Another War

The No Debate No Fly Zone The truly amazing thing about the "no fly zone" policy adopted over the last few days by the United States and the United Nations is not that it will be imposed on Gaddafi's Libya, but rather that it was done with virtually no domestic debate, no Congressional action and little effort to bring the American public along. I know it has become a political non-issue, a quaint detail of American history, but Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says: "Congress shall have the power...to declare war..." Make no mistake we are going to war with Libya. The American policeman is walking the Middle East beat, again. Moreover we are headed into another open-ended, frightfully expensive engagement with scarcely any attempt to define the short, let alone long-term objectives. Set aside for the moment the legitimate debate over whether the "no fly zone" strategy actually works. Might it be appropriate for the president and the Congress to define, in a good deal more detail, just what we hope to accomplish by engaging in a shooting war in Libya. American anti-terrorism experts are already warning that Gaddafi is entirely capable of retaliating with some non-conventional response - read terror attack - while we spend an estimated $100 to $300 million a week to try and use air power to enforce order on the ground in Libya. It's estimated that the initial attack on Libya's command and control capabilities could cost a billion dollars. Meanwhile, the Congress is virtually paralyzed in a budget debate that may well shut down the federal government in three weeks. We'll spend millions to enforce a UN resolution on Libya with no debate, while the Congress runs the government by continuing resolution and bogs down in a completely partisan argument over funding laughably small budget lines for National Public Radio and the National Weather Service. While the Obama Administration can claim an international consensus to use force against Gaddafi's military, only one guess is required in the game who will pay most of the cost. The world's greatest deliberative body - the U.S. Senate, where foreign policy used to be a regular concern - can find plenty of time for posturing over who is responsible for the budget deadlock, but couldn't find even 15 minutes to debate whether the country ought to send more brave, young Americans into another desert war. We can all lament the disaster of the Libyan nut job waging war on his own people, but since we've equipped Arab air forces from Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Jordan, why not let the vaunted Arab League deal with one of their own? Have we no leverage over the King of Jordan or the princes of Arabia? The most sensible voice in the administration, soon to be gone Defense Secretary Robert Gates, may have made his concerns about the "no fly" strategy know too early, while the rest of the administration struggled to figure out a response. "Let's call a spade a spade," Gates said earlier in March, "a no fly zone begins with an attack on Libya." He called it a "big operation in a big country" and warned of the unknown unintended consequences of yet more American military engagement in a Middle Eastern country. We are left to hope that in a week or two no American carrier pilot is sitting in Gaddafi's custody after being shot down attempting to enforce a no fly zone with no defined objective, no end date and no obvious concern about the human and financial cost...to the United States. The United States time and again undertakes military action with the expectation that it will be short, painless and sanitary and that the outcome will be entirely to our liking. Funny thing: our wars never seems to work out the way we envision them.

Stuff Happens

Exceptionalism, Hubris, Cluelessness The protesters in the streets of Cairo could most likely care less about American domestic political debate. They have bigger issues. Still, while the chaos continues to unfold in the streets of our erstwhile ally, it might be worthwhile for those of us watching to undertake some sober reflection of what the likely fall of Mubarak says about American foreign policy. Two seemingly disconnected data points - the latest silly debate over American "exceptionalism" and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's new memoir - are informative launching pads for some of the reflection we need. For a few days after President Obama's State of the Union speech, cable's talking heads were popping off about why the president refused to use the word "exceptionalism." Exceptionalism is the notion that American ideals, ambitions, and commitment to liberty are so unique and so special that naturally the United States has not only the moral authority to lead the world, but the moral responsibility to export those ideals, ambitions and commitments. The president did say that America is “the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea — the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny.” And that “America’s moral example must always shine for all who yearn for freedom and justice and dignity.” Some conservatives, aware that Obama's still greatest political vulnerability is his "differentness," have seized on his allegedly tepid embrace of the exceptionalism notion to bash him. Columnist Kathleen Parker captured the essence of the argument in a recent piece when she said: "On the right, the word 'exceptional' - or 'exceptionalism' - lately has become a litmus test for patriotism. It's the new flag lapel pin, the one-word pocket edition of the U.S. Constitution. To many on the left, it has become birther code for 'he's not one of us.' "Between left and right, however, are those who merely want affirmation that all is right with the world. Most important, they want assurance that the president shares their values. So why won't Obama just deliver the one word that would prompt arias from his doubters?" My answer, all is not right with the world and the president, while embracing the moral leadership role that should go with the office he holds, tends to have a nuanced view of the world - not black/white, neither uniquely exceptional or standard run of the mill. The president is trying hard, against the last 100 years of history, to pull us back from the kind of exceptional arrogance that once led us into Vietnam and more recently into Iraq. For the exceptional crowd, its impossible to believe that the rest of the world just doesn't get on the with the notion that it is American manifest destiny to lead the world and, when necessary, reshape it our liking. Which brings us to Donald Rumsfeld. The advance press on his new book - it sounds like a standard score settler sure to get him on TV a great deal - seems sure to remind his detractors, including John McCain, of Rummy's fundamental arrogance. The man who brought us such memorable lines as "stuff happens" in response to widespread Iraqi looting after the invasion and "known unknowns" about the non-existing weapons of mass destruction, says he has few regrets about Iraq. Rumsfeld is a metaphor for American foreign policy cluelessness. Not only did he get almost everything wrong about the American invasion of Iraq, he clearly doesn't possess the self reflection gene necessary to learn some of the all-too-obvious lessons. The real known unknown is what America doesn't know - and usually refuses to learn - about the rest of the great world. We never seem to learn the limits to which others in the world are willing to embrace our ideals and follow our lead. We may be repeating this time tested mistake now in Egypt, Yemen and the rest of the volatile Middle East. “We evidently think,” Idaho Sen. Frank Church once said, “that everything which happens abroad is our business…we have plunged into these former colonial regions as though we have been designated on high to act as trustee in bankruptcy for broken empires.” The Middle East is ancient ground. The yoke of British, Ottoman, French and other colonial empires - and what must look to many young Arabs like the new American Empire - hangs uneasily over the region. Young people in Tunisia and Egypt, empowered by access to the Internet and ideas - not always ideas we like, for sure - are demanding change. It is hubris to think that our notions of what makes America exceptional is necessarily going to appeal, or be right, for them. One Middle Eastern analyst, Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, says it bluntly: "No one in the region is pro-American anymore. The only hope is if Obama uses this opportunity to re-orientate U.S. policy in a fundamental way," he said. "Otherwise, I think we're losing the Arab world." With thousands of our troops spread across the region, with billions lavished on Mubarak for more than 30 years - by one estimate the old boy is worth as much as $70 billion - we're down to being an after thought to the people in the street. Writing for the New York Times, the sagacious Tim Egan, offers some of the best sober reflection: "...in the Internet age, no authoritarian can keep his own people from knowing the truth," Egan writes. "Millions of Egyptians are disgusted with their leadership. They have hope. They want change. And we should stand with them with the tools of an open society: ideas and technology, and maybe a deft diplomatic nudge. Beyond that, it’s out of American hands." As we cast a very wary eye toward Cairo and beyond, a real question for Americans is whether we can be exceptional enough to understand the limits of our power; whether we can't learn the humbling lesson that our ability to cause other cultures, with different histories, religions and traditions, to embrace our way is exceptionally limited.

