Photo of the Day: The Obama team and the Osama bin Laden mission

By Michael J.W. Stickings

An iconic photo currently making the rounds:

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. Seated, from left, are: Brigadier General Marshall B. “Brad” Webb, Assistant Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command; Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Standing, from left, are: Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; National Security Advisor Tom Donilon; Chief of Staff Bill Daley; Tony Binken, National Security Advisor to the Vice President; Audrey Tomason Director for Counterterrorism; John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Please note: a classified document seen in this photograph has been obscured. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Robert Gates: The Bravest Person in Washington?

By Peter Henne

Like many inside the Beltway, I gasped this morning as I read the front page of The Washington Post. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has announced plans to cut "thousands" of positions in the DoD, including numerous contractor jobs and the entire Joint Forces Command. One of the few constants in this region is the defense industry; the expanding federal government resulted in numerous firms specializing in government contracts, especially in defense and intelligence. I suspect that many people in this area--including those who loudly denounce US military spending--secretly assure themselves that, if all else failed, there would still be a contractor's job waiting for them.

I am of mixed feelings about this. As someone who has worked with this industry, I know that government contractors perform valuable services for the government, and make up for shortcomings in the federal hiring process. Also, the Joint Forces Command plays an integral role in ensuring the military services work well together. At the same time, the government has become dependent on private contractors to an extent likely unintended by anyone, and a great amount of money can be saved by stream-lining DoD offices.

I do hope, though, that Gates' brave move--doing what he thinks is right for the country--means Congress will no longer be able to play politics with our defense budget. Previous attempts to focus defense spending on critical items have been stymied by Congressional opposition, as seen in the fight over the F-22 fighter. And Republican Senators have placed holds on crucial Presidential appointees in order to ensure defense contracts are steered towards their states, holds which were withdrawn when the public realized what was happening. With the Senate apparently mired in dysfunction, letting the bureaucrats make decisions like this may ironically be more democratic than letting Senators use our national security to enhance their electoral prospects.

That is not to say politicians will--or should--leave Gates alone. Unfortunately, VA Governor Bob McDonnell and Representative J. Randy Forbes--both Republicans--somehow found a way to blame Obama's domestic policies. But people do get worried when their jobs are threatened; communities have a right to question whether the economic impact of these cuts are worth the savings in federal spending. I can only hope that Gates' initiative will lead to a real debate in this country about defense spending, not more cynical political posturing.

Robert Gates is in the House!

By J. Thomas Duffy

This particular monster can read minds, you see. He knows every thought, he can feel every emotion. Oh yes, I did forget something, didn't I? I forgot to introduce you to the monster. This is the monster. His name is Anthony Fremont. He's six years old, with a cute little-boy face and blue, guileless eyes. But when those eyes look at you, you'd better start thinking happy thoughts, because the mind behind them is absolutely in charge.

It's a Good Life (The Twilight Zone)

No doubt, military-industrial contractors, around the country, will spend the night attempting to summoning Anthony, from the Twilight Zone, pleading with him to wish Secretary of Defense Robert Gates into the cornfield.

Look at all the bad things he's saying, they'll tell Anthony.

Doesn't that make Anthony angry, they ask Anthony, in-between whispers to wish Gates into the cornfield.

Then, they'll down their second/third/fourth martini.

Robert Gates was in the house!

Robert Gates ... In the mother-fucking house!



Speaking at the Eisenhower Library in Abilene, Kan., on the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, Gates let those contractors know;

Robert Gates is in the mother-fucking house!

“Eisenhower was wary of seeing his beloved republic turn into a muscle-bound, garrison state—militarily strong, but economically stagnant and strategically insolvent,” Gates said.

Gates acknowledged that saving money in the defense budget “will mean overcoming steep institutional and political challenges, many lying outside the five walls of the Pentagon.”

Apart from making the case against the alternate engine for the F-35 and more C-17s, Gates raised the alarm over Congress’s resistance to increasing the premiums and co-pays on the military’s health insurance. The Pentagon has attempted in the last several years to make modest increases to the co-pays and premiums in order to bring the health care costs under control, Gates said.

“Leaving aside the sacred obligation we have to America’s wounded warriors, healthcare costs are eating the Defense Department alive, rising from $19 billion a decade ago to $50 billion—roughly the entire foreign affairs and assistance budget of the State Department,” Gates said.

In case tightening collars denied oxygen to their brains, and the contractors were gasping for air;

“Another category ripe for scrutiny should be overhead,” he said. “According to an estimate by the Defense Business Board, overhead, broadly defined, makes up roughly 40 percent of the Department’s budget.”

Gates said the Pentagon’s approach to coming up with the requirements for specific programs and contract must change. Requirements for weapons systems should be based on a “wider real world context,” he said.

And, not to be overlooked, Gates threw down against the Congress;

“For example, should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings, when America’s military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds?” Gates asked in a reference to the congressional push to buy more Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets.

“Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners? Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?”

Here that Congress?

Robert Gates is in the mother-fucking house!

Libby Spencer, over on The Impolitic, knows that Robert Gates is in the mother-fucking house.

I've been thinking about this for the last few months. It's good to see DefSec Gates address wasteful military spending. He takes on all the sacred cows inside the Pentagon including medical benefits and so-called overhead, but I think the big money is in unnecessary equipment.

John Nichols, over on The Nation, knows Robert Gates is in the mother-fucking house;

The question, of course, is whether members of House and Senate -- Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals -- are prepared to recognize that real world context and operate within it.

The fact of the matter is that no discussion of cutting spending, balancing budgets and reducing deficits is serious if it does not include a discussion of how to cut Pentagon waste and abuse.

The Secretary of Defense is ready for that discussion.

Hear that military-industrial contractors?

Hear that Congress?

And Anthony, you ain't got a cornfield big enough, cuz....

Robert Gates is in the mother-fucking house!




