From the Archives

Part of the mission for this blog was to post some of my earlier writings- particularly the political and public policy articles that have had little public airing. Some of these may be well outdated by now, but they nonetheless make for good reading if you're interested in the particular topic.

So here is a series of posts from the Goodman Vault. Feel free to comment, and I hope you enjoy. . .
D



This first article was in response to an editorial in the Washington Post just prior to the Saddam Hussein execution.


That Iraq is still "struggling with civil war, daily bombings and death-squad killings" is exactly the point. How can such a "government" carry out justice at all? Why not wait and have all of the charges be aired out in public to allow the victims and their families the experience of what modern, democratic justice feels like. The 'justice' we are seeing now for Mr. Hussein smacks of the old fashioned tribal justice which we see enacted on the streets of Iraq everyday. The justice felt by those victims whose crimes will never be tried in court will be a sense of mere vengeance, not the completion a full airing of the facts would give.

One need only remember the video of victims’ testimony from Saddam's first trial to see what a healing experience it is to be free to tell the truth of what happened during an open proceeding. For thousands of victims, that healing will never take place. This is a cynical tragedy that will not help whatever unity may yet be latent in Iraq to congeal. It will instead, fuel the feelings of mass retribution that are at the source of nearly every killing we see today in that country. Part of the reason we put up with the tedium and glacial slowness of the judiciary process is that it generally ends with a feeling of resolution and completeness- that all reasonable steps have been taken to insure justice was being served. The Hussein execution bears more resemblance to a Wild Western 'string-em' up' (and literally) style justice that is beneath any government calling itself a Democracy.

And as such, the rushed execution calls into question the legitimacy of the Iraqi government itself. What authority does this government stand on to carry out an execution? When Saddam was captured, there was no Iraqi government. It was an international coalition that found him, not the Iraqis. The present government is rife with corruption and guilty of we'll-never-know-how-many murders and atrocities. And in fact, we have no idea whether there will be any government in Iraq at all in the next few years.

And while we may know how many victims of Saddam's regime there have been, we do not yet know how many there will be of the US invasion. And at the current rate, that number is certain to be very high- especially if we include the less-and-less hypothetical regional conflagration that appears to be in the works. By any sane measure, the cost of taking out this one man will be absolutely enormous. So enormous that we are forced (or ought to be forced) to ask the question- was Saddam the problem, or was he the solution to exactly the mess Iraq is in now? As the Iraqi body count mounts, the scales of justice tip ever more towards the reality that Saddam was an essential plank in a dam overflowing with nascent chaos. And it should be obvious now that whoever manages to control Iraq in the future (if anyone indeed does), it will simply be a Saddam Redux, as that is the only way to hold together a country that is inherently at war with itself.

If anyone should hang this month, perhaps it should be an exhumed British parliament, which conjured up the Iraqi monstrosity in the first place. America is famous for its short sightedness- especially when looking backwards. But our failure to administer real Democratic justice combined with our failure to secure Iraq in the first place will have made a mockery of the Hussein proceedings that can never be taken back.

A full addressing of Hussein’s war crimes, preferably in an international court, would be one of the few positive things that could have come out of the Iraq debacle. And now that last opportunity will have been squandered. Saddam’s hanging may wind up being the shot heard round the world of the 21st century. And though the sound will have been drowned out by the daily car bombs and suicide attacks, the world’s failure to administer true and thorough justice will compound and cement the hatred in the hearts of those Iraqis seeking only raw vengeance.

The Middle East’s future is far from clear, but in all likelihood it will be far worse than its past, thanks to the removal of ‘the key log,’ holding the region together. There is no way history will be kind to George W. Bush for his foolhardiness and sheer idiocy. But depending on how bad things get, Saddam may come off as less of a monster than as a man who presided over the last era of peace and stability Iraq will have seen for a long, long time. His speedy execution may well wind up hanging around our own necks for a long time as well.



The next piece is a plan for Iraq that I came up with last winter. At this point, it may be too late to enact. This was all pre-surge, pre-2007 State of the Union. If enacted, it would have had to be done in secrecy and very quickly. I am pretty sure the ship has sailed on this one, so I'm posting it here to inspire thought and receive feedback.



