Do-Gooders for Afghanistan and Iraq?

Among the ranks of my fellow recent college graduates are many, including some of my good friends, who have chosen to dedicate a year, two, or more of their lives to social improvement programs such as the Peace Corps and Teach For America. These people are among the best and brightest of their generation, not to mention the most motivated and unselfish.

Meanwhile our country is involved in massive reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As we have found out in both countries, the larger share of fighting a war has nothing to do with military combat at all. In Iraq and Afghanistan, a massive rebuilding effort is needed to tackle challenges related to infrastructure, education, public institutions, and human rights.

To me, it seems obvious that here is a situation that is fertile ground for civilian assistance (our military does a great job but they can't do it all!), particularly through the volunteer efforts of smart, motivated Americans, and especially young people. Yet while you hear plenty of stories about recent college grads volunteering in HIV clinics in Botswana or teaching English in Japan, I have not heard much about civilian volunteering in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Surely there must be a need on many different fronts, whether in schools, as office staff, working with youth, accounting, and so much more. Additionally, older, more professionally experienced volunteers like lawyers or civil service workers would surely be useful, no?

So if you're not in the military, how does someone my age who is willing help out? A Monster.com job search reveals only jobs working for private contractors, typically in security or involving machinery, or permanent positions with international organizations which require years of international experience.

Yes, the aforementioned Peace Corps is an option, though that is just one program, and a rigid 27-month one at that. I've done a lot of Googling to try and find non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with volunteer programs, and (especially for Afghanistan, my focus) found very little. In spite of the security issues and language requirements, I'm quite surprised at the dearth of large, reputable programs to place volunteers there, especially for shorter-range volunteer opportunities that would require anywhere from a few months to a couple years.

One of the few promising ones I have found out about which claims to be accepting international volunteers is a small outfit called Skateistan. This organization, focused on children in Kabul, promotes education, health, and cross-cultural interaction. They also have the unique idea of being centered around promoting a love of skateboarding--an idea so radical, it just might work extremely well! I'll be following their progress closely in the weeks to come.

If anyone reading this post does know of any interesting volunteer opportunities in Afghanistan or Iraq, please get in touch with me. I would be very interested to hear about it.

Stay in Iraq

In today's Diamondback, I take on the former VP of the College Democrats in a debate over whether the the war in Iraq is still worth fighting.

I say, yes we should stay! Sample grab below:

A premature U.S. departure from Iraq risks the possibility of a failed state developing in the Middle East. It would be a dire threat to regional stability and a major security risk for the U.S. and its allies. Recall, for example, that when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan at the end of the Cold War, the ensuing vacuum was filled by the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

...Although our endeavor is expensive and requires the sacrifice of a great many courageous Americans (and Iraqis), the potential for a modernized, democratic, pro-Western Muslim state in the Middle East means that this is a necessary fight.

Click here to read the entire column.

I'm no apologist for how the Bush administration's initial approach in Iraq. You may recall that back in August 2005 I said we needed to "change the course" and "put more of our guys on the ground". In December 2006, I said that "significantly more troops should be sent to Iraq temporarily to help with security". Now, with "the surge" underway, I am cautiously optimistic and want to see it produce a successful result for the long term.

Also check out what my opponent in today's print edition had to say. Honestly, I thought his column was pretty weak. The Iraq war is a complex and divisive issue, and there are several compelling arguments as to why we should withdraw. Mr. Hiller offers none of these in his column, instead spouting some hokey pablum about the influence of "corporations".

Even though I believe we should stay in Iraq, I respect those who argue against the war on legitimate grounds, including the following:
a) the cost in human lives
b) we don't know when it will end
c) the strain it has put on the Army might make us less flexible to respond to a future threat
d) the money spent on the war could instead go to domestic programs or the war in Afghanistan.

These points are highly effective arguments against continuation of the war, and on which I think there should be vigorous debate.

Dissent is More than Just Saying No

I was browsing Facebook earlier today when I came across the e-vite for an anti-war protest that several of UMD's lefty activist groups are putting together this week. Predictably, the message board for the event was filled with the standard back-and-forth between the "Bush lied" crowd and the "support the troops" crowd.

