Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, the presumptive Republican and Democratic nominees for President, addressed AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) this week. Always a depressing spectacle, this year's conference, at least, provided some interesting insights into the differences that divide the candidates, and the way they played out with the AIPAC audience. First up was McCain, whose hawkish denunciations of Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah, and his dire warnings of threats against the state of Israel were well-received.
So, too, was his mockery of Barack Obama's call for a tough, but diplomacy-based, foreign policy. McCain barely addressed the failing peace process, focusing more than half his remarks on the Iranian threat to Israel. There can be no doubt that Iran has been emboldened and has been defiant of the international community's efforts to halt its nuclear program and rein in its support for terrorism. What McCain promoted, however, was long on incitement and short on analysis. He failed to answer the question: how, exactly, did the U.S. get into the current mess in which it finds itself? A flashback to McCain's April 2002 appearance before AIPAC reveals clues as to why the current situation is so dangerous, and why the Senator may be hesitant to change course.
Back then, this is what McCain told AIPAC: "If we are serious about the values we in America and Israel live by...we must work to spread our values in the Middle East, first by opposing tyranny in the Arab world. The celebration of freedom in the streets of liberated Baghdad will serve as a counterpoint to the state-directed Arab media's distortion of the Palestinian conflict. It will be a reminder to other Arab tyrants that the United States is a natural ally of Arab people who aspire to freedom. ...bringing liberty's blessings to Arab peoples will do much more to improve their lives than will their jihad against Israel." What comes through in this April 2002 speech was that, as an advocate of the policies of the Bush Administration, McCain: embraced the neo-conservative fantasy that led the U.S. into a reckless war in Iraq that they believed would spark a democratic upheaval throughout the Middle East;insulted Arab leaders and states that have long cooperated with the U.S; andplaced blame for the failure of the peace process solely on the Palestinians and Arab leaders and, therefore, like Bush, supported the abandonment of peace negotiations and encouraged Israel's unilateral goals of separation and the construction of the "wall."
What McCain missed getting right then, and still misses now, is that it was precisely the war in Iraq that emboldened Iran, creating the space for its expansion of its regional role. The war in Iraq also roiled the region, deepening anti-American sentiment and putting at risk the very Arab allies whose assistance the U.S. needs in confronting Iran. And U.S. neglect of the peace process, and the imposition of a victor-vanquished approach to its dealings with the Palestinians and Lebanese, contributed to destabilizing and polarizing both peoples, creating the circumstances for Hamas and Hizbullah to feed off their people's anger. By continuing to justify and embrace this failed policy, McCain can only promise more war, more polarization, and more extremism. In the end, his formula for the future is more of what was tried and tested in the past and found wanting. Nevertheless, the AIPAC audience cheered.
Next up was Barack Obama, whose speech generated interest because hard-line supporters of Israel have been critical of him. He is, to them, an unknown commodity with questionable ties. Progressive Jews (and Arab Americans) have, on the other hand, found Obama appealing both because of his messages of hope and change and, specifically, because of comments he has made indicating openness to a more nuanced discussion of Arab-Israeli peace-making. For example, there were his comments to Jewish leaders in Cleveland on February 24th, where he rejected identifying being pro-Israel with "adopting an unwaveringly pro-Likud view of Israel," and his statement to a Jewish reporter that "in order to make progress in Arab-Israeli talks...both sides should be held accountable to previous agreements." For the most part, Obama's AIPAC speech pushed all the "right" buttons for his audience. It included a personal narrative that connected his story with that of the Jewish people, and the larger narrative of the historic bonds between the African American and American Jewish communities.
In addressing matters of foreign policy, Obama did his fair share of genuflecting, which is expected before an AIPAC audience that insists upon such displays. But, on the whole, Obama's speech was less troubling than many others delivered before the group. He was tough on Iran, but correctly took on John McCain's refusal to recognize the central role the debacle in Iraq has played in destabilizing the Middle East, and emboldening Iran and extremism. He repeatedly emphasized the need for principled diplomacy as the way to move forward. He contrasted his commitment to peace-making with the neglect of the Bush Administration by pledging active involvement in the search for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and Israel and Syria, and noting the responsibilities of all parties in the Middle East to contribute to that process. He specifically called on Israel to "take appropriate steps - consistent with its security - to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements." He urged support for Palestinian President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, and emphasized that "Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper."
