The semantic battle over whether Iraq is in a civil war

A semantic battle has been waged over the last week as to whether Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. The stakes are perceived to be high, with both supporters of the Bush Administration's strategy in Iraq and opponents of the strategy understanding that the acceptance of an ongoing Iraqi civil war would further erode public support as well as the military and political justification for the continued large-scale US troop presence.

Without a civil war, US troops are helping the Iraqi government defend itself and the its citizens from insurgents, terrorists, criminals, and other anti-government and anti-US forces. But in a civil war, the US would be both interfering -- and most likely taking sides -- in an internal Iraqi conflict as well as exposing its troops to seemingly unnecessary danger. Even President Bush would have a hard time making the case that American soldiers' lives should be sacrificed as part of an Iraqi civil war.

The anti crowd: It's violent, but not a civil war

Bush and his supporters have been arguing that Iraq is either not in a state of civil war, or they have been trying to dodge the question.

• Bush dodges the question, talks about "sectarian violence" and "extremists." While in Estonia yesterday, Bush was asked at a press briefing about Iraq and civil war. He avoided directly answering the question, instead he continually used the term "sectarian violence" and emphasized the role of extremists.
  
  "The Samarra bombing that took place last winter was intended to create sectarian violence, and it has. The recent bombings were to perpetuate the sectarian violence. In other words, we've been in this phase for a while."
  
  "Extremists attack, because they can't stand the thought of a democracy. And the same thing is happening in Iraq. And it's in our mutual interest that we help this government succeed."
  
  "There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented, in my opinion, because of these attacks by al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal. And we will work with the Maliki government to defeat these elements. By far, the vast majority of the people want to live in peace."
  
  
• The National Security Advisor avoids the term, too. Stephen Hadley, Bush's National Security Advisor (officially called the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs), was asked about the possibility of civil war during a press gathering on the President's plane while on route to Estonia.
  "Well, it's interesting, the Iraqis don't talk of it as a civil war; the unity government doesn't talk of it as a civil war. And I think the things they point to when they say that are, one, that at this point in time the army and the police have not fractured along sectarian lines, which is what you've seen elsewhere; and the government continues to be holding together and has not fractured on sectarian terms."
  
  "But, look, the point is, it is what it is. There is a high level of sectarian violence. It is a challenge for the Iraqis. It's a challenge for us."
  
  "So we call it sectarian violence -- but I think one has to recognize that for certain Saddamists and al Qaeda, particularly, this is premeditated, this is a technique they are using. The effect of it, of course, is very destructive, it sets communities against one another."
  
  
• Cheney has the same angle: Pay attention to who started the violence. In a Time Magazine interview in October, Vice President Cheney avoided discussion he topic of civil war, instead following the White House playbook on pointing out the role of al Qaeda in fomenting the violence in Iraq.
  
  "There's no question what there is sectarian violence now, but remember how we got to sectarian violence: al Qaeda. That was their strategy to launch attacks against the Shia, to kill Shia until they could generate some kind of a response. And there's no question but what there's sectarian Shia-on-Sunni violence today."
  
  
• General Abizaid recently rejected the civil war label. In his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee in mid-November, the top commander of US forces in the region that includes Iraq was asked about a statement he made in early August about the possibility of a civil war in Iraq. Not only did he resist accepting the label, but he said he believed conditions were improving (This was, of course, before the most recent violence that killed over 200 Iraqis last week and led to many reprisal killings).
  
  "I'm very encouraged by my most recent trip, and that, while sectarian violence remains high and worrisome, it's certainly not as bad as the situation appeared back in August ... It's still at unacceptably high levels. I wouldn't say that we have turned the corner in this regard, but it's not nearly as bad as it was back in August."

Pro voices: The continued violence is evidence enough

Vociferous Bush critics have claimed the country has been in the midst of a civil war for some time. But some recent events have bolstered the pro-civil war rhetoric:

• The New York Times pointed out that academics say Iraq is in a civil war. The paper published an article a few days ago in which it claimed, according to most academic definitions, Iraq is in fact in the middle of such a conflict.
  
  "The common scholarly definition [of civil war] has two main criteria. The first says that the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.
  
  American professors who specialize in the study of civil wars say that most of their number are in agreement that Iraq’s conflict is a civil war."
  
  
• NBC News joins the LA Times to say Iraq is in a civil war. On the Today Show yesterday, Matt Lauer said that his network would now use the term "civil war" to describe the situation in Iraq. Editor & Publisher noted this change in an article that describe how NBC and other media organizations were describing the violence in Iraq.
  
  "The Los Angeles Times was one of the first newspapers to flatly describe the conflict as a 'civil war' -- without the usual qualifiers of 'approaching' or 'near' -- and did again in the first paragraph of a news report on Saturday. The Christian Science Monitor today refers to a 'deepening civil war.'"
  
  "In a bombshell, however, Matt Lauer on the Today show this morning revealed that NBC had studied and perhaps debated the issue anew, and then decided that it will now use 'civil war' freely."

Others are still not quite ready to wholeheartedly embrace the term. For example, this week Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, thinks that civil war is very close. An AP article (published at cnn.com) from yesterday noted his reaction when asked about whether Iraq was in the midst of a civil war:

"I think given the developments on the ground, unless something is done drastically and urgently to arrest the deteriorating situation, we could be there. In fact we are almost there."

If it's a civil war, just who are the combatants?

With all this talk about a civil war in Iraq, it's important to look at issues such as the definitions of relevant terms as well as the combatants in Iraq.

Since this is a semantic debate, let's look at how a credible source defines the relevant terms. According to the Merriam-Webster site, "civil war" is defined as:

"a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country"

"Insurgency" is defined as:

"a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency [the state of being at war or in conflict]"

"Sectarian" is defined as "an adherent of a sect." "Sect" is defined as (this seems the most appropriate of three definitions):

"a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader"

The American "civil war" mindset

Americans have a somewhat distorted view of the concept of a civil war as the American Civil War (1861-1865) was between two identifiable foes with distinct political goals and with (usually) identifiable uniforms (blue and gray). States rights versus the power of the federal government and slavery were the crucial issues.

The American Civil War also began in a clear fashion: Southern states seceded from the United States and declared their own sovereign nation, the Confederate States of America. However, in Iraq, combatants are based on religious beliefs, there was no "start date" to the conflict, and the sides wear a multitude of uniforms, including those of the official Iraqi police and armed forces.

The Shia-Sunni spit

While there is certainly plenty of violence in Iraq that is the result of terrorist organizations like al Qaeda as well as criminal gangs, a major portion of the current violence -- and the reason for most Iraqi civilian deaths -- is the battle between the Shia and Sunni offshoots of Islam (sources for this section include the BBC's Religions & Ethics site on Islam and various Wikipedia entries on Islam).