New Iraq Strategy:

“Pull US soldiers out of harm’s way” – Tom Vilsack

Well of course. There are many areas of Iraq that are stable, secure, and prospering. We let it be known that US troops will be at the disposal of those localities in which there is already order. They will serve as police security, they will protect the borders from insurgents, etc. Let it be known that US troops will only patrol areas that are already safe. If the area ceases to be safe, the US forces will leave and go somewhere else.

This will increase the incentive of those regions to stay safe, so as not to lose the extra protection of the US forces. The result will be that people who live in unsafe neighborhoods will want to move into the safer ones. This can happen at a controlled rate (like normal US immigration). If there is an increase in violence or an influx of insurgents, the previous residents will have an incentive to expose them and turn them out. They will not want their stability ruined by a few bad apples, because if the insurgents infiltrate, there will be a little more violence and then increased violence as the US forces decide to leave.

This will generate regions of Iraq that will increase in size and become de facto mini-countries whose borders and “immigration” will be managed by the US troops. The result will be that if these borders are attacked, the US can go into full combat mode without making dainty efforts to win hearts and minds. The country will be divided into three groups- the already peaceful, those seeking to be peaceful, and those concerned with violence who will continue to isolate themselves and be easier to fight without the protection of large civilian populations. (Whether or not these regions are divided along ethnic lines is irrelevant. The rearrangement will happen organically based on the desires of individual Iraqis on where they want to live.)

There will of course be questions of how to manage an expanding population, and it will likely be accompanied by expanding borders (within the mini-countries) with the US perimeter expanding as well. Logically, infrastructure development would be easier in the already-peaceful districts since there is a pre-existing level of relative stability. Therefore accommodating the ‘foreigners’ (or intra-Iraqi immigrants) would be less difficult.

Over time, and with relatively few US casualties, the country would divide itself into those residing in peaceful sectors and those trying to disrupt that peace. This would make fighting much easier, as it would be less surgical than previous fights.

Under normal situations, Iraqis would be less likely to move around the country and give up their homes. But “fortunately” the situation being so chaotic, most Iraqis would welcome stability rather than hold on to their homes in highly dangerous areas, and in fact there is already mass migration throughout and outside of the country.

As to the criticism that this might appear to be an American retreat or a sign of weakness, I believe that the American soldiers have already proven their mettle and endurance and would not be any less feared were they to adopt this strategy.

The country would thereby be decided into new ‘improvisatory’ regions unlike the ones we currently see on maps.


The current strategy of seize, hold, build is unnecessary. There are already seized and held areas in Iraq. Let us secure those completely and let them build. In these areas, real investment can be made in infrastructure, electricity, etc., with the guarantee that there will be no increase in insurgents. As soon as there are, the US will simply leave and redeploy to another safe area. The local citizens will certainly police themselves stringently if they already live in safe (/prosperous) areas and know the risks of allowing insurgents to breed in their midst. And if they do, then the US will simply redeploy. This is real leverage- leverage that has eluded us with the Maliki government from day one.

There is a chance- a good chance perhaps – that the plan will be resented by those already secure regions that would rather be left alone, that would rather be free of the ‘humiliating’ presence of US soldiers and of the threat of infiltration from destructive elements- not to mention the burden of growth and taking on refugees. This natural resentment should be acknowledged, and due compensation be offered for the necessary inconvenience and disruption. But the citizens of these regions must be made to understand that without their assistance, the country and region will degenerate into uncontrolled chaos and their regions will not be spared. This argument should make sense to the locals and their cooperation ought to be able to be counted upon.



The US should immediately act on this plan, and it should do so quickly and in total secret, so that their plans are not understood by the insurgents who might attempt to beat them to the punch and infiltrate before the US is able to secure the perimeters. In fact, it may be necessary to “secure first” answer questions later. This would likely be an unpopular tactic – reminiscent of all of the high and heavy handed tactics the US has been failing with for years – but it may be the only way to ensure that the plan is effective. That the already-secure regions may not want to wake up to a renewed and concentrated US occupation is a foregone conclusion, however, once secure the plan could be revealed to the population and would necessarily be accepted.

