By HUSAIN HAQQANIAugust 21, 2008
WSJ
Pervez Musharraf's resignation as president of Pakistan allows the country to move toward full democracy. Some in Washington view this as a threat -- the replacement of a reputedly stalwart ally in the war against terrorism with a democratic government responsive to the unpredictability of public opinion.
But with Mr. Musharraf gone, the United States need not take blame for his actions, particularly those unrelated to international cooperation in fighting terrorists. Mr. Musharraf's exit is not a loss. It is an opportunity to jump-start a much more durable and stable relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan as nations sharing democratic values.
In national elections on Feb. 18, the people of Pakistan spoke with an uncharacteristically unified voice, voting overwhelmingly for moderate, democratic political parties and rejecting not only Mr. Musharraf's political party, but those aligned with extremism and fanaticism. Less than 5% of the vote went to Islamist parties sympathetic to the Taliban.
The democratic coalition led by the party of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), was allowed to form a government, but Mr. Musharraf refused to step down as president or relinquish the lion's share of power within the government. His resignation this week under threat of impeachment has been celebrated by Pakistanis from all corners of the country.
Pakistan's greatest challenge now is to change its pattern of alternating between military strongmen and elected civilian governments that are ousted before their term is complete. The Pakistani military appears ready to join civilians in changing that pattern. Civilian elites who in the past have supported suspension of the constitution on grounds of alleged incompetence and corruption of elected officials may also have learned their lesson.
There is no shortcut to building democracy. Reforms pushed through governments installed by coups d'état have repeatedly failed to bring stability, and Mr. Musharraf's much-trumpeted economic achievements are in tatters at the end of his nine-year rule.
In the final analysis, Pakistan will only be as strong as its political system. Pakistan's democratic parties, most notably the current coalition partners PPP and the Pakistan Muslim League (N), must be given a chance to lay the foundations of lasting constitutional governance. Like all transitions, the transition from one-man rule to a pluralist system will be tough. But Pakistanis have proven their commitment to the democratic ideal after four failed military dictatorships in 60 years.
The U.S.'s primary concern in Pakistan remains the ongoing war against al Qaeda and the Taliban, mainly in the country's northwest region bordering Afghanistan. With Mr. Musharraf gone, the war against terror will in fact be pursued with much more vigor and much less political manipulation.
Anti-Americanism among Pakistan's people may ease, now that Washington is not seen as backing an unpopular strongman. That should make it easier for the elected government to fight terrorism without being accused of doing America's bidding in return for economic and military assistance.
The assumption that dealing with a single, authoritarian leader is the best way to do business with a foreign government is erroneous. In a nation of 160 million, the U.S. should not count on only one man as its ally. Those who are American allies by conviction and a shared belief in democracy, tolerance and free markets are bound to be better allies than an ally of convenience seeking only aid and political support.
The elected government of Pakistan can and will turn its attention to the immediate and critical problems of our nation -- inflation, a looming energy crisis, food shortages, an educational system that doesn't work, and a civil society that has been dismantled by dictatorship. And of course, above all, the people and government of Pakistan must contain and destroy the extremist insurgency which threatens the very soul of the nation.
With the mandate of the people behind it, the new Pakistani government can muster popular support to restore the writ of law to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), and to marginalize extremists all over the country.
As Joe Biden has argued, the U.S.-Pakistan relationship should no longer be "transactional," i.e., based largely on the "exchange of aid for services." An economically viable Pakistan is a stable Pakistan, and a stable Pakistan would be better positioned to end fanaticism in our region. Pakistanis have been encouraged by the recent, unanimous passage in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of legislation introduced this month by Sens. Biden and Richard Lugar that would help build a U.S.-Pakistan relationship based not only on shared battle plans but shared values and shared economic and political interests.
Another critical piece of legislation that works toward that end is the Afghanistan and Pakistan Reconstruction Opportunity Zones Act of 2008. Introduced by Chris Van Hollen in the House and Maria Cantwell in the Senate, and supported by the Bush administration, it would encourage economic investment and local factories and businesses in Taliban-infested areas through favored trade relationships with the U.S. The Biden-Lugar legislation and the ROZs are important signals to the people of Pakistan that the U.S. is indeed a genuine partner, not just a military ally.
'
Pakistan has weathered a very difficult period in our national history -- a near-decade-long dictatorship, the spread of terrorism, an economic crisis and the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, our icon of democracy. But we have made it through. The Musharraf resignation is not anyone's loss; it could help turn Pakistan around and that would be the world's gain.
Mr. Haqqani is Pakistan's ambassador to the United States.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
U.S. Army hopes to keep native Arabic speakers
By Gordon Lubold - TCSMFriday, 08.08.2008
Washington — The Army may begin paying a retention bonus of as much as $150,000 to Arabic speaking soldiers in reflection of how critical it has become for the U.S. military to retain native language and cultural know-how in its ranks.
