Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘United States’ Category

In bare-knuckle fight, leadership needed

Posted in foreign policy, Middle East, United States on April 10, 2011|

Originally published in the Rutland Herand and Barre Times-Argus

Many American independents voted for Barack Obama in 2008 because they thought he was the smartest Democrat available. They put him in office. Given what we were facing in the aftermath of the incredibly profligate and counterproductive Bush presidency, smarts were what were needed.

Many voters figured he was smart enough to successfully lead the Democrats against what was bound to be a single-minded, ruthless Republican onslaught intent on retaking power in Washington.

Many in the political center hoped in 2008 that Obama understood that he was taking over the helm of a Democratic Party on the cusp of a particularly virulent philosophical and political war with the Republicans. They hoped he would provide the kind of leadership required to protect moderates from the core beliefs and philosophies of the American social, economic and political extremes.

Unfortunately, he has done none of this. He has sailed blithely into his presidency as if it were simply another Ivy League old-boy’s session, persuaded that well-intentioned people would surround him in Washington and that reason would prevail.

Well, guess what! Washington is not populated by reasonable people. It is run by power-hungry career politicians who don’t fret about bending the rules and who sleep well when they break them.

This is not a loving family picnic. In fact, it is a no-holds-barred, bare-knuckle fight to the political end. For today’s Republicans, that means consigning the Democrats to the political trash bin for as long as humanly possible, preferably forever.

It’s wonderful and touching to hear Democrats tell us about taking care of the disadvantaged, the elderly and the sick. But that’s not a viable strategy for 2012. That’s a plan that sold in the past when times were far different and we had the luxury of being willing to stick to our core principles and beliefs.

Now, given our economic and fiscal realities, it’s all about jobs and money and if you look closely, you will see that while the Republicans are offering new and radical ideas for change, the Democrats, under Obama’s leadership, are offering today’s status quo. Unfortunately for them, the preservation of our entitlement programs, as written, is not going to be a winner in 2012.

It is inconceivable that the leader of the Democratic Party would simply continue to preach compromise when the Republicans are prepared to do and say anything, however outrageous or unprincipled or half true, that will weaken his chances for re-election and make his party even more irrelevant.

So, in the interim, and lacking any brilliant, innovative or hopeful new proposals or initiatives from the supine congressional Democrats, what can Obama do? So far, under his leadership, all the Democrats are doing is trying to maintain as much of the status quo as possible. Without attendant prosperity and economic well-being, that is not the basis for a viable election campaign.

Before the 2012 elections, the president needs to convince his supporters that he is not a dilettante sitting on the sidelines, waiting for his political enemies to “compromise.” He needs to come up with his own concrete initiatives that will address the country’s existential issues, rather than waiting to react negatively to provocative Republican proposals.

He and his party might start with concrete proposals for the modification of Social Security and our other increasingly economically non-viable entitlement programs, to make them capable of surviving this century in ways consistent with his party’s principles.

Could Democrats propose an entirely new, infinitely more equitable approach to taxation?

Our military establishment, designed to fight the great land wars of the 20th century, is poorly designed to fight the kinds of struggles that now face us. If we had the right model, which Democrats could design, it would not only be far more effective, but would cost us billions, perhaps trillions less than our present military establishment. In light of our national interests and financial situation, can we afford not to change?

In that context, could we consider wholly new proposed policies for terrorism and for the Middle East to replace those that have failed us for years? By any rational measure, we are not heading for successful conclusions to our ongoing adventures in that region.

The Democrats look bereft of helpful ideas. They propose nothing new, preferring to cling to past programs that, even they will acknowledge, need to be modified to survive. They are being beaten to the draw every day by a hungry, purpose-driven, unprincipled Republican Party that has far more on its agenda than a re-do of Social Security.

That’s the kind of situation that can best be reversed by presidential leadership and we haven’t seen much of that coming from this White House.

Read Full Post »

Don’t Go Overboard on the ‘Safety’ Response

Posted in intelligence, terrorism, United States on January 27, 2011|

[Originally published in the Randolph Herald.]

In 1775, Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

The recent tragic events in Arizona have caused some American legislators to consider whether or not we should be paying more attention to some of the more important people in our country with a view to protecting them from the armed crazies who would try to kill them.

Before we plunge headlong into that activity, it might be useful to consider some of the ramifications of any course of action that is purportedly designed to increase safety.

First, you can be safe, or you can be free. You cannot be both. In the process of acquiring safety, you will have to give up some of your freedoms, and they are not easy to retrieve.

