To Torture or not to Torture

Today the New York Times reported on a US Justice Department memo issued in 2005 approving the use of torture after previously denouncing such methods in a an earlier memo in 2004 as "abhorrent". This new, revised memo endorsed methods such as head-slapping, simulated drowning, and exposure to frigid temperatures.

I know torture has its advocates and they make many nebulous claims to its effectiveness effectiveness in eliciting information. If someone could site a specific, compelling example I would love to hear it. I guess it is tempting to be seduced by the iron-clad logic that someone would never tell their torturer exactly what they wanted to hear in order to terminate the gruesome proceedings as soon as possible. And of course terror suspects have all the incentive in the world to divulge all their information...spending the rest of my days languishing in a concrete cell as an expended intelligence asset sounds great to me.

If someone shoved a snarling attack dog in my face or threatened to attach electrodes to my genitals, I think I'd say just about anything to make it all stop.

We're told that the War on Terror is being fought to protect civilization from those who would destroy it. Are we being civilized?

North Korea Does Care

Just when everyone thought that North Korea was a desolate rogue state that only cares about finding a place of importance in the world, they prove that they actually care about their people. WOO HOO. Everyone take a picture because this does not happen often. It was officially announced today that North Korea has reached a deal with Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan to complete dismantle all of its nuclear facilities by the end of the year. This includes the reactor in Yongbyon which produces plutonium. In exchange for this disabling of nuclear facilities, North Korea will receive 950,00 metric tons of fuel oil or its equivalent in ECONOMIC AID. Yes economic aid. Kim Jong-il might actually have decided that starving his people to death is not a the best viable option. Or maybe the North Koreans got a hold of the picture that shows how lit up the rest of the Korean Peninsula and China is at night. Either way, things are looking up for the North Koreans.

Now this deal does not require North Korea to get rid of all of the technology and parts that have already been acquired already which could pose a threat if another state were to get their hands on them. In order to gain full support of the United States, North Korea must also disclose whether or not they have been supplying Syria with nuclear materials. If this condition is met along with full disabling of facilities by the end of 2007, then the US says it will "enhance mutual trust."

This is also seen as a major victory for the Bush adminstration. This administration, which has suffered through the debacle in Iraq, has shown signs of effectiveness. Not only has they worked with North Korea to disarm, they have also done the same with Libya early in the administration. These smaller victories certainly do not overshadow Iraq, but they do show some credibility, for what it's worth.

The Torture Taboo

Why does tough interrogation get such a bad rap in the US? Certainly, much of the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib was senseless and shameful, but this should by no means push the US to tone down its interrogation techniques.

One commonly hears this protest: “How can anyone take seriously US pronouncements on human rights in light of how it treats its own prisoners?” At best, this is rather flimsy logic. In times of war, an army’s chief objective almost always involves killing its enemy. Why is killing OK in war, but tough interrogating—which is less terminal than killing—to gain strategic advantages not?

But what if the tortured prisoner had no valuable intelligence to begin with? The nature of war, even a just war, makes collateral damage unavoidable. General Sherman’s statement “War is hell” was prescriptive as much as descriptive.

There are plenty of documented cases where intense interrogation has yielded crucial information, so the onus is on the dissenters to explain why torture should not be used. What worthwhile value or moral principle does an anti-interrogation stance promote? And why—in the political world of value tradeoffs—does that principle outweigh the advantages that tough interrogation has been known to produce?

Why do we fear?

Amid Protests, President of Iran Speaks at Columbia

Damon Winter/The New York Times
[Protesters, including students bused in from other schools, swarmed Columbia University to demonstrate against the speech.]

I think, first of all, we need to listen directly and carefully on his opinion on what’s wrong and what’s right on the situation in the Middle East. And then, we can judge his argument how he is biased or not based on his remarks. Protests are a good means of representing the American ideology. Even without it, Ahmadinejad would keep look down on the U.S. and so called the Western democratic countries. National security can be obtained only when we sought the true values. If he does not exactly know on those values, we have to le him know ho to maintaining a stable national security. If somebody who is not content with him, how about to say in front of his speech table that “you are a terrorist!” To obtain true values, we need to know to withdrawing one step, and then it will make us to go further.

