Iraq and Terrorism

The Wall Street Journal has offered up free portions of the “Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy, and Operational Considerations” (or in other words, the legal boundaries of “successful interrogations” of “[unlawful] enemy combatants”).

It’s 49 pages long, and the best bits have been reported in the press, but this part jumped out at me:

(U) Any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogation of unlawful combatants would violate the Constitution’s sole vesting of the Comander-in-Chief authority in the President. There can be little doubt that intelligence operations, such as the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants and leaders, are both necessary and proper for the effective conduct of a military campaign. Indeed, such operations may be of more importance in a war with an international terrorist organization than one with conventional armed forces of a nation-state, due to the former’s emphasis on secret operations and surprise attacks against civilians. It may be the case that only successful interrogations can provide the information necessary to prevent the success of covert terrorist attacks upon the United Sates and its citizens. Congress can no more interfere with the President’s conduct of the interroration of enemy combatants than it can dictate strategy or tactical decision on the battlefiled. Just as statues that order the President to conduct warfare in a certain manner or for specific goals would be unconstitutional, so too are laws that seek to prevent the President from gaining the intelligence he believes necessary to prevent attacks upon the United States.

(U)As this authority is inherent in the President, exercise of it by subordinates would be best if it can be shown to have been derived from the President’s authority through Presidential directive or other writing.

Read more

Samuel Johnson noted that “Life cannot subsist in society but by reciprocal concessions.”

Iraq’s Kurdish leaders seem to understand that, and, despite being so much closer to having the pieces in place to make democracy work than the rest of the country (and plenty o’ oil), they continue to compromise toward a unified, democratic Iraq, including “concessions in the interim Constitution over the oil-rich city of Kirkuk [and] acceptance of a new government with no Kurds in top positions.”

But while the US and other nations of the UN Security Council congratulate themseleves on their unanimous vote yesterday, the concession it took to get there may just be the one the Kurds are unwilling to make.

As William Safire notes in his column today:

In his eagerness for the approval of the Shiite religious leader — and driven by desperation to get yesterday’s unanimous U.N. resolution in time for the G-8 meeting — President Bush may be double-crossing the Kurds, our most loyal friends in Iraq.

[…]

In February, the Iraqi Governing Council, which included all religious and ethnic groups, hammered out its only memorable work: a Transitional Administrative Law, which laid the groundwork for a constitution to be adopted later by elected officials in a sovereign state. Most important for Kurds, who have long been oppressed by an Arab majority, it established minority rights within a federal state — the essence of a stable democracy.

But as the U.N. resolution supporting that state was nearing completion, the Shiite grand ayatollah, Ali al-Sistani, suddenly intervened. He denounced the agreed-upon law as “legislated by an unelected council in the shadow of occupation.” He decreed that mentioning it in the U.N. resolution would be “a harbinger of grave consequences.”

The U.S. promptly caved. Stunned Kurds protested in a letter to President Bush that “the people of Kurdistan will no longer accept second-class citizenship in Iraq.” If the law guaranteeing minority rights was abrogated, Kurds would “have no choice but to refrain from participating in the central government, not to take part in the national elections, and to bar representatives of the central government from Kurdistan.”

Now there’s one big deterence to the Kurds forming their own government, and that’s Turkey’s promise to smash it to bits if they do. However, the Kurds may just be willing to risk that, and they may just be stronger than anyone thinks they are. Consider the following from Bartle Breese Bull’s opinion piece in the Times today:

Read more

Daniel Drezner writes an essential piece on what is wrong and what is right in our invasion and occupation of Iraq. The key graf is, I think, the final one:

The craft of foreign policy is choosing wisely from a set of imperfect options. While flawed, the neoconservative plan of democracy promotion in the Middle East remains preferable to any known alternatives. Of course, such a risky strategy places great demands on execution, and so far this administration has executed poorly. It would be a cruel irony if, in the end, the biggest proponents of ambitious reform in the Middle East are responsible for unfairly discrediting their own idea.