(Cross Posted at The Garlic)

The end of DADT? Apparently not. Yet.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent reports what, at first glance, seems to be promising news:

In a major victory for opponents of the military's ban on open homosexual service, Defense Secretary Robert Gates significantly revised how the Pentagon will implement the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, effectively making it difficult to remove a soldier, sailor, airman or marine who does not out himself or herself as gay.

Gates said the changes, endorsed by Joint Chiefs of Staff and vetted by the Pentagon's top lawyer, would add "a greater measure of common sense and common decency" for service members negatively impacted by the law.

It's a start, perhaps, but it's not nearly good enough. After all, the new policy does not effectively end DADT. While it places serious restrictions on the process, servicemen and -women can still be discharged for being gay.

As Keori explains at Pam Spaulding's place, "this is a compromise intended to shut down forward movement on repeal of the ban on LGBT servicemembers. We did this dance in 1993, and based on the actions we've seen recently from the White House, I don't believe for one second that there is any real impetus to repeal the ban.

But we'll see.

At HuffPo, Nathaniel Frank is more optimistic:

In announcing today that it would make it harder to fire gay troops under existing policy, the Pentagon took a major step towards ending DADT. While the President and Pentagon could have gone further, for instance by halting all discharges by executive order or allowing only two-star generals to initiate a discharge (instead the level was set at one-star), the policy is also a federal law, and so the Pentagon is ultimately limited in what it can do to relax the ban.

Today's news marks an admirable first step which could have a real impact on the lives of service members, while leaving much work to be done to ensure full repeal. Most important, the revisions under what's being called the "Obama Rule" are a recognition by the military that openly gay service does not disrupt the force. The military would not have agreed to soften the gay ban (just as it did not agree in 1993) if its leadership truly believed it would harm readiness -- and Secretary Gates said today that the new regulations were created with the "unanimous" support of all the Service Chiefs, even though some have been grumbling about repeal.

It's time, long past time, for Obama and the Democrats to do what needs to be done to put a formal end to this bigotry.

Repeal DADT. For good.

A sign of sanity

By Carl

If you're in the middle of an economic crisis and your own people are hurting and there's no one on the horizon who has anything close to the military hardware you have, then you can afford to let upgrades die:

The Senate voted Tuesday to kill the nation's premier fighter jet program, embracing by a 58-40 margin the argument of President Obama and his top military advisers that the F-22 is no longer needed for the nation's defense and a costly drag on the Pentagon's budget in an era of small wars and growing counterinsurgency efforts.

[...] (Defense Secretary Robert) Gates had depicted the F-22, which was conceived in the 1980s, as a "silver bullet solution" to a high-technology aerial warfare threat that has not materialized. He said other warplanes will adequately defend the country for decades to come, and won support from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Air Force's two senior leaders. But his view was strongly opposed by others in the Air Force and by military contractors and unions that have benefited from the $65 billion program.

A hearty "Amen" to this!

Defense spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product is roughly 20% of the United States budgets in a typical year. I say "typical," because of the outlying domestic stimulus spending this year, which will dwarf defense spending (and watch the right-wing whackjobs now claim "it's such a small number!").

We nearly spend more each year on defense than every other nation on the planet. Combined. Re-read that and think about the implications.

Military power is closely aligned with spending, so that means that if we had to defend our soil against every other country on the planet, right down to Lichtenstein, San Marino and Palau, it would be a fair fight!

The war of the future as it stands right now will be fought using mobile and surgical tactics, smaller forces deployed in smaller areas targeting smaller objectives. That may change, but right now, there is no one on the horizon who can create such a widespread war as to justify the waste of money on a fighter of this caliber.

Except maybe, um, us. And we nearly did cause a war of that magnitude. The lessons of history will probably be written that America came closer to the brink of starting World War III in this generation than any nation ever did. if the start of World War I is any indication, it would not take much of a spark to light the powder keg that Bush in concert with Al Qaeda compiled.

And if history's course is any determinant, aggressors get theirs in the end, usually in swift and painful fashion. It would not have been pretty.

We should applaud Secretary Gates as well as the Senate for having the courage to not take us one step closer to annihilation, militarily as well as economically.


(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

"We do not torture."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So said President Bush in 2005 (when asked about reports of secret CIA prisons).

And yet, in truth, the U.S. does torture.

So says Susan Crawford, the convening authority of the Guantanamo military commissions, a Gates appointee and Bush administration official:

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

*****

Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent... You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.

Qahtani's "interrogation took place over 50 days from November 2002 to January 2003." Which means that Bush, who was ultimately responsible, whether he knew it or not, lied.

The various enablers and supporters of torture, both inside and outside the administration, have defended and continue to defend the use of techniques such as waterboarding, claiming that they do not amount to torture, but it has been clear for a long time, as we know that waterboarding was used on detainees, that the Bush Administration, from Bush and Cheney on down, sanctioned what is widely considered to be torture.

And now we have formal confirmation from no less an authority than the high-ranking administration official who is responsible for overseeing the military commissions and reviewing the treatment of detainees at Gitmo.

(Find more reaction at Memeorandum.)

Gates's people

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So, according to the right-wing Washington Times, Obama apparently wants "many of the Bush administration's 250 Pentagon political appointees to remain on the job until the incoming... administration finds replacements -- a move designed to prevent a leadership vacuum with U.S. troops engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Big deal.

As Steve Benen rightly notes, this was one of the concerns expressed by many of us who opposed (or at least were skeptical of) the move to keep Gates at the Pentagon. We may or may not have been fine with Gates, but we certainly weren't fine with all those Bush appointees.

"The key to remember here is timing," Steve explains. "If we'd learned that Obama and Gates expected to keep Bush's Pentagon political appointees on the job indefinitely, that would be cause for concern. But while the Washington Times glosses over the timeline, we're talking about a short-term process -- Obama and his team will replace these appointees gradually over the course of the year."

And not a moment too soon.

The realities of the world, including two ongoing wars, require a smooth, seamless transition at the Pentagon, one that will necessarily take time. I suppose we just have to accept that.