Just think back on the immediate post-9/11 period when our government, in an attempt to improve our security, passed the Patriot Act and amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, both of which directly impinged on Americans’ civil liberties.

The ACLU summarized our losses under that legislation quite succinctly. Overnight we got: wireless wiretaps; statutory authority for the government to get a court order to come into your home without your knowledge and even take property without notification; the ability of the government to obtain many detailed, personal records including library and bookstore records, financial and medical records, and Internet communications without probable cause and without meaningful judicial review.

For those records that could be obtained using “national security letters” there was no judicial review at all. Finally, changes to immigration regulations and the President’s claimed authority to detain “enemy combatants” sanctioned indefinite detention without criminal charge and without meaningful judicial review.

In March 2002, we were given a color-coded terrorism threat advisory scale—green, blue, yellow, orange, red—which had no objective criteria and therefore could not be accurately evaluated. It was a massive government CYA operation that had absolutely no positive outcomes for us or our security. It served only to show that the government was at least doing something about our security.

At the same time, it kept us on perpetual edge and fostered an environment in which additional “security measures” would be more readily accepted, making the population more susceptible to the Neoconservative concept of the “Long War”.

If you want the closest thing you can get to total security, you need to look at the old Soviet model. In that system, a police state was set up, not to provide security, but to remove liberty and opposition to the state. Over the years, informing on others became so ingrained in the people that the elaborate Soviet informant system evolved. Everyone was expected to report anything different to the KGB. That system did a pretty good job of insuring security for the people, but it also completely removed their civil liberties.

If you drive south on I-95 in Maryland you will see widely distributed overhead signs erected by the state’s terrorism tip line (800 number provided) encouraging you to “Report Suspicious Activity”.

Our airports, railroad stations and bus terminals are filled with reminders to report suspicious activity and suspicious packages.

The Department of Homeland Security has provided us with the “Eight Signs of Terrorism,” which urges reporting “suspicious” activities. DHS has also produced a video to outline those signs and provides an elaborate format for reporting them.

On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with any of these measures. Our federal state and municipal governments would be foolish not to try to enlist its citizens in the struggle with terrorism. Any US citizen would be derelict not to report any activity he or she sees as part of an impending terrorist attack.

The problem is that all of these post 9/11 laws, measures and policies have led and will continue to lead to a diminution of our civil liberties. Once you get momentum in that direction, it’s really hard to pull back. Ask anyone who has lived in a totalitarian state.

It’s your choice, free or safe. You can’t have both.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA Station Chief who served in East and West Europe, the Middle East and as Chief of the Counterterrorism Staff.

Read Full Post »

Getting emotional about Yankee

Posted in United States on January 2, 2011|

[Originally published in the Barre Times-Argus.]

During this year’s biennial elections, the relicensing of Vermont Yankee became, cynically and unfortunately, a part of the political discussion. Quite probably, this was in the hope that it would boost the political prospects of some individual candidates and that its relicensing would ultimately succumb to negative political pressures.

Lodged somewhere in the collective psyche of many Americans is an almost pathological fear of all things nuclear. It may relate to anything as powerful or poorly understood as nuclear energy, or to the disasters at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Or it may be part of collective American guilt over having razed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Many who share this aversion to nuclear enterprise in any form are unalterably emotionally committed to fighting everything nuclear from the production of weapons to the generation of electricity. With the possible exception of medical technology, there is nothing good for true believers in any nuclear application.

Whatever is behind it, the political, antinuclear mindset is playing a powerful role against the relicensing of Vermont Yankee.

On the other hand, America is a capitalist country in which profit and all its benefits play a critical role. It is in Entergy’s financial interest to extend its license to operate Vermont Yankee for another 20 years. In arguing its own position, Entergy cites the relatively low cost of electricity to Vermont, state taxes paid, jobs produced and, in terms of climate change, zero greenhouse gases. Vermont companies and individuals needing low-cost energy to remain competitive are clearly involved in a ramped-up TV campaign to support these positions. These arguments are valid. But are they really important?

In our current discussion of Yankee relicensing, we are playing a role in the ongoing debate about climate change. Whatever we decide to do, all of the economically feasible, green alternatives available to us can only provide, at absolute best, about a third of our energy needs. That leaves fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) and nuclear as the only candidates to fill the remaining two-thirds.

This is not an argument for relicensing Yankee; it is a suggestion that nuclear is is a suggestion that nuclear energy is definitely in our future if we truly want to deal with climate change, our reliance on foreign energy sources, our balance of payments, our standard of living and satisfying our energy needs.