Speaking of Values

Since we have just concluded our discussion of values and how these tie into national security I found it rather intriguing that The Economist began a series this week that examines how terrorism has affected civil liberties. In the first installment The Economist examines arguably the worst assault on civil liberties by exploring the use of torture to secure information deemed to be of vital interest to national security. The report looks specifically at how 9/11 has changed some of the attitudes in western countries about the appropriateness of some level of torture to extract information from terror suspects.
The article lays down some of the international laws to which most countries are signatories and how they define torture. According to the article it the different interpretation of what constitutes torture that has allowed several countries most notably the US and England to engage in or sponsor some level of torture by allies. The moral dilemma with torture is of course discussed as it can potentially save many lives in return for small concessions in civil liberties. Dick Chenney is quoted as having recently suggested that "dunking" a terrorist in water to save lives was a "no-brainer". This blunder was later altered by a press release stating that he was not referring to "water-boarding". Also in 2004 the English Court of Appeal ruled that evidence acquired through torture was admissible in court. Although later overturned by the House of Lords.
The nature of terrorism, according to the article, has made the need for information that much more important to defending against the enemy. Polls presented in the article also show that a large numbers of people around the world believe that "some degree of torture is permissible". However, in the same polls we also see that in all countries a majority of the population are "against all torture". Clearly a divide has developed since the rise of terror that has changed some peoples perception as to what national security is and how important civil liberties are to it. Governments have responded to these changes in public attitude by permitting it in some form through elaborate schemes.
Also, the article touches on some aspects from the nuclear taboo article from last week. The Economist seems to espouse the view that torture should also remain a taboo to modern societies as it poses a slippery slope just like the use of nuclear arms. Once the practice of torture becomes accepted, even in only a minor role and extreme cases similar to the use of tactical nukes, it will lead to escalation as there is no clear boundary that can be established in its implementation. The article argues that the erosion of civil liberties in this direction is a dangerous development but also makes note that in many places legislation has been developed to curb many of the torture practices that emerged directly after 9/11 and the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This seems to coincide with reduced support for torture at home.

Disaster at Sea?

On Friday Robert Kaplan—a journalist currently writing for The Atlantic—wrote and op-ed piece in the New York Times, arguing that the Iraq war may be the event which brings about the Asian Century. Throughout the article, Kaplan predicts scenarios and points out trends about Asian naval power.

A trend: Kaplan argues that the balance of naval power in Asia is changing. Specifically, he mentions China. It has five times as many submarines as America, and it is focusing on naval mines, G.P.S. satellite blocking technology, and ballistic missiles that are capable of hitting moving objects at sea. Kaplan also mentions that India’s Navy is on its way to being the 3^rd largest, and Japan’s Navy is also increasing, soon to be 4 times larger than Britain’s Navy.

A forecast: As the Indian and Chinese middle classes grow, and consequently, as the demand for energy grows, the narrow bodies of water in and around the Indian Ocean will become clogged with tankers transporting oil and with the warships protecting the tankers routes. Kaplan calls this is a dangerous situation prone to terrorist attacks.

A trend: While pointing out that a willingness to use military power can be based on nationalism, Kaplan compares the level of nationalism in America and Europe to that in Asian countries. Kaplan calls the West post-nationalistic, seemingly ashamed for needing nuclear weapons. Contrastingly, the Indians, Pakistanis, and Chinese are prideful about possessing nuclear weapons, and certainly the Iranians are passionate about their right to poses nuclear weapons. Kaplan brings the discussion back to the Iraq war by blaming it for worsening the European trend towards pacifism.

A forecast: Several territorial disputes in the Asian seas remind Kaplan of the same sort of territorial dispute that “often led to war in early modern Europe.”

Kaplan goes on with more predictions and trends, describing what sounds like a recipe for disaster, but how possible are his predictions?