'At the undersecretary level, you are pretty much hitting the reset button'

By Creature

When the news broke that Robert Gates was staying on as Secretary of Defense I wasn't thrilled but was willing to withhold judgment until we knew what would happen to the people below Gates. That is, the people held over from the ideology-driven Rumsfeld years. Today the Washington Post has the answers and the news is good. According to the transition team many of Gates' top deputies are on their way out the door. Hopefully with that door hitting them on the way out. Good riddance.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Spotlight on National Security Team

By Carol Gee

Things will get less crazy -- Today is a big day for the cause of sanity in U.S. foreign policy. President-elect Barack Obama announced his choices for the new administration's national security team. The news for this post is drawn from foreign newspapers in order to provide a flavor of what those outside our borders are thinking about the Obama team. The sources include The Financial Times, the BBC News, Aljazeera and the International Herald Tribune.

Three "heavyweights" lead the list. And they will need to be big and strong because they could be called upon to lead Obama's promised foreign policy redirection. They could be asked to look at turning some of the U.S. Defense Department's kinetic "swords" into State Department diplomatic "plowshares." It is an amazing possibility, that three who were seen by many as "hawks," would be willing to sign on to such a long overdue shift within the national security enterprise . David Sanger explains in an excellent analysis for the International Herald Tribune. He begins,

. . . all three of his choices — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as the rival turned secretary of state; General James Jones, the former NATO commander, as national security adviser, and Robert Gates, the current and future defense secretary — were selected in large part because they have embraced a sweeping shift of resources in the national security arena.

With the economic crisis in the forefront as the highest priority, the themes running through the group's qualification include bipartisanship, experience, self-confidence, intellect and willingness to speak the truth to power. That means that their strong leadership, informed by Barack Obama's vision, will guide the nation along the right path from early on. Not named, but part of the solution, is former President Bill Clinton, who will be making significant sacrifices to clear the way for his wife's appointment to her former rival's administration.

Of the six choices that were announced today, three are women. Each appointee made a statement, Clinton speaking first and longest. In addition to Senator Clinton, President-elect Obama named Susan Rice as U.N. Ambassador (raised to a Cabinet-level position) and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security. Rounding out the team is Eric Holder as Attorney General. The group is diversity personified, as Holder and Rice are African-Americans. Vice-President-elect Joe Biden was present on stage and also made a good statement reinforcing the sophistication and depth of his knowledge of foreign affairs.

The "Wow factor" is quite astonishing as I think about it. For years I have admired Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Janet Napolitano, and Jim Jones. I have been more recently impressed by Holder's courage and evident constitutional bent, as well as Rice's towering intellect.

The appointments will not be without criticism, as Aljazeera reports. To quote their good story's conclusion,

'Moving backwards'

Critics have told Al Jazeera that the appointments were a move backwards.

"What we're seeing here is that Barack Obama is once again taking us back to the 1990s in terms of the people he's assembling," said Jeremy Scahill, the author of Blackwater.

"It's the old guard people who have been so wrong about so much from the beginning."

However, some say that the old guard blamed for past mistakes have gained valuable experience from those very errors said to have put the US in its current tenuous financial and military situation.

"There's a hope that he is using very experienced people with centrist credentials to drive a very bold, progressive programme," said Robert Borosage of Campaign for America's Future.

Mondays at this blog have usually been set aside for Republican rants, stories of their latest failures, scandals, indictments or trials, and rounding out with a sigh of relief as we are more and more able to say, "Goodbye to all that!" Sanity will be coming back to Foggy Bottom and the NSC. The adults are again going to be in charge.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Obama's foreign policy and national security team

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, here it is.

From left to right (photo: NYT) : Holder, Napolitano, Gates, Biden, Obama, Clinton, Jones, and Rice. (Links to some of our pre-nomination posts.)

Obama still needs to name his top intelligence officials.

Creature is "all for this team," but there's a big if: if this "centrist (arguably hawkish) national security team keeps the right cowed enough" to pursue a progressive foreign policy.

I tend to think Obama's foreign, military, and national security policy will be more progressive than some of the appointments (notably Gates, Jones, Hillary) would suggest.

And, as I argued last week, I don't think Obama is the sort of establishment centrist some of his progressive detractors think he is. What Obama seems to be doing here is picking the right (and, in some cases, the right right-leaning) people to pursue a liberal-progressive foreign policy (including withdrawing from Iraq, re-engaging with the U.N. and the international community, revamping the war on terror, restoring America's standing around the world, promoting energy independence, and combatting global warming). In other words, he is surrounding himself with talented people and doing what is politically necessary to achieve his objectives.

Obama: "I am confident that this team is what we need to make a new beginning for American national security."

Let's hope that it is, and that there will be.

**********

See my posts on Obama and Hillary as a "Team of Allies" here and here, with some additional considerations here.

See also my criticisms of Gates here and here.

For more, see:

-- Carl on Hillary, on the Clinton court, and on criticism from the left.

-- JTD's top ten things about Hillary becoming secretary of state.

**********

'A rebalancing of America’s national security portfolio'

By Creature

Obama introduces his national security team:

[A]ll three of his choices -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as the rival turned secretary of state; Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO commander, as national security adviser, and Robert M. Gates, the current and future defense secretary -- have embraced a sweeping shift of priorities and resources in the national security arena.

The shift would create a greatly expanded corps of diplomats and aid workers that, in the vision of the incoming Obama administration, would be engaged in projects around the world aimed at preventing conflicts and rebuilding failed states.

If picking a centrist (arguably hawkish) national security team keeps the right cowed enough to push this progressive, talk first, talk a lot, bomb never foreign policy then I'm all for this team.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

An argument for keeping Gates at the Pentagon

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm still not terribly thrilled about the prospect of Obama keeping Robert Gates at the Pentagon -- I expressed my displeasure here and here -- but, like Creature, I'm just not all that angry about it. The arguments against it, some of which I noted in my posts, are still valid, but I do concede that there is a good argument for it -- and it comes from Slate's Fred Kaplan, hardly a right-wing wacko, who calls Gates, assuming "the reports are true," "an excellent choice" and Obama's "move... a stroke of brilliance -- politically and substantively."