Despite my own views (I support continued U.S. military involvement in Iraq), I have a problem with views held by extreme members of both the pro- and anti-war sides.

A couple quotes of what passes as the less-shrill dialogue from the message board:

"The [Iraqi] people don't want us there. We have no right to be there. So the only logical thing to do would be to leave...I don't see how thousands of more deaths will 'clean up' the thousands that have already died." - Matthew L.

"Every red-blooded American knows what it takes to have peace--it takes people willing to do what's most difficult--pick up a weapon and fight for it...Understand that you are doing little for the good of the country that gave you the freedom and the education you needed to think up your silly ideas and whine about them in public." - Karen M.

War supporters get angry at the anti-war crowd for what they see as opposing actions undertaken in this country's best interest, and more importantly, as undermining the efforts of military personnel who are risking their lives. Pro-war people should stop impugning the anti-war crowd's patriotism, and not just out of respect for the sincerity of their convictions.

I want to avoid boring anyone by being trite, so I'll skip the part where I quote some Founding Father or eminent thinker's pithy comment on the value of protest. Instead, I'd like to remind the pro-war crowd that we need the anti-war crowd. We need them to legitimize America's military efforts, to show that our country is not some barbaric monolithic society. We need them to demonstrate the variety of opinion tolerated in our democratic society.

Dissent isn't just about them saying no. We need them to second-guess us and provide oversight for our decisions so that we can feel more assured that we are acting in a manner consistent with our values. The America I feel comfortable living in is one where people debate and disagree, not one where everyone is lockstep on every important issue.

With that admonition to the pro-war crowd behind us, I'd like to address the anti-war crowd as well. Here I mean to appeal to reasonable people--I don't waste time trying to address anyone who talks about conspiracy theories, evil corporations, or loosely throws around words like fascism or genocide. To the reasonable, principled section of the anti-war crowd (which I'm sure makes up the vast majority of that group), you also have a duty to do more than just say no.

Your country is at war. War is a serious issue that should not be turned into a political football. You may be against our country's military involvement in Iraq, but remember that our country is better off if we succeed, not if we fail.

To that end, if you care about the future of the Iraqi people, you can do more than just attend protest marches. After the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina hit, so many people I know were involved in charity fundraising, efforts to rebuild houses, etc. I've found it strange that I never see any groups pushing to raise money to help Iraqi civilians, rebuild Iraqi schools and hospitals, etc.

Helping out by no means has to mean enlisting in the army or serving as a contractor in the rebuilding of Iraq's society. I was heartened by the response to the recently-exposed mistreatment of injured soldiers at Walter Reed--pro-war and anti-war supporters alike joined together to express their outrage and successfully push for change.

Realistically though, we are all college students, and the number of options we would actually pursue is quite limited. I think the best way each of us could do our part in the war effort is to remember to keep an open mind.

If you're against the war, good for you, but correct someone the next time they try to paint the war in political tones. Keep our country's best interests at heart, not those of your particular ideology. The same applies to the war's supporters, who need to remember that most anti-war protesters are more than just stupid hippies.

Saddam's Legacy

Just over an hour ago, Saddam Hussein was executed by hanging for crimes against humanity. Now that the former tyrant is no more, both the U.S. and Iraq will have to see whether delivering justice to Saddam becomes a milestone toward national reconciliation or serves to further alienate Sunnis (his sect) from the Shiite/Kurd-led government.

The fact that Iraq today remains unstable and faces an uncertain future, three years after Saddam was overthrown, forces us to confront his legacy. In his absence, the sectarian rivalries and various factions vying for power that were quashed under his tyrannical rule have emerged and gone virtually unchecked, proceeding to rent Iraq asunder.

Certainly he was a vile and narcissistic despot who murdered thousands and brutally oppressed his own people. He was also a major threat to regional and world security, and we are better off having eliminated him. Nonetheless, his secular and pro-modernization attitude is one that we should hope is adopted by future Middle East leaders if we want to see strong, secure states emerge in that region. An emphasis on education and economic development, rights for women, and a legal system that doesn't consist only of arcane Sharia law is vastly preferable to the hostile, Islamist vision for the future that is gaining in popularity across the Muslim world today.

