Iraqis step up, or America steps out

By Ellen Ratner
I have some good news and some bad news – depending on your point of view – for you, my readers. For the next several weeks, this space will be filled with exclusive weekly reports from Richard F. Miller, military affairs correspondent for Talk Radio News Service (he is also my cousin and is 29 hours older than me, although light years apart politically).



By the time you read this, he will be en route to the U.S. Army's 3rd Heavy Combat Brigade Team, 4th Infantry Division, which is stationed at FOB Warhorse in Iraq's Diyala Province. For three weeks, he will be reporting on all aspects of life for our men and women in Iraq. He's made this trip twice before, reporting from the USS Kitty Hawk during OIF-I, and last March from the 3rd Battalion, 8th Marines in Fallujah.

I have also tasked him with answering the question now on everyone's mind: Given the rivers of blood flowing daily through Iraqi streets, marketplaces and mosques, is Bush's war effort collapsing?

Those of you who have followed this column already know my answer: I opposed Bush's invasion and repeatedly warned of the consequences that have now beset our country's policy, and endanger the bravest of the brave – our uniformed servicemen and women. But Richard is likely to have a different opinion, since we are on opposite sides of this issue. In short, for the next several weeks, this space may not be very liberal, but it will certainly remain proud. I wish Cousin Richard God-speed, and am confident that whatever he finds, he will report it as he sees it.

Now, here is my take on recent events. Informed observers have always understood that Iraq is best compared to the legendary fires at tire dumps, where millions of tires are stacked in towering mounds. A fire can smolder for years in the heart of these rubber mountains, virtually undetected, until suddenly it breaks forth in white-hot flames, whose acrid smoke can still choke people who are miles away.

Thus it is with Iraq. Civil war has been smoldering under the surface for years. Sectarian militias were arming. Revenge killings – Shia-on-Sunni and Sunni-on-Shia – have always been in evidence, usually appearing in reports of large numbers of bodies found, hands bound, shot in the head and, invariably, often erroneously blamed on "the guerillas."

Iran has been assisting the Shia-side of this lethal equation with agents, weapons and cash. The Sunnis have received assistance, not just from radical jihadi types (actually, a small minority of the resistance) but also with cash and weapons from former Baathists, as well as support from "mainstream" Arab countries like Saudi Arabia. More alarmingly, there is growing evidence that the Iraqi government, on whose behalf so much American and Iraqi blood has been spilled and treasure spent, is in fact a vehicle for sectarian violence. Shia militias have apparently infiltrated the Interior Ministry, and are using government jails to torture their enemies and local police as death squads for revenge against their ethnic enemies.

Thus, the destruction of the Askariyah Shrine in Samarra was not the "cause" of the recent violence, but rather a symptom of a progressive and perhaps terminal illness that began long ago. And if this analysis is correct – and I would caution my conservative readers now to take these warnings seriously, as they are the same ones that have been issued repeatedly from the left as well as certain right-wing circles (e.g., Brent Scrowcroft) – the question now is what to do to extract our forces from this mess and perhaps save the country ... as in our country.

I am convinced that our presence in Iraq represents a "security subsidy" to Iraqis. They believe that, somehow, Uncle Sam will bail them out no matter how much havoc is sown by the sectarians, Baathists, criminals and jihadis. In short, in a very perverse way, our presence is the problem. That's why Congressman Jack Murtha had it right – the large U.S. footprint in Iraq keeps the insurgency shooting at the same time that ordinary Iraqis grow complacent. By the way, according to reports, a growing faction in the Pentagon shares my view.

The bottom line is this – if Iraqis are unwilling to step up, then it's time for America to step out. This is not about "cutting and running." Murtha's views, which I share, called for U.S. forces to withdraw, and then, with the consent of our genuine allies in the region such as Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey, to remain watchful. This would serve as a warning to Iran not to get too ambitious by exploiting the vacuum that our own ineptitude created in Iraq.

