SUNDAY, AUGUST 1, 2010 DAVID IGNATIUS
Mexico held hostage H
ow can it be possible that after 18 months in office, President Oba- ma still has not appointed a direc- tor for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the federal agency charged with monitoring illegal flows of weapons? We know the answer. The administration and Congress are scared of the gun lobby. It’s the kind of situation that makes you wonder if good governance has tak- en a holiday: Mexico is reeling from a drug-cartel insurgency that is armed mainly with weapons acquired in the United States; Arizona is so frightened about drug violence and other imagined Mexican dangers that its legislature en- acted an anti-immigrant law that a feder- al judge says is unconstitutional. Naming a new ATF chief to lead the
fight against illegal weapons would be a small symbolic step. But it would signal to Mexicans and Arizonans alike that the administration is mobilizing to deal with these problems — and is willing to take some political heat in the process. Yet this is not the season for “Profiles in Courage.” When I queried the White House about the ATF vacancy, I got little more than a “no comment.” “The absence of a chief has hamstrung
ATF’s ability to aggressively target gun trafficking rings or corrupt firearms dealers and has demoralized its agents,” Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, wrote in a June 10 letter to Obama. Near- ly two months later, the job is still empty, and there are no leading candidates. The numbers about weapons flows to
Mexico are genuinely scary. From De- cember 2006 through this past April, the Mexican government seized 31,946 handguns and 41,093 assault rifles. Of the weapons that could be traced, rough- ly 80 percent came from the United States, according to Mexican ambassa- dor Arturo Sarukhan. “Intelligence indicates these criminal organizations have tasked their money- laundering, distribution and transporta- tion infrastructures with reaching into the United States to acquire firearms and ammunition,” warned a 2008 ATF state- ment. There are roughly 7,000 U.S. gun dealers within 100 miles of the Mexican border. A recent weapons seizure in Nuevo
Leon, just across the border from Texas, illustrates the drug traffickers’ arsenals. On May 11, after an armed confrontation, the Mexican army seized 124 assault ri-
KLMNO
R
A19
fles, 15 handguns, three anti-tank rock- ets, more than 5,000 rounds of ammuni- tion and 1,375 ammo magazines. Terry Goddard (D), Arizona’s attorney
general, risked his political career to work with the ATF. He promised Mexi- can officials in 2008 that he would try to crack the arms flows. And with help from both the ATF and Mexican authorities, Goddard’s prosecutors brought a crimi- nal case in May 2008 against X-Caliber Guns, a Phoenix gun dealer that was al- legedly providing weapons used by the Mexican cartels. Goddard’s complaint alleged that X- Caliber had sold more than 700 AK-47s and other deadly weapons to straw buyers who planned to ship them to Mexican syndicates. “The important part of this case is the number of weapons that ended up at crime scenes in Mexico,” Goddard said when the trial opened. But as it turned out, the X-Caliber case showed that with Arizona’s weak gun laws, prosecution was almost impossible —even when there appeared to be strong facts. X-Caliber’s owner had sold guns to ATF undercover agents after they told him they planned to resell the guns in Mexico.
An Arizona judge threw out the case
days after it opened, ruling that the own- er of X-Caliber and the other defendants hadn’t done anything criminal. “There is no proof whatsoever that any prohibited possessor ended up with the firearms,” the judge said. And what did Goddard get for his ef-
forts to stop what the ATF calls “an iron river of guns” into Mexico? After the case was thrown out, the owner of X-Caliber sued him for malicious prosecution. Goddard is now running for governor, challenging the anti-immigrant stance of Gov. Jan Brewer (R), but recent polls show him a distant second, trailing by about 20 points. The prevailing political wisdom in America, to which the Obama adminis- tration evidently subscribes, is that it’s folly to challenge the gun lobby. When Mexico’s President Felipe Calderón ad- dressed a joint session of Congress in May, he all but pleaded with lawmakers to help stop the flow of assault weapons. His call to action produced little more than a shrug of the shoulders in Wash- ington. That ought to make us embar- rassed. But the worst of it is that inaction on these issues has come to seem nor- mal.
