issue: Foreign Policy & Defense

The Strange Republican Cuts to National Security

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As a progressive who strongly believes in a “whole of government” approach to ensuring the nation’s security, I cheered when the Obama administration’s 2010 National Security Strategy included this paragraph:

To succeed, we must update, balance, and integrate all of the tools of American power and work with our allies and partners to do the same. Our military must maintain its conventional superiority … We must invest in diplomacy and development capabilities and institutions in a way that complements and reinforces our global partners. Our intelligence capabilities must continuously evolve to identify and characterize conventional and asymmetric threats and provide timely insight. And we must integrate our approach to homeland security with our broader national security approach.

That attitude goes a long way to rectifying the wrongs of the Bush administration’s philosophy, one that saw too many problems as nails, and too many solutions as a hammer. The results were obvious: squandered resources, an exhausted military, lost international credibility, and, ultimately, less security.

It’s clear that Republicans still haven’t gotten this message. In this year’s continuing resolution, they’ve voted to cut some of those whole-of-government resources that are vital to strengthening our security. Here’s a list of cuts, taken from the just-passed continuing resolution, and compiled by my friends at the Truman National Security Project that fundamentally weakens our crucial non-military national security tools:

House Republican Cuts to National Security Priorities

in 2/19 Continuing Resolution for FY2011

Compiled from: Program cuts in the FY2011 Continuing Resolution, 2/14/2011, House Appropriations Committee. Analysis of HR1. 2/15/2011, Senate Appropriations Committee. Checked against Statement by Congressman Rogers on HR1, 2/19/2011, House Appropriations Committee for amendments which passed. Cuts are to FY2010 Enacted.

Contact: David Solimini, Communications Director. dave@trumanproject.org or 757-876-0295.

National Security & Ongoing Wars

·         National Security Council. Cut the President’s principle advisors on national security issues by $600,000. [Program cuts in the FY2011 Continuing Resolution]

·         Counterinsurgency funding. Cut USAID by $121m (9% cut), which will halt new civilian programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan that are necessary for the counterinsurgency strategy to work. These programs were called for by US military commanders. [Analysis of HR1].

·         Iraq transition, Afghanistan/Pakistan operations. Cut State Department operations by $1.2b (12%), meaning the transition from military to civilian responsibility in Iraq, and State operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, will be put in jeopardy. [Analysis of HR1].

·         Border Security. Cut funding for border fencing and border protection technology, as well as its related infrastructure, by $350m. [Program cuts in the FY2011 Continuing Resolution]

·         Democracy promotion. Cut the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which provides assistance to countries which meet government improvement goals, by $315m. Cut Development Assistance by $746m. [Program cuts in the FY2011 Continuing Resolution]

·         International First Responders. Cut, by $103m, the Civilian Stabilization Initiative, which trains civilians to reconstruct and stabilize war torn, disaster ridden, and unstable countries, to prevent future conflict. Cut International Disaster Assistance by $415m, and the Complex Crisis Fund by $50. [Program cuts in the FY2011 Continuing Resolution]

·         Starvation Prevention/Weak State Stabilization. Cut Food For Peace, which delivers bags of food stamped “USA” to the people of weak and failing states, by $687. Program details. [Program cuts in the FY2011 Continuing Resolution].

Terrorism Prevention

·         Transportation security. Cut transit security grants by more than 66 percent. In the last 7 years, there were over 1,300 terrorist attacks on trains, subways, and busses, killing or injuring over 18,000 people. [Analysis of HR1.] Also cut: Transportation Security Administration Threat Assessment funding by $9m. [Program cuts in the FY2011 Continuing Resolution]

·         Port security & Container Screening. Cut port security grants by 66 percent. [Analysis of HR1.] Also cut $61m in international container inspections. Container shipping is the most likely way a weapon of mass destruction could be brought into the country. [Program cuts in the FY2011 Continuing Resolution]

Nuclear Terrorism

·         Domestic Nuclear Attack Prevention. Cut, by $31m, the office which detects attempts to import, possess, store, develop, or transport nuclear or radiological material for use against the Nation. [Analysis of HR1] [Program cuts in the FY2011 Continuing Resolution] [Program details]

·         Nuclear materials security. Cut nuclear non-proliferation funding by $97m. This will prevent the US from removing hundreds of pounds of highly enriched uranium, which terrorists could use to build nuclear devices, from unsecure facilities in several countries around the world. [Analysis of HR1]

·         Weapons of Mass Destruction Training. Cut, by 51 percent, funding for first responder weapons of mass destruction training, which means that more than 46,000 first responders will not being trained in FY 2011. [Analysis of HR1]

Veterans Benefits

·         Homeless veterans. Terminated the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program, the aim of which is to end veteran homelessness in 5 years. There were more than 130,000 homeless veterans in 2009. The VASH program provided housing vouchers for them. [Analysis of HR1] [Local Story, CT]

·         Veterans long term care. Cut Long Term Care facilities at the Department of Veterans Affairs by $15m. [Program info.] [Program cuts in the FY2011 Continuing Resolution]

The Coming Fight Over Foreign Assistance

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Above is my quick and dirty comparison of the coming fight over foreign assistance. In green is the amount already spent in 2010 on each of the discreet line items (I’ve chosen these four areas because they were directly comparable between the various proposed appropriations).

Here’s how to read the graph: The actual amount spent in 2010 by the USG on each line item is in green. In red is the amount Republicans want to cut back to for the remainder of FY2011, expiring on 30 September. And in blue is what the White House would like to spend in FY2012’s budget proposal.

Now, I understand that there’s a conversation to be had about fixing how we spend foreign assistance and what we should receive back from it. But this is a more basic philosophical disagreement about whether or not America should be a world leader, or whether we should disengage from the rest of the world. After all, at its best, foreign assistance buys soft power, something that has been in relatively short supply of late.