Both Shia and Sunni are Muslims -- that is, they are followers of the religion of Islam. Islam is considered the second-largest religion in the world, behind Christianity (global estimates of Christians are 2.1 billion; 1.3 billion for Muslims). All Muslims, believe that God, or Allah, revealed the Koran (or Qur'an) to Muhammad, his final prophet. Muslims believe that Muhammad followed Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, to name a few of the well-known prophets. The term "mosque" applies to a place of worship for Muslims.

The Shia Sunni split began after Muhammad died in 632. At issue was not just the future of Islam, but also of the Islamic state Muhammad had created, including the leader -- called a caliph -- of that state. The largest group, which are now called Sunnis, elected one leader (Abu Bakr); the smaller group, now called Shiites, believed that son-in-law Ali should be the leader. According to the BBC site:

Both Sunni and Shia legitimise their views using Islam's sacred scriptures. Both groups say that the Qur'an (which Muslims believe to be the revealed word of Allah) and the Hadith (the narrations of the Prophet) show their choice of leader to be the right one.

Over time, the issue grew more complex, as Ali eventually became the leader but was later killed in a struggle to rule the state, called the caliphate. But the debate on which group was and is correct continues to this day. However, the BBC site notes that, "The majority of Sunni and Shia do not let their differences allow them to cast each other out of Islam." Unfortunately, in modern day Iraq, these differences are now leading to murder, mass killings, and reprisals.

Iraq under Hussein created a major Shia-Sunni split

Globally, there are more Sunni Muslims than Shia (72% and 9%, according to a Wikipedia entry), but in Iraq, Shia are the majority of the population. The CIA's World Factbook says that 97% of Iraqis are Muslims, with 60-55% Shia and 32-37%% Sunni; Christians and others make up the remaining 3% of the population.

Under the 24-year rule of Saddam Hussein, the minority Sunni were largely in charge and often persecuted the Shia, as well as other Iraqi groups, such as the Kurds. After the Gulf War, southern Shiites rose up against Hussein, hoping to topple the government with support from the US. Then President Bush's refusal to directly support the uprisings and the subsequent crushing of the rebellion created a variety of tensions evident today, including further Shia-Sunni hatred as well as Shia distrust of America.

The current Iraqi government is Shia-dominated

Today, Shiites now control the central, elected government of Iraq, in part because of their numbers, but also in part because some Sunni avoided the last election in protest. Now marginalized, the minority Sunni feel threatened by the Shia militia and death squads that seem to act with knowledge, if not direct support, of the central government. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has so far refused to forcibly disarm the militias, despite the belief by the US that there can be no security in Iraq until every armed group accept for the official military and police forces are disbanded or destroyed. One of the most powerful Shia militias is the Mahdi Army, controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr. This group has fought US forces in pitched battles and is believed by many to be behind much of the violence against Sunnis.

A critical event that Bush and others point to that escalated violence between Shia and Sunni was the bombing of the Golden (Al-Askari) Mosque in Samarra in February. The bombers are not known, but many in the Bush Administration suspect al Qaeda was directly or indirectly involved. Whatever the case, the heavy damage to one of the holiest Shiite sites raised tensions between the two Islamic denominations.

The Sunni are now fighting what many of them see as a two-front war, defending themselves -- and retaliating against attacks -- from Shia paramilitary forces and death squads, and battling the US forces, primarily in the Sunni heartland of Al Anbar Province and Baghdad.

It may take generations to reduce the hatred

Can Sunni and Shia get along? With each killing and reprisal, it will get harder and harder. In Chasing Ghosts, the book by US Army National Guard veteran and Amherst College graduate Paul Rieckhoff (and founder of IAVA, the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organization), experienced the Sunni-Shia relationship firsthand for almost a year while stationed in Baghdad. His view on the subject is not encouraging:

Iraq's Sunni and Shia won't get along with each other peacefully any time soon. In Baghdad, my men and I couldn't get them to stand on a gas station line together. Sunni would butt in line ahead of Shia ...

It's tough for me to communicate to people who have never been to Iraq why I don't think the different sects will be able to get along. One can't just take groups separated for decades, sprinkle some freedom on them, and create a Woodstock lovefest ...

It will be a long time before people of different factions treat one another as equals in Iraq. Saddam had trained an entire nation of people to undermine, betray, and abuse one another. To create tolerance will take at least decades. The entire generation of Iraqis who lived under Saddam may have to die off.

Civil war or not, groups of Sunni and Shiites will continue to attack each other. Even if you agree with the Administration that most fighting is concentrated around Baghdad -- while understanding that Anbar Province is not in control -- the situation is bleak:

• Total population of Iraq: 26.7 million (from CIA World Factbook page on Iraq)
  
  
• Population of Baghdad: 5.7 million, or 21% of the population (from State Department Iraq profile page)
  
  
• Population of Anbar Province: 1.4 million, or 5% of the population (from USA Today article)
  
  
• Best case estimate of population under control: 74% (not including Shia southern provinces)

Women in combat: Operation Iraqi Freedom continues to break down walls

The first Gulf War was major turning point for women in the US military. The need for female soldiers, along with their excellent performance, prompted changes under the Clinton Administration in 1993 and 1994 that enabled women to take on more dangerous roles in the military that they had been previously denied. For example, women were allowed to become fighter pilots and to work on warships.

Today, the Army still bars women from direct combat roles, such as the infantry, armor (tanks and other offensive vehicles), and artillery. In the Marine Corps, of the 40 Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) listed in the 2006 Concepts and Programs report, only two, Field Artillery and Tank and AAV (AAV is the Marine Corps amphibious armored vehicle), have no enlisted women (whether or not a typo, there is one enlisted woman under Infantry).

But the reality is that in Iraq, where there are no front lines, the issue of women in combat is moot from a soldier's perspective. In Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), women are in combat, despite the Pentagon rules the do not allow "co-location" of female soldiers with all-male combat units like the Infantry.

Women in combat is already a reality

According to a September New York Times article, "no one in the strained [US] military is eager to engage in a debate about women and the risks they are taking in Iraq because, quite simply, the women are sorely needed in this conflict." The article states that the lines are blurred in Iraq:

"It says you can have female medics, but they can't see combat," said Captain Megan O'Connor, who served in Iraq in the New Jersey Army National Guard as a medical operations and plans officer. "It's all combat in Ramadi. It's so gray. They put the rules down on paper. It looks good. It reads good. But for a commander to implement, it's impossible."

In a Marine Corps News article from May 2005, the author noted that of the almost 11,000 female Marines on active duty at the time, "nearly 3,000 serve in combat support fields, including engineering, military police, ordnance and motor transport." The article goes on to note how a defense authorization bill hoped to limit the role of females in combat by clarifying the rules that prohibit women from direct combat roles. Despite the effort by some politicians to limit their role, the article noted that "female Marines are still providing such front-line support."

During the I Marine Expeditionary Force's 14-month tour in Iraq, [2nd Lt. Samantha M. Kronschnabel and Cpl. Steinnum Truesdale], along with other female Marines, flanked their male counterparts in combat support operations throughout Iraq's deadly Al Anbar province. Kronschnabel says female combat supporters in Iraq have performed admirably - and that's how history will view their contribution."

