RSS
Using PayPal
Dana Priest Online at Washington Post Forum at 12:30 p.m. Today
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Thursday, Jan 19, 06, 8:08AM
Although I disagreed with the primary thrust of Dana Priest's book, The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace with America's Military, there is little doubt that she is one of the best intelligence and defense correspondents in the business.
In her book, Priest comes to the conclusion that the only entity in the great sphere of American institutions that can build nations and civil societies as well as topple the world's bad guys is the American military. She is absolutely right that the Department of Defense is becoming the "do it all" institution, but that does not mean it should be that way. In fact, I feel it's important that it not.
She argues that America's defense attaches are our de facto diplomats and that there is no institution with the teeth, budgets and deep personnel capacity to do the nation-building work that a world with more failing states needs. My view is that we have to build that capacity outside of the Department of Defense and become more attuned to the fact that the Pentagon's security deliverables have been declining, not increasing, with greater budgets and responsibility.
But I was very pleased to host Dana Priest when her book first came out for a genuine discussion about the issues she provoked. And I've been impressed by the quality and temerity of her work since.
Among her many news coups, Dana Priest broke the story on secret detention centers in Europe, and while Republican Senators tried to knife each other in the back for being "the leak" to the press, TWN was able to establish that Priest's sources on that story were many -- and that what positioned her on it was two years of diligent, tough investigative work.
As I also wrote recently, she and Washington Post colleague Mike Allen were also at the front of the pack of those journalists getting insider administration operatives to tell much of what Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were up to in outing Valerie Plame's CIA identity. As I wrote, it's clear that the insider who cooperated with Priest and Allen has not yet publicly surfaced -- either in Fitzgerald's indictment materials or statements, or in any other journalistic reporting on the Plame investigation.
I think that there is much that can be learned from an encounter with Dana Priest and encourage those interested to engage her.
Priest will be on line today in a Washington Post forum at 12:30 p.m. eastern. Click here to get the information on how to participate in a discussion with her about these national security and intelligence issues.
More later.
-- Steve Clemons
Today, Thursday, 011906 @ 1100 EST
Washington Post White House Reporter Michael Fletcher discusses on-line the latest in political news.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/13/DI2006011301042.html
Come on down.
The only journalist I respect and admire more than Dana Priest is Sy Hersh, and it is a close call.
Moving many of the State Department functions to the Pentagon would likely improve the internal cultures of both. If "nation-building" were a Pentagon responsibility tactical planning might become less destructive;State might have less incentive to allocate scarce resources to repressive regimes(Pakistan,Uzbekhistan). The Pentagon might be more reticent than State about seeing "foreign aid" consist of weapon sales. The Pentagon would gain much-needed language/culture skills.
I also think Congress would be more willing to fund overseas projects with Pentagon supervision than they now do with State.
Bob, are you equating "nation building" and "overseas projects" as one and the same?
I really can not speak to her credentials.
Maybe in WWII, or in draft militaries, this argument (that the military can build nations) has merit.
But these are professional soldiers.
I was in the Marines.
Please serve in the military before you suggest having them "create" countries. I come from the perspective that few Democrats or Republicans really have a sense of that sort of work. Management of a ship of state is not the same as state-building, even.
Ms. Priest is smart, quick and conceptual, and she is a hotty! One's news and opinion are always so much easier to stomach when presented by one as lovely as Ms. Priest. Besides who looks better on the monitor, Ms. Priest or Volf Blitzkrieg? I rest my case. However, Ms. Priest's conjecture about U.S. military and diplomacy are foolish and fascist. Diplomacy is best left to the diplomats. Now if America can just find some diplomats that are fully versed on the intricate art of diplomacy, our world could and would be so much better off. I would hold up one John Bolton as the visual display for failed U.S. diplomacy and American foreign policy in the last gasps of dying stupidity.
Whether or not Mr Narins is correct that only veterans may speak on military or security matters...and it is not the American tradition...I would point out to Democrats that it is an effective argument, and the Party desparately needs greater representation in the officer corps. Twenty years from now the Democrats will have few veteran officers to run for office.