In light of that, it’s worth keeping in mind this quote from Joe Nye’s new book, The Future Power:

In general, the United States has not worked out an integrated plan for combining hard and soft power….Many official instruments of soft power – public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development assistance, disaster relief, military-to-military contracts – are scattered around the government, and there is no overarching strategy or budget that even tries to integrate them with hard power into an overarching smart power strategy. The United States spends about five hundred times more on the military than it does on broadcasting and exchanges.

Photo Credit: Marines Haiti Relief

Egypt’s Lessons For Iran

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Democrats and Republicans showed admirable bipartisanship as President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton led the nation through the crisis in Egypt. It wasn’t exactly a return to an era when politics stopped at the water’s edge, but it was a fair-minded recognition that the administration had no great choices and limited control over the direction of the Cairo protests. Stuck between a multi-decade autocracy on one side and potentially pushing a country of 75 million Muslims to the Muslim Brotherhood’s virulent political Islam through our lack of support for the protestors on the other, the President and our political establishment steered a steady course.

I only bring up the thorny issue of Egypt to point out that, in comparison, the policies we should be pursuing on Iran this morning are no-brainers. As of yesterday there’s a very real possibility that the example of Egypt has reignited the Green Movement, and that the IRGC-dominated oligarchy is again in some peril. Riots have again broken out throughout the country. Tear gas and truncheon and electric batons are again being used openly against the protesters. Videos are again being uploaded to YouTube showing that the Basij have resorted to batons and bullets.

And now there are even rumors that the protesters in Tehran are trying to set up tents in the center of the city, modeled after the Egyptians in Tahrir Square, to establish a long-term protest bent on establishing a free society. The spectacle of Ahmadinejad cheering on the anti-Mubarak protesters while denying Iranian dissenters the right to march may have finally become too much for the average Iranian to stomach.

Here there are no hard choices about whether to pursue stability or change. All of our efforts should be exerted on the side of the protesters demanding a free Iran.  The risk that the regime will exploit western support for the protestors is a stale excuse for silence.  The brave young men and women risking their lives for change deserve better than caution or indifference.

Secretary Clinton and the administration have responded admirably thus far. Yesterday the Secretary personally expressed support for the protesters, insisting that they have a right to demand freedom “as part of their own birthright” and highlighting the Iranian regime’s hypocrisy. She committed the administration to “”very clearly and directly support[ing] the aspirations of the people who are in the streets.”

The current tone, which is exactly right, is a welcome contrast to the unseemly vacillation that marked the first days of the Green Revolution, when White House and State Department spokespeople refused to throw their weightbehind the protesters. That won us no good will from the Iranian regime and it risked alienating many of the freedom-loving Iranians with whom we should have been standing in solidarity.

The truth is that we have nothing to lose and much to gain by supporting the protesters. The conspiracy-wallowing regime in Tehran reflexively blames the United States, Israel, and Britain for domestic unrest. They’ve already tagged this round of protests as a foreign plot.

The administration deserves only praise for having figured out as much the first time around, and for immediately lending the protesters our full-throated support this time. The day after the mullahcracy falls will truly be a new day in the Middle East.

Like Secretary Clinton’s comments yesterday, President Obama’s remarks today are a good start.

Now is not the time to go silent or hedge our bets in support of those seeking freedom in Iran.

End Separate War Spending

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It’s federal budget season. Before you doze off, stick with me: there’s a deceptive budgetary maneuver that is costing you billions in defense dollars, forcing progressive members of Congress into uncomfortable votes on Iraq and Afghanistan, and defying every historical precedent in Pentagon budgeting.

This maneuver is the supplemental appropriation for war funding. Every year since the United States launched military operations in Afghanistan in response to the September 11th attacks, Congress has appropriated separate funds for unanticipated wartime costs in addition to the Pentagon’s baseline budget. In some years, only one extra war spending bill is approved; in 2010, two supplemental appropriations were passed.

Supplemental war funding appropriations are hardly new, beginning in World War II. When used correctly, the process serves as a vital tool that delivers timely funding to America’s fighting men and women. In the initial stages of combat, supplemental appropriations are extraordinarily useful in the face of the lengthy Congressional budget process, which does not allow for unanticipated military spending. Typically, the supplemental funds pay for pre-deployment costs, servicemembers’ transportation to the warzone, combat operations, equipment needs, and military construction. Without this tool, the Pentagon would essentially be forced to sacrifice long-term projects to meet immediate wartime needs.

Here’s the rub: Under the Bush administration, allegedly “emergency” supplemental appropriations for war costs became routine avenues for backdoor spending. Their opaque nature and lack of oversight have created a propensity to fund low-priority programs that has effectively eroded any sense of fiscal discipline at the Pentagon, bloating military spending. We must put an end to the practice

The Department of Defense (DoD) is the unquestioned champion of discretionary spending—money the government chooses to spend, rather than is obliged to pay for entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. With more than $700 billion in discretionary funds available, the Pentagon far outpaces its nearest competition, the Department of Health and Human Services, at $80 billion.

Since 2001, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates that Congress has approved $1.12 trillion in supplemental appropriations, 90 percent of which—$1.01 trillion—has been destined for the Department of Defense. One estimate is that Congress has no control over one-fifth of supplemental war spending; therefore, a rough calculation suggests that some $200 billion has been wasted in 10 years.

While those on the extreme left and in the Tea Party would like to see slashes in the Pentagon’s spending, what DoD’s budget really needs is not gutting, but a solid dose of discipline.

