7/30/10

As the House of Representatives breaks for August recess, Members, candidates and all constituents should take a hard look at the conservative movement's positions on national security.  The consistent message on national security coming from its leaders - especially the likely 2012 presidential hopefuls - is based on radical positions that are not rooted in reality.  In particular, its leaders, such as Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin, have chosen political positions that advocate for policies that are far outside of mainstream America, run counter to America's national security interests and ignore the facts.  By consistently putting politics ahead of national security, these extreme conservatives threaten to move the national security debate in a dangerous direction, one that distracts, rather than solves problems.  As the United States faces a number of challenges worldwide, Americans deserve a debate that is based on the facts - not distortions.

Light on substance, heavy on baseless assertions, Newt Gingrich uses dangerous rhetoric to cater to extreme right.  Over the last few weeks, former Speaker of the House and possible presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has exhibited a consistent pattern of using dangerous and baseless rhetoric about Muslims to strengthen his national security credentials. These efforts at distortion and division have no place in our politics. 

In an address to the American Enterprise Institute, which Foreign Policy's Joshua Keating called, "pretty light on policy ideas," Gingrich warned about creeping radical Islam and Sharia in America. In doing so, Gingrich willfully ignored the consensus among national security and law enforcement experts that American Muslims are among the country's most law-abiding citizens, and our best asset in the fight against extremism. Former NYPD and LAPD police Chief William Bratton described American Muslims as an "extraordinarily law abiding community." In 2008, FBI Director Robert Mueller made similar remarks before the House Judiciary Committee: "And every opportunity I have, I re-affirm the fact that 99.9 percent of Muslim-Americans or Sikh-Americans, Arab-Americans are every bit as patriotic as anybody else in this room, and that many of our cases are a result of the cooperation from the Muslim community in the United States."

Gingrich's speech built on a track-record of radical commentary, including an attack on the plans to construct a mosque in New York City near the site of the 9/11 attacks, going so far as to assert that the U.S. should adopt the same standard of religious tolerance as Saudi Arabia. The comment took Gingrich well outside the conservative mainstream.  Columnist Rob Port strongly criticized the former Speaker of the House in the conservative Washington Examiner: "So in order to teach Saudi Arabia a lesson, we're going to lower ourselves to their level? In order to combat religious intolerance in the Muslim world, we're going to practice religious intolerance here in America? Talk about counterproductive." New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg stated, "Everything the United States stands for and New York stands for is tolerance and openness, and I think it's a great message for the world that unlike in other places where they might actually ban people from wearing a burqa or they might actually keep people from building a building, that's not what America was founded on, nor is it what America should become." [Foreign Policy, 7/29/10. William Bratton, 7/14/10. Robert Mueller, 4/23/08. Rob Port, 7/23/10. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, via WSJ, 7/21/10.  WonkRoom, 7/28/10]

Mitt Romney defies bipartisan historic support for smart nuclear policies and puts America at risk.  Mitt Romney demonstrated his poor understanding of national security issues by writing that "the president's New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New-START) with Russia could be his worst foreign policy mistake yet. The treaty as submitted to the Senate should not be ratified."  As noted in the Atlantic, "The op-ed was torn to shreds the next day by the Washington consensus, which very much supports a bilateral, mutually beneficial approach to arms control, an approach that was President Reagan's greatest legacy to the world...Romney all but announced that he disagreed with the consensus entirely.  Twenty plus years of nuclear diplomacy is not in his consciousness. He wants an entirely new approach, a radical approach that marks a return to a world that dissolved 20 years ago but is still alive intellectually, in some circles."  In addition to his ideological failing, Romney also got his facts incorrect, when he complained that under the New START Treaty, "Russia is free to mount a nearly unlimited number of ICBMs on bombers-including MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) or multiple warheads-without tripping the treaty's limits."  As Slate's Fred Kaplan responded, "This is where I began to wonder if Romney had fallen prey to someone, perhaps a spy from Sarah Palin's camp, who wanted to make him look like an idiot.  ICBMs are not ‘mounted on,' or loaded inside, bombers. The only nuclear weapons carried by bombers are bombs; that's why they're called bombers...Certainly bombers are incapable of carrying MIRVs (which, by the way, are ‘multiple warheads' loaded onto the tips of missiles).  I think Romney's ghostwriter might have mixed up one of his talking points."