A PBS NewsHour report, "Women in Combat," from August of 2005, quoted Army 1st Lt. Jennifer Ernest:

"It's no longer the linear battlefield of yesteryear. Today's battlefield is everywhere. It's all around you, 360 degrees. So today every soldier -- man, woman, you're a war-fighter first. You need to be prepared."

A previous NewsHour story titled "Women Warriors" from April 2003 featured interviews with two female A-10 pilots (the A-10 is a plane designed to attack enemy infantry and armor). Air Force Captain Jennifer Short said:

"There will be a story from this war or even the previous -- Afghanistan. You're going to have stories from all that in every branch of the military that they can say, "hey, look, see, females can do it. They got the job done just as well as the guys were doing it." So, certainly, there will be some good lessons learned on how females can cope."

The long road to the dangerous jobs

For a history of how women have gained access to more roles, including combat MOS, in the US armed services, a great source is the Women's Research and Education Institute (site) -- in particular its Women in the Military project. Below are some highlights -- or lowlights -- of women in the armed forces culled in part from the organization's "Chronology of Significant Legal and Policy Changes Affecting Women in the Military, 1947–2006" (pdf). We've also included some milestones about the racial integration of the US armed forces to compare the movement to expand women's roles to that of black Americans, who faced their own struggle to gain equality in the various services (that information is from a US Army military history titled "Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965" by Morris J. MacGregor, Jr., which can be found here.

• 1948: "Women’s Armed Services Integration Act" enables women to be part of military with many restrictions, such as, that no more the 2% of the overall force can be female. The 2% cap and some other restrictions are finally lifted in 1967. In the same year, President Truman issued an Executive Order for equal treatment of races in the military, but it took years for that to actually happen. However, the Air Force became the first service to be effectively racially integrated a year later in 1949. 
• 1951: An executive order authorized the discharge of any pregnant female soldier; the Air Force is the first to modify these rules in 1971. A court ruling says the Marines have to change this policy in 1976. Back in 1951, the Marine Corps institutes full racial integration; three years later, in 1954, the Secretary of Defense announced that there were no more racially segregated units in the military. 
• 1972: The Navy opens up additional military jobs to women and eases other restrictions. Title IX, which made it illegal to discriminate based on gender in most education institutions that receive federal money, was enacted in this year. As a historical women's rights note, the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women the right to vote in the US, was ratified in 1920. 
• 1973: The Navy allows women to pilot non-combat aircraft; the Army follows suit a year later. The Air Force waits until 1977. The first female Marine aviator is not accepted for training until 1995. In June 2005, the Air Force announced that Capt. Nicole Malachowski had been selected as the first female pilot in the prestigious Thunderbird Air Demonstration Squadron. How far has the Air Force come? According to a CNN article this September, "There are only 85 female fighter pilots in the Air Force, compared with 4,400 male fighter pilots."
  
• 1978: The Navy allows women to be assigend to non-combat ships, a year after the Coast Guard lets females serve on all its ships. Note: During World War II, the first efforts at racial integration began aboard some Navy ships. 
• 1989: During the invasion of Panama, women helicopter pilots (at this time women could still not fly combat helicopters) come under fire. 
• 1990-91: During the Persian Gulf War, over 42,000 female soldiers are deployed; 13 are killed, while 2 are captured and became POWs. In 1991, women are also allowed to fly in, but not pilot, combat aircraft. 
• 1993: The Pentagon allows women to become fighter pilots and other combat aviators. The US Army Air Corps, the predecessor to the Air Force, reluctantly began training black fighter pilots in 1941 (the famous 99th Fighter Squadron's "Tuskegee Airmen" was the first and most well known unit). 
• 1994: The Department of Defense's Risk Rule, instituted in 1978, goes away, opening up many combat support roles to women in the Army and Marines -- many of the roles that now place them in combat situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
• 1994: Female combat pilots take part in military actions in the Kosovo mission. 
• 2000: Two female sailors are killed (17 died in total) during the October terrorist attack on the USS Cole in the port of Yemen. 
• 2001-present: The DoD as of 10/18/06 reports that 2,771 soldiers have died as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF); icasualties.org lists 61 US women as killed in combat in OIF (its database is updated daily). CNN reports 57 female soldiers killed in OIF as of 9/30/06 -- about 2% of all those killed.

The other side: What a prominent and critical opponent of women in combat thinks

One of the main opponents of women in combat is the The Center for Military Readiness (site), which describes itself as a "independent public policy organization." The organization is actively trying to limit the exposure of women in combat. Its primary current argument seems to be that the military is illegally putting women into combat situations that the 1994 Pentagon directives on "co-location" with combat units prohibit. But, outside of the legal issues, the organization seems intent on not putting women in combat no matter what the law. Some interesting views, include this statement:

But deliberate exposure of women to combat violence in war is tantamount to acceptance of violence against women in general. As a nation we must consider the long-term implications of this cultural shift, which many see as a setback for our values and civilization.

From a National Review article, Elaine Donnelly, the organization's leader, makes several other controversial statements:

"The nation is proud of our women in uniform, but that is no excuse for forcing unprepared female soldiers, many of whom are mothers, to face the physical demands of violent close combat and a higher risk of capture than exists today."

"The modern land-combat soldier carries weapons and high-tech equipment weighing 50 to 100 pounds, with body armor alone weighing 25 pounds. Such burdens would be disproportionately heavy for average female soldiers, who are certainly brave but shorter and lighter, with smaller hearts and bones, 25 to30 percent less aerobic capacity for endurance, and 40 to 50 percent less upper-body strength."

"Politically correct group-thinkers and Clinton-promoted generals in the Pentagon apparently have forgotten certain realities affirmed by overwhelming evidence: In direct ground combat, women do not have an "equal opportunity" to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive. No one's injured son should have to die on the streets of a future Fallujah because the only soldier near enough to carry him to safety was a five-foot-two 110-pound woman."

And from a USA Today article:

"It is dangerous to 'try' social experiments in the military, where needless loss of life could be the price of failure."

You can imagine that the female soldiers quoted above may have a very different view than this organization.

Women in combat: It's a necessity

In MacGregor's book, he noted that for the Marine Corps, "in the end it was the manpower demands of the Korean War that finally brought integration." As he summed up the forces behind military integration, he noted:

"Paralleling the influence of the law, the quest for military efficiency was another institutional factor that affected the services' racial policies. The need for military efficiency had always been used by the services to rationalize racial exclusion and segregation; later it became the primary consideration in the deciston of each service to integrate its units. Reinforcing the efficiency argument was the realization by the military that manpower could no longer be considered an inexhaustible resource."

Just as efficiency and necessity were primary drivers behind the integration of the armed forces, those forces are once again opening up military opportunities to women -- opportunities that increasingly involve exposure to combat situations. It's not a question of whether US society is ready for women in combat and women POWs -- we have already experienced those issues, and there has not been a successful campaign by Congress or other organizations to remove women from harm's way. The genie is out of the bottle. Women are -- and will be -- fighter pilots and rifle-toting military police, as well as medics and support personnel.