Yankee aside, would our anti-Yankee advocates be prepared to accept a new nuclear power plant in Vermont? How about on the shores of Lake Champlain or again on the Connecticut River, or one of each? Or would it, in true Vermont fashion, have to go into someone else’s backyard?

Coincidentally, with our NIMBY view of the world, how are we progressing on more benign green energy sources? Will the wind turbines prevail in Vermont? Will we license additional wood-chip plants? Will we continue to remove energy-producing dams in favor of migrating fish?

The problem with Yankee, and probably ultimately with any future discussion of nuclear energy, is that all the wrong issues are being raised. The real issue is not one of jobs or taxes or climate change or nuclear energy itself. The only real issue is one of safety.

Is any nuclear power plant safe? One answer to that would seem to lie in the fact that most of the industrialized world is increasing nuclear generation to the point where it ranges from around 30 percent up to 80 percent of total electric production. In contrast, the U.S. is at roughly 20 percent. Yet we are the world’s No. 1 per-capita user of energy.

Is Vermont Yankee safe? Our vision of safety is so influenced by the emotionalism and politicization of the issue that it is difficult to know. The only people capable of giving us a truly objective answer to that question are somewhere in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The views of “experts” on the evils of nuclear power simply cannot stand up to truly objective, current, professional scrutiny. They are simply handy shills for the naysayers.

What can be safely said is that Entergy Nuclear, the proprietor of Vermont Yankee, has not managed its plant or its relationships with the state of Vermont and its residents in an acceptable manner. Misstatements and omissions, conscious or not, have ruled the day.

It is perfectly possible that the real issue with Vermont Yankee is poor, inattentive management, rather than the inherent safety of the plant. In any event, we should not allow ourselves to be significantly influenced by emotional advocates on either side of the relicensing argument. Safety must decide that argument.

Haviland Smith lives in Williston.

Read Full Post »

The Real Reason Republicans Want the Bush Tax Cuts

Posted in United States on December 23, 2010|

[Originally published in The Herald of Randolph.]

The struggle between the Republicans and Democrats over the Bush-era tax cuts was most interesting in the context of the underlying reasons that the partisans have taken their chosen positions.

Many of the nation’s political observers have said that the primary reason the Republicans have clung to an extension of the entire Bush era tax cuts is that the beneficiaries of the top end of those cuts (over $250,000 a year) are important Republican constituents.

Statistics from 2008 show that there were 1,699,000 households in the United States that had earnings of $250,000 per year and above. That represents 1.5% of the nation’s households. The statistics further say that the mean size for such households is three people over the age of 18. That means that the total number of voters in the nation who live in such households totals just over 5 million of the 207,643,594 eligible voters in the US.

It’s really hard to believe that 1.5 % of the electorate represents anything more than a drop in the bucket in terms of its numerical significance to the Republican Party. After all, out of over 200 million eligible voters, they bring only 2.5% to the table—and some of them probably vote for Democrats, further diminishing their impact.

No, the only truly significant thing about this tiny group of voters is their income and their contribution to the federal coffers through taxation. They pay over 40% of all the income tax paid to the federal government. That puts the Republican Party’s interest in this group in a completely different light.

Since the metamorphosis of the Republican Party really got going during the 1960s, a number of hard and fast rules have inched into the Republican economic platform. The economic policies are most relevant here.

The fiscally conservative Republicans believe in free markets and a laissez faire approach to economic activity. That brings with it minimal regulation of business and financial markets, with an underlying belief that such markets should and can be selfregulating. Further, Republicans favor removing or mitigating impediments like estate, income and capital gains taxes.

The theory of supply-side economics also presupposes that by putting as much money as possible in the hands of corporations and the wealthy, as opposed to the federal government, that money will be spent creating jobs and wealth, and that the wealth will then trickle down to all economic levels in the economy.

Finally, there has long been Republican opposition to Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and any other social program, like Obamacare, that is run by the federal government. It is the Republican conviction that the federal government should not and cannot efficiently run such social programs. If any social programs are to exist at all, and it is not clear exactly how the Republicans feel about that, they should be run by the private sector. That philosophy precipitated the discussion in the Bush II Administration about the privatization of Social Security.

If you put together the two basic Republican convictions: (a) that the federal government is not only incapable of running the social programs it runs now or in the future, and (b) that the only way to run the economy is to keep as many economic programs as possible in the hands of private enterprise, then you begin to see why the Republicans of 2010 are so fixed in their absolutely inflexible approach to tax legislation—tax cuts for all, including the richest, not just for the middle class! Reduce Social Security contributions. Remove the estate tax.

