The perpetual investigation

On Sept. 11, 2012 the US diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya was attacked, resulting in the death of four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Today former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton is back on Capitol Hill, testifying before yet another congressional panel convened to investigate the tragedy.

To date there have been eight separate congressional investigations of Benghazi, together spanning nearly two-and-a-half years. The first hearing was convened on May 8, 2013 by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which was dissatisfied with the report issued by the State Department’s own Accountability Review Board, questioning the ARB’s independence and integrity.

The most recent investigation began 17 months ago, in May 2014 when the House Select Committee on Benghazi was formed. God knows when it will wrap up its work. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, the chairman of the committee, says there are 20 more witnesses yet to be called.

From the beginning, Congress’ investigations have been dogged by accusations that they have been less about getting to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi and more about: 1) embarrassing President Obama in the lead up to the 2012 presidential election; and 2) undermining Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president in 2016. Some Republicans have even admitted as much.

Just how unprecedented is the Benghazi investigation? Well, the nearly three years and counting that have supposedly been devoted to learning what happened on that night in 2012 is far longer than a whole bunch of other investigations, like the one into the attack on Pearl Harbor (9 months), or the Kennedy assassination (10 months), or the Beirut Marine barracks bombing (6 weeks), or even 9/11 (21 months).

But don’t take my word for it. Follow the links below and see for yourself.

  • Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack — Sept. 11, 1945 – June 20, 1946. 9 months to investigate and issue final report on the Dec. 7, 1941 Japanese surprise attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
  • Warren Commission — Nov. 29, 1963 – Sept. 24, 1964. 10 months to investigate and report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
  • Holloway Commission — May 1980 – August 1980. 3 months for a commission appointed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to investigate and report on the failed Iran hostage rescue mission, Operation Eagle Claw, which resulted in the death of eight US service personnel.
  • DOD Commission on Beirut International Airport Terrorist Act of 23 October 1983 — Nov. 7, 1983 – Dec. 20, 1983. 6 weeks to investigate and report on the terrorist truck bombing of the US Marine barracks at Beirut International Airport which killed 241 US military personnel.
  • Investigations Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee — Nov. 1983 – Dec. 19, 1983. 6 weeks to investigate and report on the terrorist truck bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut.
  • Tower Commission — Nov. 26, 1986 – Feb. 26, 1987. 3 months to investigate and report on the CIA’s illegal covert program to sell weapons to Iran and funnel the proceeds to the anti-communist Contra rebels in Nicaragua.
  • House October Surprise Task Force — Feb. 5 1992 – Jan. 13, 1993. 11 months to investigate and report on allegations that the Reagan campaign had conspired with the Iranian government to delay release of American hostages in order to deny President Carter a boost in the polls in the final weeks leading up to the 1980 presidential election.
  • 9/11 Commission — Nov. 27, 2002 – Aug. 21, 2004. 21 months to investigate and issue its final report on the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 which killed more than 3,000 Americans.

So has the Benghazi investigation devolved into nothing more than a partisan witch hunt designed to politically damage Clinton? Decide for yourself. For my part, I’ll take House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s word for it:

Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.

 

For Jeb, W’s legacy is no liability

george_and_jeb

Last month, just after the second Republican presidential debate, I wrote about Jeb Bush’s curious (to me) doubling down on his claim that his brother, President George W. Bush, had “kept us safe” from terrorism during his presidency.This was in response to goading from Donald Trump, who had the nerve in the debate to remind the viewers that it was Bush who was in the White House on 9/11.

Trump has been using this inconvenient fact to bludgeon Jeb ever since, forcing Bush to hold the line with the tenacity of a terrier. But it’s more than that now. As Peter Beinart writes at The Atlantic this morning, “It’s now clear: Jeb Bush wants to speak about his brother’s record on 9/11 as much as possible.”

And so Jeb continues to defend his brother:

In the latest episode of the reality show that is Donald Trump’s campaign, he has blamed my brother for the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our nation. That Trump echoes the attacks of Michael Moore and the fringe Left against my brother is yet another example of his dangerous views on national-security issues. … Let’s be clear: Donald Trump simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
The historical record begs to differ. Bob Woodward, stenographer to official Washington, writes in Plan of Attack, the first volume in his Bush at War trilogy:

It was not an exaggeration when Bush dictated to his daily diary that night that, “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.” In some respects the attacks were more devastating. Instead of 1941 Hawaii, which was not then a state, the targets were the power centers of the homeland. Instead of Japan, the attacks were conduced by a shadowy enemy that had no country or visible army. Worse for Bush, CIA Director Tenet had explicitly warned him about the immediacy and seriousness of the bin Laden threat. Focusing on domestic issues and a giant tax cut, Bush had largely ignored the terrorism problem. “I didn’t feel that sense of urgency,” the president acknowledged later in an interview. “My blood was not nearly as boiling.”