Montpelier: to the President of the United States

Dear Mr. President,

I have sympathy for the aspirations of the Second Vermont Republic (SVR) movement, and though it has generated a media maelstrom, I think it would be wise to consider circumspectly its goals and ideals. At the very least, the Vermont issue should shed some light on American values.

Press reports have censured the SVR movement with words "threat," "treason," and "radicalized." These are inaccurate.

That the SVR movement seeks to harm or overthrow the United States government (which would be treason) is nonsense; it simply wishes to reinvigorate the American ideals that government proceeds from the citizen and, in the United States, that the federal government should operate within a limited scope. That the United States government has claimed prerogatives outside its constitutional mandate (see Bill of Rights, 10th amendment) is undisputed.

Would the SVR be a threat? No more than Canada. Would its secession harm the nation? Vermont has the smallest gross state product of the fifty states--about 0.2% of US GDP--and has a similar share in the national population. Perhaps one could say the SVR threatens the value of unity. But unity is desirable only when centered on virtuous principles, and SVR supporters believe that United States' policies that erode self-government pose the larger threat--a noble argument that sadly got entangled in the slavery issue in the 1800s.

Are they radical? In their pursuit of self-determination, perhaps. The "treason" and "threat" labels, however, are unwarranted. Then again, they would be quite familiar to people such as John Hancock and Samuel Adams. Before cursorily classifying the SRV movement as inimical to the United States, Mr. President, please consider the fundamental values for which the United States stands, or more appropriately, stand.

Respectfully,

An American citizen

Death to Ameri..er, Pakistan!

Reports now say the the next video out of the bin Laden camp is going to call for jihad against...Pakistan.

Welcome to the party, Pakistan.

Apparently, UbL is hacked off by the Musharraf government for its management of the Red Mosque issue and by his dodgy rule as a whole (read: cooperation with the Great Satan). Things are really up in the air in Pakistan now with the good general's relinquishing control of the military if elected properly...or whatever his mindset happens to be this week. Either way, UbL has chosen a tricky period in which to get into fisticuffs with Pakistan.

Seeing as how the Taliban and perhaps UbL himself managed to stay alive by hiding along or even inside the border with Pakistan, it might not be the best move to tamper with this relationship. Isn't there a saying about not pooping where you sleep? If not, there needs to be.

Montpelier Delenda Est!

While our attention has been focused on our enemies in the Middle East, there has been a threat growing within our own national borders. The Second Vermont Republic (SVR) has been growing in power and notoriety over the past few months and has been gaining fame both domestically and abroad.


The SVR is a secessionist movement bent on pulling the state out of the United States a la South Carolina in 1860-61. SVR leaders claim that the right to secession is real and justified by historical precedent (just when you thought the Civil War was a bad thing...). According to the SVR, a state and its people have the right and the duty to secede when a government has lost the authority to rule. Ironic how they use the reasoning of the founding fathers to support their cause. Furthermore, the United States' government is immoral and disrespectful of the individual states.

To date, the separatist movement is not militant. In fact, one of the hallmark ideas of the movement is that a state can secede peacefully. As evidence, they cite the newly independent states born of the break up of the Soviet Union. Of course, the Soviet bloc fell apart and did not stand idly by while a section of it radicalized politically and opted out.


A seceding state from the US, especially one on the border, is too great a threat to national security to be permitted.


Granted, any red-blooded American would love to see the hyper-liberal state hit the road, but it simply is too dangerous. With its growing international fame, how long would it be before the SVR is contacted by the greater terrorist network? How long until Osama is hiding out in the mountains of Vermont instead of in the mountains of Afghanistan? A rogue state on the border is too tasty a morsel for the enemies of America to ignore.


The practical means to rectify the problem are less clear. Perhaps the residents of Vermont could be relocated to Texas for re-Americanization? Pacify the Vermonters by legalizing marijuana in their state?

Either way, the South is now officially exculpated and the Northeast has taken over the mantle of treason. One course of action is clear: Montpelier Delenda Est!