Their convictions absolutely demand that they do everything they possibly can to cut the flow of money to the federal government through as much reduction as possible in taxation. They need to starve the federal beast! The best way to do it is to cut taxes and put the money in private hands.

If you believe that man is perfectible and will act for the greater good, you could be a Republican. If you do not share that belief and contend that without oversight and careful regulations, man is in it solely for himself, then you may be a Democrat.

A close look at what has happened in the last two years in our financial markets might give some clues on what is needed here.

Haviland Smith is a longtime resident of Brookfield who now lives in Williston.

Read Full Post »

Little check on military influence

Posted in foreign policy, United States on December 19, 2010|

[Originally published in the Rutland Herald and Barre Times-Argus.]

Over the 40 years of its existence, there has been endless examination of, and commentary on, the efficacy of and prospects for our all-volunteer military force.

At the onset of the discussions in the early 1970s, it was said that the all-volunteer force could not be sufficiently effective and efficient, as it would inevitably draw on the most economically disadvantaged and poorly educated members of our society. There were issues of pay and overall costs, as well as the contention that our fighting capability would suffer.

There is very little on the record today that supports any of the early concerns about the all-volunteer force. Today’s soldiers are equally as trainable as their draft-era predecessors. In addition, they are better disciplined and present far fewer morale problems.

Although the cost of this fighting force has continuously risen, the equipment provided to it has improved at a remarkable rate, and its volunteer soldiers have proven capable of evolving into a highly technical force.

By all counts and analyses, they are a formidable fighting force, allegedly the best this country has ever produced, probably the best in the history of the world.

So, if there is a problem, what exactly is it?

The change to the all-volunteer force has diminished the ability of the American people to have much of any influence on the formation of military policy in this country, particularly in the short run. Some will say that this is a very good thing and that warfare policy should be left to the military, the White House and the Congress.

Others, particularly those who remember the Vietnam War and who are carefully observing our attempts at disengagement in Iraq and Afghanistan will say that the all-volunteer force diminishes the only direct, day-to-day potential for influence that citizens have on our war-fighting policies.

In Vietnam, major input toward ending our involvement came from fact that virtually every American voter had relatives, friends and neighbors in Vietnam. It was personal for all of us and when it looked as if President Johnson was never going to get us out of the endless abyss that was Vietnam, the protests began, the people were heard and we finally departed.

More recently, in Iraq and in our second invasion of Afghanistan, we have seen two different administrations do pretty much what they wanted to do with the all-volunteer force because most Americans didn’t have a dog in the fight. Unlike Vietnam, too many of us don’t know anyone who is there, so there is no cohesive opposition to the endless prolongation of those wars.

In addition and despite the fact that there was a great deal of well-founded skepticism about those invasions here at the time, the administrations in power were able to steamroller the Congress because, among other things, there was no counterpressure from the voters.

We now have a highly proficient and successful all-volunteer force with educated, intelligent military leadership. The attitude of those leaders is, as it should be, “we can do the job if you give us the time and resources to succeed.” The only problem with that is that those leaders are loathe to take into consideration the historical realities that exist in the countries where they seek to do battle.

With the exception of Gen. Shinseki, who warned against the Iraq invasion plan and lost his job as a result, our military leadership has not acknowledged either historical Iraq realities or the realities of internal U.S. politics and economics. In Afghanistan, Gen. Petraeus, in the face of harsh economic realities and a growing antiwar sentiment at home, has insisted that with time and resources, he can win. “Only” a decade or so more! And we have never been told what “win” really means.

In short, in the face of difficult realities, the military seems programmed to insist that they can win, whether that claim is feasible or not. And that’s what we pay them to do. However, given that fact, it is really important that the military run only our military operations, not our policies. Policy must be in the hands of our civilian leadership and for that to work properly, we must keep our electorate involved, aware and empowered. The all-volunteer force does not facilitate that process, but rather shortcuts it by not providing enough engaged constituents in the general civilian population to sufficiently effect policy. As politically difficult as it might seem to do, we need to discuss a return to some form of universal service.

If, because of our exclusive reliance on our all-volunteer force, there is only military-based input on policy, without balance from our American civilian population, we could be mired in wars forever.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in eastern and Western Europe and the Middle East and as chief of the counterterrorism staff.

Read Full Post »

Not as special as that

Posted in foreign policy, United States on December 5, 2010|

[Originally published in the Barre Times-Argus and Rutland Herald.]