But for Jeb, the real responsibility for 9/11 lies elsewhere, with Bill Clinton, W’s predecessor in the White House. In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Monday, Jeb said:

I think there’s two ways to look at Islamic terrorism. One is a threat that has to be taken out as it relates to, you know, creating a strategy that calls it a war, or we view it as a law enforcement operation where people have rights. I think the Clinton administration made a mistake of thinking bin Laden had to be viewed from a law enforcement perspective.

Back to the historical record.

Richard Clarke was appointed by Bill Clinton as the first National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism, and he continued to serve in that position under George W. Bush until he resigned in March 2003. The country’s top counterterrorism official, Clarke ran the Situation Room on 9/11. In his book, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror, Clarke writes:

Clinton left office with bin Laden alive, but having authorized actions to eliminate him and to step up the attacks on al Qaeda. … He had seen earlier than anyone that terrorism would be the major new threat facing America, and therefore had greatly increased funding for counterterrorism and initiated homeland protection programs.

When Clinton left office many people, including the incoming Bush administration leadership, thought that he and his administration were overly obsessed with al Qaeda. After all, al Qaeda had killed only a few Americans, nothing like the hundreds of Marines who died at the hands of Beirut terrorists during the Reagan administration or the hundreds of Americans who were killed by Libya on Pan Am 103 during the first Bush’s administration. Those two acts had not provoked U.S. military retaliation. Why was Clinton so worked up about al Qaeda and why did he talk to President-elect Bush about it and have Sandy Berger raise it with his successor as National Security Advisor, Condi Rice? In January 2001, the new administration really thought Clinton’s recommendation that eliminating al Qaeda be one of their highest priorities, well, rather odd, like so many of the Clinton Administration’s actions, from their perspective.

So why does Jeb continue to toe the line? Well, it’s simple. The Bush name, and W’s legacy, isn’t the liability you’d think it is. Especially for Republican voters. A YouGov survey taken in September tells the tale.

In that poll, George W. Bush enjoys a 79% job approval rating among Republicans. When asked how good a job W did in “keeping the U.S. safe while president,” a whopping 81% of Republicans said his performance was good or excellent. Let that sink in for a minute.

Finally, when asked, “If Jeb Bush were elected president, do you think he would do a better or a worse job than George W. Bush?” 43% of Republicans said they thought Jeb would do just as well or better.

That’s the bottom line. Jeb has realized that his brother’s legacy is no liability, at least the voters who will decide the GOP’s nominating contest.

Saint Ronald vs. the GOP

saint ronaldI’m not sure what it says about my mental state, but Ronald Reagan has been on my mind lately.

It’s probably because he keeps coming up as I teach my course on US foreign policy this semester. And he keeps coming up in a way that continually makes me scratch my head when I think about the contrast between his views, specifically on foreign policy, and those of today’s Republican Party standard bearers.

Now I’m at it again. In class this afternoon we’ll be discussing a case study on the history of the fraught negotiations between the US and Iran over the later’s nuclear ambitions and programs. Part of that discussion will revolve around the suspicion with which America typically views any negotiations with a hostile foreign power.

Writing in World Affairs back in 2010, Frank Logevall and Kenneth Osgood connect this to “The Ghost of Munich,” the reflexive charges of naive appeasement that are levied against any president who dares to engage diplomatically with a potentially dangerous rival:

‘Munich’ and ‘appeasement’ have been among the dirtiest words in American politics, synonymous with naivete and weakness, and signifying a craven willingness to barter away the nation’s vital interests for empty promises.

These words retain their power, they argue, because of electoral considerations:

An abiding faith in the Munich analogy became one of the few things that was truly bipartisan in postwar American politics. In the years that followed Chamberlain’s fateful trip to Bavaria, Democrats and Republicans alike displayed a common understanding of the dangers of appeasement, and a common belief in the political value of using the Munich analogy to undermine the other party.

The problem with this, they argue, is that success in foreign policy has typically come to presidents who had the courage to push back against the analogy and engage diplomatically with rivals and hostile powers, while those who bowed to its demand for unyielding strength and toughness often failed, and in spectacular, tragic ways. Like Vietnam. And Iraq.

Enter today’s GOP, and Sen. Ted Cruz’s assessment of the agreement then being negotiated with Iran:

I believe we are hearing echoes of history. I believe we are at a moment like Munich in 1938.