It's my new slogan: Iraqis step up, or America steps out. It might be only a bumper sticker, but it's also true.

It's all about the trust, Stupid

By Ellen Ratner
Few commentators have hit on the real reason why the public – and a rather impressive bipartisan political coalition – almost instantly congealed to protest President Bush's politically tone-deaf decision to allow the United Arab Emirates-owned Dubai Port World to operate major American port facilities: It's less about trusting the UAE, and more about trusting Bush about trusting the UAE.



This isn't just semantics. Clearly, this administration has burned all its bridges and then some when it comes to convincing Americans that it is trustworthy. Where to begin? Almost half the public was initially convinced that Bush stole the 2000 election. But even putting this admittedly partisan issue aside, one can still point to the questionable rationale for invading Iraq, Saddam Hussein's vanished stockpiles of WMDs, the absolutely incompetent administration of the post-war aftermath, or the hopelessly muddled response to Hurricane Katrina (which continues to the present hour.)

So when Bush stood up on the ports issue and essentially said, "Trust me" – the UAE has been our reliable ally in the War on Terror, or that the UAE's government is different now than in the bad old days, or that we shouldn't worry because port security will remain in American hands – no one believes him. Many Americans couldn't find the UAE on a map, and so must rely on their president to exert leadership, backed by the full expertise of the federal government, to advise them and build support for potentially controversial decisions. That is the essence of presidential leadership.

But this president, like a shop-a-holic given a charge card, has blown through his credit limit and now that he might wish to use his card for some important purpose, discovers that it's being declined everywhere. In sum, his word is no good.

Maybe if a Reagan, an Eisenhower, a Kennedy or a Truman tried to make the case in wartime for dealing with a country that many Americans today associate with "the enemy," the people might've taken a chance, given the president the benefit of the doubt – in short, trusted him. But this president, who first threatened to veto any measures Congress might pass to cancel the deal, then admitted the very next day that he was as surprised as anybody else to discover the very existence of the deal, inspires no confidence.

Bush's squandering of the trust element is everything. Given his inept conviction about WMDs (and remember, even after none were found, he still gave the departing CIA director a Presidential Medal of Freedom!), and the tragic consequences still unfolding from this administration's myopic post-war planning in Iraq, why should any American trust him when he declares that the United Arab Emirates are in fact our staunch allies, good friends and committed to reform?
Admittedly, there are politics aplenty intersecting with this issue. Democrats, who have long sought a way to undermine the Republicanization of national security are now able to claim that it is little more than a dollar-driven fraud – as I wrote last week, many Americans now believe that the Republicans' real motto is, "Salute the flag, cash the check." Meanwhile, some Republicans, lusting for a way to put some distance between themselves and this very unpopular administration, are using the ports deal to do just that.

But the truth is that whatever the politicians' true motives may be, they wouldn't get to first base without massive, spontaneous public support. And the way it looks now, these politicians are rounding third base.

This lack of trust in Bush – and not racism or so-called Islamophobia – is what's really driving opposition to the deal. While there are surely some morons who oppose the ports deal because the buyers happen to be from a Muslim country, responsible Democrats or Republicans do not number among them. The Bush administration has spilled lots of ink frightening Americans. And not without some cause, Americans believed him. Like every other wartime president throughout our history, Bush was given leeway to define and characterize the enemy. And one of the contributing factors that he placed as a centerpiece of his characterization was the relationship between jihadism and the existence of undemocratic, corrupt regimes that repressed their people and indulged intolerant mutations of Islam. It was always understood by many Americans that among those regimes were several unnamed Persian Gulf kingdoms.

Now, Bush comes before the people and asks them to trust him – that Dubai is different than say, the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia, the Iranians, or the Syrians, or the host of jihadis from "friendly" countries Egypt, Jordan or Pakistan.

Trust President Bush? Sure thing.