The Penguin, err...Dick Cheney, strikes again

Speaking at a GOP fundraiser this week, the Vice President felt compelled to weigh on the moveon.org controversy involving its ad in last week's NY TIMES. (Is it me, or does it seem like the only time the VP comes out of hiding is to raise money, but I digress.) In the article, the organization questions whether General Petraeus was "cooking the books" during his Capitol Hill testimonies last week. Whether you agree with Moveon's tactics or not, this administration has proven its resolve to "cook the books" to advance their agenda. Given that former Bush cabinet officials (Paul O'Neill, George Tenet, etc.) have publicly stated that this administration was only concerned with intelligence that supported their agenda, the question is at least worthy enough to be investigated. Further damning to the administration, the respected by all, former FED Chairman Alan Greenspan came out this week and stated that the Iraq War was all about oil. Back in 2003, the Bush-Cheney team sacrificed Colin Powell at the UN, when they sent him to deliver the "cooked-up" evidence supporting their pre-determined war, sidetracked only by the events of 9/11. And now, they expect all Americans to unequivocally support all of this administrations proposals for Iraq or they label them as un-patriotic. Given this week's topic on Values and National Interests, along with having heard Greenspan's opinion on the motive for the Iraqi invasion, I think a true patriot would do anything but go along with the status-quo of this administration.

Further, when I heard the VP state, "No one in politics should hesitate to object when an American soldier at war is mocked and insulted." I couldn't help but remember the confrontation that Cheney engaged in with Max Cleland, the former Vietnam Vet and Georgia Senator who lost both of his legs and one arm during battle, in 2004. Or, in that same year at the Republican National Convention in NYC, Cheney permitted and supported the use of band-aides as way to "mock and insult" Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam, while he continuously and cowardly avoided the same draft in which Kerry served. His hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Second Summit Meeting in the Korean Peninsula

What are the meanings of the second inter-Korean summit meeting?

Second summit meeting will be held on 2 – 4, October, 2007. This will be a meaningful in many ways as I suggested below. Let me compare the two meetings.

The first summit meeting in June, 2000 was come about when there was no trust between North and South. And there was no contact between government officials. Rather, the Hyundai’s role as intermediary was devotional.

First of all, however, the second summit meeting will be held with the results of frequent dialogues and negotiations--owing to the U.S. and multilateral conversations. Second, Kaesong Industrial Complex and other economic projects are being carried out in positive senses. Third, as I mentioned above, the government’s official channel made it possible to have the second meeting.

This summit meeting will be meaningful in its contents. This meeting will definitely deal with the nuclear issue first. Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is the basic premise of the successes of the 13 February, 2007 Six-Party Talks. For two Koreas, security is the most important issue to be solved for the further progress in a bilateral relation. If the nuclear problem solved, South Korea have enough intention to assist North Korea in a various ways.

In this sense, South Korea can play a crucial role in securing stability and finally the reunification of the two Koreas. In regard to security issue, NLL (Northern Limitation Line) issue—the most urgent problem is expect to be suggested. North Korea does not recognize the existence of this line; whereas South Korea is firmly insist on the existence of this line, so there are many possibilities of conflict in the West Sea, as some North Korean Navy skirmish cases showed. Summit meeting will deal with this line seriously. Of course, this will not be easily solved in one time, but gradually there will be much more specific meetings. Accordingly, I expect this second summit meeting will institutionalize the inter-Korean summit meeting further.

It’s easy to criticize US policy in Iraq. Even the president has expressed disappointment with the lack of political reconciliation and security enhancement, and the chorus of war critics is as clamorous as ever. But merely pointing out policy flaws—especially obvious ones—is unhelpful, unless one is advocating viable alternatives.

One popular alternative: skedaddle. But this is not a strategy; it’s a reaction. Those who advocate pullout need also to demonstrate how steadily drawing-down forces in Iraq, irrespective of events on the ground, is the best policy option for the US. True, it would bring many US troops out of harm’s way and decrease expenditures, but what would be the larger ramifications? How would US interests in the region be affected? What balance of power shifts might occur? Those who assert—correctly—that US war planning pre-invasion gave inadequate attention to future scenarios should also consider what consequences a precipitate withdrawal might produce.