Read the policy memo

Can the Republicans Really Pull Off $100 Billion in Cuts?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Well, that was quick. Rather than risk a mutiny, House Republican leaders have agreed to now cut $100 billion from the $1.1 trillion federal budget, rather than their original plan of a mere $40 billion. The question is: Can they pull it off? And if they do, will they come to regret it?

Yesterday, I predicted a coming Republican crack-up based on the premise that the Young Turks of the Tea Party are out to take a stand (gosh darnit!) against big government, but it’s a stand that’s not compatible with the continued electoral success of the Republican Party. And the spending cuts are a perfect example.

Say Republican leaders are indeed serious about  cutting $100 billion. Where will they cut? A new Pew poll found only two federal programs in which more respondents favored a decrease in spending than an increase: Global poverty assistance (45 percent for a decrease, 21 percent for an increase) and Unemployment assistance (28 percent for a decrease, 27 percent for an increase). Neither of these are big ticket items.

The only other area that is close to even is Defense (30 percent for a decrease, 31 percent for an increase). Defense accounts for about half of discretionary spending. But I’m guessing a good percentage of those 31 percent who want to increase the military are solid Republican base voters.

So here’s the hard reality: There is some serious bloodlust going around Washington about cutting the budget, in part because there is some serious bloodlust about cutting the budget in the Tea Party base. But when it comes down to the actual programs that will get cut, the picture changes.

You see, many voters are symbolic conservatives in that they like to say they are for things like small government and fiscal discipline. But when it comes to specific government programs, well, why would you go and cut my well-deserved Medicare benefits when you could be cutting federal salaries or aid to the poor? In fact, with the exception of federal pay and foreign aid or aid to the poor, it’s hard to find a single government program or funding source that any majority would support cutting.

Democrats, of course, know this, and are just waiting for Republicans to go wild with their proposed cuts – especially Senate Democrats, who will play the role of putting the pieces back together.

In the end, there are two likely scenarios. In one, Republican leaders hold to the Tea Party line, but play right into Democrats’ hands, demanding harsh cuts — and in the process they awaken all kinds of anxious voters who are now suddenly worried about protecting the programs that benefit them. In the other, Republicans compromise, but alienate the Tea Party contingent, leading to an internecine battle. Either way, it’s not gonna be a pretty scene for the GOP.

What Happens Next in Egypt?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It’s hardly insightful to call the events unfolding in Cairo “astounding,” though of course they are. The people of Egypt have patiently waited until their sole unifying demand was met: that Hosni Mubarak be gone. Egyptians have won a great victory, and their dedication to that objective is a remarkable testament to their resolve in the face of a regime bent on winning the day with attempts to frustrate and provoke the masses. They didn’t take that bait, and a peaceful, truly popular revolution is set to reap tangible improvements in their daily lives.

Or are they?

The hard work now begins. A transition to democracy has begun, but who remains as Egypt’s temporary steward of power and the speed with which elections are held remain critical issues.

Now that the protesters’ main demand has been met, everything else is negotiable. Surely the masses will reject any attempt by Mubarak confidant and newly-installed Vice President Omar Suleiman to remain as the heir-apparent to his erstwhile mentor’s thrown.

Will Suleiman cede his powers to a transitional council of opposition leaders, current government officials, and military representatives? How would it be composed? What role would the Muslim Brotherhood – commanding some 25 percent public support and having kept their powder dry thus far – play?

Just as critically, when would elections be held? A snap vote would probably be too risky and would prevent a truly representative government from taking hold: Lacking a unifying candidate, chances are that Mohammed ElBaradei may very well win a presidential contest but with possibly well less than 50 percent of the vote.

On the parliamentary side, nothing speaks to the bankruptcy of American policy over the last 30 years than successive presidential administrations’ failures to establish working  relationships with civil society groups, opposition parties, and democratic institutions. Or to advocate for the creation of a healthy Egyptian middle class, one from which reasonable political parties could form. As it stands, a near-term vote would be a scramble of thousands of poorly-organized, patronage-based parties that results in an incoherent, ad hoc governing coalition (see: Iraq, minus the sectarianism).

A near-term vote would also be one in which the Muslim Brotherhood, as one of the few well-organized groups, is over represented. And though the Brotherhood is not the overt Iran-styled threat that the likes of John Bolton and Fox News would like to believe, there are serious, serious questions outstanding about its governing platforms, as my colleague Josh Block has highlighted.

Where does this leave the Obama administration? It must be said that the White House has publicly waffled too much as Mubarak’s stock rose and fell, though perhaps it was much more effective that we know in its private communications with the Egyptian military and Mubarak’s inner circle. President Obama has been on the right side of history, if a disturbing half-step behind it.

Now that Mubarak is gone, the White House can double-down and strongly advocate for the expansion of representative democracy and American interests, which need not come in conflict. The president should push for a temporary, representative transitional council to establish a process to lift the emergency law and rewrite the constitution; it’s clear that those in Tahrir Square didn’t remain outdoors for weeks to see Omar Suleiman or the Brotherhood execute a back-door power grab.

As for elections, the White House could back a delay. Perhaps a year would be appropriate under a representative transitional authority, giving political parties at least some reasonable time to organize.

And as for the wider region? President Obama should start today the process of enshrining American links with civil society groups, local NGOs, and opposition parties of all stripes. This means that groups like the National Endowment for Democracy, the National Democratic Institute, and International Republican Institute (to name but a few) absolutely must be fully funded in this year’s budget.

If Tea Partiers believe Glenn Beck’s mind-blowingly ill-informed doomsday scenario, funding NED would be a good place to start preventing it.

The Defense Budget Sleight of Hand That’s Costing You Billions

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Look, I get it. If you’re not a budget wonk, I can understand how you might not care about this stuff. But if you’re a progressive and you’re concerned about the Tea Party destroying the EPA for no good reason, then that’s reason to pay attention.

