9 Comments:

It is surprising that you aren't understanding the difference here.

The troop drawdowns are estimates, not on any clear timetable. They are estimates based on how things are currently going, and on the projected strength of the Iraqi forces taking over the country at that time. Of course you are going to plan for withdrawals before they happen, and to do that you must estimate needs over time.

This is not the same thing as a strict "timetable" at all, say - "all troops out by June 1", or "half troops out by May 21" or whatever else, and it is based on conditions on the ground and not political force from back home.

Secondly, and more importantly to the point, the Times story was a LEAK. Yet again, the Times received a leak of CLASSIFIED information and decided to publish it for all the world to see.

One of the main objections to the Democrats "timetable" idea is that by announcing to the terrorists exacly when we are leaving, you are creating a nightmarish scenario where they can then just sit out and wait until we do, then go back to work.

So the difference here is a drawdown based on conditions on the ground, allowing the Iraqis to take back over their country based on how things are going, rather than some artifical Democrat-imposed political timetable, and, more importantly, the fact that setting a PUBLIC timetable for drawdown is simply an idiotic idea. Whereas here, it was something that was supposed to be secret - away from our enemies and from public knowledge.

The "outing" of this "timetable" by a leaker circumvents one of the main reasons not to establish some public political timetable in the first place - not to tip terrorists off so they can plan effectively for an Iraqi future without the U.S. there.

Can you really not see the difference?

By  Anonymous, at 4:09 PM  

Great argument, David -- everything the Bush administration does is just fine, so long as it stays a secret. Spying on Americans making phone calls? Searching bank transactions? Redploying troops in Iraq? Great ideas, so long as we don't actually have to be confronted with them.

If what you suggest is, in fact true, I support it 100%. Let's promise we're leaving Iraq in a year. According to your theory, the insurgents will slink away into hiding waiting to peel away the days on their advent calendars of terror. Then, a year, from now, they'll re-emerge.

In the year of relative peace, maybe we could restore basic services, train Iraqi police and military forces, finish up the trial of Saddam. Or are you saying that even with a year to prepare, the Iraqis wouldn't be ready to defend their own country?

By  Anonymous, at 9:26 PM  

The entire argument against some false political timetable is to not give the terrorists a "date" where they can plan around by just biding their time and waiting, lulling us into a false sense of accomplishment and then coming out and ruining things when we leave.

Do I think we can't be ready in a year? I don't know. And you know what? Neither do you, or thank goodness, the terrorists. And that's exactly the point. Why should we be making decisions like that instead of the military commanders on the ground? Who know exactly what is going on over there from day to day? If they are preparing to draw troops down, then wonderful - that just shows that the progress they are claiming is indeed occuring at a good clip.

But this needs to remain classified and not be blabbed about in the New York Times, for very obvious reasons.

Your points:

1. Spying on Americans making phone calls - Why don't you talk to FDR, who did far, far worse with his executive power during World War II. FDR had warrantless wiretaps put on reporters that he didn't like, for instance.

What the Bush administration has done here is quite legal and quite common-sense - if a known terrorist or a number we've found on a terrorists' cell phone or some other such thing, calls somebody in the United States, then we sure as hell want to know why, and what they're talking about. International Communcations are not the same as domestic, and don't have any constitutional protection. The Courts have ruled such things legal before several times. This is no different.

And wouldn't you expect the administration to do that? To listen in when terrorists make calls to the United States? Or would you rather them not care when such calls are made and just take their chances? Hopefully, one of the ones being called by Bin Laden isn't YOUR neighbor, right?

2. Bank Transactions? Again this is INTERNATIONAL, not domestic transactions. And again, it's perfectly legal. Even the New York Times story that exposed the program ADMITTED that it was legal!

So by the Time's OWN story, the program is

A. Legal
B. Has safeguards to prevent abuse
C. Has been made known to the appropriate members of Congress

Okay... so what's the problem then?

Why blab this secret if it is, by your own admission, on the up and up? Why give away a very effective anti-terror tool to our enemies if it is legal and we were using it in the right way?

It was a classified program, and the Administration begged the New York Times not to run it, and they apparently had no reason to do so... So why endanger Americans by running it? There's only three explanations - either they hate us and don't care if Americans get killed as long as it hurts the Bush administration, or they just don't care about the safety of Americans and think a Pulitzer Prize is more important than human life, or a mixture of both.

