The Presidency Isn't a Popularity Contest

Recently a topic of discussion by the media has been how low President Bush's approval rating is, coming to a low of 19% and how he is "the worst president ever." Even though the approval rating is true, I find there to a misinterpretation of what the President should do.

The Presidency is not a popularity contest. Sometimes Presidents have to make tough and unpopular decisions, it's part of the job. And it seems these presidents have acquired these numbers in the most trying times, when a lack of such decisions could have proved to be the most costly.

An recent example of this is during the worst of the insurgency in Iraq. In that time President Bush most likely could have become more popular if he decided to withdraw. With worldwide protests decrying America, a Congress that was doing quite the same, and a situation in Iraq that was even depressing conservatives, it would have been easy to withdraw, but where would that have left us? I'll tell you. It would have left a completely failed state from which Al Qaeda could launch attacks from, a civil war, and a region deeply damaged due to such actions.


Instead we stayed, the surge was enacted, and we have agreed on a Status of Forces Agreement that will allow the Iraqis to have a chance at a real future worth looking forward to. In my opinion, it has been worth it. We have taken action that will change how the Middle East fundamentally operates and although it will not be an easy task it will be well worth it.

I believe President Bush will be judged well by history. It may well be years and years down the road, but as far as foreign policy is concerned, I feel, as with other presidents, that his legacy will be a good one. We'll have to wait and see if President-elect Obama will be able to make the same tough choices to keep us safe.

The Status of Forces Agreement and its implications

Thomas Donnelly, of the American Enterprise Institute, in Congressional testimony yesterday discussed the long term implications of the Status of Forces Agreement. His words are insightful and should be heeded.

In the past five and half years we gone to great lengths to establish a democracy in Iraq, but in the process, tough as it was, we have turned an avowed rogue nation into a future ally in the region. If we continue on this path we should see a country who can be looked upon in the region as an example of a representative democracy. If this is done all our sacrifices will have been worth it.

Donnelly's testimony follows:

I would like to begin by thanking the Chairman and ranking Member for this
opportunity to testify on an issue I believe to be critical to America's
strategy and military force posture not only in Iraq but the broader Middle
East.
Since the committee invited me to appear, there has been excellent
news: the approval by the Iraqi cabinet of a strategic framework and
status-of-forces agreement, defining the role of U.S. military in Iraq when
their current UN mandate expires at the end of the year, represents a tremendous
success for the United States and for a free Iraq. Word out of Baghdad is
that the Iraqi parliament will ratify the agreement by the end of the
month. If so, U.S. forces in Iraq will avoid the plague of legal
uncertainty and will be free to continue their effective operations without
having to worry about a potentially debilitating debate in the United States or
at the United Nations. These developments also free me to talk about the
larger issues and interests at stake.
To focus, as the media have done, on
the timetable for withdrawal of American troops at the end of 2011, is to miss
the forest for a single tree: agreements such as these define the relationships
between nations that are strategic partners, based upon their sovereignty but
recognizing shared geopolitical interests. Five and one-half years is a
long time, and the United States has paid a high price in blood and treasure,
but make no mistake, this is what we have been fighting for: an Iraq with an
increasingly legitimate, effective and representative central government; an
Iraq increasingly aligned with the United States instead of constantly at war
with us; and a bulwark of strategic stability in a volatile region.
The
agreement itself protects vital immediate and enduring U.S. interests in
Iraq. To begin with, allowing the UN mandate to expire without at least a
bridging arrangement permitting U.S. operations in Iraq to go forward would have
been a disaster, risking the loss of the initiative so arduously won during the
"surge season." And, as successful as U.S. operations have been and as
marked as Iraqis' rejection of extremist elements has been--both in regard to al
Qaeda and Sunni jihadis but also Iranian influence and Shi'ite militias--the
situation remains fragile. The fundamental truth that everyone in
Washington, Baghdad and the larger region know but rarely acknowledge publicly
is that the surge represented, above all, a renewed American commitment to
success in Iraq. This agreement is one of the fruits of that strategic
decision.
Likewise, the agreement represents a serious setback for
Iran. The Islamic Republic has lost and apparently still is losing
influence in Iraq. The Tehran regime has been vehemently opposed to this
agreement, strongly pressuring the Maliki government and portraying the
negotiations as evidence of U.S. and Western neo-colonialism. When Prime
Minister Maliki visited Tehran this past June, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei lectured Maliki on the subject, and pressed the Iraqis for a
"memorandum of understanding" on defense cooperation. Maliki has remained
steadfast, and his position has been immensely strengthened since he launched
Operation Knight's Charge in Basra last March, cleaning out Shi'ite militias and
Iranian "special group" operators. Maliki clearly has the votes
within the Shi'ite bloc in the Iraqi parliament--despite the fact that his Dawa
party has itself only 15 votes in the 275-member body--as well as the Kurdish
bloc, to ensure approval by the end of the month, when the Iraqi parliament
adjourns for the hajj season.
Tehran also intensely lobbied and,
reportedly, even bribed Iraqi politicians to oppose the agreement. More
broadly, the Iranian government has been sponsoring an extensive propaganda
campaign since last May, playing to Iraqi nationalism--although Iraqi
nationalism more traditionally has a strong anti-Iranian flavor--and circulating
rumors that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, arguably the most revered figure in
all of Shi'a Islam, opposed the pact. In early October Maliki visited the
reclusive cleric in Najaf to discuss the agreement, and recently, an Iraqi
parliamentary delegation returned this past weekend with what one of the
ayatollahs' spokesmen described as a "green light" of support from Sistani, thus
thoroughly undercutting Tehran's position. Ayatollah Sistani went further
to say that a majority vote in the parliament would represent the will of the
Iraqi people, a critical expression of support for the democratic process and
additional embarrassment to Tehran.
Nearly as important, the agreement is a
defeat for the firebrand Iraqi cleric Moqtada as Sadr, whose populist movement
has been losing support for more than a year. While the Sadrist bloc in
the Iraqi parliament continues to oppose the agreement, Sadr himself has been
increasingly marginalized and, the combined U.S.-Iraqi operations in Baghdad's
Sadr City slum have decimated the leadership cadres of Sadr's militia, the
so-called Jaysh al-Mahdi, or "Mahdi Army." In sum, the Iraqi government
has made remarkable strides in the wake of the American surge, even if these
strides have been one a different timetable and come from different quarters
than we anticipated 18 months ago.
Looking forward, there are reasons to hope
for a continued transformation of the U.S.-Iraqi partnership. The upcoming
Iraqi elections are nearly certain to bring to power a more responsive and
representative group of legislators, especially from the Sunni community.
This will also be critical to the successful implementation of the agreement, as
in many ways it is the Sunnis who have most at stake in a continued U.S.
engagement in Iraq. To repeat: stability in Iraq is fragile and the path
of progress depends upon additional accommodation between Iraq's
communities. Americans in Iraq have never been simple "occupiers;" our
current and future role should be to serve as "interlocutors," the most
trustworthy arbiters among people who have had little reason to trust each
other.
And so, despite press coverage and political rhetoric in Iraq, I am
less certain about what will happen at the end of 2011; the language about
future U.S. presence in Iraq has been stricken from the agreement, but the
potential need endures. The Iraqi government will not want to regard this
framework agreement and any status-of-forces rules as a suicide pact. The
Iraqi army well knows, and its leaders have often said, that its ability to
sustain itself--operationally, logistically, administratively, personnel-wise,
institutionally--is limited, and it is a real question whether it will be mature
enough in three years' time to do without the partnering presence of U.S.
forces. The Iraqi army is the most trusted institution of the new Iraqi
state and we would be fools to take excessive risks in the service of an
arbitrary timetable.
I hope the Obama Administration takes a similar
approach: a campaign pledge in not a suicide pact, either. While it is
impossible to know precisely what circumstances in Iraq or the region will be
three years from now, it is certain that the United States will have important
strategic interests in the Gulf and throughout the Islamic world. These
interests predated 9/11 and go well beyond terrorism; we have been a party to
the "Long War" for at least a generation and, arguably, since Franklin Roosevelt
met Saudi King Abdul Aziz about an American warship in February 1945. As
CIA Director Michael Hayden said last week, Iraq may no longer be--thanks to
American and Iraqi efforts of the past 18 months--the "central front," but
Iraq's critical importance to regional security is in no way diminished.
I would also hope this committee and the Congress will keep an open
mind. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was the region's most constant menace;
today, Iraq is arguably our most constant ally--though I would admit that, in
this region, this is a lamentably low standard. Certainly the Iraqis have
made immense sacrifices to create the prospect of a better future for themselves
and we should not forget that. Dealing with the Maliki government and
other Iraqi leaders is not easy and this agreement won't be an end to the
challenges. At best, this marks the end of the beginning of a long-term
strategic partnership with an Iraq where representative government has put down
real roots. But it must not be the beginning of the end of America's
engagement with and commitment to a free Iraq. There is a corollary to
former Secretary of State Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn Rule." We broke it,
and we've done much to fix it--we don't want to see it smashed to pieces again

.

