Arms and influence

FEMA hearts churches

IN THE NEWS
[This post is profoundly off-topic, but I'm sufficiently motivated to go there.]

As many Americans did, I contributed to the Red Cross and other relief organizations after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. Whatever my feelings about the Bush Administration's bungled handling of the disaster, before, during, and after it occurred, I felt that it was my duty to help those in urgent need.

During that fateful week, when the Bush Administration was stammering and stuttering its way through the nation's worst natural catastrophe, my alarm bells started ringing when White House spokesperson Scott McClellan kept repeating how grateful the Administration was for the assistance from faith-based organizations. The most important occasion was the White House briefing on September 6, 2005, when McClellan recited how President Man O. Action was having around-the-clock meetings with the people responsible for the, er, response. Here's what McClellan said:

Then this afternoon -- or later this morning, the President met with community and faith-based organization.  The President is continuing to call on the country to support these community and faith-based organizations who are helping people in need.  He met with a diverse group of faith-based and community groups, including the representatives from the AME Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, the United Way, the YMCA, Catholic Charities, and a number of others were  present, as well.  These are the armies of compassion that are bringing love and hope to the people who have been affected, and they're helping to feed, clothe and house those who are in need.

When McClellan repeats particular phrases, you know that they have been carefully entered into the punch cards that are fed into his skull right before he enters the briefing room. That way, RoboProp can continue spitting out the talking points, even when they're not even relevant to the question being asked. When I heard faith based...faith based...faith based, I suspected that something was up. Someone--and I bet we can guess who--was making sure that the faith based organizations got special mention, for some reason or another.

Today, we heard one of the reasons: FEMA has announced that it will be reimbursing faith-based organizations--in simpler language, churches--that provided assistance during the Katrina disaster.

National crises, like 9/11 and Katrina, normally unify the country. You actually have to make a deliberate effort to divide Americans at times like these. It's someone's deliberate policy--and again, I bet you can guess who that is--to single out "faith-based organizations," otherwise known as  churches, for special commendation and largesse.

I'm all for doing whatever we can, as a country, to help the small Mississippi church mentioned in the article linked above rebuild from the wear-and-tear it suffered while housing and feeding Katrina evacuees. However, there is no reason why the US government has to make the direct, immediate connection between federal disaster relief funds and churches. Isn't a simple appeal enough? A list of the deserving churches? Why, pray tell, direct payments from the federal government to churches. Excuse me, faith based organizations...faith based...faith based...

So why is the Bush Administration going out of its way on September 6 to highlight religious groups, and on September 27 to give them federal funds? Because there is a zealous streak in this White House--and I bet you can guess where it starts--that doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. In fact, the Establishment Clause, one of the least disputable part of the Framers' intentions, is offensive to them. Therefore, they see a golden opportunity in the Katrina disaster to erode the wall of separation further. What kind of cold-hearted bastard would turn down help for those who helped the Katrina victims?

Well, me, for one, if we're singling out churches and other religious organizations for special attention. I'm sure there were plenty of churches, mosques, synagogues, unions, Elks Clubs, Rotarians, feminist groups, Odd Fellows Society members, gun clubs, and average people of no affiliation whatsoever who pitched in and helped. None of them deserve any more or less praise, or any more or less assistance, than anyone else. In fact, most of them would probably respond to the offer of reimbursement the way people cited in the Washington Post article did: No, thanks, we gave because we knew people needed our help. We don't expect anything in return.

Still, there are those in the Bush Administration waiting to pounce whenever the opportunity to pounce on this issue. If they could batter down the wall of separation with baby ducks, or they could make cute puppies hostage to the termination of the Establishment Clause, they would.

Motivated moderates

IN THE NEWS
Click this link for a great sign from last weekend's rally against the war in Iraq. (Thanks to Herr Professor Shugart for posting the picture.)

