The Washington Independent » Best of The Streak 2008

Best of The Streak: What Worked In Iraq Must Work In Afghanistan, Right?

Spencer Ackerman — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:00:42 +0000

First appeared December 24, 2008

In October, Gen. David McKiernan, commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan expressed skepticism over the prospect of signing up tribal militias, Anbar Province-style, to fight the Taliban. Over the last several days, it’s become increasingly clear that a Sons-of-Afghanistan style approach — the recruitment of tribal auxiliaries — is nevertheless in the cards, and evidently with the approval of McKiernan and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, his reported criticisms of the idea notwithstanding.

Today Dexter Filkins of the New York Times explores the emerging Sons of Afghanistan plan and injects a healthy dose of skepticism. Apparently a pilot tribal-militia program is on track to start in Wardak in 2009.Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, has a very unhappy history of militias doing their own thing; and also unlike Iraq, where the Anbar Province revolt was a bottom-up response to the perfidies of Al Qaeda’s Iraqi affiliate, this program is a top-down directive, through the U.S. military, to get tribal leaders to raise their own militias. Add to that the fact that the plan is a complete reversal of a U.S. and U.N. joint effort in the early days of the war to disarm Afghan militiamen. And the fact that the Afghan parliament voted this plan down already a few months ago.

“There will be fighting between Pashtuns and non-Pashtuns,” said Salih Mohammad Registani, a member of the Afghan Parliament and an ethnic Tajik. Mr. Registani raised the specter of the Arbaki, a Pashtun-dominated militia turned loose on other Afghans early in the 20th century.

“A civil war will start very soon,” he said.

Is that a proposition we really ought to be testing? One that could also inflame sectarianism in Afghanistan, which, at least on the basis of my admittedly short visit, I didn’t see in evidence?

What I did see was an overwhelming desire for security among the population. Lots of people said something to me that boiled down to, “When the Taliban were in power, the roads were safe, food was cheap and gas is cheap. Now the Americans are here and none of that is true.” The major factor that made the tribal revolt in Anbar work was that the population, including the extremists, understood that Al Qaeda offered them a bleaker future than even the occupation. Nothing like that exists in Afghanistan — or, at least, there is an alarming lack of evidence for that crucial proposition.

People need to take a very deep breath. To judge by the available evidence, the Afghan population wants security. It does not want more militias. The Afghan Senate has actually rejected this proposal explicitly. Is there any actual appetite among Afghans for a Sons-of-Afghanistan program? Or is this a case of hubristic Americans coming into Afghanistan and imposing a template from Iraq upon an overwhelmingly different country and overwhelmingly different set of conditions? You can tell what I suspect from the way I framed the question.

One more thing. I get a lot wrong. I believed with absolute certainty that the surge in 2007 had no chance of tamping down violence in Iraq. And I mean absolute certainty — not just that it wouldn’t work but that it couldn’t work. And clearly that was completely wrong. (It was still strategically the wrong thing to do, but that’s a separate argument.) If the tribal-militias proposal in Afghanistan is in fact a set course, I would like to be wrong about that as well.

But notice what we’re doing here by discussing the question in this way. We’re not talking about Afghanistan-qua-Afghanistan at all. Instead we’re talking about a series of meta-propositions and who was right and who was wrong about them, not first-order concerns about the wisdom, feasability, and drawbacks of the idea itself. And that is the sort of debate that in Washington substitutes for considering first-order problems, and it gets people needlessly killed. We cannot think in these terms anymore, because we know exactly where it leads. Merry Christmas.

Now that the roller coaster that was 2008 has come to an end, we thought it would be fun to look back at some of our most popular, thought-provoking and entertaining posts from The Streak over the past year. This post was chosen by TWI staff as one of the most memorable of 2008.

Best of The Streak: How Investigating Bush Administration War Crimes Could Save Taxpayers Money

Daphne Eviatar — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:30:07 +0000

First appeared December 12, 2008

As I wrote on Wednesday, there are already several lawsuits from torture victims pending against the United States, and some legal scholars predict many more to come. So what if an Obama-sponsored investigative commission set up a means for compensating torture victims? That could save the government a whole lot of money.

A slew of lawsuits isn’t hard to imagine. About 750 people have been detained as suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Thousands more have been held around the world. Many claim they were tortured, and we know from the Bush administration’s own documents that tactics such as waterboarding, stress positions, extreme hot and cold, blaring music and sleep deprivation, and sexual and religious humiliation were all among the tactics used to wring information out of them.