Only one other job in the Army, Special Forces, rates such a super-sized retention bonus. Now, as the military makes a fundamental shift toward rewarding the linguistic expertise it needs the most, it is expanding a program to train and retain native Arabic and other speakers from the same regions in which it is fighting.
"This is a war not only against the U.S., but against our way of freedom," says Sergeant Madi, a native interpreter and U.S. citizen who asked to be identified only by his surname due to security concerns for him and his family. "We have been fighting for over 16 years against Islamic extremism. It is also my war."
After the invasion of Iraq and the insurgency that followed, the U.S. military recognized its dearth of linguistic competence in the country it had just toppled, and it scrambled to identify Arabic and other linguists.
The military's conventional language training program, the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, Calif., could not churn out enough American soldiers proficient in Arabic, Kurdish, Dari, Pashtu, and Farsi, and the military quickly turned to private contractors to fill the gap. Numerous programs have sprouted up, including one at Fort Lewis, Wash., where soldiers are given a 10-month immersion program in language and culture.
But the Army has also been quietly growing its own capability to recruit and train Arab Americans and others as American soldiers to do high-level work overseas. The Army now has more than 600 such linguists, known by their military job designation as "09 Limas."
They come from places like Morocco, Egypt, and Sudan, but are recruited by the Army wherever there are large Arab American populations, including Dearborn, Mich.; Miami; Dallas; Los Angeles; and Washington, D.C.
The Defense Department is now authorized to put green-card holders on a fast track to U.S. citizenship. The 09 Lima linguists are in so much demand that the Army is raising the number it will recruit next year, from 250 to 275.
But as the U.S. government recognizes the long-term commitment it is making to Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, the competition for these native speakers is fierce among other government agencies such as the FBI and CIA, as well as other military services and private contractors.
Army personnel officials want to put the 09 Lima retention program on par with Army Special Forces, which would mean paying those linguists as much as $150,000 each to stay in the service. The Army implemented the bonus program for Special Forces in 2005 after it watched the highly trained soldiers being lured by lucrative deals offered by such firms as Blackwater USA. That bonus, which is tax-free if paid in a war zone, helped to stabilize that community.
The Army has yet to decide if the 09 Limas will rate the same pay, but defense officials say it's important to put linguists on par with the "high-demand, low-density" nature of Special Forces.
"We've received numerous reports from combatant commanders on the effectiveness of the 09 Limas versus the private contract linguists, and demand is extremely high," says Errol Smith, assistant deputy secretary for foreign language programs at the Pentagon.
The program represents the shift within the U.S. government toward recognizing the value of native linguists while determining how best to assess any Trojan horse-like security threat they might pose. Mike McConnell, director of national security, is pushing to streamline the screening process.
"We have to make some breakthroughs on how we assign, trust, assess, and utilize those who have direct contact with foreign entities," says one source familiar with Mr. McConnell's plan. "That unfolding story carries a lot of implications with it, and it's a huge cultural shift for the entire nation."
Yet when it comes to linguistic and cultural expertise, few can compare to a native speaker, defense officials say. "They hear things that are said around them, they are able to see things that others can't see," says Mr. Smith.
Smith tells the story of a commander in Iraq who was using a civilian interpreter, or "terp" in the vernacular of the military, employed by a private contractor, as the American commander spoke to a local Iraqi. During the meeting, the civilian interpreted literally the words of the local Iraqi, who had told other Iraqis to feed the American commander parsley. But an 09 Lima standing nearby heard something different: feeding parsley to someone was a reference to an old expression in which parsley was fed to a bird to choke it to death.
"He was pretty much giving an order to have the commander killed," says Smith. "Right there, a life was saved .... You can see just by knowing a bit of slang, being a native speaker, it can make a difference."
The 09 Limas have become so much in demand that U.S. Central Command, Tampa, Fla., which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has asked to extend their deployments. Current mobility regulations prevent it, Smith says, but the Army is working on a package of incentives that would allow the linguists to stay on in the war zone longer than 12 months if they chose to, he says.
Sergeant Madi, the 09 Lima, says he may be just a junior enlisted soldier, but the Army recognizes that it must know its enemy and the populations in which it operates. "There is a thirst to get this knowledge in any way," he says.By Gordon Lubold - TCSM -->
Washington — The Army may begin paying a retention bonus of as much as $150,000 to Arabic speaking soldiers in reflection of how critical it has become for the U.S. military to retain native language and cultural know-how in its ranks.
Only one other job in the Army, Special Forces, rates such a super-sized retention bonus. Now, as the military makes a fundamental shift toward rewarding the linguistic expertise it needs the most, it is expanding a program to train and retain native Arabic and other speakers from the same regions in which it is fighting.