The reality is the OIF and the Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan, as well as most imagined future conflicts, will require the US to use all its available manpower, including women, in all of the required military roles.

Of words and deeds: Bush as candidate versus Bush as President

In August of 2000, President Bush -- then Governor and presidential candidate Bush -- gave his acceptance speech at the Republic National Convention. Six years later, it is interesting to compare some of what he promised with what he has delivered. While no one would argue that the September 11 terrorist attacks would not have altered the plans of any president in 2001, Bush did make some statements that he is not adhering to today.


On when to use force

"A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam: When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming." 

During the 2000 election, Bush spoke out against nation building. But by 2003, the US had toppled the Iraqgovernment and was trying to rebuild a shattered nation. While Bush talks about his "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," it is hard to view that the Iraqi venture meets the criteria he laid out in the summer of 2000.

Just, clear goal, and overwhelming victory? The original goal was to stop Saddam from producing and using weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Now, the goal is Iraqi liberty and democracy -- and the other reason given is that we can't run now that we are there. Perhaps the current justifications would still be "just" to Bush, but to most in Congress and the country, if we knew during the fall of 2002 why we would be in Iraq in 2006, the authorization for use of force would have certainly failed or been passed with severe limitations.

Certainly the initial stage of the fighting was an overwhelming military success; however, three years later, with (as of today) 2,544 troops killed and almost 19,000 wounded, the ultimate victory we are still hoping to achieve is anything but overwhelming.


On American power

"We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence."

While there is little doubt that the American military, even stretched as it is with deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, remains by far the most powerful armed force in the world, American political influence is not very strong and not consistently applied. The Iraq conflict continues to be a sore spot with American allies, and the situations in Iran and North Korea demonstrate that America 1) can no longer act alone -- particularly with so many military assets committed to Iraq, and 2) does not consistently react to security threats.

While Republicans and the Administration would fight this charge, most observers would say that American influence has diminished over the last three years.


On cutting taxes and war fighting

"The last time taxes were this high as a percentage of our economy, there was a good reason; we were fighting World War II." 

The most interesting aspect of this quote is that Bush equates having high taxes as being OK during World War II. And given that Bush likes to recall the imagery and sacrifice of Americans in that war and equate it with the current fight against terrorism, it would seem to make sense that he would think it was therefore OK to have higher taxes to offset the massive increase in defense spending as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).

Of course, this comparison apparently no longer makes sense to Bush, though many Americans would undoubtedly understand and agree if he argued we needed to temporarily raise taxes to pay for the current operations.


On following the law

"So when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God."

This quote is interesting in light of the debate over the Administration's prolific use of signing statements that supposedly allow the President and his team to interpret the law as they see fit, and the Administration's various once-secret surveillance programs. While we will see more legal opinions and rulings in the future on both these subjects, the Administration has certainly made many opponents question its belief in upholding laws it does not like or want to follow.


Bush does ignore polls, at least initially

"I believe great decisions are made with care, made with conviction, not made with polls." 

With unfavorable polls on both his leadership and the Iraq conflict, it appears the one thing you can say about the President is that he is willing to stick with what he thinks is the current correct course of action, despite negative public opinion.

This "ignore the polls" philosophy is actually more talk than action, though. Many times, Bush has been willing to give in to mounting public pressure, though he would deny it (supporting the 9/11 Commission, following the Geneva Conventions on military bases, letting the courts review the legality of NSA warrantless wire tapping, etc.). So even in this case, it's hard to say that in the end he has delivered on what he promised to do six years ago.

Why no liberty for North Koreans?

On the 4th of July -- no doubt as a deliberate slap at the US government -- North Korea conducted a series of missile tests. In total, seven missiles were launched, including one intercontinental missile -- a potential future threat to reach the the United States if its range and accuracy is improved -- called the Taepo Dong 2 (which exploded shortly after launch). According to an article from Jane's Defence Weekly, "While the Taepo Dong 2 failed shortly after lift-off, it is likely to still have provided the North Koreans with valuable experience and some limited data collection."

The issue of a nuclear-capable North Korea with intercontinental ballistic missiles is a major security issue for the United States, and the PR reaction was swift from the White House.


The White House keeps the rhetoric down, foregoes images of mushroom clouds

When the Administration was describing the threat of Saddam, they talked about mushroom clouds over US cities. However, the first post-launch official statement from the White House on the 4th was relatively low key:

"The United States strongly condemns these missile launches and North Korea's unwillingness to heed calls for restraint from the international community."

The statement was followed up by a Tony Snow press briefing today:

"The end state is pretty clear: What you want is a North Korea that renounces nuclear development, that returns to the table, that no longer engages in this kind of activity, this kind of provocative activity."

"There are attempts to try to describe this almost in breathless World War III terms. This is not such a situation. This is a situation in which people are working with a regime in North Korea, trying to reason with a dictator, to step back from provocative activities. "

At a press conference for President Saakashvili of Georgia today, Bush stated:

"The North Korean government can join the community of nations and improve its lot by acting in concert with those who -- with those of us who believe that she shouldn't possess nuclear weapons ..."

"One thing we have learned is that the [Taepo Dong 2] didn't stay up very long and tumbled into the sea, which doesn't, frankly, diminish my desire to solve this problem."

"I view this as an opportunity to remind the international community that we must work together to continue to work hard to convince the North Korean leader to give up any weapons programs."

Why is the North Korea nuclear "problem" not a bigger issue than democracy in Iraq?

While the Administration continues on with its ill-defined mission to bring democracy to Iraq, the North Korea "problem" becomes more of an issue. Unfortunately for the President, the test missile launches came on the same day as his 4th of July speech that outlined why American is fighting in Iraq. Bush stated:

"Our strategy is clear, our goals are easy to understand: We will help Iraq's new leaders, we will help the people of Iraq build a country that can govern itself and sustain itself and defend itself as a free nation. Our troops will help the Iraqi people succeed because it's in our national interests. A free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will make America and the world more secure." 

"Our strategy to protect America is based on a clear premise: The security of our nation depends on the advance of liberty in other nations."

"On September the 11th, 2001, we saw that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. And we learned an important lesson: Decades of excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make it safe."

In addition, in the 2004 Republican Party Platform, party leadership made it clear that:

"We will not allow the world’s most dangerous regimes to possess the world’s most dangerous weapons." 

So, the question of course becomes, why are we not attacking North Korea instead of policing Iraq? The North Korean threat is certainly much more apparent -- the evidence is real. North Korea has a WMD program and t is working on a delivery vehicle which eventually may allow its weapons to reach the US. So, using Bush's own 4th of July comments:

• Why don't the North Koreans deserve liberty? There is obviously no liberty for the 23 million people living in Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) today. Is there something special about the Middle East -- Iraq in particular -- that makes its people more deserving of freedom than North Koreans?
  
