Disintegration in Iraq – A Call For Withdrawal

Posted on April 2, 2006 by Mash

The New York Times is reporting today that Shia and Sunni Iraqis have begun to flee from mixed Shia-Sunni areas. This migration comes on the heels of increased sectarian strife, death squad activity; and bombings targeting political figures, businesses, ordinary citizens and religious establishments.

The daily body count in Iraq ranges anywhere from 30 to 60 deaths, depending on which source you cite. That translates to 10950 to 21900 deaths per year if the current trend remains steady and does not accelerate. To put these numbers in perspective, consider that during the rule of Saddam Hussein from 1979 to 2003, the US Government’s estimate of the number of deaths is 300,000. That is, about 12500 deaths per year. The current death rate in Iraq equals or far exceeds the deaths during the rule of Saddam Hussein. So, if you pose to the common Iraqi the Ronald Reagan question, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" it should not come as a surprise if the answer is "No."

The reader can continue the gruesome exercise of comparing body counts with such well-known civil wars as Lebanon and Algeria. If you do work the numbers you will find that in terms of the death rate, Iraq today either equals or exceeds the death rates in these and other civil wars of the 20th Century.

The consequence of the Shia and Sunni communities separating geographically will be further bloodshed. Mixed communities were the last strands of the chord holding Iraq together. Without the countervailing force of these mixed neighborhoods there is nothing to slow the rapid acceleration of sectarian strife. 

Into the imbroglio enter the United States. We have not too subtly asked the Iraqi Prime Minister to step down. Washington Post is reporting today that there are now calls from within Iraq for the Prime Minister to step down. The United States may unfortunately get its wish here. It is unfortunate because al-Jaafari’s likely replacement will be Adel Abdul Mahdi. Abdul Mahdi is the candidate backed directly by SCIRI (Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq). I think the name of the organization speaks for itself. Incidentally, the Badr Brigade, the militia blamed for a large number of the killings, is the military wing of SCIRI.

The pushing aside of al-Jaafari, with the backing of the United States, will further de-legitimize the Iraqi Government. It will certainly give no comfort to the Sunni minority to see the U.S., however inadvertently, offering support to SCIRI. Further compounding the problem is the large-scale infiltration of the Iraqi police and army by the Badr Brigade and Mahdi Army militias. Of these police forces, GlobalSecurity.org reports that the U.S. Army General in charge of security in Baghdad, General James Thurman, said this week:

Iraqi troops and police units are more and more often taking the lead in counter-insurgency operations in Baghdad and the three provinces to the south that come under his responsibility. He also says more Iraqis are calling a special phone number to report insurgent activity. He says there have been more than 3,000 such calls since January, and that most of them have resulted in military operations that found insurgents, criminals or weapons caches.

The paradox is what looks like progress in training the Iraqi police and military is in fact resulting in these forces creating the very instability we are training them to control. We have, like it or not, taken sides in this civil war. Our stated objective is to stay out of any civil war that may be occurring or may occur in the future. But, the reality is that you cannot have a 138,000 strong army sitting on its hands while a civil war rages all around. The logic of the situation will force the United States to choose one side over another (consider the examples of Lebanon or Somalia).

What then will be the role of the U.S. military in Iraq with civil war breaking out all around them? There is no viable role for the military in Iraq that does not entail a long-term entanglement in the conflict – with the outcome decidedly uncertain. It is time, then, to withdraw our troops in some sort of orderly fashion. Very little further damage to our credibility will result from a quick withdrawal. Our three years in Iraq have damaged our credibility to levels below which it is unlikely to go.

I think the Iraqi conflict train has already left the station. We are left only with trying to affect a quick resolution of the civil war. This does not require a military presence, and in fact, a military presence might hinder any such progress for reasons mentioned above. Our goal from this point should and must be to try to work to ease tensions within Iraq and to work with Iraq’s neighbors to contain the conflict within Iraq’s borders.

It is not an attractive proposition, but we are where we are. 

Posted in Foreign Policy, Iraq, Politics, Society | 5 Comments

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

Posted on April 1, 2006 by Mash

There is much debate these days about the inherent powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief. This is the chief, and fallback, justification given by this Administration and its supporters for the continued warrant-less surveillance in contravention of the FISA Act. Today, in an extraordinary statement during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on censure of the President, Senator Orrin Hatch stated that no law passed by Congress, e.g. the FISA Act, could supersede the inherent Commander-in-Chief powers of the President.  This is, to say the least, a Constitutional leap of faith.

