RealCurrents

I hope this isn’t 1965 all over again. But once again we are escalating our involvement in a war that it’s not clear how we can win.

“Gates noted that while progress in Iraq will lead to a reduction in the number of troops there, more troops are needed in Afghanistan because of the worsening violence in that conflict. He said the persistent pace of operations in the two wars over several years has meant a steady increase in the number of troops who are wounded, stressed or otherwise unable to deploy with their units.”

Many people think the Vietnam War was unwinnable, at least in the context in which it was fought. Afghanistan is arguably more difficult, with a long history of invasions which went poorly for the invaders. Now the U.S. is rapidly escalating the war there, though most Americans probably remain largely unaware.

Thus we are in danger of repeating many of the same mistakes of 1965 and 2003, rushing into an escalation of conflict in an area we don’t well understand, with goals we can’t clearly articulate.

There are certainly good reasons to be over there. It is not my intent to argue that we shouldn’t be involved in that part of the world, but that we need to have a vigorous public debate about what are our long-term goals for this war.

As in 1965, we see an escalation occurring without the public really engaged. I suspect most Americans still have the idea that as a result of the 2006 Congressional and 2008 Presidential elections, we were assured a drawdown of our military forces. While this is occurring to some extent in Iraq, Dept. of Defense figures from the end of March (pdf) show total troop deployments were down less than 7,000 (233,800 vs. 240,600) from the end of 2007 (pdf), when the surge in Iraq was beginning to wind down and the presidential primaries were about to start. And now we are seeing substantial increases in both deployments and casualties, sadly, in Afghanistan.

The danger, as in 1965, is that it’s convenient for the military if the public isn’t paying too much attention to an escalation. There’s less scrutiny or criticism in the short run. And once again we’ve got a Democrat-controlled administration and Congress that is looking at massive new social spending programs. In the long run, though, it will be our soldiers and our society that suffers if we don’t get our goals right.

Most important, our military must be given a mission in which it can succeed. 22,000 more troops for the Army will help in the short run, but what is the end game? Just gaining and holding territory in Afghanistan and Pakistan isn’t likely to work anywhere near as well as it’s (hah) worked in Iraq.

Another little detail: after nearly eight years in Afghanistan, and this new escalation, is it not yet time for a formal Congressional declaration of war? Is that too much to ask? The accompanying debate might do a lot to help clarify our goals, because it would force Washington to state clearly who precisely are our enemies.

Certainly, whatever we do in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan is going to continue to be challenging. The culture there has worked out many adaptations for dealing with invaders. Recently, an Army base was expanded into an area filled with Karez, ancient networks of tunnels used both for irrigation and secret movement. A sewer plant was planned right on top of the waterways. By the time the U.S. military realized the error, the Taliban had farmers and other locals in an uproar. How are we supposed to control an area like that?

Like Vietnam, this effort will ultimately require some sort of political and diplomatic solution worked out far from the battlefield. And I really doubt it’s an accident that this announcement has come out the same day:

“U.S. officials “firmly believe” that al-Qaida leaders who planned and carried out the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are hiding in Pakistan near its border with Afghanistan, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday.”

This is a pretty obvious indication that we shouldn’t be surprised if operations in Afghanistan are again expanded, at least to these parts of Pakistan.

With all the criticism of George W. Bush and Republicans in general, I think we need to sort out a few basic aspects of our current mess so we can then, hopefully, make intelligent changes.

In my view, Republicans (in which I include myself, since I generally vote that way) have two basic problems:

1. Bush’s administration has been hijacked by war-hawk NeoCons, the first evidence of which appeared to be his picking Dick Cheney (seemingly out of nowhere, considering Wyoming isn’t a big state) to be his running mate.

As a result, early philosophical drivers of Bush policy, such as Marvin Olasky’s notion of “compassionate conservatism“, a foreign policy that refrained from “nation building”, and in general a more limited federal government, gradually gave in to the NeoCon urge to use power whenever possible, wherever possible.

Of course, the dam broke after 9/11, an event which may well have been given too much import in re-shaping U.S. foreign and domestic policy. In any case, the war-hawk NeoCons were firmly behind the wheel after that, and within a year were openly maneuvering to invade Iraq.

2. The near-complete failure of the rest of Republicans to make a serious effort to reclaim their party from the war-hawk NeoCons.

As I wrote before, despite Bush’s obvious failings, I put more blame on the Congress, for largely abdicating its responsibilities: “the Republican Congress … has failed to fulfill two of its primary duties: providing a check on the Executive Branch and controlling spending.”