More pertinent to the immediate future of Iraq, given the country's ethnic and religious divisions, is the idea of Iraqi nationalism. Unlike many political players in today's Iraq, who wouldn't mind seeing their country partioned for the benefit of their respective groups, Saddam believed in the idea of Iraq the nation (although his belief rested on twisted, selfish notions.) It would not be in our interests or the region's interests to see Iraq carved to pieces, so we should hope for the emergence of Iraqi leaders who will put the interests of Iraq first--not Kurdistan, "Shi'astan", etc. Oh, and they have to do it without all the death squads, imprisonments, brutalities, corruption, paranoia, and self-interest that Saddam employed, thanks!

I Read the Iraq Study Group Report

For the past nine months the ten person, bipartisan Iraq Study Group (a.k.a. the Baker-Hamilton Commission) of elderly public figures has met, and in the process their much-anticipated report was expected by many to be the last, best hope for fixing what's gone wrong with the war.

Well, the report dropped yesterday, and as can be expected, reactions were all over the place. Some hailed it as a bold acknowledgement of mistakes and a call for change, some were offended by perceived threats, and some yawned and suggested that the report was exactly the kind of thing that would be produced by a large group of people with opposite ideologies who are forces to come to a consensus. That is to say, a painting brushed with broad strokes, a lot of stating the obvious. That is what I was expecting, but I had to read it for myself, and I would encourage you to do so as well.

Instead of running out to Borders or clicking over to Amazon to buy the ISG Report for $10.95, you can do what I did and read it online for free. At about 60 pages excluding appendices and surprisingly easy to read, the ISG report is helpful even for those who are not too familiar with the details of the situation in Iraq. The report provides background on the security situation, sectarian conflict, political and religious leaders, legislative and judicial issues, economic implications, and more.

All the news reports have focues on the two main recommendations from the executive summary, which are described below:

1. The U.S. needs to ask its bitter enemies Iran and Syria for help in stemming the flow of insurgents and encouraging Iraqi national unity. This recommendation is already causing indigestion amongst many hawkish conservatives--a guest on the conservative blog PowerLine ridiculed the notion of getting "terrorists [sic] supporting countries involved in fighting terrorism." The ISG also generically recommends diplomatic initiatives to resolve tensions in Lebanon and provide a two-state solution to the Palestine-Israel dispute.
   
   
2. "Significantly" more troops should be sent to Iraq temporarily to help with security, but most American forces in Iraq could be withdrawn by early 2008. I agree with this position, but I know it's bound to draw fire from both critics and supporters of the war. The former will not want to send more men and women to die in Iraq, and the latter will refuse to give up on the mission or abandon the Iraqi people.
   

While the above two recommendations have generated much of the headlines, I found several interesting insights in the background assesment part of the report. What follows is the rather lengthy list I wound up jotting down (all emphases added by me unless otherwise indicated):

• Props for not mincing words and stating the obvious from the get-go: the intro paragraph in the first section says "The level of violence is high and growing. There is great suffering, and the daily lives of many Iraqis show little or no improvement. Pessimism is pervasive." To its credit, the ISG denounced "staying the course," an acknowledgement that the war is going badly, and was equally disparaging to the idea of withdrawing immediately.
  
  
• How bad is the security situation? "Total attacks [against U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi security forces] in October 2006 averaged 180 per day, up from 70 per day in January 2006...Attacks against civilians in October were four times higher than in January. Some 3,000 Iraqi civilians are killed every month."
  
  
• On the sources of violence in Iraq: "Most attacks on Americans still come from the Sunni Arab insurgency...It has significant support from within the Sunni Arab community." The Bush administration, by playing up al Qaeda's role, does not acknowledge the fact that the main troublemakers are themselves Iraqis. To be fair, although al Qaeda plays a small role, "that includes some of the more spectacular acts: suicide attacks, truck bombs, and attacks on significant religious or political targets." Its goal is to incite all-out war between Shi'a and Sunni.
  
