The Statesman - 11/12

"Stay the course means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is, don't do what you're doing if it's not working - change. Stay the course also means, don't leave before the job is done. We're going to get the job done in Iraq." - President George W. Bush

Translation: "To articulate an Iraq policy that I have yet to develop, I've come up with this slogan because it's easy to remember, easy to pronounce, and I can alter its definition to whatever is politically convenient at the time."

How Soon is Too Soon?

If U.S. forces were to withdrawal from Iraq tomorrow, would Iraqi security forces be able to stand up on their own and defend their country? Certainly not. Would they have those capabilities a year or two down the road? It’s hard to tell. At best, “staying the course” is prolonging that desired outcome from becoming a reality. At worst, it is not only prolonging that desired outcome from becoming a reality, but it is also making that outcome less and less likely.

In Iraq, we now have just enough troops to perpetuate the perceived role of occupier, and just enough troops to stifle the sense of urgency the Iraqi government desperately needs to accelerate the training and deployment of their own security forces. At the same time, it is becoming clear that we may not have enough troops or resources in Iraq to effectively wage the type of war that the current situation requires. Although the President, with the steadfast support of Barney and Laura, believes we have sufficient troops levels, it’s clear to the rest of us that difficult decisions lie ahead and that they need to be made sooner than later.

Do we withdraw our troops and turn over security responsibilities to the Iraqis whether they’re ready or not? It would bring American men and women out of harm’s way and refocus our nation’s attention on the global war on terrorism. Meanwhile, it might also create a security vacuum in the region that would provide sanctuary for terrorists and engulf millions of innocent civilians in an increasingly violent civil war.

Do we “stay the course” and maintain an open-ended commitment until the Iraqis eventually decide they can stand on their own? It would show the world, particularly those who wish to do us harm, that America has the will for this fight and would reassure Iraqis that we stand beside them until they are strong enough to defend themselves. Meanwhile, the situation on the ground might also continue to deteriorate while Iraqi security forces slowly stand up, Iraqi politicians squabble in Baghdad, and Iraqi citizens endure the resulting violence, bloodshed, and lack of essential services. Of course this would all happen while the American military is stretched further beyond its breaking point.

Do we increase troop levels to bolster our security capabilities? It may provide American forces with much-needed flexibility and resources to expand our security and counterinsurgency operations. Meanwhile, it might also be a politically disastrous decision, both at home and abroad, that would dig us further into an open-ended quagmire and reinforce the notion that we are an occupying army with intentions of maintaining a substantial and permanent presence in the region. Undoubtedly, this course would also stretch the American military further beyond its breaking point with troop levels that could only be sustained by conscription.

Although it’s been deemed “cut and run” by a stubborn Commander in Chief whose gut instinct is to politicize differing viewpoints rather than take them into serious consideration, a recent plan was put forth in June by Senators Levin and Reed that deserved much more attention than it received. It seems like a subtle shift in policy, a hybrid of “cut and run” and “stay the course”, but it has potentially far-reaching implications.

It doesn’t address the speed or pace of troop redeployment, but urges that “phased redeployment begin this year as a way of moving from an open-ended commitment and Iraqi dependency”. In doing so, it would allow U.S. forces to begin standing down and moving toward a more limited role of training and logistic support for Iraqi security forces, protection of U.S. personnel and facilities, and counterterrorism activities.

Beyond 2006, it calls upon the Bush Administration to submit a plan for our continued redeployment as dictated by conditions on the ground; chiefly the progress made by Iraqis in forming a stable government that can provide basic services and security to its own people.

This war is not going to be won militarily and it’s not going to be won in the short-term. We’re in so deep and we’ve bungled the post-war planning so badly that we’re left looking for the most sustainable options, not the most effective, and the least counter-productive options, not the most productive.

So, at this crossroads, why not begin the process of bringing our troops home sooner than later? It would allow us to redeploy our troops where they’d be better positioned to combat terrorism and carry out our national security objectives. It would also force the Iraqis to stand up more quickly and more actively help shape the conditions that will ultimately allow us to bring ALL of our troops home.