I’ve written a policy memo about something else that is crucial to understand if we want to even the discussion of getting Defense spending under control: it’s simply vital that we end the practice of supplemental war funding bills.

Wait! Wait! Don’t fall asleep. Seriously. We’ve wasted $200 billion over the last ten years through a little-discussed system of back-door Pentagon budgeting, which essentially funds the stuff on DoD’s wish list by falsely calling them “emergency war necessities.” Why, for example, did Congress give Don Rumsfeld an $11 billion slush fund to spend as he pleases without any Congressional oversight?

We have to end this systematic abuse of your taxpayer dollars — start reading here to find out how.

Read the policy memo

A Serious Man

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As political handicappers weigh the impact on next year’s elections of Senator Jim Webb’s decision not to seek a second term, this much is certain: His departure will leave the Senate a less interesting place.

Webb is an original: Annapolis graduate, decorated Marine veteran of Vietnam, acclaimed novelist, Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan and, following his improbable 2006 victory, Democratic Senator from Virginia.

Improbable not just because he started way behind, but also because he had previously been a Republican; because this erstwhile warrior rode a tide of anti-war sentiment to victory; and, because he is anything but a natural politician.  A private, self-contained man, Webb does not lust for the limelight or feed on public adoration.  He doesn’t like to press the flesh or ask fat cats for money. He is essentially a writer whose political model was the late intellectual-turned-legislator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

While marching to his own beat, Webb has quietly made his mark in the Senate over the past four years. He successfully pushed an expansion of G.I. Bill-style benefits for veterans, and drawn attention to an issue that isn’t on the nation’s political radar but should be: America’s overstuffed prisons and indiscriminate sentencing policies that lock up too many non-violent offenders. Following his own passions, Webb has specialized in foreign affairs, focusing especially on East Asia.

Also like Moynihan, Webb’s outlook has been shaped by a strong ethnic consciousness. Just as Moynihan drew on his Irish background in his studies of the ethnic melting pot, Webb, in Born Fighting and other books, has chronicled the Scots-Irish experience in America. Settled on the America frontier, Scots-Irish Protestants pushed relentlessly westward, battling Indians (and Mexicans) along the way. They form the core of a genuine warrior culture that, argues German writer Josef Joffe in Uberpower: the Imperial Temptation of America, has mostly disappeared from Europe but remains a key element of American exceptionalism.

Webb’s departure will be a significant political loss for Democrats, but not because it may put his Senate seat in jeopardy. More fundamentally, Webb is a rarity in today’s contemporary Democratic Party: a leader with an intuitive feel for the interests and values of white working class voters. Once the mainstay of the progressive New Deal coalition, their defection to the Republicans led to a generation of GOP ascendancy in national politics.

More than most Democrats, Webb has thought hard how about to win them back. He has chided his party for exhibiting anti-military attitudes, and for pushing economic policies that favor elites who profit from globalization to the detriment of working families, whose incomes have stagnated as good jobs have vanished over the last two decades. Bravely, he has taken on the “diversity” industry that promotes group preferences in hiring, government contracting and college admissions, even for recent female and minority immigrants who can by no stretch of the imagination be classified as victims of U.S. racism.

As it happens, the modern Democratic Party emerged under Andrew Jackson, America’s first Scots-Irish President. The “democracy” as it was often called was the party of ordinary people, while the Whigs represented economic and social elites. Much of middle America now feels estranged from the party of the people.

That’s an existential dilemma for progressives, not just a political problem. Jim Webb understands that, which is why I’m sorry to see him go.

Why The Middle East Needs Economic Opportunity

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Uprisings across the Middle East have exposed the futility of America’s Faustian bargain with “moderate” Arab despots. Whatever happens in Egypt, it’s time for the United States to switch course and throw its weight unequivocally behind popular aspirations throughout the region for political freedom and economic opportunity.

No doubt this will be risky: If friendly autocrats go down, who knows what will take their place? Already there’s chortling in Tehran, because the fall of pro-western rulers could tilt the regional balance of power toward Iran and its satraps, weakening U.S. influence and further isolating Israel. For American strategists, however, such risks must be measured against the enormous costs of perpetuating a rotten status quo in the Middle East.

U.S.-backed regimes are far from the region’s worst, but they have contributed to the dismal conditions – stunted political and economic development, systematic abuse of human rights, endemic nepotism and corruption – that breed popular discontent and, at the extreme, the violent ideology of radical Islam. Washington’s support for authoritarian rulers has yielded neither lasting stability nor moderation, though it has compromised our own liberal values and engendered anti-American sentiment on the street.

Now, amid rising popular demands for change, America should aim not at stability, but at transformation in the Middle East. We should side with the young, civic activists and political reformers who want to throw off strongman rule; knock corrupt elites from their privileged perch; bypass central bureaucracies that stifle enterprise and dole out economic favors as a means of social control; empower civil society and women; and, in general, open Arab and Muslim societies to the modern, interconnected world.

Given our embrace of realpolitik in the Middle East, America doesn’t have a lot of credibility in the eyes of people now protesting in the streets of Cairo and other Arab capitals. But while our influence on political developments may be limited, there’s nothing to prevent the United States from addressing the economic frustrations that feed today’s revolts.

As PPI has documented in a series of policy reports (see here and here), the Middle East is the great outlier in today’s system of economic globalization. If you take out oil, the region’s share of world trade has remained strikingly small (about two percent of farm and manufacturing products), even as its population has nearly doubled over the past three decades. Exports are up in some countries, including Egypt and Pakistan, but the region as a whole attracts very little foreign investment. Poverty rates remain high – in Egypt, just under half the population is poor – and, according to the International Labor Organization, the Middle East has world’s highest unemployment rate: 10.3 percent compared to a global average of 6.2 percent.