  The main problem, though, remains sectarian violence, which "causes the largest number of Iraqi civilian casualties." Shiite militias/death squads include two prominent groups: the Mahdi Army (which has "as many as 60,000 fighters"), led by Moqtada al-Sadr, and the Badr Brigade, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, which is closely tied to Iran.
  
  
• How are Iraqis being affected by the war? "The United Nations estimates that 1.6 million are displaced within Iraq, and up to 1.8 million Iraqis have fled the country."
  
  
• We have trained and equipped 326,000 Iraqi security forces (police and Army). The Army is making "fitful progress"--it is described as "one of the more professional Iraqi institutions." That said, sectarian divisions run rife even here, and large parts of the Army apparently refuse to carry out their assigned missions. Then there's the whole lack of leadership, equipment, personnel, logistics, and support.
  
  That's at least better than the police, who "cannot control crime" and who "routinely engage in sectarian violence, including the unnecessary detention, torture, and targeted execution of Sunni Arab civilians." The police forces are heavily infiltrated by militia members, assasins, and other thugs.
  
  
• The report on the political and religious leaders in Iraq is bleak: Prime Minister Maliki is beholden to Sadr, who has built a political party within government and maintains an outside armed militia in a manner reminiscent of Hezbollah in Lebanon. The leading Shiite cleric in Iraq, the moderate Ayatollah Sistani, wants a unified Iraq, but his influence is declining. Iraq's third major ethnic group, the Kurds, want their own state--their leaders certainly don't care much for the idea of the Iraqi nation.
  
  
• The Kurds already have their own autonomous regious, and the Shiites may press for one in the future. The Sunnis want a unified Iraq, but only with themselves as the rulers. There is no economically feasible independent Sunni state, because Iraq's oil reserves are all located in Kurdish or Shi'a areas.
  
  
• Do these guys make Ken Lay look tame? "Corruption is rampant. One senior Iraqi official estimated that official corruption costs Iraq $5-7 billion per year."
  
  
• Regarding the economy: "Growth in Iraq is at roughly 4 percent this year. Inflation is above 50 percent. Unemployment estimates range widely from 20 to 60 percent."
  
  
• The cost of war for the U.S.: $400 billion so far. We are currently spending $8 billion each month! The ISG says the final bill could be as high as $2 trillion.

After the report concludes the Assessment portion, it moves on to recommendations. And you know how old people always love to give advice? This panel certainly did--79 recommendations in all, with perhaps the two most important described above.

Of the rest, they range from consequential to mundane, with some maddeningly generic. For example, they call for "significantly greater analytic resources to the task of understanding the threats and sources of violence in Iraq." In any case, I'm sure over the next week or two, we'll see more discussion and debate of the specific recommendations. At that time I might have more to say about them.

Bush, Iraq, and the Missing Sacrifice

Sunday's Washington Post featured four academics trying to rate President Bush on the historical scale. Three of the four consigned him, to put it politely, to the rubbish heap--the judgment from the fourth, a former Bush speechwriter, amounted to "there's still time for him to upgrade to mediocre."

I'm not a fan of these "instant history" analyses, because perspectives can change dramatically over time--one article pointed out that Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's successor, was once considered "near great." Today the man who vehemently sought to deny rights to the freed slaves, and later became the first president to be impeached, is rightly considered a failure.

That said, one thing that won't look rosier for Bush over time is his accomplishments on the domestic front--because they are slim. The economy has improved, but especially so soon after the "dot-com" era set the bar for booms, the more sane growth we've seen over the past few years is nothing to write home about. And I doubt that No Child Left Behind and tax cuts will be the subject of many breathless chapters in future textbooks. Perhaps if Bush had been able to achieve meaningful Social Security reform, he would have something to hang his hat on, but that didn't pan out.

This is not to suggest that the lack of significant, lasting domestic accomplishments is in and of itself an impediment to being considered a great president. In Bush's case, in fact, it became clear as early as 9/12 that his legacy would be determined by how he would confront the threat of terrorism and manage America's exercise of hard and soft power.

