Bipartisan Elite Agrees -- Surge, 'GWOT' Are Failures (And Hillary's Wrong)
The left-wing blogosphere continues to slam the intellectual dishonesty of media-appointed foreign policy 'experts,' but there are people out there with real experience. A bipartisan group of former government officials has come to some very different conclusions than the pundits: The Surge is failing, the Global War on Terror has gone disastrously wrong, and Hillary Clinton has drawn some badly mistaken conclusions about America's safety.
The journal Foreign Policy and the Center for American Progress have published their annual survey of "America's 100 Most Respected Foreign Policy Experts" - State Department leaders drawn from from both political parties - and their evaluation of the Administration's "Surge" and the "Global War On Terror" is devastating.
The GOP and the media keep telling us that protecting us from terrorism is a Republican Party strength. So how badly is this Republican Administration failing in that effort? 91 percent of this bipartisan group say the world is becoming more dangerous for us and our country. That's up 10 percent ... since February.
Here are some of their other conclusions:
92 percent - in other words, virtually all of them - agree that the War in Iraq has adversely affected our national security. That includes 84% of those who describe themselves as "conservative."
Most (83 percent) doubt that Iran's nuclear intentions are peaceful, but less than 1 in 10 believe we should respond militarily. 8 out of 10 believe diplomacy or sanctions are an appropriate response. (How often have you heard that argument lately on television?)
So, how about that Surge? The report says it all:
More than half say the surge is having a negative impact on U.S. national security, up 22 percentage points from just six months ago. This sentiment was shared across party lines, with 64 percent of conservative experts saying the surge is having either a negative impact or no impact at all.58 percent believe that Sunni-Shiite tensions will have increased in ten years' time.
Only 3 percent believe Iraq will become a "beacon of democracy."
Only 5 percent believe Al Qaeda will be weaker.
Pakistan, for its part, is a nightmare. The report says:
When asked to choose the nation that is most likely to become the next al Qaeda stronghold, more experts chose Pakistan than any other country, including Iraq ... More than half of those surveyed believe the current U.S. policy toward Pakistan is having a negative impact on U.S. national security.
Will the terrorists "follow us home"?
Only 12 percent believe that terrorist attacks would occur in the United States as a direct result of a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. Eighty-eight percent of the experts said that either such a scenario was unlikely or that they see no connection between a troop withdrawal from Iraq and terrorist attacks inside the United States. This line of thinking was consistent across party lines ...
On June 3, Sen. Hillary Clinton said "I believe we are safer than we were." Yet virtually all of these experts say she's wrong, including those who worked for her husband. And her comments this week about those "new tactics" she claims are working were similarly off-base. Sen. Clinton promotes herself as the candidate with the most experience, but experience doesn't bring much value unless a leader also demonstrates good judgment.
To be fair to Sen. Clinton, most experts also disagree with Sen. Obama's statement that he would not negotiate with Hamas, and with Sen. Edwards and others who call for an immediate withdrawal (although the number of experts supporting immediate withdrawal is growing rapidly). And a great majority disagree with Giuliani's contention that the Surge is working and Sen. McCain's assertion that terrorists would "follow us home" if we withdrew.
So why does that new Brookings Institution report suggest that the Surge may be working, if these experts overwhelmingly disagree? As Kevin Drum explains, it's because the report's authors ignored seasonal variations to pretty up what is otherwise an exceedingly grim record. For consultant/wonk types, that's one of the oldest tricks in the book.
Guess who's listed as "spearheading" that report? None other than noted "expert" and alleged "war critic" Michael O'Hanlon.
Not that the "Surge" isn't accomplishing anything. As the New York Times reports, more Iraqis have been driven from their homes since the increase began. Per the Times, "... the United Nations migration office calls (it) the worst human displacement in Iraq's modern history." The Iraqi Red Crescent has reported a doubling of internally displaced Iraqis, to 1.1 million, since the February build-up. That's 100,000 new refugees per month.