Changing course

IN THE NEWS
For those who haven't read it yet, here is the link to the opinion piece in last weekend's New York Times written by Captain Nathan Finch, USMC (retired). Here's a sample quote:

By declaring that the buck stops at his desk, President Bush could begin a top-down rethinking of our military and political strategies since the 2003 invasion. He would also establish a standard of personal accountability for everyone in the chain of command, much as his statement last week prompted Gov. Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana to follow suit. And it just might galvanize enough bipartisan support to break the ideological gridlock that has limited changes in Iraq policy to marginal tweaks rather than a full reassessment.

The important question, of course, is why Bush hasn't taken this step. I'd argue that the important political debate in the United States today is over exactly this question.

Now that a majority of Americans agree that the war in Iraq is going badly, substantive political discussion therefore centers on what to do next. (I'm leaving anyone on the political extremes for whom the war is going well, which it clearly is not, and those for whom there is no hope whatsoever for any option but immediate withdrawal, which is far too pessimistic.) From my purely impressionistic evidence, consisting of the people with whom I converse face-to-face or across the Internet, it seems there are two camps:

1. People who want Bush to admit, without weaseling around the important details, that US strategy for Iraq is helping neither the Iraqis nor the Americans. The next step, of course, is what Finch discusses: a significant overhaul of US strategy at the theater, operational, and tactical levels, with enough transparency so that the American public (and the Iraqis, for that matter) can see the changes being made.
2. People who shrug and say, Eh, what are you going to do?

Unless the first group can convince the second that a strategic overhaul is possible, we're going to remain in this bloody and counterproductive deadlock for the indefinite future.

Bushnev's quandary

IN THE NEWS
Rob at Laywers, Guns, and Money makes an excellent comparison between the US occupation of Iraq and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. While there are obvious differences--for example, the naked brutality of the Soviets' scorched earth policies go far beyond the worst abuses of Iraqi prisoners in US custody--the similarities are striking. Particularly worth noting, as Rob does several times, is that low casualty rates don't necessarily translate into staying power for the occupying power.

I don't agree with everything Rob says, however. For example, the Soviets did not uniformly use conventional operational methods against the mujahideen. In fact, the Spetsnatz missions, including cross-border raids into Pakistan, caused the mujahideen considerable grief until the introduction of Stinger missiles put a stop to the Soviet commandos' air mobility.

Most of all, I think he is overlooking an important political parallel between the Soviets then and the Americans now. In both cases, the occupier tried winning the support of the population by implementing progressive social and economic policies. In both cases, the occupying power was bewildered when these reforms failed to smother the insurgents' appeal. However cynical their motives, the Soviets did offer to improve the general level of education, the opportunities for women, the quality and pay of civil servants, and the distribution of land. Of course, the problem was that these benefits were being offered by the Soviets.

Larry Diamond's Squandered Victory includes an important chronicle of the negotiations over the shape of the interim Iraqi government and the US role in supporting or controlling it. According to Diamond, what Bremer and other US officials failed to understand was the primacy of both the appearance and fact of Iraqi sovereignty. While US officials supplied cogent arguments why holding elections immediately was a logistical impossibility, Iraqi notables, including Grand Ayatollah Sistani, continued to insist on having elections immediately. While you can easily pick apart the motives of the people on the Iraqi side of the discussion, no doubt there was a powerful antipathy to any occupation, no matter how benevolent.

After the Soviets withdrew, the regime in Kabul survived far longer than most observers had predicted. Certainly, the training and equipment the regime's military inherited from the Soviets helped a great deal. So, too, did the support of some fraction of the Afghan population, who genuinely worried that the mujahideen would turn back the clock. Nevertheless, the taint of being the instrument of a former occupying power never faded, and the regime eventually crumbled under a hail of rocket fire. As Rob says, there are many lessons worth learning from the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan--especially for the current US mission in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The dark soul of Colonel Mathieu

IN THE NEWS
Rob at Lawyers, Guns, and Money has this excellent post about Colonel Mathieu, the focal point of the film The Battle of Algiers. Here's a salient quote:

I think that this is the core of twentieth century evil. The Stalinist terror, the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, all of these required more than just ideological commitment or the bureaucratic diffusion of responsibility. They required men like Mathieu, men who understood fully the consequences of their actions and carried them out anyway, carried them out with the competence, brutality, and efficiency that they required.