Don't Build This Fence

With elections around the corner two things had to be done in the Republican lead Congress to appeal to the base that got them elected. One, a bill had to be passed that would make them look tough on defense and Democrats like they want to coddle terrorists. So they pass a detainee bill, which most Democrats supported out of expediency. Two, they push through an immigration "reform" bill, that flies in the face of the wishes of their unpopular president, by approving the construction of a 700 mile fence, that makes them look tough on security and immigrants trying to sneak into the country. The former will eventually be challenged in court and the Supreme Court will give us the final verdict on the legality of denying habeas corpus to people determined to be "unlawful combatants." The latter, however, will be built and become symbolic of the level of fear that has permeated this country since Republicans gained a majority in Congress and the Executive.

From the party that idolizes Ronald Reagan, the President that championed the tearing down of the wall between East and West Berlin, promoted free markets and described the United States as a shining city on a hill, the Republican party of today puts up walls, creates barriers between the U.S. and our biggest trading partner, and wastes government resources to appeal to the xenophobic base of their party. A characteristic none should be proud of.

Built under the auspices that such a fence will better protect Americans from further possible terrorist attacks and that it would be tough on illegal immigrants, only time will truly tell how effective a it will be at doing just that. Unless the demand for low-skill, low-wage workers dries up in the United States, this fence will only exacerbate the dangers of crossing the border for people desperate for a new life and opportunities that lie across the border. Without a legal means, that is not so unnecessarily cumbersome and bureaucratic that it discourages people from following the law, immigrants will continue to bear the hardships and dangers of crossing the desert. This policy is as likely to stop the influx of illegal immigration as prohibition stopped the sale of alcohol. This immigration policy represents the antithesis to free market policies that calls for the free flow of information and capital, including human capital. More importantly, this fence is an antithesis to what has made America a beacon of hope, the greatest experiment in Democracy and, of course, a country of immigrants.

Many of my ancestors came to this country on boats, and more recently on my mothers side in a plane, like nearly everybody else who today call themselves Americans. For this generation of Americans born on American soil to say they have more of a right to the freedoms we cherish and the opportunities here than people born south of our border is hypocritical.

The solution to our security and immigration concerns to build a fence is a wholly inappropriate policy and is a another example of this Congress squandering valuable resources by caving in to people's most base fears. It is a blemish on our record of championing freedom and open markets and with time will prove to be a misplaced effort to provide security to our country.

Blind Ambition

In a recent interview, President Bush stated once again that “there’s an unbelievable will (for democracy) and resiliency by the Iraqi people.” While quick to heap praise on the small minority of Iraqis who have valiantly tried to make things better in Iraq, maybe the President should spend more time adapting his policy to better reflect the reality on the ground. He should also stop punishing United States troops by “staying the course” regardless of changing conditions, and unnecessarily putting them in harm’s way so he can hold on to the fantasy that his policy will ultimately be vindicated. What’s clear to nearly everyone except him is that it’s a fantasy that is becoming less and less likely with each passing day.

Maybe he should also start throwing some praise toward the American people and the strong will they’ve demonstrated throughout this war. To paraphrase Senator Durbin, America has spent nearly $400 billion ($2 billion per week) of its treasure in Iraq at the expense of providing security and valuable services to its own citizens. America has deposed of Iraq’s brutal dictator and established a governmental framework that has allowed it to hold democratic elections and ratify a constitution. America has sacrificed nearly 2,700 of its bravest young men and women so that Iraqis might experience freedom. The list goes on and on and at some point, we need to ask ourselves when enough is enough. When will the Iraqis stand up as the President has repeatedly promised, and when will we finally have the fortitude and common sense to step aside and force the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own security?

A recent Iraqi poll tells us that over 60 percent of Iraqis approve of insurgent attacks on our troops. It also tells us that four out of five Iraqis believe the presence of our troops provokes more violence than it prevents. So, we have precariously placed ourselves in the position of being seen as occupiers by Iraqi citizens and as a security blanket by the Iraqi government. Even though they are divergent perspectives with conflicting opinions, neither bode well for American best interests.

