Council for a Livable World

We’re definitely not the only ones noticing the chill in the air. John Isaacs put together a list of prominent members of Congress and links to editorials and opinion pieces across the country that highlight the importance of maintaining positive relat…

The first of three presidential debates will occur this Friday, September 26. In a prime time encounter, John McCain and Barack Obama will (hopefully) lay out their ideas about how to best structure and implement U.S. foreign policy over the next four years. These debates will be critical for the candidates, as the race is tightly contested and neither candidate has pulled away in recent polls.  

Each candidate must demonstrate an understanding of foreign policy that moves beyond sound bites. Obama will try to link McCain to President Bush’s foreign policy failures and portray McCain’s ideas as a continuation of the cowboy foreign policies that have caused so much political turmoil over the last eight years. Obama is also likely to accuse McCain of losing sight of the real central front against terrorism in Afghanistan.

McCain will try to highlight his foreign policy experience while explaining his unconditional support for the war in Iraq to skeptical Americans. McCain needs to pick up lost ground after economic woes and several McCain gaffes have bounced Obama back ahead in national polls. McCain will seek to discuss ways in which a McCain-Palin administration will represent a true change from the Bush-Cheney years.  

The Council for a Livable World would like to see the following issues addressed by the candidates on Friday:

1. With speculation circulating that North Korea is poised to restart their nuclear program, how should the United States respond if North Korea reneges on its commitment to halt developing nuclear technology for nuclear weapons?

2. What course of action will your administration take in dealing with Iran?  

3. How will you seek to ease tensions between the United States and Russia after the recent conflict in Georgia?

4. Are diplomatic and multilateralist approaches to American foreign policy artifacts of the past?

5. In your eyes, what work can be done to domestically strengthen the U.S. biodefense program, especially after the turmoil of the Bruce Ivins case?

What other questions would you like answered? Let us know, if you’d like, in the comments section.

Cross posted from Iraq Insider

I just finished reading six famous lectures George Kennan delivered at the University of Chicago in 1951. The lectures were published as American Diplomacy, 1900-1950.

In the peroration of his sixth and final lecture, Kennan stopped to consider the nature of military victory in the modern world. Kennan writes:

It was asserted not long ago by a prominent American [Gen. Douglas MacArthur] that “war’s very object is victory” and that “in war there can be no substitute for victory.” Perhaps the confusion here lies is what is meant by the term “victory.” Perhaps the term is actually misplaced. Perhaps there can be such a thing as “victory” in a battle, whereas in war there can only be the achievement or nonachievement of your objectives. In the old days, wartime objectives were generally limited and practical ones, and it was common to measure the success of your military operations by the extent to which they brought you closer to your objectives. But where your objectives are moral and ideological ones and run to changing the attitudes and the traditions of an entire people or the personality of a regime, then victory is probably something not to be achieved entirely by military means or indeed in any short space of time at all; and perhaps that is the source of our confusion.

Sheds some light on the flaws of the Bush administration’s mission in Iraq, no?

Contrast Kennan’s measured, realistic view with that espoused by John McCain this past Sunday:

Because of the sacrifices and perseverance of all the troops — active-duty, Guard, and Reserve — victory in Iraq is finally in sight…Even in retrospect, [Obama] would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory…In short, both candidates in this election pledge to end this war and bring our troops home. The great difference is that I intend to win it first.

When McCain tried to pass off this type of blather as fit for the op-ed pages of the New York Times, the Times editor told his campaign to try again. McCain needed, in a revised draft, to “articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq [and] lay out a clear plan for achieving victory,” wrote Times editor David Shipley.

In the foreign policy debate this Friday, I hope McCain will explain what he means by “victory” in Iraq. Does he see victory in Iraq, as I suspect, in “moral and ideological” terms, much to the chagrin of thinkers like Kennan?

If desperation is a stinky cologne, the campaign of Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) is truly beginning to reek.

Ten days ago, Smith unveiled two vicious attack ads in his race against Democrat Jeff Merkley, an arms control expert endorsed by Council for a Livable World. The ads accuse Merkley of not being tough enough on rapists.