Earlier, Rob talks about Hannah Arendt's famous idea about the banality of evil. There's nothing contradictory between that idea and, say, Mosca's idea that humanity is divided among three groups: moral angels; moral monsters; and the large mass of the morally mediocre in between these two poles. Even the moral monsters--for example, many of the most sadistic concentration camp guards--seemed like ordinary people outside the camps. You wouldn't immediately point at them in a crowd and say, Yes, that's definitely the most monstrous person in this group. Nor would you necessarily understand how the "ordinary men" in Christopher Browning's controversial book slid from police work into mass executions.

Anyway, Rob is exactly right: atrocities require "more than just ideological commitment or the bureaucratic diffusion of responsibility." Worth remembering, in light of recent news about further torture allegations in Iraq.

DHS, the BS

IN THE NEWS
Every war attracts its share of shady characters looking to profit. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the Global War/Struggle/Jamboree against Terror/Extremism/Swarthy People has attracted its own generation of scammers.

Case in point: Joseph Medawar, a well-groomed, smooth-talking fake TV producer, who bilked investors of approximately $5.5 million in a non-existent series about the Department of Homeland Security. Happily, Medawar is under arrest, facing charges that may amount to 25 years in prison, plus restitution and damages.

Case closed...Almost.  Before we wave good-bye to Medawar, we should ask ourselves, How did someone get as far as he did in scamming as much money from as many people as he did? Among other reasons, I'll argue for one contributing factor: the cloud of obscurity about the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

What is the Department of Homeland Security? How does the federal government define its success? How does it go about its daily business, spending its multi-billion dollar budget? Certainly, it's nothing like the trailer for DHS--The Series, which is an unintentionally hilarious send-up of 24. (Watch it all the way through, if for no other reason than to hear the bad actors spout bad dialog like, "Where are the choppers?!?" Joel, Tom, and Crow, where are you when we need you?) The federal government has, to say the least, presented only a vague picture of what the taxpayers are getting for their investment in the DHS.

To that extent, this isn't the usual story about wartime con men, stretching back to the bad old days of Civil War "sutlers" who sold threadbare uniforms and tainted food to both the Union and Confederate armies. I'd bet that, if Medawar had picked a better-understood government agency, like the FBI or CIA, to fraudulently represent, he would have been stopped a lot sooner. Medawar might also have been less successful at persuading the powerful, like Representative Dana Rohrbacher, and the powerless, like the woman in Whittier, CA, who invested $100,000 in the phony TV show. I'm also very curious about the network of churches that Medawar tapped. Did these churches fit any particular profile, and how, if at all, did they contribute to their members' credulity about Medawar?

While we're waiting for more details, I encourage you yet again to watch the trailer. It's like a Met Life commercial bred with a bad action movie, directed by the artistic grandchild of Ed Wood.

No Americans need apply

IN THE NEWS
Worried about Iran's nuclear potential? Well, if you're an American citizen, don't worry--the United States is unlikely to play a major role in resolving the situation.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continues its investigation, stopping just short of referring the issue to the UN Security Council. The IAEA is trying to escalate the pressure on Iran, stopping short at each stage to give the mullahcracy a chance to demonstrate to the rest of the world that its atomic ambitions don't include nuclear weapons.

That begs the question, What's next if the Iranian government doesn't comply? That's not altogether clear. The European Union, led by German and British representatives, have been spearheading the diplomatic offensive against Iran. The United States continues to make ominous grumblings while corraling other countries in the effort to isolate Iran. The mullahs continue to claim, Nothing to see here, move along. Now what?