Obama also included a deeply troubling reference to Jerusalem which he said "will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." An Obama advisor, however, later clarified, insisting that there was nothing in this position that should be seen as prejudicing the final status of Jerusalem or precluding the Palestinians from also having their capital in a "shared" city. Better than McCain? Yes. And clearly more thoughtful than his predecessors. Still, the AIPAC audience cheered, revealing a strange ambivalence that exists even among members of this hard-line of this pro-Israel group: cheering McCain's support for more war in Iraq and Obama's call for and end to the war; and McCain's mockery of diplomacy and Obama's emphasis on negotiations. Strange and depressing, but still interesting. Washington Watch is a weekly column written by AAI President James Zogby. The views expressed within this column do not necessarily reflect those of the Arab American Institute. We invite you to share your views on the topics addressed within Dr. Zogby's weekly Washington Watch by emailing jzogby@aaiusa.org.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Why the White House Opposes the GI Bill
Paul Rieckhoff June 03, 2008
Anyone with a pulse knows that the Pentagon has a history of wasting huge sums of money. Just last week, an internal audit found that the Army squandered $8.2 billion of taxpayer money on contractors in Iraq.
Sadly, while their wallets always seem to be open for the contractors, the Administration has a habit of tightening the purse strings when it comes to the troops. From body armor to bonuses, our troops continue to be shortchanged. Currently, the Administration is "strongly opposing" a 0.5 percent pay raise for troops passed by Congress, calling it "unnecessary."
And now, the Administration is threatening to do it again. The Department of Defense and the Administration have come out against the new GI Bill. The GI Bill, originally introduced by Senators Webb (D-VA), Hagel (R-NE), Warner (R-VA) and Lautenberg (D-NJ), is one of the single most supported pieces of legislation in Congress right now. It has over 300 cosponsors in the House, and almost 60 in the Senate. It's also got the support of all the leading Veterans Service Organizations, including the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, and of course IAVA.
The Administration's argument is that if a GI Bill benefit is too good, it'll reward veterans too richly for their service and draw them away from re-enlisting:
Seriously though, it is both shocking and appalling that after seven years of war, anyone thinks an education at one of our nation's public colleges is more than our troops have earned. It is also profoundly implausible and insulting to argue that the troops who have continued to re-enlist and to serve, even under the incredible strain of multiple combat tours, would suddenly abandon the military in droves.
Opponents of the new GI Bill will tell you the retention issue is a question of national security. It isn't. It's a question of money. If these guys were so worried about keeping troops in the military, why not suck it up and just give these troops a pay raise? How about 15% across the board? Or how about they accept that troops who've served multiple combat tours deserve a bonus?
The Congressional Budget Office estimated how much it would cost to make up any retention loss: $145 million over five years. A huge number to normal people, but it's a pittance compared to what we're already spending on recruiting and retention ($5 billion dollars a year), or what our annual military budget is (around $600 billion a year). In fact, the total cost to make up any drop in recruitment over five years is equal to what we're spending every twelve hours in Iraq.
But what really kills me about the retention argument is how short-sighted it is. You can't retain troops you've never recruited in the first place. Since 2004, our military has been struggling to meet recruiting goals. We're spending $4 billion a year to bring folks into the military, and we're still having to lower our enlistment standards. In 2007, only 79% of new Army enlistees had a high-school diploma. The maximum age for a new recruit has been raised to 42 from 35. And 12 percent of recruits are receiving waivers for criminal convictions.