This picture of economic stagnation is particularly grim for the young. Fully a quarter of them can’t find work. Little wonder that, as young men pour out of schools and universities into barren job markets each year, some are susceptible to Islamist extremists who offer them not only pay and adventure, but also a compellingly simple account of who is to blame for their misery – corrupt rulers in cahoots with the infidel West.

One practical way the United States can counter the radical narrative is to champion economic freedom and prosperity in the Middle East. The principle instrument here is trade and investment, rather than development aid. What these countries need is economic reforms that facilitate their integration into global markets, not wealth transfers from rich countries that end up lining the pockets of corrupt elites. To spur reform and growth, President Obama should ask Congress to pass a massive tariff-reduction bill based on the successful precedent of the Africa and Caribbean free trade agreement. A Greater Middle East Trade Initiative would provide the levers for lowering barriers to trade and investment in the region, promoting financial transparency, encouraging all countries to join the World Trade Organization, and removing obstacles to individual enterprise.

The nexus between trade and investment and economic reform is critical. As Peruvian economist Hernando De Soto has shown, massive state bureaucracies and bad laws smother entrepreneurship and drive a lot of economic activity underground. In Egypt, more people work in the underground economy than in either the private or public sectors. His studies also show that a low-income entrepreneur has to negotiate with scores of government agencies to start a business, and it years to get clear title to land.

Of course, Washington should press harder for political reforms and fair elections in the Middle East as well. But many in the region simply don’t trust Washington to embrace democracy if it produces outcomes we don’t like. By focusing on poverty, unemployment and jobs, the United States can work around such suspicions. Making life better for ordinary people is the best way to advance U.S. interests in the Middle East.

Nine Questions About the Muslim Brotherhood

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Events unfolding in Egypt are cause both for celebration and concern.   Extremely important questions for American national security are at stake in the orientation of the Egyptian government that emerges from this period of upheaval.  A fundamental question looms large: Will the Egypt that emerges be a reliable US ally and a force in for peace and security in the Middle East?

Key questions surround the Muslim Brotherhood, a well-organized force in Egyptian society. Though reformist factions exist within the Muslim Brotherhood’s leadership, the group’s stated opinions on issues of sharia law, women’s rights, relations with Israel, and the legitimacy of terrorism should give American policymakers pause.

As we begin to assess the Muslim Brotherhood, here are nine questions we should all ask of and about the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies:

1. Can the Muslim Brotherhood participate in a government where Egypt continues its obligations to Israel under the Camp David Accords? Could it lead such a government?
Muslim Brotherhood party leader Mohamed Ghanem said on Iranian TV that Egypt should stop selling gas to Israel and prepare the Egyptian army for a war with the Jewish State, echoing the 2010 declaration of Muslim Brotherhood Chairman Mohammed Badie that the Camp David Accords violate the laws of Islam and have “lost all credibility.”­  Likewise, a Brotherhood leader told NHK TV this week that as soon as there was a post-Mubarak government it must break peace with Israel.

2. Can the Muslim Brotherhood lead or even be part of a government that continues extensive counter-terrorism cooperation with Israel and the United States, as conducted by the last government?
In 2008 Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi Akef in 2008 declared that that violence against civilians of the kind practiced by Osama Bin Laden is justified against “occupiers” and opponents of Islam.

3. Under the Muslim Brotherhood, would the Egyptian government continue to fulfill Egypt’s international obligations and keep the Suez Canal open for all international shipping, including that of America and Israel?

4. Can the Muslim Brotherhood participate in an Egyptian government that maintains the Western-backed closure of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip? Could it lead such a government?
In June 2010 Muslim Brotherhood Guidance Bureau member Essam El Erian announced that the border of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip should be opened.

5. Would the party sit in a coalition government with female cabinet ministers? Could it lead such a government?
In 2008 Muslim Brotherhood Executive Bureau member Mahmoud Ghozlan insisted that “women and non-Muslims don’t have the right to lead or govern Muslim states,” echoing the sharia-based gender segregation in all sectors of life called for by Muslim Brotherhood founder al-Banna.

6. Given Iran’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood’s sister terrorist organization Hamas, under the Muslim Brotherhood, would Egypt participate in the international sanctions regime against Iran?

7. Does the Muslim Brotherhood intend to push Egyptian lawmakers to adopt Koran-based law for Egyptian Muslims and former Muslims, including mandating death for apostasy?

8. Does the Muslim Brotherhood intend to push Egyptian lawmakers to adopt Koran-based law in regard to Egyptian non-Muslims, including denying full legal recognition to religious minorities such as Copts?
In a 2008 interview by Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi Akef insisted that Copts could not lead Islamic states such as Egypt.

9. Would a Muslim Brotherhood government seek to execute homosexuals as do other sharia-guided states?
In a 2008 interview Muslim Brotherhood Executive Bureau member Mahmoud Ghozlan emphasized that homosexuality needed to be outlawed.

Can Mubarak Follow South Korea’s Path?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As the world holds its breath to learn if the Egyptian people’s amazing struggle for democracy ends with a breakthrough or a bloodbath, President Hosni Mubarak would do well to consider the South Korea option.  Ultimately, Korea’s dictators and democracy were both winners.

Like Egyptians, South Koreans endured decades of American-backed dictatorship.  In the spring of 1987, Korea’s military government held sham elections not unlike the ones held in Egypt last November. However, in both places, a combination of repression and rising expectations proved a combustible mix. If the actual trigger for Egyptians was the sudden overthrow of Tunisia’s dictatorship last month, Koreans drew inspiration from the “People Power” overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines the year before. Indeed, “Marcos” became a code word for Korean reporters to describe their own dictatorship.