Watch the ads for yourself after the jump.

These ads are reminiscent of the ‘Willie Horton’ ad that helped destroy Governor Michael Dukakis’s campaign for President in 1988. I hate to dredge up bad memories, but if you haven’t watched this despicable ad in awhile, or if you’ve never seen it, you absolutely must watch it:

The style of Smith’s ads is bad enough, but they are also completely misleading and deceptive. The crime mentioned in Smith’s ad occurred 13 years before Merkley even entered politics. And while Smith slanders Merkley for opposing the extension of the statute of limitations for sex crimes, Merkley actually supports such an extension and voted in support of such a bill back in 2001 and 2005. Merkley also supports mandatory life sentences for serial sex offenders.

You’ll be glad to know that the Merkley campaign struck back against Smith’s Rovian assault immediately. Here are Merkley’s two response ads:

With accusations flying back and forth, it is tough to see the forest for the trees. Luckily, nonpartisan political analyst Stuart Rothenberg assessed the Oregon fracas in his Roll Call column on September 22 (subscription only). “The Smith ads…are striking many observers as the sort of late-October ad that a campaign might use as a game-changer, not the kind of TV spot that a confident incumbent would run in mid-September,” Rothenberg wrote. “The Republican clearly is in serious trouble.”

Senator Lieberman’s descent into political isolation will come after the election if the Democrats have at least 52 seats, no matter who is President. Lieberman has to pay a political price in the Senate for his endorsement of John McCain for President.

As a participant in successful efforts to strip House Democrats who supported Goldwater in 1964 of seniority, and strip three unfair and arbritrary Committee Chairmen of their posts after the House Democratic landslide in 1974 (post-Watergate), I can attest to the precise reasons for stripping legislators of their chairmanships and seniority.

Lieberman’s views on the Iraq war and his Iran bellicosity are not reasons. Even his outrageous connection with Reverend Hagee does not per se sink Lieberman. Even McCain rejected Hagee’s endorsement after his anti-Catholic comments. Hagee’s tepid apology to Catholics does not reduce the virulence of his essential bigotry. Lieberman’s occassional liberalism (pro-choice, opposition to Alito’s confirmation, his leadership on global warming and DC’s rights to vote and to representation in the House) do not mitigate his actions in support of McCain for President.

Where Lieberman has reached the point of no return is his endorsement of McCain for President. This alone puts Lieberman over the line. His active campaigning for McCain serves to emphasize Lieberman’s endorsement. To speak at the Republican convention serves to remind the rest of us that Lieberman will soon be as forgotten as was Zell Miller, the Georgia Democratic Senator who spoke at the Republican convention in 2004 in support of Bush over Kerry.

Lieberman wants to save his Chairmanship. So he has contributed $100,000 from his political fund to elect Senate Democrats. He is trying to buy his way out of a mortal political sin. No sale, Lieberman. That money, and even future money, does not forgive his support of McCain for President. The people of Connecticut can elect whomever they choose. That does not mean that official is entitled to the benefits of the Democratic caucus. That is what House Democrats established in 1964 and 1974. Senate Democrats should follow suit.

True, right now Lieberman has a whip hand. If he leaves the caucus and votes with the Republicans to organize the Senate, Cheney breaks a 50-50 tie. That would mean Lieberman will have broken his unambiguous pledge to Connecticut voters that he would vote with the Democrats to organize the Senate. To break the pledge would make Lieberman’s legacy that of a liar or a Benedict Arnold.

Next year, hopefully, there will a different scenario. If Democrats reach the magic number of 52, Lieberman should be treated as Wayne Morse was when he supported, as a Republican, Stevenson over Eisenhower in 1952. Lieberman would lose his Committee Chairmanship (Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs), and all Committee assignments from the Senate Democrats. If Republicans wanted to give him Committee assignments, that would be the Republican Conference’s decision. Otherwise, he would get last choice and go to the bottom of the list.

Will Senate Democrats pass the easy test of disciplining Lieberman? That’s far from clear. They are likely to have to be shamed into exercising their basic party responsibilities.