We can do better. As Senator Webb, former Secretary of the Navy, has said, a new GI Bill would strengthen our military by encouraging more high-aptitude, college-bound young people to join up. Getting money for an education is the number one reason civilians enlist in the first place. A new GI Bill is an amazing opportunity to keep the promise we made to our veterans and to revitalize our military, all in one step.
For some more laughs on the Administration's argument, click here.
Use your GI Bill before time runs out!
Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.
Copyright 2008 Paul Rieckhoff. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.
Anyone with a pulse knows that the Pentagon has a history of wasting huge sums of money. Just last week, an internal audit found that the Army squandered $8.2 billion of taxpayer money on contractors in Iraq.
Sadly, while their wallets always seem to be open for the contractors, the Administration has a habit of tightening the purse strings when it comes to the troops. From body armor to bonuses, our troops continue to be shortchanged. Currently, the Administration is "strongly opposing" a 0.5 percent pay raise for troops passed by Congress, calling it "unnecessary."
And now, the Administration is threatening to do it again. The Department of Defense and the Administration have come out against the new GI Bill. The GI Bill, originally introduced by Senators Webb (D-VA), Hagel (R-NE), Warner (R-VA) and Lautenberg (D-NJ), is one of the single most supported pieces of legislation in Congress right now. It has over 300 cosponsors in the House, and almost 60 in the Senate. It's also got the support of all the leading Veterans Service Organizations, including the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, and of course IAVA.
The Administration's argument is that if a GI Bill benefit is too good, it'll reward veterans too richly for their service and draw them away from re-enlisting:
Seriously though, it is both shocking and appalling that after seven years of war, anyone thinks an education at one of our nation's public colleges is more than our troops have earned. It is also profoundly implausible and insulting to argue that the troops who have continued to re-enlist and to serve, even under the incredible strain of multiple combat tours, would suddenly abandon the military in droves.
Opponents of the new GI Bill will tell you the retention issue is a question of national security. It isn't. It's a question of money. If these guys were so worried about keeping troops in the military, why not suck it up and just give these troops a pay raise? How about 15% across the board? Or how about they accept that troops who've served multiple combat tours deserve a bonus?
The Congressional Budget Office estimated how much it would cost to make up any retention loss: $145 million over five years. A huge number to normal people, but it's a pittance compared to what we're already spending on recruiting and retention ($5 billion dollars a year), or what our annual military budget is (around $600 billion a year). In fact, the total cost to make up any drop in recruitment over five years is equal to what we're spending every twelve hours in Iraq.
But what really kills me about the retention argument is how short-sighted it is. You can't retain troops you've never recruited in the first place. Since 2004, our military has been struggling to meet recruiting goals. We're spending $4 billion a year to bring folks into the military, and we're still having to lower our enlistment standards. In 2007, only 79% of new Army enlistees had a high-school diploma. The maximum age for a new recruit has been raised to 42 from 35. And 12 percent of recruits are receiving waivers for criminal convictions.
We can do better. As Senator Webb, former Secretary of the Navy, has said, a new GI Bill would strengthen our military by encouraging more high-aptitude, college-bound young people to join up. Getting money for an education is the number one reason civilians enlist in the first place. A new GI Bill is an amazing opportunity to keep the promise we made to our veterans and to revitalize our military, all in one step.
For some more laughs on the Administration's argument, click here.
Use your GI Bill before time runs out!
Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.
Copyright 2008 Paul Rieckhoff. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.
Monday, June 2, 2008
J Street: A Much-Needed Pro-Peace Lobby Is Born
By James ZogbyJune 2, 2008
Last month's launch of J Street marks the culmination of a two-decades old evolution within the pro-Israel community in the U.S.
J Street, which defines itself as "the political arm of the pro-Israel and pro-peace movement," states that it was founded "to promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts peacefully and diplomatically ... [and] support a new direction for American policy in the Middle East." In what they refer to as their "family of organizations," J Street will include: a lobbying arm that will advocate for peace on Capitol Hill, and an "unconnected" political action committee that will endorse pro-peace candidates for public office.