Although the Military Commissions Act tries to preclude lawsuits filed by enemy combatants, many of the people held were never determined to be enemy combatants, or were still held after they were cleared for release. Of the lawsuits already filed against US officials by detainees, none of them were ever deemed enemy combatants. The Second Circuit heard arguments in the case of Maher Arar this week, and lawyers on the other case (Rasul v. Rumsfeld) have asked the US Supreme Court for review. The court will consider the request when it meets on Friday.

Although all sorts of immunities protect US officials from wrongdoing on the job, there’s a strong argument to be made that torture can never be considered part of a government official’s job, so those immunities shouldn’t apply. And the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which protects against violations of detainees’ religious rights, such as having their Koran flushed down the toilet or being forcibly shaven, is very broad. (That didn’t stop the DC Circuit from dismissing four British detainees’ claims under it earlier this year, though, as I’ve written about before.)

But as I was talking to Carolyn Patty Blum the other day, an emeritus law professor at Berkeley and consultant to the International Center for Transitional Justice, she mentioned that a commission set up to investigate torture and other abuses perpetrated by Bush officials could also recommend, in addition to prosecution, a means by which torture victims can be compensated. Even if Bush were to pardon himself and his officials, a topic of much recent discussion, that wouldn’t shield anybody from future civil lawsuits demanding monetary compensation. But a statute that set up an investigative commission that had the power to, among other things, recommend compensating victims of torture and arbitrary detention, could also protect the US government from some costly future litigation.

“If a commission led to the creation of some sort of process that allows people to clear their name and apply for some sort of monetary compensation for being arbitrarily detained, one of the benefits is it would foreclose the ability for people to pursue another remedy,” Blum explained. “That would be a net gain in terms of cost savings for the new administration.”

Although that’s not the primary reason why Obama should create an investigative commission — Scott Horton at Harper’s has made the case for one quite well — it’s yet another argument in its favor.

Best of The Streak: This Is What the 2008 Electoral Map Would Look Like if the Election Were Decided by [Fill In the Blank]

Aaron Wiener — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:30:05 +0000

First appeared November 11, 2008

A number of sites have featured a hypothetical electoral map entitled “This Is What the 2008 Electoral Map Would Look Like if the Election Were Decided by 18-29 Year Olds.” Needless to say, it’s a very blue map.

I spent the weekend poring over the CNN exit polls from last Tuesday’s election and converting the state-by-state data for a number of demographics into my own hypothetical electoral maps.

The result is a set of maps that visualize the outcome of an election decided exclusively by the following age groups, genders, income groups, political affiliations, etc.:

Voters age 65 and older:

White voters: (A “black voters” map would be a sea of blue.)

Men:

Women:

Self-described political moderates:

Registered independents:

College graduates:

Voters earning under $50,000 per year:

Voters earning over $50,000 per year:

Voters who are “worried about economic conditions”:

Voters whose “most important issue” was the economy:

Voters whose “most important issue” was the war in Iraq:

(Note: These maps were created with the handy tool at 270towin.com.)

Best of The Streak: Obama’s Victory as Progress, Not History

Ari Melber — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:45:00 +0000

First appeared November 4, 2008

Chicago, Ill — This victory is more than historic. President-elect Barack Obama’s victory marks political progress far broader than race — especially because his campaign de-emphasized it whenever possible.

The tens of thousands of people cheering here in Grant Park, at what is shaping up to be one of the largest victory celebrations in U.S. political history, are not just heralding another barrier broken in America. They are honoring a promise fulfilled — the advancement of a rare political leader who addresses the public honestly, engages his opponents respectfully and communes with his supporters openly. He built an agenda through a participatory politics that empowers organizers and upends civic culture by expanding the electorate.

In political terms, that means that Obama did not win “red states” Tuesday by treating them like red states. He did not energize his base by neglecting it. He did not convert wing voters by pandering to their occupational and cultural identities. After all the soundbites piled up, in fact, it was still Obama who had an actual policy conversation with Joe the Plumber, while Sen. John McCain invoked the everyman as a human prop.

Across the country, people, with their votes and their activism, are embracing the “change” agenda. Some scuffling over credit, priorities and ideology is inevitable, but the basics are clear: end the Iraq war; renew the economy; conquer corruption; prioritize alternative energy; pursue universal health care; and renew our civic life with a politics of good faith. It is ambitious, difficult and long overdue.