A Team of Rivals and Moderates

With President-elect Obama's Cabinet coming into place we are seeing a team of, what he would call, rivals, but more importantly, it seems to be a team of moderates.





With Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and James L. Jones as National Security Adviser we are seeing the beginning of a foreign policy team that will not swerve sharply to left, and instead will be responsible. That should give conservative some comfort.

Some conservatives have problems with the lack of change in the Administration, and large amount of ex-Clinton officials (and some for good reason like in the case of Eric Holder) but to be honest I'd rather have a relatively inexperienced president be surrounded by experienced centrists than by inexperienced people of any political persuasion, especially radicals.

Does Hillary Clinton have the formal education in international relations that others like Madeline Albright or Condoleeza Rice have? No, but she was one of the best names being tossed around. Compared to John Kerry she's leaps and bounds better. Perhaps if she does indeed get we'd see Richard Holbrooke as her deputy or in another high position.

Gen. (ret.) James Jones, considering his long career in the Marine Corps wold be a great asset to an Obama Administrations. He's had experience as Supreme Allied Commander of Europe. He currently is president and chief executive of the United States Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy, which seeks to find ways to assure that the nation’s energy supply is “adequate, affordable and secure while protecting the environment,” according to the organization’s mission statement. He was considered for the position of Deputy Secretary of State and has worked on security issues throughout the Middle East. This is a very good choice.

Meet President-elect Obama's White House Counsel: Gregory B. Craig

Greg Craig has been appointed White Counsel as of November 15th, but how much do we know about him. Here' the run down on his resume:

* In 1977, he represented the first FBI agent ever to be indicted, John J. Kearney, who was accused of illegal wiretapping, breaking and entering, and mail opening in connection with the FBI investigation of the Bill Ayers co-founded Weatherman (organization).

* That same year, working with Edward Bennett Williams, Mr. Craig represented the former CIA Director and Phoenix Program administrator, Richard Helms, who was under grand jury investigation for perjury in his 1973 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, concerning the 1973 Chilean coup d'état, and the role the United States played in it.

* Defended John Hinckley, the man who attempted to assassinate President Reagan. Backed by overwhelming psychiatric opinion, he led Hinckley's successful insanity defense.

* In 1983 to 1984, working with Edward Bennett Williams, Mr. Craig represented Victor Posner who was charged with tax evasion in federal court in Miami.

* From 1984-1988 served as Senator Ted Kennedy's Senior Advisor on Defense, Foreign Policy, and National Security.

* As Senator Ted Kennedy's chief foreign policy adviser was responsible for orchestrating a hearing alleging the Contras of human rights abuses. As it turned out all of the witnesses turned to be Sandinista shills.

* In 2000, while serving as the lawyer for Elian Gonzalez's father, Craig did the bidding of the Castro regime by killing an agreement "to transfer custody of Elian to his father, as long as [Elian's family from Miami] could live with the boy and his father in an environment free of U.S. and Cuban officials."

* Since then, Craig has represented foreign officials accused of war crimes such as former Bolivian Defense Minister Carlos Sánchez-Berzaín and Pedro Miguel González, the president of Panama's legislature, who is under federal indictment for the murder of U.S. Army Sgt. Zak Hernández Laporte.

* Domestically he is most famous for quartebacking the defense of President Clinton during his impeachment.

Considering his past it makes you wonder what will Mr. Craig bring to the fore as White House Counsel. Will he, for instance, go after Bush Administration officials or CIA officers for their actions in dealing with detainees to prevent future terrorist attacks?, or will he not? Considering the recent news of Obama's other appointees I tend to think not. They are an impressive group that I have no problem with as far as their ideology goes.