While the hard-line positions of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have long-defined pro-Israel politics in Washington, in reality, American Jewish opinion has never been monolithic. AIPAC has always been opposed by those in the Jewish community who have argued for a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict.
In the 1970s, for example, a group called Breira was formed by young Jewish peace activists. While an early Zionist slogan was "ain breira" ("there is no alternative"), the name this group gave itself affirmed there was an "alternative" - Breira. Following the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the formation of the Peace Now movement in Israel, Americans for Peace Now was formed in the U.S. It was joined by other liberal efforts, including Project Nishma and the Israel Policy Forum.
With the signing of the Oslo Accords, and the commitment of the Rabin government to a negotiated peace with the PLO, AIPAC was challenged as never before. Rabin, himself, made a point of criticizing AIPAC's obstructionism, and called on American Jews, instead, to support the peace process his government had embraced.
Likud, out of power but seeking to undercut peace efforts, began to mobilize hard-line groups to challenge the Labor goverment's policies in Washington. With the election of a Republican Congress in 1994, a coalition of Likud, the anti-peace groups and the Republican leadership in Congress formed a powerful bloc that became an obstacle to efforts to move the peace process forward.
The Clinton administration, seeking to empower peacemakers not only in the Middle East but also here in the U.S., actively worked to strengthen to the role of both Arab Americans and American Jews who supported peace. For example, instead of merely inviting the old line AIPAC leadership to the White House for meetings, the Clinton administration made a point of including the new pro-peace groups as well.
For the next decade, AIPAC resumed its normal course of providing begrudging support for peace when a Labor government was in office, while taking a more hard line when Netanyahu and Sharon were in office. Meanwhile, the pro-peace groups continued to slowly develop their base of support.
In polls of Arab Americans and Americans Jews during the past decade, we found a remarkable convergence of views, with majorities in both communities supporting a two-state solution, opposing violence and terrorism, opposing settlements, supporting a negotiated solution to a shared Jerusalem, and a more balanced U.S. approach to peace-making.
Still, AIPAC ruled the roost, working largely uncontested on Capitol Hill, though a few efforts by Arab American and American Jewish peace groups have been successful in securing support from members of Congress for a more nuanced approach to some legislation.
Now, with the launch of J Street, this development in the Jewish community has taken institutional form. Its appearance on the scene is both early and late: early, in that it is quite new and, therefore, it is too soon to measure its impact; and late, in that the challenges now confronting the peace process are so much greater than they were just a decade ago.
Still, J Street is off to a promising start. It has secured the cooperation of the major groups that have played a leading role on peace issues over the past fifteen years. It has brought together an impressive roster of advisors, and it has generated a strong positive response from the American Jewish community. Moreover, some members of Congress have been enthusiastic in welcoming J Street.
Even at this late date, it cannot be overstated how important this new development can be, and how significant the impact it can have on the policy debate in the U.S.
We have always known that there was an internal debate in Israel when it came to peace issues, and have long lamented the absence of a serious debate on Israeli-Palestinian issues in the U.S. Even Joe Leiberman, when he was running for vice president, at one point noted how it was easier to have a debate on the fate of Jerusalem in the Knesset than it was in the U.S. Senate!
It is this that must change, and it is this that J Street, working with others, may now help to change.
It was this need for broader debate that was reflected in Barack Obama's remarks last February 25th to Jewish leaders in Cleveland, when he noted, "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel ... that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress."
Though late in the game, an "honest dialogue" is sorely needed, and can still make a valuable contribution for peace.
Washington Watch is a weekly column written by AAI President James Zogby. The views expressed within this column do not necessarily reflect those of the Arab American Institute.
We invite you to share your views on the topics addressed within Dr. Zogby's weekly Washington Watch by emailing jzogby@aaiusa.org.
Last month's launch of J Street marks the culmination of a two-decades old evolution within the pro-Israel community in the U.S.