First, he is good for the military and for national security:

In his nearly two years at the helm of the Pentagon, Gates has delivered a series of speeches on the future direction of military policy. He has urged officers to recognize the shift in the face of warfare from the World War II legacy of titanic armored battles between comparably mighty foes to the modern reality of small shadow wars against terrorists and insurgents.

More than that, he has called for systematic adjustments to this new reality: canceling weapons systems that aren't suited to these kinds of wars and building more weapons that are; reforming the promotion boards to reward and advance the creative officers who have proved most adept at this style of warfare; rethinking the roles and missions of the individual branches of the armed services; siphoning some of the military's missions, especially those dealing with "nation building," to civilian agencies.

Second, he won't "take his reappointment as a mandate for autonomy" or otherwise challenge Obama authority:

Gates is not the freelancing type. Though hardly a passive servant, he spent most of his career as a staff officer. Even as secretary of defense, he has constantly been aware -- and has emphasized many times, in public and private -- that the president is the decider.

Basically, then, if Obama wants Gates, and thinks he can work with him (just he apparently thinks he can work with Hillary), fine. Perhaps we ought to give him the benefit of the doubt -- which is what I have done throughout the campaign (over FISA, for example) and the transition (over Lieberman, for example) whenever I have found myself in serious disagreement with him. Is it stupid to do so? Maybe. But, then, maybe Gates is the right man to reform the military and to extricate the U.S. from Iraq (and to shift the focus back to Afghanistan).

Maybe.

I still don't buy it -- is there no Democrat who could do the job just as well, if not better? are we sure that Gates, not to mention his far more ideological subordinates, will accede to Obama's authority? what if Obama succumbs to Gates's influence and shifts further to the right, abandoning his commitment to withdraw from Iraq and ramping up the war in Afghanistan with no exit plan in sight? -- but I suppose it's a compelling possibility.

Maybe Obama and Gates will prove their doubters wrong. As for me, I just can't quite overcome my doubt.

Gates

By Creature

Battles must be chosen when it comes to Obama's picks. Putting a torture-and-rendition enabler in a top spot, a fight worth having. Robert Gates staying on as Defense Secretary, not so much. It's clear continuity is needed. It's clear, with two active wars, that these are not normal times (though maybe Orwell would disagree). I'm not thrilled, but I'm not angry either. What I'll be watching for is how many of Gates' underlings get to stay (and if they were holdovers from the Rumsfeld regime). That will tell me far more about the deal Obama struck with Gates than the Gates pick itself.

For more on Gates, see Michael's, not as accepting, post below.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

BREAKING NEWS: Gates to remain at Pentagon

By Michael J.W. Stickings

CNN:

Several officials close to President-elect Barack Obama's transition tell CNN that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is expected to stay on the job for at least the first year of the new administration.

One source called it "all but a done deal" that the announcement could come as early as next week.

"It's now pointing in that direction," one of the sources close to the transition said of Gates being part of Obama's national security team, which may include Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.

"It's likely to happen," a second source close to the transition said of Gates staying on.

This source noted that Gates could stay for longer than a year if he and Obama end up working well together.

Well, we'll see if these anonymous sources are right. I suspect they are. This has been rumoured for some time, after all, and, as far as I know, no other names (e.g., Nunn) have been leaked or floated.

As I put it a couple of weeks ago, this is not change I can believe in. Why? Because it's not change at all. Yes, I understand that Obama wants continuity and stability, but Gates is a long-time member of the Republican foreign, military, and intelligence establishment (even if he's nominally an independent). Of course, he's been a vast improvement over Rumsfeld, but the bar was pretty low, and, to me, keeping Gates just means more of the same, specifically, more war in Iraq a ramping up of the war in Afghanistan. (And then there's his past, littered with dirty laundry.)

If I may go off on a tangent for a moment, I have been more than willing so far to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. He is being criticized by some on the left, among the Netroots, for being insufficiently progressive, but, to me, he is being, so far during the transition, admirably pragmatic, not least in building what seems to be a fantastic team around him. In fact, as I put it a few days ago, there are positive signs he could actually be a progressive president, perhaps even a genuinely transformational one. Yes, he supported Lieberman, and, yes, there will be some foreign and military policy hawks around him, but, given his positions on health care, energy, and global warming, his emphasis on diplomacy and rebuilding America's image around the world, and his activist response to the economic and financial crisis, I simply do not think he will govern as a "centrist," which usually means right-leaning, let along from the supposed center-right, unless -- and this is what I hope will happen, in time -- he pulls the center to the left. If anything, he has the opportunity to make liberalism the center once again.

And yet, when it comes to keeping Gates at the Pentagon, I just can't give him the benefit of the doubt. As Chris Bowers points out at Open Left, after all, "keeping Gates on... only worsen[s] Democratic image problems on national security, as he would be the second consecutive non-Democratic Secretary of Defense nominated by a Democratic President [after Bill Cohen by Bill Clinton]. The message would be clear: even Democrats agree that Democrats can't run the military." As well, while Gates may not be a right-wing ideologue, neocon or otherwise, many of his key people certainly -- and they are likely to remain with him at the Pentagon.

In short, this seems to be a terrible move on Obama's part. Maybe it will work out better than expected -- with Obama and Gates not just working well together but working well in the right way and towards the right ends -- but, as of right now, I'm not impressed.

(For more, see the Politico, ABC News, and Reuters, as well as all the reaction at Memeorandum.)