(via Matthew Yglesias, who notes that he’s been saying much the same thing, and is being (unjustly, I think) torn up by his commenteers.)

Drezner and Yglesias are essentially correct, although I would offer one caveat. We should not expect to establish democracy with one mighty blow, or claim that we could’ve erased a thousand years of history if only we had devoted one more armored calvary division. The invasion of Iraq may be justified in order to protect ourselves or our allies, but it cannot be justified on the hope that it will remake Iraq or result in the kinky execution of a reverse domino theory — that Iraq’s liberalization will cause other regimes in the region to also liberalize.

* * * * *

Indeed, wars do not create democracies — as we should have learned from the World Wars and, more recently, from our experiences in the Balkans.* Rather, long periods of stability and growing prosperity make democracies.

We prepared for the Iraq war, but not its immediate aftermath. That latter failing cannot be undone; now we must make do. But, if we do muddle through this period, there is another challenge still looming, and we have not yet decided how we will face it. This is the challenge of sustaining the growth and stability we hope to establish. This is the challenge of not only making, but keeping, Iraq as a friend.

This means, perhaps, preferring more expensive Iraqi oil to a cheaper Saudi alternative; continuing to invest in Iraq’s infrastructure — it’s roads, bridges, harbors, oil fields. It means giving tax credits to companies that do business in Iraq. And, most importantly (and most difficult for some to swallow), it means making real progress on the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

Yup, that’s right: If we do not take steps to resolve the Israel/Palestinian conflict, we will find any popular government that emerges in Iraq to be against our single most important ally in the region, and on the wrong side of the single most important regional political issue.** This is not a recipe for long-term stability (at least as a democracy).

So, this is our task, now: peace in the Middle East. Let’s get to it, Mr. President; it’s likely not going to happen overnight.

When you dream, dream big (I suppose).

Read more

In response to my rant about why we cannot fail to bring Democracy to Iraq, Constant Reader Dave Schuler writes:

I completely agree with every sentiment. But how?

You don’t believe in warming up with an easy question, do you Dave? ; ) Well, if I’m gonna pontificate, It might become me to give this a stab anyway.

How do we ensure democracy is delivered to Iraq?

There are obviously many aspects to this, but two jump out at me, so I’ll start this off with those. But, by way of introduction, let me note that I’m a strong believer in something Bill Cosby said about answering tough questions that children ask (you know, about sex or babies, etc). Mr. Cosby’s philosophy was that “If they’re old enough to ask the questions; they’re old enough to hear the answers.”

Read more

Choice 1:

If you’ve had your fill of bad news from Iraq, Sullivan links to two reasons to be be optimistic: U.S. Forces Move Into Stronghold Of Cleric and G.I.’s Report Killing 36 Insurgents Around Kufa Mosque That Held Arms (kinda like a Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musical, isn’t it? Gee Golly, that is Good News!)

Honestly, I think it’s gonna be a horse race to the June 30 finish line with CalmInTheStreets barely a nose ahead of BubblingTurmoil (if we’re lucky), but regardless, I predict after that violence in Iraq will continue until another ruthless dictator rises to instill enough fear to control things. The constitution doing as much to ensure domestic tranquility there as it has in Afghanistan. Hope I’m wrong, but don’t see any reason to suspect I am at this point.

Choice 2:

Retired General Anthony Zinni appeared on 60 Minutes last night flogging his soon-to-be-released book “Battle Ready” (co-written by Tom Clancy, no less). His interview provided a hint of what to expect in the book:

Read more

I guess its fitting that today, as the 9/11 Commission begins hearings in NYC, my office building had a full evacuation rehearsal today. There was a time when such drills met choruses of groans and saw people hiding in conference rooms to avoid having to file down the staircases and out into the streets. Now, however, there’s a much less grudging compliance, accompanied by stories of friends and relatives who escaped one of the WTC towers and how these drills are not so bad after all.

Read more