J Street, which defines itself as "the political arm of the pro-Israel and pro-peace movement," states that it was founded "to promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts peacefully and diplomatically ... [and] support a new direction for American policy in the Middle East." In what they refer to as their "family of organizations," J Street will include: a lobbying arm that will advocate for peace on Capitol Hill, and an "unconnected" political action committee that will endorse pro-peace candidates for public office.
While the hard-line positions of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have long-defined pro-Israel politics in Washington, in reality, American Jewish opinion has never been monolithic. AIPAC has always been opposed by those in the Jewish community who have argued for a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict.
In the 1970s, for example, a group called Breira was formed by young Jewish peace activists. While an early Zionist slogan was "ain breira" ("there is no alternative"), the name this group gave itself affirmed there was an "alternative" - Breira. Following the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the formation of the Peace Now movement in Israel, Americans for Peace Now was formed in the U.S. It was joined by other liberal efforts, including Project Nishma and the Israel Policy Forum.
With the signing of the Oslo Accords, and the commitment of the Rabin government to a negotiated peace with the PLO, AIPAC was challenged as never before. Rabin, himself, made a point of criticizing AIPAC's obstructionism, and called on American Jews, instead, to support the peace process his government had embraced.
Likud, out of power but seeking to undercut peace efforts, began to mobilize hard-line groups to challenge the Labor goverment's policies in Washington. With the election of a Republican Congress in 1994, a coalition of Likud, the anti-peace groups and the Republican leadership in Congress formed a powerful bloc that became an obstacle to efforts to move the peace process forward.
The Clinton administration, seeking to empower peacemakers not only in the Middle East but also here in the U.S., actively worked to strengthen to the role of both Arab Americans and American Jews who supported peace. For example, instead of merely inviting the old line AIPAC leadership to the White House for meetings, the Clinton administration made a point of including the new pro-peace groups as well.
For the next decade, AIPAC resumed its normal course of providing begrudging support for peace when a Labor government was in office, while taking a more hard line when Netanyahu and Sharon were in office. Meanwhile, the pro-peace groups continued to slowly develop their base of support.
In polls of Arab Americans and Americans Jews during the past decade, we found a remarkable convergence of views, with majorities in both communities supporting a two-state solution, opposing violence and terrorism, opposing settlements, supporting a negotiated solution to a shared Jerusalem, and a more balanced U.S. approach to peace-making.
Still, AIPAC ruled the roost, working largely uncontested on Capitol Hill, though a few efforts by Arab American and American Jewish peace groups have been successful in securing support from members of Congress for a more nuanced approach to some legislation.
Now, with the launch of J Street, this development in the Jewish community has taken institutional form. Its appearance on the scene is both early and late: early, in that it is quite new and, therefore, it is too soon to measure its impact; and late, in that the challenges now confronting the peace process are so much greater than they were just a decade ago.
Still, J Street is off to a promising start. It has secured the cooperation of the major groups that have played a leading role on peace issues over the past fifteen years. It has brought together an impressive roster of advisors, and it has generated a strong positive response from the American Jewish community. Moreover, some members of Congress have been enthusiastic in welcoming J Street.
Even at this late date, it cannot be overstated how important this new development can be, and how significant the impact it can have on the policy debate in the U.S.
We have always known that there was an internal debate in Israel when it came to peace issues, and have long lamented the absence of a serious debate on Israeli-Palestinian issues in the U.S. Even Joe Leiberman, when he was running for vice president, at one point noted how it was easier to have a debate on the fate of Jerusalem in the Knesset than it was in the U.S. Senate!
It is this that must change, and it is this that J Street, working with others, may now help to change.
It was this need for broader debate that was reflected in Barack Obama's remarks last February 25th to Jewish leaders in Cleveland, when he noted, "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel ... that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress."
Though late in the game, an "honest dialogue" is sorely needed, and can still make a valuable contribution for peace.
Washington Watch is a weekly column written by AAI President James Zogby. The views expressed within this column do not necessarily reflect those of the Arab American Institute.
We invite you to share your views on the topics addressed within Dr. Zogby's weekly Washington Watch by emailing jzogby@aaiusa.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