**********

For an interesting analysis of bipartisanship as building an "outside-in" coalition, see Ed Kilgore at The Democratic Strategist:

There is... one form of "bipartisanship" that Bush never took seriously, and that is very consistent with everything Barack Obama has said on the subject. Back in 2001, I described it as an "ouside-in" coalition:

This variety, typically used by incoming Presidents during their "honeymoon" period, involves the aggressive, direct stimulation of public opinion to push members of the opposing party, especially those from states or districts where the President is popular, to come across the line.

This is essentially bipartisanship (or if you wish, post-partisanship) from the ground up, which reaches out to rank-and-file Republicans and independents to mobilize support for big national initiatives. I contrasted this with the "inside-out" coalition -- often known later as High Broderism -- which involves deal-cutting in Washington across party lines.

I raise this distinction partly because it's important in and of itself, and also because it provides the essential context for the decisions Obama makes on appointments. It's one thing to appoint Republicans to positions as a signal that the new administration is interested in a broader agenda of bipartisan deal-cutting in Washington. It's another thing altogether to appoint a diverse team of officials who are all pledged to implement a clear progressive agenda.

For more on this, see Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central. To me, it does look like Obama is building just that sort of "diverse team." The question is whether he is committed to implementing "a clear progressive agenda." He may very well be, and, yes, I retain the hope that he is.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right

By Carl

I've been noticing a disturbing trend arising on the left, practically ever since Barack Obama received the nomination of the Democratic party:

Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.

The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.

"Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning," said Kelly Dougherty, executive director of the 54-chapter Iraq Veterans Against the War.

To quote Captain Jack Sparrow when accused of cheating, "Pirate."

"Politician."

What makes this whinging particularly annoying are a few facts:

1) No one is really giving a good goddamn about the war anymore. It has become so little of an issue that the right wing warhawks, the guys who really want this war, are unilaterally declaring it is over.

Not that it matters much, of course, what a bunch of Cheeto-stained cowards who couldn't get up off their asses and pick up a gun and fight say, but the sentiment is appreciated by those of us who thought long ago the invasion was a horrible idea.

2) It's the economy, stupid.

And I'm not talking about just the stock market tanking or the housing meltdown or the impending depression that's sitting on top of Christmas like a fat bully.

Barack Obama sees what I see, and let me tell you, it's terrifying me.

I see 600 million angry young single Chinese men who don't have brides because of China's ill-conceived (pun intended) population control policies. I see 600 million angry young single Chinese men out of work for long stretches of time.

I see a half-billion starving people on the subcontinent of India and Pakistan, ripe fodder for Al Qaeda.

I see hundreds of millions of starving and angry Africans.

I see interest rates in Argentina of 30-50%.

In short, I see a lot of suffering and a lot of anger. Even change we can believe in only goes so far.

I'm not suggesting. I'm not hinting. I won't be as coy with this as I was with my stagflation predictions: we will be at war within the decade. History insists, and we are doomed to fail if we do not take this lesson to heart.

And since Barack Obama stands a very good chance of being president when that occurs, he needs to have a check on his ego around. He needs people around who are going to stand up and give him prudent counsel when war-like situations arise and help him determine which fights are worth going after and which we can avoid.

No one wants war, except a true warmonger. To call Hillary Clinton or Bob Gates, who has been surprisingly vocal in his assessments of the mess in Iraq, "warmongers" is hardly fair or accurate.

This is the hand we are dealt. The only alternative is to fold, and if we fold on this issue, Democrats may as well fold on everything else, because Republicans will run the show for millennia.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

The Defense of the Nation

By Carol Gee

It will be assured by a well-executed presidential transition plan. The American people are curious about whether current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will be staying on after President-elect Obama takes the oath of office. It looks like there is some possibility that he will, based on these news items: Gates and Danzig? -- A former Navy secretary praises the man whom he might eventually replace. "Obama Mulls Plan to Keep Gates at Pentagon," from the 11/11/08 CQ Politics. To quote:

President-elect Obama is strongly considering keeping Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates in that post for a limited time in the new administration, several sources close to the discussions said Tuesday.

Under the still-tentative plan, former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig would become deputy secretary and take over the job when Gates departs, perhaps after up to one year. Gates has not formally been asked to stay, sources close to the Pentagon and the transition team said. A source close to Gates said he is reluctant but willing to stay on in the short term.

The general in charge of the Missile defense program is leaving his post soon and has prepared a briefing for President-elect Obama, should he want it. Obama has not said what his final views on the subject are, though he has not ruled it out. The story, "General Warns Obama on Missile Defense," is from the 11/12/08 CBS News. To quote the piece's sub-head, "Head Of Missile Defense Agency Says U.S. Would Be "Severely Hurt" If Plan Is Abandoned; Russia Rejects More U.S. Proposals." As for the Middle East war situation, "Obama faces major challenge in Afghanistan/Pakistan," from Juan Cole's (11/12/08) Informed Comment, is one of the very best available current background readings on the subject.

Public Diplomacy as an element of national security has been an abysmal failure under the Bush administration. Here is an example: "USC Study of Alhurra Withheld from Public; Inquiries of Network's Operation Deepen" from the 11/4/08 ProPublica. To quote:

The government board that oversees the US-funded Arabic satellite channel Alhurra has refused to make public an independent study commissioned last year to review the network’s content.

People who have read the study, which was completed in July, described it as highly critical of Alhurra, a four-year-old government broadcasting effort begun by President Bush that has cost U.S. taxpayers $500 million and has been shrouded in controversy.

Bush’s public diplomacy efforts have been widely criticized by Democrats and even within his own party and corners of his administration. It is likely that his successor will review some of the most expensive efforts such as Alhurra which was designed to promote a positive image of U.S. policies in the Muslim world.

Defense acquisition will need an enormous amount of revamping if the following two examples are any indication of how wrong-headed it has been under the Bush administration:

1. "Army Orders Pain Ray Trucks; New Report Shows 'Potential for Death'," is from the 10/10/08 Wired: Danger Room. To quote:
   
   

   After years of testing, the Active Denial System -- the pain ray which drives off rioters with a microwave-like beam -- could finally have its day. The Army is buying five of the truck-mounted systems for $25 million. But the energy weapon may face new hurdles, before it's shipped off to the battlefield; a new report details how the supposedly non-lethal blaster could be turned into a flesh-frying killer.

