FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2010
staff at the State Department to go to Vietnam in the days before the col- lapse of Saigon. I was one of them. Our action drew stern rebukes and orders that we be arrested and re- turned to the United States. We had each been posted in Vietnam. We went back there at our own expense and in defiance of our superiors be- cause we were alarmed at the lack of planning on the part of our govern- ment regarding the well-being of our Vietnamese employees and allies as the end to the war approached. We believed that the United States had a moral obligation and a humanitarian responsibility to rescue those who had worked and sided with us on the battlefields of that unwinnable conflict.
If I remain today appalled by the callous disregard the government had for our allies in the lead-up to the col- lapse of Saigon, those feelings are trumped by the extraordinary pride all Americans must feel at the re- sponse of both our government and the American people once Saigon fell and the magnitude of the humanitari- an crisis struck home. The outpour- ing of support and the open-arms welcome from Americans for hun- dreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees was a magnificent demon- stration of the strong moral fiber of our country. We face an analogous situation in
Iraq today. We are pulling our troops out of this war. But as we leave, our humanitarian obligations remain. Our war in Iraq has uprooted more than a half a million refugees who have fled to neighboring countries. And we are leaving behind more than a million and a half people who have been forced from their homes within Iraq. Many of these were middle-class workers, merchants, small-business owners — not unlike people you would find in the towns across Amer- ica. Today they live in squalor, in card- board shanty towns with open sewers
MICHAEL GERSON
The lost communicator E
ven Democrats who agree with President Obama’s ideology, re- spect his tenacity and admire
his deliberative manner have begun to whisper: Maybe he isn’t a very good politician. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who is genetically inca- pable of whispering, puts it bluntly: “Ironically, the best communicator I ever saw in a campaign has turned out to be not so good at getting out the message as president.” It is a remarkable reversal. Oba-
ma’s rise from the Illinois legislature to the presidency in four years was a real-deal, honest-to-goodness politi- cal phenomenon. I spent some time on the campaign trail with Obama during the primaries, coming away impressed by his earnestness, his touch of formality, his rhetorical am- bitions — here a little Kennedy, there a little King. He consistently met the highest objective of an ora- tor, both capturing and shaping the public mood. It is now difficult to remember much of what he said. Even my notes had mainly to do with his style. But his mes- sage had some- thing to do with unity, healing and national purpose. The idiom was compelling. The agenda was, well, beside the point. This image emerged unsullied from a battle with the Clinton ma- chine. Democrats were glad to be along for the ride
on the gilded chariot of Obama’s destiny.
Compare this appeal to Obama’s
Labor Day remarks in Milwaukee in- tended to kick off the midterm cam- paign. Obama was self-pitying: “They talk about me like a dog.” Self- absorbed: “I spent some time, as I of- ten do, with our soldiers and our vet- erans.” Snappish: “If I said fish live in the sea, they’d say no.” Pedestrian: “Their slogan is ‘No we can’t.’ Nope, no, no, no.” Humorless. Negative. And determined to drive metaphors on and on until they expire from ex- haustion. The economic car in the ditch gets pulled out while someone sips a Slurpee, but it (the car, not the Slurpee) has dents and mud on it and special interests are somehow riding shotgun, and the transmis- sion gets put in various positions, and if the other guys hits the gas pedal again, the car might go back into the ditch (unless, I suppose, it is in reverse), so we can’t give them the keys because they don’t know how to drive. This criticism is a little (only a lit- tle) unfair. If unemployment were at 6 percent instead of 9.6 percent, the
What we owe the Iraqis T
By L. Craig Johnstone
hirty-five years ago, two young Foreign Service officers went AWOL from Henry Kissinger’s
KLMNO
R
A27 EUGENE ROBINSON
and without clean water. They beg most for the opportunity to educate their children to the levels they them- selves achieved before the war. For these families, the war has been a dis- aster. Americans are not solely re- sponsible for the tragedy that has be- fallen them, but we bear a measure of responsibility, and we cannot leave them and our responsibilities behind. What we need to do first is provide our share of the funding necessary to help those in the most dire circum- stances. The United Nations humani- tarian appeal for aid for vulnerable and displaced Iraqis this year calls for just over $700 million. The United States needs to fund at least half of that amount this year. As the oil infra- structure improves in Iraq, oil rev- enue will follow in five or six years, and the Iraqis can take on the burden themselves. The U.S. contribution would not be a small sum, but would be trifling in comparison to what this war has cost us to date. Next, we need to increase the reset- tlement of Iraqis who have no pros- pect for returning to Iraq or whose situations are so perilous that life in Iraq is simply not possible. This in- cludes, among others, Iraqis who have worked with U.S. institutions and whose lives have been compro- mised by this association. Finally, we need to give the United
Nations a mandate to leave the safety of the Green Zone and go into the squatter slums where the biggest hu- manitarian problems exist. U.N. workers in Baghdad bristle over the restrictions placed on them. The United Nations, by imposing these re- strictions, has become a contributor to the humanitarian problem. I noted the great pride that we all should feel over our response to the humanitarian crisis faced at the end of the war in Vietnam. Whatever one may feel about our involvement in that conflict, we rose, albeit belatedly, to the challenge of the humanitarian consequences of our actions. We should do no less in Iraq.
