In Politico on Withdrawing from Afghanistan

The Politico Arena ran my response to the question: Can Obama Split the Difference on Afghanistan?:

is a classic, multi-level decision in which the president must mollify multiple constituencies. Afghanistan hawks will be frustrated with the withdrawal, which threatens their fragile gains - but if they complain too loudly they call attention to the reality that if Afghanistan is so fragile then perhaps their mission is hopeless.

The anti-war faction of the president's own party will not be happy, but are they unhappy enough to undercut Obama and risk losing control of the White House (particularly with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives)?

According to Stephen Skowronek's classic "presidential time" Obama is a president practicing the politics of pre-emption. Clinton and his triangulation tactics was the archetype of this sort of presidency. Obama, despite his many stylistic differences with his democratic predecessor is substantively similar. Splitting the difference is standard operating procedure and in general it works pretty well.

One question that must be asked is, "What of Afghanistan?"

By serving as the rock on which the Soviet Union foundered the Afghanis did a favor for all of mankind. For all of the monstrousness of al-Qaeda and its radical Islamic ilk, they are nothing compared to the evil of the Soviet Union. But the Afghanis didn't ask for this place in history and have suffered terribly for it. Are they owed something for this?

Expanding on my remarks, I don't know what the right policy for Afghanistan should be. The cost of this war is draining, and it is not clear how our large presence in Afghanistan is helping Pakistan which is a potential nightmare on an unimaginable scale. Could we scale down to a smaller presence which allows a reasonably well-behaved government and Kabul while also allowing us to smack-down concentrations of terrorists? Perhaps.

I cannot surrender the moral question of, "What about the Afghanis?"

Yes, it is a tough place to nation build, but starting with a tough, isolated location, the tender ministrations of the Soviets for over a decade and then the Taliban - little wonder. A social worker friend observed that families of is clients are often frustrated when he can't resolve problems with a few weeks of therapy. "But," he tries to explain, "it took years to develop the problem."

Also, take a look at Arena newcomer, but old hand at international affairs, Ilan Berman's analysis, which argues that a withdrawal will devastate what remains of US credibility with both allies and adversaries.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:In Politico on withdrawing from Afghanistan

Gore: Another Edition of VP vs ex-VP

Answering the Politico Arenaquestion Does Al Gore have a legitimate gripe with Obama? I wrote:

Al Gore is completely right and completely wrong at the same time. He is right that environmental issues have taken a back seat in the Obama administration. With multiple shooting wars, an economy in a continuing state of free-fall, and a hostile House little wonder that Obama is not devoting his time to the issue.

Ironically, Gore was an extremely influential VP in his day. His personal relationship with President Clinton was critical, but so was Gore's knowing which battles to fight. In the Clinton administration economic issues were front and center, everything else was secondary. As VP Gore did not push environmental issues when the president wasn't interested. As an elder statesman Gore is not constrained by political realities.

VP influence has relied on making sure there was limited public space between the views of our government's two principles. The VP has no bureaucratic power base of his own and Presidents don't need freelancers in the White House. But as an ex-VP, the only influence comes from reaching out to the public. One thing that is fascinating as that anyone cares what an ex-VP says. Throttlebottom would be amazed.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Serious Lessons in the Weiner-Gate Farce: Recent Politico Posts

I've posted a bit in Politico's Arena lately, both in response to a question about Weiner-Gate and a congressional stunt to hold law-maker pay until they raise the debt ceiling. These are not serious issues, but both are linked to more complex and deeper problems (and not just Mr. Weiner's.)


Aaron Mannes on 'Weinergate' a cautionary tale?

Rep. Weiner can claim that his account was hacked (because it is the truth) and this incident will just be a blip. But there are two cautionary tales here. First, as my colleague at the University of Maryland, Professor Jen Golbeck, has written:

"Incidents like this aren't what worry me. The bigger concern is when lawmakers, or other users, don't use proper judgment and intentionally post content that ends up being offensive, a security risk, or politically risky. Because it's social rather than technological, learning what to share and how is a tougher challenge than the security needed to keep out hackers."

At the same, this highlights a cybersecurity issue. Getting access to other people's accounts (email, Twitter, Facebook etc.) is all too easy. Often times, it requires no technical expertise -- access is acquired strictly via the sloppiness of the user.

We don't know exactly what happened that Rep. Weiner's account was compromised. But in a talk at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, Gen. Michael Hayden (former director of both the CIA and the NSA) argued that better cybersecurity practices by individuals would make the internet a cleaner environment.