Some war critics cite declining Iraqi optimism—documented in a recent BBC pool—as proof of US failure and an argument for pullout. But the poll shows also that security is still the number one concern for Iraqis. Those who advocate withdrawal out of sensitivity to Iraqi opinion should explain how this policy would address Iraqis’ primary misgiving. The BBC poll shows also that over 50 percent of Iraqis wish the US to remain until security is improved.

Merely hollering that the light bulb has burnt out does not fix the light. Of course, if you’re the US you can just walk out of the room. But those who are staying behind don’t like the dark either and would probably prefer that you replace the bulb rather than just complain that it doesn’t work. Some intent thinking on enhancing US war policy--not merely carping--is in order.

Endnote: to those who assert—correctly—that this blogger has ignored his own advice and failed to present a viable alternative policy, it shall come in a future posting.

It's working! Or, it was until today...I think...

According to General Petreaus the troop surge in Iraq has made significant progress, "it's working" we were told a scant 4 days ago. The Iraqi people however disagree, and voiced their opposition to the General's assessment. In a bbcnews poll released the same day 70% of Iraqi's believed that the security situation in Iraq had deteriorated despite our increased presence in their country.

There was political wrangling and much gnashing of teeth in Washington as pundits debated who was closer to the truth, Petraeus or the Iraqi people.

Today, the point is moot. We now have fairly conclusive evidence that the latter was far more accurate, and that Iraqi's understand their country better than we do. Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, who met with President Bush last week and was widely credited with the "Anbar Awakening", has been assassinated.

Gonzalez

So the prodigal Attorney General (Alberto Gonzalez) has announced his resignation – effective September 17, 2007 – and I’m pretty upset about the whole ordeal! First off, as I watch The Daily Show’s segment “Clusterf@#k To the White House,” mind you, I think this resignation is just bad mojo.

The long and the short of it is that GW Bush is a lame duck president and this, along with the timely resignation of Karl Rove , is NOTHING more than an attempt for the GOP to clean house and keep the Democrats out of the White House in 2008.

(As an aside, and this is not meant to be rude to any Bush/Republican supporters, please note that if you clicked on the GWB link above and feel the need to inform me about Congress’ current approval rating, I am well aware…it is right below Bush’s.)

Secondly (and more importantly) I lost $100 bet on the whole deal thinking that Gonzalez would last until after the New Year!

At this point, if you are still reading, oh diligent one, you are probably thinking “what the heck does this have to do with National Security?!?!” Well just like every rant from Dr. Cox there is a point!

I almost never buy into the hype of things, trusting Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and the BBC, more than most news agencies, but looking at top ranking Bush administration officials dropping like flies does “embolden the terrorists.”

Like many Pattersonites I spent my summer on “The Hill;” and I remember Kent Conrad (D-ND) explaining the plan of Al Qaeda: defeat the American’s et al in Iraq, establish the new caliphate in Iraq, spread the Islamic Revolution, and then remove Israel from the map. These comments, while not top secret by any means, have been backed up by some of my military contacts. (And for full disclosure Conrad had three points, I have four, but the gist is the same.) To a terrorist or even an Iraqi who supports the Americans, it could be perceived that American Government is in chaos – a telling sign, which could be good or bad depending on what your opinion of America is.

The above is rather negative, but on the positive side the American people might finally get somewhere, though I doubt it, on GITMO and habeas corpus. At a July 24th full hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee when asked about GITMO, US Attorney firings, wiretapping, and such things Gonzalez earned the ire of Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa) by repeatedly stating that he was “recused” from answering those questions because of on going investigations. Days later Specter was invited to a closed session with Bush administration officials to be informed on the issues that Gonzalez was recused from answering.

