly has seemed to be true for some suicide bombers and their terrorist organizations in the West Bank and Gaza in recent years. Zakaria argues that it is now true for al Qaeda and the Basque terrorists, ETA.

But the Spanish electorate, and the socialist government it elected in the initial days after the horrific bombings in Madrid this month, would seem to reward the terrorists by threatening to remove Spain's troops from Iraq. Zakaria points out, however, that "other recent targets of Islamic militants have been Turkey, Morocco, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, not one of which supported the war or sent troops into Iraq in the afterwar. Al Qaeda's declaration of jihad had, as its first demand, the withdrawal of American troops from Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden does not seem to have noticed, but the troops are gone—yet the jihad continues. The reasons come and go, the violence endures."

If Spain does, however, withdraw its troops from Iraq as a result of the recent terrorism in Madrid, it would send a dangerous message to al Qaeda, ETA, and other terrorists: western governments and their policies can be changed through the use of terrorism. Terrorism will, once again, be seen as an effective tool for small groups of radicals to force political change. Terrorism will likely increase, especially in these "weak" and "fragile" democratic societies, terrorists will conclude.

For decades, "We don't negotiate with terrorists!" was a mantra for western and other governments. We all understood that once you give in to the demands of terrorists, you only encourage more terrorism. Spain's new leaders should remember this lesson. They may have legitimate gripes with Spain's involvement in the war in Iraq. But surely they can understand that, once emotions subside a bit, Spain's national interests lie with combating the terrorists and creating a stable political and economic climate in Iraq, not caving in to monsters who kill innocents.

Sunday, February 22, 2004

Is the infrastructure crumbling?

Ralph Nader talked about the poor state of America's infrastructure on Meet the Press this morning. In an earlier post, I discussed the need for upgrading our nation's water infrastructure. Am I alone is also noticing that our roads seem to be in worse shape, too?

Construction projects have always taken a long time - when I was a kid, the Southeast Expressway in Boston was perpetually under construction. But working here in suburban NY - one of the most affluent areas in the country - I am struck by how ridiculously long roadwork can take and how limited funding forces some projects to be mothballed in the middle of the construction so that resoruces can be diverted to another project. More recently, I have been disgusted and shocked by the state of some local highways - most noticably the Saw Mill and Taconic Parkways. The potholes I encounter every day are deeper and more numerous than I can ever remember. And it would seem to be worse than can be reasonably expected even with a tough winter. I lived in Moscow for two years during the collapse of communism, and their roads were never as bad as these roads are.

What's going on?

More on gay marriage...

The panel on Chris Matthews' show this morning did a good job on this issue. As Matthews and Andrew Sullivan both pointed out, politically there is no middle ground on this issue. Politicians who come out in favor of both a ban on gay marriage and provisions allowing for civil unions for gay couples alienate both sides of the debate. This is one issue where you need to pick one or the other: you're either for equality for gays or you're not. Trying to chart a middle course means angering both sides.

If I were a politician, I'd also see the growing support for gay marriage in various cities and states around the country (including some that are far more conservative than San Francisco and Massachusetts!) - and the apparent lack of a backlash in mainstream America - as a signal that this train may be leaving the station.

Social Security

My last post mentioned the coming Social Security crisis: we'll have lots more retirees with fewer people working and paying into the system. As a result, it is almost inevitable that the system will go bankrupt.

Here's an important reminder: Social Security is retirement insurance! It is not a savings account. People who don't need it shouldn't be collecting it. Just like I can't collect on my life insurance if I'm still alive. Or get a payment from my health insurance policy if I'm healthy. Social Security is a safety net to insure that poor senior citizens don't go hungry or end up homeless. We will not keep the system solvent if baby boomers with 401ks and healthy pensions and bank accounts collect just because they paid into the system. They were paying an insurance premium that covered the costs of retirees at that time. Someone needs to explain this to the American people. We'll understand.

Asking retirees with sufficient means to support themselves to accept the fact that they will not get Social Security benefits to pay for their green fees is the first step toward a solution. Then we should start talking about other options like pushing back the age of retirement and, possibly, increasing the payroll tax. I know - that's a tax increase. But we have to pay our bills somehow, don't we?

Kerry and Edwards on This Week... And here comes Nader

I have to admit that I was a bit surprised today with the relatively strong showing by John Kerry and the lackluster performance by John Edwards on This Week with George Stephanopolous this morning. Kerry seemed so well prepared and confident. Edwards, however, kept harping on his working class upbringing and protectionist trade policies. On other issues, he was vague, at best.

Then, on Meet the Press, Ralph Nader announced he would be running as an independent this year. Count me as someone who does believe that Nader's candidacy was one of the reasons why Gore "lost" in 2000, but I was impressed with Nader's vision of this country's problems and some of his general solutions. His rhetoric is a bit too strong to catch on with the mainstream, but his message is compelling. As one of my friends said today, "Could you imagine if Edwards had Nader's message?" Wow. That would be a powerful combination.

I want to hear someone talk about real issues surrounding education today - especially the gross inequality between some inner city schools and the more affluent suburban schools. I yearn for a candidate who can talk about ways to address the loss of American jobs overseas and our trade deficit without being a knee-jerk protectionist. I want someone who can talk about the federal debt and looming social security crisis in a way that helps us tackle it now with real solutions - including a tightening of the belt in Congress while asking wealthy Americans to pay more into social security and/or not take it when they retire. I want someone who can spark and engage in a debate over the conduct and course of American foreign policy in this new world we find ourselves living in.

I want real debate this year - not just electioneering. I know that's a lot to ask, but aren't we worth it?

Thursday, February 19, 2004

Gay Marriage

This issue has been raising my blood pressure all year, for two primary reasons:

1. I have had a lot of gay friends in my life, and they have all been amazing people I have been proud to count as friends. Some of the gay couples I have known have been incredible role models for happy, healthy, successful marriages. In fact, most of the long-term gay relationships I have known have been a lot more impressive than most of the straight marriages I have known. So it really burns me that anyone would suggest that gays are less worthy than straight couples when it comes to enjoying the rights and priviledges of marriage. I hate the fact that friends of mine - or anyone for that matter - are being discriminated against for something that harms no one else and is at the core of their own pursuit of happiness.

2. The talk of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages - or, as the President and his allies put it, "protecting" marriage - is blasphemy to someone who cherishes this country, our values as a nation, and the Constitution as the most amazing political document in history. We have only amended the Constitution 27 times - ten right away with the Bill of Rights. Of the 17 that came after the Bill of Rights, only one set out to limit citizens' rights rather than protect and defend them. That one instance of limiting rights - Prohibition - was a dismal failure that was eventually rendered moot by a subsequent amendment. Are we seriously going to even consider an amendment that would turn the Constitution into a document that limits freedoms for its citizens rather than protects them?

Others have wisely pointed out that there are other "threats" to the institution of marriage that seem more relevant to the status of the institution in American society: Las Vegas "drive-thru" marriages like Britney Spears' latest PR stunt and a divorce rate where more than half of American marriages will end in divorce come to mind. And is gay marriage a bigger threat to American society than the poverty gap, failing schools in our cities, an impending Social Security solvency crisis, and a federal debt that now exceeds $7 trillion dollars?

Talk of amending the Constitution to ban gay marriages is an outrage. I just hope our politicians realize it before the debate goes too far. And let's hope they start talking about real issues and real solutions to our problems. While we're at it, can we also ask for some positive vision about where American can and should be headed in the 21st century?