The Iraqi people want us out of their country because they feel we are contributing to the instability and violence they endure every day. To make things worse, they also believe that we’re there for good (three-fourths of Iraqis think we plan to establish permanent military bases in Iraq). On the flip side, the Iraqi government wants us to stay in their country as long as possible. And why shouldn’t they? After all, we’re dumping billions into their country every week and I’m sure they’d much rather have young American men and women die in the name of their “freedom” than to sacrifice their own.

Regardless of how many times the President waves an American flag and yells “stay the course”, we’ve got to know better. To blindly follow his “policy” will only antagonize the Iraqi populace by continuing to perpetuate our perceived role as “occupiers”, and will only provide the Iraqi government with less incentives to stand up on their own. How is either in our best interests?

There You Go Again...

Last week, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, wrote an editorial claiming that the country would undoubtedly turn to the Republican Party again this November. Why? Because they, and only they, are strong enough to protect America.

'Republicans Will Make History' by Ken Mehlman

Last month's narrowly averted plot to blow up airliners bound for the U.S. from Great Britain is a stark reminder that we are engaged in an extraordinary and dangerous global war. In 46 days, the American people will make an important decision about how we prosecute that war: Do we stay on the offense and use every tool available to defeat the enemy, or do we elect leaders who would weaken America and surrender key tools we need to defeat the global jihad?

This war began long before September 11, 2001. For a generation, the terrorists have attacked free nations, from the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich to the 444 days that American hostages were held in Iran; from the 1983 Beirut attacks to the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, Riyadh in 1995 and Khobar Towers in 1996; from the embassy attacks in 1998 to bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. Too often, free nations responded weakly, or not at all, so the enemy grew emboldened. The result was 9/11.

Now we understand that we face a radical global movement of Islamic fascists, held
together by a totalitarian ideology as deadly as the ones we faced in World War II or the Cold War. This movement ebbs and flows. Its adherents meet in cyberspace instead of buildings. They gather on blogs instead of barracks. A terrorist in Syria can recruit allies in the heart of Europe and a cell leader in Asia can activate an attack in the U.S., all without leaving their homes. That makes this enemy difficult to defeat. They constantly adapt -- so we must as well.

That is why the choice we face on Nov. 7 is so critical. Democratic leaders are saying Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror, that we should be more focused on defending the homeland. But again and again, the Democrats have proposed weakening our defenses. We learned on 9/11 the need for coordination between federal, state and local governments; yet the majority of congressional Democrats voted against re-authorization of the Patriot Act. The foiled airplane plot re-emphasized the importance of following an enemy whose command and control is often obscure; yet Democrats opposed the NSA surveillance program and praised an activist judge's attempt to shut it down.

We need to aggressively and effectively interrogate captured terrorists in order to stop their plans before they come to fruition; yet Democrats want to handcuff those efforts. Terrorists cannot build IEDs or buy weapons without funding, but when the New York Times disclosed a secret program that was tracking their financing, more than 85% of House Democrats voted against a resolution supporting the program and condemning its media disclosure. We need to stop rogue regimes like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; yet Democrats want to take any use of force off the table.

Even more dangerous is that Democrats truly seem to believe that Iraq is completely separate from the greater war on terror. Al Qaeda's leaders are not confused about the importance of Iraq to their goal of global jihad. Osama bin Laden's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has said his plan is to use Iraq as a base to launch further attacks, with the goal of creating a new caliphate in the Middle East. He wants to turn Iraq into another Taliban-era Afghanistan, except one strategically located between Syria and Iran, and sitting on one of the world's largest supplies of oil. Osama bin Laden himself said that the American withdrawal from Somalia emboldened his movement before 9/11. Imagine the victory celebrations among the terrorists if we were to retreat from Iraq. Yet this is exactly what Howard Dean and a majority of Democrats would have us do. In 46 days, we must ask ourselves, would surrendering Iraq to the enemy make us safer -- or less safe?

