Topic: Foreign Policy and National Security

The Real Story from the Interview with Saddam’s Interrogator

There’s been a decent bit of buzz over the 60 Minutes interview that ran last night with George Piro, Saddam’s Arabic-speaking interrogator. To my mind, though, there wasn’t too much new information in the piece. This, however, while not new, is as alarming as it’s ever been:

out of 10,000 FBI agents, only about 50 speak Arabic.

You go to war with the FBI you have, to be sure. But the fact that the administration has spread these people as thinly as possible by opening new fronts in the struggle against terror at every opportunity is a truly dark legacy.

WaPo’s Marc Fisher on O’Malley’s REAL ID Misstep

Today Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher takes Maryland governor Martin O’Malley (D) to task for needlessly committing his state to implement REAL ID, the national ID law.

Fisher recognizes that REAL ID will not prevent illegal immigration, but will merely foster deepened criminality: “Maryland’s highways will soon gain tens of thousands of unlicensed motorists, thanks to an abrupt reversal by Gov. Martin O’Malley.”

O’Malley backtracked on campaign commitments to keep Maryland an immigrant-friendly state when he announced that the state would link driver licensing and immigration status. Somehow O’Malley and his secretary of transportation, John Porcari, convinced themselves (and apparently Fisher) that REAL ID requires them to refuse licenses to illegal immigrants, and that moving toward REAL ID compliance would allow them to avoid standing out:

Porcari says Maryland was forced to reject the two-tier system [in which the state would still license illegal immigrants] not because the governor is suffering from low popularity and wants to glom onto the anti-immigrant movement but because “the national landscape is shifting” and Maryland could have found itself nearly alone in resisting Real ID. But seven states are refusing to comply with Real ID, and 17 have condemned the law, which was passed after the 9/11 attacks and requires states to conduct time-consuming identity checks.

States can issue licenses to anyone consistent with REAL ID. Licenses that don’t meet the federal law’s strictures would simply have to be labeled as such.

On O’Malley’s pre-commitment to REAL ID, there are two possibilities. One is that Governor O’Malley and Secretary Porcari actually don’t understand what REAL ID requires and are ignorant of sentiment about the law among sister states. The other is that O’Malley, indeed, has abruptly reversed his professed friendliness toward immigrants.

A Core 9/11 Commission Afterthought

The Department of Homeland Security often invokes the 9/11 Commission when it discusses REAL ID. A recent DHS press release called REAL ID a “core 9/11 Commission finding.”

In fact, the 9/11 Commission dedicated about three-quarters of a page to identification security – out of 400+ pages of substance. See for yourself. Page 390.

DoJ’s Public Lobbying - A Legal Violation?

Here’s the language of 18 U.S.C. § 1913 (“Lobbying with appropriated moneys”):

No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure, or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation; but this shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States or of its departments or agencies from communicating to any such Member or official, at his request, or to Congress or such official, through the proper official channels, requests for any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business, or from making any communication whose prohibition by this section might, in the opinion of the Attorney General, violate the Constitution or interfere with the conduct of foreign policy, counter-intelligence, intelligence, or national security activities. Violations of this section shall constitute violations of section 1352 (a) of title 31.

Now here is some language from a Department of Justice Web site called lifeandliberty.gov:

FISA 101: Why FISA Modernization Amendments Must Be Made Permanent
FISA Amendments In The Protect America Act Of 2007 Remain Necessary To Keep Our Nation Safe

The Protect America Act modernized the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to provide our intelligence community essential tools to acquire important information about terrorists who want to harm America. The Act, which passed with bipartisan support in the House and Senate and was signed into law by President Bush on August 5, 2007, restores FISA to its original focus of protecting the rights of persons in the United States, while not acting as an obstacle to gathering foreign intelligence on targets located in foreign countries. By enabling our intelligence community to close a critical intelligence gap that existed before the Act became law, the Protect America Act has already made our Nation safer.

The tools provided by the Protect America Act are scheduled to expire in early February 2008 – it is essential that Congress act to make the legislation permanent. Congress must also pass legislation to provide meaningful liability protection to those alleged to have assisted our Nation following the 9/11 attacks.

A public DoJ Web site that says “it is essential that Congress act to make the legislation permanent” seems designed to influence Members of Congress. It was probably created and is maintained through the expenditure of appropriated funds. Did Congress expressly authorize this? Is a public Web site “proper official channels”? Did the Attorney General find that failing to advocate for this law would interfere with national security?

It looks like this Web site violates the law, but it’s hard bein’ a country lawyer here in the big city.

The Case for Realism

There’s been a fair amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth within the liberal blogosphere over the New York Times’ decision to hire William Kristol as a weekly columnist. The liberals’ dismay was, in turn, gleefully noted by conservative bloggers, generating still more grist for countless mills.

For my part, I thought this Tom Tomorrow cartoon captured quite nicely the crux of Mr. Kristol’s unsuitability for the job.

But just when I thought that the subject had pretty much been beaten to death, Harvard’s Stephen M. Walt offered up an incisive critique of the Times’ decision. In particular, Walt’s suggestion that the Times (or any major American newspaper for that matter) should provide space for foreign policy realists deserves serious consideration.

As Walt notes, realism has a long and proud tradition in American foreign policy, is the dominant point of view within the academy today, especially among international relations scholars, and yet it is seriously under-represented in the pages of major newspapers.

The best case to be made, however, is that, as Walt writes “realism’s track record as a guide to foreign policy is quite impressive, especially when compared to the neocons’ catalog of blunders.” He continues:

[Hans J.] Morgenthau, [Kenneth] Waltz and [George] Kennan were among the first to recognize that the Vietnam War was a foolish diversion of American power, and Waltz was one of the few foreign policy experts who understood the Soviet Union was a Potemkin colossus with feet of clay. When assorted hawks were sounding frantic alarms about Soviet dominance in the late 1970s, Waltz was writing that the real issue was whether the Soviets could hope to keep up with the far wealthier and more powerful United States. The 1980s proved they couldn’t, and that Waltz and his fellow realists had been essentially correct.

[…]

Most important, realists were among the most visible opponents to America’s more recent misadventure in Iraq. In September 2002, for example, 33 international security scholars paid for an ad in the New York Timesdeclaring “War With Iraq Is Not in the U.S. National Interest.” About half of the signatories were prominent realists, and several others wrote articles before the war explaining why it was unnecessary and unwise. By contrast, it was the neocons who conceived and promoted the Iraq war, while many prominent liberals endorsed it. Surely Americans deserve to hear from a perspective that has been an accurate guide to recent events, instead of relying on pundits who have been consistently wrong.

Walt makes a very compelling case. Of course, as a realist myself, I didn’t need much convincing. The bigger question remains: Which of the leading newspapers will be the first to take up his suggestion?