The Israeli-Palestinian peace talks effectively died this week.  That’s what happens when you take your case to the press.

Though the hard left no doubt cheers a Palestinian effort to seek unilateral recognition from everyone from the UN Security Council to the Poughkeepsie Dog Catchers Society, it’s simply neither a serious nor well-considered effort.

The move is bad for everyone, including peace-seeking Palestinians.  A UNSC resolution will be vetoed by the Americans and will split the Europeans; its failure will then cause regional Arab powers to blame everyone but themselves at a time when Arab engagement is crucial to success.

The PA went public with this ill-conceived demand as a response to Bibi Netanyahu’s impossible pre-condition offer of extending a moratorium on settlement construction only in return for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.  Doing so is a non-starter for the PA – it would essentially prevent ex-patriot Palestinian refugees from staking a claim to property and/or cash from the Israeli government.

Bibi’s demands were the beginning of the end, and should have spurred the Obama administration’s negotiators to keep the talks quiet at all cost.  Of course, maybe they tried, and tried hard, but the two parties were never on the same page from the beginning.

A resolution to this conflict will only be achieved through painstaking negotiations behind closed doors. When the parties begin to litigate their case in the court of international public opinion, it is nothing more than a desperation Hail Mary on 4th-and-a-million with no time on the clock.

If talks aren’t dead, they’re in a coma and on life support.  The White House needs to get both sides to shut up, and find a face-saving way for Bibi to extend the settlement moratorium that somehow addresses – or agrees to delay – the question of Israel’s Jewishness/Palestinian refugees.

Failing that, we’ll look to start these talks up again under the next Israeli government.

This post is the fifth in a series about the Progressive Military

I knew my entire life that I was going to join the military at 18.  There was never a time where I can recall I thought anything else.  It wasn’t pushed on me; it was just something I always understood.  My father and several of my uncles are Vietnam vets, my cousin is a Gulf War vet, and my grandfather and his brothers were in World War II.  Iraq is my own particular war.  In my family, we serve in the military.  Many other American families share the same story.

I was always good academically and very active in school activities.  As my high school graduation approached people would ask me or my parents where I was going to college and what I was going to do.  Doctor?  Lawyer?  Architect?  The answer was no, he’s shipping off to be a Private in the U.S. Army.  The looks were telling.  Someone even offered ‘there’s other ways to pay for college, you know.’

For many there are not.  I served with guys in the Army who will tell you that if they hadn’t joined they would be in the poorhouse, in jail, or dead in some alleyway.  My father was a tough Chicago kid who volunteered at the height of the Vietnam War because he wanted better than sketchy factory jobs.  He got it.  After ‘Nam, he used the GI Bill to get a degree and a job.  He just retired after thirty years of looking out for abused kids with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.  The opportunity the military gives has paid dividends not only for my father, but for me and my family, not to mention the thousands of kids my dad helped over the years.

Thirty years after him and at exactly the same place, Ft. Leonard Wood, Missouri, I started my military career.  I could look out of my barracks window and see across the drill square the same building he had lived in.  They shaved my head, gave me a uniform, and a job with a steady paycheck, medical and dental care, a retirement system, and other benefits.  I grew up in rural southern Illinois, where the unemployment rate today ranges between 9 and14 percent.   A lot of people I grew up with haven’t fared as well, even some of those that went to college.

I had to work hard for it, but I did it, me and over 26 million other American veterans, many of whom might not have otherwise had such opportunities.  Today, communities around military posts are more prosperous than industrial cities, tech centers, and college towns.  The opportunities granted by military service help Americans of all kinds; studies have found military communities are among the least segregated in the country.

The military not only put money in our pockets, but it has given us work experience we couldn’t get elsewhere.  Only around 15 percent of our troops are actually ‘trigger-pullers’; over half work in technical and medical fields and another third work in administration and logistics.  These military jobs more often than not have a direct equivalent in the civilian market.  It’s no secret that military life creates disciplined, principled, and dedicated workers, an asset to any employer or a good basis for starting a business.

