The Woman Left the Commission

James Fallows repeats a fascinating story Gary Hart and Lee Hamilton told him about the Hart-Rudman Commission.

Early in 2001, the commission presented a report to the incoming G.W. Bush administration warning that terrorismwould be the nation’s greatest national security problem, and sayingthat unless the United States took proper protective measures aterrorist attack was likely within its borders. Neither the presidentnor the vice president nor any other senior official from the newadministration took time to meet with the commission members or hearabout their findings.

The commission had 14 members, split 7-7, Republican and Democrat,as is de rigeur for bodies of this type. Today Hart told me that in thefirst few meetings, commission members would go around the room andvolunteer their ideas about the nation’s greatest vulnerabilities, mosturgent needs, and so on.

At the first meeting, one Republican woman on the commission saidthat the overwhelming threat was from China. Sooner or later the U.S.would end up in a military showdown with the Chinese Communists. Therewas no avoiding it, and we would only make ourselves weaker by waiting.No one else spoke up in support.

The same thing happened at the second meeting — discussion fromother commissioners about terrorism, nuclear proliferation, anarchy offailed states, etc, and then Read more

Share this entry

AQ Khan’s on the Loose

Does it bother anyone that–at a time when Pakistan’s Interior Ministry is raising concerns about the Taliban taking over significant chunks of Pakistan, the father of Pakistan’s nuke program is on the loose? [Thanks to Mimikatz for the spelling correction.]

Authorities have eased the virtual house arrest imposed on A.Q. Khan,the disgraced scientist who sold Pakistan’s nuclear secrets to Iran,North Korea and Libya, officials said Monday.

[snip]

However, two senior government officials told the AP that therestrictions were eased several months ago and that Khan could now meetfriends and relatives either at his home or elsewhere in Pakistan.

"He is virtually a free citizen," said one of the officials, who is attached to the nuclear program.

It just seems to me that the conjunction of these two events–Al Qaeda’s state ally taking over Pakistan at the same time as Pakistan’s chief nuclear proliferator goes free–that would raise the concerns of the same people who brought us to war against Iraq because of Saddam’s phantom nukes and phantom ties to Al Qaeda.

But apparently Dick Cheney (and the non-experts he’s got in charge of our Pakistan policy) has it all under control, and we don’t have to worry about countries that could give Al Qaeda nukes anymore. Read more

Share this entry

Replacing the Imperial Presidency in the Age of Global Warming

I’d like to use the occasion of Al Gore’s op-ed in the NYT today to expand on something I said in my talk on Curbing the Imperial Presidency. In his book The Imperial Presidency, Arthur Schlesinger argued that the Imperial Presidency derived from foreign policy:

The Imperial Presidency was essentially the creation of foreign policy. A combination of doctrines and emotions–belief in permanent and universal crisis, fear of communism, faith in the duty and the right of the United States to intervene swiftly in every part of the world–had brought about the unprecedented centralization of decisions over war and peace in the Presidency. With this there came an unprecedented exclusion of the rest of the executive branch, of Congress, of the press and of public opinion in general from these decisions.

We would only need to replace the word terrorism for communism to apply this paragraph today–to describe how the rationale of crisis and fear justified the dangerous consolidation of power under the Executive. At the close of my talk on the Imperial Presidency, I said,

Finally, we have to use the Administration’s botchedpropaganda against it. It is clear to most, now, that the invasion of Iraq hadnothing to do with an attempt to prevent the proliferation of WMD, a desire tospread democracy, or a fight against terrorism. We need to keep refuting thosewho want to claim this war is part of the war on terror. But we need to takethat a step further and talk about the real reason the Administration didinvade Iraq: to prop up America’s threatened hegemonic position using a grandstrategy that is not only outdated and immoral, but guaranteed to beineffective in an era of global warming and peak oil.

Share this entry

Taliban Taking Over Pakistan

Well, that’s probably hyperbole. But it does seem like things in Pakistan are getting pretty dire. So says a Pakistani report put together by its Interior Ministry, providing ominous warnings about the increasing power of the Taliban in the country.

The Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, was warned this month that Islamic militants and Talibanfighters were rapidly spreading beyond the country’s lawless tribalareas and that without “swift and decisive action,” the growingmilitancy could engulf the rest of the country. [my emphasis]

The report provides details–including some that pose significant risk to American troops in Afghanistan.

The mention of lesser-known but potent Taliban figures by nameshows that the Pakistani government is aware of the far-reachingtentacles of the Taliban and other extremists but cannot do anythingabout them or chooses not to do anything, the Western diplomat said.