So, two basic problems: the NeoCon takeover of the Bush administration, and the failure of the rest of us Republicans to counter it. With these in mind, it’s time for someone to finally state what’s plainly obvious, at least to any non-NeoCon in the Republican camp:

War-hawk NeoConservatives do NOT represent the views of all or anywhere near a majority of Republicans, nor are they legitimate heirs of Ronald Reagan’s legacy.

Through most of my teen years, I would hear Ronald Reagan in the morning, giving his radio address outlining his views, and no one’s going to convince me that his vision of personal responsibility and freedom, with limited government, has anything in common with the imperialist, police-state policies promoted by the war-hawk NeoCons.

The Republicans lost control of Congress for the simple reason that they failed to do their job. They completely failed to control spending, they failed to rein in government, and one by one those opposed to the invasion of Iraq knuckled under, I guess swayed by the argument, “We’re in a ‘war on terror‘, you just have to trust us.” Well, it’s amazing that the Bush administration still seems to be trying to use that argument. It shows how out of touch they really are.

As far as Bush’s failings go, I think Lee Iacocca hits the nail on the head in his new book, Where Have All the Leaders Gone?. Iacocca gives 9 “C’s” of leadership, and notes that Bush dismally fails on the very first one: Curiosity.

George W. Bush has a lot of good, even great, qualities, and I’m sure most Republicans, including myself, want to continue supporting him, but he has GOT to develop both a much greater interest in what is going on, and multiple alternative channels of information. As someone once said, a leader must use the chain of command to issue orders, but can NEVER depend on the chain of command for information.

As for other Republican politicians and candidates, I hope they will not abandon Bush, but will finally begin to demand accountability (and fiscal responsibility) from his administration.

Obviously, the folks Republicans DO need to be abandoning, and driving from the party, are the war-hawk NeoCons, who haven’t got a clue what terms like “limited government”, “Constitution”, “separation of powers”, and “conservative” really mean.

Sadly, if this mess continues much longer, us conservatives will have to come up with a new name for ourselves, lest people think we’re in favor of torture, abolishing the Geneva Convention, pre-emptive war, and all the other nonsense (evil) that’s been foisted upon us by these “Neo-Conservatives”, who seem to think the solution to every problem is the exercise of more government power.

Over the weekend, I was disturbed by a report from AgapePress that the Bush administration had somehow, incredibly, approved a deal allowing the UAE company Dubai Ports World to acquire six eastern U.S. ports (New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore, and New Orleans).

My main concern was that this was going to be another one of those outrageous stories that only the conservative press picks up, but this time I needn’t have worried. Despite the federal holiday Monday, Republicans and Democrats alike were quick to condemn the deal. Thankfully, I don’t need to check that “Press Coverage Holes” category this time.

Nevertheless, as RealCurrents is all about trying to highlight what isn’t already being said somewhere else, but that needs to be part of the discussion, there are several points deserving consideration:

First and most mystifying to me (and I’m a conservative Republican, by the way), this ports deal is just one more instance of the Bush administration refusing to demand, or even suggest, some sort of wartime economic/business sacrifice. First it was the insistence that Americans go on spending like crazy in the wake of 9/11, buying more and more gas-guzzling SUVs even as we went to war in Afghanistan, and as the neo-cons in Washington maneuvered to start another war in Iraq.

The inability of the administration to formulate an effective energy conservation strategy to go along with a protracted war in the Middle East is not merely irresponsible, it is strategically stupid. While the U.S. borrows hundreds of billions of dollars to fight the war, Americans are borrowing hundreds of billions more to pay to oil-producing countries that in many cases have been documented sources of terrorists. This is worse than what we did in the Cold War, spending huge amounts on defense procurement while propping up the economies of the Eastern Bloc.

If things get bad enough, will Washington demand a draft, with a lot of hoop-la about how wartime sacrifices must be made? Though relatively small by historical comparison, the casualties already being suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan are substantial and seemingly ongoing.

The administration likes to pull out the “we’re at war” card every time it’s convenient (e.g. reauthorizing the Patriot Act), yet quickly tuck it away when other interests come into play. I think most Americans would agree that if we’re really at war, then there are going to be some strategic assets that are not to be dealt away.

This is the patently obvious second point: most every homeland security study has shown that our ports are some of our most vulnerable infrastructure. That the administration could even consider turning these over to a Mid-East country shows exactly why this must not be allowed, even if the country is our “ally” (whatever that means with Muslim countries) and, oh by the way, extravagantly wealthy.

Whoever analyzed this deal is confident that safeguards will be in place. This is the problem with any bureaucratic organization - it begins to think it’s infallible, and before long will let anything get by it as long as it’s got all the right rubber stamps on it. In other words, bureaucracies excel at straining out gnats but sometimes miss the glaringly obvious. The FBI’s failure, despite repeated requests, to investigate a suspicious student who only wanted to learn to fly 747s, straight and level, is not only now a classic in the annals of bureaucracy, but also a painful warning of what can happen if we place too much confidence in government.