With respect to the former, Bush can proudly and justifiably say he that he has prevented another attack on the homeland. No, we can't say we're completely safe today, but we're certainly a lot better prepared. And while currently there are still deep divisions about measures like the USA Patriot Act, I think that history will eventually look forgivingly at the reaction of this administration to protect a shocked and wounded nation. Hey, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and they still built a statue to him in DC!

But let's not kid ourselves. The main prism that Bush is seen through today is the one that will people years from now will look at him through: Iraq. And in this case, there's no point in mincing words. Whether or not you still support the war effort (and I definitely do), two things are abundantly clear:

• Iraq is in a civil war. This is one of the rare times that I, a self-described member of the "grammar police," will say that semantics should be thrown out the window. There shouldn't have to be one side wearing gray, the other side blue, and both sides marching in neat rows for us to realize a mess when we see one. Calling the situation in Iraq anything but a civil war is to deny its gravity.
  
  
• The U.S. is currently losing in Iraq. Robert Gates, the nominee to be the new Secretary of Defense, should be applauded, for admitting this during confirmation hearings today on the Hill. Despite what any right-wing blog may say, we are losing in Iraq--if we were winning, this debate wouldn't be happening. Keep in mind though, that "losing" does not mean all is "lost"--let's figure out a way to win.
  

Administrative decisions, military strategy, and troop deployments are all matters for qualified experts, and I wouldn't have much to say on those issues. But for a long while now I have felt that there was another reason that our Iraq venture was doomed from the start: that the American public was never asked to make sacrifices or adopt a wartime mentality.

In today's Post, the always astute Michael Kinsley picks up on that reason to explain why the American public has lost its will to support the war in Iraq:

At first it seemed a brilliant strategy -- repellent, but brilliant -- to isolate most Americans from the cost of the war in Iraq. It's starting to seem a lot less so. As the deaths and injuries mount, more and more people are touched by the war -- and become understandably resentful of those who are not. Bush, in his speeches, is eloquent about what no one doubts -- the sacrifice -- but banal about what most people have come to doubt: the purpose.

The decision to wage the war on the margins of the public's consciousness might seem to make sense--it's applying a lesson learned from the Vietnam War that minimized exposure means minimized dissatisfaction. But if you go this route, things have to be going well. You can endure a mosquite bite on the back of your leg, but if it keeps getting bigger and more itchy, it will inevitably come to consume your attention.

President Bush didn't prepare the American public for a big, itchy bug bite. And there is where the whole problem arises from. Had he placed the public in a wartime mentality, they would be willing to put up with setbacks. And unlike Vietnam, the time was right to emphasize a struggle. The aftermath of 9/11 was a golden opportunity to make clear to Americans that life as we knew it was going to be different, that sacrifices would have to be made.

Bush instead sought to convey as much as possible that everything was business as usual, and it has become his undoing, because now we demand that everything be quick and painless. The post-9/11 months could have been used to kickstart a nation to transform itself, through heavily publicized programs like an increased gas tax, expansion of community service programs, foreign language requirements in public education, or any number of dozens of other ideas that would have constituted the message that it's a different world today with different expectations.

In other words, it was time for tough love. Instead, President Bush pampered the public, and now he has to live with the results of that squandered opportunity: constituents that are not willing to deal on his terms or his scope in Iraq.

The "Pay More, Get More" Army

Fred Kaplan has a very interesting article in today's Slate about the new relaxed standards for Army recruitment. Apparently, due to the Iraq war's strain on filling quota, the Army is filling its ranks with "Category IV" applicants, those who score near the bottom on the armed forces aptitude test. Historically there have been legally defined limits to the number of these Category IV personnel--a maximum of 2% in the '80s, upped to 4% last September. Even then, in 2004, at a time the Army was not faced with its current recruiting crisis, Kaplan says that only 0.6% of Army personnel were Category IV. However, in October 2005, 12% of new recruits were Category IV, and November likely saw at least that many if not more.

Now of course, these men and women have all the courage and training that you'd expect from any member of the armed forces. They can do their job capably and admirably. However, as Kaplan argues, the statistics show that smarter soldiers do make better soldiers. Kaplan cites studies done on soldiers' effectiveness at a wide range of tasks, from tank gunning to manning and repairing communications systems gear to firing Patriot missles. Overwhelmingly, the evidence is clear. "The higher the score on the aptitude test," he says, "the better the performance in the field. This is true for individual soldiers and for units."