The writer is a board member of Refugees International and a former U.N. deputy high commissioner for refugees.
JASON REED/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, left, and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu talk at the State Department.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER Your move, Mr. Abbas President Obama
car metaphor would seem positively Lincolnian. Unfavorable events can make any communicator look bad. But Obama’s problem is deeper than his economic challenges. His policies as president — particularly the creation of a health entitlement and his Rooseveltian emphasis on federal spending to create public- sector jobs — have reopened and widened the main partisan division in American political life. Every pub- lic issue has become a harsh, entire- ly predictable debate about the size and role of government. Obama’s initiatives, it turns out, could only be considered moderate on the skewed ideological scale of the Democratic Party. They are not only unpopular; they have made it impossible for him to maintain the pretense of be- ing a unifying, healing, once-in-a- generation leader. It is the agenda that undermined the idiom. With that image stripped away, Americans found Obama to be a somber, thoughtful, touchy, profes- sorial, conven- tionally liberal political figure. Some like the de- mythologized Obama; others do not. But this profile would not be exceptional or remarkable in any town boast- ing a university faculty lounge. And it does not make Obama a particularly compelling party leader in a diffi- cult midterm election. One of
the best communicators I ever saw in a campaign became an ineffective messenger as president — precisely because the appeal that made him a phenomenon is no longer credible. So all the president’s handlers try
anything that might work. In Mil- waukee, Obama was the feisty street fighter with a union card. But, with- out humor, his jabs seemed sour and mocking. In Cleveland, Obama per- sonalized the economic argument by repeatedly attacking House Minor- ity Leader John Boehner — as though Americans have any idea who this tanned and sinister figure might be. The president added some detail about his grandparents’ eco- nomic struggles. But few political figures look less comfortable with their heart on their sleeve. “At this point,” says Rendell, “there’s noth- ing to lose, so let it all roll.” But weeks before the November elec- tion, Obama the communicator seems lost. His challenge reaches beyond
rhetoric and beyond the midterm elections: finding not only a new agenda but a new persona.
michaelgerson@washpost.com
for structuring the latest rounds of Middle East talks correctly. Finally, we’re leaving behind interim agree- ments, of which the most lamentable were the Oslo accords of 1993. The logic then was that issues so complicated could only be addressed step by step in the expectation that things get easier over time. In fact, they got harder. Israel made concrete con- cessions — bringing in Yasser Arafat to run the West Bank and Gaza — in re- turn for which Israel received growing threats, continuous incitement and fi- nally a full-scale terror war that killed more than a thousand innocent Israelis.