There have long been theories that there is a predetermined sweep to history that is not subject to human input. History develops according to objective laws over which we have no control. In other words, history will happen irrespective of what we poor humans would like to engineer.

If you then consider the Marxist dialectical concept of “historical materialism,” you will learn that Marx believed that man can make history only within the limits set by the existing conditions of the society in which he lives.

This is clearly a philosophical argument. It has existed in various forms for centuries and will continue as long as we inhabit the earth. It is not the purpose here to enter substantially into that philosophical fray.

On the other hand, things happen in the world, particularly in our American world, that make one wonder precisely why we Americans continue to repeat the same things over and over when each action has successively and observably failed.

Why, since World War II, has America gotten itself into Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan when in each case there have been powerful contemporary arguments that doing so was not going to end in anything we could possibly call success? What is there about us as a nation that seems to predispose us to this sort of activity?

Some of the answer to this question lies in the world’s view of us. Since World War II, we have been viewed with increasing suspicion around the world. Our Cold War enemies were in the struggle with us for economic, geopolitical and philosophical reasons. They had their friends and allies, and we had ours. At least in the case of the United States and our allies, we were pretty well united in our belief that we were facing a truly evil power. That community of belief brought us together with our allies in ways that managed to overcome or set aside the inherent differences that existed between us.

Our friends followed us into Korea and tolerated us in Vietnam, both part of the Cold War. What has changed in Iraq and Afghanistan and for the foreseeable future is that this is no longer a bipolar world, which forces countries to take sides. In this new multipolar world, it’s every man for himself, and that makes it increasingly difficult for us to get others onto our side.

Look at our attempts to get China to support our policies and goals today in Iran. Or consider Pakistan’s ambivalence toward the Taliban. It simply isn’t in their national interest to buy into our goals.

To foreigners, America is increasingly looking like a willfully ignorant, insensitive, self-centered bully whose interests do not coincide well with those of the rest of the world.

On the other hand, some of the answer lies in our view of the rest of the world. As a nation, we are blissfully unaware of how the world sees us. We are mired in our notions of our own exceptionalism, which tells us that everything about us is better than anywhere or anything else: Our Constitution and way of life are the best; our social, political, military and economic structures and systems are superior. For most Americans, it is perfectly fine, even imperative for us to want to bring the wonders of our systems to everyone in the world, whether they seek it or not.

Although many Americans really do understand these new realities, it is unfortunate that for reasons probably rooted in our geography and past history, many if not most of us are blissfully unaware that the rest of the world may not love us or wish to emulate us or is even tolerant of what is really our benevolent desire to share with them the bounties of our system. We just don’t get it.

Maybe the determinists have put their finger on the pulse in the wrong way. Perhaps the only force that predetermines what is to happen historically and over which we have no control amounts only to ignorance on the part of ill-informed leadership around the world.

Certainly we could have avoided the downside of all of our recent invasions if we had listened to the better-informed experts in this country — those who told us unequivocally that, based on reality and history, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan would provide far less than successful results for America.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in Eastern and Western Europe and the Middle East and as chief of the counterterrorism staff. He lives in Williston.

Read Full Post »

Not behaving like a friend

Posted in foreign policy, Israel/Palestine, United States on November 21, 2010|

[Originally published in the Rutland Herald and Barre Times-Argus.]

Since Israel declared independence in May 1948 as a Zionist (democratic and Jewish) nation, the United States has been its most loyal friend on earth. As other nations have vacillated in their support, ours has never faltered. Since World War II, Israel has been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance in the world. The U.S. has provided billions of dollars in grants to Israel.

U.S. bilateral military aid provides Israel with privileges unequalled by any other recipient country. Israel can use some U.S. military assistance both for research and development in the U.S. and for military purchases from Israeli manufacturers.

In addition, all U.S. foreign assistance earmarked for Israel is delivered in the first 30 days of the fiscal year. Most other recipients normally receive aid in installments. Congress also appropriates funds for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense programs.

In August 2007, the Bush administration announced it would increase U.S. military assistance to Israel by $6 billion over the next decade. The agreement called for incremental annual increases in foreign military financing to Israel, reaching $3 billion a year by 2012. The Obama administration requested $2.775 billion in foreign military financing to Israel for 2010.

Although we have provided assistance with nuclear delivery systems, France, not the U.S., was most heavily involved in supporting Israel’s development of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, we have had a consistent policy for Israeli nuclear activities of looking the other way. That policy, and the concessions we have made to Israel to persuade it not to use nuclear weapons over the years, have validated its nuclear arsenal’s existence.