davidignatius@washpost.com POST PARTISAN
Excerpts from The Post’s opinion blog, updated daily at
washingtonpost.com/postpartisan
MICHAEL GERSON
Lindsey Graham jettisons principle
It is stunning — just stunning — that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has appar- ently joined the movement to revoke birthright citizenship. “People come here to have babies,” he said in an interview last week. “They come here to drop a child. It’s called ‘drop and leave.’ ” After years of being a lonely voice of Republican sanity on immigration, Gra- ham has decided to embrace the su- preme symbol of nativism — changing the 14th Amendment to restrict Amer- ican citizenship. He has either taken leave of his senses or of his principles. Neither is unknown in Washington. Poli- ticians sometimes come here to drop their deepest convictions. It’s called self- serving cynicism. The authors of the 14th Amendment
guaranteed citizenship to all people “born or naturalized in the United States” for a reason. They wished to di- rectly repudiate the Dred Scott decision, which said that citizenship could be granted or denied by political caprice. They purposely chose an objective stan- dard of citizenship — birth — that was not subject to politics. Reconstruction
KATHLEEN PARKER
and personified by Sarah Palin. When politicians speak of small- town values, we know what they mean. Generally, they are invoking family, faith and flag — coincidentally the subtitle of Palin’s next book, “America by Heart.” In the politician’s world, small towns are where “real Americans” live, as opposed to all those other people — the vast majority of Americans — who live in urban areas. As someone who grew up in a small town (and left as soon as possible) and who recently has chosen to live in a small town (though lately in absen- tia), I’ve given this a lot of thought. Despite all my implicit exposure to small-town values, I never really un- derstood what they were until I moved to Olive Street, a three-block- long street in the nation’s capital. Lots of familiar people have lived on Olive Street. Mary Jo Kopechne lived across the street and down a few doors. Julia Child lived two blocks down. Olive Street made brief appear-
Olive Street, by heart W
e’ve heard much these past few years about “small-town values,” most recently iterated
leaders established a firm, sound princi- ple: To be an American citizen, you don’t have to please a majority; you just have to be born here.
Abandoning this principle would be
particularly cruel when it comes to the children of illegal immigrants. Anti-immigration activists often claim
that their real concern is to prevent law- breaking, not to exclude Hispanics. But revoking birthright citizenship would turn hundreds of thousands of infants into “criminals” — arriving, not across a border, but crying in a hospital. A whole class of people would grow up knowing they are hunted aliens, through no fault of their own. This cannot be called the rule of law. It would be viciousness and prejudice on a grand scale. Can this really be what Graham in- tends? Does he actually think that Con- gress and three-fourths of state legisla- tures will undertake a multiyear effort to feed racial conflict in America? No, Graham is merely trying to please his political critics in one sweeping act of surrender. Graham and Sen. John McCain (R-
Ariz.) were once examples of conscience on the issue of immigration. McCain, in a tough Senate primary, has backed off his convictions. Graham has now aban- doned his. Their political fortunes may recover. Their reputations may never ful- ly recover.
E
A defense plan for the 21st century
by Stephen J. Hadley and William J. Perry
F SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
President Obama meets with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, right, and other members of Congress on Tuesday.
DAVID S. BRODER
Obama looks across the aisle
ven as he steps up his cam- paigning and fundraising for Democratic candidates,
President Obama appears to be adjusting mentally and emotion- ally to the prospect that his post- November life will feature more dealings with Republicans. The history of midterm elec- tions shows regular gains for the opposition party, and so far all the polls look upbeat for the GOP. This is why there’s more talk these days in White House circles about measures that might attract bi- partisan support. And why one in- sider says, “If you asked the presi- dent what he would really like for Christmas, it would be a smart loyal opposition.” Of course, Obama’s definition
of what would constitute wise, farsighted Republican policy may bear no resemblance to what John Boehner or Mitch McCon- nell, the GOP leaders in Congress, have in mind. But he’s probably not expecting the kind of relation- ship that Lyndon Johnson en- joyed with Everett Dirksen, the Senate Republican leader who provided the votes that allowed passage of the great civil rights statutes of the 1960s.
Obama would be well pleased if he could have someone resem- bling Bob Dole or Howard Baker, Republican Senate leaders who mostly opposed Democratic presidents but made common cause with them on certain na- tional and international issues. For instance, it is clear that if Obama seeks Senate approval of the stalled free-trade agreement with South Korea — a step that would shore up his Asian foreign policy and end the impasse on trade — he will need a higher per- centage of votes from Republi- cans than he is likely to get from Democrats. Similarly, the extension of the basic elementary and secondary education aid bill, a priority that has slipped from this year to next, becomes much more manageable if Republican votes can be added to make up for any losses among Democrats who may be swayed by opposition from teachers unions or civil rights organizations. This is why Obama and Education Sec- retary Arne Duncan are always careful to credit George W. Bush
for laying the groundwork for their own reforms with his No Child Left Behind program. It is more difficult to imagine how Obama will enlist Repub- lican help on some of his other priorities. Many in the White House are doubtful that when the bipartisan commission on debt and deficits reports in December, enough Republicans among the panel’s 18 members will sign on to provide the 14 votes required for a consensus. But at minimum, its majority report is expected to point to a plausible formula for budgetary discipline and, with pressure from the president, force congressional Republicans to come up with their own plan — not just say no.