As in Cairo today, student-led demonstrations drew hundreds of thousands into the streets of Seoul 24 years ago. Like Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, Korea’s Christians played a supporting role at the outset. After weeks of clashes and tear gas, on June 29 the government announced that a free and fair direct presidential election would be held within six months. Given that almost exactly seven years earlier, the military unleashed a crackdown that killed over 200 citizens, the question we must ask is, what had changed?

When facing persistent social unrest, all dictators invariably undertake a cost-benefit analysis of cracking down versus opening up. In 1980, Korea’s coup leaders correctly determined that there would be little or no cost for killing. Indeed, within months of wiping the blood off of his hands, General-turned-President Chun Doo-hwan was one of President Ronald Reagan’s first foreign guests at the White House. Later that same year, Seoul was awarded the 1988 Summer Olympics.

China reached a similar conclusion in June of 1989. After two weeks of martial law, the butchers of Beijing calculated that firing on demonstrators in Tiananmen Square would be of great political benefit and little cost. Indeed, foreign investment actually increased in 1990 and exploded thereafter.

Far from incurring any costs, China and Korea’s dictators were rewarded for their bad behavior. For the United States, the price was much higher. A generation of Koreans became virulently anti-American because of our support for a hated regime. Can the U.S. afford such blowback in Egypt?

In Korea in 1987, by contrast, not only were the demonstrations much larger than in 1980, but the Reagan Administration was now insisting that the Chun regime begin the transition to democracy. More importantly, Korean military leaders revealed later that they had considered a crackdown, but feared losing the Olympics if they had turned the streets of Seoul red.

Many pundits have declared that the United Sates is a mere bystander to the struggle for democracy in Egypt, powerless to shape the outcome. This could not be further from the truth. Not only does the U.S. provide $1.3 billion a year in foreign aid (largely to the military no less), but the U.S. is also Egypt’s leading trade partner.

Since last Friday, the Obama Administration has only hinted that future U.S. assistance could be linked to the government’s behavior. If he has not already done so behind the scenes, President Obama must not waste a moment to make it clear to Mubarak that if the Egyptian army opens fire on innocent demonstrators, U.S. aid stops and sanctions begin. Thugs will prove unequal to the task of quashing the uprising. If Mubarak still decides to clamp down, then it is time to reevaluate all U.S. overseas assistance. If we cannot shape outcomes in the country that is our second leading aid recipient, then it is time to conduct our own cost-benefit analysis.

If President Mubarak has time to read to the end of the Korean case, he might even fully embrace the decision to open up. Largely free and fair elections were held in South Korea in December 1987 as scheduled, but due to a divided opposition, the military’s candidate (and a leader of the previous coup and crackdown no less) managed to win the election. We will never know if there would have been a military coup had one of the opposition candidates won. Once a civilian was elected president five years later, Chun and his successor did briefly spend time behind bars, but they are now living out their days as elder statesmen.

Korea’s transition to democracy was conservative and gradual, but democracy was the ultimate winner. Korean legislators may still favor fistfights over filibusters, but Korea is now the most vibrant democracy in Asia. It is not too late for Mubarak to start Egypt down that path.

Three Lessons From the Chaos in the Middle East

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As the foreign policy community begins a reevaluation of conventional wisdom about the Middle East, an obvious consequence in the aftermath of events in Egypt, one of the many questions that will get revisited is how to incubate a Palestinian state. It would be a pity if that track escaped the same needed consideration, or proceeded without an eye towards the pressing lessons emerging, even as the riots continue to simmer and the dominoes continue to teeter.

If the chaos sweeping the Arab and Muslim world has shown us one thing, it’s that Arab regimes in the Middle East come and go. If it’s shown us two things, it’s that regimes in the Middle East come and go, and that when they go, there had better be healthy liberal, secular democratic opposition groups ready to enter the vacuum. Otherwise the result is what we’re seeing now in Egypt, where the choices are between hostile political Islamists on the one hand and, on the other, a reshuffled version of the same regime that’s been ruling the country for decades.

One lesson that needs learning, then, is that an Arab state without an organized middle class is not only doomed to failure, but ALSO that the most organized oppositional forces sweeping the Middle East are basically one-man-one-vote-one-time Islamism. It’s not enough to have a middle class, and one can’t wave a magic wand or sprinkle fairy dust to make it happen. A middle class needs time to develop, to breath, and to become a recognizable political bloc with recognizable political interests channeled through recognizable political parties.

And that’s exactly what Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is attempting to accomplish in the West Bank. His economic initiatives, coupled with his institution-building programs, should not just be viewed as ways to increase the average Palestinian’s standard of living. More than that, they’re attempts to ground a future state in something like a civil society, the ultimate goal being to prevent a political vacuum from engulfing a future Palestinian government.

The Prime Minister knows that Hamas is ready to fill that vacuum and, having seen the creeping theocracy that is the Gaza Strip, he knows what the consequences would be if the Iran-backed terrorist organization ever succeeded.

The trick for the rest of us, of course, is to ensure that the process is allowed to play out – for the Palestinians and in Egypt – and that Fayyad’s efforts are allowed to become robust.

Economic peace should be allowed to take hold – and deeply encouraged – before political imperatives, lest still-fragile Palestinian institutions get overwhelmed and crumble.

And if we have learned a third thing from events this week – and more on this soon – it is that peace in the Middle East must be between institutions and societies, not simply with Arab political figures, whose future is far too uncertain across the Arab world for us, or our friends in Israel, to bet the farm on their survival.