Salute the Flag, cash the check

By Ellen Ratner
Most conservatives I know resent liberal criticisms of the War on Terror. They claim that unlike President Bush, liberals refuse to "stand tall" and "tough it out." Democrats won't "hit back," or yell "Hey, get some!" at our terrorist enemies.



And when liberal films like Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" point out the cozy relationship between the Bush administration and fat-cat Arab potentates, lubricated by Middle East oil and Arabian petrodollars sliding into the greasy pockets of those tough, patriotic Republican "consultants" flacking on the sheiks' behalf, my conservative friends dismiss the criticism as just more noise from the loony left.


Well, I say if it has webbed feet, white feathers and goes "Quack! Quack!" don't let anybody tell you different, it's a duck. This week, the Treasury Department's little known Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States voted to let Dubai Ports World – a company 100 percent owned by the United Arab Emirates – take significant operational control of six major U.S. ports.

And now the duck has quacked – big time.

Never heard of CFIUS? Most people haven't but soon you will – I just hope it's not in the aftermath of a mushroom cloud rising over some American city. Sound extreme? Consider this: According to the New York Post, the 9-11 hijackers were financed by banking networks headquartered in the UAE – the sheiks running these countries want your ports, but reportedly won't report on the full extent of their dealings with al-Qaida.

President Bush claims the UAE are our "friends and allies" in the War on Terror, but if you think so, try building a church or a synagogue in Dubai. Or try buying a New Testament there – or call the State Department and ask them if it's OK to wear your crucifix outside your shirt. (And after the State Department has told you that would be a stupid idea, you may want to ask them why it's OK for Dubai to own our port operations.)

The law gives the president the power to block foolish and self-destructive acquisitions like these. After all, haven't the "cut-and-run" Democrats been screaming ever since 9-11 for better protection of our ports? Hasn't every security expert worth their salt been declaring that port security is at the top of the list of unfinished business for our protection? And every time these concerns are raised, all Republicans seem to do is stare at their shoes. I mean, how many suitcase-sized nuclear bombs do you suppose you can fit in one average ship-borne container? Only a thousand?

So my conservative friends, the president is, "hanging tough," right? Well, not quite. Last week, it was reported that the White House approved the deal. Why would they do that?

If you smell something rotten, don't hold your nose quite yet – your country's life may depend on taking a closer sniff. It turns out that CFIUS is chaired by Treasury Secretary John Snow – who joined the Treasury from CSX Corporation, which just happened to sell its foreign port assets to Dubai Ports World in 2004 – just before the old Snow-man took his government job. So I suppose that what's good for CSX is good for America, as they once said of General Motors?

But Snow's heavy petting with Arabia isn't the only connection. It turns out that one David Sanborn, recently appointed by our White House Rambo as administrator of the Transportation Department's Maritime Administration, ran American and European ops for – hold on to your seats, now – Dubai Ports World.

So while our sons and daughters are being killed in Iraq, and while we're paying near record-high prices for gasoline and Exxon-Mobil is making record profits, our war president approves deals like this. This isn't exactly a move one would have expected from a Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman or Reagan. But those were the days when a war president understood the difference between our friends and our enemies.


I don't agree with the Washington Times editorial section on much, but they posed a good question last week: "The root question is this: Why should the United States have to gamble its port security on whether a subsidiary of the government of the United Arab Emirates happens to remain an antiterrorism ally?" Of course, they answered "No." I would only add,"Of course not, no!"

Here's a question for you: Suppose John Kerry or Ted Kennedy had proposed this deal? Can you imagine the screams from Republicans? But I guess they're just a bunch of "cut-and-run" liberals. Today, in order to be a patriot, you have to wear a flag pin on your lapel, squander American life in Iraq while you sell out your country's security to any sheik with an oily smile, have lots of dough and a horde of greasy Washington lobbyists.

The Bush administration's motto: "Salute the Flag, cash the check."

