Monday, January 15, 2007

The reductio ad absurdum of American foreign policy...

There is an interesting aspect to watching American politics. For all of their tub-thumping about their (self-appointed) position as the bastion of freedom, the home of democracy, there is still the occasional hole that appears in the fabric.

One of those came this morning, with my morning radio news.

The United States government has admitted the Department of Defence and the CIA have been spying on the financial dealings of Americans.

The military and the CIA are restricted in their spying activities inside the United States and are barred from conducting traditional domestic law enforcement work in the country.

Vice-President Dick Cheney has confirmed the main outline of the report, and defended the activities as legal. He told Fox News on Sunday the spying is necessary to protect military installations inside the United States.

He called the spying "a perfectly legitimate activity" that the military and CIA had authority to carry out going back "three or four decades" and more recently confirmed in the Patriot Act adopted following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.


Hmm… So, the first stop is Fox News. Here y’go…

The Pentagon and to a lesser extent the CIA have been using a little-known power to look at the banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage within the United States, officials said Saturday.

"It is our understanding that the intelligence community agencies make such requests on a limited basis," said Carl Kropf, a spokesman for the Office of the National Intelligence Director, which oversees all 16 spy agencies in the government.
The national security letters permit the executive branch to seek records about people in terror and spy investigations without a judge's approval or grand jury subpoena.


The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the lead agency on domestic counterterrorism and espionage, has issued thousands of national security letters since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.


The New York Times reported on expanded use of the technique by the Pentagon and CIA in an article posted Saturday on the Internet.


The vast majority of national security letters are issued by the FBI, but in very rare circumstances they have been used by the CIA before and after 9/11, said a U.S. intelligence official who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

None of the officials reached by the AP commented about the extent of use by the Defense Department agencies, but the Times said military intelligence officers have sent the letters in up to 500 investigations.




Now in the side-bar to that article was a link to the video of the interview with Cheney. No mention of the comments and confirmation of the story as stated by the Herald. Another “hmm” perhaps? Nah. Only joking.

Also on the side-bar was the “latest” RealClearPolitics poll averages. No need to comment there other than to observe that FoxNews did not poll in January. Will they in February?

Following the sidebars again led to Tom Bevan. Now he is a columnist who at least writes with a level of cogency even if I disagree with his politik.

It is rather strange to hear Bevan in one of his recent op-ed RCP pieces suggest…

In general, if I sound pessimistic about the president's "new way forward" in Iraq, it's because I am. That being said, Bush's plan does have a chance of succeeding, and we should all cross our fingers and hope that it does.


I think that I can sympathise with Bevan, at least from the point of view that if you are seeking a life of certainty and security, wealth and happiness, then the current international situation - US vis a vis ROW - would leave much to be desired. After all, it is apparent that the enemies at home are as plentiful and as dangerous as those in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Iran.

It gets even worse when, with all of the best intentions in the Middle East, Ms Rice starts talking to the Palestinians - how is THAT for a totally new approach!!. Not worse in that she is ding that, more power to her arm I say. No, when the Administration - in the form of John Bolton - announces to the world that her efforts are not only doomed to fail but are a total waste of time. When a leading member of your diplomatic team is sabotaging the best efforts for some while to break the Israel/Palestine impass then one really does have to wonder at the level of management and control... the enemy within as well. I wonder if the CIA has a "John Bolton" on its lists for a security letter.

Most galling of all, though, must be the knowledge that US foreign policy has been reduced to "cross your fingers and hope it works".

17 comments:

Dave Justus said...

I posted on the NSL letters, and I don't approve of the way they have done them, still, I think you are mistaken in a couple of things.

I am not conversant with New Zealand law, but I am pretty sure that law enforcement in Great Britain and France, for example, has considerably more powers relating to invasion of privacy etc. then they do in the U.S. Is their a 'hole' in those fabrics as well?

Also, John Bolton is not a member of the Administration at this point in time, so any statements made by him are purely those of a private citizen. Whether his belief is accurate or not, is of course debatable, but given the history of negotiation attempts with Palestinians and Israel, one certainly can understand that predicting failure would be the 'safe' bet.

Of course, to some extent in honest view of foreign policy is always, cross your fingers and hope it works. Certainly that is true in any time the dangers are signifigant, although I would put it as cross your fingers and hope that it works and if it doesn't try something new.

The probligo said...

Is Bolton no longer the US representative to the UN? Missed that if he is not!

You (and Bolton) may well be right about Rice's work in Palestine/Israel. I for one certainly hope you are not. But that, IMHO, is a very feeble reason for not trying at least.

The very big obstacle, and this comes back to the Syrian question we were debating, comes from the presentation of "solutions" as fait accompli rather than for discussion and negotiation. So if Rice goes to Palestine with a list of things that can not be negotiated then her chances of success are reduced by that much. If the "solution" is in the form "Here are the facts..." then it closes the door on every alternative except (my point on Syria) total capitulation.