Almost a quarter of Americans have a college degree today and the increasing demand for and availability of degrees to the larger population owes much to the GI Bill.  Since 1944, it has helped over 21 million veterans join the educated workforce.  The Post 9-11 GI Bill will help hundreds of thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans not only get an education, but help pay their cost of living while doing so, something the GI Bill hasn’t done since the 1980’s.  It has been touted as part of the economic recovery program by providing the opportunity for many former troops to qualify for better jobs than the currently scarce entry level positions available to those that have only a high school diploma.  This is especially important while unemployment among young veterans is estimated at 21 percent.  If you can’t find a job, at least you can go to school.

I didn’t join the military just to go to college or for the opportunities.  There are many that did and there’s nothing wrong with that.  They have earned the thanks of the nation.  The GI Bill is a progressive policy that does just that for Americans that might not otherwise have had the opportunity.  Serving in the military gives many Americans the chance they need for a career or a good start in life.  As for me, I have decided to study law in the end.  Without the opportunity the military has given to me and to my family, I would not have been able to.  Millions of other Americans share the same story.

Photo credit: US Army Africa

Some Democrats tune out Tony Blair not only because he backed the invasion of Iraq, but because he committed the unpardonable sin of articulating the case for war far more convincingly than George W. Bush.

That’s too bad, because Britain’s ex-prime minister has some important things to say about the conflict formerly known as the “war on terror.” On this issue, in fact, the Obama administration could use a dose of Blairite clarity and candor.

Blair was in New York this week to accept the “Scholar-Statesman” award from The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In his acceptance speech, he argued that the United States and the “civilized world” must combat not just al Qaeda, but also the extremist ideology that inspired the 9/11 attacks:

“I do not think it is possible to defeat the extremism without defeating the narrative that nurtures it. And there’s the rub. The practitioners of the extremism are small in number. The adherents of the narrative stretch far broader into parts of mainstream thinking.”

This inconvenient truth highlights a critical vacuum in U.S. counterterrorism policy. While the Obama administration has ramped up the military campaign to oust al Qaeda from Afghanistan (and pound its sanctuaries in Pakistan), it has been less successful in checking the spread of the Islamist doctrine, which casts Muslims as victims of western oppression and disrespect.

Blair believes western efforts to blunt the force of the extremist narrative by apologizing for policies, such as support for Israel, are counterproductive. They undercut rather than fortify the position of Muslim moderates, and they provoke a backlash from western publics against what’s seen as pandering to extremists.

Although he was too diplomatic to say so, Blair’s call for confronting the extremist narrative head-on challenges current U.S. policy.

President Obama has wisely retired the “war on terror” language he inherited from his predecessor. As Reza Aslan has noted, Bush’s relentlessly martial rhetoric lent credence to the idea that the United States was locked in a “cosmic war” with Islam. By narrowing the focus to al Qaeda (and its Taliban protectors in Afghanistan), Obama has sought to reassure both foreign and domestic audiences that the United States is drawing careful distinctions and not making unnecessary enemies.

So far, so good. But even if we demolished what’s left of al Qaeda tomorrow, our problems wouldn’t be over. Its ideology already has migrated to affiliates in Iraq, Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere, which have adopted the same gruesome tactics of suicide bombers and mass casualty attack. And while their victims are mostly Muslims, as Blair noted, too many in the Muslim world seem sympathetic to their narrative of victimhood, if not their methods.

This ambivalence was captured perfectly by one of a group of Somalians from Virginia captured in Pakistan. He said, in effect, we’re not terrorists, we’re jihadists come to help our fellow Muslims defend themselves against western aggression.

So Tony Blair is, as the Brits say, spot on. To reduce the threat of terrorist attacks, the United States must wage a two-track fight. One is the military campaign to disrupt and destroy al Qaeda. The other should be a “whole of government” effort to counter the extremist narrative. I’ll have more to say in future posts about its key elements, but it starts by engaging directly with Muslim publics and by firmly rejecting the false premises of the extremist story.