None of this is meant as a slight to any armed forces personnel, who do a vital job and who do it well in defense of our country. In order to do the job properly in Iraq we need sufficient manpower on the ground. At a time when the pressure to deliver recruits is, the Army is doing all it can to get the job done, and the sacrifice of anyone who joins this cause is well appreciated.

That said, better soldiers make a better Army which does a better job. Wartime recruiting is much harder than peacetime recruiting. If the administration and the folks at the Department of Defense really care, how about offering better pay and benefits to attract better candidates rather than lowering your standards? Serving your country is an honorable calling, but for too many people who might otherwise be willing, it is not a viable one. Let's change that.

Bush on Iraq: Work in Progress

It's been over two months since I last posted here, my busy schedule having convinced me to take a break from the site for a while. In the next couple weeks, however, I hope to get back into the swing of things. I'm considering a new format with more emphasis on sports and pop culture, and adding frequent short posts with links to interesting articles interspersed between my usual essays. That's the plan at least, but first...

President Bush addressed the nation in a live televised speech Sunday night to talk about the situation in Iraq (see full text). To his detractors, it was yet another easy opportunity to dismiss the usual "same old cheerleading." This time, however, I was inclined to disagree. It seems to me that in recent weeks, the administration has been taking a different tack toward handling criticism of the war. Instead of completely ignoring the very idea that opposition to the war even exists, Bush & Co. are now making more of an effort to engage skeptics and convince them of the wisdom of staying the course. And the slogan "Mission Accomplished" seems to have finally been replaced with the more accurate "Work in Progress".

This speech, then, is quite a big deal. Bush was elected as a man whose popularity was derived from a leadership style seen as removed from the fickleness of ratings and poll numbers. While the idea sounded admirable, it didn't work too well when practiced to the extreme, and now it seems the president has realized he has a responsibility to serve the interests of the public that elected him. At a time when the public is increasingly questioning the war, it only seems right that he take the opportunity to address their concerns.

In Sunday night's speech, Bush acknowledged the lack of WMD's in Iraq. saying "much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," but with refreshing candor added "as your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." Furthermore, he continued by admitting to the ongoing "danger and suffering and loss" and explicitly stated that the situation has "led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we are solving." He went on to give a compelling answer to that question, citing critical progress while answering key criticisms at each turn.

To the question of whether the Iraq war was hurting the war on terrorism, Bush memorably responded "the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone...We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them." Bush went on to admit that the reconstruction of Iraq was going slower than expected, but importantly pointed out that progress was being made despite "the grim results [of the insurgency] on the evening news." Judging by events like last week's successful elections in Iraq, I believed the President when he said:

"For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq -- we are winning the war in Iraq."

The last part of Bush's speech was more reminiscent of the triumphant tone and well-worn cliches of the administration's past, but on the whole, I believe the content of the speech definitely merited attention--enough so, at least, to justify the delayed airing of the new Family Guy.

My major concern now is that even with the administration's new, more diplomatic approach, it may be too late. While I share the president's belief in the need to stay in Iraq until the job is finished, Congress and the American public are already deeply entrenched in their own views of the Iraq war, and there is little reason to anticipate that anyone will change their minds now. If only this speech had come a year ago, it might have been so much more meaningful. I'm glad President Bush is doing more to acknowledge the tough reality of the war; I just wish he had done so earlier, at a time when more people were willing to believe the sacrifices are worth it.

Change the Course

Now that the situation in Iraq has reached a critical point, it's time for President Bush to talk straight to the American public if he wants continued support for the war. The public acknowledges a few simple facts: 1) Saddam Hussein was an awful, evil dictator; 2) the U.S.'s original rationale for the war was false; 3) the war has not made this country demonstrably safer. Bush can't just keep invoking the memory of September 11, 2001 and instructing us to "stay the course". The course has gone from a run-of-the-mill invasion to a really bad episode of Punk'd.

