View previous stories
	American Debacle by Zbigniew Brzezinski Los Angeles Times   October 9, 2005   Some 60 years ago Arnold Toynbee concluded, in his monumental "Study of History," that the ultimate cause of imperial collapse was "suicidal statecraft." Sadly for George W. Bush"s place in history and — much more important — ominously for America"s future, that adroit phrase increasingly seems applicable to the policies pursued by the United States since the cataclysm of 9/11.   Though there have been some hints that the Bush administration may be beginning to reassess the goals, so far defined largely by slogans, of its unsuccessful military intervention in Iraq, President Bush"s speech Thursday was a throwback to the demagogic formulations he employed during the 2004 presidential campaign to justify a war that he himself started.   That war, advocated by a narrow circle of decision-makers for motives still not fully exposed, propagated publicly by rhetoric reliant on false assertions, has turned out to be much more costly in blood and money than anticipated. It has precipitated worldwide criticism. In the Middle East it has stamped the United States as the imperialistic successor to Britain and as a partner of Israel in the military repression of the Arabs. Fair or not, that perception has become widespread throughout the world of Islam.   Now, however, more than a reformulation of U.S. goals in Iraq is needed. The persistent reluctance of the administration to confront the political background of the terrorist menace has reinforced sympathy among Muslims for the terrorists. It is a self-delusion for Americans to be told that the terrorists are motivated mainly by an abstract "hatred of freedom" and that their acts are a reflection of a profound cultural hostility. If that were so, Stockholm or Rio de Janeiro would be as much at risk as New York City. Yet, in addition to New Yorkers, the principal victims of serious terrorist attacks have been Australians in Bali, Spaniards in Madrid, Israelis in Tel Aviv, Egyptians in the Sinai and Britons in London.   There is an obvious political thread connecting these events: The targets are America"s allies and client states in its deepening military intervention in the Middle East. Terrorists are not born but shaped by events, experiences, impressions, hatreds, ethnic myths, historical memories, religious fanaticism and deliberate brainwashing. They are also shaped by images of what they see on television, and especially by feelings of outrage at what they perceive to be the brutal denigration of their religious kin"s dignity by heavily armed foreigners. An intense political hatred for America, Britain and Israel is drawing recruits for terrorism not only from the Middle East but as far away as Ethiopia, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia and even the Caribbean.   America"s ability to cope with nuclear nonproliferation has also suffered. The contrast between the attack on the militarily weak Iraq and America"s forbearance of a nuclear-armed North Korea has strengthened the conviction of the Iranians that their security can only be enhanced by nuclear weapons. Moreover, the recent U.S. decision to assist India"s nuclear program, driven largely by the desire for India"s support for the war in Iraq and as a hedge against China, has made the U.S. look like a selective promoter of nuclear weapons proliferation. This double standard will complicate the quest for a constructive resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem.   Compounding such political dilemmas is the degradation of America"s moral standing in the world. The country that has for decades stood tall in opposition to political repression, torture and other violations of human rights has been exposed as sanctioning practices that hardly qualify as respect for human dignity. Even more reprehensible is the fact that the shameful abuse and/or torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib was exposed not by an outraged administration but by the U.S. media. In response, the administration confined itself to punishing a few low-level perpetrators; none of the top civilian and military decision-makers in the Department of Defense and on the National Security Council who sanctioned "stress interrogations" (a.k.a. torture) were publicly disgraced, prosecuted or forced to resign. The administration"s opposition to the International Criminal Court now seems quite self-serving.   Finally, complicating this sorry foreign policy record are war-related economic trends. The budgets for the departments of Defense and Homeland Security are now larger than the total budget of any nation, and they are likely to continue escalating as budget and trade deficits transform America into the world"s No. 1 debtor nation. At the same time, the direct and indirect costs of the war in Iraq are mounting, even beyond the pessimistic prognoses of its early opponents, making a mockery of the administration"s initial predictions. Every dollar so committed is a dollar not spent on investment, on scientific innovation or on education, all fundamentally relevant to America"s long-term economic primacy in a highly competitive world.   