Best of The Streak: Race Injected Into Obama Vote

Mary Kane — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:30:32 +0000

First appeared October 6, 2008

Over the weekend, Sen. John McCain’s brother referred to the Northern Virginia suburbs of Arlington and Alexandria as “communist country,” presumably for their traditional Democratic-leaning ways.

I don’t cover politics at TWI, so I’m not going to comment on the campaign strategy behind the remarks. But I do live in Arlington, in a neighborhood called Clarendon. And I can tell you a little bit about what’s been going on here.

During the past few weeks, people who posted “Obama for President” signs in their yards in Clarendon and in the nearby neighborhood of Lyon Park received this letter. Addressed to “Dearest Neighbor,” the letter informed them, in a tone meant to be friendly and helpful, that they should consider the possibility that they are supporting Obama to cover up for their own, hidden racism.

Here’s the letter:

The neighborhood listserve lit up with people arguing over who could have been responsible for the letter, until the moderator shut the topic down. No one knows for sure. The letter itself has made it on to two anti-racism websites, and a site that chronicles voter suppression. The Institute for Healing Racism posted a statement on its site disavowing anything to do with it.

In the meantime, life goes on as usual, here in the communist suburbs of Northern Virginia.

Best of The Streak: Letterman’s Cronkite Turn

Sridhar Pappu — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:00:46 +0000

First appeared September 25, 2008

Forty years ago, in September 1968, the North Vietnamese launched the Tet offensive — which changed mainstream America’s view of the Vietnam War. In living rooms across the nation, Americans saw a gruesome display of how powerless the United States forces looked as they struggled to gain control over a millitary conflict they would not win.

It was then that Walter Cronkite, the CBS news anchor who narrated the daily events for millions of people each night, called Vietnam “unwinnable.” In the White House, President Lyndon B. Johnson said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”

Now, we are in a different kind of war, one where U.S. financial insolvency seems at risk. Looking at this crisis, Sen. John McCain has said he would suspend his campaign. This included canceling an interview with CBS “Late Show” host David Letterman last night. Letterman said McCain was preparing to head to Washington in an effort to save the country.

The reaction was something the likes of which we’ve never seen.

A furious Letterman called out McCain and, without using the word “liar,” ran live feed of McCain preparing to do an interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric at the precise moment he was taping.

In addition, Letterman lashed out at McCain’s decision not to have his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, take up the campaign slack while McCain was in Washington.

Letterman even suggested this was all linked to McCain’s recent fall in national polls. “When you call up at the last minute and cancel, that’s not the John McCain I know,” Letterman said. More than once he suggested that “something smells right now.”

Now, Letterman is no Cronkite. He’s not even Ed Sullivan.

But he is the face that millions of Americans see before turning in for the night. For years, McCain has appeared on his show, even announcing his intention to run for president on the program. And to have the affable Letterman visibly boil and go on the offensive showed that, perhaps, McCain, whose campaign has stumbled since the beginning of this economic crisis, is in bigger trouble than one would think.

Perhaps McCain won’t say, “If I’ve lost Letterman, I’ve lost middle America.” Does Letterman even say his audience is “middle America?”

But one wouldn’t be surprised if the Republican candidate began to smell a strong odor seeping into the vents of the Straight Talk Express.

Best of The Streak: Hooligan Top Ten Playlist

Spencer Ackerman — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:30:11 +0000

First appeared September 15, 2008

COMBAT OUTPOST ZORMAT, Afghanistan – A friend emailed me to say that all my journalism is for naught if I don’t report what 1st Platoon Hooligans are listening to these days. While I don’t concede the point, I did put the question to the platoon as they waited — in vain, it turned out — for an Afghan National Army company to join them on a trip off the base.

There was much argument and disputation as to what officially constitutes a Hooligan song. The basic consensus, in the words of one Hooligan, was that the company listens to “everything except Mariachi, and Diaz listens to that.” Others told me that the only way I’d capture the platoon’s musical taste is if I went by the gym at 2 or 3 a.m., and I have no intention of doing that.

With those caveats out of the way, here’s a reasonable approximation of a Hooligan Top Ten. The methodology was simple: I wrote down what they shouted out, pending that at least one other person seconded the choice and no one immediately shouted/laughed it down. Add the following to your iTunes library:

1. Van Morrison, “Domino.” Why? “Because it’s an awesome song,” said Staff Sgt. Rannalt Bahr, the only person I’ve ever met who recognized a tattoo I have on my back as being a quote from a Refused song — and who has his own Refused tattoo. (Bahr: “Every day I listen to ‘Rock And Roll’ by the Velvet Underground.”)