A question for Sen. Joe Biden and Michael O'Hanlon: Is this what you guys mean by a "soft partition"?
And a question for the media: Why do we continue to see wildly inaccurate and deceptive prognosticators like O'Hanlon on television day after day, while this bipartisan pool of experts goes unseen and unheard?
A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Agree? I don't see an explicit disagreement.
Handwaving: from everything2.com:
"A hand-waving argument is one used to fill a gap in a proof. If it would be too tediously technical to actually explain the proof, given the time available in a lecture, but it is fairly obvious what line the proof would take, the detail may be skipped by waving a hand and saying in effect, Trust me, it does work if you do it in detail."
One of my math professors often used this term.
Triangulation? She may be triangulating. I don't think she is being cynical about this.
You wrote:
"On June 3, Sen. Hillary Clinton said "I believe we are safer than we were." Yet virtually all of these experts say she's wrong, including those who worked for her husband. And her comments this week about those "new tactics" she claims are working were similarly off-base."
With regard to the June 3 statement, Michael Cooper and Patrick Healy of the International Herald Tribune write:
"The senator, a New York Democrat, was referring to domestic security efforts since Sept. 11, 2001, and not to the consequences of the war in Iraq or President George W. Bush's foreign policy, her advisers say."
This sounds reasonable. You need to demonstrate some evidence that the threat from abroad has changed one way or the other. You also need to identify the specific critics and criticisms which contradict Hillary's statement up till now -- not in the future, because that is not what Hillary was referring to.
Also you failed to mention that Hillary also said that we were not safe enough. Why didn't you include this important qualifying statement?
With regard to her statement about the change in tactics, she was referring to specific areas of Iraq, and was not making any generalization about the 'surge'.
Of course these facts and details don't seem to matter to you as demonstrated by your 'Hillary is Wrong' catch phrase in your post title. So far it is just a baseless opinion and an unsupported swipe at Hillary.
Which candidate is so lucky to have such an effective supporter as you?
Did you follow the links I provided? The experts I cited were referring to the very same topic you mention - domestic security after 9/11. According to the overwhelming consensus view of these experts your candidate's statement was in fact wrong.
I dealt with the flaws in her statement about what's "working" in Iraq in my previous post - including the fact that she reportedly wasn't referring to the Surge.
I don't support any candidate at this point - if and when I do I'll be open about it - but I'm very uncomfortable with the campaign Sen. Clinton has run up to this point. She has taken a number of positions and made a number of statements that are problematic for me (and I believe for many others as well).
Let's examine the debate transcript:
"BLITZER: All right.
Senator Clinton, do you agree with Senator Edwards that this war on terror is nothing more than a bumper sticker; at least the way it's been described?
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D) NEW YORK: No, I do not. I am a senator from New York. I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11, and I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda.
And I believe we are safer than we were. We are not yet safe enough. And I have proposed over the last year a number of policies that I think we should following."
The 'experts' survey reports:
"The world these experts see today is one that continues to grow more threatening. Fully 91 percent say the world is becoming more dangerous for Americans and the United States..."
What she says here is that she believes we are safer here at home than pre-911, but we are not safe enough. If you examine her public record, there is no evidence that she doesn't see a growing threat. She is only asserting that domestic counter-terrorism measures have given us a respite, but are not good enough to preclude a changing threat in the long run.
With respect to the surge, in your previous post you write:
"Although she doesn't mention the Surge by name, and a parsing of her words might exonerate her, she left the clear impression that the Anbar situation was a result of the Surge."
This is just handwaving and your own interpretation. The change of tactics is to stop treating the tribal leaders like Baathist enemies, but rather as allies against a common enemy -- Al Qaeda. Of course different people with different frames of reference will have different interpretations in what this means.
Any self-respecting member of the bipartisan pool of experts on this issue should know that partition and soft partition are not Senator Biden's terms. Furthermore, the Biden strategy for Iraq explicitly states that this particular plan has nothing to do with partition.