"This is a war not only against the U.S., but against our way of freedom," says Sergeant Madi, a native interpreter and U.S. citizen who asked to be identified only by his surname due to security concerns for him and his family. "We have been fighting for over 16 years against Islamic extremism. It is also my war."
After the invasion of Iraq and the insurgency that followed, the U.S. military recognized its dearth of linguistic competence in the country it had just toppled, and it scrambled to identify Arabic and other linguists.
The military's conventional language training program, the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, Calif., could not churn out enough American soldiers proficient in Arabic, Kurdish, Dari, Pashtu, and Farsi, and the military quickly turned to private contractors to fill the gap. Numerous programs have sprouted up, including one at Fort Lewis, Wash., where soldiers are given a 10-month immersion program in language and culture.
But the Army has also been quietly growing its own capability to recruit and train Arab Americans and others as American soldiers to do high-level work overseas. The Army now has more than 600 such linguists, known by their military job designation as "09 Limas."
They come from places like Morocco, Egypt, and Sudan, but are recruited by the Army wherever there are large Arab American populations, including Dearborn, Mich.; Miami; Dallas; Los Angeles; and Washington, D.C.
The Defense Department is now authorized to put green-card holders on a fast track to U.S. citizenship. The 09 Lima linguists are in so much demand that the Army is raising the number it will recruit next year, from 250 to 275.
But as the U.S. government recognizes the long-term commitment it is making to Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, the competition for these native speakers is fierce among other government agencies such as the FBI and CIA, as well as other military services and private contractors.
Army personnel officials want to put the 09 Lima retention program on par with Army Special Forces, which would mean paying those linguists as much as $150,000 each to stay in the service. The Army implemented the bonus program for Special Forces in 2005 after it watched the highly trained soldiers being lured by lucrative deals offered by such firms as Blackwater USA. That bonus, which is tax-free if paid in a war zone, helped to stabilize that community.
The Army has yet to decide if the 09 Limas will rate the same pay, but defense officials say it's important to put linguists on par with the "high-demand, low-density" nature of Special Forces.
"We've received numerous reports from combatant commanders on the effectiveness of the 09 Limas versus the private contract linguists, and demand is extremely high," says Errol Smith, assistant deputy secretary for foreign language programs at the Pentagon.
The program represents the shift within the U.S. government toward recognizing the value of native linguists while determining how best to assess any Trojan horse-like security threat they might pose. Mike McConnell, director of national security, is pushing to streamline the screening process.
"We have to make some breakthroughs on how we assign, trust, assess, and utilize those who have direct contact with foreign entities," says one source familiar with Mr. McConnell's plan. "That unfolding story carries a lot of implications with it, and it's a huge cultural shift for the entire nation."
Yet when it comes to linguistic and cultural expertise, few can compare to a native speaker, defense officials say. "They hear things that are said around them, they are able to see things that others can't see," says Mr. Smith.
Smith tells the story of a commander in Iraq who was using a civilian interpreter, or "terp" in the vernacular of the military, employed by a private contractor, as the American commander spoke to a local Iraqi. During the meeting, the civilian interpreted literally the words of the local Iraqi, who had told other Iraqis to feed the American commander parsley. But an 09 Lima standing nearby heard something different: feeding parsley to someone was a reference to an old expression in which parsley was fed to a bird to choke it to death.
"He was pretty much giving an order to have the commander killed," says Smith. "Right there, a life was saved .... You can see just by knowing a bit of slang, being a native speaker, it can make a difference."
The 09 Limas have become so much in demand that U.S. Central Command, Tampa, Fla., which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has asked to extend their deployments. Current mobility regulations prevent it, Smith says, but the Army is working on a package of incentives that would allow the linguists to stay on in the war zone longer than 12 months if they chose to, he says.
Sergeant Madi, the 09 Lima, says he may be just a junior enlisted soldier, but the Army recognizes that it must know its enemy and the populations in which it operates. "There is a thirst to get this knowledge in any way," he says.By Gordon Lubold - TCSM -->
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Air Force says officers fell asleep at nuke switch
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Three Air Force officers fell asleep while in control of an electronic component that contained old launch codes for nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles, a violation of procedure, Air Force officials said Thursday.
The Air Force said the launch codes had been deactivated before the incident, but it was still a violation of protocol, prompting an investigation.
It is the fourth incident in the past year involving problems with secure handling of components of America's nuclear weapons.
The incident occurred July 12, during the changing out of components used to facilitate secure communications between an underground missile-control facility and missile silos near Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, according to Col. Dewey Ford, a spokesman for the Air Force Space Command in Colorado.
One of the parts, a code component, is for storage and processing. It is considered classified by the Air Force.
A code component was removed from the equipment at the remote missile-control facility and replaced with a new code component. That made the old component inoperable, but an Air Force source said old launch codes were still contained in the part.