The US military leaders should seek counsel with Iraqi culture experts on this last point to make sure it is implementable. Perhaps secret discussions with the local elders could precede the plan to assure public cooperation once implemented. This would be a delicate matter and require exquisite diplomacy- a novel idea for sure, but perhaps it’s due.
The “good news” is that President Bush’s surge and Maliki’s failure to hold up his end of the bargain will pave the way for a ‘no confidence vote’ (by the US) in the Maliki government (it seems obvious that this was the strategy Bush planned all along: put unrealistic demands on the Maliki government, then use their inevitable failure as US political cover to pull troops). The failures of the democratically elected government of Iraq will “leave us no choice” but to rely on those local governments that are capable of effective governance- and this is the moment this new strategy can be implemented.

Finally, once the regions are relatively secure, and the world is duly impressed with the United States’s ability to salvage the situation in Iraq, there may be a chance – there may be a chance- that we could enlist some of our more squeamish allies to assume some of the duties of border patrol for the mini-states. This would in time free US forces to regroup and become available for more important missions. The heavy lifting will have already been done, and the US could begin to reestablish its leadership role in the world having overcome significant odds to stabilize Iraq. It would also allow other countries to re-ally themselves with the US militarily on a mission that seems genuinely sound – and also relatively safe.



At some point, once the regions are stable and prospering, they will want the US out. This will be fortuitous time, because while they may want the US out, they will by then have built something worth protecting. Therefore, the local population will have a strong incentive to build a competent army- and an army devoted not to individual sects (though the regions may be highly sectarian) but to the geographical locale to which they belong. In other words they will have their own mini-state to fight for, and they will have a real stake in the state they would be protecting. This is the incentive structure currently lacking in the Iraqi army training program. There is no ‘larger vision’ of Iraq, and there is nothing to protect. But in the new plan, local strength will develop organically out of its own will to thrive.

In reality the model somewhat mirrors the advent of the early North American colonies. The key to the early development of the US was that it was well protected from the tribulations of Europe. In those days, getting across the ocean was a strenuous multi-week-long journey with no guarantee of survival. America was safe during its early years and thus able to experiment, bloom, and flourish without the threat of constant invasion from the outside. This is why the only pre-20th century democracy in the whole Eurasian continent (since Rome) has been Switzerland- again because it was protected by the mountains.

In Iraq, we would be creating an ad hoc natural boundary – the US military to protect the budding nation in a womb-like fashion until that ‘nation-lets’ become able to protect themselves.

Will democracy necessarily ensue? We don’t know. But usually once the fundamental needs of safety and security are met, people feel free to take risks and grow. And what could be more risky than representative democracy- and yet what else could be so rewarding? With internet hook-ups and satellite TV, the new Iraqi mini-states will hardly be isolated from the world’s ideas- only from its weapons.



There has long been an assumption that without securing Baghdad, without securing the capitol, there would be no hope. But why must Baghdad remain the capitol? Right now it is a capitol in name only- the real capitol, the Green Zone could be transplanted anywhere, so if Baghdad is already lost by virtue of being run by the gangs, then let the capitol move elsewhere.

Also, if the elected government of Iraq is in reality inept and unable to provide security or law enforcement or any kind of civil order, then it is itself irrelevant. If there are local communities that are secure and functioning (by virtue of whatever local mores and structures), then let those assume the duties of governorship- democratic or not. Because in Iraq, reality must matter more than ideals.

In fact, there is an even greater risk in the making that Iraqis may come to look on democracy itself as a negative force. It appears to already be happening in some quarters. Compare this with Russia’s disenchantment with the concept and willful retreat to authoritarianism.

[[[[Empty symbols, like democracy (in their case), if they can not protect innocent civilians are useless. We had best beware the fate of democracy’s reputation that has taken hold in Russia. There is great cynicism towards the institution in that country, and if Iraqis continue to be killed over some “idea” that can’t even keep the electricity on, then they may fall prey to the very same souring as the Russians.]]]]x

The core mistake of the Bush administration was the idea that people inherently prefer freedom. This may be an assumption of a country (the US) all of whose immigrant members prefer freedom. But the vast majority of the world still prefers to be told what to do. That way, when something goes wrong, they always have someone else to blame. Freedom requires self-scrutiny and ruthless self-accountability which, let’s face it, is a huge burden when compared with just scapegoating the other guy.