Another good example of the same thing - "...you are either with us or against us...". There is no room for discussion or debate. It is definitive, final and non-negotiable.

And THAT does not work...

Dave Justus said...

Bolton is not longer ambassador to the UN.

Indeed, the lede in the article you quote makes that clear: " As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meets with Mideast leaders to jumpstart the peace process, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton called the attempt a waste of time." The 'former' is a big clue.

Is it your position that everything SHOULD be negotiable? Supporting a terror group is negotiable? Perhaps if Hamas only attacks Israeli civilians on alternate weeks that would be ok?

I think that there are things we don't negotiate about, that they are flat our unacceptable.

The probligo said...

"Is it your position that everything SHOULD be negotiable? Supporting a terror group is negotiable?"

Start with the idea that if I were to refuse to speak with you about this idea (because my position is non-negotiable), then I would have the feeling that I am right and you would be left with the feeling that I am an arrogant prick.

And both of us would be wrong.

There is a difference between holding a non-negotiable position and a total refusal to talk.

It is one thing to listen, and then to explain (once again) why it is that you can not agree.

It is even better if one listens, and then suggests that even a minor modification to the opponent's position would bring them closer to your position.

But a blank refusal to talk only results in further entrenchment and no dialogue.

If Syria wishes to talk about involvement in Iraq (as reported by WaPo) then in my mind that is an excellent step forward. It does not mean that anyone will accede to their proposals. But at the very least there is dialogue. At the very least it would give the US negotiators the opportunity to suggest that Syria might follow some of the lines you have suggested...

Dave Justus said...

You are moving the goalposts a little here. In the previous comment you pretty much said that we shouldn't have a list of things that can't be negiotiated. Now you are saying that that is ok, but we have to be willing to talk.

I think you have a very simplistic view of negotiations, equating it to 'listening.' Enter a negotiation it itself a diplomatic act. It has consequences, not all of which are obviously apparent.

As an example, toward the end of the Vietnam war, there was a lengthly low level negotiation process as to the size and shape of the table for the formal negotiation conference. It wasn't of course because either side gave a damn about the table, but it was a way for each side to test the desperation of the other to conclude the negotiations themselves. Giving in quickly, simply because the issue was trivial, would be a signal that you are desparate for the negotions to conclude quickly, and therefore would demonstate that you had a weaker hand, giving the other side a tremendous advantage in the final outcome.

Similar dynamics exist in agreeing to negotiate in the first place.

Of course we should 'listen' and communicate in all manner of ways, and we do. Obviously we 'talk' to Syria all the time, and they talk to us. There are a variety of channels that have been developed for just this purpose. Certainly it is possible that now is an appropriate time to enter some formal negotiations with them, but the analysis of whether that is the case or not is a whole lot more complicated than 'listening to others is good.'

The probligo said...

"In the previous comment you pretty much said that we shouldn't have a list of things that can't be negotiated. Now you are saying that that is ok, but we have to be willing to talk"

In my experience "negotiation" comprises an open agenda but with each side having predetermined limits on acceptable and not acceptable. That open agenda (usually) narrows rapidly to the points which are at issue.

Mr Bush, and from your support you also, seem to believe that "negotiation" can not start until opposing positions are pre-defined to the point that no effective discussion or debate can take place.

As I said in an earlier comment on the matter, the expectation that is conveyed by Bush's comment is that the only way that Syria can get to talk to the US about (Israel) is through the door of total capitulation to the US's position on (Israel).

Until such time as you accept in toto what we say about (Israel) there is nothing to talk about.

That is not negotiation. It is blackmail and worse.

Explanation - (Israel) could be any other topic at issue.

Dave Justus said...

Diplomacy is different from negotiations in other venues, as I already pointed out.

Of course President Bush has sponsored many negotiations, as I am sure you are well aware. Some have been successful, others have not.

I don't know of any diplomatic negotiations in the past several hundred years that have taken place without at least an agenda being set up before hand. Perhaps your vast expirience can point out to me where I am mistaken there.

It is of course silly to try and argue that Bush NEVER believes in negotiation in a post about the Secretary of State, Americas most important diplomat, talking to the Palestinians.

Look, if all you want to do is bash America we won't be very productive. At times, you are more intelligent and interesting then that. I think I made a pretty strong case that sometimes at least, not negotiating is itself a useful diplomatic tactic. Rather than rebut that in any meaningful way, you chose instead to claim some vast unknown expirience and then move to mockery.

The probligo said...

Your statements "Bush (unlike some) knows enough not to talk with extortionists..." and "Syria wants to be bought off. Therefore Syria is an extortionist) implies that therefore Bush would (should) not talk to Syria.

I rest that there...

You are of course right in that by the time the meetings get to the highest levels there is an agenda, and in fact most of the issues have been resolved, ignored, or buried in platitudes.

The point here is that the real diplomacy has already been done.