Photo credit: Washington Institute for Near East Policy

When the US State Department issued a terror alert for European travel this week, it raised the inevitable questions: Should I travel to Europe?  Where should I avoid?  Is this thing really serious?

To make sense of this alert, a history lesson is in order.

This history lesson takes us back to Christmas, 1988 in Frankfurt, West Germany. Back in the days before the classified interwebs, information didn’t flow particularly quickly between US government entities.  Photocopying and physical circulation were standard practices.  So, when something big came up, specific information might not be widely distributed.  Government workers weren’t exactly Tweeting it to one another on SIPRnet (the SECRET-level USG computer network).  It’s hard to believe, but back in the day, everyone didn’t know everything about each other all the time.

In the days before the holiday, the U.S. consulate in Frankfurt received vague threat information about a potential terrorist attack targeting American citizens.  The information didn’t state much, other than that the strike would emanate from Germany or possibly London.  The Regional Security Officer posted the threat information on a public bulletin board in the consulate, and many American government workers changed their Christmas travel plans.

As you’ve probably figured out by now, the travel warning turned out to be credible – the Lockerbie bombing of December 21, 1988 killed 190 American citizens, 270 total, traveling from London to JFK airport.  The flight had originated in Frankfurt, where the bomb was originally smuggled aboard.

While it was of course good that certain American government employees had avoided the catastrophe, a policy problem arose.  In short, there was a double standard in place:  Americans (and their families) who happened to work for the government in Frankfurt as everything from intelligence officers to economic advisors to custodians avoided the tragedy due only to their preferential position.  Americans elsewhere in Europe, whether in government or not, weren’t warned.

The resulting “No Double Standard” policy emerged.  Generally, it says that when the U.S. government receives what it deems credible threat information, it has a duty to alert all Americans, not just those who work for the government.  The State Department alert issued about travel to Europe over the weekend fulfills the “No Double Standard” requirement.

So, does this mean that the current intelligence is as specific as that which preceded the Lockerbie bombing?  No.  However, it does mean that the government has credible, but possibly vague, information about a possible attack.

What does “credible” mean, then?  Media reports indicate that the information was gleaned from an individual detained in Pakistan.  Based on his access to information, officials have assessed that his reporting likely contains a grain of truth – that a group of operatives is interested in conducting a Mumbai-style attack in Europe.

However, they do not know when, where, or – quite critically – how developed the plot is or whether the alleged plotters have the operational capability to pull something off.  Authorities just believe their source is telling the truth.

Issuing the alert also puts potential plotters on their heels – European security services’ guard is raised and targets will be harder to access, which might just dissuade an attack in the first place.

Bottom line is that U.S. and European governments have vague but credible information about a discussion of a terrorist plot.  Whether the alleged plotters are serious and capable of executing it is likely yet to be determined.  Issuing the alert is a legal requirement designed to raise awareness among the public at large, not necessarily an indication that a terrorist attack is certain to occur.

Photo credit:  Daniel Horacio Agostini

In late July, I was sitting in a Seattle restaurant with my uncle and his wife.  Our conversation ebbed and flowed among the many problems our country faces –recidivism, poverty, Afghanistan, economic uncertainty – you name it, and I assure you it came up.  Since I do the whole “progressive national security thing” for a living, we invariably circled back to those themes.

Though an oversimplification by any stretch, it’s probably safe to say my uncle and his wife classify themselves as “west coast liberals,” or a bit further left on than yours truly at least on military issues.  They had, however, spent time in Italy in 2008 teaching English to military officers, and enjoyed the experience.

“You know,” Uncle Bill said, “The only other experience I’ve had with the military was when I was 17. I marched in to see your grandfather and told him that he had to sign these papers so I could join up and go to Vietnam.  Of course, he didn’t even bother to drop his paper and said ‘no’.  But it’s probably one of the most patriotic things I’ve done in my life.”