Of course, the Katrina disaster in New Orleans has provided fresh evidence that bureacracies at all levels can fail to handle the obvious, even when it was expected ahead of time. The simple solution is simply not to let this deal happen in the first place, even if global trade suffers a little bit.

Third, as Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham noted, the adminstration’s stance is “unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history”. As such, it provides ample evidence (as if any more was needed) that the White House is just not being well-managed. Either the administration doesn’t have a coherent message in many cases, and/or it’s failing dismally to communicate that message. Even as I write this, Don Wildmon of the conservative AFA has sent out an email alert opposing the deal, noting that “Normally we don’t ask you to participate in issues such as this, but we feel that this one justifies your involvement.”

I used to be impressed with George W. Bush’s ability to be in touch with public sentiment, but there’s a clear disconnect that seems to have worsened ever since the neo-cons gained ascendancy. Bush clearly needs help, and he should start by restoring Karen Hughes to a top White House role. Then he should demand that the neo-cons play by the same rules as everyone else, i.e. they have to actually justify their points of view rather than just use a knee-jerk accusation of the other side.

Anyone who’s been on the net for long knows there are millions of thinking Americans who are totally outraged at the lack of a real debate on the war in Iraq and other key issues, such as federal spending. Most of these are Democrats, but the number of conservative Republicans among these is growing rapidly. Maybe this ports deal will finally get the real debate about the war on terror started.

When the clock radio goes off in the morning, the news occasionally brings something that shocks or surprises enough to make my mind race past all the fog and actually focus. Sometimes it’s something tragic, sometimes just stupid, but it’s generally bad news. Well, Tuesday was the latest instance of this, as I woke up hearing of Pat Robertson’s call to assassinate Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.

There’s so much wrong with this, both theologically and politically, that I immediately wanted to write about it, but after a while I figured most everything had been said. Marvin Olasky has a pretty good article, for example. As often happens, though, I realize after a while that there’s another side to the story that’s not really being told, but needs to so we can understand what’s truly going on. Of course, that’s the main reason I started this blog.

Because assassination is generally an act of war, the real issue here is the definition of war, and what it means to enter into and to end a state of war. Unfortunately, since the end of World War II and the formation of the U.N., the constitutional process of Congress’ declaring a war has been set aside. This has caused all sorts of problems, with various ill-defined “police actions”, both large and small, ensuing over the past 60 years.

Since 9/11, things have gotten even more muddled, as we fight a “war on terrorism”. I don’t use the quotes sarcastically, but simply to point out that nobody really knows what a “war on terrorism” is! This is a new kind of war, at least at the level of weaponry terrorists either have or are thought to be seeking. It’s understandable that things must be worked out somewhat as we go along.

On the other hand, there’s a tremendous danger here as we pursue such an ill-defined “war”, and Rev. Robertson’s unfortunate comments point right to it. The danger is, the longer we go without clearly defining what the war on terror is, the easier it will be to justify all sorts of mischief. Chavez supposedly is friendly to terrorist types, etc., so if we simply brand him a terrorist, then we can justify getting rid of him. Never mind that we’re not at war with Venezuela.

This is a serious problem. As we muddle along, ultimately we effectively risk putting the U.S. at war with potentially most everyone and everybody. Is there not really a point at which even the British would say we’ve gone too far? Would we then label them friends of terrorists for disagreeing with us? Obviously I’m exaggerating to make a point, but there’s a sort of open-ended logic that needs to be closed, the sooner the better. In other words, we can’t really define what a war on terror is until we clearly define what it is not. We need limits, and since we’ve chucked requiring a congressional declaration of war, we don’t have any except public opinion.

Indeed, we don’t really have enough political will to efficiently carry out a long war, yet we do have enough to start a lot of things. Surely, the goal behind requiring a congressional declaration of war was just the opposite of our present situation: to make it politically difficult to get into a war, but then easier, politically, to stay in it and carry it out properly once the line was passed. Now we cross the line back and forth and don’t even know where we are much of the time.

It doesn’t take a lot of reading between the lines to figure that the Bush administration is trying to strike a delicate balance between applying enough resources in Iraq to do the job, but not so much as to cause a political backlash. Unfortunately, this this kind of politics-driving-strategy will eventually break down. The longer a war goes (and they have indicated the overall war on terror will be long), the more resources (and lives) will be squandered, and the weaker our position will become.

Pat Robertson’s remarks beg the question, “Do you want to start a war with Venezuela?” Of course, this sounds preposterous, but without a clear structure for defining why and how we would decide to start a war, is it just a matter of time, or pressing circumstances, before the U.S. stumbles into a dumb call such as this?