I think that it's safe to say that, whatever happens, the United States will play a minor role, if any at all. The UN in general, and the IAEA in particular, actively distrusts the United States. The European Union may still think that a shared interest in curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions exists on both sides of the Atlantic, but the EU isn't going to wait for the Euro-bashing, doggedly unilateralist US government to come crashing into any delicate coercive diplomacy directed against Iran. (And who's eager to be invited on Mr. Bush's wild ride a second time around?) The US government would have to antagonize Russia--not something, to date, it has been willing to do--given Russia's cooperation with Iran on nuclear development. The United States doesn't have the resources to fight the war in Iraq at a sufficient level, limiting its options in Iran. (US naval and air assets might play a role, but there is no silver bullet from the air that's going to precisely, fully, and finally end any Iranian nuclear threat.) One of the biggest US assets, how much harm the US can do to a potential adversary, is long gone, as the limits of American military power are painfully on display in Afghanistan and Iraq. The White House and Congress aren't willing to change the current domestic political formula so that more of the United States' potential power could be mobilized.

So, fear not, Americans! We're not likely to be dragged into a conflict with Iran--but for all the wrong reasons. As it turns out, the rest of the world isn't too keen on recruiting our help, even if we were to offer it.

UPDATE: I don't mean to imply that this situation can be ignored. According to one blogger, the EU's current negotiating stance lacks teeth. Of course, normally in this situation, the teeth, claws, and all the other sharp, pointy, scary bits would come primarily from the United States. However, the US isn't in much of a position to offer, and the EU and UN are wary asking for help. IAEA and EU decision-makers are worried about the possibility of a repeat of 2003, in which the US hijacks the international effort to get a miscreant to comply with global non-proliferation guidelines.

Negotiating with terrorists

IN THE NEWS
Nobody expected the road to the end of conflict in Northern Ireland to be smooth. No one expected the end of armed struggle to be the end of hostility. However, the point where we are now--as summarized in this morning's Washington Post--is heartening. Of course, the situation could get worse at a moment's notice. Factions of the IRA and the Protestant militias continue to be a minor problem, robbing the occasional bank and provoking the occasional brawl or gunfight.

The more ordinary that life in Northern Ireland gets, the smaller the militants' stature becomes. The IRA and Protestant paramilitaries thrive on Sturm und Drang, and of course, they help generate it. The phrase "positive feedback loop" comes to mind in situations like Northern Ireland, but it hardly evokes the horrific, violent deadlock in which societies corner themselves.

As Fred Iklé reminds us, every war does end. Nevertheless, it's important exactly how it ends. The negotiations that ended the war in Northern Ireland weren't perfect, but they were a triumph of European democracy over European sectarianism. Considering the number of players--the British government, some IRA factions and not others, some Protestant groups and not others, and Ireland--the negotiators faced considerable obstacles getting anywhere in these discussions.

Given the participation of the US government and other outside parties, it's fair to say that the end of major hostilities in Northern Ireland is also an international success, though it would be unfair for the US and other outside players to claim major responsibility. In the end, the people most responsible were Protestants and Catholics, revolutionaries and government functionaries, in Northern Ireland, the rest of the United Kingdom, and Ireland who said, "This isn't working for us, in the terms that matter for us."

Our new model army

IN THE NEWS
Thanks to Armchair Generalist for this catch of a significant story: The US Army has dropped the requirement for inductees that they have either a high school diploma or a general equivalency degree (GED).

This piece of news may sound small, but keep it in context with other recent news about the Army With Iraq, we've already broken the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine, and thrown out the old model of how the Army recruits, mobilizes, and fights. After the Vietnam War, the Defense Department decided that conscription was counter-productive. While it ensured a ready supply of warm bodies to put into uniforms, many draftees just didn't want to make the military their profession. Add  frustrating and frightening nature of ground combat in the Vietnam War, plus the growing perception that the United States wasn't fighting to win, and you had a formula for an unmotivated, ineffective Army.