As a comparison (my words, not his), people who live in bad neighborhoods don't leave their doors unlocked and the internet is a pretty bad neighborhood.

Since the story first broke, Weiner's managed to plunge in deeper by giving evasive answers, lending credence to Prof. Golbeck's point that people need to think very carefully about their behavior online. At the same time, however cyber-security just got more serious as well as the Pentagon just announced that some forms of cyber-attacks could be understood as acts of war. Considering the bottomless capacity for human beings to do stupid stuff - this raises the possibility of all kinds of accidental engagements and challenges. Just a thought.

I also responded to the question: Plus lawmaker pay issue a 'stunt'?

All talk of reducing congressional compensation is political grandstanding. As the great Samuel Huntington noted in his "American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony," Americans distrust complex bureaucracies but a modern society require them in order to function. Congress itself has become such a bureaucracy. The problem is not that members of Congress are out of touch with reality (they are, but in a sense so it everyone - reality is greater then any one person's grasp.) The problem is that the issues they face are extremely difficult.

The United States must get its fiscal house in order. Having so much uncertainty surround the international reserve currency is contributing heavily to the anemic global recovery and rising prices. But political stunts, while they may resonate with the public, do little contribute to the hard work of reforming our massive entitlement programs.

Here again, there is silliness and there is the very serious issue that America's fiscal difficulties are breeding international insecurity - which in turn contributes to our fiscal difficulties, which contributes to international insecurity.

Agnew Reconsidered?

Spiro Agnew is the epitome of the inconsequential VP, who systematically blew whatever opportunities he had to influence policy. Nixon, by some accounts couldn't stand his mere presence. But I am reading Daniel Patrick Moynihan: A Portrait in Letters of an American Visionary - which is really a fun, amusing read. Unsurprising, since Moynihan was a fun, amusing politician.

Moynihan had worked in the Nixon White House, sort of a house intellectual who had seen the collapse of the New Deal Democrats, and had found an intellectual refuge amongst the Republicans. He had some interesting things to say to and about Agnew. He deplored Agnew's aggressive, inflammatory rhetoric - but he seemed to have a certain respect for the man. In this letter to Agnew he wrote:

I have told a dozen colleagues here at Harvard that as a judge of political horseflesh I do not know your equal in American politics today, which is not to say I agree with you about many things, but simply that your judgment about who to have to lunch to talk about the world is in my view pretty damn good. But there are not half a dozen other Republicns who are in any way so disposed and so equipped. You are alone. You have no troops. No one carries on your argument, no one elaborates it, no one initiates comparable and parallel arguments. No journal of any intellectual status is open to your point of view....

If you were to ask my advice it would be this. Cease attacking. Begin talking about the complex problems we must now face... You really can help in this, and I know you would want to do so.

Perhaps just a bit of flattery as Moyhnihan tries to persuade Agnew to tone down his rhetoric? Probably - almost certainly. But now look at this (very lengthy) memo to Ehrichman and Haldeman trying to get the White House to develop a conservative intellectual approach to governance:

....Here permit me a sympathetic word about the Vice President. He alone of administrative spokesmen has sought to take up some of the intellectual issues of the time and to argue the conservative case. But it has been a disaster for the President. Many things the Vice President says are true, at least I would think so. But there does not now exist a spectrum of opinion in which his views are seen to be located in a particular point, a bit to the left of this reasonable person, a bit to the left of that one. Opinion is so concentrated on the liberal left that Agnew's mildly conservative positions are easily portrayed as the voice of the Radical Right. The Vice President has greatly contributed to this by attacking individuals by name. It might be argued that some had it coming to them...but the main point is that the attacks enabled the opposition to the administration to ignore anything of substance he said, and to depict even his most reasoned statements as the frenzied precursors of Fascist Repression....

The Vice President has assembled an advisory group of writers and professors. I have a rough idea of the panel and I would not hesitate to state that for sheer intellectual distinction is head an shoulders above anything any Democratic candidate for President is likely to assemble for similar purposes....

So I am pretty sure that 90% of what Moynihan is writing is an attempt to get Agnew's famously divisive rhetoric toned down. That he throws a fair amount of flattery into the mix is no surprise in the realm of court politics. Moynihan was on to something here. He saw the intellectual collapse of the New Dealers and recognized that a conservative intellectual cadre was needed for the Republicans to displace the Democrats. (This happened, not so much later.) He also recognized that a political spokesman who could articulate complex ideas in simple, popular terms, was needed. (This also happened.) With a bit of seasoning, could Agnew have done it? Was Moynihan trying to both quiet the rhetoric but also initiate a program to "train" Agnew?