None of those options are very noble. Thanks, New York Times.

By  Anonymous, at 9:25 AM  

David, my point in listing three secret programs is that the Bush adminstration has a pattern of extreme secrecy. Legality and efficacy are issues apart from secrecy. You can't live under a nation of laws when the government decides that some laws are secret.

But the issue of the day is Iraq. The Bush administration and its congressional allies have been demonizing Democrats for suggesting that we need to plan for a phased withdrawal from Iraq...at the same time that the military commanders in Iraq were plannign a phased withdrawal. So -- are the military commanders in Iraq planning to "cut and run"? Or is this just hypocrisy?

I think your hypothesis regarding the effect of a flexible timetable for redeployment from Iraq is dead wrong. I don't expect any factions in the nascent Iraqi civil war to stand down until U.S. forces have withdrawn. If they did, though, I can't imagine a better result. It's hard to win public support for a government that can't provide basic services. It sure would be easier to provide services with a 6-12 month respite from bombings. Likewise, it would be a hell of a lot easier to train Iraqi security forces without the constant threat of getting blown up.

That's exactly why the insurgents would not stand down and wait for the U.S. to withdraw: it would afford a huge opportunity to the government they seek to topple.

Contrariwise, announcing a date for a planned withdrawal has a number of positive effects. Most importantly, it assures Iraqis -- and potentially radicalized Muslims everywhere -- that the United States does not intend to occupy Iraq permanently. Secondarily, it puts additional pressure on competing factions within the political process to reach appropriate compromises within a national unity government.

By  Hammer, at 9:50 AM  

1. "You can't live under a nation of laws when the government decides that some laws are secret."

I'm sorry, but this is pure nonsense. Certain aspects of national security laws have ALWAYS been secret, in every administration, for good reason, and with the blessing of the American people. To act as if the Bush administration is the first to have secret National Security programs is borderline bonkers.

As a nation of laws, we the people elect representatives, fully expecting them to keep some aspects of our National Security a secret from us, and thus, our enemies. It has always been like this, and should be?

Or do you think Roosevelt should've tried to abide by your version of not keeping anything secret in "a nation of laws" and let the whole country know about the Manhattan Project?

Would it have been okay for Germany and Japan to have known about the project ahead of time? Of course not. That was kept secret for good reason, just as the LEGAL AND SAFEGUARDED(by the Times own admission) banking program was.

2. There is no hypocrisy. There is no cut and run.

Withdrawing our troops based on the situation on the ground as determined by the American armed forces and the Iraqis actually over there, is a far different thing from some false POLITICAL date set by bureacrats in Washington. One is based on the reality of the situation as those that are there see it, the other is based on John Kerry trying to score points with the lefty base in an attempt to outmaneuver Hillary. Which motive do you think is better?

Seconly, and more importanlty to the point, there is a world of difference in a PUBLIC timetable, that tips off our enemies, versus a PRIVATE timetable that keeps our enemies guessing.

This is where the timetable debate hinges, and even if you fall on the side that thinks it should be public, you still should not be able to claim in good faith that the Senate setting a PUBLIC, artifical POLITICAL timetable is the same thing as the actual military setting a SECRET, real world timetable based on conditions on the ground.

It is not the same thing. The "timetable" was being kept secret for a reason, and that secrecy is the whole hinge of the argument - not tipping off our enemies.

So no, it is clearly NOT hypocrisy. Republicans said they don't want a public timetable because it will tip off our enemies and do us harm. This was not public, which is the whole point. It was only later made public by the New York Times. Republicans also said they don't want a timetable set by politicians in Washington, but they want us to draw down based on conditions on the ground as decided by our forces that are actually there.

What the Times did was reveal an apparent program that is EXACTLY what the Republicans have been advocating. It is not hypocrisy at all, and far different from what the Democrats proposed.

And by the way, you keep mentioning that the Democrats wanted a timetable... well they may talk a big game, but they sure didn't vote that way. 83 Senators voted against Kerry's proposal - many of them Democrats.

By  Anonymous, at 1:41 PM  

David -- you make an excellent analogy about the Manhattan Project. Sadly, your analogy doesn't quite work the way I think you intended.