The current example must surely be the hotly denied (by both sides) unofficial, private discussions between a retired very senior diplomat from Israel and a retired Syrian General and other like minded parties. Who knows what manner of progress that they might have already made?

As for your comment that I only want to bash AMerica, that is not true. I think I spoke both supportively and positively of Rice's attempts to get some kind of dialogue between Israel and Palestine. That was in this very thread. I think that one of the points you took issue with was that I had pointed out the impact the EX-representative to the UN might have on those discussions. I think that my reaction was one of dismay that Rice's work could be derailed by the EX-representative.

Dave Justus said...

In the narrow realm of Syria's involvement with Iraq, I stand by my contention that their diplomatic feelers that you think are positive signs are asking to be bought off. I don't think any positive progress can be made by that engagement, and I think encouraging it, by opening negotiations on the subject would be detrimental. They would likely conclude that the 'payoff' would be availible, but they would have to up the stakes.

Syria's disagreements with Israel have NOTHING to do with Iraq. We should not support Syria's attempt to gain leverage over Israel by agreeing that the two issues are connected. That would be stupid, and would reward very bad bahavior.

Should Israel and Syria engage in diplomacy? Of course they should. I fully support that. A peaceful resolution to the issues that plague them would be great. If I was Israel though, I would indeed insist on Syria ceasing to support Hezbollah before any formal negotiations to place. There isn't any point in negotiating peacefully with a nation that is shipping rockets to be placed on your borders by your avowed enemies.

And of course their are issues that the U.S. and Syria can, and should discuss. That happens constantly, and I agree with it. However, inviting Syria to a regional conference to pressure Israel and work out Iraqs internal issues is simply not a useful strategy. It tells Syria and Iran that they will get a better negotiating stance if they meddle in Iraq, since we don't want them to do that, we shouldn't reward the behavior.

The probligo said...

And there we substantially disagree.

Your apparent disagreement with the diplomatic approach (at least as regards Syria), is mirrored by my intense dislike of the "settlement" of disputes through the use of guns.

And before you get your dander tangled with your knickers again, I am thinking as much of China vs Taiwan, Indonesia vs Timor L'Este, Tamil vs Sri Lanka as I am US vs anybody.

Dave Justus said...

I don't approve of the settlement of disputes with guns either. It is a bad thing. It is sometimes though not the worst thing.

I think Syria is like the bully that threatens to hit you unless you give him your lunch money. It is great to ask him to stop, out of an appeal to common descency, but if he refuses, trying to negotiate a settlement is self defeating. While you might manage to only have to pay him half your lunch money, it will still just encourage his behavior.

Dave Justus said...

I don't approve of the settlement of disputes with guns either. It is a bad thing. It is sometimes though not the worst thing.

I think Syria is like the bully that threatens to hit you unless you give him your lunch money. It is great to ask him to stop, out of an appeal to common descency, but if he refuses, trying to negotiate a settlement is self defeating. While you might manage to only have to pay him half your lunch money, it will still just encourage his behavior.

The probligo said...

"I think Syria is like the bully that threatens to hit you unless you give him your lunch money..."

... a summation that could be applied to any number of nations if taken in its wider sense.

But that is another point at which we would differ.

Dave Justus said...

Perhaps.

I don't think you see a difference between a bully threatening for lunch money and someone threatening that bully that if he continues this behavior he himself will get beat up.

I see a big difference between the two.

This is not to say that I think the U.S. has always been on the right side, and will always of necessity be on the right side. In some cases, certain trade disputes for example, I do think we have been much more like the bully then the white knight.

Disavowing the possibility of the white knight though, as you seem to do, leaves us only with bullys.

Al said...

Getting back to your post (the domestic spying part), I feel the need to make a smart remark: it all comes of our need to be the freers of all the oppressed peoples in the world.

I'm developing the sense that "The War On..." whatever - Terror, Poverty, Drugs, what have you - is/are just a part of a larger war on Freedom. All the crises government pulls out its guns for are wars on freedom.

The probligo said...

Al, in large part that is where I started - the enemy within rather than the enemy without...

I got myself sidetracked :o

The probligo said...

"I don't think you see a difference between a bully threatening for lunch money and someone threatening that bully that if he continues this behavior he himself will get beat up."

You're right there...

The free dictionary -
"Bully -
1. A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.
2. A hired ruffian; a thug.
3. A pimp."

I understand that the implication of your post is that the US has (in some strange way) been "bullied" by terrorists (the bullies that steal your lunch). "Thug" certainly could fit that meaning of the word. But rather than get too deep into the semantics let's just take the primary meaning.

If you are talking terrorists as "bullies", I think that I would compare them more accurately to the 10 y-o squirt who sneaks up behind the big bully and give him a swift and accurate kick in the buttocks before disappearing at speed around the corner of the building. More the act of a coward than that of a bully, but certainly effective at getting the school bully well and truly riled up...