  
• Isn't Kim Jong Il and his government one of those "failed and oppressive" regimes that makes the world unsafe? Unlike with Saddaam and Iraq, North Korea and its leader have made it clear through words and deeds that they are seeking WMD capability, as well as the technology needed to deliver warheads across oceans. This isn't about hidden programs and disguised mobile bio labs. Read a CNN.com article here for a recent timeline of the public activities around North Korea and its quest for nuclear arms.
  
  
• Isn't over five decades enough evidence that North Korea should be high up on the Bush to do list? The US fought the forces of North Korea (and China) for three years until the Korean War Armistice Agreement was signed in 1953 (it is still just a cease-fire half a century later). And given the rhetoric that has emerged over the years from the North Korea government, it's safe to say that this country, together with its nuclear and intercontinental ambitions, is a major threat according to anyone's worldview.

So why is the North Korea issue on the backburner and Iraq getting all of our limited resources? This is not an attempt to bash the President, but a real question. Is it because:

• North Korea doesn't have a lot of oil?
  
  
• North Korea would be a tough fight, a fight which might kill tens of thousands of US troops and require a draft?
  
  
• Americans know and care less about North Korea than the Middle East?
  
  
• There's no terrorist/Al Qaeda connection with the DPRK?

Whatever the real reason, it's about time the President started explaining why Iraq is so critical to our security while North Korea is given second-class threat status.

Democrats: Get over the authorization vote, point out repeated Administration incompetence

In Chicago last week, Cheney gave a speech in which he, among other things, ridiculed Senator Kerry for his flip-flopping over support for the Iraq conflict:

"Democrats and Republicans, obviously, are heavily engaged in the debate, as it should be. We've reached the point where a number of well known Democrats, including their most recent presidential nominee, talk about setting a firm deadline for withdrawal.

You might recall that Senator Kerry was for the war before he was against it. Somebody should do him a favor and tell him the election's over so he can stop flip-flopping."

Flip flopping on such an important issue is not a good thing. But obviously, that's not the whole story. Cheney and the Republicans continue to skewer the Democrats over the October 2002 Iraq authorization of force vote, and Democrats seem unable to mount a decent defense. What should Democrats do? Fight back with a two prong strategy that they should use in all their foreign policy speeches as well as rebuttals to Republican charges like Cheney's recent statement.

1. Explain they voted for use of force because of incorrect Administration evidence. Given only a goal of Iraqi democracy, who would have voted for the force authorization? The main reason Democrats seem unable to point out that they voted for something that was not true -- and therefore regret it -- is because of fear that such a stance will belittle the sacrifice of the troops and their families. However, Democrats and US citizens that initially supported the war need to face the facts that the conflict would not have happened when it did had the "mush room cloud" threat (see below) not been so compelling.
   
   
2. Highlight the Administration's record of mistakes and blunders. After talking about why they voted for the authorization of force, Democrats should immediately talk about how the Administration mismanaged the Iraq conflict. There's no need to make things up or interject opinion -- simply let the Administration's own word come back to haunt them.

Iraq mismanaged: Snippets of a clueless Administration

Why not start at the top, with the President. So what exactly was the Bush Administration saying in October of 2002 as they tried to convince the nation and Congress to authorize the use of force against Iraq? Here's what the President said on October 7:

"It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people."

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

"If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail."

And later in a speech on April 28, 2003, after the military operations had commenced, the President said:

"Day by day, hour by hour, life in Iraq is getting better for the citizens. Yet, much work remains to be done. I have directed Jay Garner and his team to help Iraq achieve specific long-term goals. And they're doing a superb job."

And of course, who can forget the infamous May 1, 2003 speech on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln:

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." 

And for extra credit, Democrats can use some comments made in February 2003 from former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz:

In response to troop requirements: "In short, we don't know what the requirements will be. But we can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark."

In response to a question about the cost of reconstruction, perhaps in the $60 - $90 billion dollar range: "There is a lot of money there [in Iraq oil and escrow at the UN]. To assume that we are going to pay for it is just wrong."

"The notion that we are going to earn more enemies by going in and getting rid of what every Arab knows is one of the worst tyrants -- and they have many governing them--is just nonsense."

In the business world, incompetence gets you fired, or at least marginalized and ignored. So, why do we keep giving an Administration with a track record of incorrect estimates, faulty intelligence, and the inability to predict critical world events the benefit of the doubt? Why don't US citizens listening to Cheney mock instead of cheer his Kerry flip flopper comments?

At this point, the Administration should be assumed to be incorrect and misinformed until proven otherwise.

Echoes of Johnson's Vietnam arguments in Bush's Iraq justification

While the Bush Administration and its supporters dislike any comparison between the Vietnam War and the current Iraqi conflict, there are interesting comparisons between the presidential rhetoric used to support both efforts. While there are many differences between the wars -- for example, there is no single enemy to negotiate with in Iraq -- the language  and justification for continuing these two (increasingly) unpopular military conflicts is very similar.


1965: "... we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny."

Most people would argue that in hindsight, Vietnam, or at least the way the military campaign was conducted and the political support for the ever-changing South Vietnamese leadership was handled, was a disaster. In the end, over 58,249 US military personnel were killed.

President Johnson gave a speech in April, 1965 that is very familiar in terms of the rhetoric that we hear today on why we should remain committed to Iraq. In 1965, the US had just begun to deploy combat troops (there were plenty of "advisors" in country, but the first  combat troops, the Marines, arrived in March). With thousands of soldiers beginning to flow into Vietnam, the President said:

The reason for fighting 

"Tonight Americans and Asians are dying for a world where each people may choose its own path to change. This is the principle for which our ancestors fought in the valleys of Pennsylvania. It is the principle for which our sons fight tonight in the jungles of Vietnam."

"We fight because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny. And only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure."

The conflict's brutality 

"And it is a war of unparalleled brutality. Simple farmers are the targets of assassination and kidnapping. Women and children are strangled in the night because their men are loyal to their government. And helpless villages are ravaged by sneak attacks. Large-scale raids are conducted on towns, and terror strikes in the heart of cities."

Keeping America's promise

"We are there because we have a promise to keep. Since 1954 every American President has offered support to the people of South Vietnam. We have helped to build, and we have helped to defend. Thus, over many years, we have made a national pledge to help South Vietnam defend its independence."

"And I intend to keep that promise. To dishonor that pledge, to abandon this small and brave nation to its enemies, and to the terror that must follow, would be an unforgivable wrong."

The consequences of leaving

"To leave Vietnam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America's word. The result would be increased unrest and instability, and even wider war."

"Let no one think for a moment that retreat from Vietnam would bring an end to conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another."

The objective 

"Our objective is the independence of South Vietnam, and its freedom from attack. We want nothing for ourselves -- only that the people of South Vietnam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way."

On escalation 

"In recent months attacks on South Vietnam were stepped up. Thus, it became necessary for us to increase our response and to make attacks by air. This is not a change of purpose. It is a change in what we believe that purpose requires."

