Council for a Livable World

In recent developments:

In Illinoios, State treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) has established an exploratory committee to run for the seat now held by Sen. Roland Burris (D). Burris has been a controversial pick from the beginning, and it is not clear if he will run in 2010. Other candidates are considering getting into the contest.

In Kansas, now that popular Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) has been appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services, she is no longer in contention for the Senate seat of Sen. Sam Brownback (R), who is retiring. The winner of a Republican primary for the seat will be Senator from Kansas: Democrats have not won a Kansas Senate seat since 1932.

In Kentucky, things get curiouser and curiouser. Senate Republicans are running far away from Sen. Jim Bunning (R), who is considered one of the weakest incumbent Republicans. He has responded by attacking Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConell (R), also of Kentucky. There were even reports that Bunning threatened to quit his seat and let the Democratic governor appoint his replacement.

In Ohio, Democrats now face at least a three-way primary between Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and state Rep. Tyrone Yates. Republicans appear to have settled on ex-U.S. Rep. and ex-Office of Management and Budget director Rob Portman (R), who declared for the seat almost immediately after incumbent Sen. George Voinovich (R) announced he would not run again.

In Pennsylvania, former Rep. Pat Toomey (R), who lost a close primary challenge to incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (R) in 2004, had changed his mind and may now seek a new Senate contest rather than run for Governor. No prominent Democrat has yet popped up to announce a run.

It is much too early to predict elections two years from now, but there are some known facts and early movement in key contests.

1. Number of seats up in 2010: Republicans again have to defend more seats than Democrats, 19 seats compared to 17.

2. Retirements: At this point, five GOP Senators have announced their retirements at the end of this term, compared to only one Democrat. Open seats are frequently highly competitive.

3. Newly-appointed Senators: There will be four Democratic seats previously held by invulnerable incumbents with names like Obama, Biden, Clinton and Salazar that will feature appointed incumbents in office for fewer than two years.  The effect of these appointments is to make each seat more competitive.

4. Candidate recruitment: Both parties are looking for strong candidates to run, but already both have also suffered disappointments as favored candidates declined to enter the races.

The major imponderable:  How popular will President Barack Obama be in November 2010? Many mid-term elections become referenda on the incumbent President’s party.

Some of the early battleground states:

California: The nation’s largest state only becomes a battleground if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) decides to challenge Sen. Barbara Boxer (D).  Even so, she should face spirited competition.  

Colorado: Political newcomer Michael Bennet (D) was selected to replace Sen. Ken Salazar (D), the new Secretary of Interior.  He is well-regarded by insider circles for his job as superintendent of Denver public schools and other work but is little known across the state.  Former Colorado House speaker Andrew Romanoff (D) may challenge Bennet in a primary.  Republicans are sure to mount a stiff challenge.  Polls point to a close contest.

Connecticut: The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Chris Dodd (D) is in trouble. His sagging poll numbers are in part due to the banking crisis (he is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee) and in part to what looks like sweetheart real estate deals. While the state is strongly Democratic, a March 2009 poll showed that Dodd would get a strong challenge from former Rep. Rob Simmons (R), who has announced he is running.

Delaware: Sen. Ted Kaufman (D), Sen. Joseph Biden’s former chief of staff, has announced he will hold the seat for only two years.  Attorney General Beau Biden, one of Biden’s sons, is expected to announce a run after he returns from an Iraq deployment.  Republicans would like popular U.S. Rep. Mike Castle to run.  Castle will be 71 in 2010, which would set up a strong contrast between himself and the much younger Beau Biden. However, a March 2009 poll showed Castle leading Beau Biden.

Florida:  Both parties suffered recruiting disappointments for this race. The GOP hoped that former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) would run, and Democrats tried to persuade Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink (D) to run for the seat of Sen. Mel Martinez (R), who announced his retirement. A slew of other candidates are considering the contest, including U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) and former Florida state Speaker Marco Rubio (R). At this point, the race is a toss-up.

Illinois: Controversial Governor Rod Blagojevich’s (D) appointment of Sen. Roland Burris (D) embarrassed state and national Democrats.  It is not clear whether or not 71-year old African American Roland Burris will run in 2010. State treasurer Alexi Giannoulias has established an exploratory committee and ex-Commerce Secretary William Daley (D) may run. The GOP is recruiting Chicago suburban U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R) to run.

Kansas:  Sen. Sam Brownback (R), currently serving his second term in the U.S. Senate, has kept his promise to retire after two terms.  Two GOP House members, Reps. Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran have indicated they will run in a primary against each other. That primary winner is almost surely the general election winner: Democrats have not won a Kansas Senate seat since 1932.