Karma and Dogma on Evesdropping

By Ellen Ratner
Karma and Dogma on Evesdropping
By: Ellen Ratner

The other day I was driving around Washington, D.C., trying to make sense of the news that Congresswoman Heather Wilson, R-N.M., had issued a statement questioning the Bush administration's warrant-less, FISA-less and lawless use of wiretaps to eavesdrop on Americans. What puzzled me was that Rep. Wilson is no lefty.



She's the first Air Force Academy graduate to serve in the House. Moreover, she's a Rhodes Scholar, and holds masters and doctorate degrees from Oxford University. And if this isn't enough, in 2000 the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also awarded her its Spirit of Free Enterprise Award. With her resume, I'd award her the Red State Rep of the Year Award for almost any year.

So I wondered what was up. Suddenly, out of nowhere, a sports car zipped in front of me and I noticed its bumper sticker: "MY KARMA JUST RAN OVER YOUR DOGMA."

And just as suddenly, everything made sense. Heather Wilson is the leading edge of a split in the Republican Party over Bush's illegal wiretapping. The reason is that the Republican Party's genuine, traditional karma of small government, strict constitutional construction, rigid adherence to due process and a temperamental unwillingness to revise any of the foregoing on the mere say-so of some temporary occupant of the White House – just ran over Bush Dogma. And what is that Dogma? That the legitimate presidential war powers contained in the Constitution can be used to nullify the rest of that grand document, especially the Bill of Rights.

Let's try an experiment, shall we? I want you to guess who made the following statement:


The men who wrote our Constitution were quite familiar with armed conflict. Even in time of war, they feared a strong executive with a standing army that might erode the precious liberties that they had risked everything to secure.


The American Civil Liberties Union? George Soros? Ted Kennedy? No – it was Rep. Heather Wilson, member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, chair of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, member of the Republican Policy Committee and chair of its Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs.

And she's no voice in the Republican wilderness. Consider last week's Senate hearings. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales tried to lecture lawmakers about the law and was sharply rebuked – by Republicans. Sen. Lindsay Graham characterized Bush's arrogant and high-handed tactics in refusing to get congressional approval for his wiretapping adventures as "very dangerous" that might actually jeopardize a future president's ability to defend the United States by asking Congress for the necessary tools. Bush' refusal to seek congressional authority, Graham declared "could basically neuter the Congress and weaken the courts."

King of the Red State Republicans Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas made his case on similar grounds, asking that Bush come to lawmakers for future approval and oversight "so we can sustain support for the war on terrorism." According to the Baltimore Sun, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, trying to be polite, even asked if Bush would let the FISA courts review the NSA program, restoring a minimum of due process and judicial review to the process. It would raise "public confidence," Specter insisted. Even on this softball, obvious-as-the-nose-on-your-face proposal, Gonzales was, according to the Sun, "noncommittal." What arrogance!

My rightwing friends who still blindly support this administration (a diminishing number, I might add) are fond of pointing to national polls suggesting that the American people overwhelmingly support the president's high-handedness on the wiretap issue. But I've been around Washington and so-called "polls" too long to be fooled. The best poll – maybe the only poll that matters – are the concerns of legislators.

Their survival depends on getting home-state opinion exactly right, and based on congressional Republican unhappiness with Bush wiretapping, I'll bet dollars to donuts that these men and women are getting an earful from constituents. And why not? Republicans eventually deserted Richard Nixon over his violations of civil liberties and I predict they'll do the same with Bush. It's a split in progress and it will eventually (soon) force Bush to come before Congress and do the right thing – obey the law.

You see, Republican karma is lawful – but in order to protect the country, Bush dogma needs to be put to sleep.

T-shirts in the Capitol

By Ellen Ratner
The day after the State of the Union speech, the newspapers and TV news shows were filled with the stories of the arrest of Cindy Sheehan wearing an anti-war T-shirt and Congressman Bill Young's wife being asked to leave for wearing a pro-war T-shirt. My first reaction was that no one should wear T-shirts in the Capitol.