T
Among the victims was the Israeli peace movement and its illusions about Palestinian acceptance of Israel. The Is- raeli left, mugged by reality, is now moribund. And the Israeli right is chas- tened. No serious player believes it can hang on forever to the West Bank. This has created a unique phenom- enon in Israel — a broad-based national consensus for giving nearly all the West Bank in return for peace. The moment is doubly unique because the only man who can deliver such a deal is Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu — and he is prepared to do it. Hence the wisdom of how the Obama administration has shaped the coming talks: No interim deals, no partial agreements. There are no mutual con- cessions that can be made separately within the great issues — territory, se- curity, Jerusalem, the so-called right of return — to reach agreement. The con- cessions must be among these issues — thus if Israel gives up its dream of a united Jerusalem, for example, the Pal- estinians in return give up their dream of the right of return. Most important is the directive is- sued by U.S. peace negotiator George Mitchell: What’s under discussion is a final settlement of the conflict. Mean- ing, no further claims. Conflict over. What’s standing in the way? Israeli
settlements? Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, one of Israel’s most nation- alist politicians, lives in a settlement and has said openly that to achieve peace he and his family would abandon their home. What about the religious settlers? Might they not resist? Some tried that during the Gaza withdrawal, clinging to synagogue rooftops. What
THE PLUM LINE
Excerpts from Greg Sargent’s blog on domestic politics and debate on the Hill:
voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line
Don’t touch those tax cuts for the rich
Even as President Obama is mounting a strong stand in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, and even as he’s sig- naling that it will be a major campaign is- sue, more and more vulnerable House Dems are bolting in the other direction. Here’s a quick rundown of Dems in tough
races who are coming out against ending the tax cuts for the rich: Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut says he supports a temporary extension, because earning $250,000 annually “does not make you really rich.” Rep. Bobby Bright of Alabama came out against ending the tax cuts, because “a vast majority of my constituents . . . don’t be- lieve in tax increases on anybody at this point in time.” Rep. Ron Klein of Florida wants a one- year extension of the cuts, including those for the rich, because “right now, our top
economic priority has to be job creation.” Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia says the tax cuts should remain because the recov- ery remains “fragile.” Rep. Gary Peters of Michigan wants the cuts to continue because “anything less jeopardizes economic recovery.” Rep. Harry Mitchell of Arizona says he “strongly” opposes letting the tax cuts lapse because “we need to encourage investment, not discourage it.”
Along these lines, a question for you readers. Polls show public support for let- ting the tax cuts for the rich expire. But these are national polls and don’t tell us what’s going on in these marginal districts. Are you seeing evidence on the ground
that supporting the president on this is as toxic in these districts as these Democrats seem to have concluded it is? Is this really all that risky a position to support? Or have skittish Dems concluded in advance they can’t win the argument if Republicans ac- cuse them of “raising taxes,” even if it only means letting tax cuts for the wealthy ex- pire that were supposed to sunset all along?
he prospects are dim but the process is right. The Obama ad- ministration is to be commended
happened? Jewish soldiers pulled them down and took them away. If Israel is offered real peace, the soldiers will do that again. The obstacle today, as always, is Pal- estinian refusal to accept a Jewish state. That has been the core issue of the conflict from 1947 through Camp David 2000, when Arafat rejected Is- rael’s extraordinarily generous peace offer, made no counteroffer and started a terror war (the Second Intifada) two months later. A final peace was there to be had. It remains on the table today. Unfortu- nately, there’s no more sign today of a Palestinian desire for final peace than there was at Camp David. Even if Pales- tinian President Mahmoud Abbas wants such an agreement (doubtful but possible), he simply doesn’t have the authority. To accept a Jewish state, Ab- bas needs some kind of national con- sensus behind him. He doesn’t even have a partial consensus. Hamas, which exists to destroy Israel, controls part of Palestine (Gaza) and is a power- ful rival to Abbas’s Fatah even in his home territory of the West Bank. Indeed, this week Abbas flatly told
al-Quds, the leading Palestinian news- paper, “We won’t recognize Israel as a Jewish state.” Nice way to get things off on the right foot. What will Abbas do? Unable and/or
unwilling to make peace, he will exploit President Obama’s tactical blunder, the settlement freeze imposed on Israel de- spite the fact that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations had gone on without such a precondition for 16 years prior. Abbas will walk out if the freeze is not re- newed on Sept. 26. You don’t need to be prescient to see that coming. Abbas has already announced that is what he’ll do.