Under standard procedure, the four-officer crew of the facility is supposed to keep the component secure until it is returned to the base. Ford said the crew took the component to a building above the facility and locked the component in a lockbox.
Then, three of the four crew members fell asleep.
This violated Air Force procedure, which calls for at least two of the crew members to remain awake while in control of the component. At the time they were asleep, the crew and the component were in a locked building that is guarded by at least one armed airman at all times.
It is believed that the airmen were asleep for about 45 minutes or so, according to Air Force officials.
The component was later returned to the Minot base, and the investigations of procedural violations were started by Missile Command, Space Command, the 20th Air Force and the National Security Agency.
The investigation revealed the codes were not compromised, according to the Air Force. The codes had remained secured, and the crew was inside an area protected by Air Force security at all times, the investigation concluded.
The incident, which was first made public by the Project on Government Oversight, was the fourth misstep involving the handling of America's nuclear weapons in the past year.
Last summer, a B-52 flew from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana carrying six nuclear warheads that were not supposed to leave Minot. The crew of the bomber did not know that it was carrying nuclear missiles.
In March, the Department of Defense discovered that nuclear triggers had been mistakenly sent to Taiwan and left there for 18 months before being returned to the United States.
In May, Minot's 5th Bomb Wing failed a crucial security inspection. The wing was the same unit involved in the B-52 incident.
The Air Force said the launch codes had been deactivated before the incident, but it was still a violation of protocol, prompting an investigation.
It is the fourth incident in the past year involving problems with secure handling of components of America's nuclear weapons.
The incident occurred July 12, during the changing out of components used to facilitate secure communications between an underground missile-control facility and missile silos near Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, according to Col. Dewey Ford, a spokesman for the Air Force Space Command in Colorado.
One of the parts, a code component, is for storage and processing. It is considered classified by the Air Force.
A code component was removed from the equipment at the remote missile-control facility and replaced with a new code component. That made the old component inoperable, but an Air Force source said old launch codes were still contained in the part.
Under standard procedure, the four-officer crew of the facility is supposed to keep the component secure until it is returned to the base. Ford said the crew took the component to a building above the facility and locked the component in a lockbox.
Then, three of the four crew members fell asleep.
This violated Air Force procedure, which calls for at least two of the crew members to remain awake while in control of the component. At the time they were asleep, the crew and the component were in a locked building that is guarded by at least one armed airman at all times.
It is believed that the airmen were asleep for about 45 minutes or so, according to Air Force officials.
The component was later returned to the Minot base, and the investigations of procedural violations were started by Missile Command, Space Command, the 20th Air Force and the National Security Agency.
The investigation revealed the codes were not compromised, according to the Air Force. The codes had remained secured, and the crew was inside an area protected by Air Force security at all times, the investigation concluded.
The incident, which was first made public by the Project on Government Oversight, was the fourth misstep involving the handling of America's nuclear weapons in the past year.
Last summer, a B-52 flew from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana carrying six nuclear warheads that were not supposed to leave Minot. The crew of the bomber did not know that it was carrying nuclear missiles.
In March, the Department of Defense discovered that nuclear triggers had been mistakenly sent to Taiwan and left there for 18 months before being returned to the United States.
In May, Minot's 5th Bomb Wing failed a crucial security inspection. The wing was the same unit involved in the B-52 incident.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
48 Billions Dollars in aid to Africa? give me a break!
In what is described as the most ambitious foriegn public health spending program ever launched by the U.S., Congress voted 80-16 to approve a resolution allowing the U.S. government to triple its current spending on aid to Africa over the next 5 years to a staggering 48 billion of taxpayers money to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. I am not against helping other poor nations, but trippling what we're already spending at a time when the average American is struggling to pay for gas and milk is just outrageous. The money U.S. government is planning on spending on AIDS patients in Africa is enough to hand every single cancer patient in the U.S. a hundred thousands dollars in cash, which I am sure can help these needy patients to spend on their cancer treatment and other essential needs.
I think it is time for our government to put Americans first and spend our own resources where it can help our ailing economy, the crumbling infrastructure, and alleviate the suffering of millions of Americans. We spent hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign nations thinking it's serving our national interests overseas but instead it is undermining our social peace here at home by squeezing the poor and the middle class out of more money so our politicians can afford their fantasy spending.
I think it is time for our government to put Americans first and spend our own resources where it can help our ailing economy, the crumbling infrastructure, and alleviate the suffering of millions of Americans. We spent hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign nations thinking it's serving our national interests overseas but instead it is undermining our social peace here at home by squeezing the poor and the middle class out of more money so our politicians can afford their fantasy spending.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
McCain and Obama at AIPAC By James Zogby
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.
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.
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)