   The contract for the pain ray trucks is "expected to be awarded by year's end," Aviation Week notes. "A year after the contract is signed, the combination vehicle/weapons will start be fielded at the rate of one per month."

2. "Packs of robots will hunt down uncooperative humans"* comes from the 10/22/08 Short Sharp Science. To quote:
   
   

   The latest request from the Pentagon jars the senses. At least, it did mine. They are looking for contractors to provide a "Multi-Robot Pursuit System" that will let packs of robots "search for and detect a non-cooperative human".
   
   One thing that really bugs defence chiefs is having their troops diverted from other duties to control robots. So having a pack of them controlled by one person makes logistical sense. But I'm concerned about where this technology will end up.
   
   Given that iRobot last year struck a deal with Taser International to mount stun weapons on its military robots, how long before we see packs of droids hunting down pesky demonstrators with paralysing weapons? Or could the packs even be lethally armed?

In conclusion, as Commander in Chief, President-elect Obama will be challenged to restore and repair the U.S. military to full effectiveness. Our professional military has not been well-served by the current Commander in Chief. You can be assured that President-elect Obama would have an entirely different "take" on the last three stories in this post than our current president would have. Though Obama is a "techie," he would likely look askance at deploying pain ray trucks and pursuit robots. And because he is so bright, he would read with fascination my last story: "Scientists Identify Brain's 'Hate Circuit'"* from the 10/29/08 Yahoo! News. To quote:

British researchers say they've identified a "hate circuit" in the brain.

This hate circuit shares part of the brain associated with aggression, but is distinct from areas related to emotions such as fear, threat, and danger, said researchers Professor Semir Zeki and John Romaya, of University College London's laboratory of neurobiology.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo"* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Gates and change

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The WSJ is reporting that "Obama is leaning toward asking Defense Secretary Robert Gates to remain in his position for at least a year, according to two Obama advisers. A senior Pentagon official said Mr. Gates would likely accept the offer if it is made."

I'm sorry, but that's not change I can believe in.

**********

Actually, I don't feel too strongly about this one way or the other. I would certainly like to see Obama start over at the Pentagon, not more of the same, but Gates has done pretty well -- well in absolute terms, but even better relative to Rumsfeld. And I suppose there is a case to be made for continuity.

The problem is, Gates supports an escalation of the war in Afghanistan (more troops) and the continuation of the war in and occupation of Iraq (no timetable for withdrawal). I am much more sympathetic to the former position than to the latter, but what is needed now is fresh thinking. As the WaPo reported yesterday, Obama plans "to explore a more regional strategy to the war in Afghanistan," which is promising, but keeping Gates would be a clear sign that the old ways, the failed ways, are still in play.

What is the deal? A Middle East round-up

By Carol Gee

U.S. forces in Iraq handed over control of another province Thursday. Babil, south of Baghdad, is the twelfth transfer of 18 provinces), Aljazeera reports. Further:

Babil had been the forefront of sectarian violence, including a suicide attack in Hilla, the provincial capital, in March 2007 that left more than 100 Shia pilgrims dead.

. . . Baghdad, Diyala, Salaheddin, Ninawa, Kirkuk and Wasit remain under US control.

Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, according to a (10/21/08) Yahoo! News story, said the United States is reluctant# to alter the Iraq troop draft. To quote:

Washington does not want to alter a draft security pact with Iraq, despite demands for change from Baghdad where the document failed to win support from Iraqi political leaders, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday.

. . . Objections by Iraqi political leaders appeared to be about details rather than the broad thrust of the pact, which is intended to replace the U.N. mandate that expires December 31.

. . . Some Iraqi politicians have expressed reservations over details such as the mechanism for trying of U.S. troops. Only Kurdish groups have so far given the text full support. . . among those voicing doubts in recent days was Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who has yet to speak about the pact in public. . . followers of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr -- strongly oppose the pact, as does the leadership of mainly Shi'ite Iran, which has influence among Iraqi Shi'ites.

. . . Gates said renewing the U.N. mandate was a less attractive option than the SOFA. It would require a vote by the U.N. Security Council that could draw a veto from Russia.

. . . Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari, a member of a Kurdish group that backs the draft, said the pact was unlikely to pass before the U.S. presidential election on November 4.

Wednesday, The Iraqi cabinet "shot down the draft security agreement," according to Juan Cole at Informed Comment. Without cabinet approval, it will, of course not be submitted to Parliament. Pressure from Iran is having a marked effect, says Professor Cole. To quote:

By the time a draft agreement was circulated last week (text courtesy Raed Jarrar), the US military had found itself confined to bases by next June and constrained to leave by 2011; civilian contractors were open to prosecution in Iraqi courts; and off-duty US troops who commit crimes might also find themselves before a qadi or Muslim court judge. There was no mention of long-term bases.

. . . McCain opposes a withdrawal timeline of the sort that Bush has just agreed to.

. . . In all likelihood, Iraq will go to the UN Security Council for a one-year renewal of the Multinational Forces Mandate. But the Iraqi politicians and people are voting, by their reluctance to acquiesce in the Bush/ al-Maliki plan for a SOFA, for something (with regard to the timetable for withdrawal) much closer to Obama's plan.

. . . Obama, in contrast, welcomed the al-Maliki government's called for a withdrawal timetable:

Thursday, Professor Cole continues with another post. To quote:

Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh reacted sharply on Wednesday to comments of US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen last Tuesday that Iraqis did not have much time to pass the agreement and might not understand the full consequences of failure to do so. Dabbagh said, "It is not correct to force Iraqis into making a choice and it is not appropriate to talk with the Iraqis in this way."