That was in late July, to this point I have heard/read nothing about that closed meeting. But be assured if the often called RINO Specter found something that he felt was not in the best interest of the American people he would have gone nuclear on anyone in his way to rectify the issue – Republican or not. Specter has strong record of supporting of habeas corpus.

(If anyone is interested in the Judiciary Committee’s…umm rants…they can be found here and then by clicking on the webcast option.)

While a bit on the humorous side I hope this gets the blogging ball rolling.

Final

Instructions: Answer one of the three questions. E-mail your answer to me at farls0@gmail.com. Your exam is due by 3:15pm on Wednesday, March 13.

1. The US Defense budget for fiscal year 2007 stands at $470 billion. Is this enough? Too much? How do we go about assessing this question?
2. Evaluate the following statement: Neoconservatism didn’t fail; it was never properly tried.
3. What’s at stake for the United States in Iraq? What does the United States risk by staying, and what by leaving?

not so much the devil's advocate as the angel's defense attorney

Since the Iraq issue is getting a little stale, and since our final starts in a few minutes, I think it's time to present a few alternative opinions:

If Iraq is truly in a state of civil war, then America is achieving its objectives. We have engaged terrorist groups in open combat, identified the states that assist them, and begun detracting from their broad support base.

The invasion of Iraq did not occur in a vacuum, but rather within the context of the war on terror. Much of this has been lost in the fog of language and politics that has billowed out of Baghdad since March of 2003. The primary objective, as in Afghanistan, was to engage terrorist groups and the states that supported them in open combat where we have the advantage.

We look at Iraq, the growing number of attacks on Iraqii civilians and coalition troops, and we say, "The US occupation is creating more terrorists." This is only partly true. The US invasion of Iraq created more terrorists in the sense that it identified those groups waiting for a chance to attack the United States. Except now, instead of hitting our soft targets, they attacked the troops. Directly engaging the enemy; that was one of our goals, and we achieved it.

I'll be honest. In the deepest, darkest, coldest corner of my heart, I think that civil war in Iraq is a victory. If you have a civil war, you have multiple groups that consider themselves part of the same country - you have national identity. We have focused the world's attention on the sectarian violence in Iraq, which is directed against Sunnis and Shias first. Attacking Americans is of secondary importance. When the Middle Eastern news agencies look at Iraq, regardless of how they narrate it, their audiences see Iraqiis killing Iraqiis and Muslims killing Muslims, and they seem to carry out these killings with Iranian guns, Syrian bombs, Sunni Al-Qaeda training and Shia Hezbollah support.

When the Baker report talks about engaing Iran and Syria, they shouldn't be talking about engaging Mahmoud and Bashar. They should be engaging the Iranian and Syrian people. These people are not angry at Americans for being godless and Christian - they're angry at Americans for not stopping the killing. You don't see Iranians and Iraqis coming out and chanting for Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda and teorrism. They want peace, justice and an end to the killing. They're angry at us because they believe we can stop it, and we don't. It's fair to say that Iraq is dispelling the idea that Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah or other terrorist groups can bring peace and justice to the Middle East. A mullah can still start a riot amongst the poorest and disenfranchised, but the days are gone when the Ayatollah can instruct the nation's youth to riot and attack any nearby Americans. We still make it easy for Middle Eastern demagogues to blame America for every social, economic and political ill, but Arabs and Persians are learning to tell the difference. With genocide on the horizon, they know who's going to be doing the killing.

So, we've directly engaged the terrorists, killed many, and captured hundreds for interrogation. We've begun erroding public support for terrorist groups, radical Islamic organizations and fanatical Islamist groups such as Al-Qaeda. We may not have accomplished this in the most efficient manner, but we've done it. We have achieved almost all of the goals that can be achieved with military force.

Well, maybe we still need to bunker down with the Kurds in northern Iraq - who actually like us, imagine that. But besides that, more or less done.

Now it is time for the other side of America's power, diplomacy and soft power. Unfortunately, if anyone thinks that our military was poorly equipped to handle 4-G warfare in Iraq, then they should look at how ill-prepared our army of diplomats is to handle the 4-G statecraft nightmare that is the Middle East. America's superior firepower can defeat any body, but it's the mind we have to defeat to achieve our ultimate objectives in Iraq and the Middle East. That's not a job for guns.