In the international political arena, the U.S. has been unstinting in its support of Israel. In 1972, George H.W. Bush cast the first U.S. veto in the U.N. Security Council. Between 1972 and 2009, the U.S. cast 48 vetoes and negative votes on every issue that was in any way critical of Israel.

We have vetoed resolutions proposed by our allies, Spain and France, and by our then enemy, the USSR, as well as resolutions with signatures from three to 20 nations.

This history reflects the fact that there are millions of Jewish and non-Jewish Americans, particularly those who were alive and aware of the Holocaust, who genuinely support the existence of a democratic, Jewish Israel and continue to do so.

The situation became more complicated in the aftermath of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, largely as a result of Israel’s West Bank and East Jerusalem settlement policies and by the political emergence in Israel of the Jewish emigration from the USSR, a country that, along with its citizens, never really understood much about democracy.

The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 forbids resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control.

On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice ruled that “Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development [… and] have been established in breach of international law.”

By acceding to Israel’s every wish, the U.S. has enabled an Israel that believes it can act with impunity, without making any adjustment to the international, regional and national realities that face her. Her own imperatives far outweigh those of her neighbors and her people. This situation encourages aggressive behavior, as in the Gaza War and its aftermath, the ongoing settlement program, and a knee-jerk military reaction to perceived threats.

Although the Obama administration, doggedly searching for the elusive two-state solution, has slightly hardened the position of this government on Israeli settlement policies, all of the requests made by the administration have either been ignored, or flat-out rejected by the Netanyahu government.

But the two-state solution is the only one that preserves a Zionist (democratic and Jewish) Israel. Demographic realities show clearly that Jews in Israel will soon be outnumbered by Arabs, forcing Israel to choose between democracy and Jewishness. The situation worsens as the settlements absorb the West Bank and more and more Arabs. In the longer run, it is doubtful that Americans will support an expansionist, apartheid, and/or non-democratic Israel.

Our ongoing uncritical backing has enabled Israel to behave in a self-absorbed and counterproductive way. Israel lives in a “safe” world constructed with U.S. economic bricks and mortar, surrounded by a U.S. political moat and protected by U.S. military hardware. This uncritical support has permitted Israel to behave in ways that have weakened her morally in the eyes of the world, left her in a perpetual state of war with her neighbors and with a highly questionable Zionist future.

This is hardly what sensitive and thoughtful Americans would have done for Israel if we truly had cared about her future as Zionist state. In terms of Israel’s future viability, we have not behaved like her true friend.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in Eastern and Western Europe and the Middle East and as chief of the counterterrorism staff.

Read Full Post »

Democracies Just Aren’t Very Good Imperialists

Posted in foreign policy, United States on October 28, 2010|

[Originally published in the Randolph Herald.]

Merriam Webster defines “imperialism” as: “the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly: the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence.”

We Americans don’t like to think of ourselves as imperialists, but given the foregoing definition, it would seem that we are.  Of course, we do not seek territorial acquisition.  We do what we do “for the good of the world.”  And therein lies the rub.

When we think of imperialism, we think of the classic empires—British, Roman, Ottoman, Persian, Russian. Such empires went out and militarily conquered other areas of the world.

No one can say that America did that. On the contrary, it is generally conceded that the American form of imperialism has been quite different, at least until Iraq.

American Imperialism began in the 1890s in the aftermath of the Spanish-American war. It brought us the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico, all former Spanish possessions. Despite those territorial acquisitions, America added another page to the book begun by Christianity and Islam.  Just like those great religions, in the 20th century we based our imperialism on American exceptionalism—political, economic, and cultural power and influence, not on our military.

That has been the nature of American Imperialism. We are not like the conquering imperial armies and navies of the 19th century and before. As a nation driven by American exceptionalism, we are convinced that since our system is the best, we are bound to share it, by force if necessary, with the rest of the world.

Our motivation is not so different from that which drove our predecessor imperialists. We need markets and we are concerned with challengers. We are convinced that If we were able to install our system in Iraq, for example, then liberal democracy would spread like wildfire in Islam and we would have nothing to fear from fundamentalist terrorists. Since Iraq is essentially immune to our unique economic, political and cultural form of imperialism, we had to go at them militarily, but the result is the same. Our plan was that, after having demolished the existing government and installed one of our choosing, we would get out.

However, the ideal scenario for us involves pure economic, political and cultural penetration, resulting in a slow metamorphosis to liberal democracy.