That would solve all of Abbas’s prob-
lems. It would obviate signing on to a final settlement, fend off Hamas and make Israel the fall guy. The trifecta. Why not walk out? The world, which already condemns Israel even for self-defense, will be only too eager to blame Israel for the negotia- tion breakdown. And there is growing pressure to create a Palestinian state even if the talks fail — i.e., even if the Palestinians make no concessions at all. So why make any? The talks are well designed. Unfortu-
nately, Abbas knows perfectly well how to undermine them.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Fighting corruption, Afghan-style
J
ust how corrupt is the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan? It should be clear by now that Presi- dent Hamid Karzai doesn’t want us
to know. He’d prefer that we just keep sending our troops and our dollars, and not ask too many questions. Karzai’s government announced this week that American and allied ad- visers, dispatched to Kabul to help in- vestigate massive and endemic graft, will no longer be allowed to do any ac- tual investigating. Karzai’s chief of staff told The Post that the govern- ment is still determined to eliminate corruption, but intends to do so “with- in an Afghan framework.” And what a framework it is. Karzai
is evidently upset that foreign ad- visers helped build a case against one of his high-ranking aides, Mohammad Zia Salehi, who is charged with solic- iting a bribe — $10,000 plus a new car — from a money-exchange firm. In re- turn, according to the charges, Salehi was supposed to derail an investiga- tion into allegations that the com- pany, called New Ansari, had illegally shipped $3 billion in cash out of the country. Most of the funds ended up in Dubai, where many of the wealthy Af- ghan elite have settled.
Salehi was arrested, but Karzai in-
tervened to have him released from jail just seven hours later. Karzai has said that the use of wiretaps to build the case against Salehi was a violation of “human rights principles.” I won- der what other standard investigative techniques don’t fit within the “Af- ghan framework.” A serious, sustained probe of high-
level Afghan corruption might hit even closer to home for Karzai and his family. His brother, Mahmoud Karzai, is one of the major shareholders in Kabul Bank, the nation’s largest finan- cial institution, which almost col- lapsed this week amid allegations that it was essentially being looted by po- litically connected insiders. Mah- moud Karzai lives in what the Finan- cial Times describes as a “beachside villa” in Dubai.
Hamid Karzai has said that the use of wiretaps to build the case against Mohammad Zia Salehi was a violation of “human rights principles.”
President Karzai’s half-brother, Ah-
med Wali Karzai, is the most powerful political figure in the Kandahar re- gion — and also, according to persis- tent allegations, a major player in Af- ghanistan’s illegal drug trade. He de- nies any involvement in the opium business, and Hamid Karzai vouches for him, so that’s that. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. NATO Secretary-General Anders
Fogh Rasmussen, who was in Wash- ington this week to consult with Presi- dent Obama, told The Post that he has repeatedly urged Afghan officials to crack down on corruption. “All these stories about irregularities and cor- ruption are damaging for public sup- port for our presence in Afghanistan,” he said, displaying his mastery of understatement. At this point, it’s impossible to
avoid the conclusion that U.S. soldiers are fighting and dying to prop up a government willing to tolerate — and, allegedly, eager to profit from — cor- ruption on an epic scale, including vast commerce in illegal drugs. It’s also hard not to conclude that billions of dollars sent to Afghanistan by U.S. taxpayers — intended for worthy proj- ects such as roads and schools — have been stolen by wealthy, well-connect- ed power brokers who spend much of their time luxuriating on the beaches of Dubai. I’m not naive. Anyone familiar with the history of American foreign policy knows that this isn’t the first time the United States has lavished guns and butter on a corrupt regime. We did it all the time when policymakers be- lieved we needed allies, however un- savory, who would serve as bulwarks against communism. But the way we supported, say, the old Duvalier klep- tocracy in Haiti is different from what we’re doing in Afghanistan, where our generosity is not just in dollars but in young American lives. This is more like our embrace of the corrupt gov- ernment in South Vietnam — and we all know how that turned out. The Afghan government will never be able to win the nation’s allegiance if officials are seen, with justification, as being more intent on stealing than leading. U.S. and allied officials say that Karzai understands how impor- tant it is to end the corruption. The Af- ghan president’s actions, however, suggest otherwise. As for Rasmussen’s warning, he’s a
little late; public opinion has already turned against the war. But now that we understand how things work, we could make our Afghanistan mission vastly more efficient: Bring the troops home and just send duffel bags full of cash to Kabul, Kandahar and Dubai.
eugenerobinson@washpost.com
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