History Forum / General / British History / June 2007

A cogent and intelligent analysis.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
---------------------------------------------------------

Failure on Two Fronts

By David S. Broder
Sunday, June 17, 2007

The Bush administration is battling on two different fronts in the war on
terrorism -- and it may be losing on both. It is trying everything it can
think of -- even mobilizing the New York Times -- to prod Iraq's prime
minister, Nouri al-Maliki, into action before it is too late. Meantime, it
is searching in vain for a legal strategy to stop the federal courts from
dismantling its effort to impose indefinite military detention on those it
calls "enemy combatants."

On both fronts, time is running out. When President Bush decided in January
to commit about 25,000 more troops to the war, his stated goal was to
provide enough security in and around Baghdad that Maliki's struggling
administration could become a functioning government.

That meant, according to Bush's benchmarks, a government that would move to
disarm the sectarian militias and mobilize a national army, and a parliament
that would amend the constitution, rehabilitate thousands of disenfranchised
Sunnis, conduct promised local elections and -- most of all -- negotiate an
equitable division of Iraq's oil revenue.

Now, with the military buildup complete and Congress expecting a full Iraq
status report in September before it votes again on whether to continue U.S.
efforts there, the inaction by Maliki and the parliament on almost all of
these issues is drawing a frantic response from Bush.

Last Tuesday's Times contained a remarkable story at the top of Page 1. The
headline was only mildly arresting: "U.S. Warns Iraq That Progress Is Needed
Soon." The first three paragraphs described the message delivered to Maliki
by Adm. William J. Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command: You need to
make "tangible political progress by next month to counter the growing tide
of opposition to the war in Congress."

Then, in the fourth paragraph, came this shocker: "The admiral's appeal . .
. was made in the presence of Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to
Iraq . . . and this reporter" -- Pentagon correspondent Michael R. Gordon.

Later in the article, Gordon explained that he was allowed to sit in on the
session, adding that "it was only at the end of the meeting that American
officials agreed that it could be on the record."

Remarkable. Not only does the admiral invite the New York Times to what
would normally be a private meeting, thus signaling to Maliki that the
pressure will be publicized around the world, but then the American
officials -- no reference to agreement on Maliki's part -- tell Gordon, "Go
ahead and quote everybody directly on the record."

From an administration known for its secrecy, this deviation means only one
thing: So desperate is the need to push Maliki into action that even the
Times becomes a lever. But still Maliki balks, writing in the Wall Street
Journal that Americans should understand from our own Civil War how deep the
divisions within a country can be. What Maliki forgets is that President
Abraham Lincoln raised his own army to battle the Confederate forces. He
didn't ask the outside great powers to do the fighting for him.

While Iraq's government dithers and American troops die, the courts are
sending Bush the message that indefinite military detention of supposed
"enemy combatants" is a gross violation of the Constitution.

The latest such ruling came last week from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
4th Circuit in Richmond. A citizen of Qatar with a student visa to enroll at
Bradley University, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, was arrested in Peoria, Ill.,
on charges of credit card fraud and lying to federal agents and was accused
of being an al-Qaeda operative. But rather than trying him on those charges,
the government transferred him to the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., and has
held him there for four years.

The 2 to 1 majority opinion said, "To sanction such presidential authority
to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if
the president calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous
consequences for the Constitution -- and the country."

The Justice Department said it would appeal the ruling to the full 4th
Circuit. But this is only the latest in a long series of legal setbacks to
the Bush administration's effort since Sept. 11 to bypass the normal
procedures for trying people and instead herd accused subversives into
Guantanamo or other prisons without recourse to lawyers or courts.

Last year, the Supreme Court struck down the military tribunal system Bush
had established to handle these cases, and other decisions have reaffirmed
the prisoners' right to contest the evidence on which they are being held.

Republican presidential candidates -- most of whom have pledged to continue
both Bush policies -- are on notice. They are betting on losing policies.