Why We Are Watching This Clown

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I normally try to stay away from this stuff, but the latest Glenn Beck blaze of paranoia on Egypt is just too much of a train wreck to miss. In 12 terrifying minutes, Beck outlines the contours of a Middle East that is ON FIRE, and promises to devote the next several episodes to giving his viewers the whole TRUTH, the TRUTH that “has no agenda,” the TRUTH that the mainstream media doesn’t want to tell you.

“I’m not going to give you the two minute sound-byte,” teases Beck. “I’m not going to treat you like you’re a moron. I’m going to treat you like you really do want to understand what’s going on in the world.”

Okay, we all know he’s crazy. But what I keep trying to understand, every time I catch a glimpse of Beck, is why do 2.5 or 3 million people tune in to watch this guy every night? Clearly, he’s figured something out. And as amusing as it is to gawk at the loop-de-loops of insanity, there’s got to be some deep psychological nerves that he’s satisfying.

Let me offer three hypotheses:

  1. The puzzle-solving boost. The neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran writes that “we are hard-wired to love solving puzzles.” In particular, we seem to most enjoy solving puzzles with sudden flashes of insight, “Aha” moments that give us a little flash of positive good feeling. This probably explains the appeal of conspiracy theories generally. Everybody loves a good mystery. And Beck’s most disturbing moments are kind of like that: he throws a bunch of oddly-sized puzzle pieces on the floor, and then promises to show how they will all fit together in an instant “aha” moment. It’s like puzzle-solving porn.
  2. The smarter than everyone else boost. What Beck is consciously doing is letting his viewers in on something exclusive, some privileged view of the world that allows them to feel superior to those who aren’t in the know. These are viewers who have probably spent much of their lives feeling intellectually insecure. But by providing a simple, secret explanation for what’s going on the world, Beck is peddling an ego boost.
  3. Anxiety needs some respect. Beck’s rants are fear-driven, and in that respect they must resonate with a sense of unease that seems to be plaguing too many Americans these days. But this is especially dangerous. Risk expert David Ropeik writes that “when it comes to perceiving and responding to danger, human brains are hard-wired to fear first, and think later.” Beck’s rants are fear-driven, and once the fear part of the brain is activated, the logic part of the brain just doesn’t function as well.

So, add it up, and what Glenn Beck is offering millions of anxious viewers is a chance to validate their fears and then illogically salve them by providing the psychological high of solving a puzzle that allows them to feel superior by being privileged to some secret, exclusive knowledge.

I’m not sure what the antidote is, but I’m guessing it’s not simply marginalizing Beck for his craziness, fun and ego-boosting as that may be. I do sincerely believe that the conspiratorial fear-mongering that comes out of the Beck empire is a serious, serious problem for our society, but it also taps into some serious psychological needs out there. More to think about here.

Let’s Get Pragmatic on Gun Control

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As the debate over gun law reform continues in the wake of Jared Lee Loughner’s shooting spree in Tuscon, the biggest challenge will be finding a pragmatic solution that both sides of the gun control debate can support, and still addresses the fundamental issues in a comprehensive fashion. After all, gun control has historically been one of the most contentious areas in American politics.

Typically, on the subject of reducing gun violence through legislation, the loudest voices can be divided into two camps. On one side, guns are considered not merely instruments of violent people, but as actually creating or perpetuating violence. This group tends to focus on prohibiting certain configurations of firearms in the hope that if certain types of firearms are banned, criminals will be unable to inflict as much damage per incident.

A recent example is Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s (D-NY) recently introduced bill to reinstate the ban on extended capacity magazines. The ban would limit firearm magazines to holding no more than 10 rounds. While it is difficult to articulate a need for an extended magazine in any civilian application, as a practical matter, changing magazines takes less than two seconds. This is not really an effective way to prevent shooting sprees as demonstrated by Seung-Hu Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, who had nearly 20 magazines on him and went through half of them before committing suicide.

The other camp believes that putting guns in the hands of more people will counter gun violence by enabling ordinary citizens to defend themselves against criminal attacks. This group tends to introduce legislation to ease restrictions on carrying weapons, concealed or openly, and has recently gone so far as to attempt to legalize students and teachers arming themselves on college campuses. Any amount of time spent on or near a college campus after hours will cause most people to question the wisdom of arming mass groups of college students.

A more pragmatic approach, centered on comprehensive background checks and screenings to keep guns out of the wrong hands is necessary. This approach is also largely supported by both sides. Such an approach, unlike the polar alternatives, can deal with the fundamental issue surrounding the Tuscon tragedy, which is that Loughner was able to purchase a gun to begin with. This is a man who was removed from his community college because his professors, administrators and fellow students recognized that he posed a danger. Yet, 5 months later he was able to legally purchase a Glock 19 pistol, passing a background check without being flagged.

We need to work harder to identify and properly deal with people who are so psychologically troubled or demonstrably criminally inclined that they pose a legitimate risk to society. The signs were there with Loughner. Why was he not subsequently submitted for a 72-hour evaluation? Why is there not a system in place where, if a person is deemed to dangerous to attend Algebra class, he is not automatically flagged as, at least pending evaluation, too dangerous to purchase or own a firearm?

We need to develop a framework of comprehensive background checks and screening that is consistent across every state and includes exposure to a qualified firearms trainer who can evaluate, among other things, an individual’s capacity to safely and responsibly possess a firearm.

A proper information technology backbone is desperately needed in order to make a comprehensive background check system work.

Currently, each state government is responsible for reporting information to the federal system as a separate operation. A ridiculous mix of proprietary, incompatible, and isolated information systems throughout the country slows down, or even prevents, the exchange of relevant information.

According to research by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 18 states have reported zero citizens with mental health records that would preclude them from owning firearms to the national background check database. It is the 21st century, and there needs to be an open standard for all levels of government information systems that ensures interoperability so that manual information exchange is not necessary.