So if the stable Iraqi districts are able to secure their areas by modestly humane means (including, perhaps sharia law), let them do so, and protect them from outside ‘invasion’ by insurgents. The parts that are not stable will go to the dogs and quickly, but a slow intra-national refugee situation will slowly restore complete order to the country as the vast majority of people who want peace find their ways to the expanding stable core.

No doubt the insurgents will use pressure to intimidate people not to leave Baghdad and other unstable regions. But this will give those citizens the test of their true desire for freedom. Will they be cowed by villains, or pursue their liberty with their own two hands? This is the test that all successful Americans have passed when they transitioned from their own less-free, more-intolerant homelands. Do they have what it takes to pick up and leave? That is the test that was missing when we invaded Baghdad. There was no effort on the Iraqis’ part, and freedom is something that requires effort. It must be earned- stolen even.

In fact, in all of the stories of ancient times, the Holy Fire, the Divine Spark of Enlightenment and Freedom was never given away by the gods. It was always stolen and at great cost to the thief (see Prometheus). And yet the theft as well as the toll it took were always necessary, understood, and welcomed by the ‘thieves.’

This plan, in a real way, places the burden of reconstructions squarely on the shoulders of the Iraqis, while at the same time, averting an outright US withdrawal. That there is already a call in the US to remove our troops from harm, that there is already a call to avoid total catastrophe in the Middle East at the same time, that there is already mushrooming chaos, seemingly impossible to ameliorate makes the decision an easy one.

The US should immediately act on this plan, and it should do so quickly and in total secret, so that their plans are not understood by the insurgents who might attempt to beat them to the punch and infiltrate before the US is able to secure the perimeters. In fact, it may be necessary to “secure first” answer questions later. This would likely be an unpopular tactic – reminiscent of all of the high and heavy handed tactics the US has been failing with for years – but it may be the only way to ensure that the plan is effective. That the already-secure regions may not want to wake up to a renewed and concentrated US occupation is a foregone conclusion, however, once secure the plan could be revealed to the population and would necessarily be accepted.

I would seek counsel with Iraqi culture experts on this last point to make sure it is implemable. Perhaps secret discussions with the local elders could precede the plan to assure public cooperation once implemented. This would be a delicate matter and require exquisite diplomacy- a novel idea for sure, but perhaps it’s due.



Note: this plan will work, but it will require an extended (though less lethal/costly) US deployment. One of the most significant arguments for immediate withdrawal from Iraq is the opportunity cost we are paying. Iraq is a public demonstration to the world of our depleted military and treasury. Furthermore, the continued focus of the public’s attention on Iraq has preempted many important issues from receiving the attention, debate, and support that they require (Russia, North Korea, Darfur, trade with Africa, global warming, and so many others).

So while this plan may in fact save the situation in Iraq, there will continue to be negative consequences for the US which may not be balanced by simply having a stable Iraqi nation (and one that will serve only as a demonstration of American will and ingenuity (if lack of planning) not a shining beacon of democracy for the middle east.) In the end, the price may not be worth it. The present author would prefer to see a speedy drain of overall involvement in the region by rapidly converting the world energy supply to renewable materials. For numerous reasons, this would be the wisest course.

D





Finally for this installment is a speech that Nancy Pelosi could have given shortly after her elevation to Speaker of the House. I believe at the time, Bush had made it clear that he was not really interested in Democratic feedback for his policies. My notes about the speech are included as a follow-up.
D


We have all made decisions in our lives which we regret. Tragic decisions that have hurt ourselves and others. We know what we have done, and we sometimes think we couldn’t live with ourselves if we really thought about all of the implications of our actions. Sometime it takes years to admit our mistakes, even to ourselves.

Well the President has made many tragic decisions during his short time in office. They are mistakes that have affected, our country, our armed forces, and our reputation for years to come. I don’t envy the process he will have to go through to acknowledge the enormity of these personal failures to himself. I doubt most of us could look ourselves in the mirror if we held ourselves fully responsible for the catastrophe which is Iraq today. Most of us would invent alternative realities- imaginary stories that it will actually turn out alright in the end, or that things aren’t as bad as they seem, or that it’s not really about Iraq, it’s about something else, something bigger or grander- we’d say almost anything to avoid facing the reality of what we’ve done. Like I said, for most people that process of denial could last a lifetime.