. . . One way or another, As of Jan. 1, US troops will not be able to act at will in Iraq but rather will have to get assent from Iraqi authorities for campaigns.

In conclusion, a suicide car bomber in Baghdad narrowly missed killing the Minister of Labor. At least 11 other lives were lost in the car bomb violence.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are betmo* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

National security items need continued scrutiny

By Carol Gee

The Bush administration's "Four Mikes and two Roberts" deservedly draw my regular scrutiny, and that of a number of important "big" bloggers, as well as an award winning NYT reporter. Scrutiny is mostly focused on government secrecy, national security and the rule of law. Today's post is a round-up of a few of the most interesting current news items, beginning with an excellent overview of the way these three issues come together: "Subsidizing Corporate Crime & Rewarding Constitutional Abuse, posted on April 24, 2008 by "dandelionsalad."

FDL Book Salon on a fine reporter's work regarding the rule of law: "emptywheel" writes on Eric Lichtblau's book, Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice. To quote:

Like a lot of people, I first really discovered Eric Lichtblau when he and James Risen exposed Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. . . Lichtblau reveals many new levels of details about the Administration's repeated use of paranoid levels of secrecy to hide the dubious nature of many of its counter-terrorism programs.

The Four Mikes -- Admiral Mike McConnell is the Director of National Intelligence. Former Judge Mike Mukasey is the Attorney General. Former U.S. Attorney Michael Chertoff is the Secretary of Homeland Security. General Mike Hayden is the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The Two Roberts -- Former U.S. Attorney Robert Mueller was appointed to a 10 year term as FBI Director just a few days after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Former College President Robert Gates is the Secretary of Defense, where Douglas Feith* worked during the earlier years of the administration.

These six men hold tremendous power over us all, for both good and ill.

Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence -- Since the first of last year, the DNI has been leading the charge for Congress to make changes to the laws governing government spying. [Previous DNI posts: DNI also has been known to distort the truth; power to the wrong people; and a McConnell Primer on intelligence]. But not everything has gone the Director's way recently. Legislation is stalled in the House of Representatives. From TPM Muckracker comes the headline "GOP Still Pushing Retroactive Immunity for Telecoms," by Paul Kiel - April 25, 2008. One of the illegal spying cases seems to be going against the government. Wired-Threat Level headlined, "NSA-Spied-On Lawyers Get Day in Court and New Yorker Profile. Another government loss in court is reported in this story: "Court: Government Must Reveal Watch-List Status to Constantly Detained Americans," By Ryan Singel, April 24, 2008.

Mike Mukasey, Attorney General, Dept. of Justice: [Previous AG posts: Mukasey admits lie (1) also lies (2); Mukasey and the Fourth Amendment; Mukasey and wiretapping (1) also (2) also (3)]. A letter to Congress claims that intelligence operatives can still legally use prohibited interrogation methods to thwart terrorist attacks. Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com (4/27/08) discusses how Senator John McCain and the Military Commissions Act make this assertion possible. To quote:

That law pretends to compel compliance with the Conventions, while simultaneously vesting the President with the power to violate them -- precisely the power that the President is invoking here to proclaim that we have the right to use these methods.

. . . McCain supported the MCA knowing that the President retained virtually unfettered discretion to decree that the interrogation methods we were using that are widely considered in the civilized world to be torture could continue. . . despite his media-sustained reputation as a righteous, principled opponent of torture, much of these disgraces are the direct by-product of John McCain's work.

Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security: ". . . a fingerprint is hardly personal data" -- [Previous HSA posts: On surveillance (1); and (2); wrong people for Katrina; On torture]. Canadians seem to have a much more firm regard for civil liberties than what has emerged in the Bush administration. Chertoff wants to "share databases of international air travelers' fingerprints with the Canadians, Brits and Aussies." (Source: WaPo) At Firedoglake -- by Christy Hardin Smith (4/25/08), "Make Civil Liberties Concerns A Priority? Blame Canada!" To quote:

Poor Michael Chertoff, wanton god of safety, debonair trollop of anti-terror, and man with a mission that has no room for a regard for individual liberties and the rule of law, has run into a speed bump of sorts on his quest for power . . . Those wacky Canadians clearly didn't get the memo that staying true to your founding principles or holding fast to the rule of law and ethics are so 1776.

Michael Hayden, CIA Director: "CIA Stonewall: Agency Won’t Release 7,000 Documents Related to Torture Program" (4/27/08). Though General Hayden was the one who revealed the existence of the CIA interrogation videotapes, there is still a fierce battle to keep the torture program's details a secret. Douglas Feith had a hand in setting up the interrogation system. Berkeley is letting him go. Hayden is left with all the mess. TPM Muckracker reports, *"Feith Loses Teaching Gig," by Paul Kiel (4/24/08). (See also Think Progress on Feith's torture stance distortions.)

FBI -- Robert Mueller, Director: TPM Muckracker -- "The FBI's Hands Off Approach to Torture," by Paul Kiel (4/24/08). FBI wants widespread monitoring of "illegal" Internet activity by dandelionsalad's Anne Broache (4/25/08).

National Security does not take care of itself. Protection from attack and protection of constitutional civil liberties needs continued congressional, press and citizen scrutiny. With a concluding perspective with just a bit of helpful humor, Ryan Singel of Wired Threat Level wrote this great little story on 4/25: "Which Gov Agency Should Be Your Computer's Firewall?" To quote (Singel's links):

First the NSA says it needs to examine every search and email on the internet to prevent an e-9/11 attack, then President Bush signs a secret cyber-security Presidential Directive to make that possible, while the Air Force has set up a cyber warfare division where cyber-security is played like a game of Space Invaders.

Not to be left out on the cybarmegeddon! action, the Department of Homeland Security plans to spearhead a "Manhattan Project" attempt to secure the internet. But there's no way FBI chief Robert Mueller is gonna let DHS honcho Michael Chertoff have all the bits, so this week he told a House committee that G-Men need to be living in the tubes, too.