America will not tire or be defeated 

"And we do this to convince the leaders of North Vietnam--and all who seek to share their conquest--of a very simple fact: We will not be defeated. We will not grow tired. We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement." 

1966: "... we will stay as long as aggression commands us to battle."

As the escalation in Vietnam continued, Johnson reiterated his stance that America could not retreat and that victory would be achieved. In his January, 1966 State of the Union speech, he stated that:

Staying the course 

"We will stay because a just nation cannot leave to the cruelties of its enemies a people who have staked their lives and independence on America's solemn pledge -- a pledge which has grown through the commitments of three American Presidents."

"To yield to force in Vietnam would weaken that confidence, would undermine the independence of many lands, and would whet the appetite of aggression. We would have to fight in one land, and then we would have to fight in another -- or abandon much of Asia to the domination of Communists."

The enemy is losing

"The enemy is no longer close to victory. Time is no longer on his side. There is no cause to doubt the American commitment."

Freedom is the goal 

"We seek neither territory nor bases, economic domination or military alliance in Vietnam. We fight for the principle of self-determination -- that the people of South Vietnam should be able to choose their own course, choose it in free elections without violence, without terror, and without fear."

Everything the troops need they will get 

"But we will give our fighting men what they must have: every gun, and every dollar, and every decision--whatever the cost or whatever the challenge."

America will never give up 

"And let me be absolutely clear: The days may become months, and the months may become years, but we will stay as long as aggression commands us to battle."

1967: "... the enemy can no longer succeed on the battlefield."

A year later, in his 1967 State of the Union address, the President said:

We will be worse off later if we back down now 

"We have chosen to fight a limited war in Vietnam in an attempt to prevent a larger war -- a war almost certain to follow, I believe, if the Communists succeed in overrunning and taking over South Vietnam by aggression and by force. I believe, and I am supported by some authority, that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price to check them later."

The war will go on for some time 

"I wish I could report to you that the conflict is almost over. This I cannot do. We face more cost, more loss, and more agony. For the end is not yet. I cannot promise you that it will come this year -- or come next year. Our adversary still believes, I think, tonight, that he can go on fighting longer than we can, and longer than we and our allies will be prepared to stand up and resist."

The enemy can't win 

"General Westmoreland reports that the enemy can no longer succeed on the battlefield."

The Vietnamese have to eventually take over 

"And this means reducing the terrorism and the armed attacks which kidnaped and killed 26,900 civilians in the last 32 months, to levels where they can be successfully controlled by the regular South Vietnamese security forces."

"We can help, but only they can win this part of the war. Their task is to build and protect a new life in each rural province."

We've already proven our point 

"One result of our stand in Vietnam is already clear. It is this: The peoples of Asia now know that the door to independence is not going to be slammed shut. They know that it is possible for them to choose their own national destinies -- without coercion."

America's will determine if we win

"How long it will take I cannot prophesy. I only know that the will of the American people, I think, is tonight being tested. Whether we can fight a war of limited objectives over a period of time, and keep alive the hope of independence and stability for people other than ourselves; whether we can continue to act with restraint when the temptation to 'get it over with' is inviting but dangerous; whether we can accept the necessity of choosing 'a great evil in order to ward off a greater'; whether we can do these without arousing the hatreds and the passions that are ordinarily loosed in time of war -- on all these questions so much turns."

1968: "Peace will come because Asians were willing to work for it -- and to sacrifice for it ..."

After the Tet offensive, America was shocked by the strength and resolve of the enemy. Even though Tet was actually a major military victory for the US, support for the war was falling and the country was violently divided. With the Great Society put on the backburner as more soldiers were killed and demonstrators marched, the President announced that he would not seek reelection. In a March, 1968 speech, he said:

We won Tet, but this war will not end soon

"Their attack--during the Tet holidays--failed to achieve its principal objectives."

"But tragically, this is also clear: Many men--on both sides of the struggle--will be lost. A nation that has already suffered 20 years of warfare will suffer once again. Armies on both sides will take new casualties. And the war will go on."

"So, tonight, in the hope that this action will lead to early talks, I am taking the first step to deescalate the conflict."

It's up to the Vietnamese to win this war 

"Our presence there has always rested on this basic belief: The main burden of preserving their freedom must be carried out by them -- by the South Vietnamese themselves. We and our allies can only help to provide a shield behind which the people of South Vietnam can survive and can grow and develop. On their efforts -- on their determination and resourcefulness -- the outcome will ultimately depend."

The Vietnamese will be able to do it with our support

"I pay tribute once again tonight to the great courage and endurance of its people. South Vietnam supports armed forces tonight of almost 700,000 men -- and I call your attention to the fact that this is the equivalent of more than 10 million in our own population. Its people maintain their firm determination to be free of domination by the North."

"We shall accelerate the reequipment of South Vietnam's armed forces -- in order to meet the enemy's increased firepower. This will enable them progressively to undertake a larger share of combat operations against the Communist invaders."

"Peace will come because Asians were willing to work for it--and to sacrifice for it--and to die by the thousands for it. But let it never be forgotten: Peace will come also because America sent her sons to help secure it."

Despite backing off, this was a vital war

"Throughout this entire, long period, I have been sustained by a single principle: that what we are doing now, in Vietnam, is vital not only to the security of Southeast Asia, but it is vital to the security of every American."

"I believe that a peaceful Asia is far nearer to reality because of what America has done in Vietnam. I believe that the men who endure the dangers of battle -- fighting there for us tonight -- are helping the entire world avoid far greater conflicts, far wider wars, far more destruction, than this one."

It's too much -- no more for me

"With America's sons in the fields far away, with America's future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world's hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office--the Presidency of your country. Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President."

1973: "... let us be proud of those who sacrificed, who gave their lives so that the people of South Vietnam might live in freedom ..."

In his January 23, 1973 speech announcing the end of the military portion of the Vietnam war, President Nixon said:

"Now that we have achieved an honorable agreement, let us be proud that America did not settle for a peace that would have betrayed our allies, that would have abandoned our prisoners of war, or that would have ended the war for us but would have continued the war for the 50 million people of Indochina."

"Let us be proud of the 2 1/2 million young Americans who served in Vietnam, who served with honor and distinction in one of the most selfless enterprises in the history of nations.

"And let us be proud of those who sacrificed, who gave their lives so that the people of South Vietnam might live in freedom and so that the world might live in peace."

Of course, the ultimate footnote to this post, is that America left and South Vietnam fell. According to the CIA World Fact Book:

"US economic and military aid to South Vietnam grew through the 1960s in an attempt to bolster the government, but US armed forces were withdrawn following a cease-fire agreement in 1973. Two years later, North Vietnamese forces overran the South reuniting the country under Communist rule."

Let's hope that we aren't repeating history, for everyone's sake, particularly our soldiers and their families who are bearing the greatest burden of this current effort to spread freedom.

Digital tapping is not wrong, it should just be done the right way

Two stories broke today that illustrate a major issue facing the US today: The government's desire to tap into and analyze digital communications and data.