The long line of failures that got us into this mess in the first place have already been recognized by everybody outside of the White House. In Iraq, that pesky insurgency is wreaking havoc. Jeffersonian democracy hasn't flourished, but civil war and the creation of an Iran-allied theocracy could be forthcoming. A Republican senator (Chuck Hagel) has used the dreaded V-word (Vietnam). Members of the president's own party are speaking out about the need to alter our strategy, or at the very least, define our goals. What do we still hope to accomplish?

The focus at home remains on bringing our troops back, and understandably so considering the strain on our overextended military. However, I don't think it's time to throw in the towel just yet. Yes, Iraq has become and likely will remain a hotbed of terrorism for years to come, regardless of how long we stay. But I am considering the larger picture of anti-Americanism in the Middle East. If we cut and run and then Iraq dissolves into chaos, we will set the chances of progress in that entire region back.

Unfortunately, thanks to the blunders by this administration, Iraq is an unpopular war that we just might be stuck with while blindly hoping that everything turns out ok. In that case, we should at least give ourselves a better chance of winning. The president thinks current troop levels are ok, but the strength of the insurgency tells you need we need to put more of our guys on the ground. We need to pour money and manpower into developing Iraq's infrastructure so that they can hold their own once we're gone. We also need to revive a practically non-existent diplomatic campaign to engage the various factions in Iraq as well as Iraq's neighbors who have a stake in the outcome. Gen. Wesley Clark recently offered the clearest, most straightforward vision yet for what the U.S. must do to succeed in Iraq--his column "Before It's Too Late" in last Friday's Washington Post is a must-read.

I do hope that the United States continues to promote liberalization and economic reform in the Muslim world, where both are sorely needed. In going about it in the future though, I hope we'll remember a valuable lesson learned the hard way from our mistakes in Iraq. The best of intentions and the best of armies aren't always enough to get the job done--and a little understanding of the people we're dealing with can go a long way.

But Do They Heart the War?

Below is a copy of an e-mail I sent to the authors of the popular conservative blog PowerLine:

Dear John (and Scott and Paul),

I'm writing in response to your post "Americans Heart Gitmo", in which you referred to the USA Today/ Gallup poll showing a majority of the public gives the Gitmo center a favorable rating. I think these results are to be expected; common sense tells us that--barring some outrageous scandal, which no evidence yet available suggests--people aren't going to feel sorry about the treatment of terrorists.

However, another question from the poll produces results that merit an inquiry: question 29 asks "Do you favor or oppose the war in Iraq?" In March, the response was split dead-even at 47% on each side. The ensuing three months have apparently taken a toll though; the public stance is now at only 39% in favor compared to a whopping 59% who oppose.

Don't get me wrong--I was and still am not against U.S. involvement in Iraq. However, if you are going to celebrate when the public view is in accordance with yours, you must also take into account when the opposite is true. This large margin of disapproval for the war in Iraq suggests two things:

1. The Democrats are not just going after the "most liberal 37% of the population"; it is possible they are tapping into a growing segment of the population that is becoming discontent with the current situation.
   
   
2. This discontent, brought about by the lack of progress since the last milestone in Iraq (free elections), indicates that we need to revamp our current strategy. I am not of the opinion that the situation is hopelessly lost; not even close, actually. But I am deeply concerned that we may not be putting enough effort into making sure that Iraq has a secure, sustainable future. As to what needs to be done differently, I can't pretend to be an expert, but I feel sure that it does not merely entail a PR offensive here in the U.S. to convince a skeptical public. After all, this is the future of democracy in the Middle East were talking about here.

I am curious to know whether you think my assessment here is accurate, and in any case, what are your specific recommendations as to our strategy in Iraq?

Ask Sistani

If you're in the mood for a little late night humor, click on over to the website of Iraq's supreme religious authority, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. The most enjoyable reading comes from the "Q&A" section, which appears to be an advice column published by the Ayatollah based on questions written to him. (Think "Dear Abby" with some Shi'a 'tude.) There, you can find out about the types of problems that ordinary Iraqis write to him about. The ever-helpful Sistani is ready to dispense invaluable bits of advice, including the following:

• playing chess is "absolutely forbidden"
• shaking hands with girls is "not permissible"
• listening to music for fun is unlawful
• plastic surgey is OK
• ditto for polygamy

Enjoy! Hat tip to Bill Maher.