To summarize: the US is winning in Iraq. We're killing the enemy, eroding their support and awaking a real democratic conscience in the Middle East from the bottom-up.

There's a long term struggle in play, and a grand game plan that will change form as Congress and the White House change hands along the road. And the test just arrived by email, so good luck everyone.

National Security Policy

National Security Policy

Walt / Mearsheimer argue that while United States foreign policy is often directed by an elusive and obscure Israel Lobby when it should be guided by US national interests. They define the Israel Lobby as “the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign poliy in a pro-Israel direction”
The article furthermore puts forth that the Israel Lobby actively labors to silence any discussion of its existence.

I believe that the evidence of pro-Israeli political influence upon US foreign policy are made unambiguous when analyzing the quantified data of US Aid to the “great benefactor” Israel. Receiving over $3 billion in aid each year from the United States, the grand total of US aid in 2003 to Israel since the nation’s rebirth in 1948 is over $140 billion dollars. The sole fact that the United States provides an amount of “aid” to Israel “dwarfing the amounts provided to any other state” should raise some eyebrows.

This unilateral support of Israel totally negates the ability of the United States to negotiate diplomatically as an objective neutral intermediary in regional disputes between Israel and neighboring Arab states. Taking Lebanon for example, Official US Aid to Israel is 10 times more than to Lebanon. One becomes even more suspicious when the amounts of aid are juxtaposed with the Per Capita GDP’s of the two neighboring states, Israel nearly 4 times that of Lebanon. Let’s look at some more states just to get bigger pictures of US Aid to Israel.

GDP PC 2005 est. Direct Official “US Aid”
Iraq $1,800.00 $ 3,969,507,640.00
Israel $25,000.00 $ 240,000,000.00
Lebanon $6,000.00 $ 35,000,000.00
Mexico $10,000.00 $ 27,000,000.00
Zambia $900.00 $ 0.00

Whatever the reason for this support, be it to “aid a fellow democracy”, or to atone for “past crimes” committed against the Hebrew people, the influence of a group or groups is clear. However, in a representational democracy, the influence of organized groups upon policy is a given.

Already labeled by some as anti-Semites, Walt and Mearsheimer have brought an important issue into the arena of public debate. If there are interests other than those of the United States that are leading this nation’s foreign policy it should indeed be discussed. Do most Americans prefer to support Israel than any other state’s interests including our own? So is this then a reflection of representative democracy at work? But dare I ask if perhaps the Israel Lobby was one of the forces that drove this nation to confront and topple Israel’s aggressive neighboring state Iraq? If so, is then the United States paying too high a price in the blood and dollars being pumped into Iraq today in support of Israel? Something to think about.

Sources:
US Aid by Nation: http://www.usaid.gov/
GDP PC 2005 Statistics by Nation: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