Either way, military or nonmilitary, the world, particularly the Islamic world where our dreamers thought they would succeed, has not show much willingness to bend to our will.

Even if that were not the case, there is another critical issue. Does America have the goods to be successful imperialist power?

Liberal democracies don’t make good imperialists. In America today, we have the built-in possibility of extreme, electoral political change every two years. Radical policies, like the invasion of Iraq, can and do result in the architects of the policy getting booted out.

We have been sold counterterrorism as a long-term issue. The Bush Administration began the “War on Terror” and consistently referred to it as the “Long War”. They, as well as the Obama administration, saw this struggle in military terms, not realizing that military engagement with fundamentalist terrorism would lead inexorably to the unintended result of seeing counterterrorism morph into counterinsurgency and on into the export of democracy and nation building, all very long term issues.

We are an attention-deficit nation, unable or unwilling to follow one issue for any reasonable amount of time. Imperialism demands a level of patience, focus and persistence that is alien to us. Even under the most perfect circumstances, we change our leadership every eight years or less, far too short a time to be successful imperialists who must see their world in centuries rather than decades.

Just about every nation with a terrorism problem has found that the best counterterrorism programs are police- and intelligence-driven and that a military response is self-defeating.

In our military response, we have repudiated John Winthrop’s message, later echoed by Presidents Kennedy and Reagan: “For we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.”

Instead of setting ourselves as a model for others to emulate, we decided to militarily export our economic, political and cultural models abroad. It began over a century ago with America trying to find new markets for investment and ended up with Iraq and Afghanistan.

American politicians need to read and learn from history.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in East and West Europe and the Middle East and as chief of the Counterterrorism Staff.

Read Full Post »

In a democracy the military must know its role

Posted in foreign policy, United States on October 10, 2010|

[Originally published in the Barre Times-Argus and Rutland Herald.]

During the endless deliberations that took place on U.S. policy toward Afghanistan during the summer and fall 2009, it became clear that the U.S. military establishment — as personified by Adm. Mullin and Gen. Petraeus — was vitally interested in proving that it could reach a successful conclusion in Afghanistan. The military seemed disinclined to consider any of the other factors involved in our Afghan commitment.

This entire episode is laid out in minute detail in Bob Woodward’s new book, “Obama’s Wars,” which is a fascinating read on the way the Obama administration builds military policy and the interplay between the White House and the Pentagon.

What is clear is that our military establishment was concerned primarily with its own goals and operations and far less concerned with the many other issues facing the administration and the nation.

In effect, the military leadership told the president that the only viable policy for Afghanistan would involve our commitment to six to eight additional years and almost $1 trillion.

Today’s military is probably correctly described as far more politically aware and attuned to the needs of the nation that it ever has been. After all, many of the military’s general officers have advanced degrees from some of our most prestigious universities.

It is not the purpose here to decide whether our efforts in Afghanistan are in our own national interest or not, good or bad, viable or hopeless. This is designed simply to enumerate some of the more difficult issues facing America right now and whether or not we can afford the costs of our military engagements in the Middle East and Asia.

It is generally conceded that one gallon of gas delivered to our troops in Afghanistan in 2009 cost $400. More recently, that has been revised upward to $800 because of the Pakistani closing of one of our routes to Afghanistan and the blowing up of fuel trucks.

In February 2010, the cost of the Afghan war was running $6.7 billion a month and the cost of Iraq was $5.5 billion. At those rates, the current cost of our military involvement in those theaters is verging on $150 billion per year. In fiscal year 2011, Afghanistan is projected to cost $117 billion, Iraq $46 billion. These figures will ultimately be revised upward by the costs we will be incurring in dealing with the long-term effects of the wars on hardware and, more important, on personnel.

As long as these wars are placing such a burden on our economy, it will be difficult for us to deal with the critical issues that face us at home. Quite simply, our national infrastructure, our public education system and our issues with energy demand a level of investment that will be impossible as long as these wars drag on.

Without major changes, those critical structural elements of our country will not support the kind of economic and political clout that will be required for us to maintain any sort of meaningful influence in the world. In short, our needs at home far outweigh our needs in the Middle East and Asia.

Finally, there seems to be a growing sub rosa debate in our military establishment concerning the appropriate role of the military in the formulation of military policy. A close read of Woodward’s book shows strong evidence of the military attempting to end-run the president on the timing and extent of the commitment of increased troop numbers to Afghanistan.