If you have ever walked through Washington, D.C., during the tourist season, you will see T-shirts, short shorts, lots of stomach showing on people who have too much stomach to begin with and other assorted eye invasions.

As I was writing this, I looked through an old scrapbook with photos of American life taken between the 1920s and 1950s. At one point, I had to put the book down in amazement as I saw how different we, that is, our ancestors, used to look. It wasn't only that the smiling young people looked thinner and somewhat healthier – they were thinner, as has been documented by many recent studies. And despite being a much poorer country – dress was plainer and simpler – we nevertheless seemed neater people, better turned out and much more certain of the line between public and private space.

This line between public and private spaces has now become completely blurred. It only adds to the torrent of vulgarity that already overwhelms so much of our society. What I saw in those photographs of crowded downtown streets, office interiors, on airlines, in the dining cars of the Pennsylvania Central Railroad, standing in lines at movie theaters – in short, public spaces – were Americans dressed appropriately. Sorry, Charlie, but there's just no other word for it.

The pictures of people in their homes or grilling in their backyards, on vacations, or watching television, in short, private spaces – dress was somewhat more relaxed – T-shirts, shorts, cutoffs, blue jeans and sandals during warm weather. Yet photos of the same people taken in slightly different circumstances – in public spaces, on the street, shopping in stores, hailing a taxi – reveals completely different outfits.

Women were usually in dresses and occasionally wore slacks (but much more formal than what passes for "slacks" today); blouses, yes, but never T-shirts; open-toed in warm weather but never sandals – not on a public street. And men wore suits, often ties to places that, today, would never see a coat and tie – ball games, "casual" restaurants and almost always when traveling. Even when not in ties, men were much more conscientious about appearing in public spaces than they are today.

And if the line was bright for adults, it positively glowed for children. Shined shoes, collared shirts, cuffed pants, pressed dresses, cotton blouses – it was simply understood that how one's children dressed was a reflection on the parents.

Today, 40-year old mothers waltz around in public wearing Britney Spears jeans that might have been painted on while their midriffs, for better or worse – usually the latter – are exposed for all to see.

Middle-aged fathers have their own midrift problems as bellies bulge beneath loose T-shirts over jeans that James Dean would have been ashamed to wear. Tattoos and body piercings have proliferated on both sexes and all ages, and our cities sometimes remind me of those secret islands depicted in swashbuckling movies where pirates gathered to party and divide the loot.

What gives? On the right and left, so-called libertarians have actually elevated this species of bad advice to a political doctrine.

But one culprit – and this might be a shock to my more conservative readers – is the no-conscience nature of American corporate culture. After all, it's not congressional liberals putting slutty clothing for girls and "hip-hop" fashion for guys into American mall windows. And it's not Howard Dean who is cranking out televison's garbage and degrading, violent and misogynist music on CDs. And oh, yes, I can hear the whining now – "but they're all liberals." Really? Well, they're all liberals the way Jack Abramoff was all conservative – yet somehow his money wound up in lots of pockets.

Now for the clincher: The other culprit is you. That is, those of you who are parents and who complain about lower standards, yet can't seem to enforce higher ones on how your own children appear in public. And frankly, why should your kids appear any differently than you do, if you happen to be one of those 40-year-olds who insist on dressing like a poorly dressed 16-year-old? After all, it's your money that's being spent to fatten the profits of clothing companies who sell brightly marketed garbage that, at the end of the day, is nothing but garbage.

Most of you know and probably agree with me about what the real costs of blurring public and private spaces are – a decrease in civility. I see young people showing up for job interviews wearing "flip-flops" and with resumes containing so many spelling errors that a cat walking across the keys could have typed them.

Are these things unrelated? I don't think so. They are all of a piece. I don't have an answer for changing the world, but maybe it starts with a clean, ironed, properly fitting collared shirt.