Whether you support the specifics of how the President and his team have and continue to go about accessing and analyzing digital records, tapping into these feeds and databases is necessary to investigate and prosecute those planning on conducting terrorism, cyber-warfare, and other forms of national and global crime.

The issue is not the motivation, the acts themsleves, or the program details, but the need to ensure that digital tapping follows the law, that the program itself is monitored rigorously to avoid abuse by individuals and organizations like political parties, and that the US people understand -- at a high level -- what and why the government is doing these things.


Dipping into the financial stream to identify terrorist-related transactions

The New York Times had a lengthy article today on how the US has tapped into the SWIFT financial network databases since after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. SWIFT, or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, is a Belgium-based organization. According to its Web site:

"SWIFT is the financial industry-owned co-operative supplying secure, standardised messaging services and interface software to 7,800 financial institutions in more than 200 countries. SWIFT's worldwide community includes banks, broker/dealers and investment managers, as well as their market infrastructures in payments, securities, treasury and trade."

The Times article noted, among many other things, that:

"The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions."

"Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift."

"The program is separate from the National Security Agency's efforts to eavesdrop without warrants and collect domestic phone records..."

"In some instances, they said, the program has pointed them to new suspects, while in others it has buttressed cases already under investigation."

Faced with a PR nightmare, SWIFT came out with a quick press release. In the release, the organization stated:

"SWIFT negotiated with the U.S. Treasury over the scope and oversight of the subpoenas. Through this process, SWIFT received significant protections and assurances as to the purpose, confidentiality, oversight and control of the limited sets of data produced under the subpoenas. Independent audit controls provide additional assurance that these protections are fully complied with."

A band of US Al Qaida wannabes is arrested

The SWIFT spying program competed with the other front page news: The capture of seven men who planned domestic terrorist activities. Among there targets, was the Sears Tower in Chicago, the 110 story skyscraper that claims to be the tallest building in the US and the third tallest in the world. According to the FBI release:

"Seven Florida men have been arrested on charges that include conspiring to provide material support to the al Qaeda terrorist organization and conspiracy to levy war against the United States by discussing and planning attacks on targets in the United States, including the Sears Tower in Chicago and the FBI building and other federal buildings in Florida..."

"The defendants – five U.S. citizens, one legal permanent resident, and one Haitian national in the country illegally..."

Attorney General Gonzales was quoted as saying: “The convergence of globalization and technology has created a new brand of terrorism. Homegrown terrorists may prove to be as dangerous as groups like al Qaeda."

Is this group as dangerous as it sounds? The men did not have explosives and were not ready to take out any building, let alone a huge skyscraper. But as we saw in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, local terrorists don't need elaborate, multiyear training and global support like the 9/11 attackers. So, even if they had given up their bombing goals, they might have simply decided to shoot up a local Miami mall. Either way, it is better that they are off the street. We will learn more details about how they were tracked, but undoubtedly it will involve the interception of digital transmissions and the accessing of digital records.


Looking, but no fishing for data allowed?

While no one wants a 1984, Orwellian Society in which an oppressive government snoops on our every move, the reality is that there are a variety of individuals and groups that want to harm the US and its citizens, including our soldiers, at home and abroad. Intercepting and analyzing digital feed and databases will help.

The press and some politicians focus on words like "trolling," which means sifting through digital records for something of interest, in order to say that so-called "fishing expeditions" should not be conducted. However, the reality of the situation is that the government will either have suspects, or it will find them through analyzing the database using techniques like sophisticated "trolling." This trolling practice is well-established in the business world, where it is often called data mining. Massive companies like Wal-Mart, with huge customer databases, continuously analyze their data to identify buying patterns, shopper preferences, and to generally understand how to make more money.

One of the most important efforts for businesses involves segmenting customers, essentially profiling them by characteristics and behaviors like age, gender, activity patterns, education levels, and Internet usage. Sometimes marketing people analyze data to validate or understand a preconceived notion. Other times, they use complicated statistical programs and other data analysis tools (often called business intelligence tools) to find something interesting from the digital soup. In the business world, trolling customer databses for trends is a good thing.

It is interesting to note that the government does not like the term trolling, dating mining, or fishing expedition, most likely due to the privacy connotations. However, these activities are helpful. If you have no lead, large scale trolling can be a good thing. Unfortunately, Treasury Secretary Snow harped on this topic today:

"Let me be clear what this [SWIFT data analysis] program is, and what it is not. It is an essential tool in the war on terror, based on appropriate legal authorities with effective oversight and safeguards. It is not 'data mining', or trolling through the private financial records of Americans. It is not a 'fishing expedition', but rather a sharp harpoon aimed at the heart of terrorist activity."

The US government needs to make new laws and a new privacy contract with its people

With its NSA communications monitoring program, called the Terrorist Surveillance Program by the White House after it became public, and the now-revealed SWIFT financial monitoring program, now called the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, the government is doing many things it should, just not in the right way. What the Bush Administration -- or any administration, regardless of party -- needs to do is:

• Discuss the programs at a high level and talk about how trolling isn't necessarily a bad thing. Talking about the programs doesn't make the programs useless. Do the bad guys really think the NSA isn't tapping their phones?  Do they think the US won't look into what they bought at Amazon.com or examine their wire transfers? As part of this overall education effort, the government should explain why data mining, if that is the preferred word, can be extremely useful in tracking terrorists and other criminals.
  
  
• Make the programs legal. Cheney was recently quoted as saying that he thinks the executive branch (i.e., the President) needs more power. But Watergate reminds everyone how far some will abuse their power, and the dubious pre-Iraq War intelligence process, the release of the name of the CIA agent Plame, and the discovery of the original NSA program make many people wonder is there is any oversight and control in an Administration that is so loose with the law. Afterall, we have seen what happened to the US soldiers at Abu Ghraib when their superiors allowed them almost unlimited  reign. What about the temptations faced by an NSA or CIA analyst who can look at any financial or communication data?
  
  The President needs to work with Congress to revamp laws and the the overview process so that these programs do what they are intended to do, and no more. The digital world demands that we update our surveillance techniques, but we must update the relevant laws at the same time.
  
  
• Create a new privacy contract with US citizens. Given the choice, a majority of US citizens have said these programs make sense if they are designed to catch terrorists. But that doesn't mean they like how the programs are being run. For example, in a May 11 poll by the Washington Post, only 51% said they approved  "... of the way Bush is handling protecting Americans' privacy rights as the government investigates terrorism," but 65% said that the way the NSA analyzed phone calling patterns was an acceptable "... way for the federal government to investigate terrorism..."
  
  The government -- both the White House and Congress -- and both political parties need to hammer out a new resolution that: 1) Defines the threats inherent in the modern world; 2) Discusses the need to investigate those threats through large-scale "trolling" as well as focused analysis of digital communications and data; and 3) Demonstrates how the government will thoroughly oversee the programs and how it will severely punish individuals or organizations that abuse them.