National Security Policy: September 2006

National Security Policy: September 2006

Reposting of a comment made 9/02/2006

fantôme de la bibliothèque said...
Mearsheimer’s “central conclusion is that institutions have minimal influence on state behavior and thus hold little promise for promoting stability in the post-Cold War world. He bases this conclusion on the fact that idealistic view of institutionalism is in direct contradiction to the foundations of realism (Mearsheimer 7). For realists, international institutions are used as tools of powerful states as they “create and shape institutions so that they can maintain their share of world power, or even increase it.” The United Nations is a perfect example of Mearsheimer’s view that institutions “mirror the distribution of power in the system (13).” The public perception that the United Nations as an international democratic institution is a sham. While the U.N. General assembly includes representation from 191 states, Article 24 of the U.N. Charter invests greater authority in the U.N. Security Council. As the most influential organ of the United Nations, the Security Council’s veto-wielding permanent five members (the P5) are not representative of the world populations, economic power, or any democratic ideal, but are simply a clear manifestation of power politics. The P5 members are The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and P.R. China. As if a souvenir of colonialism, four out of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are Caucasian and of European origin when the actual population of the world is everything but. Asia alone is more populated than the entire rest of the world combined, sustaining 62.6% of the earth's population in 2002 yet only represents one-fifth of the P5. (I won’t even begin to discuss the reluctance of the UN P5 to admit the People’s Republic of China replacing the United States’ puppet Republic of China (Taiwan) on the P5 in 1971). Africa, who is not at all represented in the P5, is larger and more populated than the entire continent of Europe. Two of the P5 members represent English speaking nations, and two of the members are also members of the European Union.When the United Nations was founded in 1945, human civilization found itself buried underneath the ashes of the Second World War and the victors carried deep resentment toward both Germany and Japan. The five countries that were awarded permanent representation on the Security Council are representative of the post-war allied power structure that stood triumphant at the end of World War Two. Consequently world powers Japan and Germany are not included in the P5. In 2002, the GNI of Japan was more than triple that of P5 members France or the United Kingdom. Germany's national economy is far greater than France, and yet neither Japan nor Germany are apart of the P5.Even though Mearsheimer states that due to Soviet-American competition, the UN “was never seriously tested as a collective security apparatus during the Cold War” (33), he rightly concludes that such an “optimistic assessment of institutions is not warranted.” I believe that the United Nations is a perfect example of an institution that was created, maintained, and dominated by world power politics. In response to Dr. Duke Nukem’s post, for the UN to have a future as a completely legitimate and influential institutional actor in international relations, its very structure and charter would need to be reformed. However, it is highly unlikely that progress will be made because the UN Charter was not intended to be changed easily. With the exception of the addition of new member states, the Charter has never been changed. An amendment to the Charter would require two thirds support in the General Assembly in addition to the full support of the permanent members of the Security Council. Which veto-wielding state is going to allow itself to be removed from the P5 or allow its power to be diminished by the addition of other states? So to answer your question Displayname… I think the UN as a primary example of an international institution proves Mearsheimer’s conclusion that balance of power is the independent variable affecting war and peace, and that “institutions are merely an intervening variable in the process (13).”Mearsheimer described institutions best in one sentence, and this was made apparent in the American unilateral 2003 invasion of Iraq, “What is most impressive about institutions, in fact, is how little independent effect they seem to have had on state behavior (47).”
12:47 PM

Man cannot survive by military might alone...

Apparently military officials are beginning to be open with their realizations that they don't have all the solutions in Iraq. Posted today on defensenews.com, Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the former operational commander, has announced that the military is not capable of winning the peace in Iraq.

Instead, he indicated that the US should focus more on the economy and solving sectarian issues. To support his assertion that the US should be more concerned about the Iraqi economy, he noted that citizens must have something to look forward to, so to speak, other than continuing violence. He also argues that the military should be allowed to continue with its mission because it’s important to win this conflict.

To me, at least, these statements seem contradictory. How can we maintain our troop levels and continue to fight this fight and pursue a goal of stimulating the economy at the same time. Don't armed conflicts on the scale of the Iraq war (with approx. 145,000 Americans there at the moment) sort of negate the possibility of any meaningful economic stiumlus?

My personal opinion is that there shouldn't be a reduction of troops, but perhaps a reduction of their duties: a strong incentive for the Iraqi forces that are prepared to pick up the slack. On the other hand, we need some sort of significant economic stimulus. I'm not suggesting something on the scale of the Marshall Plan or anything, but some visible public aid package is a must to win over hearts and minds in a conflict that has so far gone so badly. If we really want Iraqis to accept democratic government, putting things in order economically must be a prerequisite. No question.

That means that Iraqis will have to live with violence for a little longer, yes, but a more stable and legitimate government will eventually be able to crush the insurgency. I wonder, however, if President Bush would be willing to consider such a strong alternative strategy. He's really shown a disinterest in showing any doubt in his original plan. I’ve been convinced of the need for a strong economic component to our Iraq policy since the beginning, but are our leaders prepared to go in that direction?