Remember...words matter and the use of the term partition in relation to the Biden strategy just confuses people who already don't understand the first thing about this plan - if they did, they would be demanding that it be supported.
Similarly, any said member would also know that the Biden strategy is the only one out there that makes any sense whatsoever and offers the only hope there is for helping the Iraqis achieve a political accommodation that will mark the beginning of the end of the sectarian violence and put Iraq on a path toward stability.
Please also note that the Biden strategy is not about imposing anything upon the Iraqi people and does heavily rely on regional and international support.
Any more questions...comments, insults...?
Sadly, Hillary Clinton has once again put her political career ahead of the nation and the military. Her declaration of the surge succeeding continues to show a politician detached from reality. She has yet to renounce her vote to authorize the war and now tries to get out in front of the White House report, which we know will not give the full, unvarnished truth about the Iraq occupation. Ms. Clinton is constantly trying to find the politically correct position, not doing the right thing and ending this disaster.
Keep in mind also the two so-called war critics and Clinton supporters who preceded her, messers O'Hanlon and Pollack, will most likely be working in a second Clinton administration, as they did her husbands(whom I supported). The facts have smacked them down, and now with the recently released NIE, the letter posted in the NYT by the returning soldiers, and the Peter Pace contemplation, Ms. Clinton has put herself on the wrong side of the issue again. By trying to put herself in a favorable political position, she should have shown her supporters and others to be a craven political actor, not a true legislator/lawmaker/stateswoman making the best decisions on the best information available.
We have had enough of craven politics with the Bush administration. Are we finally at a point in our nations history where we really need to restore to Congress and the White House real statesmen and stateswomen, and sound thinking lawmakers. With the daunting challenges facing America, I would think the answer should be yes. My question to Ms. Clinton is this; "At what point are we, the voting public, going to get the real Hillary Clinton?". We have yet to see or hear from the candidate herself her heartfelt position on this war. She has always tried to place herself in the most politically sound position. Ms. Clinton, at what point does all of the carnage Bush and his people have caused weigh more heavily than your political future. When does the political equation change for you. When is ENOUGH, ENOUGH!!!
A couple of comments about your post. Both relate to John Edwards.
First, regarding Iran: “8 out of 10 believe diplomacy or sanctions are an appropriate response. (How often have you heard that argument lately on television?)” May I recommend you watch John Edwards’ response to the Iran question in the June 3 CNN debate: 2008 NH Democratic Presidential Debate (Part 14)= The question begins at 2:19.
Second, regarding “immediate withdrawal”. The report can be slightly misleading and/or confusing. It says:
“Almost 80 percent of the experts oppose an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.”
“Almost 7 in 10 now support a drawdown and redeployment of U.S. Forces out of Iraq.”
Press Release headline: “Majority America’s Foreign-Policy Experts Now Say That the Troop Surge is Failing in Iraq, call for a U.S. Troop Withdrawal in 18 Months”
Subtle differences? Yes. That’s why I oppose the reference to John Edwards as the candidate who simply, without subtle differences, calls for an immediate withdrawal. I recommend Reengaging With the World from the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs. John supports an immediate partial withdrawal, redeployment of forces, and total withdrawal within 18 months. That position is not inconsistent with the report, although you can argue whether or not the experts would agree with the initial partial withdrawal.
With that in mind, see Top General Likely to Urge Troop Cut from today’s LA Times. The Joint Chiefs “are pushing for a significant decrease in troop levels once the current buildup comes to an end -- perhaps to about half of the 20 combat brigades now in Iraq. Along with support units, that would lower the U.S. presence to fewer than 100,000 troops from the current 162,000.” Isn’t it interesting that for months John Edwards said he would immediately cap the number of troops at 100,000 and then begin a gradual withdrawal?
So, the Joint Chiefs are finally coming around to John’s way of thinking, and he’s consistent with the “experts” on most points. It’s time for people take John Edwards seriously.