Here at home, we are also working to reform government. We live in a global economy, one in which it is just as easy to create jobs in India as it is in Indiana. Republicans understand this, which is why we are committed to lower taxes, less regulation and fewer lawsuits. Republicans have cut taxes every year since George W. Bush was elected president. We have streamlined regulations, reformed bankruptcy laws, offered choice to Medicare recipients, and limited class-action lawsuits. The Democrats opposed every single one of those reforms -- and they are pledging to stand in our way as we move forward.

Republicans want to eliminate the death tax once and for all. Democrats want to bring it back. Republicans want to explore new sources of energy to bring gas and heating prices down. Democrats want to block domestic exploration. Republicans want small businesses to be able to band together to provide health care to their employees at a reasonable price. Democrats don't believe entrepreneurs should have that freedom. Republicans want all parents to have the choice of where they send their kids to school. Democrats would limit that choice to the rich and powerful. The list goes on and on.

It would be foolish not to acknowledge the challenges Republicans face this election cycle. We are up against history. It has been close to a century since Republicans have held the White House and the House of Representatives for eight straight years. Winning four elections in a row doesn't happen that often.

Each election is unique, and the issues and candidates in the governor's race in Michigan are different from congressional races in California or the Senate contest in Tennessee. But there can be no doubt about the national and international import of the choice we all face as Americans. We face war and a changing global economy, and Republicans have very different strategies for victory than the Democrats. I believe the American people understand the choice of 2006, which is why I am confident that in 46 days Republicans will make history and maintain our majorities in Congress.

It’s the typical propaganda we’ve come to expect from the Republicans whenever an election is around the corner and they’re not polling too well. As per usual, it reeks of hypocrisy, irony, and blatant falsehoods. Thankfully, it’s also falling upon an increasing number of skeptical, if not deaf, ears. More and more people are sick of hearing the safety of their families and the security of their country used as campaign rhetoric instead of the underlying reason why the actions of their elected leaders should take precedent over their words.

In the article, Mehlman asks an important question; “Do we stay on the offense and use every tool available to defeat the enemy, or do we elect leaders who would weaken America and surrender key tools we need to defeat the global jihad?” First of all, how do we define “staying on offense?” Is it beginning a war in one country and then undermining its success by preemptively waging an unrelated war in another country before that initial war has been won? That would seem to be a doctrine of staying on the offensive regardless of the opponent.

I would contend that staying on the offensive means aggressively taking the fight to the terrorists, starting with al-Qaeda, without relenting until bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and those responsible for 9/11 were brought to justice. It would also mean implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and ensuring that our military, as well as our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the resources they desperately need to capture terrorists and keep America safe. It would also involve an aggressive diplomatic effort to recruit the international coalitions and relationships necessary to wage an effective global war on terrorism. Unfortunately for Mehlman and unfortunately for America, the Republicans have failed badly in each of these regards.

And what are the available tools in fighting the war on terrorism? If it’s torture and unchecked presidential powers, then you should stay the course and vote Republican. Not only have they failed to use every tool to defend America, they have actually decreased the number of tools at our disposal. Poor civilian leadership decisions have dramatically lessened our military deterrent by stretching our under-equipped military dangerously thin. Many of these same decisions have undermined our nation’s credibility around the world which has lessened the diplomatic tools at our disposal, effectively depriving us of the partnerships we need to effectively root out terrorists in every dark corner of the world.

Mehlman and the Republicans also continually claim that we are engaged in a life and death struggle that defines who we are as a nation. At the same time, they refuse to let the military, intelligence and law enforcement agencies fight that war with anything more than a hand tied behind their back. Instead of mobilizing our nation for this epic struggle, they seem content on doing as little as possible... other than waging an all-out publicity war against the French and the liberals, all of whom clearly hate freedom.

Instead of adequately funding our military, homeland security and law enforcement needs, they push through unprecedented wartime tax cut after tax cut for the very people who should be sacrificing most, not least. He even boasts of Republican efforts to repeal a tax on the wealthiest estates in the country; an effort dubbed the "Paris Hilton Tax Cut" that carries a pricetag of at least $700 billion over 10 years. After those tax cuts, it’s a tight budget they claim...that’s why we can’t meet the growing financial needs of a nation fully mobilized for war. Even so, those Republicans are apparently “utilizing every tool” at our disposal to keep us safe.