Or this from Jeb Bush:

This isn’t diplomacy – it is appeasement.

And from Marco Rubio:

President Obama has consistently negotiated from a position of weakness, giving concession after concession …

But what about Saint Ronald? Well, he came to see the value in negotiations, even with an adversary like the Soviet Union, whose strategic doctrine, like our own, assumed the utter annihilation of of its chief rival as the end goal:

I don’t take too seriously the statement of positions in advance of negotiations. Everyone wants to preserve their position at their highest price before negotiations, and for them to do otherwise is to give away something they might not have to give away once the negotiations start.

And:

You’re unlikely to get all you want; you’ll probably get more of what you want if you don’t issue ultimatums and leave your adversary room to maneuver; you shouldn’t back your adversary into a corner, embarrass him, or humiliate him; and sometimes, the easiest way to get things done is for the top people to do them alone and in private.

If you’d have asked me 20 years ago if I could ever see myself lauding Reagan in either the classroom or in writing, I would have called you crazy. But then I hadn’t yet encountered today’s Republicans.

Foreign policy bluster: Compare and contrast

syria-no-fly-zone

I keep telling myself that I’ll quit writing about the GOP presidential candidates and their positions on foreign policy until the race shakes out a bit. But then I read stuff like this:

Languishing at the bottom in polls of the Republican presidential field, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey ramped up his tough talk on foreign policy on Monday, calling President Obama a “weakling” and saying that the United States should threaten to shoot down Russian planes conducting airstrikes in Syria.

“My first phone call would be to Vladimir, and I’d say, ‘Listen, we’re enforcing this no-fly zone,’” Mr. Christie said on MSNBC. “And I mean we’re enforcing it against anyone, including you. So don’t try me. Don’t try me. Because I’ll do it.”

In a separate interview on Fox News, Christie was given a chance to walk the bellicosity back a bit. Instead he went to full bluster mode:

Asked whether he thought it was wise to engage in a military conflict with Russia if it breached such an American no-fly zone, Mr. Christie said it would be necessary.

“You take him down,” Mr. Christie said, referring to Russian warplanes.

Now seriously, at this point I probably have a better chance of getting elected president in 2016 than Chris Christie, but this sort of rhetoric really does matter. I tell my students that despite all appearances political candidates are rational actors, and the deliberate statements they make are typically chosen because of the candidate’s belief that the message will resonate with real and potential supporters.

The trouble with this is that this kind of tough talk from candidates, while it may make Republican voters feel better about themselves, makes for dangerously irresponsible policy from an actual president. Unfortunately we’ve known for a long time, all the way back to Bill Quandt’s research on the impact of electoral cycles on US foreign policy, that newly elected presidents do in fact try to follow through on the foreign policy positions they campaigned on.

And to be clear, Christie is not the only GOP candidate willing to risk war with Russia over Syria. Syria of all places. In a little-noticed interview last week with CNN’s John Harwood, Marco Rubio also rattled the sabers in Russia’s direction:

Rubio: “If you are going to have a no-fly zone, it has to be against anyone who would dare intrude on it, and I am confident that the United States Air Force can enforce that, including against the Russians… I believe the Russians would not test that. I don’t think it is in the Russians’ interest to engage in an armed conflict of the United States.

Harwood: You think Putin would back off if we had a no-fly zone?

Rubio: I don’t think he’s going to go into a safe zone, absolutely. I don’t believe he will look for a direct military conflict against the United States in order to go into a safe zone.

Harwood: What if he was?

Rubio: Well, then you’re going to have a problem, but that would be no different than any other adversary.

Harwood: Don’t you think the prospect of potential military – hot military conflict with Russia would scare the American people?

Rubio: Sure. But the consequences of not doing anything would scare them even more and that includes its ongoing crisis of the migratory crisis that we’re now facing. The continued growth, not just of ISIS, but a Jabhat al-Nusra and other groups in the region as well. At the end of the day… We cannot say, well, if Putin is going to test us, then we can’t do anything. You’ve basically at that point ceded to him as becoming the most influential geopolitical broker in the region.”

So let this sink in for a minute. Apparently Syria is so vital to American national interest, and Putin’s intervention on behalf of the Assad regime is so dangerous, that Rubio and Christie, both vying to be the one to literally call the shots, believe it is worth going to war with Russia. Not threatening to go to war; but going to war.

