Will Anyone call out Republicans for their Dishonesty with Commanders on the Ground?

One of the commonly repeated tropes in the Republican Debates in regards to the military is the desire to "listen to Commanders on the ground." Presumptive Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney frequently repeated this in regards to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Meanwhile, Pizza Mogul Herman Cain went so far as to say he didn't need to know anything about foreign policy as long as he had good advisers. This trend did not begin with the 2011-2012 Republican Presidential cycle. During the deepest dregs of the Iraq War, President George W. Bush said "“Troop levels will be decided by our commanders on the ground, not by political figures in Washington, D.C.”

There are many issues with this concept of simply deferring to the generals or military leaders. First and foremost is the fact that the President serves as Commander in Chief and is the ultimate decision-maker in any military issue. Second of all, the concept of simply listening to commanders can lead to the military controlling foreign policy without any checks and balances. However, if one is to take Conservatives at their word, it is clear that they have not followed their own platitudes in the past and are more than willing to ignore them when it comes to Iran.

The most classic example of this comes with the build up to the Iraq War. As the Bush Administration hocked that Saddam Hussein was in the process of building Weapons of Mass Destruction, they were met with considerable opposition from security experts who felt that the War would either be disastrous for American interest or they were misjudging the gravity of such a war. The most glaring example of this of course comes with General Colin Powell, then serving as President Bush's Secretary of State, who famously warned the President "if you break it you own it." Similarly, General Anthony Zinni, who served as President Bush's Middle East Envoy, voiced his opposition to the war and in hindsight said the Iraq War was a blunder. Similarly, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki was rebuked in a smear campaign after he remarked that the Administration was not planning to have nearly enough troops to secure victory in Iraq. Throughout the war, it was apparent that the President did not follow his own maxim and only did so when it was finally apparent that his own vision was not panning out.

Now, both in Israel and the United States, conservatives are once again flouting the better opinions of military leaders and security experts. Governor Romney has stated that he would back an Israeli strike on Iran if they even get the capacity for nuclear weapons, thereby moving the goal posts for an military strike. Similarly, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently attempted to compare the threat of Iran to Nazi Germany, giving a causus belli to a possible military strike. All the while however, American Security Experts on both sides have said an Israeli attack would be disastrous. Meir Dagan, the former head of Mossad has said claimed an Israeli strike would cause the Islamic Republic to go nuclear. Similarly, former Israeli Security chief Yuval Diskin has denounced the idea right out as has Major General Benny Gantz.

Yet, all the while, it appears that the Israeli Prime Minister and the Massachusetts Governor remain undaunted in their drumming up for war. In turn, the prove their hypocrisy. They claim to be patriots, wrap themselves in their respective flags and spout platitudes about the nobility and wisdom of the American and Israeli military and intelligence agencies. Yet when the opinions of the leaders of those institutions are contrary to their own, they are more than willing to disavow and discredit them.

Do Sanctions Work?

This week, The House of Representatives passed further sanctions against Iran in a 421-6 vote as a consequence for not halting their nuclear program. This augments the sanctions which banned companies that do business with Iran's central bank from business in the US in 2011 and the first round of sanctions passed by the Obama Administration in 2009. President Obama has received great praise from leaders both in the US and in Israel like Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres for his stance on Israel-the latter two are featured in a new Obama campaign video.

The sanctions themselves have had a crippling effect on Iran's economy. As of January of 2012, Iran's currency has lost 71 percent of its value since September of 2011. In addition, stories have come out of Iran regarding planes not having proper landing gears due to sanctions against Iran passed by President Clinton. In addition, the Iranian Hemophilia Society claims that the lives of thousands of children are at risk of hemophilia due to the effects of sanctions.

It is common conventional wisdom that the United States pass sanctions against countries that act against the interest of the United States and its allies. The US enacted an embargo against Cuba with the rise of Fidel Castro passed sanctions against Iraq in order to prevent Saddam Hussein from obtaining chemical weapons, and against South Africa as a means of fighting apartheid. The general theory behind sanctions is that if enough economic pressure is placed on a country, either the governing regime will relent or the people will rise up and turn against their governing body. However, with economic sanctions comes severe pain for the populace of the country suffering under sanctions. In addition, it has become quite apparent over the years that economic sanctions have not been as effective as some of their proponents say they are.

Case in point, 2012 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the aforementioned sanctions against Fidel Castro's Cuba. However in that time, the Cuban government has not changed hands. What has changed during that time is that healthcare quality has dramatically been diminished for Cuban people, particularly those with HIV/AIDS. In addition, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office has argued that the Embargo is frivolous. Furthermore, rather than deposing the Communist government, the embargo gives the garrulous Fidel Castro something to gripe about and cite as the source of his country's ills.

Similarly, from 1991 to the 2003 Iraq War, the United States enacted sanctions in an effort to contain Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime and prevent him from obtaining chemical weapons. However the sanctions also worked to create what UNICEF dubbed "a humanitarian emergency." During this time, infant mortality was rated at 131 deaths per 1000 live births. In addition, the Sanctions earned the United States the status of pariah by Islamist Extremists and was cited by Osama Bin Laden as one of a source of his antipathy towards the United States.