Instead of providing our men and women in uniform with the equipment they desperately need to complete their mission safely and successfully, they tell them to their face that “you go to war with the Army you have...not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” Instead of waging an aggressive and focused war on terror, they commit their biggest sin by diverting much-needed resources and manpower from that effort to wage an unnecessary war based on false premises.

Mehlman later contends that free nations who respond weakly, or not at all, to terrorists will only embolden those terrorists. In pointing out the obvious, he attempts to provide a contrast from the strong Republican (apparently not simply American) response to 9/11. He fails to mention that it’s also probably not overly productive and perhaps a bit emboldening in itself to play directly into the hands of the terrorists; something the War in Iraq has precisely done.

Mehlman provides the enlightening proposition that the new generation of terrorists meet in cyberspace, not buildings; in blogs, not buildings. With this keen understanding of 21st century technology, he surely also understands how a new generation of terrorists has multiplied and intensified so quickly as a result of the very foreign policy he propounds. Yet, he fails to offer solutions, other than stay the course, to the problems he has only helped exacerbate. Instead, he contends that we must adapt just as these terrorists constantly adapt. It’s too bad that failing to adapt to a changing world is a Republican hallmark.

So, to get back to Mehlman’s underlying question… If you support the Republican record on national security, by all means vote Republican in November. I believe it is a clear record in which we’ve diverted necessary attention and resources from our real security priorities, we’ve broken our military, we’ve energized a new generation of terrorists around the world, and we’ve emboldened nations like Iran and North Korea and made them even greater threats to our security and national interests.

If instead you want our nation to wage an aggressive, unrelenting, focused and more successful war on terror without sacrificing the very principles for which generations of Americans have fought and died, then you should tell Ken Mehlman that he’s full of shit and you should give the Democrats a chance to get things done the right way.

Iraq Study Group

This article is one of many to come, which will eventually detail the findings and conclusions of the Iraq Study Group. The Group is chaired by Lee Hamilton, former Congressman and vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, and James Baker, Secretary of State in the George H. Bush administration. The rest of the 10 person bi-partisan group is made up of an assortment of distinguished public officials like Sandra Day O'Conner and Leon Panetta. The group recently met with a group of experts that recommended two stark options for Iraq; either begin the phased withdrawal from Iraq or make a last push to internationalize the occupation and convince Iran and Syria to end their state sanctioning of terrorism.
What's on the agenda for next two weeks? Meetings with officials from Syria and Iran. The outcome of those meetings will likely weigh heavily on the possibility of the second recommendation by this week's experts. While a ways off in the future, hopefully the final product of this group will bring some sanity to the Iraq debate, tempering the gross overstatements about the successes in Iraq and accusations of treason to anybody who questions how the Administration has carried out this war.

In the News: Coalition Provisional Authority

No matter your qualifications, it's your party loyalty and ideological bend that matters when applying to a job at the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). This article was adapted from "Imperial Life in Emerald City," by Rajv Chandrasekaran. The benefit of reading this article is it provides an explanation as to how this, like much of the rest of the reconstruction effort, has failed to stabilize Iraq. That the CPA has had a terrible track record in Iraq is not a novel story. But that people were asked questions about their views on abortion during the interview process and a 24 year-old with no previous experience in finance was put in charge of reviving the Baghdad stock exchange is. That people hired by the CPA lacked not only expertise but an understanding of the Iraqi culture is also apparent. I don't doubt that many of the people hired by the CPA are bright, hardworking people, with the best intentions to help Iraqis, but a devotion to an ideology, rather than stabilizing the country so Iraqis can take control, perpetuated the frustration among Iraqis willing to work with coalition authorities.