In contrast, the all-volunteer army recruited people who wanted to be there. Some people in the Army just wanted steady work. Others enjoyed the military life, or had patriotic motives. Regardless of rank, you had a career path, which could offer training in a variety of skills. At the officer level, this path wound through important career-enhancing postings, plus the opportunity to attend the military's higher education institutions, the war colleges. In all senses, you were  cultivated to be a professional with a long term of service, assuming the military life turned out to be for you (or vice-versa).

The system wasn't perfect, but it was far better than what it replaced. The volunteer army needed its regular tuning, such as providing better incentives to re-enlist, or making headquarters postings other than Europe and the United States valuable for your career.

The new Army was well-motived, well-equipped, and well-trained. It was also smaller than it needed to be for major engagements like Operation DESERT STORM, so it relied on the Guard and the Reserves to supplement its strength during wartime--but only for a limited period. After mobilizing overwhelming force to decisively defeat the enemy, the part-time forces would go home, with perhaps a contingent of regulars left to finish the last stages of the mission.

The formula under which the Bush Administration and its partners in Congress have been fighting the Iraq War has broken the all-volunteer army. There are several points of fracture: the exhaustion of the Guard and the Reserves; the problems keeping troops equipped during a long conflict; the low recruitment figures...By now, the list is familiar, and not worth repeating here in its entirety.

The small but important detail in the Army Times article cited above, however, is that the quality of soldiers continues to drop. US forces sent to Iraq are already receiving less training than pre-war Army guidelines stipulated. There isn't the time and resources to teach soldiers Arabic, a critical skill in the Iraq War. According to some accounts, the Army is asking fewer questions about whether recruits are being honest about their education, criminal records, substance abuse problems, or other issues that might otherwise disqualify them. The fact that a recruit doesn't need either a high school diploma or a GED certificate is just a way to make this awful trend official. (How long do you think it will be until the Defense Department drops the token requirement that recruits work towards a GED?)

Earlier, I said that Rumsfeld's vision for the US military was taking us away from regiments of "citizen soldiers" towards something that looks alarmingly like the imperial Roman military model, divided among legionaries, auxiliaries, and mercenaries. However, even that template for the Army doesn't work if the legionaries aren't highly skilled, well-equipped, highly motivated, and highly trained. The more we lower the standards for recruits, so that we can sustain the military effort in Iraq, the more we jeopardize both the "citizen soldier" and Rumsfeldian models of the US Army.

The DHS boondoggle

IN THE NEWS
As you may have noticed, I believe the Department of Homeland Security is an expensive, counterproductive mess. In addition, it has turned into a trough in which the moneyed and powerful can feed on public money.

If you think my choice of words is a bit harsh, please read this piece from A Knight's Blog about the new Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It's Michael "Brownie" Brown all over again: someone with no experience, but great connections. (In this case, we're talking about the niece of General Richard Myers, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.) Naw, we don't need someone in charge of keeping our borders secure who has actually done the job before, do we?

This reminded me of a passage from a recent opinion piece by Fareed Zakaria:

Today's Republicans believe in pork, but they don't believe in government. So we have the largest government in history but one that is weak and dysfunctional. Public spending is a cynical game of buying votes or campaign contributions, an utterly corrupt process run by lobbyists and special interests with no concern for the national interest. So we shovel out billions on "Homeland Security" to stave off nonexistent threats to Wisconsin, Wyoming and Montana while New York and Los Angeles remain unprotected.

Indeed. Unfortunately, the best hope for fixing this problem is for a lot of Republicans to turn to the person sitting next to them at tomorrow's fundraiser and say, "Hey, wait a minute..." I know quite a few Republicans who are still fiscally conservative and concerned about government accountability, so I can retain a little shred of hope.