The American public’s lack of familiarity with the military, something we subsequently brought up, continues to be a huge problem.  Because military recruiting is confined to a few areas of the country – notably poorer areas of the South and Midwest – most of the country has little “skin in the game” when it comes to major foreign policy decisions involving military deployments.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates feels just about the same.  He spoke about the issue yesterday at Duke University:

“With each passing decade, fewer and fewer Americans know someone with military experience in their family or social circle…. There is a risk over time of developing a cadre of military leaders that politically, culturally and geographically have less and less in common with the people they have sworn to defend.”

For rational economic reasons, our forces are concentrated in several areas throughout the country – southern Virginia, San Diego, North Carolina, and Texas are amongst the largest – and DoD remains the bedrock of many of those communities.

While that may not change, the next Secretary of Defense should make it a priority to expand the recruiting base.  This is a big argument that needs much more fleshing out, but it’s worth beginning to discuss now: Our military should draw from a more even cross-section of American society to inject a more diverse set of ideas into military culture and policy, which will further benefit the country by engaging those diverse recruits’ families and friends in pressing foreign and military policy debates.  How many officers have Ivy League educations these days, anyway?

Photo credit: Ed Yourdon

Ordinarily, U.S. presidents don’t make headlines by extolling liberty and democracy before an international audience. But when President Obama did just that yesterday at the United Nations, it signaled a welcome shift from his previous reticence on these themes.

Here’s the key passage:

Yet experience shows us that history is on the side of liberty; that the strongest foundation for human progress lies in open economies, open societies, and open governments. To put it simply, democracy, more than any other form of government, delivers for our citizens. And I believe that truth will only grow stronger in a world where the borders between nations are blurred.

For sure, in his 2009 Cairo speech and elsewhere, the President has argued that individual freedom and democracy are universal aspirations. But in general, the administration’s voice has often seemed muted when it comes to standing up for liberal values.

Critics, for example, have cited Obama’s apparent downgrading of human rights in relations with China; U.S. eagerness to “reset” relations with Russia even as that country slides back into authoritarianism; and, the White House’s failure to offer full-throated support to Iran’s “green” movement which arose in protest over a rigged 2009 election.

The administration’s ambivalence about America’s responsibility to abet the spread of liberal democracy is no mystery. It’s a reaction to George W. Bush’s ill-conceived “freedom agenda”, which seemed to conflate U. S. democracy promotion with the use of force in Iraq and threats of “regime change” in hostile countries like Iran and North Korea. Bush’s unmodulated, even messianic, rhetoric about supporting democratic revolutions everywhere rattled America’s foes but also unnerved our friends as well.

President Obama has devoted his first two years to reassuring the world that America is returning to its tradition of cooperative internationalism, and he’s largely succeeded.  The U.S. “brand” has been refurbished and America’s global approval ratings have risen.

But in rectifying its predecessor’s mistakes, this administration sometimes leaned too far in the opposition direction. At times it seemed to embrace foreign policy “realism”, which emphasizes material interests and geopolitics and downplays the role of political values and structures in shaping countries’ international conduct.  In a telling omission, the administration has organized its foreign policy around the “three Ds” – diplomacy, development and defense – conspicuously excluding a fourth D for democracy.

But realism is antithetical to liberalism, which is why it has been most often associated with Republicans like Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft. From Woodrow Wilson’s day on, Democrats have argued that America can best advance its interests and ideals by throwing her weight on the side of individual rights, economic freedom and democracy. Their guiding philosophy is not realism but liberal internationalism, which holds that a freer world is a safer, more prosperous world.

Obama seemed to reaffirm that outlook yesterday. At the same time, the President continued to be clear that his administration’s approach to supporting democracy would be nothing like Bush’s. Picking up a theme introduced in recent speeches by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he promised greater U.S. support for embattled civil society organizations in authoritarian countries.

Finally, Obama stressed that promoting democracy is not something America should do unilaterally, but in concert with new democracies as well as old allies. That was a pointed challenge to countries like South Africa and some Latin American countries, who have been reluctant to speak out against human rights abuses and tyrannical rule in their own neighborhoods.

In all, it was an important speech that realigned U.S. foreign policy with core values that have defined it at its best, and led to its greatest triumphs.

photo credit: transplanted mountaineer