It should be a source of special concern for thoughtful Americans that even nations known for their traditional affection for America have become openly critical of U.S. policy. As a result, large swathes of the world — including nations in East Asia, Europe and Latin America — have been quietly exploring ways of shaping regional associations tied less to the notions of transpacific, or transatlantic, or hemispheric cooperation with the United States. Geopolitical alienation from America could become a lasting and menacing reality.   That trend would especially benefit America"s historic ill-wishers and future rivals. Sitting on the sidelines and sneering at America"s ineptitude are Russia and China — Russia, because it is delighted to see Muslim hostility diverted from itself toward America, despite its own crimes in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and is eager to entice America into an anti-Islamic alliance; China, because it patiently follows the advice of its ancient strategic guru, Sun Tzu, who taught that the best way to win is to let your rival defeat himself.   In a very real sense, during the last four years the Bush team has dangerously undercut America"s seemingly secure perch on top of the global totem pole by transforming a manageable, though serious, challenge largely of regional origin into an international debacle. Because America is extraordinarily powerful and rich, it can afford, for a while longer, a policy articulated with rhetorical excess and pursued with historical blindness. But in the process, America is likely to become isolated in a hostile world, increasingly vulnerable to terrorist acts and less and less able to exercise constructive global influence. Flailing away with a stick at a hornets" nest while loudly proclaiming "I will stay the course" is an exercise in catastrophic leadership.   But it need not be so. A real course correction is still possible, and it could start soon with a modest and common-sense initiative by the president to engage the Democratic congressional leadership in a serious effort to shape a bipartisan foreign policy for an increasingly divided and troubled nation. In a bipartisan setting, it would be easier not only to scale down the definition of success in Iraq but actually to get out — perhaps even as early as next year. And the sooner the U.S. leaves, the sooner the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis will either reach a political arrangement on their own or some combination of them will forcibly prevail.   With a foreign policy based on bipartisanship and with Iraq behind us, it would also be easier to shape a wider Middle East policy that constructively focuses on Iran and on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process while restoring the legitimacy of America"s global role.   (Zbigniew Brzezinski is professor of American foreign policy at the School of Advanced International Studies, the Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Brzezinski was national security adviser to former US President Jimmy Carter).
	Feingold and Kerry on why the US must leave Iraq by Boston Globe / Knight Ridder   October 27, 2005   “Kerry calls for Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. Troops from Iraq”, by James Kuhnhenn. (Knight Ridder)   Sen. John Kerry called Wednesday for President Bush to withdraw 20,000 U.S. troops from Iraq over the Christmas holidays.   Ultimately, Kerry said, as certain benchmarks of progress are attained in coming months, the United States should be able to bring all troops home by the end of next year. He made it clear that he thinks the U.S. troop presence is inflaming the violence.   "The insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down," Kerry, D-Mass., said in a speech at Georgetown University. "To undermine the insurgency," he said, "we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of December elections, we can start the process by reducing our forces by 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays."   In advocating troop withdrawal, Kerry appears to be trying to bridge a gulf that"s troubling the Democratic Party on what may be the biggest issue looming before national elections in 2006 and 2008. While many of his party"s base supporters passionately oppose the Iraq war, their leaders in Washington haven"t defined a specific strategy for Iraq that differs noticeably from the Bush administration"s.   Indeed, 29 Senate Democrats - including Kerry and other likely 2008 Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee - voted for the resolution authorizing force against Iraq.   Like most Democrats in Washington, Clinton and Biden have criticized the administration"s execution of policy in Iraq, but they haven"t called for withdrawal or wavered from their votes to authorize the war.   Kerry, who as the Democrats presidential candidate last year refused to commit to an exit plan from Iraq, on Wednesday joined Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., in calling for troop withdrawals. Feingold voted against the war resolution and has argued for a timetable to remove all troops by the end of 2006. He, too, is weighing a bid for the 2008 presidential nomination.   In calling for phased withdrawal, Kerry struck a middle ground between anti-war activists who want an immediate pullout and Bush"s stay-the-course policy.   "We are seeing the Democrats moving toward that position," veteran Democratic strategist Bill Carrick said. "Senator Kerry will be joined by others. There"s going to be a consensus around phased withdrawal."   Kerry"s speech came one day after the U.S. death toll in Iraq reached 2,000, though it had been scheduled for some time. It also came as polls show public support for Bush at an all-time low and that half of Americans now think the war was a mistake. A slim majority, 55 percent, told a mid-September Gallup poll that it is time to intensify efforts to withdraw from Iraq, while 41 percent said U.S. policy there shouldn"t change.   During his presidential campaign last year, Kerry struggled to define his Iraq policy and was haunted by his vote for the war resolution. On Wednesday, he quit defending that vote.   08 October 2005   “Feingold leads Way on Iraq War”, by Robert Kuttner. (Boston Globe)   President Bush, faced with plummeting support for the war in Iraq, keeps turning to an old standby. In another high-profile speech on Thursday, Bush warned Americans to be terrified of terror, and tried once again to tie Iraq to Al Qaeda and the attacks of 9/11.   The public isn"t buying it. A large majority - 64 to 32 in CBS polls - opposes Bush"s conduct of the war.   Yet the opposition party has been mostly missing in action. Democratic pollsters and political advisers seem to believe that with Bush failing as a war president Democrats should stay out of the way and let him sink.   There is an obsessive worry that Democrats, above all, cannot risk looking weak on defense. If the war keeps going badly and Democrats are seen as opposing it, one strategist told me, they risk getting the blame.   Senior foreign policy Democrats, such as Senators Joseph Biden, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton, have been willing to criticize Bush"s decision to take the country to war on false pretenses, as well as his conduct of the war. But they have not offered a serious discussion of how to get us out.   This mentality is the opposite of leadership. The failure of the opposition party to offer a coherent alternative is one reason why support for the Democrats has not been rising as support for Bush sinks. It is why Democrats have become the butt of Jay Leno jokes as not standing for anything.   One Democrat who has offered another course - and he must be feeling very lonely - is Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. He has urged the United States to make a commitment to get all combat troops out of Iraq by the end of 2006. As Feingold says, we need a coherent alternative to either "stay the course" or "cut and run." That alternative is phased withdrawal.   Feingold told a Los Angeles audience in late August: "The president and others say that if we leave, it will just be chaos in Iraq. Well, right now when you come to Iraq, you can"t even drive from the airport to the Green Zone" Even inside the supposedly secure Green Zone, Feingold recounted, he was given a helmet and flak jacket.   He added: "The president says if we leave Iraq on some kind of a timetable, our enemies will know that we are weak. I would say that without a plan to finish, our enemies will know that we have fallen into a trap." Feingold further observed that by calling for a timetable for withdrawal, he had broken what had become a disabling "taboo."   Critics of the war should be seriously exploring how a phased withdrawal would actually work. If the United States agreed to pull out, what role might NATO and the UN play? What could be expected of other states in the region?   Among many Democratic policy intellectuals unwilling to embrace a timetable for full withdrawal, the second-best is seen as a large reduction of troop levels. The idea is to pull back troops from forward positions where they are exposed to attack, and keep a smaller force garrisoned in Baghdad and other bases.   In principle, this is clever politics - some troops could come home, and casualties might be reduced. The problem is that the countryside would essentially be ceded to insurgents, who would loudly proclaim their victory over the Great Satan. Iraq would actually be pushed closer to civil war. There would be just enough American troops to continue to be a lightning rod for armed insurgency, but far too few to pacify the place. A full withdrawal would make much more sense.   The dithering Democrats may find that public opinion has passed them by. In the most recent CBS news poll, American adults, by a large margin of 59 to 36, want the United States out of Iraq as soon as possible, even if the country is not stabilized. Among Democrats, the margin rises to 73 to 24, or 3 to 1.   Feingold is no radical. He gets elected in a swing state as a man of integrity and independence. He teamed up with Republican John McCain on campaign finance reform. He voted in favor of John Roberts for chief justice.   If the war is still going on in 2008, an antiwar candidate such as Feingold would be an odds-on favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination over bigger names disabled by their own fatal caution.   (Robert Kuttne is, co-editor of The American Prospect. His column appears regularly in the Boston Globe).
	View more stories