Among the particulars, the document says the Taliban have recentlybegun bombing oil tank trucks that pass through the Khyber area nearthe border on their way to Afghanistan for United States and NATO forces.

I’m particularly curious about the politics behind the report. The Interior Ministry, after all, is led by a guy who almost got killed by militants several months ago.

Share this entry

Cravenly Groveling

Remember that superb article on foreign lobbying I described a while back? Well, apparently the two PR/Lobbying firms that got so badly taken by Ken Silverstein are now accusing him of being unethical.

My story in the July issue of the magazine details how two beltwaylobby shops I approached, on the pretense that I represented a shadyLondon-based energy firm with a stake in Turkmenistan, proposed towhitewash the image of that country’s Stalinist regime. Now, havingbeen punk’d (as PR Week put it), Cassidy & Associates and APCO are seeking to lie and spin their way out of the embarrassing situation in which they find themselves.      

Both lobbying firms have complained that my tactics were “unethical.” Now APCO has issued a press releaseacknowledging that it met with the Maldon Group–the name of myfictitious energy firm–but saying that it was never actually interestedin winning the contract to work for Turkmenistan. “If Silverstein hadbothered to have even a second meeting or to further engage, he couldhave found out that he would not make the cut to become one of ourclients,” the press release says.

It’strue there was no second meeting, but only because I rejected overturesfrom the firm to hold one. Indeed, APCO Read more

Share this entry

The Foreign Lobby Industry

Back when the Mearsheimer and Walt paper on AIPAC came out, I expressed my hope that they–or somebody–would catalog the way the foreign influence lobby works.

I’m disappointed, too, because I had hoped Mearsheimer and Walt  wouldprovide a sophisticated review of the way foreign lobbies influence ourgovernment. I made this point recentlyin response to the conflation of Bush’s NSA-related attacks onjournalists and the governments pursuit of leaks to journalists in theFranklin case. Our policy-making is unduly influenced by foreignpowers. In addition to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Malaysia, Dubai,and Iraq (in the form of ex-pats) have recently exerted influence overissues that impact American citizens in ways most American citizenscannot. And I was hoping (in this case, not naively, I think) that Mearsheimer and Walt would catalog how this influence works in enoughdetail so we could begin to do something about it. They do catalog it,but their treatment is uneven and unconvincing.

Ken Silverstein just wrote the article that I had wished Mearsheimer and Walt had written (hat tip Laura Rozen). Silverstein posed as the representative of a business group representing Turkmenistan and got two DC lobbying firms–APCO and Cassidy & Associates, both of which have done similar campaigns for nasty dictators–to propose a campaign to boost Turkmenistan’s image. He describes in detail what the firms proposed to do for their $400,000 to $600,000 annual fee. The proposals included:

  • Meetings with key members of Congress (APCO claimed to be able to get to to Harry Reid through Don Reigle and Tom Lantos through Don Bonker).
  • Development of a coalition–potential business partners, think tank experts and academics–who could speak for Turkmen from an apparently independent perspective.
  • Trips to Turkmenistan for Congressmen or their staffers, laundered through a think tank or university to accommodate post-Abramoff lobbying regulations.
  • Trips to Turkmenistan for academics and journalists, again laundered through an organization to hide the intent to influence. Silverstein names Ariel Cohenof The Heritage Foundation, Marshall Goldman of Harvard, and JimHoagland of the Washington Post as some who have taken similar trips in the past.
  • Op-eds written by friendly authors, perhaps think tank "experts."
  • A forum at a think tank built around a visit by a Turkmen official. Silverstein names The Heritage Foundation,the Center for Strategic & International Studies, and the Councilon Foreign Relations as three think tanks that sponsor such fora. If such a forum produced a paper, the firms could get a friendly Congressman to read it into the Congressional Record.
  • An event hosted by Roll Call or Economist magazine organized around some related theme (in the case of Turkmenistan, for example, energy security). Such an event might be keynoted by an Administration official.
  • Information shared from the State Department, NSC, and intelligence agencies.

Silverstein shows the cynicism of these lobbyists on several other points. He describes the team from Cassidy & Associates making a joke about Turkmenistan "shuffling" ministers–when in fact many of them have been jailed recently. Neither of the firms did any due diligence on Silverstein’s fake Turkmen front group, suggesting these firms will work with anyone. And both promised to sign confidentiality agreements which would effectively hide Silverstein’s ties to Turkmenistan.

Share this entry

What Is It with these Potty-Mouthed Neocons

Share this entry

Delahunt Hammers Gonzales on Posada

Share this entry