As to Mr Narins other point, I do not like professional armies, for many reasons, including some understood by the founding fathers. I favor a universal or skills draft. The reasons the Romans had engineers on staff, to build aqueducts as well as fortifications, are as important today as they were 2000 years ago. An army that only kills people and blows stuff up will not win hearts and minds. That army will also grow into the insularity, elitism, and resistance to criticism and oversight that Mr Narins so ably demonstrated for us.
In my estimation, the real "Hotty" of American journalism is Helen Thomas who has the courage to speak truth to power. Here is but one example:
"This is the worst President ever. George W. Bush is the worst President in all of American history."
Helen Thomas
The military as "Do it all" organization is just not so. Some civilians in the Pentagon may have believed that the US military was a "Do it all" organization prior to the Iraq invasion. But they are still smarting from the hornet nest they have stirred.
I heard General Wesley Clark speak the other night on Bosnia and Kosovo, and he clearly and emphatically stated that the US military was NOT a Do it all organization. Clark had no illusions that bombing Milosovik by itself would end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Clark emphatically stated that the bombing was only one tool, and that the diplomatic pressures by Milosovik's neighbors, NATO and the inability of Russia to help him, convinced him that he could NOT win and must withdraw his troops from Kosovo.
Clark viewed the military bombing as a necessary component, but the vital component to end the conflict was the diplomatic effort. This is straight from the General, the commander of NATO saying that the military cannot Do it all. Clark also made a very good case for why attempts by the US to move forward with a military "Do it all" in the current "Window of opportunity" would quickly become unsustainable.
The Bush administration does not seem to understand that the US military, while unchallenged in its ability to accomplish military objectives, is still limited in its ability to accomplish political objectives. Bush can tell other people to "bend over" all he wants, but the bottom line is that some people will always refuse. The sooner our foreign policy moves away from the "Bush Preemption Doctrine" the better.
Steve, I think what you said is not that she's wrong but that she's right and you can't stand it.
I very much enjoyed her book and her news articles also. I interpreted the book differently though - my impression is that she was pointing out how the Clinton and Bush administrations have made the military the "go to" organization because of a deliberate decision to downplay/lessen the resources of the State Dept crowd. Not that the military wanted the job, but they have the money and people in theater, so what else are they to do?
She argues that America's defense attaches are our de facto diplomats and that there is no institution with the teeth, budgets and deep personnel capacity to do the nation-building work that a world with more failing states needs.
Yep, and that's why we need a Democratic budget that puts funds where they're needed instead of starving every department except Defense.
Anyone suggesting Democrats would do better with a strategic plan and funding arrangement involving the Pentagon and the State Dept is nuts, especially if Congress is involved, as special interests and constituencies will be allowed to manipulate such a framework.
The key is really in planning. As it relates to the Iraq war, the Marines, Army, Air Force, etc. Pentagon did a great job in smashing Iraq's offensive might and basically destroyed its infrastructure, leading to the decision of some in Iraq's hierarchy to send those left in and around Baghdad, home.
What the Pentagon failed at, was proper planning and facilitation of the post-saddam era, both having a plan but being able to execute it.
This is where Priests article has merit, has it relates to the idea that the Pentagon needs more funding to be able to accomodate this type of strategic planning and facilititation initiative, one which I think the State Dept. could have handled if people listened to it.
No, the State Dept. couldnt have put "boots on the ground", but if Rumsfeld and Cheney were willing to listen, the State Dept. could have formulated a cohesive argument for post-war contingencies and reconstruction that the army clearly did not have any business doing nor did it really want to do in the first place.
This is where, even I, as a Republican, hang my head in disgust at how Rumsfeld still is SecDef.
Priest simply states the obvious, whether it is a desirable state of affairs, or no. Andrew Bacevich eloquently puts the case against the wholesale militarisation of US foreign policy, not to say its society as well, in his book, "The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced By War". As Prof. Tony Judt put it in his review of the book (NY Review of Books, July 14, 2005), "For Bacevich's deepest concern lies closer to home. In a militarized society the range of acceptable opinion inevitably shrinks. Opposition to the 'commander in chief' is swiftly characterized as lese-majeste; criticism becomes betrayal. No nation, as Madison wrote in 1795 and Bacevich recalls approvingly, can 'preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare'. 'Full spectrum dominance' begins as a Pentagon cliche and ends as an executive project". Indeed.
Steve,
A couple of big news stories today.
1)The Justice Dept. is suing Google for ALL google searches made in Jun/July of last year, ostensibly to find people dowloading child pornography
2)The Justice Dept. ruled that the President has the authority to conduct unlimited wiretaps pursuant to protecting American security, since the "sole power to direct foreign policy" resides in the Presidency.
It's time to get off the fence and be patriot.
Your country needs you---but patriots can't be centrists given the dangers we face now.
Bush is asserting unlimited, unreviewable powers right now. Do you think in good conscience you can continue to take the centrist/bipartisan approach now? I believe that times have changed since you started blogging. We face an acute and immediate danger to our liberties in this country. In addition, despite all warnings of the danger of such a course, Bush is going to make war with Iran. I think you and I can agree that all signs point to war, with no compromise desired or sought for by Bush. If you thought Iraq was bad...try cutting off the Iranian supply of oil in addition to the drop-off that the Iraq war has caused, just for starters.
Also, if the nuclear bunker-busters exist, I am sure that Bush is itching to use them against Iran.
It's getting late, Steve---what are you going to do?
From your friend and admirer,
MGL
On Charlie Rose the other night, Evan Thomas of Newsweek said that he thought the "leaker extraordinaire" was Rich Armitage.
I dunno. I suppose that when you've got a half a trillion dollar budget and no financial accountability whatsoever, its easy to be the 'can do it' organization. It's just a matter of throwing nigh unlimited resources at every task.
You could, for instance, give the same budget, the same resources, the same lack of accountability to the department of hotel management and get the same results. Particularly if you've been doing that for 60 years.
That said, there are serious problems with the Pentagon's performance over the years.
For one thing, there's no indication that the Defense department spends well or wisely. Indeed, the department is notoriously difficult to audit, its accounting is a catastrophic mess, and over the last decade or so, auditors have discovered that there is an entire trillion dollars that the Pentagon cannot account for.
A trillion dollars, think of that.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon shows a propensity for boondoggles of every sort. The close relationship between the military and defense contractors, the easy transfer of generals and officers into the defense industry, the intensive lobbying, cost plus contracts and the ongoing politics means that billions upon billions of dollars are thrown into useless and dangerous projects, ineffective weapons systems, hazardous troop carriers, etc. The nexus between Defense and Defense contractors, is basically a wellspring for systemic, pervasive corruption.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon continually offloads more and more duties onto contractors. These 'scutwork' jobs have impaired the military efficiency in combat... contractors don't go into war zones to fulfill needed logistic functions. It jacks up costs, reduces efficiency and certainly undermines the military reputation as a can-do-it organization. Indeed, the military becomes a 'can't do it, hire us some contractors' organization.
It is, of course, inevitable that an institution with 60 years of gargantuan budgets, no financial accountability, dedicated political lobbies and little oversight would experience function creep... usurping the authority of the state department in third world countries.
But has this been a good thing? Does the US militaries affiliation and diplomatic efforts in Indonesia, Latin America, Vietnam, Thailand, Phillipines, etc., lead to anything remarkable? If anything, the result is negative, overtly militaristic, starkly incompetent kleptocratic governments relying on the warm approval of the military.
A systematic tunnel vision leaves the military unacquainted with and unsympathetic to economic, social, political, or transparency issues. In short, terrible fucking diplomats, and the proof is there to see.
Nation building? Well, we're seeing terrific results in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, etc. etc.
In short, an effectively infinite budget and no accountability does not mean that the military does the a good job. It only means that it does some sort of job.
The question is, does the Pentagon fight wars efficiently? I'm not even sure about that.
Consider the invasion of Iraq. There was a great big triumph, no question about that. How much did that cost? 50 billion dollars? And what was Iraq's defense budget, about 2 billion a year? So in order to win that lightning victory, the US military expended the equivalent of 25 years of Iraq's defense budget? Yeah that's impressive.
Put it another way. The US defense budget was about 400 billion, Iraq's was 2 billion. So you only outspent them by about 200 times.
Is the US military really worth 50% of the entire world's defense expenditure? And at 50% of the entire world's defense expenditures, does it produce results commensurate?
I mean, okay, the US is good at knocking over pissant little countries which are militarily impotent in comparison. Very nice. Haiti, Grenada, Serbia, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Nicaragua, Guatemala. etc. etc.
I dunno. My impression is that Americans are prone to fetishizing your military to no good purpose. You might spend some of your money on better schools, better care for the elderly and disabled, better levees for New Orleans (whoops too late), revitalizing your dying or fleeing industries, having a meaningful space program, pure science, R&D, infrastructure replacement, environmental protection, you name it.
I mean, think about it. Chop a hundred billion dollars out of that budget and divide it up. Give NASA 10 billion to put a base on the moon, to make the orbiting space station a floating city. Give 50 billion to revitalize your decaying inner cities. Spend 30 billion on no child left behind.
Or, keep it all and go knocking over pissant countries to feel important. I think Kameroon is looking shifty these days. Rumour is, they've got oil...
Having said that, there are
Steve - Back on 1x2x6: The WaPo has never retracted the original report, which would seem obligatory if the source had indeed gone wobbly. (I had a chance to ask Priest about the source in a local NPR call-in show, and she told me she couldn't help me, which presumably was an indication that the source was Allen's, as emptywheel and Swopa and others have suggested.) That episode did appear again in some detail in one of the strangest articles the Post published on the CIA leak matter, a November 26, 2004 article by Susan Schmidt. However good Schmidt's reporting on the Abramoff mess has been, this article has to be taken with a big grain of salt, as it appears to rely mainly on the claims and characterizations of the White House and its allies. This is clear, for instance, from the fact that it characterizes Cooper's testimony in a way that has been demonstrated to be false (both by the indictment and by Cooper's own account) and to be, rather, Libby's version of events.
Schmidt's article is the original source for the idea that Novak's column went over the wire on July 11, even though it wasn't published until July 14. The odd thing is that that information is just stated as fact, and not sourced to anyone, not even the relevant newswire service. In any case, using that idea, the story lightly suggests doubt about the original 1x2x6 claim. Who knows if this reflects the source going wobbly, or just Schmidt getting her storyline fundamentally from the White House. It is odd that Novak's column going over the wire on the 11th doesn't figure at all in either Libby's indictment or Fitzgerald's accompanying press conference.
I'll take mine wrapped in the Stars and Stripes with some Sousa sauce. The military to do what? Those guys are fortunate if they can shoot straight and use a wrench without hurting themselves. Have the proposed solutions to righting the ship come to coronating the Captain? How about asking him and the entire government we pay to do the job we pay them to do? We OWN this vessel! Ban all hires except according to competency and make sure THOSE people give us an honest day's work. Ban all country club prisons so when America's transgressors are convicted they'll serve with the rest of the common criminals who have betrayed our trust.
Den, I thought you banished yourself in disgust. Get out before you are tripped on the truth(about the US). Your posts are way too insightful for these blind "Democrats can save us" toons.
Military indeed. Before you people go and suggest that lunacy as a solution, go enlist. Won't be long before you change your tune. Hey, this read is better than jokes4u.com. General Powell for Dictator. Yeah, I feel safer already.
Still lied to, but safer. Momma hold me.
Go get 'em Harry!!!!
Minority Leader Reid Apologizes to GOP
Jan 19 5:56 PM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday apologized to 33 Republican senators singled out for ethics criticism in a report from his office titled “Republican Abuse of Power.”
“The document released by my office yesterday went too far and I want to convey to you my personal regrets,” Reid said in a letter.
“I am writing to apologize for the tone of this document and the decision to single out individual senators for criticism in it.”
continues at…..
For the past number of years alot of the medica has aided the Bush administration by not coveraing the stolen elections properly, the debate wire issue properly, the NSA spying issue when it happened before the 2004 election, the invasion of Iraq, etc. The NY Times has failed in this manner.
Write your representatives and senators that you don't approve of the new prescription drug discount forced through by the Republicans in 2003.
Write them from here.
http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/petition.cgi?pnum=149
Yahaddasayit,
I may have given up hope for your country. But that doesn't mean I can't provide the occasional comment as your ship sails toward its icebergs. It may be too late to fight for you, but its not yet time to fight you. So here I am.
Tell the speaker of the house you want a better prescription drug benefit.
Click on this link to send the speaker of the house a message that you want a better prescription drug benefit.
Reader Comments (25) - post a comment