Agnew had only been governor of Maryland for two years when Nixon plucked him from relative obscurity and nominated him to the vice presidency. Had he served a bit longer in office, perhaps he would have had a better sense of how to conduct himself. Or, perhaps, Agnew was doing exactly what Nixon wanted as a lightning - that Nixon had no time or inclination for a conservative intellectual project. (He certainly had the brains - Alan Greenspan says Nixon and Clinton were the two smartest presidents he worked with.)

Tough to know - of course Agnew would have been a flawed vessel for any such ambition. He was, as Jimmy Breslin stated, "A magnificent thief," who had payments delivered to the Old Executive Office Building.

Fort McHenry: Always Something New in History

Yesterday, to honor Memorial Day I visited Fort McHenry. I’ve gone there before for Memorial Day it is a fitting and inspiring place to honor those who have served. I missed Sarah Palin’s visit, a regret I shall carry to my dying day.

But I did catch the National Moment of Silence, a bagpiper and taps, staring at the massive flag waving above.



In my previous post on Ft. McHenry, I write about the fort’s fascinating history not only in the War of 1812, but also in the Civil War, when it was Lincoln’s Gitmo. He locked up many of Maryland’s most prominent citizens (who were also southern sympathizers) in order to keep Maryland in the Union and keep Washington DC from being surrounded. I forgot to mention that the star forts, of which Ft. McHenry is one of the most famous, inspired the Pentagon’s five-sided design.

Every visit brings new lessons. I knew Ft. McHenry had been an army hospital in WWI, but learned that it was the birthplace of occupational therapy. I also learned that during the War of 1812 and the Civil War, officers continued to carry swords to as badges of rank and pointers.

I always learn something new, but some things stay the same. There is a stunning new Visitors Center and a new movie about the battle. But when the movie ends, with the Star Spangled Banner the screen still rises to reveal, “that our flag was still there…”

If you are really interested in Fort McHenry and its history look for books by Scott Sheads. He is a ranger there. I met him touring the fort about 15 years ago and when I said I was writer he said he dreamed of writing books about Fort McHenry. Since then, he has (several more then me)! Check them out, here.

Finally, some other Memorial Day thoughts (inspired by movies and the slow fade of generations) are here and here.

My Reax to Obama's Speech

I jumped into The Arena with these thoughts in response to the question: Did Obama lay out a cohesive vision for the Middle East in his speech?

Calling Obama’s address a grand new vision of the Middle East is a bit of an overstatement. The peace process portion will be over-analyzed ad infinitum, when there is very little new in what Obama outlined on that front and it does not meet fundamental Palestinian requirements. The Palestinian Authority isn’t interested in land-swaps!

There were some particularly interesting points, however.

Calls to support development and the rights of minorities and women are encouraging. A presidential statement that these are American priorities is important and hopefully they will be backed by diplomacy. Unfortunately, development will be limited because – quite simply – the United States doesn’t have any money. ($2 billion is only a bare beginning for the level of investment needed.)

The discussion of trade was particularly interesting. Free trade can be important to both economic and political transformation. But the Middle East is not exactly a hotbed of export industries and the American political climate towards free trade is a bit chilly right now. Still, an emphasis on this issue is welcome and could reap important long-term benefits.

It is interesting that throughout the world in places as different as Asia and Latin America, the U.S. has threaded the needle and managed to ally with governments while at the same time pressing them towards greater respect for human rights and freedom. The Middle East has been the great exception. Is this only because of the American preference for stability? There have been limited efforts to foster change (anyone remember the Gore-Mubarak Commission?) They have borne little fruit.

It is good that the president re-affirmed the American commitment to freedom, but the Middle East labors under the weight of its history and culture. Hopefully there is real change for the better coming and the U.S. can help. But we must also be wary that history can take terrible turns.

Finally, Obama’s quoting the Declaration of Independence was welcome. Those words are beautiful and profound. Our lives are richer for hearing them anywhere and everywhere.

Institutional Overview of Israeli Politics

Not long ago I gave a presentation on the Israeli political system at a DC area synagogue. Discussions on politics often focus on policy and/or personality. Israeli politics is full of out-sized personalities and this is often the focus on conversation. Bibi is... Lieberman is... etc.

But institutions, the mechanisms by which decisions are made and decision-makers selected are critical to understanding politics. Israel has a truly unique system which, frankly, contributes to political fragmentation. I tried to emphasize that point in my presentation and in my ongoing effort to shed light not heat, my slides are below.

At the very end, I have a small note of hope!