The Most Ethical Congress in History
“Last week, in a
stunning display of democracy, the American people voted for change,” said [new Speaker of the House Nancy] Pelosi. “Today, House Democrats have elected the leaders who will help take our nation in a New Direction. We will work together to lead the House of Representatives with a commitment to integrity, to civility, and to fiscal responsibility. This leadership team will create the
most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”
Against this backdrop, Pelosi nominated Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) to be the new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. This is a crucial post with oversight of the national security apparatus - i.e. FBI, CIA, Homeland Security. In a time of war, it is obviously that much more important.
Ready for a little tidbit that you might not know? Alcee Hastings was a federal judge back in the 1980's who was only the 10th federal judge in U.S. history to be impeached and the 6th to actually be removed from the federal judiciary. He was accused of bribery and acquitted at trial, but impeached by a Democratic Congress on the recommendation of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. See
here and
here for further detail.
As if this wasn't damning enough for the most ethical Congress in history, listen to a list of the prominent Democrats who voted for his impeachment in 1988:
- Nancy Pelosi - future Speaker of the House
- Steny Hoyer - future Majority Leader of the House
- John Conyers - future Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
- Charles Rangel - future Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee
- Barney Frank - future Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee
- Henry Waxman - future Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee
- John Dingell - future Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee
- George Miller - future Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee
- David Obey - future Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee
- Ike Skelton - future Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee
- John Spratt - future Chairman of the House Budget Committee
- Howard Berman - future Chairman of the House Ethics Committee
- Tom Lantos - future Chairman of the House International Relations Committee
- Louise Slaughter - future Chairwoman of the House Rules Committee
- John Lewis
- Barbaro Boxer
- Charles Schumer
- Richard Durbin
- Ed Markey
- Ron Dellums
- Julian Dixon
- Richard Gephardt
Thanks For the Lies, Vanity Fair
A few days prior to the election, Vanity Fair ran a
splashy story on how the neoconservatives (architects of the Iraq War) had all turned on the Bush Administration and its mishandling of affairs in Iraq. The story even has a picture of Richard Perle looking like Dr. Strangelove. All very interesting, except for one small problem - none of it is true.
See a
National Review Symposium, with the same people, and judge for yourself whether Vanity Fair dramatically mischaracterized their positions for partisan purposes.
I think you know where I stand.
The Realist Case for Supporting Israel
As a response to recent criticism of America's alliance with Israel, which is widely perceived by those who disagree with it as a pointless exercise in idealism which undercuts American foreign policy objectives in the Middle East, Martin Kramer presents
the realist case for continued support of Israel. I agree with his main thesis, which is as follows:
My answer, to anticipate my conclusion, is this: U.S. support for Israel is not primarily the result of Holocaust guilt or shared democratic values; nor is it produced by the machinations of the "Israel Lobby." American support for Israel--indeed, the illusion of its unconditionality--underpins the Pax Americana in the eastern Mediterranean. It has compelled Israel's key Arab neighbors to reach peace with Israel and to enter the American orbit. The fact that there has not been a general Arab-Israeli war since 1973 is proof that this Pax Americana, based on the U.S.-Israel alliance, has been a success. From a realist point of view, supporting Israel has been a low-cost way of keeping order in part of the Middle East, managed by the United States from offshore and without the commitment of any force. It is, simply, the ideal realist alliance.
In contrast, the problems the United States faces in the Persian Gulf stem from the fact that it does not have an Israel equivalent there, and so it must massively deploy its own force at tremendous cost. Since no one in the Gulf is sure that the United States has the staying power to maintain such a presence over time, the Gulf keeps producing defiers of America, from Khomeini to Saddam to Bin Laden to Ahmadinejad. The United States has to counter them, not in the interests of Israel, but to keep the world's great reserves of oil out of the grip of the West's sworn enemies.
I find pure realism to be naive in a post-9/11 world, so for a convincing case to be made for a controversial policy position that I am strongly in favor to be made from a realist perspective.... well, that is just fantastic and that's why I am posting it here. For clarity, below is Kramer's definition of realism:
Realism, in its policy application, is an approach that seeks to isolate the conduct of foreign affairs from sentimental moral considerations and special interests like ethnic and commercial lobbies, and to base it instead on a pure concept of the national interest. Realists are not interested in historical obligations, or in whether this or that potential ally respects human rights. They see themselves as coldly weighing U.S. interests, winnowing out extraneous considerations, and ending up with policies that look out solely for No. 1: the United States.
