Regardless Of How We Got Here, What Should We Do Now?

At this point we are all familiar with the Iraq war story: the cooking up of intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, the lack of a military strategy to defeat an insurgency, and the strengthening of Al Qaeda's organization in Afghanistan to pre 9/11 levels. But regardless of how we got here, what should we do now? 

The options presented to the public include a precipitous withdrawal or an open ended commitment of American troops (the latter policy being the choice of the Bush administration and John McCain). However, this is a false dichotomy. Recently, 48 Democratic candidates running for election to the United States Congress proposed a responsible plan to end the Iraq war [1].

The underlying theme of the plan is that there is no military solution in Iraq, and progress can only be made through strong diplomatic, political, and economic efforts. The first step we must take is to begin withdrawals of American troops. A policy of open ended commitment provides no incentive to the Iraqi government to work towards political reconciliation. The recent fighting in Basra provides a perfect example of this. 

The city of Basra is a stronghold of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army.  Iraq's prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is fearful that those loyal to al-Sadr may come into power in upcoming Iraqi elections. By no means is Muqtada al-Sadr a warm and fuzzy character on the Iraqi political scene. His militia was heavily involved in the insurgency waged against American forces, but over the past year the Mahdi army has declared a ceasefire (this in conjunction with the "surge" has helped to decrease the violence in Iraq)[2]. Recently, prime minister al-Maliki jeopardized the ceasefire by sending the Iraqi army to Basra in an attempt to expel the Mahdi Army from the city. The United States blessed the operation even though Muqtada al-Sadr has a large following among Iraq's Shia muslim population. Originally, the offensive was purely fought by Iraqis, but after the Mahdi army proved to be a formidible opponent the U.S. provided air support and some special operations forces [3]. Muqtada al-Sadar's militia is still in control of the city, and as long as the U.S. is willing to side with al-Maliki against his political opponents nationwide religious and political reconciliation is not possible.

The second battle of Fallujah provides another example of why there is no military solution in Iraq. In November of 2004 the marines completely destroyed the city of Fallujah, which was considered to be a Sunni insurgent stronghold [4]. The military offensive took place right before the January 2005 elections that brought Nouri al-Malaki into power. The destruction of Fallujah inflamed Sunni muslims, and resulted in their boycott of the elections [5]. The result: a Shia dominated government that was viewed as illegitimate by a very large portion of the Iraqi population. This outcome was a major roadblock on the road to Iraqi political reconciliation.

In addition to beginning a withdrawal of American forces, a massive reconstruction effort should begin. One of the great proposals outlined in the responsible plan is to employ Iraqi's, not for profit U.S. contractors, to lead this effort. The ongoing military operations in Iraq have a devastating effect on vital infrastructure that provides basic services such as running water and electricity. For example, it is estimated that most Iraqi's have working electricity for only three hours per day [1]. When you couple the lack of basic services with high unemployment rates, taking up arms against the occupying force doesn't sound like a bad idea. This is driving much of the violence occurring in Iraq. By employing Iraqis to rebuild their country we can solve many problems. Violence will decline, infrastructure will be repaired, and the economic situation will improve.

These are only a few of the policies that are outlined in the responsible plan to end the Iraq war. Regardless of how we got into Iraq, what is needed is an exit strategy that reduces the burdens on our military, and leaves a stable country for the Iraqi people. I believe that the responsible plan is the way forward.

References:

1. A Responsible Plan To End the Iraq War
2. Muqtada al-Sadr Calls for Cease-fire
3. U.S. Airstrikes Aid Iraqi Army in Basra
4. The Second Battle of Falluja
5. Iraqi Legislative Election

This Post is a Wiretap

Recently, the Bush administration has received a lot of criticism concerning the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). The TSP enables the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on international communications without a warrant [1]. This means the NSA is potentially monitoring communications where one party is a legal resident of the United States. However, the administration insists that warrants are still required for intercepting purely domestic communications. All of this begs the question, what is an appropriate policy when it comes to the electronic surveillance of Americans?

Let us begin with the basics. The fourth amendment of the United States constitution states the following: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" [2]. However, it is not immediately clear that the fourth amendment applies in the case of electronic surveillance. When law enforcement records a phone call does this even qualify as a search or seizure? In 1967 the supreme court held that intercepting these types of communication does in fact qualify as a search and seizure [3]. Furthermore, the court ruled that such surveillance techniques are to be deemed unreasonable when there is a justifiable expectation of privacy by those involved in the communication. Thus, purely domestic communications cannot be intercepted unless the government has probable cause, and a search warrant. 

What about communications that involve foreign nationals? Before the TSP was enacted the government had to abide by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA requires that a warrant be obtained in order to eavesdrop on conversations when any party involved is a resident of the United States [4]. However, if communications only involve agents of foreign governments (this includes terrorists), no warrant is necessary. The Bush administration has criticized FISA in a variety of ways. First, in times of great urgency applying for a warrant may be too time consuming. By the time the process is complete it may be too late. Second, the FISA law lacks the ability to quickly obtain warrants for large numbers of people. It is unclear whether or not these complaints are even accurate. For example, critics of the administration have pointed out that obtaining a warrant from the FISA court requires a lower standard of proof than what would be needed to obtain a criminal warrant, and can be done in a matter of hours [1]. 

I believe that FISA is the correct approach when conducting surveillance of Americans for a variety of reasons. The constitution seems pretty clear on this issue: If you want to spy on Americans you have to have a reason, and you have to obtain a warrant. Furthermore, we have seen abuses of electronic surveillance by the executive branch in the past. FISA was enacted as a response to the Watergate scandal where Richard Nixon used the capabilities of our intelligence agencies to spy on his political opponents [5]. Oversight by the courts is critical to ensuring that such violations do not occur. The TSP violates our system of checks and balances by sidestepping the courts. 

References:

1. New York Times: Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts
2. Wikipedia: U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment
3. Wikipedia: Supreme Court Case Katz v. United States
   
4. Cornell University Law School: FISA
5. American Civil Liberties Union: FISA