Thug Life

Michael Wilbon wrote a good piece today on the most-recent arrest of Maurice Clarett. In 2003, the kid was on top of the world with a national championship under his belt as a freshmen and countless NFL execs ready to throw boatloads of cash his way. Fast forward three years, he gets arrested with two handguns, an assault rifle and a bottle of Grey Goose near the home of an individual who was expected to testify against him next week in an armed robbery case. By the way, for added effect he was also wearing a bulletproof vest, which served as a nice defense against those pesky police stun guns. It took pepper spray to bring him down.

While being recruited by Ohio State, Clarett accepted thousands of dollars in cash, cars, and God knows what else. All he had to do was run like hell every Saturday, and he certainly delivered. In doing so, he fit in...he was one of the fellas. And he stayed out of trouble. It's hard to tell what he would have become if had he stayed in school and matured a year or two more, both on and off the field. For a kid who didn't have much direction or focus, it didn't take much lobbying from the wrong crowd to get him to go pro and pursue the dollars. Instead, that premature decision ruined his golden opportunity to make a better life for him and his family and lead him to where he is today.

It seems like many of these D-I programs operate like they're semi-pro sports franchises. They recruit to get wins, which brings in the cash, keeps the alumni happy and most importantly, allows the coaches to keep their jobs. They seem to lose sight of the fact that the thugs they recruit and herd through the system actually reflect poorly on their institution when they have their "difficulties" with the law. This is especially the case in college football. College basketball has its Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, Stanford, etc. but the average college football program undoubtedly makes Bob Huggins blush.

Maybe it's a much larger societal issue. But maybe it's more about programs who, in their quest for millions in TV and bowl game revenue, treat their athletes like commodities and not as student athletes who might also need a little coaching off the field.

Victory in the War on Terror?

The war on terror is over, according to James Fallows.

In this month's the Atlantic, Fallows argues that the United States is winning the war on terror and the time has come to declare it over. Doing so, would enable the United States to begin a more effective military and diplomatic campaign in the Middle East.

Fallows makes a convincing argument that declaring a war with no clear end in sight or benchmarks for victory, cheapens the meaning of war. A standing state of war, he argues, has baited the United States into a lack of fiscal discipline and predisposes us to overreact. As Fallows put it, "the terrorists real destructive power 'lies in what they can provoke us to do.'"

Notably absent from the list of reasons why the United States is losing, perhaps lost, its moral authority in the world is that the terrorists have baited some into legitimizing the Bush Administration’s effort to circumvent FISA courts and test the constitutional limits of the 4 th amendment right "of people to be secure in their person, 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 of affirmation..." The Administration has defended the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and maintains that "no change in the law is needed because the president has the inherent constitutional authority to order wiretaps without warrants in defense of the country."

While confident in their constitutional authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps, the administration has worked with Senator Arlen Specter and put forth legislation that would revise FISA law. The Specter bill has been called by Patrick Radden Keefe of Slate Magazine "an act of abject congressional capitulation masquerading as a hard-won compromise." Unfortunately, that might be the most apt description for this bill.

To give a little background, warrants are supposed to be requested from the FISA courts to wiretap international calls and e-mails by American citizens. Warrants have not been hard to come by. In fact, of the 20,000 surveillance requests in the past 27 years, the FISA court has turned down fewer than .0005 of these requests. There is also an exception to emergencies that allows initial wiretapping to begin immediately so long as the administration later seeks a court order.

Specter's bill would exempt FISA's warrant requirement for any e-mail to or from an American to anyone oversees. This bill expands the e-mail dragnet by allowing monitoring of e-mails if the government doesn't know that all senders or recipients are in the U.S. This legislation would also enable them to monitor every international call by American residents and businesses in the U.S. without seeking a warrant.

Taking into account the ease of attaining a warrant through the FISA courts and the flexibility given to carry out emergency wiretaps this bill is an unwarranted expansion of surveillance power. To those that argue that the war on terror warrants further eroding our constitutional rights to keep our nation safe from another attack, I say, the terrorists have achieved a small, but significant victory. Terrorist have baited some into giving up those rights we cherish as Americans. The protection given from unreasonable searches and surveillance by the constitution was meant to prevent the abuse of government power by people like Jay Edgar Hoover, who used personal information acquired through unconstitutional means for political gain.