There is no passage in the Constitution that suggests that some inherent power, not explicitly granted to the Executive, can somehow trump a law passed by the Congress. In fact, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights taken together clearly argue the reverse, that the President, in fact the Government, does not have any power that has not been delegated explicitly by the Constitution. If any such inherent power exists, it is reserved for the States or the people. In The Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

States’ Rights proponents usually cite this Amendment, but it is equally relevant in preserving the powers of the people. It is the ultimate check provided by the Constitution against the tyranny of the central Government.

The defenders of the Commander-in-Chief’s inherent power base their arguments on Article II Section 2 of the Constitution. Article II Section 2 states:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. [Emphasis added by me]

The argument often made is that the President’s Commander in Chief powers are so broad that at wartime the President has inherent powers, acting as the Commander-in-Chief, to violate laws enacted by the Congress (and some even argue that he has the power to violate the Constitution itself). Any thorough reading of the Constitution’s text and the protections the founders so explicitly set forth in The Bill of Rights suggests the opposite, that the Constitution and the laws of the United States are set forth, in fact the entire reasoning behind the Declaration of Independence and the formation of the United States, to protect against the tyranny of one man (whether a monarch or a President) .

The Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives the Congress of the United States significant war making powers. Article I Section 8 states:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. [Emphasis added by me]

 Article I Section 8 gives the Congress the power to make the laws that govern the armed forces. Article II Section 2 gives the President the executive authority to exercise those powers under the laws defined by the Congress and within the limits of the Constitution. Lest there be any doubt that the President somehow can put himself above the law in times of war, the Constitution says no such thing. The Constitution does, however, state quite explicitly in Article II Section 3, in defining the authority given to the President:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. [Emphasis added by me]

Taking care that the Laws are executed faithfully clearly puts the President under laws enacted by Congress. There is no question then that the President can violate FISA without his violation not being a violation of the law, and hence subject to the penalties set forth in that law.

To dispel all doubt that the governed must be protected from the evils of men with power over them, the framers amended the Constitution to include The Bill of Rights. Within The Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment provides protection to the citizens from an overly intrusive and tyrannical Government:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment taken together with the Congress’s expansive powers over the laws of war in Article I and the President’s authority in Article II to execute those powers under the laws enacted by Congress (for example, FISA) make the inherent Commander -in-Chief power argument seem very weak indeed.

In declaring independence from the King, the founders submitted as their first holding against the King that:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

The founders had foremost in their mind the belief that no one, not even a King, can be above the law and that laws duly passed by the Legislature must be "assented" to by the King, or in our case, must be heeded by the President.

If we are to continue to be a nation of laws and not of men, we must cherish and uphold those laws. That is true for the governed and especially true for those who govern. It is the responsibility of the governed, through their elected representatives; to defend the law of the land and hold to account any who dare violate them.

 

Posted in Constitution, Politics | 10 Comments

More On Jill Carroll

Posted on March 31, 2006 by Mash

The Washington Post this morning carries an interview with Jill Carroll conducted shortly after her release. What we see in the article is a portrait of a courageous reporter caught up in an unspeakable ordeal. Her humanity comes through crystal clear.

What a difference from the hate and filth coming from the right since her release.

Posted in Iraq, Politics | Comments Off on More On Jill Carroll

Morning In America

Posted on March 31, 2006 by Mash

Tucker Carlson capped off a day of hate in America on his show "The Situation" on MSNBC. Carlson interviewed terrorism expert Evan Kohlmann about the release of Jill Carroll. Carlson delivered the same tactic used all day by right wing commentators since the news of Jill Carroll’s release hit the airwaves this morning: Praise, Pivot and Attack. Here’s how it works:

  1. Praise her release. Carlson begins the conversation with one obligatory sentence saying he is happy that she is free.
  2. Pivot. The word to watch out for here is "but". But the really clever ones use something like "I hope it’s not true that…."
  3. Attack. Carlson points out how she seems to be praising her captors. Perhaps she’s been brainwashed. Perhaps she is one of them. Perhaps. Perhaps.

Kohlmann tried a few times to bring balance to the discussion, but Carlson would not be moved off message. So, the day ended very much the way it began, with innuendo, accusations and, most of all, hate.

The hate was brimming over everywhere you looked on the right. To bring some order to the orgy of hate, I decided to take a sampling of some of the subtle, and not so subtle, attacks on Jill Carroll today. As you read these, keep an eye out for "Praise, Pivot and Attack".