Well, as a country, we don’t have that kind of time. Sad to say, the President is no longer capable of viewing the reality he has wrought with enough objectivity to carry us forward. He is too deep in his own denial to lead us effectively, not just to a solution for Iraq, but to the larger task of re-establishing America’s leadership role in the world. We simply don‘t have time for the President to come to terms with these failures on a personal level- that will most likely occupy his conscience for the rest of his life. My prayers are with him that he eventually find peace within himself for what he has done.

But as a country, as a nation, we must move on. Therefore, as Speaker of the House, and as a citizen of this great land, I must insist that the current President be removed from office and removed from the equation- an equation which he, himself, cannot solve. For the good of country, we must begin impeachment proceedings to install fresh leadership in America, leadership that can honestly acknowledge the administration’s mistakes and failings so that real concrete action can be taken to correct them. So long as the current occupant of the White House is deluded about his faults, there is simply no opportunity to correct them. We need a strong leader, one who is capable of facing the truth- whether it be difficult or easy. We need a leader with the courage to face ‘bad news’ like Hurricane Katrina head-on rather than insulate himself from the harsh realities of the world. We need a president who will acknowledge mistakes – past and present – so he can correct them, not simply change the subject or pretend that everything is perfect.

The American people have seen what the current President has been unable to see for years. They are not burdened with the guilt of having deceived the public and sent our military into a no-win situation without a plan or a way out. The American people deserve better. They demand better. It is time for the current occupant of the White House to move aside for a wiser, more mature leadership. He should resign immediately, along with the Vice-President who has been so instrumental in maintaining the illusion of success in Iraq; and should he refuse to do so, this body will take action to begin impeachment proceedings so that the current president be held to account for that which he is unable to hold himself.

There was an opportunity in November for the President to face his own conscience, his own shortcomings. The people could not have been more clear in delivering the message that their patience had been tried long enough. The current President and Vice-Presidents’ continued tone of arrogance and gross indifference to the facts indicates that he is deaf even to the will of the people. This is not a dictatorship- the holder of that office can not act in the name of the people without their consent. The current President does not seem to understand that, and the nation can no longer bear the costs of his slow learning curve.

Today I call for the current President and Vice President to resign effective immediately. Should they choose to ignore that call, I will hold a vote on the House Floor to immediately launch an impeachment trial. The country can no longer wait for this President to face reality. Our soldiers and our citizens face reality every day. We should require of our chosen leaders that they do the same.

Thank You.

D


Notes:
“slow learning curve” while powerful is tricky, as many Americans feel themselves to have a slow learning curve (due to a broken education system- but that’s another subject), and we want the punch without killing the buzz by people remembering their 8th grade Math class. “no longer suffer the consequences of his lack of interest in what the public thinks.”

Referring to the President and Vice-President as “current” begins to open up the possibility in the listeners mind that these positions could be temporary, making the idea of replacement more conceivable-ergo-palatable. Introducing this appellation in the second part of the speech allows a full experience of empathy in the first part, but moves us clearly and deliberately towards the goal of impeachment.

How to get around Nancy Pelosi? That her introduction of this speech would appear blatantly self-serving is almost unavoidable. Furthermore, she has no publicly accepted track record of leadership, except for the botched vote for her No.2.
Also, the question of whether America is ready to accept a (non-Hillary at least) woman for the job is up in the air. The best thing she could do would be to announce that, “My place is here in the Congress, where I am honored to lead as speaker. I have no Presidential ambitions myself, and should the President and Vice-President step down, I would willingly pass on my place in the order of succession to the Majority Leader in the Senate {Same problems here of unknown track record, but without the woman/botched vote/self-serving issues of Pelosi} who will be more than qualified to complete the final two years of the current president’s term.

Besides this it’s pretty good- the heavy heart business should probably be cut—it is sad that it would come to this, but after the blood feuding of the past 6 years, it may well sound disingenuous.
D