Obama is resigned to the fact
that he will have to try again for energy and climate legislation, but how to make it bipartisan re- mains a puzzle. And immigration legislation remains a challenge, not only because of the political focus on the Arizona law dispute but even more, in Obama’s view, because of the moral imperative for restoring law on the border and ending the stigma of nonciti- zenship. As the problem of long-term joblessness has drawn increasing White House attention, thoughts have turned again to the need for large-scale investment in all kinds of infrastructure projects, elec- tronic as well as physical. Obama has set staffers to searching for in- novative ways to finance such projects, with some form of public-private partnership, and has asked them to invite Repub- licans to come forward with ideas that could significantly reduce the ranks of seemingly perma- nent unemployed construction workers.
Visitors to the White House get no sense that Obama accepts as valid the widespread Republican complaint that Speaker Nancy Pe- losi and Majority Leader Harry Reid have systematically excluded the GOP members and their ideas. But if the election goes as most observers expect, Obama seems ready to test the Repub- licans for himself. As he has some- times remarked, he is not the clas- sic party animal.
davidbroder@washpost.com
or the past six months, we led a bipartisan panel of former national security and mili- tary leaders in reviewing the document lay-
ing out the Defense Department’s plans for the next 20 years. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) released this year was prepared by a Penta- gon focused on responding to the threats America faces and winning the wars in which America is engaged. We had some compliments and some criticisms of the QDR, as well as suggestions for crafting a broader longer-term vision for Amer- ica’s military and national power. The issues in our report are sufficiently serious
that we believe an explicit warning is appropriate. The aging inventories and equipment used by the services, the decline in the size of the Navy, esca- lating personnel entitlements, increased overhead and procurement costs, and the growing stress on our military forces amount to a looming train wreck in personnel, acquisition and force struc- ture. We are confident that the trend lines can be reversed, but doing so will require an ongoing, bipartisan concentration of political will. A “busi- ness as usual” attitude toward these concerns could have unacceptable consequences for the nation. Our review found a significant and growing gap
between the military’s “force structure” — its size and inventory of equipment — and the increasing- ly complex and disaggregated missions assigned to it. We deduced four enduring national interests
that will continue to transcend political differenc- es and animate American policy: defense of the homeland; assured access to the sea, air, space and cyberspace; the preservation of a favorable balance of power across Eurasia that prevents au- thoritarian domination of that region; and provid- ing for the global “common good” through such
We need better strategic management, more holistic planning and a better crisis response for today’s world.
actions as humanitarian aid, development assis- tance and disaster relief. We identified the five gravest potential threats to those interests likely to arise over the next gen- eration: radical Islamist extremism and the threat of terrorism; competition from rising global pow- ers in Asia; the continued struggle for power in the Persian Gulf and the Greater Middle East; an accelerating global competition for resources; and persistent problems from failed and failing states. It was clear to us that the military’s personnel policies demand immediate attention. While the volunteer military has been an unqualified suc- cess, its sustainability is at risk, and failure to ad- dress the increasing costs of the all-volunteer force is likely to result in reductions in the force structure, reductions in benefits, and/or a com- promised force. Our mandate from Congress and Defense Secre-
ances in the movies “Burn After Read- ing” and “Wedding Crashers.” One could say that my arrival here four years ago was providential. I was a day away from moving into an apart- ment in Dupont Circle when, passing through Georgetown, I decided to take one quick turn around the near- est block — just to see. And, voila. A small townhouse was for rent, and the people who were to become my neigh- bors and extended family were on the sidewalk. It was cocktail hour. Who could resist? Thus I came to be wedged between
Jack and Craig on one side and Meaghan on the other. Jack and Craig have lived on Olive Street the longest — the span of their 25 years together in what can only be described as the most small-town-values union I’ve ever witnessed. Meaghan, a widow, soon thereafter went to Guatemala to adopt Josephina, who, now bilingual and a determined tricyclist, has be- come the block’s child. Not long ago, Meaghan married Nigel, who added Reagan and Drew to our neighbor- hood brood. There are other beloved neighbors