Here are the facts: the New START Treaty has the "unanimous support" of the military leadership of the United States.  In addition, seven former Commanders of the United States Strategic Command sent a letter to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee saying, "We strongly endorse its early ratification and entry into force."  As the men who were responsible for America's strategic nuclear forces, their support is pivotal.  Romney's stance is in opposition to a broad bipartisan consensus of national security experts who have expressed support for the treaty, including: George Schultz, Secretary of State for the Reagan Administration; Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State for the Nixon and Ford Administrations; Ambassador Richard Burt, the original Chief START negotiator during the George H.W. Bush Administration; Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General James Cartwright, Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Chilton, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command; James Baker, Secretary of State during the George H.W. Bush Administration; James Schlesinger Secretary of Defense for Presidents Nixon and Ford; and William Perry, Defense Secretary for President Clinton. [Mitt Romney, 7/6/10. The Atlantic, 7/28/10. Slate, 7/7/10]

Sarah Palin ignores national security priorities and reality in order to wage partisan attacks. Sarah Palin, through her Facebook page, has demonstrated that when it comes to foreign policy and national security, her views are completely out of touch with reality and must be rebutted.  Palin has issued a litany of baseless attacks on the Obama administration, including accusing the administration of hypocrisy when it comes to defense spending, writing "[t]his administration may be willing to cut defense spending, but it's increasing it everywhere else." Not only is this a complete fabrication, since the administration has exempted Defense from a government-wide freeze on discretionary spending, but it ignores the bipartisan consensus in support for reforming defense spending, led by Secretary Gates, who has said that the Department cannot ask for more and more resources until it has done "everything possible, to make every dollar count."

Palin also reduced the urgent imperative of moving forward on Middle East peace to a "minor zoning issue in Jerusalem," despite Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's oft-stated desire to move to direct peace negotiations with the Palestinians.  It also contradicts the view of one of our country's most prominent military officer, General David Petraeus, who testified that "The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [CENTCOM Area of Responsibility]," reflecting the view that a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians would advance U.S. security interests. [Sarah Palin, 6/30/10. Secretary of Defense Gates, NSN, 6/17/10. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), 6/4/09.  General David Petraeus, 3/16/10]

What We're Reading

The U.N. Human Rights Committee told Israel that it must lift its military blockade of Gaza, as well as allow an independent review of the flotilla raid earlier this summer.

Three NATO troops, reported to be Americans, were killed in two separate attacks in Afghanistan. This would make July the deadliest month of the war yet. 

Flash floods caused by monsoons in Pakistan have killed at least 320 people and destroyed hundreds of homes.

The U.S.-led United Nations Command met with North Korean leadership for a third round of talks over the sinking of a South Korean warship.

140 people died in a ferry accident in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, caused by low water levels in the river.

The United States economy expanded at an annual rate of 2.4 percent in the second quarter, after expanding 3.7 percent in the previous months.

President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia arrived in Beirut on Friday for talks on possible indictments of Syria's allies in Lebanon for the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates denounced the disclosure of 75,000 classified documents about the Afghanistan war by the Web site WikiLeaks, asserting that the security breach had endangered lives and damaged the ability of others to trust the U.S. government to protect their secrets.

The U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez closed pending a security review, months after drug gangs killed three people associated with the embassy.

Commentary of the Day

Gustavo Flores-Macías explains what Mexico could learn from Colombia in fighting the drug war.

David E. Hoffman argues that the United States is dangerously ignoring the worldwide production of biological weapons and a biological weapons treaty is necessary to avoid future conflict.

The LA Times calls on Americans to "let religious freedom ring," arguing that  opposition to a planned Islamic community center near Ground Zero in New York is unfair and un-American.