On This Day

FDR's Arsenal of Democracy Speech Seventy years ago this evening - December 29, 1940 - Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered one of the most important speeches of his presidency and helped set in motion a vast expansion of presidential power in the realm of foreign affairs. Fresh from re-election a month earlier to an unprecedented third term, Roosevelt used one of his tremendously effective "fireside chats" via radio to proclaim America "an arsenal of democracy" determined to aid a beleaguered Great Britain that seemed to be on its last legs against Hitler's powerful army and air force. Speaking from the Diplomatic Reception Room in the White House, Roosevelt said this would not be "a fireside chat on war," but rather "a talk on national security." He proceeded to lay out what he saw as the threats to the United States if the British, blockaded and bombed, were forced to capitulate to the Germans. While the speech was widely praised and well accepted, not everyone, to say the least, agreed. [You can hear the full speech, including the fascinating CBS announcer's introduction here.] The non-interventionist bloc in Congress remained very strong in 1940 and 1941. Roosevelt was concerned enough about the anti-war sentiment in the country that he made comments near the end of his 1940 campaign against Republican Wendell Willkie that he would have to eat. He famously said "our boys are not going to be sent into a foreign war." Montana's progressive Democratic Sen. Burton K. Wheeler condemned Roosevelt and his advisers as "warmongers" and Wheeler urged the president to utilize his position and leverage to seek a negotiated end to the fighting in Europe. (Idaho's William E. Borah, a Republican, who had died in January 1940, surely would have agreed with Wheeler and other leading non-interventionist like Ohio's Robert Taft and California's Hiram Johnson, both Republicans.) Roosevelt followed up his "arsenal of democracy" speech with legislation - forever known as Lend-Lease - that gave the president, in Wheeler's view and it was a credible view, vast new powers - even dictatorial powers - to aid those countries, debt free, that the president deemed vital to America's national security. By the end of the war in 1945, Lend-Lease had supplied $50 billion (more than $750 billion in today's dollars) in material to Britain, the Soviet Union, France and China. There is little debate that the aid was essential to the war effort. No less an authority than Josef Stalin confirmed that when he told FDR that American equipment had allowed the Allies to win the war. There is also little debate around the fact that Lend-Lease, and Roosevelt's administration of the program, finally and forever shed the American foreign policy cloak of non-intervention or isolationism. With Lend-Lease, the country was committed to full and unrelenting international engagement and the country has seldom looked back since the act was signed into law in March 1941. Fundamentally, what Montana's Wheeler and Idaho's Borah, among others, were objecting to was the inherent expansion of presidential power in the realm of foreign policy. Wheeler repeatedly warned of the rise of "an American dictator" who would run over the top of the Congress in the establishment of foreign policy. History has recorded that FDR, while not always candid or even completely honest about his intentions, used his vast foreign policy power with restraint and with a deep commitment to democracy. But those who opposed Roosevelt, even if now mostly forgotten, have also been validated by history. The steady expansion of presidential power in the area of foreign policy that, in many ways, began on a December evening 70 years ago continues to this very day. The United States has spawned no dictator as Sen. Wheeler feared, but we do have a commander in chief whose power to involve the country militarily in every corner of the globe is routinely unchecked and often not even really debated by the Congress. Franklin Roosevelt's legacy is well recognized for its sweeping impact on domestic policy, but the 32nd president's legacy in foreign policy is just has profound and it began with a speech on this day seven decades ago.