Kentucky:  Two-term incumbent Sen. Jim Bunning (R) won by only 23,000 votes in 2004, a strong Republican year, and is considered highly vulnerable.  Indeed, some Republicans are urging Bunning to retire rather than risk defeat. Bunning had only $150,000 in the bank at the end of December. Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo , who ran in 2004, has declared he will run.  Other  Democrats are considering the race, including, state Rep. Ben Chandler, state Attorney General Jack Conway (D) and Auditor Crit Luallen (D).

Louisiana:  Democrats have been targeting Sen. David Vitter (R) since Mr. Family Values’ name was found in the D.C. Madam’s list of prostitutes’ customers.  Vitter may get a primary challenge and – almost certainly – will receive a strong general election opponent.

Missouri: Sen. Kit Bond (R), who beat back a series of highly credible Democratic challengers over the years, has announced his retirement. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D), the daughter of a governor and senator and brother of a congressman, is the early Democratic frontrunner.  Early polls show her with a narrow lead over both potential Republican opponents, U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt (R) and ex-state treasurer Sarah Steelman (R).  This is probably a toss-up race.

Nevada:  Republicans knocked off Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle in 2004 and hope to repeat their victory by defeating Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D) from Nevada in 2010.  In 2008, Reid helped defeat one potential challenger, U.S. Representative Jon Porter (R), and Lieutenant Governor Brian Krolicki’s (R) already has legal problems, but the GOP will almost surely find a serious challenger to contest Reid’s seat.  While Reid won handily in 2004, he won by only 428 votes six years before. At the end of November, Reid had $3.3 million in the bank. The National Republican Senatorial Committee began running attack ads against Reid in January 2009.

New Hampshire: This state has been going increasingly Democratic with the defeat of both Republican House members in 2006 and Sen. John Sununu in 2008.  Democrats are optimistic about winning the seat in 2010, particularly now that the seat is open with Senator Judd Gregg (R) saying he will retire. &nbsp Rep. Paul Hodes (D) has declared while U.S. Rep.Carol Shea-Porter has announced she will not run.

New York:  Gov. David Paterson’s selection of little-known U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) from upstate New York to replace former Sen. and now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could lead to stiff primary opposition from U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D), who objects to Gillibrand’s pro-gun position, or from a Republican like U.S. Rep. Peter King.  Gillibrand is a ferocious fundraiser and a formidable campaigner, but she has to move quickly to get herself known across the Empire state.  The state’s Democratic leanings make her the early favorite.

North Carolina:  North Carolina went for Barack Obama in 2008 and ousted Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R) with the election of Sen. Kay Hagan (D).  Now Democrats have turned their sights on Sen. Richard Burr (R).  State Attorney General Roy Cooper  (D) is considering a challenge.  Polling shows Burr only slightly ahead of these and other potential challengers.

North Dakota: Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) will breeze to re-election unless Gov. John Hoeven (R) gets into the contest.

Ohio:  Ex-U.S. Rep. and ex-Office of Management and Budget director Rob Portman (R) declared his candidacy immediately after the announced retirement of Sen. George Voinovich (R).  He may run opposed for the GOP nomination.  Democrats face a primary between Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and state Rep. Tyrone Yates. Both the primary and general election are wide open.

Pennsylvania:  MSNBC’s “Hardball” host Chris Matthews decided against running, but incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (R) will have ample competition, perhaps from members of both parties.  Club for Growth president Pat Toomey, who almost defeated Specter in a 2004 primary, is now expected to seek a rerun.  Pennsylvania, which has been trending Democratic, will almost certainly produce a tough Democratic challenger.

17 Democratic seats
Evan Bayh (IN)
Michael Bennet (CO)
Barbara Boxer (CA)
Roland Burris (IL)
Christopher Dodd (CT)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Russell Feingold (WI)
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
Daniel Inouye (HI)
Ted Kaufman (DE) – retiring
Patrick Leahy (VT)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Patty Murray (WA)
Harry Reid (NV)
Charles Schumer (NY)
Ron Wyden (OR)

19 Republican seats
Robert Bennett (UT)
Christopher Bond (MO) – retiring
Sam Brownback (KS) – retiring
Jim Bunning (KY)
Richard Burr (NC)
Tom Coburn (OK)
Mike Crapo (ID)
Jim DeMint (SC)
Chuck Grassley (IA)
Judd Gregg (NH) – retiring
Johnny Isakson (GA)
Mel Martinez (FL) – retiring
John McCain (AZ)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Richard Shelby (AL)
Arlen Specter (PA)
John Thune (SD)
David Vitter (LA)
George Voinovich (OH) – retiring

President Obama indicated through his press secretary that his administration would review its policy toward Afghanistan before making a decision about sending additional troops to fight in that country. Richard Holbrooke, his envoy, was in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region talking with leaders about how best to address the military and political situation. Obama also met with advisers at the Pentagon and the State Department.