For contrast, have a look at this take on the long interview President Obama gave to CBS 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft on Sunday in which he characterized both Putin’s adventurism and Republican bluster as signs of weakness, not strength. It is worth quoting at length:

Kroft opened by noting how much the world had changed since their last interview, and what that meant for America’s influence overseas.

“A year ago when we did this interview, there was some saber-rattling between the United States and Russia on the Ukrainian border. Now it’s also going on in Syria. You said a year ago that the United States—America leads. We’re the indispensible nation. Mr. Putin seems to be challenging that leadership.”

Obama asked for clarification, and Kroft provided it. “Well, he’s moved troops into Syria, for one. He’s got people on the ground,” Kroft said. “Two, the Russians are conducting military operations in the Middle East for the first time since World War II bombing the people that we are supporting.” To which Obama replied:

“So that’s leading, Steve? Let me ask you this question. When I came into office, Ukraine was governed by a corrupt ruler who was a stooge of Mr. Putin. Syria was Russia’s only ally in the region. And today, rather than being able to count on their support and maintain the base they had in Syria, which they’ve had for a long time, Mr. Putin now is devoting his own troops, his own military, just to barely hold together by a thread his sole ally.”

In terms of perceptions of world events, there may be less daylight between Obama and Putin than Obama and his critics. Both world leaders see Moscow’s effective loss of two formerly close allies over the past two years: Ukraine to revolution, and Syria to civil war. Obama perceives Putin’s recent actions—the carving out of rump territories in Crimea and the Donbass and the bombing of U.S.-aligned rebels in Syria—as a desperate attempt to reverse a tide that’s shifting against Russian interests.

After interrupting one another, during which Kroft said that Obama’s critics argue the president is “projecting a weakness, not a strength,” Obama turned the examples against these unnamed critics, singling out his opponents within the Republican Party. The logic for U.S. intervention in Syria, he argued, previously led to the Iraq War, and its continued usage suggests that many haven’t learned the lessons of that conflict.

“[There are Republicans] who think that we should send endless numbers of troops into the Middle East, that the only measure of strength is us sending back several hundred thousand troops, that we are going to impose a peace, police the region, and—that the fact that we might have more deaths of U.S. troops, thousands of troops killed, thousands of troops injured, spend another trillion dollars, they would have no problem with that. There are people who would like to see us do that. And unless we do that, they’ll suggest we’re in retreat.”

Here Obama tries to differentiate between the reality of international relations and the perception of world events. The U.S., as Obama notes, is objectively the most powerful player in the Middle East by whatever metric one wishes to apply: diplomatic alliances, economic clout, military strength, cultural influence, and so forth. But between the spread of ISIS and a unilateral Russian intervention to save the Assad regime, it doesn’t quite feel like the U.S. is the strongest actor there anymore. For some critics, these events are an attack on U.S. “leadership,” to borrow their phraseology, and the Obama administration’s failure to respond with military force signals a lack of “strength” at best and outright “weakness” at worst.

Two issues arise. First, this thinking mirrors how Putin processes his own response to attacks on his country’s interests: A global rival’s actions threaten​ his perceived sphere of influence, and those actions must be countered with force. In Ukraine, it was the Euromaidan protests that threatened to permanently dislodge Kiev from Moscow’s orbit; in Syria, it may have been the transfer of U.S. arms to anti-Assad rebels. In response, Putin annexed Crimea last year, with disastrous implications for the Russian economy, and is now trying to save the Assad regime this year.

Second, there is also little evidence that a U.S. military intervention in Syria would succeed where interventions in Iraq and Libya failed. In both instances, intervention actually increased regional instability instead of quelling it. Since popular resistance to large-scale military interventions helped propel Obama to the presidency in 2008, it’s unsurprising he’s still skeptical of their efficacy.

“[If], in fact, the only measure is for us to send another 100,000 or 200,000 troops into Syria or back into Iraq, or perhaps into Libya, or perhaps into Yemen, and our goal somehow is that we are now going to be, not just the police, but the governors of this region, that would be a bad strategy, Steve. And I think that if we make that mistake again, then shame on us.”

When asked if the world was a safer place, Obama replied that America is a safer place.

“I think that there are places, obviously, like Syria, that are not safer than when I came into office,” he noted, before pivoting to his multilateralist approach. “But, in terms of us protecting ourselves against terrorism, in terms of us making sure that we are strengthening our alliances, in terms of our reputation around the world, absolutely we’re stronger.”

One of these two positions — that foreign policy restraint flows from American strength, not weakness; or that restraint signals weakness and thus vulnerability — will ultimately carry the day in the real world of the next president’s foreign policies. And then we’ll see who was right.

Hopefully the costs won’t be too much to bear.