Whether the war on terror is over, as Fallow argues, or will continue indefinitely, we should not capitulate as Specter has done by willingly forfeiting the constitutional protections that have given our country the moral authority to speak out against injustices carried out by abusive governments around the world.

The Chasm Grows

The saga of Joe Lieberman raises quite a few questions... and concerns.

On one hand, his constituents may be taking him for granted. For three terms, he has worked tirelessly on their behalf; championing a progressive agenda, embodying the values you seldom find in an elected official, and relying upon the credibility he has built (on both sides of the aisle) to become a leader on national security and homeland security issues. On the other, he has not only championed the Iraq War, but he has become an apologist for a President that is reviled by his constituents. Thus the two schools of thought come into play... Do you remain loyal to the senator who has always represented you well, even though he may have strayed from you on this particular issue? Or, are decisions of war and peace simply too meaningful to leave to a senator who has shown a willingness to vote contrary to the wishes of an overwhelming majority of his constituents?

These questions represent the uphill plight of moderates in democratic politics today. After all, ideology should shape politics, politics should not shape ideology.

During primary elections, political parties and their surrogates pump millions into the coffers of partisan loyalists to ensure defeat of their moderate opponents. This is in spite of the fact that a majority of Americans identify themselves as closer to the center of the political spectrum than either of its extremes. To these power brokers, an empty suit is far more valuable because partisan interests are sure to take a priority each and every time a vote is cast. Over time, party memberships become more polarized, districts are redrawn to further entrench incumbents, the majority party begins to disregard the long-established rights of the minority, trust amongst Members and civility in both Houses deteriorates, and the overall divisiveness in Congress grows. Ultimately, the divisiveness becomes infectious as the populace begins to identify more with their political party, and less with the ideology that initially led them to join that party.

To stop the vicious cycle, we look for principled leadership from both sides but all we find are more attack ads, more partisan puppets, and more and more money being dumped into the system to perpetuate the cycle.

We are also finding less and less Joe Liebermans. Now ask yourself if that's a good thing.

“Past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation.”

In a speech by the junior senator from New York, a raucous crowd was reminded that “All this - questioning and uncertainty at home, decisive war abroad – has led us to a deep crisis of confidence: in our leadership, in each other, and in our very self as a nation.” The implications of a war, of our own doing and being waged on the other side of the world, were playing an increasingly prominent role in the everyday lives of Americans. The exposed fissures in public opinion polarized the country, entrenching those who believed it was the only course our nation could follow to maintain its credibility and its ultimate security, and those who believed that course endangered both.

The senator continued… “I do not want – as I believe most Americans do not want – to sell out American interests, to simply withdraw, to raise the white flag of surrender. That would be unacceptable to us as a country and as a people. But I am concerned – as I believe most Americans are concerned – that the course we are following at the present time is deeply wrong… I am concerned – as I believe most Americans are concerned – that our present course will not bring victory; will not bring peace; will not stop the bloodshed; and will not advance the interests of the United States or the cause of peace in the world.”

The speech was given almost 40 years ago in a fieldhouse on the campus of Kansas State University by Robert Kennedy, a mere three months before he was killed. In the speech, Kennedy went on to chide LBJ when he quoted Sophocles’ Antigone: “All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only sin is pride.”

LBJ had the lessons of history and the realities of the present to guide him to more just conclusions, but he chose to ignore them. While President Bush is a similar situation, he also has the advantage of applying the lessons learned by McNamara, Johnson, Nixon and Kissinger. They are lessons that he can not only draw upon from the historical record, but from conversations with those who were intimately involved. Instead, he chooses to follow an estranged course that spends billions of dollars each week at the expense of the services provided to our own citizens. It is a course that has cost the lives of over 2500 of our brave men and women in uniform. And it is a course that further and further damages our Nation’s credibility while emboldening and inspiring a new generation of jihadists around the world.

The full extent to which the Bush Administration’s foreign policy has eroded our security is yet to be known, but until the well-being of American citizens takes priority over one man’s pride, it appears that we are in for a long and difficult journey.