As recently as February 15, it was reported that Obama “is refusing to be rushed into his first decision to send troops into combat…… questioning the time table, the mission and even the composition of the new forces.” However, Obama changed his mind on February 17, authorizing 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines for Afghanistan in what he described as an urgent bid to stabilize a deteriorating and neglected country, joining the 30,000 U.S. troops already there.

Obama will be sending more troops to Afghanistan before he has begun to fulfill a promised rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq. His order leaves crucial questions of strategy and tactics in Afghanistan unanswered until the strategy review is completed in April. Antiwar groups criticized Obama’s decision. Tom Andrews, director of Win Without War said, “The president is committing these troops before he’s determined what the mission is….. We need to avoid the slippery slope of military escalation.”

The hasty decision ignored the many negative comments about the prospects for a U.S. victory. General David Petraeus has called Afghanistan “the graveyard of empires”. Holbrooke reported “a purely military victory is not achievable.” British historians furnish the details of their three failed military attempts to pacify the country. Twenty years after the troops of the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan in defeat, the last Russian general to command them said on Feb 13 that the Soviets’ devastating experience, losing more than 15,000 troops in Afghanistan battling guerrillas “is a dismal omen for the U.S.”

Supporters of expanded U.S. military operations in Afghanistan cite the successes of the American military against the Taliban in October and November, 2001, immediately after the tragedy of September 11. However, that victory was accomplished by air power and bribery. Airpower prevented Taliban military operations. Hundred dollar bills bought warlord allies in this corrupt country whose main product is opium.

Can we do it again, bribing our way through the drug lords? Perhaps. But history shows that Afghans don’t stay bought and that the guerrillas motivated by rebellion and nationalism will fight the invaders for hundreds of years, making a bandit’s living out of their tactics as they have done for time immemorial.

Don’t think that General Petraeus does not know how to use money as a weapon. While he was installing the “Surge” in Iraq adding 30,000 fresh troops with great fanfare, he was quietly bribing the insurgent Sunnis with $20 dollar bills and rifles, paying 100,000 warriors to stop fighting the Americans.

This post originally appeared on Relentless Liberal on February 24, 2009.

Barack Obama captured the soul of the Democratic Party when he denounced the American invasion of Iraq as a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, based on faulty and manipulated intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. His election to the presidency proved that the voters trusted him to end the war as he promised.

While Americans are grateful that this six year old war will soon be over, they wonder at the delay in pulling our troops from Iraq. More than 4000 Americans have been killed; more than 30,000 have been wounded in this war generally regarded as a mistake. Our military leaders say that we should leave “responsibly.” What does that mean? Responsible to whom? To the Iraqis, whose public wants us to leave at once? To the corrupt Iraqi government whose leaders want us to stay as long as we supply the dollars?

Our first responsibility is to the men and women of the U. S. military. No more deaths. No more wounds. How would you like to be the last soldier to die for a mistake?

Obama promised a pullout within 16 months. Now, his senior officials tell the New York Times that will be extended to 19 months. How many Americans will be killed or wounded in those three months? Why? To protect the military equipment? Leave it there for the Iraqis. When we invaded, our operation against a shooting enemy took one month. Getting out should take the same one month.

If we are serious

President Obama plans to leave behind a “residual force” to continue training Iraqis, to hunt down foreign terrorist cells, to guard the American Embassy and other American installations. That doesn’t sound like much of a withdrawal. The residual tasks are what we have been doing for six years. Right now, there are about 142,000 American military in Iraq and a like number of civilian contractors working for us. The duties of the residual force indicate that at least 100,000 Americans would remain in Iraq in addition to a sizeable number of contractors to help them. Not the pullout we expected. And if the fragile truce between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds disintegrates, U.S. forces are likely to stay in Iraq.

The U.S. now has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries. The Middle East contains 60% of the oil on earth. The U.S. has commercial, political, financial and cultural interests in every country in the area, some of the interests valued in the trillions of dollars. Will Iraq become the 131st country? Will the residual force become the U.S. military base? Removing all U.S. troops from Iraq – NOW – may reverse our reliance on military power, restore our international reputation and encourage the use of “soft power” in pursuit of American interests.