The two cases that humanitarians can point to as having had the desired effect of toppling regimes are the South Africa and more recently, the gradual rise in democracy in Burma. However, in both of those cases, the sanctions were specifically requested by the protesters. Bishop Desmond Tutu vehemently pushed for sanctions against his government at a time when Western leaders like American President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher pushed for "constructive engagement" to gently nudge the government along. Similarly, Burmese dissident Aung San Suu Kyi has warned the United States' easing of sanctions, hoping it does not cause the government to stop the reforms made during sanctions.

Meanwhile, in Iran, it seems that the sanctions have had the opposite effect that their proponents desire. Members of the Green Movement, Iran's main opposition force, has stated their discontent with sanctions. In addition, last year, Iranian students raided the British Embassy in Tehran, chanting "Death to England," in light of a round of sanctions the UK instated against the Islamic Republic. With this in in mind, perhaps the best way forward to assisting in the end of despotic regimes is not to continue to write the same failed prescriptions but rather listen to the actual dissenters and their desires as to how to move their countries forward.

Picking Apart the Romney Worldview

This weekend, Governor Mitt Romney touched down in Israel as the second leg of his three-nation jaunt to build up his foreign policy credibility. There he will hope to salvage what is left of this tour after his ill-spoken comments on preparations for the Olympics in its host city of London and also meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In many ways, Governor Romney has the luxury of not needing to discuss his foreign policy worldview. However, when the rhetoric is examined, it is apparent the Governor's Foreign Policy Worldview is not leadership for the 21st Century but rather is stuck in the 20th Century.

One of Governor Romney's closer advisers on foreign affairs is Robert Kagan, a preeminent neoconservative historian who in March, published an article with the headline saying "America has Made the World Safer, Freer, and Wealthier." In the article's conclusion, Kagan expounds that "If and when American power declines, the institutions and norms American power has supported will decline, too." To Kagan, America is always seen as a force that supports free democracies, elections and capitalism. In turn, America must continue to have the role of global imposer of its will.

However, Kagan's logic can at times be deeply flawed. While it is true that the United States did play a large role in World War II and the success of the post-war recovery as well as supporting free elections, there were also instances where it compromised its democratic values in the name of containing the Soviet Union, as was the case with supporting Contras in Nicaragua; the deposing of a Democratically-elected Prime Minister in Iran for a Shah-which caused the breeding ground for the Iranian revolution in 1979-and the assistance in the overthrowing of Salvador Allende in Chile. The United States would continue this practice after the Cold War with its support for the Saudi Arabian Kingdom, and continued to support Hosni Mubarak until the final part of the February 2011 uprisings in Egypt.

This is not to say that the United States is necessarily an evil force either and to force between saying one or the other is a false dichotomy. However, what it does say is that the United States' foreign policy is oftentimes directed in what is in its national interest. Sometimes, this does lead to good results, as was the case with support for anti-communist forces, but the idea of America as some global enforcer of pure democratic intentions could not be further from the truth. It is that mindset that provided the intellectual impetus for neoconservative ventures like the War in Iraq.

This mode of thinking is clear in Governor Romney's approach to discussing civilization. In a speech to the Citadel last October, Governor Romney spoke of the need to create "a New American Century," quoting an essay by Henry Luce. The analogy is fitting given Romney's remarks that he is a "classic baby boomer" and therefore remembers the era where America was locked in a clash of the benevolent force that was the United States and the evil empire of the Soviet Union. In addition, he was born just two years after the United States had assumed the mantle of World Leader after the fall of Nazi Germany. In turn, to the Governor, the world is constantly pitted in a battle of good versus evil, with the United States force always being benevolent and any force questioning it questions the nature of America.

This zero-sum view is further augmented by Governor Romney's belief that the Constitution is "divinely inspired." By elevating the Constitution from a legal document created by intelligent but fallible men which contains, what Franklin called, "all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views," but still managed to be a wonderful document to being a divinely inspired religious text, it decreases the humility of American force and its ability to negotiate in diplomatic engagement with its enemies. For if someone's founding was ordained by God, then then any compromise of its nature. Hence, when he goes around saying that America should not apologize, it is not the typical conservative chest thumping seen by other conservatives but rather moral outrage because how can one question a country with a divinely inspired document?

In turn, Governor Romney's hawkish views have been on display in subtle hints. He called America and Israel the "true peacemakers" in regards to a military strike against Iran.  He has said famously that Russia is America's "number one geopolitical foe." It is also apparent when Governor Romney said that if President Obama had implemented the Bush Freedom Agenda, there would not have been an Arab Spring.

The problem with this worldview however, is that it is out of touch with what has really occurred since the end of the Cold War. Mubarak didn't fail to do democratic reforms because of the failure to enact the Freedom Agenda; in fact if the agenda had worked, then Mubarak would have left earlier. Yet the United States continued to financially support Mubarak even during this so-called "Freedom Agenda." Russia may stall action on Syria and in other areas but they do not have the military firepower to pose a serious threat and is in the middle of its own political upheaval. In addition, Romney's bullishness on a war with Iran is similar to Netanyahu's; it flies in the face of warnings of calamity by both Israeli and American security experts. In turn, it could be said that the Governor's foreign policy is little more than a cut and paste of previous foreign policy mores and could potentially lead to over-extension of military and diplomatic force.