Sorry. Links didn't translate. Here they are:
2008 NH Democratic Presidential Debate (Part 14):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRgmmmCLF9A&mode=related&search
Reengaging With the World:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html
Top General Likely to Urge Troop Cut:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-pace24aug24,1,4844233.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&ctrack=3&cset=true
Neo-cons and Bushies hate the idea of having countries like Iraq and Iran become more like US and try to suck down their own oil reserves. They would like to see the middle east put back to the dark ages so that we can keep our middle east oil reserves flowing. Why else distroy Iraq. For what other reason? WMD's? Al-Qaeda? I think not. The Bush administration has but only one agenda. Get rich from middle east Oil. They will use up our country's youth, poor and tax dollars to support their own families. The only question they ask is. "How rich can I get?"
So who are these experts? I would like to know who was involved with this survey. I mean if it were someone like murtha, reid, pelosi, et al then it is no wonder why the results are as they are.
Haven't you heard that the media is Liberal??Hello America wake up before it is way too late.
re: "War settles nothing."
Let's face it...even that is sugar-coating reality. War ALWAYS makes things worse by further inflaming and further encumbering any healthy, rational social interaction that could reconcile the conflict. Social conflicts do not just dissolve away because of some military victory on the field...they are just extended and convoluted. If Western History weren't so distorted in its retelling, this would be obvious on its face. When has a war ever, ever, EVER settled anything except in the very short term?
Revolutionary War - the birth of this great nation.
Hillary joined the occupiers in calling for yet another regime change in Iraq.
Democracy be damned.
Sovereignty be damned.
Bush arms and funds the Vietcong (insurgents), and Hillary thinks the tactic is working. We never tried that approach in Vietnam, maybe it'll work in Iraq.
Hillary helped break Iraq.
Hillary can't be trusted to help fix it.
Because the Media has a liberal bias???
Ya know how they are. :)
AMEN to radlib. I'd even go one step deeper and dirtier and claim that this insane war on Iraq was done to get and secure more tax breaks for the rich. But that this so-called war was done for much more than as a FOR-PROFIT operation for Bush Inc and all its attendant subsidiaries out there is myopic. WMDs? Al-Qaeda connection? They didn't care, and Bush himself most surely didn't care. But a cool extra $100 billion a year for them and their buddies, well, folks, that's real money. And that is also motive.
With all due respect, Mr. Eskow, neither Republican nor Democratic leaders listen to experts unless the experts support their pre-existing opinions. Common sense makes it excruciatingly clear that the war is a disaster of immense proportions, and will create political, social, security, and economic damage for many years to come. No experts are required to make that determination. The power elite in Washington, however, (both Dem and Republican) are so financially tied to the war profiteers that neither party has any interest in the truth. Hillary is fully ensconced with the Dem power brokers in DC, and consequently promotes more of the same. Americans who actually want to see change will have to look far beyond Hillary to find it.
Why? news is a business. businesses are in business to make money. certain types of stories make money, other ones do not.
there's your answer.
I soberly agree with Radlib and the others.
Let us recall once more what (5-Star) General Of The Army (and President) Dwight D. Eisenhower told us ...
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. [...] This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."
And:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Dammit people, "IKE" KNEW. He rose all the way to the top of the Command structure in the United States Army and he EARNED HIS WAY THERE. His military career crossed the boundary from when a military industrial complex did not exist to one that he foresaw in which its "untoward influence" would one day destroy everything.
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war. ... War settles nothing."
Today we are seeing the "untoward influence" of ruthless BUSINESSMEN who have clawed their way into "the councils of government" even to the point of interfering with the military judgment of Generals of nearly-equivalent rank to "Ike" himself. The economic consequences to this country on all fronts have been enormous. The foul of corruption has tied the hands of the most-senior legislators in all Branches to whom we, the people have entrusted the most sacred obligations of government. Money has stoppered-up their ears, and because of it this Republic finds itself in very grave peril.
Loading comments…
Posted August 24, 2007 | 11:53 AM (EST)