2. Ram Jam, “Black Betty.” You know that one? It’s like an oldie. If I sang it to you, you’d recognize it. You’ve heard it a million times, I promise. I had no idea whose song it was.

3. Killswitch Engage, “My Curse.” There was broad agreement about Killswitch, but this was only one of several songs proposed.

4. The Doors, “The End.” Despite the unfortunate Vietnam overtones.

5. Toby Keith, “The Taliban Song.” I hate Toby Keith and yet this song is indisputably awesome. Apparently Toby played a show over here not long ago and did performed “The Taliban Song” with special soldier-lyrics.

6. Core Blund, “I Wanna Be In The Cavalry.” No idea who this is.

7. Journey, “Worlds Apart.” No comment.

8. “The Sweeney Todd Song That The Mom Sings To The Kid,” Sweeney Todd official motion picture soundtrack. No one could figure out what this song is actually titled, and that’s probably for the best.

9. “Most Things On The Rock Band Soundtrack,” Rock Band official soundtrack. And may I say: Good choice. The Rock Band song selection features many top-notch 90s-era jams. I personally rediscovered Hole’s “Celebrity Skin” thanks to the popular video game.

10. “The Debbie Does Dallas Soundtrack,” Debbie Does Dallas official motion picture soundtrack. By popular consensus, at least one Hooligan was conceived while this played.

Amazingly, the Smiths’ “Sweet And Tender Hooligan” has been unfairly neglected.

Best of The Streak: Palin and The Bush Doctrine

Matthew DeLong — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:00:26 +0000

First appeared September 12, 2008

As the cable news networks parse every word of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson — with more still to come today — some are debating the fairness of Gibson asking Palin for her views on “the Bush Doctrine.” In short, the Bush Doctrine states that the United States government has the right to launch preventive war against another country to remove a perceived threat to American security.

When Gibson asked the question, Palin clearly did not know what the Bush Doctrine was. I have heard some pundits on TV say it would have been more fair for Gibson to ask simply about pre-emptive war, as many people probably couldn’t define the Bush Doctrine if asked. However, I think Gibson handled it correctly.

The Bush Doctrine is the most controversial foreign policy concept of the 21st century, and it lies at the heart of the debate over the justification of the war in Iraq. Anyone who has followed this debate, or the broader national discussion of American foreign policy over the last eight years should be familiar with the concept and its association with President George W. Bush. The fact that she was not indicates she has not paid much attention to the conversation inside and outside of Washington.

Given that she is a governor of a sparsely-populated state four thousand miles from the nation’s capital, her ignorance would be forgivable — except now she aspires to a higher office. Matt Damon caused a minor stir when he suggested the other day that actuarial tables indicate Sen. John McCain has a “one in three chance, if not more” of not surviving his first term, if elected. Though it may be a morbid thought, the fact is that it’s true. If McCain is elected, there is a significant chance that Palin will become president during that first term. If she has, until this point, failed to show a curiosity — let alone learn — about the basics of foreign relations, that means she has a lot of catching up to do.

The McCain campaign might not like to admit it, but combined with her comments on the Russia-Georgia conflict, Palin’s interview did reveal a lot about Palin’s preparedness to both lead the United States on the world stage and command its military.

UPDATE: It came to my attention after I wrote this post that The Atlantic’s James Fallows expands on Palin’s lack of intellectual curiosity in foreign policy matters on his blog. I encourage you to check out his take on the subject.

Best of The Streak: Reflections on a Sunday at Palin’s Church

Laura McGann — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:30:31 +0000

First appeared September 8, 2008

WASILLA, Alaska — In my quest to understand Gov. Sarah Palin, I attended services at her church, the Wasilla Bible Church, Sunday morning. I ended up being shooed out of the parking lot — but I’ll get to that in a minute.

It felt a bit like a high-school gym or auditorium, with wood floors and an unfinished ceiling. The church was founded in the 1970s, though this building was completed in 2006.

A nine-member acoustic band opened the service with 30 minutes of Christian-themed songs — think loving God, forgiveness, humility, etc. It was a sea of about 500 folding chairs — all filled. Lights were dimmed so that the lyrics of the songs were easy to follow along with on the two large projector screens suspended from the ceiling on either side of the stage. The room’s focal point was a large, back-lit wooden cross.