I’ll begin at the beginning, with the National Review’s John Podhoretz (picked up by initially by Think Progress), Podhoretz writes in The Corner:

It’s wonderful that she’s free, but after watching someone who was a hostage for three months say on television she was well-treated because she wasn’t beaten or killed — while being dressed in the garb of a modest Muslim woman rather than the non-Muslim woman she actually is — I expect there will be some Stockholm Syndrome talk in the coming days. [Emphasis added by me]

Jonah Goldberg follows up his colleague at the end of the night (dispensing with the Praise and going straight to the Pivot):

But Jill Carroll is increasingly starting to bug me. The details are still murky and it’s hard to appreciate what she’s been through. And maybe JPod’s right about Stockholm syndrome. And maybe the media’s selectively choosing what to show of her statements. But it would be nice to hear her say something remotely critical of her captors, particularly about the fact that they murdered her translator in cold blood. I’m very glad she’s alive, but I’m getting a very bad vibe. More, no doubt, to come. [Emphasis added by me]

Michelle Malkin plays traffic cop for the right today and feigns (not too convincingly) some sympathy for Jill (and cleverly disguises the Praise, Pivot and Attack by turning it on its head):

In fairness to Carroll, a lot of people would say a lot of things they didn’t mean in those circumstances. Let’s see whether she defends it now. Assuming, that is, that anyone in the media bothers to ask her. [Emphasis added by me]

Little green footballs dispenses with the niceties and goes straight for the jugular:

Note that even after her release, Carroll maintained that she had been treated well by her captors—so it would appear that this journalist for the Christian Science Monitor made these anti-American comments voluntarily. [Emphasis added by me]

Debbie Schlussel puts the hate machine on overdrive. There was absolutely no need to pivot here since the title of her post was "So, Anti-American Jill was freed…". Here’s some of the bile from the first two paragraphs in the post (and it’s all downhill from here):

Why are so many people who claim to be patriotic Americans so overjoyed that Jill Carroll was freed, yet hardly a peep when American contractors and others were freed?

Here’s a clue for the obviously dimwitted. Why was Jill Carroll freed? Maybe it had something to do with the fact that she HATES AMERICA and our Mid-East policy. And, oh yeah, she HATES ISRAEL, too.

 The above was a small sample of the hate that emanated from the right today. It was a shameful display of ignorance and prejudice. Today was not our finest day.

Why would the right make such a concerted effort to attack a woman who was just released from three months in captivity? What are they so afraid of that they could not help tripping over each other trying to insult, accuse, insinuate, and attack her?

Well, I think its quite simple. They are afraid of the truth. They are afraid of yet another voice that might tell America that the reality in Iraq is not the reality manufactured by the Administration. So, they are trying to inoculate themselves preemptively from what they fear Jill Carroll might say. Having lost the war in Iraq, they are fighting tooth and nail to maintain a toehold on their manufactured Iraqi fairy tale. And every reporter, be it Jill Carroll, Michael Ware, Lara Logan, Nic Robertson, Chris Allbritton or others on the ground in Iraq, who deliver what they see to the American public will be attacked mercilessly by these people. Their cause is a losing one and so they are getting more desperate in their attacks.

But, in the end, the story on March 30, 2006 was that Jill Carroll was freed. And as I finish this post I look out my window and see that it is already morning in America.

Posted in Iraq, Politics | 20 Comments

Make Gentle The Life Of This World

Posted on March 30, 2006 by Mash

Jill CarrollThis morning started out with the terrific news that Jill Carroll was alive. Lately mornings have not brought good news in the pages of newspapers and on web sites. But, today was different and somehow brought some sanity back into an otherwise insane situation in Iraq.

Her captivity struck a chord with people in all countries of the world. Sometimes we see in others caught up in extraordinary circumstances something of ourselves or something of someone dear to us and we, without contact or proximity, form a bond with that person. I think such was the case with Jill Carroll. She, through the grainy videos from her captors and through the home videos of her that we were privileged to see, spoke to the most human part of all of us. All around the world, in the United States, in Europe, in the Middle East, in Africa, the Far East, people whether they be Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews or any other creed spoke up in support of Jill Carroll and demanded in one voice that she be released unharmed. It was a truly extraordinary moment – the world speaking with one harmonious voice in opposition to the plight of one innocent soul.

Sometimes it is hard to put our minds around all the chaos and killing and injustice happening all around us. At these times, when we are most overwhelmed, the disparate and sometimes powerless masses of the world collectively channel that anger, frustration and hope through the image of one who is able to lend focus to our hope. Jill Carroll, in her plight, caused all of us to pause and reconsider our spin into madness. In her plight, she did more good for this world than we could do for her. She did, for a brief moment, what Robert Kennedy asked all of us to do: "to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world." For that, Jill, my family and I celebrate today your freedom and wish you and your family peace and happiness for many years to come.

Posted in International, Iraq, Personal, Society | 3 Comments