Germany and Japan were working on atomic weapons totally apart for the U.S. effort. Knowledge of whether the U.S. had a program was unimportant to foreign nations. In fact, Einstein and others famously wrote to Roosevelt to encourage him to accelerate U.S. atomic research because they feared the Germans were getting too far ahead. So, NO, public knowledge that the U.S. had a n atomic research program had no negative effects on U.S. interests.

How secret was the Manhattan Project? So secret that it had an official journalist: William L. Laurence. More here.

Now, of course, the details of the research were all kept secret, but the existence of the program was well-known. In fact, the U.S. government actively publicized the existence of the program beginning in 1944.

Coincidentally, your description of the secrecy of the Manhattan project is exactly as accurate as this statement: "What the Times did was reveal an apparent program that is EXACTLY what the Republicans have been advocating."

By  Hammer, at 2:33 PM  

I'm afraid you might want to read your own links a little more closely. The Official Journalist wasn't hired on until April 1945, just months before the bomb was dropped. The program had been going on for years. And information was not released to the public until days AFTER the bomb had already dropped. Again, read your own links to confirm this.

It was a SECRET until after it was revealed to the world by dropping the bomb.

So in this case, with a Democrat as President, the New York Times sees fit to sit on news that the government asks it to sit on and keep secret.

When a Republican is in office, however, they use their bully power and do not respect the same kind of secrecy, as if to blackmail the entire country - "either elect us a Democrat, or we'll spill National Security secrets at will!'

Talk about hypocrisy!

Your own links prove the New York Times had advance knowledge of a secret weapon far more powerful and devastating to the world than monitoring banking transactions, but in that case they respected the wishes of the administration and didn't run with the story until they were told they could!

What a difference an "R" or a "D" after your name makes, eh?

And come on - the idea that it would be okay to spill the existence or details of the Manhattan project, which they did not do until AFTER the bomb was dropped anyway, only serves to illustrate that you simply don't have a firm understanding of national security issues or military matters.

Advocating the release of national security secrets - even the Manhattan Project?

Do you wonder why the American people have a hard time taking Democrats seriously when it comes to National Security?

By  Anonymous, at 2:54 PM  

David: you are entirely correct on the secrecy of the Manhattan project. Although press preparations began in 1944, and an offical press officer (Laurence) began work in the first half of 1945 ("Now it Can Be Told" recounts Laurence's work before the Trinity test at Alamogordo in July, 1945), the releases he prepared were held until after results of the bombing of Nagasaki were confirmed.

As a practical matter, however, the only people deceived were the American public. The Germans abandoned their research as a result of a faulty test; they concluded that our efforts would largely be wasted because a bomb (in their view) was impossible. Japan knew of the project by 1943, but concluded it would take 10 years to develop their own bomb, so they didn't pursue the project. Russia infiltrated the research program in multiple areas and developed its own bomb very quickly due to its espionage.

Althought I was embarrassingly wrong about the level of secrecy involved in the development of atomic weapons, I stand by the larger point. That the existence of programs like extraordinary rendition, wiretapping, combing through bank records, or developing weapons systems -- whether F-22s, bunker busting tactical nuclear weapons, missile defense systems, or atomic bombs -- should be acknowledged. The existence of these projects should be acknowledged so that their wisdom can be debated, but the inner workings and results of such projects are entitled to strict secrecy.

By  Anonymous, at 6:01 PM  

I see.

In this case, then, I think we just have an impasse - nothing we can base on facts, but an impasse of judgement on a certain set of conditions.

Which is fine.

I think things should be kept secret if they have National Security Sensitivity, you don't, except for the inner-workings. I think your opinion is certainly a fair one on the matter. We just philosophically disagree here, which is fine.

My larger point, though, is that administrations have always been secret in this manner on National Security projects. The Bush administration is no different. And look at the behavoir of the Times toward a Democrat and a Republican - in one case, they protect a much bigger secret, in the latter case, they expose the secret the first chance they get, even though the program was legal, briefed, and safeguarded.

But on the philosophical point, I can't begrudge you your point of view, as I think it's valid.

Just wrong.

:-P

By  Anonymous, at 9:02 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home