So Far, So Good

"Today the people of Iraq have spoken to the world, and the world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East." -- President George W. Bush

The initial verdict from Iraq? Hours after the country's first democratic elections, President Bush has declared the day's event a "resounding success". The vast majority of reports coming out of the country seem to corroborate that analysis. As CNN's Anderson Cooper commented from Baghdad, "it's hard not to smile" when seeing the spirited and celebratory attitude of the Iraqi people on a historic day.

Election day violence left three dozen dead, but despite that and many other problems, it was a good day. There was a better than expected turnout at the polls, with more than 8 million Iraqis--at least 55% of the electorate--casting their votes. The Kurds and Shiites came out in large numbers, and even a decent number of Sunnis, many of whom had threatened to boycott the election.

The winner of the election will not be known for at least another week, but as has been stated repeatedly, the terrorist insurgency in Iraq suffered a crushing loss. Bush lauded the Iraqi people for "firmly reject[ing] the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists". British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that the day's events had delivered "a blow right to the heart" of global terrorism.

This election story has garnered much more attention than the similarly successful one held in Afghanistan in 2004. After all the months of intense scrutiny and harsh criticism, President Bush can breathe a sigh of relief. Today, his resolute and steadfast approach in Iraq appears to be vindicated. I hope that this initial bit of good news does not lead policymakers to get ahead of themselves and start clamoring for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country. There remains much work yet to be done, and we must not risk an undesirable outcome by getting out before the job is finished.

Iraq is taking its first infant steps toward creating something incredible--an Islamic democracy in the area heretofore labelled "Mess O' Potamia". While the task ahead is still daunting, it's a welcome change to see good news from Iraq dominate the headlines, for one day at least!

Not Much to Cheer

Spec. Charles Graner, ringleader of the disgraceful group of prisoner-abusing U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib, went on trial today on charges of committing indecent acts, mistreating Iraqi detainees, dereliction of duty, and assault. Considering the seriousness of the accusations against him--Graner is facing 17 1/2 years in military prison--one would expect Graner's defense to explain or somehow rationalize his motives for the physical violence and sexual humiliation he subjected Iraqi prisoners to.

Among the infamous pictures to come out of the Abu Ghraib scandal is one of Graner posing gleefully over a pile of naked Iraqi men in a humany pyramid. Graner's justification for these revolting actions came out this afternoon:

"Don't cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?" Guy Womack, Graner's attorney, said in opening arguments to the 10-member U.S. military jury at the reservist sergeant's court-martial.

Unbelievable. Despite the well-deserved international outrage to the actions that went on in Abu Ghraib prison, and the punishment meted out already to a number of the soldiers involved, it appears that somehow the main perpetrator still don't get it. Womack commented further:

"A tether is a valid control to be used in corrections. In Texas we'd lasso them and drag them out of there."

Admittedly, a case like this is difficult, even if most people can see obviously where the line has been crossed. No one is holding the Iraqi prisoners to be innocent victims; they were all in Abu Ghraib for a good reason. The American soldiers responsible for guarding them were in an environment of constant stress and undoubtedly were under pressure to gain as much information out of the detainees as possible. These Americans saw that their fellow soldiers throughout Iraq were the targets of an insurgency, which they felt could be combatted more effectively with the knowledge the prisoners contained.

While the government asserts that Graner and his group were "rogue soldiers", Womack asserts that higher-up military intelligence officers ordered the abusive practices. Even if that is not true, it is fair to say that there were probably many in MI who at least condoned them. As we have learned, torture of prisoners has not been an isolated incident in the war on terrorism. Prisoner mistreatment has been noted in Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps most troublingly at the ultra-secret detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (read: this and this).

The Abu Ghraib scandal tarnished the U.S. image around the world. Unfortunately, I suspect it won't be the last embarassing episode to come to light. Mr. Womack, I'm afraid there's not much to cheer for!