— Molly, Susan, John. And then there are dogs Teddy and Maggie; Zoe, the three-legged cat; Bella, the cat who single-handedly has managed to solve our back alley’s rat problem; and as- sorted others, including Ollie, the five-pound blind poodle I adopted a year ago. In our time together, we Ol- ive Streeters have celebrated one wed- ding, two funerals (dogs Jake and Bee- zie), Jack and Craig’s 25th anniversa- ry, a couple of blizzards, a Pulitzer Prize and, now, my departure. I am leaving in a few days for a much big- ger town — New York City — to begin a new adventure. Sorting through the clutter that
gathers unbidden in the corners of one’s life got me thinking about the meaning of this little speck on Goo- gle’s Earth. I’ve left a lot of towns and cities here and there, but I’ve never felt as sad. The obvious reason is that I am leaving friends, but more than that, I leave behind a history of daily expressions of what it means to be hu- man: The night a friend died and Jack and Craig took me in; the dozens of times I knocked on their door to say, “I’m hungry and out of food,” knowing
they would say, “You’re in luck!” The daily conversations with
Meaghan over our shared garden wall. The delightful Josephina, who slips scribbled notes through my mail slot or goes to the refrigerator for Coconut water I keep on hand for her. The sound of Craig dragging everyone’s garbage cans to the curb, until one day a careless motorist hit him cross- ing the street. The block has gone to pot since he’s been on crutches. So goes life in the city. But if those
aren’t small-town values, I don’t know what we’re talking about. All the infer- ences one has drawn from reading the foregoing are meant to be taken to heart. Families come in many config- urations. And small-town values have nothing to do with small towns. Josephina, growing up on a street where she is universally beloved, where a gay couple is the most stabi- lizing presence in any of our lives, where wine and laughter and dogs and patience and kindness are her daily diet, is the luckiest child I know. And so am I for having lived here.
Hasta luego, Olive Street.
kathleenparker@washpost.com
tary Robert Gates was to make recommendations. Among our suggestions: Building an alternative force structure with emphasis on increasing the size of the Navy. Recapitalizing and modernizing the weapons and equipment inventory of all the services. Increasing the Defense Department’s ability to contribute to homeland defense and deal with asymmetric threats, including cyberattacks. Making changes in retention, promotion, com- pensation and professional military education — concrete proposals to be followed up on by a new National Commission on Military Personnel — that will serve the interests of service members and strengthen the volunteer force. We remain concerned about the need for acqui- sition reform. Commendably, Gates has empha- sized reducing the cost of new programs and the time it takes to develop them. But we are con- cerned that the typical direction of past reforms — expanding the process involved in making pro- curement decisions — may detract from the clear authority and accountability that alone can re- duce cost and increase efficiency. Our panel discussed the capabilities our gov- ernment must develop and sustain to protect America’s enduring interests. Our men and wom- en in uniform, and their families, meet our de- mands with undaunted courage and selfless sacri- fice. While the missions falling to today’s military lend themselves to increasingly “whole of govern- ment” solutions, the civilian elements of national power — what Gates has called the “tools of soft power” — are insufficient and have been imper- fectly integrated into the process. We need greater civil operational capacity to deploy civilians alongside our military and to partner with inter- national bodies, the private sector and nongovern- mental organizations in a “comprehensive ap- proach” to dealing with failed and failing states where our interests are threatened. Integrating the civilian agencies of our govern- ment into these efforts will require structural and cultural changes in the executive and legislative branches. We need a comprehensive strategic planning process for national security that begins at the top, integrates all elements of national pow- er, and provides the requisite guidance to the rel- evant federal departments and agencies that must work together to confront this century’s challeng- es. Government structures fashioned in the 1940s to address the Soviet Union are disjointed and stovepiped. We need better strategic manage- ment, more holistic planning and a better crisis response for today’s world. This requires sub- stantial change.
America remains a nation at war. Our military is rightly focused on winning those wars. Yet be- yond the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fu- ture holds opportunities and challenges unique to this century. We must help prepare the military for the long-term threats facing America and strengthen the capabilities necessary to meet those threats.
Stephen J. Hadley, a senior adviser at the U.S. Institute of Peace, was national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration. William J. Perry was defense secretary in the Clinton administration.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152