Closing Gitmo

As President-elect Obama's inauguration approaches the media is clamoring to know what he will do first. One of those very things it has been said has been to close down the prisons at Guatanamo Bay.

This presents the obvious question of, what will happen to those detainees? From what I've seen there seems to be three options, none of them good, and two especially bad.

1. Send the detainees back to their countries of origin: This could be problematic for a couple reasons. First, there is a real chance that upon returning home they will not serve long prison terms and will eventually end up back on the battlefield to be either killed or captured by US forces. Secondly, there is the prospect that some of these detainees could be executed upon arrival. I doubt an Obama Administration would want to do that. Both cases present problems.

2. Prosecute the detainees in the US: The major issue here is you'd be forced to give them the same rights a US citizen enjoys. In so doing though some of the evidence acquired in interrogations might not be eligible to be used due to just how it was acquired. Plus, intelligence gathering methods would be jeopardized due to such public trials. This would be disastrous. We cannot let the ways in which we protect ourselves be compromised.

3. Military trials: Of the 3 options being floated around this is the best. This would be reserved for high ranking Al Qaeda, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohamed. They could be done outside the US, but still the burden of proof would be high under an Obama Administration. Regardless though, what do you do with these detainees once they've been convicted? No one wants them in their state and the cost to imprison them could be high since it'd have to be in maximum security prisons. So what to do?

As can be seen the options aren't good. How we will deal with it remains to be seen though. Nothing is set in stone and hopefully a President Obama will do what is best for the security of our country.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Rumor has it that Hillary Clinton could go from being the Senator of New York to the Secretary of State. This is quite an interesting turn of events.

Is she qualified for the job (as far as Barack Obama's concerned at least)? Probably. But the question remains, is it a a smart political move? Is it keeping a political rival close, or giving that same rival a venue in which they can undermine you?

In his column today Dick Morris recounts this bit of history that President-elect Obama should keep in mind when thinking about this:

Obama would do well to remember the history of Harry Truman and Jimmy Byrnes in 1944. Byrnes, known as the “assistant president” in FDR’s third term, was widely thought to be Roosevelt’s choice to replace Henry Wallace as his running mate on the 1944 ticket. At the last minute, FDR re-considered and decided Byrnes, a South Carolinian, was too conservative and went with Truman instead. But the Democratic Party establishment clearly was disappointed. While they wanted to get rid of the almost-Communist Wallace, they wanted Byrnes not Truman. (Just like the party establishment really wanted Hillary, not Obama, to be the presidential nominee).


So Truman named Byrnes to be his Secretary of State after he took office on Roosevelt’s death in 1945. Byrnes, who thought he should have been president, proceeded to make his own foreign policy. He flew to a meeting in Europe with the allied foreign ministers and barely kept President Truman posted on the deliberations. He became a loose cannon who thought he was the president. After a year of this nonsense, Truman fired him and brought in George Marshall to take the job.

If Obama nominates Hillary, he will put himself in the same position as Truman was with Byrnes and the results will be just as predictable.

So the question is, is Barack Obama, who I believe to be an intelligent man, going to make the same mistake as Harry Truman, a mistake that could undermine his presidency, or not? Hillary Clinton is intelligent, and could bring a lot to the table, although does her baggage or flaws outweigh the benefits?

Also, some are saying it's a way of neutralizing a rival, although, what's to stop her from challenging him in 2012 if she so wanted? Personally I doubt being Secretary of State would. In fact it might just give her the launching pad to further her ambitions.

Something for conservative to keep in mind

In reading this article by Bill Kristol in The Weekly Standard this morning it made me think about a future with a President Obama and how we, as conservatives should behave. One part of it especially spoke to me.

We at THE WEEKLY STANDARD congratulate Barack Obama on his impressive
victory. We pledge our support for those of his policies we can support, our
willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt in cases of uncertainty, and
our constructive criticism and loyal opposition where we are compelled to
differ. We hope President Obama's policies and decisions will strengthen the
nation he will now lead, and that our country and the cause of freedom in the
world will emerge from the next four or eight even stronger than they are today.

I did not vote for President-elect Obama and disagree with some of his views and intended future policies very much so, but let us not behave like the far-left has over the past eight years toward President Bush. Let us be this loyal opposition and treat the office of the President with respect even though we might disagree with the man occupying it.