The role of our military establishment is to carry out the policies of our civilian leadership. It is not to determine policy from the cocoon of the Pentagon, but to do what any administration tells it to do. Such military decisions will and must be affected by other national realities of which the Pentagon should be aware, but should not be concerned. The role of those realities has always been considered by the White House.

The legal pre-eminence of our civilian leadership over and control of the military is completely established. The ongoing argument (http://www.ndu.edu/press/breaking-ranks.html) that an officer is obliged to refuse to carry out orders he finds morally objectionable cannot be supported in our democracy (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/09/breaking-ranks/), yet it apparently persists at all levels of the officer corps.

We are clearly approaching some sort of critical juncture where insubordination may play a role. The behavior of some of our military leadership around the two critical issues of Afghanistan and our well-being at home has no place in this liberal democracy.

There should be no question about the role of the military or the identity of the commander in chief.

Haviland Smith of Williston is a retired CIA station chief who served in Eastern and Western Europe and the Middle East and as chief of the counterterrorism staff.

Read Full Post »

Democracy is not selective

Posted in foreign policy, United States on September 26, 2010|

[Originally published in the Barre Times-Argus and Rutland Herald.]

Americans can argue as much as they wish about the Mosque in lower Manhattan.  We are guaranteed that right under the First Amendment.  That said, the arguments on both sides of the issue are and will continue to be to be largely emotional.

It took Newt Gingrich to get the ball really rolling when he said, inter alia, that “there should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia”, and further that, “Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for ‘religious toleration’ are arrogantly dishonest.  They ignore the fact that more than 100 mosques already exist in New York City. Meanwhile, there are no churches or synagogues in all of Saudi Arabia. In fact no Christian or Jew can even enter Mecca. And they lecture us about tolerance.”

Gingrich finishes up by saying that “America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could. No mosque, No self-deception, No surrender. The time to take a stand is now – at this site – on this issue.”

This has led to a rash of emotional arguments, both pro and con.  Some, Gingrich’s “intellectual elites”, point out that the Imam in charge of the lower Manhattan project is a Sufi Muslim, a member of the most peaceful, conciliatory branch of Islam.  They continue by saying that the project is not a Mosque, but a cultural center for all religions, which simply contains an Islamic prayer room. It is further interesting to note that the Imam, Feisal Abdul al-Rauf was first tapped by the George W. Bush administration as a spokesman for the United States in Islam, a job he continues under president Obama today, apparently with great effect.

Some commentators have tied the lower Manhattan project to the self-promoting Florida preacher in a further attempt to affect the outcome.  The President, the Secretary of State and General Petraeus have said unequivocally that Muslim-baiting of this kind is inimical to our interests in the Middle East and will lead inexorably to loss of American life and fundraising and recruiting gains for Muslim fundamentalist terrorism.

All of the pros and cons of this issue are emotional and predictive and may or may not prove to be true.  These arguments are clearly extraordinarily important to those who make them, but they are light years less important than the real issue.

The real issue here is our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In any objective examination of its governance and policies, Saudi Arabia, the country so often mentioned by Gingrich, would come out at or near the bottom of any reasonable person’s list of “democratic countries”.

So, the only valid question here is:  If the Gingrich statement is acceptable, does that mean that we are trying to compete with Saudi Arabia’s anti-democratic policies?  Do we have to sink to their level?

Gingrich’s notion that America will remain democratic only if Saudi Arabia becomes democratic is totally self-defeating.  That simply has to be one of the most absurdly illogical arguments ever offered for anything. Talk about cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face!  It defies any sort of logic and most important, any action against the Manhattan project violates our First Amendment free speech and religion rights, in both of which virtually all Americans claim to strongly believe.

Are we expected to give up our unreserved support of democracy by denying one specific group of Americans their First Amendment rights, based on the argument that the Saudis are not democratic?  What sort of message does that send to the world about our own observance of our own basic beliefs?

America seems to be at loss without real enemies and wars.  We can look back on the last hundred years of two World Wars, Korea, Viet Nam, the Cold War and the War on Terror.  As a matter of fact, the only time we have really looked aimless was during the 1990s when the fall of the USSR left us momentarily enemy-free.

If we get it right, we will not loose to terrorism.  What will we do then? On whom will we turn?  In our past, we have turned on the Irish, Italians, Jews, Germans, Japanese, Catholics and now Muslims.  Who will be next?  Will it be you?

Democracy that is discretionary or discriminatory will never work – for us or any other country.  Democracy is for everyone in America… or no one.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA Station Chief who served in East and West Europe and the Middle East and as chief of the counterterrorism staff.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »