CURRENT UPDATES: December 6, 2006

The Iraq Study Group, Congress and Bush's Travel Bug
By Frida Berrigan and Bill Hartung

Dear Friends,

Our apologies for the break in our normal schedule for getting out the ATRC Update. We've been busy doing research and writing on the arms trade, cluster bombs, missile defense, and forthcoming report on plans to expand the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.

In the midst of this work, it seems every time we formulate a response to a situation, everything shifts. Just one example: in anticipation of the final Iraq Study Group report discussion swirls about "Iraqification" -- training Iraqi security forces to take over military missions while U.S. troops take on an "advisory" role. But even as we wrap our heads around that one, the Washington Post reported yesterday on a new Pentagon census in Iraq. Their findings inspire a whole new set of labels to describe the dynamics on the ground in Iraq--- Vinnellification, DynCorpification, KBRization or best…. Blackwaterization of Iraq… Central Command counts 100,000 private contractors in Iraq (compared to 140,000 U.S. troops). This unprecedented number does not include the subcontractors employed by private companies.

In this issue of our email update, we try and pin down moving targets long enough to say something useful. And we intend to get back to a more regular schedule as we approach the New Year. Honest!

This edition of the ATRC Update will be posted on our website http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/updates.html in the next day or so. You can also read earlier ATRC E-Updates there.

Thanks,
Frida Berrigan and Bill Hartung

IN THIS ISSUE:
I. NEW CONGRESS, NEW OPPORTUNITIES?
II. IRAQ STUDY GROUP AND BEYOND:
IGNORANCE OF IRAQI SOCIETY ONE CAUSE OF DISASTROUS POLICIES
III. MEDIA IGNORES RISE OF U.S. BOMBING IN IRAQ
IV. BUSH ON THE MOVEI. NEW CONGRESS, NEW OPPORTUNITIES?

While the Democrats have been implicated in many of the worst policies of the Bush years - most notably in the form of the votes by many prominent Democrats to authorize the war in Iraq - the end of one-party rule by the Republicans will open the way to some substantive debates on the future of U.S. security policy, along with the implementation of some important reforms.
House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has drawn fire for (unsuccessfully) pushing Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) over Steny Hoyer (D-MD) for the post of House Majority Leader, and for passing over the more-experienced Jane Harman (D-CA) in favor of Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) to head the intelligence committee. Criticisms ranged from the notion that she was using these appointments to settle old scores or reward loyalists, to the fact that she embarrassed herself by backing Murtha without any assurance that she had the votes to get him the position of majority leader. The fact that both Murtha and Reyes are opponents of the Iraq war has been commented on, but has received far less emphasis. Nor has any of the coverage that we have seen noted that Pelosi was part of a block of members who led the opposition to the war resolution in the House, which resulted in a majority of house members voting against the war. While she will obviously have many contending pressures on her as House Speaker, Pelosi's anti-war background could be a plus as debates on how to shift U.S. policy move forward.

Neither party is calling for full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but prominent Democrats like Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the next chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have called for a beginning of U.S. withdrawals within six months. The disagreement between the president and key members of Congress on how to proceed in Iraq should open the door for more effective pressure from citizen anti-war networks to move towards withdrawal, not just "redeployment," of U.S. troops. The findings of the Iraq Study Group, released today, will be addressed in a separate e-mail.

While the impact of the new Congress on Iraq policy is uncertain, there are other areas where the prospects for change are clearer. Unfortunately, the size of the military budget is not one of them. Prominent Democrats have called for increasing the Army by 40,000 troops. Soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told the Washington Post that one of his first priorities for next year is to increase military spending by $75 billion, in large part to pay for the rebuilding and expansion of the Army. And the Democrats are no less enamored than the Republicans are of pork barrel politics, whether it is Jack Murtha's wheeling and dealing to get military contractors to locate in his district, or Carl Levin's penchant for going to bat for the M-1 tank (built in his home state of Michigan), or incoming House Armed Services Committee chair Ike Skelton's (D-MO) service to Boeing, which builds F-18 combat aircraft in the St. Louis area, along with numerous other weapons systems.

But the Democratic led Congress - and the administration - may be forced by budgetary realities to reconsider costly weapons without clear missions, from the F-22 combat aircraft to a new round of $1 billion per copy attack submarines. If the costs of the war in Iraq remain anywhere near current levels, and the Congress shells out $20 billion or more per year to refurbish and replace equipment chewed up in the war thus far, their will be far less political and budgetary "space" left for Cold War leftovers. Whatever they're saying now, there is going to be a clear opening to press for cuts in or elimination of some major weapons programs.

While the prospects for budget cuts look daunting, there are a few areas where Democratic control of Congress may change the composition and regulation of weapons contracting. Sen. Levin is a long-time skeptic of the missile defense program, and a proponent of the novel idea that the program should at least undergo rigorous testing before it is deployed. He is likely to try to cut at least a few billion dollars per year out of a program whose funding has roughly doubled in the Bush years, to current levels of $9 to $10 billion per year. He may also join colleagues like Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) in seeking to set parameters on missile defense testing that would force the program to engage in more realistic tests before getting funding for deployment.

On the issue of war profiteering, Democratic control could lead to real reforms. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) has proposed a "Honest Leadership and Accountability" act which would impose greater regulations on private military contractors like Halliburton and DynCorp which have become ubiquitous in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond (for example, a recent Washington Post story recounts the results of a Pentagon survey that indicates that there are approximately 100,000 private contractor employees in Iraq, without counting subcontractors).

The bill also calls for wide-ranging reforms in Pentagon contracting designed to provide greater accountability and transparency in this crucial area. On the House side, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who was far ahead of the curve in exposing abuses by Halliburton and other private contractors in Iraq, is on tap to head the Government Reform Committee.

On the issue of the arms trade, there should be greater scope for reform, and more focus on an issue which received far too little attention during the period of Republican leadership of the Congress. A bill by Senators Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL) that would provide funds to destroy surplus small arms and light weapons in conflict zones may finally make it to the floor for a vote after several years of Republican obstructionism. And Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) will have a more effective platform from which to exert leadership on arms trade issues, from her call for the U.S. to rethink its opposition to UN discussions of an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to her advocacy for limits on the use of cluster bombs.

These are a few thoughts on how the new Congress may have an impact on security policy. What is ultimately done will depend heavily on what President Eisenhower described in his military-industrial complex speech as an "alert and engaged citizenry."

RESOURCES
"Analysis: Military Spending in the New Democratic Congress," Christopher Hellman, Military Policy Analyst, Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, December 4, 2006, www.armcontrolcenter.org

"Clean Contracting Act" in the House
http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20060913112718-18003.pdf

And in the Senate, a similar bill is called "The Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act of 2006"
http://www.corporatepolicy.org/issues/ACA2006.htm

For analysis of these bills and other efforts to reform military contracting, see the home page of the Center for Corporate Policy, at http://www.corporatepolicy.org/
The Lugar-Obama Program, also known as "Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006"
http://obama.senate.gov/issues/defense/index.html

Fourteen Senators Call for U.S. Involvement in United Nations Global Arms Trade Treaty, December 5, 2006
http://feinstein.senate.gov/06releases/r-un-small-arms1205.htm

"Ban Cluster Bombs in Civilian Areas," Dianne Feinstein, Washington Times, December 4, 2006,
http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20061203-101236-1798r

"Census Counts 100,000 Contractors in Iraq," Renae Merle, Washington Post, December 5, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401311.html II. IRAQ STUDY GROUP AND BEYOND:
IGNORANCE OF IRAQI SOCIETY ONE CAUSE OF DISASTROUS POLICIES
About a month and a half ago, Jeff Stein wrote an op-ed for The New York Times. The National Security Editor at Congressional Quarterly has made a past-time of asking administration officials at every level if they knew the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, and reported back to the American people that they "don't have a clue" what differences have set Sunnis and Shia at each other's throats in Iraq. I recalled the responses that Stein got from corner offices and crowded cubicles as I read the leaked recommendations from the Iraq Study Group for President Bush's policy towards Iraq.
The ten member panel -- aided by issue-specific sub-groups comprised of 44 experts from academia, government, and the private sector -- has reportedly advised a "redeployment" and "transition from a combat role to a support role" for U.S. military forces in Iraq. It is interesting to note that the advisors to the panel - as opposed to panel members themselves - include representatives of Bechtel, Citigroup, the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Hudson Institute.
Andrew Bacevich, a history and international relations professor at Boston University, describes the group as consisting "of Beltway luminaries such as retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and lobbyist Vernon Jordan. No member is now an elected official. Neither do its ranks include any Iraq war veterans, family members of soldiers killed in Iraq, or anyone identified with the antiwar movement. None possesses specialized knowledge of Islam or the Middle East." He concludes, "Charging this crowd with assessing the Iraq war is like convening a committee of Roman Catholic bishops to investigate the church's clergy sex-abuse scandal."
Following the ins and outs of the Iraq Study Group, and the ways in which the Republicans in particular were so eager for their pearls of wisdom, Stein's op-ed kept coming back up, as did some of the answers he got to his (seemingly) simple question about the differences between Sunnis and Shiites.
"Yes, sure, it's right to know the difference. It's important to know who your targets are. The basics go back to their beliefs and who they were following. And the conflicts between the Sunnis and the Shia and the difference between who they were following." Sounds like a 10th grader winging it and hoping to be saved by the bell, right? Unfortunately it's not, its Willie Hulon, the Chief of the FBI's National Security Branch.
Representative Terry Everett (R-AL) did not fare better, and he is the vice chairman of the Intelligence Subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence who has been in the House for decades. "One's in one location, another's in another location. No to be honest with you, I don't know."
"Do I? You know, I should." That's how Representative Jo Ann Davis (R-VA) responded. She chairs the House intelligence subcommittee that oversees the CIA, and she gamely tried to answer the question: "It's a difference in their fundamental religious beliefs. The Sunni are more radical than the Shia. Or vice versa…?"
Want to know more than members of Congress, high level officials in the FBI, the State Department and all over Washington? We list some resources for understanding the differences between Sunnis and Shias as well as their common ground at the end of this essay. The difference is important… and the animosity is bitter and old… but to be clear, religious differences and hatreds are not the only driver of the civil war. And there are conflicts within the Sunni and Shia communities in Iraq as well as between them, not to mention battles in the north between Kurdish nationalists and Arabs who displaced Kurds in the oil-producing Kirkuk region as part of Saddam Hussein's divide and rule strategy.
John Tirman, executive director of the Center for International Studies at MIT, succinctly addresses the drivers of the Sunni-Shia in his new essay "Ten Fallacies about the Violence in Iraq." Fallacy number eight is "The violence is about Sunni-Shia mutual loathing; a pox on both their houses." Tirman responds: "This is the emerging "moral clarity" of the right wing, that we gave it our best, we handed the tools of freedom to Iraqis, and they'd rather kill each other. That there was longstanding antagonism, stemming from decades of Sunni Arab domination and repression, is well known.
"But the truly horrifying scale of violence we see now took many months to brew, and is built on the violence begun by the U.S. military and the lack of economic stability, political participation, etc., that the occupation wrought. Equally as important, sectarian killing found its political justification in the constitution fashioned by U.S. advisers that essentially split the country into three factions, giving them a very solid set of incentives to go to war with each other."
Links:
Download your very own copy of the
IRAQ STUDY GROUP REPORT online at
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html
"Iraq Panel's Real Agenda: Damage Control," Andrew J. Bacevich, November 28, 2006
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1128/p08s02-coop.html
"The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Recommendations: Stay the Almost Course," Phyllis Bennis, December 3, 2006
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=11540
"Getting Out of Iraq: What's the Right Idea When All Ideas are Bad?" James Fallows, Atlantic Monthly, November 30, 2006. http://www.thealtantic.com/doc/print/200611u/fallows-iraq-withdrawl
"Ten Fallacies about the Violence in Iraq," John Tirman, AlterNet, November 26, 2006. http://www.johntirman.com/myths%20-%20violence.html
"The Emerging Shia Crescent Symposium: Understanding the Shia," Council on Foreign Relations Roundtable with Reza Aslan, Dale Eickelman and Noah Feldman, June 6, 2006
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10864/emerging_shia_crescent_symposium.html
"Elections Offer Hope for a Change in Course in Iraq," Erik Leaver, Foreign Policy in Focus, November 8, 2006. http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3684 III. MEDIA IGNORES RISE OF U.S. BOMBING IN IRAQ
While much is made of the scourge of "sectarian violence" in Iraq, this emphasis tends to overshadow the fact that United States military remains responsible for much of the bombing that goes on. We get glimpses of this reality in the newspaper. On November 27, there were brief reports of an F-16 fighter plane that crashed in Iraq's Anbar province. The pilot is presumed death. The loss of this high-tech plane served as a reminder of the daily bombing and strafing that is not often reported as part of the war in Iraq. The Air Force website (http://www.af.mil/news/ ) provides a daily report on missions completed. They are dry and abstract, but they point to an untold story of the war.
For example, on December 5th, Central Command reports:
**In Iraq, Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons provided close-air support to troops in contact with anti-Iraqi forces in the vicinity of Bayji and Baghdad.
**Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles provided close-air support to troops in contact with anti-Iraqi forces near Iskandariyah and Baghdad.
**In total, coalition aircraft flew 34 close-air-support missions for Operation Iraqi Freedom. These missions included support to coalition troops, infrastructure protection, reconstruction activities and operations to deter and disrupt terrorist activities.
**Additionally, 18 Air Force, Navy, RAF and Royal Australian air force ISR aircraft flew missions in support of operations in Iraq.
David Enders, the author of "Baghdad Bulletin: Dispatches on the American Occupation," commented to the Institute for Pubic Accuracy that the F-16 crash "should highlight the role of air power in the U.S. occupation. It is a necessity in a place where guerrillas have made roads extremely dangerous. Drones providing real-time aerial surveillance have been among the most effective tools in the U.S. arsenal. And finally, as U.S. troops continue to encounter resistance, air strikes continue to be a major facet of the fighting; however, they are the least-covered aspect of combat. This is, perhaps, in part because it is hard for journalists to visit the sites that have been bombed. It is hard to verify what's been hit and whose story (the U.S. military invariably must be pushed to admit the possibility of civilian casualties) is correct. But Central Command releases daily reports on its website. For instance, there were 30 missions flown over Iraq on Sunday, including some which involved the expenditure of heavy munitions, including missiles fired from an unmanned predator drone and air support for U.S. and Iraqi troops fighting guerrillas in western Iraq. This is not an unusual day for the use of U.S. air power in Iraq. So where's the reporting?"
On November 28, the New York Times reported on five girls, one of whom was just a baby, who were killed by U.S. troops in Anbar Province.
The U.S. military were reportedly returning gun fire on "suspected insurgents" who were firing at them while they defused a roadside bomb. According to the New York Times, "Americans returned fire with machine guns and small arms and rounds from the main gun of one or more tanks. After the firefight, the Americans discovered the six dead Iraqis in the house." IV. BUSH ON THE MOVE
The month of November began with the Democrats sweep of the Congress in a rout largely due to the fact that the voters had "had it up to here" with the war in Iraq.
The month ended with the "Hadley Memo" leak and the Iraq Study Group's leak. In between, 70 Americans died in Iraq and 1,864 Iraqis were killed (both figures are from Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, http://icasualties.org/oif/) and the Bush's were traveling.
While the Bush twins celebrated their November birthday with a shopping and sight-seeing trip to Argentina in which, despite their Secret Service protection, one of the twins of the victim of a purse snatching in the picturesque San Telmo neighborhood, their dad's foreign jaunts were front page news almost every day for two weeks.
Bush's round-the-world-in-three-weeks began with a 90-minute nosh with President Putin outside Moscow on November 15th. Then Bush island-hopped his way through Singapore, Indonesia, and Vietnam where he spent four days at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
President Bush came home in time to pardon turkeys Flyer and Fryer, and then he was off again, this time to Latvia and Estonia, and then on to Jordan for meetings with Iraq's handpicked president Nouri al-Maliki.
At least seven countries in two weeks is a big jaunt for the man who only went to China and Mexico before becoming President, and couldn't name the leaders of India or Pakistan.
While the meetings were important-- Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Vietnam, a confab with NATO heads of state in Latvia, and then the post-snubbing breakfast summit with al-Maliki- it must have been nice for the President to be out of Washington and not be on vacation, be constantly visible and in the news, but be in tightly controlled environments where security trumped access. Thus, he was able to avoid the lame duck Congress, while interjecting rather than participating in the very real debate about what happens next in Iraq, and all sorts of other pressing issues that he is stayed eight or nine times zones away from. And see what happens when he comes home? Bolton resigns and his erstwhile new Defense Secretary criticizes his war. Better to keep traveling......
Singapore
In a country where beating a person with a cane remains an acceptable form of punishment, President Bush delivered this message to North Korea: "The United States wants these talks to be successful, and we will do our part," Bush said.
"Ultimately, the success of these talks depends on the regime in North Korea. Pyongyang must show it's serious." Are the canes hiding behind the collection of carrots and sticks the United States is brandishing at Kim Jong Il's hermit kingdom?
Indonesia
Nature-lovers are up in arms about the lasting mark President Bush and his entourage left in the nearly 200 year old Bogor Botanic Garden. World leaders from King Leopold forward have brought additions to this incredible collection of more than 15,000 species of trees and plants and thousands of varieties of orchids. President Bush left behind a pair of helipads built for his copter.
The construction required rare lotus relocation, and feverish building. And, in the end, President Bush's helicopter did not even use the fresh tarred pads, opting to land nearby. Indonesian officials complained that they were left with an eyesore in their garden and a security bill of more than $100,000 for each of the six hours Bush was in the country. Eight thousand police officers and thousands of soldiers patrolled the streets in full riot gear, water cannons were set up and mobile phone signals were jammed in anticipation of protests against the war in Iraq, and other Bush administration policies.
Ensconced in tight security, and far from the street protests that shut down parts of major cities, President Bush hailed these demonstrations as signs of Indonesia's vital democracy, saying "I applaud a society where people are free to express their opinion. People protest. That is a good sign of a healthy society."
He must love freedom of the press too. Members of Indonesian press waiting for his press conference inside the high walls and bales of concertina wire at the centuries-old Bogor Palace hissed when his image came on their television screen.
Vietnam
Much has already been said about the irony of President Bush going to Vietnam in the midst of a new quagmire. The trip provided a bizarre platform for Bush the muser, the reflector, the philosopher…
Bush on visiting a former enemy: "History has a long march to it. Societies change, and relationships can constantly be altered to the good."
"You're like a young tiger." Bush to Vietnamese President Nguyen Minh Triet.
Bush on lessons learned from the Vietnam war: "One lesson is, is that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while."
After these and many other "deep thoughts," many Americans would welcome a return of their "decider."
Latvia and Estonia
"The love of liberty is stronger than the will of an empire," President Bush declared in a 2005 speech praising the political transformations made by Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. This time around, he continued to praise the countries for their contributions to the war on terrorism, and their emerging economies. But there was no mention of the will of empire, even as he asserted that the occupation of Iraq will continue. "There is one thing I'm not going to do. I am not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete," he said in a speech at the University of Latvia.
Jordan
Bush seemed to recover gracefully after getting dissed by his handpicked Iraqi leader, calling him "the right guy for Iraq." The two embattled leaders met for about two hours in Amman, discussing how to crack down on the sectarian violence ravaging Iraq and what could be done to speed the turnover of security responsibilities from U.S.-led foreign troops to Iraqi forces.
But he used his meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to comment on leaked portions of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations and the ensuing swirls of "exits plans," saying "this business about graceful exit just simply has no realism to it whatsoever."