Trends could be improving in the civil liberties protection area. Some in Congress have dug in their heels regarding the laws. There have been some favorable court decisions. More and more secrets have been revealed. Neocons have resigned. And the cold light of day shines increasingly on the breaches and problems thrown up by the current administration. And this is the year that Democrats could get their chance at reform.

References: South by Southwest Label "Civil Liberties or security."

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Which way for U.S. diplomacy?

By Carol Gee

State Dept. under funded and under staffed -- Who gets the money illustrates where the priorities have been placed by our government. National military defense has a far higher value to the country than international relations and peacemaking. The United States Department of State often people to do its work. It has had to hire contractors to provide security for State workers in Iraq and elsewhere. And some of the regular diplomatic worker slots have has to be filled with military personnel. Increased interdependence between State and Defense is more and more a fact of life. There is also a rising transfers of funds between the two agencies.

Interagency partnering with Defense Dept. is new -- Is this the forerunner to a kind of "Goldwater Nichols Act" reorganization of the non-military agencies? Tuesday on C-SPAN, the House Armed Services Committee Hearing on State and Defense Department Interagency Partnership was chaired by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO). Testifying before the committee were Sec. of Defense Robert Gates, Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice, and Adm. Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. To quote The Washington Post story:

Presenting an unusual combined front against skeptical lawmakers, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pressed Congress yesterday to extend and make permanent a set of initiatives to train and equip foreign security forces and deploy civilian experts alongside the U.S. military.

The programs, part of a proposed Building Global Partnerships Act, involve the flexible use of Pentagon funds for traditional State Department activities in foreign assistance -- an arrangement that Gates and Rice praised as an innovation in interagency cooperation but that lawmakers questioned as "ad hoc" and "stopgap."

. . . Gates and Rice said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan underscore the need for more flexible spending authority that blends the strengths of both departments -- emphasizing the disparity between State's responsibilities and its resources.

Rice pointed out that the Foreign Service is about 6,500 strong, about the same as the number of musicians in military bands. Gates castigated Congress for not giving State "the resources or the power to be able to play the role as the lead agency in American foreign policy."

So far swords out-compete plowshares -- There is a huge disparity between what the U.S. currently spends on the military vs. what it spends on diplomacy. To quote the State Department's 2008 budget figures (Total: $11.949 billion):

The FY 2008 budget request for all State Department appropriations totals $10.014 billion, not including additional FY 2008 funding requested for the Global War on Terror. These appropriations fund the programs, operations, and infrastructure essential to conduct U.S. diplomatic and consular relations in more than 180 countries. They also support vigorous U.S. engagement abroad through public diplomacy and international organizations.

. . . For FY 2008, State requirements total $1.935 billion, including $1.882 billion for the full year of the extraordinary costs associated with operating the U.S. Mission in Iraq, including continued expansion of the PRTs.

Defense always wins appropriations competition -- The 2008 Budget of the Defense Department is somewhat larger (98.2%) than that of the State Department (1.8%). The President’s 2008 Budget for Defense (Total: $623.1 billion). To summarize from the OMB:

• Provides $481.4 billion for the Department of Defense’s base budget—a 62-percent increase over 2001—to ensure a high level of military readiness as the Department develops capabilities to meet future threats, defends the homeland, and supports the all-volunteer force and their families;


• Supports operations in the Global War on Terror by providing an additional $93.4 billion in supplemental funds for 2007 and $141.7 billion for 2008, including funds to accelerate efforts to train and equip Iraqi and Afghan Security Forces;

Truth about lack of security laid bare -- Once again, not enough civilians in the diplomatic corps are willing volunteer to go to the most dangerous places in the world. Amanda at Think Progress discussed the personnel dilemma that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been facing. Rice is considering making attendance compulsory. And she feels offended at the reluctance. To quote:

The State Department’s “looming crisis” stands in stark contrast to statements made by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a House Armed Services Committee hearing today, during which she took umbrage at the suggestion that foreign service officers don’t want to serve in Iraq. She said that comments by diplomats who protested the forced assignments last fall were “offen[sive]” and “cast a very bad light on the foreign service.”

Culture wars, perhaps -- Is elitism the problem or natural and normal fear for one's own personal safety? Iraq has become the perfect illustration of what happens when military dollars always win out over diplomatic dollars. The areas of strife around the world, and particularly those in the Middle East do not have enough security for unprotected civilians to do their work effectively. TalkRadioNews put a slightly different interpretation on Rice's remarks:

Rep. Hunter caused a bit of tension when he criticized the “culture of the State Department.” Comments that he made were based on a “town hall meeting” where foreign service officers complained about the idea of being forced to accept high risk assignments in Iraq. He said thousands of military members serve willingly in Iraq and Afghanistan, but was disappointed that the State Department had a hard time filling 47 spots in the Green Zone of Baghdad.

This prompted a heated response from Rice who defended the Foreign Service and said that she has had more than enough volunteers to serve in conflict zones and that certain diplomats, already serving in high-risk assignments, were offended at such an attitude.

National security demands both swords and plowshares -- A year ago Foreign Policy in Focus' Lorelei Kelly authored an excellent background piece on the big picture issues regarding this question, "Unbalanced Security: The Divide between State and Defense." She closes with this:

Our nation sits at a crossroads. Today, both human security and state security must be seen as mutually beneficial, not as tradeoffs.

Advocacy organizations, academics and even the military itself have made the case that we must realign our understanding of national security in the post 9/11 world and allocate resources accordingly. Until our elected leaders decide to act, however, all the rhetoric about prevention, peacebuilding and civil society support are just good ideas with lip-service on top.

There needs to be a far better balance between military and diplomatic spending by Congress. Tuesday's hearing is good cause for optimism that, at least people are being forced to think outside the box. The military needs to be freed up to do its thing and the diplomats need the increased clout to do their thing. We do not need to do it this way for another 100 years. That is just crazy.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)