Living in Cheney's world

Many people have speculated that the Bush Administration is largely directed by Vice President Cheney. He was strongly in favor of invading Iraq, he was central in trying to shoot down the anti-torture Congressional legislation, and his office is in the middle of the Plame CIA leak case. So what does Cheney, so critical to US foreign and domestic policy creation and execution, think these days? According to his comments at the the Gerald R. Ford Journalism Prize Luncheon on June 19, he thinks Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is doing a great job, Iraq has reached a turning point in favor of defeating the insurgency, and the President's power needed to be and has been restored. Oh, and he, and no one else in the Administration, knew Iraq would be so tough.


Cheney's comments 

During his brief speech and introduction for Rumsfeld, Cheney remarked:

"And our Secretary of Defense is one of the great public servants of our time ... I've heard it suggested on occasion that Don might even be the best Secretary of Defense we've ever had. Well, he's pretty close."

"... the United States of America is a stronger and safer nation thanks to the intellect, the judgment, and the character of Secretary Rumsfeld."

During the question and answer period, the VP was asked about such topics as the Iraq insurgency and the power of the Presidency. Here's what he said:

Question: About a year ago, you said that the insurgency in Iraq was in its final there throes. Do you still believe this?

"I do. What I was referring to was the series of events that took place in 1995. I think the key turning point, when we get back 10 years from now, say, and look back on this period of time, and with respect to the campaign in Iraq, will be that series of events when the Iraqis increasingly took over responsibility for their own affairs..."

"I think that will have been, from a historical turning point, the period that we'll be able to look at and say, that's when we turned the corner; that's when we began to get a handle on the long-term future of Iraq."

Question: Do you think that you underestimated the insurgency's strength?

"I think so. I guess if I look back on it now, I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence that we've encountered. I guess the other area that I look at, in terms of an area where I think we were faced with difficulties we didn't anticipate was the devastation that 30 years of Saddam's rule had wrought, if you will, on the psychology of the Iraqi people. Very, very hard to go from the way they were forced to live for a long period of time to a situation in which they have the opportunity for self-government, for setting up and operating their own free and democratically-elected society. That's a huge transition to make."

Question: Should there be any limits [to the power of the presidency], and if so, what? 

"But I clearly do believe, and have spoken directly about the importance of a strong presidency, and that I think there have been times in the past, oftentimes in response to events such as Watergate or the war in Vietnam, where Congress has begun to encroach upon the powers and responsibilities of the President; that it was important to go back and try to restore that balance."

"What are the limits? The limits are the Constitution. And, certainly, we need to and do adhere to those limitations. But I think if you look at things like the War Powers Act, for example, adopted in the aftermath of the Vietnam conflict, that that was an infringement on the President's ability to deploy troops. It's never really been tested. I think it's probably unconstitutional. There are a series of events like that that we believed needed to have the balance righted, if you will, and I think we've done that successfully."

Out of touch, ignorant, or both?

So what do we take from his comments? Let's analyze some of key points highlighted above:

• Is America is safer because of the judgement of Rumsfeld? It is very hard to make that case. Obviously, Rumsfeld could only be considered a great Secretary of Defense if he had a track record of excellent decisions. But the record is anything but stellar.
  
  For example, did the US go into Iraq with the right number of troops? In an April 2006 interview with ITV television, Colin Powell stated, "The President's military advisers felt that the size of the force was adequate; they may still feel that years later. Some of us don't. I don't."
  
  Also in April of this year, a series of retired US generals called for Rumsfeld's resignation. Retired Major General Charles Swannack said, "Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there ... And I believe he has culpability associated with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and, so, rather than admitting these mistakes, he continually justifies them to the press ... and that really disallows him from moving our strategy forward."
  
  Then there was the case, relatively early in the Iraq conflict, where Rumsfeld was found to be using a signature machine for signing letters to the families of those killed.
  
  Another infamous Rumsfeld moment was during a December 2004 "town meeting" in Kuwait. A soldier asked about the lack of armored vehicles in Iraq. The Secretary made the comment, "And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up.  And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up." Now that's some spin!
  
  Rumsfeld was also in charge of the military during the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. Despite the massive PR black eye and the subsequent danger the scandal causes our troops, Rumsfeld remains on the job.
  
  However, not to be completely unfair, unlike Cheney (the Vietnam deferment king) and Bush (who didn't even finish up his National Guard service), Rumsfeld "served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor."
  
  
• Is the insurgency in its "last throes" for real this time? Cheney is right that history will be a better judge on the overall Iraq situation than those caught up in its daily events, but it's hard to believe we are in the final stages of the insurgency today. The DOD just announced the names of four Marines killed in Iraq on June 20. If the insurgency was dying down, security should be getting better and the need for troops reduced. However, soldiers, including those from the the Guard and Reserve, are still required in huge numbers. For example, the Guard and Reserve continue to be heavily relied on for manpower. A recent DOD press release stated, "This brings the total National Guard and Reserve personnel, who have been mobilized, to 100,776, including both units and individual augmentees."
  
  Certainly the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi helps. But does that mean that US soldiers will be safer, that casualties will decline, and that our troops can start returning home in large numbers without replacements taking their place? It would be nice to think so for the sake of the soldiers and their families, but it is hard to believe Cheney's assessment. After all, he made his infamous initial claim about the insurgency -- "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." -- over a year ago, and his boss Bush claimed way back in May of 2003 that, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
  
  
• Should the Administration have known Iraq wouldn't be easy to transform? Cheney's comment, "I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence that we've encountered," if true, is scary. Was the US government incapable of planning or at least thinking of a worst case scenario? This statement is similar to the one Secretary of State Rice made when Hamas won the Palestinian election. Then, she said, "Well, I don't know anyone who wasn't caught off guard by Hamas' strong showing."
  
  Why is it that our government leaders seem so clueless? Did they really believe that after decades of of brutal oppression under Saddam Hussein, where the minority Sunni Muslims received special treatment, that the diverse Iraqi people (Sunni, Shia, Kurds, etc.) would suddenly come together, embrace democracy, and live happily ever after? Let's hope all this talk of not being able to anticipate world events is just some form of spin, because the only other option is to believe that the current administration is completely incompetent.
  
  Military commanders are taught to predict the likely way an enemy will react in an engagement but also plan for worse case scenarios. So, why can't our leaders do the same? In the business world, an executive would most likely be fired for being so bad at predicting the market time after time.
  
  
• Should the Presidency be more powerful than it's been? Bush and Cheney have certainly been trying to gain more power for the executive branch of the federal government. While Cheney stated that the Constitution imposes the correct presidential limits, the Administration's actions seem to ignore the Constitution.
  
  For example, the Administration believes it can avoid legal and established court processes for wire tapping, and although Congress is meant to make the laws, the use of presidential signing statements is all about ignoring the portions of a law the Administration does not feel like following.

From examining Cheney's statements, it appears he is either in his own dream world and ignorant of the facts, or he is just saying these things for political reasons despite knowing they are incorrect. The end result is that it is hard to take the VP at his word. Like the boy who cried wolf, will we believe Cheney when he actually says something true?