Such a system must allow hospitals, police departments, schools, states, counties and cities to enter information once, and have it immediately available to the federal system. Loughner would not have been able to pass a background check if the information had such a system been implemented.

As important as effective background checks are, however, no technological solution can surpass the effectiveness of human judgment. More comprehensive training and screening should be required before someone is able to purchase a firearm. This training should give a certified firearms instructor enough exposure to the applicant to provide sufficient opportunity to evaluate their potential for responsible gun ownership.

Had Loughner spent 5 days with a trainer, part of whose job it was to evaluate a person’s ability to responsibly own a weapon, perhaps his clear psychological instability could have been flagged and the gun would have been kept the gun out of his hands.

Most professional weapons training programs are designed, in part, to filter out those who are unfit to be armed. Such a requirement for civilian ownership could greatly reduce the likelihood that an unstable individual could legally purchase a firearm, independent of the severely limited background check system

If our legislative leaders focus on constructing this type of framework, both sides of the gun control issue can find something to be happy about. Proponents of gun control can be satisfied knowing that far more effort is going into ensuring that dangerous weapons, of any configuration, do not end up in the wrong hands. Proponents of the individual right to bear arms can be satisfied that, unless they exhibit behavior or criminal tendencies that should disqualify them from gun ownership anyway, their rights to bear arms will go unmolested.

While every tragedy cannot be prevented, common sense steps can be taken to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. A framework that focuses on a solid system for comprehensive screening is a good first step.

What To Do As Egypt Transitions to Democracy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s bizarre and wandering late-night address to the nation on Friday is almost certainly the beginning of his end.  Mubarak’s tone-deaf offer to reshuffle his cabinet is a ham-fisted attempt to address the Egyptian protesters’ concerns that only underlines his weakened position.  Only one of two paths seems open for Mubarak: that he clings to power through a campaign of violent and bloody repression, or that he flees Cairo to enjoy a luxurious retirement in Switzerland or Saudi. Given the army’s restraint thus far, thankfully the latter seems more likely.

The Obama administration deserves real praise for standing on the right side of history. Secretary Clinton’s remarks on the weekend’s talk shows struck an unambiguous tone as she called for the Egyptian people to “have the chance to chart a new future. It needs to be an orderly, peaceful transition to real democracy, not faux democracy.” Even John Boehner has praised the administration’s handling of the situation.

Should Egypt soon find itself staring “real democracy” in the face, what is the Obama administration’s next move?  The White House would do well to re-read a piece Shadi Hamid wrote for PPI in late 2008, particularly these sections:

Elevate democracy promotion through aid conditionality. The perception that America stands opposed to democratic openings in the Middle East must be challenged head-on so that Arabs and Muslims will begin to feel that they—rather than foreign powers—hold the keys to change within their own societies. The United States can start by articulating a regionwide contract whereby foreign aid is made explicitly conditional on a set of benchmarks, including respect of opposition rights, freedom of expression, and progress toward holding free elections, even if only on the municipal level at first.

Engage political Islam. Democratization will likely further empower Islamists, a reality that the United States must come to terms with. In order to re-establish credibility on democracy promotion—and just as importantly, to show that we have no gripe with Islam—we need to engage in a sustained dialogue with all religiously-oriented parties as long as they fulfill the conditions of renouncing violence and committing themselves to the democratic process. A new administration must begin by stating as a matter of policy that the United States is not opposed to dealing with non-violent Islamist groups and has no problem with parties of a religious character coming to power through free elections.

This would be coupled with the initiation of a U.S.-Islamist “dialogue,” designed to explore areas of tension and misunderstanding. As trust develops, the discussion would move toward the question of how moderate Islamists can help us and how we can help them. In exchange for supporting the political participation of Islamist parties in their respective countries, America would seek to extract certain “concessions” in return, including guarantees that they would respect vital U.S. interests, including standing peace treaties with Israel.

Obama and Human Rights in the Middle East

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Events over the last few weeks demand a reconsideration, if not a full-scale reevaluation of the wisdom of the Obama administration’s overall approach to democracy and human rights in the Middle East.

Facts are stubborn things, and the reality is that President Obama’s administration has now succeeded where President Bush never did. On his watch, Tunisia’s people rose up in protest over economic corruption and government repression and a dictator fled. The Arab world has a fighting chance at establishing its first true democracy.

At a minimum, those on the right who incessantly take credit wherever freedom blossoms need to grapple with that fact. But even more than that may be called for.

The Obama administration’s approach has not always been perfect, but it does appear, for the most part, rather consistent. And it does appear to have helped. It combines a steady rhetorical insistence on universal principles with an attempt, not always successful, to avoid lending its political support to either governments or protesters—betting on both and neither at the same time—event at times of crisis for regimes.

With events heating up in Egypt, the Obama Administration has done nothing to impede—and in fact has amplified—Egyptians’ calls for change.

With regard to events in Tunisia, Clinton was even more direct. Just days before Ben Ali fled the country, with his government grasping for support, she refused to throw him a rope, telling Al Arabiya: “We are not taking sides.”

Most importantly, the Obama administration has called on the governments of Egypt and Tunisia to respect the rights of peaceful protesters and to refrain from violence. This is by far the most valuable stance the U.S. can take in this moment of instability. An Tiananmen-style crackdown in Cairo’s Tahrir Square would have devastating consequences for Egyptians and Americans alike.

The toughest part has yet to come: Todays’s protests in Egypt are likely to be larger than the ones on Tuesday, and Tunisia has yet to consolidate anything resembling a democratic government. But so far, we have to commend the Obama administration’s approach to both Tunisia and Egypt.