This post originally appeared on Relentless Liberal on February 26, 2009.

Council board member Col. Richard Klass, along with the chairman of our research wing, Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, released a report today that outlines how President Obama can responsibly execute his campaign commitment to remove U.S. combat forces from Iraq within 16 months.

Based on recent press reports, there is reason to suspect that there may be an effort underway, led by some military officials and non-governmental analysts, to delay President Obama’s 16-month timetable.

The report is available online here.

“This plan meets President Obama’s criteria of being as careful getting out as we were careless going in,” said Council board member retired Col. Richard Klass. “Redeployment of U.S. combat forces should be coupled with a diplomatic surge to help stabilize Iraq.”

The report proposes a U.S. redeployment schedule that would result in 100,000 total U.S. troops remaining in Iraq by the end of 2009; 35,000 to 65,000 support troops remaining in Iraq by July 2010, when the President’s 16-month timetable would end if it is initiated in April 2009; and fewer than 1,000 troops remaining by December 2011, when the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement (commonly referred to as the status of forces agreement or “SOFA”) mandates that all U.S. forces be out of Iraq.

“Our national security would be enhanced by implementing President Obama’s 16-month timetable,” said Gard. “President Obama’s plan to remove combat forces from Iraq is militarily workable and can be executed responsibly.”

On January 22, President Obama’s second day in office, Council for a Livable World board member Brig. Gen. John Johns, along with Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, the chairman of our sister organization the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation,  stood behind the President in the Oval Office when he signed executive orders related to the incarceration, interrogation, and treatment of detainees. Both Gen. Johns and Gen. Gard wrote about what it was like to be in the Oval Office, and how they came to be activists against the Bush administration’s torture policies.

From Brig. Gen. Johns John (USA, ret.):

On January 22, 2009, I – along with Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, the Center’s chairman – was among 16 generals and admirals of the U.S. Armed Forces who were invited to attend a signing ceremony in the Oval Office, where President Obama signed three directives and a memo addressing policies on torture and the detention center at Guantanamo. Gen. Gard and I have been members of a group of retired flag officers who met at various times with presidential candidates to lobby for changing Bush policies, especially those related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including torture. We had hoped that President Obama would take action early in his administration on this specific issue, but were elated and surprised that he did so on his second day in office. To take this action immediately reflects the importance the President places on this subject.

The group met in the Roosevelt Room for about 20-25 minutes with the President before the ceremony in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and members of the legal staff joined the discussion. Both Obama and Biden expressed appreciation for the fruitful meetings they had had with the group during the campaign. President Obama had met for one hour in Des Moines, Iowa and Vice President Biden in New Hampshire. I was struck by the warm and gracious attitude of both the President and Vice President. Both showed a detailed knowledge of the policies on torture and interrogation techniques and fully understood the symbolic value of the changes that were being made.

From Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (USA, ret.)::

On January 22, President Obama’s second day in office, I, along with 15 other retired general and flag officers, stood behind the President in the Oval Office when he signed executive orders related to the incarceration, interrogation, and treatment of detainees. I have been asked to explain how that occurred and to report on the visit to the White House.

My outrage began and built up as the Bush administration directed flawed military operations in Afghanistan in 2001-2002, and in Iraq beginning in 2003, coupled with the President’s reversal of past policy with his announcement that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to terrorists we detained. There was a “surge” in my outrage when I, along with virtually every other American, was shocked by the pictures and reports of abuse of detainees in the Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq. My outrage hit a new plateau on reading a report on the front page of the 8 June 2004 Washington Post exposing a Department of Justice memo, issued in August 2002 to the White House Counsel.

That memo advised that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad “may be justified” and that international laws against torture “may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations” conducted in the war on terrorism. The memo went so far as to claim that to qualify as torture, the pain or suffering inflicted on a victim “must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” Needless to say, this put the abuse at Abu Ghraib and allegations of similar conduct in other detention facilities, including Guantanamo Bay, in a much broader context.

Coincidentally, two days later, on 10 June 2004, I was surprised to receive an email from Peter Loge, Senior Vice President of M&R Strategic Services. In the mid to late 1990s, Peter had been associated with the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, the founder/manager of the international campaign to ban anti-personnel land mines. During part of the time, I was serving as the campaign’s senior military advisor. In his email message, Peter advised me that Human Rights First, formerly Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, planned to hold a press conference a week later.

Essay continued here.