Realist thinkers are not isolationists, but they are extremely reluctant to see U.S. power expended on projects and allies that do not directly serve some U.S. interest as they define it--and they define these interests quite narrowly. Generally, they oppose visionary ideas of global transformation, which they see as American empire in disguise. And empire, they believe, is a drain on American resources. They are particularly reluctant to commit American troops, preferring that the United States follow a policy of "offshore balancing" wherever possible--that is, playing rivals off one another.
MILDLY RELATED TANGENT ALERT: These are not just academic discussions. Pure realism is rumored to be rearing its ugly head again in Washington these days, with talk of negotiating with Syria and Iran about Iraq. This would be kind of a cold-blooded power and national interest calculation, which would ignore the fact that the blood-soaked tyrannies in Syria and Iran are the main reasons for the current volatility in the region (i.e. Iraq and Lebanon).
Talking to everyone, including our enemies, sounds wise and level-headed (and to be fair, is not without some merit). However, this type of amoral thinking is one of the main reasons that we are in our current predicament in the Middle East. U.S. support for heartless dictators (Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, for example) over the past 20 years reinforced the notion in the Middle East that America was all about money, power, regional stability, and oil - which was essentially correct from a purely realist perspective. To be fair, these are still our interests - except that we now realize that our cynical embrace of dictators generated short term stability and long term instability (i.e. young and angry populations, willing to listen to radical Islamists, who turn them into suicide bombers, etc...). This is why I am a supporter of democratic realism - meaning that we should only expend blood and treasure in areas where we have a strong national interest at stake, but that the best way to generate long term peace and stability in these areas is the spread of freedom. As unpleasant (and glacially slow) as it is, we have no choice but to try to go after root causes of terrorism.
In defense of U.S. support of dictators in the past, I will say that prior to the end of Cold War we really had no choice but to do what we did. Our goal was the takedown of the Soviet Union, and everything else took a back seat. We took a holidary from history in the 1990's, and that can be excused to an extent as well because everything seemed stable (on the surface), at least until the embassy bombings in Africa in 1998 or the USS Cole in 2000. On 9/11, the choices we made back in the 1980's caught up to us. In my mind at least, cold-blooded realism died that day.
The question then becomes - how far should the pendulum swing towards idealism? Did it swing too far in our attempt to democratize Iraq? Is democracy ideal for every oppressed country? Should we try to completely isolate and destabilize Axis of Evil regimes (i.e. idealistic), or should we try to negotiate with them (i.e. realistic)? Finally, the most important question of all - does the U.S. have the willpower to stick with whatever strategy it chooses when the going gets tough?
Another Day, Another Political Assassination in Lebanon
A Christian cabinet member in Lebanon was
assassinated a few days ago. An
attempt was made on another one's life, but he survived. If both murders had been successful, the government would have been forced to dissolve and the coup d'etat would have begun. See excellent coverage
here. Behind this are the usual suspects - Syria, Iran, and Iran's proxy Hezbollah. Motivation? Syria does not want the investigation into the Valentine's Day 2005 assassination of Rafik Hariri to go any farther or gain any more traction. It has the potential to destabilize the Syrian regime, because the orders to kill Hariri originated at the highest levels of the Syrian government.
And these are the people we are possibly going to negotiate with over Iraq????????
A Suggestion on Iraq
There was a proposal in an essay in the Wall Street Journal yesterday (can't find it online or I'd link to it) on Iraq which I found interesting. To summarize, the authors proposed embedding five times as many U.S. troops in Iraqi police and army units as we are currently. They cite numerous historical examples of how this strategy works much better as a force multiplier and as a builder of long term strength. As of now, we are doing small amounts of embedding, with most patrols either done by Iraqis with U.S. as support only, or U.S. - only patrols in crazy areas like
Ramadi. This policy is not a failure, but the authors make the point that we could be doing much better. Best of all, they say that if we did this we could cut the U.S. presence in Iraq by about half very quickly, while maintaing a more effective presence on the ground than we currently have.
Jay Nordlinger on the Arab Street
Great
point:
The Saudi ambassador in Washington, Prince Turki, was jabbing the U.S., for its support of Israel. (A story is here.) He says, in essence, that we have to throw Israel to the jackals, and then we’ll be better liked. Well, of course we would be. Said Turki, “It is no secret that U.S. standing in the Middle East is at an all-time low.”
Okay: Everybody cares about America’s standing in the Middle East (or at least comments on it). Does anyone care — anywhere — that the Muslim world’s standing in the U.S. has never been lower?I didn’t think so. But it would be super if someone considered that question, just once, ever, somewhere. I would die and go to heaven if an Arab official or intellectual asked, “What can we do to improve our standing on the American street?” Don’t wait up nights, for that question to be asked.
