Day: January 10, 2020
Stevenson’s army, January 10
– The House on Thursday voted 224-194 to force the president to cease military operations against Iran within 60 days. The measure was H Con Res 83, and that’s significant in many ways. As a concurrent resolution, it would never be presented to the president for approval or veto, even if the Senate passed identical language. But it was not necessary toothless. Ever since the Chadha immigration case in 1983, lawyers have assumed that the provision in the War Powers Resolution allowing Congress to force a withdrawal of troops from combat by concurrent resolution — instead of a joint resolution that the president could veto — was inoperative. This measure would test that assumption, if approved by the Senate [which seems unlikely]. The measure also provides conditions superseding its effect: Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military, unless—
(1) Congress has declared war or enacted specific statutory authorization for such use of the Armed Forces; or
(2) such use of the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces, consistent with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution.
Both support and opposition to the measure was bipartisan
A Cornell prof has a concise piece explaining why Congress hardly ever really wants to limit warmaking presidents — they don’t want to be held accountable.
NYT reports on the debate and Senate prospects.
The Iraqi premier has called for talks with US on troop withdrawal. WaPo looks at the consequences.
Navy Times has a good piece explaining how countries without diplomatic relations — like US & Iran — communicate with each other.
On WOTR, a CSIS analyst says we misunderstand the value of China’s ocean bases.
Retired AU prof has good ideas for strengthening State Dept.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Better Middle East policy
On Wednesday January 8, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) hosted an event titled The Land of Endless Wars: What Really Causes Instability in the Middle East? to showcase the recently published book co-edited by AEI Resident Scholar, Michael Rubin. The book, Seven Pillars: What Really Causes Instability in the Middle East? served as a launching point for the panel, which was comprised of three of the book’s authors and two editors: Michael Rubin, a Resident Scholar at AEI, Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-editor of the book, and A.Kadir Yildirim Fellow for the Middle East at the Baker Institute and chapter author.
The key takeaways from the discussion are consolidated here:
Reform Islam
Katulis, while noting the multiplicity of factors involved in ISIS’s rise to power, specifically credited its ability to exploit and act upon the failed responsiveness of local governance. Many of the seeds of instability were the result of local government’s failure to respond effectively to and engage with its people. All three panelists agreed that ISIS exploited religion to leverage and gain power, rather than focusing on the particularities of faith. Yildirim noted that the rise of religious-backed regimes was a result of the failure of secular ideologies, particularly their failure to deliver on promises. This failure, Yildirim claims, led to the rise of Islamist, Salafists, and other radical religious groups.
Yildirim underlined that Islam is not by nature different than other religions in terms of its ability to act as a stabilizing or disruptive force. The panelists largely agreed in their overall response to the moderator’s question regarding whether or not Islam needs reforming. While their individual interpretations and explanations varied, each agreed that reform is needed.
Katulis alluded to a more hands-off approach, stating that the United States should not play a substantive role in initiating reform. On the other hand, Rubin insinuated that the United States should help shine the international spotlight on different Muslim schools of thought. He used the example of Saudi Arabia as an Islamic thought producer that consistently receives more international attention than Moroccan schools of thought. Yildirim posited that there is a still a clash between modernity and Islam; many of the deep-seated issues with Islam are a result of this relationship. No panelist provided a clear, descriptive answer as to how best to ignite reform or what reform really consists of.
Revitalize diplomacy
The discussion around the role of diplomacy commenced with Rubin’s remark about the continual ripple effect of Benghazi and its aftermath. Rubin highlighted that one of the fallouts from Benghazi was that diplomats are more isolated. Katulis concurred and further emphasized that diplomats should be engaging with the public sphere as a method of completing one of their essential duties: identifying local social trends and sentiments. Instead of American diplomats engaging on the local level and establishing human connections and trust, it appears that the US government is focusing on military moves. This generates mutually reinforcing cycles of violence and mistrust.
Raising Voices, Not Forces
The panel touched upon the historic role of the United States military in the region, which led to the discussion of more recent interventions and if they are worthwhile. The moderator cited the expense of trillions of US dollars spent only to have more coups and unrest in the region. Katulis warned against the promotion of war, as wars increase the hardline interpretation of religion, allowing the cycles to feed off each other.
In connection with the aforementioned discussion of reforming islam, Rubin and Katulius emphasized that the US should help provide local safe spaces for reform and debate to take place in. In addition, the US should internationally condemn the imprisonment and execution of reformists who are vilified in these ‘safe spaces’ by oppressive regimes. The US should be mobilizing governments through outrage, rather than through military power.
Yildirim agreed, but added the caveat that these ‘safe spaces’ and the way in which they are created are important because of the constant anti-Western interventionist trope. In response to Yildirim’s caution against undermining the local government, Rubin countered that at some point you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t, thereby suggesting military use might be necessary at times despite it not being an ideal solution.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 9
Iran and the US seem to be backing down the escalation ladder. Good. But enormous risks and opportunities for miscalculation remain. Prof. Edelman says maybe the US attacks have helped restore deterrence.
No one should be surprised if I find fault with many of Pres. Trump’s policies. But his behavior on Wednesday was deeply offensive. It has long been said that in war, truth is the first casualty. But on Wednesday the president decided to make a formal speech to the American people on a mater of great gravity, truly a matter of war and peace. He surrounded himself with senior national security officials, including many uniformed officers. And he lied and dissembled and misled us,the American people. His remarks were so far from honest and accurate that both the Washington Post and New York Times had “fact checker” articles pointing out the flaws. Over the years I’ve known several White House speech writers from both parties. All told me how hard they worked to guarantee that anything the president said in a formal address was carefully fact-checked and defensible. That’s obviously not the case in the Trump White House. It’s especially bad to use senior military officers as political props — enough to spark a backlash in the Pentagon
Two can play this game: Iran’s parliament has designated the US military as terrorists.
On other matters, WSJ says US is outmaneuvering Russia in the Balkans.
An the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, long a source of studies and recommendations critical of the PRC, has issued its latest annual report.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