When the music ended, Pastor Larry Kroon, a middle-aged, bearded man, greeted new-comers and, to my surprise, “the press.” A greeter at the front door had actually already given me a “welcome” goody bag — complete with a religious-themed CD and a green water bottle with the church’s “core commitments” listed on the side.

Kroon then said members of the press shouldn’t speak with anyone attending the service, or take photos. At this point, because I’m about an ounce better than paparazzi, I started to think about what the entrance looked like and where I’d most effectively snag people slyly. Kroon added he would not speak to the press on Sunday — so I signed up to speak with him Monday.

“Please don’t use this as a fishing pond for interviews,” Kroon said. Meanwhile, in my head, I was figuring that there’s a side exit people might use that would serve my purposes.

On the plus side, Kroon did go on to say that the press is a “gift from God.” He brought up Alexis de Tocqueville’s trip through the United States in the early 19th century and how the Frenchman identified two great American virtues– a free press and a free pulpit. Kroon was playing well with those of us in the back row, scribbling notes. I actually only saw TV camera crews on my way into the parking lot; I didn’t see any other reporters at the service.

Kroon, who kept the congregation engaged for the full 30 minutes he spoke, then touched on the positive experiences he had with the national media last week. The New York Times, Kroon said, sent a religion expert, who understood churches like theirs. Another reporter, from World Magazine, recognized authors in Kroon’s library.

Hearing this made me shift in my seat. TWI did not select me for this reporting trip because of my deep understanding of Christianity in America. In fact, it didn’t come up. The relevant factors were that I used to cover Alaska politics and still follow what’s going on up here. Unfortunately, 13 years of Catholic school and CCD didn’t seem like they’d win me any points here.

Kroon also noted that he was not the person to consult on policy — foreign, domestic or local. Church members would have to make those decisions for themselves. His job is to guide them in finding the “wonder, glory and mystery of Jesus” in scripture.

The Bible study portion of the morning, the central element of the service, focused on the first chapter in the Acts of the Apostles, which tells the story of Jesus meeting with his apostles to prove that he is alive. Jesus calls on his followers to be his witness and share his message with the “outermost points of the world,” as Kroon explained. Kroon stressed the importance of this message. One of the Wasilla Bible Church’s core beliefs is ministering to non-believers.

In conversation with some church-goers after the service, I was asked, earnestly, if I’m a believer myself. When I explained my Catholic background I received supportive nods. (So supportive that one woman gave me the email and phone number of her son, who lives in Washington.)

I spoke with two different couples — two lawyers and two entrepreneurs — about the role of the church in their own lives. They all agreed it’s a real community here. When I asked for their names, though, they hesitated — saying their pastor had suggested they not speak with reporters. When I tried to get them to reconsider by bringing up the de Tocqueville individualism message, they laughed.

Unfortunately, just as one church member was writing down directions to a beautiful area just north of Wasilla that she thought I ought to visit, a member of the church approached and said I was not allowed to interview anyone “on the premises.” My small group scattered in response.

At least I still have the number of the Alaskan ex-pat in DC.

Best of The Streak: Cross-Border Attacks on the Increase in Afghanipakistan

Spencer Ackerman — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:00:47 +0000

First appeared September 8, 2008

BAGRAM AIR FIELD, Afghanistan — Usually when you hear about cross-border attacks here, they are perpetrated by the Taliban. Not so much in recent weeks — this time it’s the U.S. dipping its toes into Pakistan, which Sen. John McCain has said Sen. Barack Obama is naive for proposing.

Last week, the U.S. allegedly went after a target in Pakistan — something that the U.S. military never confirmed but nonetheless prompted Pakistan’s new government to shut down a crucial NATO resupply entry point. Today comes word that the U.S. fired a missile at the old-school Taliban commander Jalaladeen Haqqani’s Pakistan redoubt.

With any luck I can get to the border tomorrow, to learn more about all this crossborder activity.

In the meantime, Bill Roggio’s Long War Journal has a very informative post about the increase in cross-border operations in 2008. Most of them, it seems, have come in the form of airstrikes, because ground troops were a no-no even during the relatively complaint government of Pervez Musharraf.

Perhaps last week’s (alleged!) ground-troop raid was a test of what the U.S. military can get away with. Keep an eye on how new Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari reacts in the coming days.