Commentary Magazine


Posts For: November 1, 2013

Can ObamaCare Fiasco Save the GOP?

What a difference a couple of weeks can make. In the wake of a disastrous decision to let Tea Party stalwarts muscle them into agreeing to a government shutdown, the Republican Party looked lost. Polls showed them bleeding support at levels that could conceivably hurt their hold on the House of Representatives next year as well as killing any hope they could take back control of the Senate. In doing so, it appeared as if this turn of events had saved the Obama administration from slipping into lame-duck status and irrelevancy. Democrats had good reason to crow about this and milked the general disgust about the shutdown as much as they could. But once the dust settled from that fiasco, it allowed both the media and the public to focus on what should have been the top story since October 1 but which had been obscured by the attention devoted to the shutdown: the farcical rollout of ObamaCare.

With each passing day since the president’s signature health-care legislation was launched it’s now obvious that the administration has lost control of the story. At first it was just a matter of a dysfunctional website. Then it became one in which the incompetence of the Department of Heath and Human Services was compounded by the arrogance of Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the denials of the White House. But once it became apparent that President Obama had been lying for the last three years when he repeatedly promised that Americans would be able to keep their insurance if they liked it rather than being forced onto the ObamaCare exchanges, a tipping point was reached. That more details are leaking out every day that reinforces the negative impression of ObamaCare is adding to the administration’s problems.

So it’s little surprise that the New York Times led its front-page with a story about how Democrats are “feeling anxious” about the future tied to the ObamaCare boondoggle. While some in the party are claiming, as Senator Chuck Schumer did, that the anger at the Tea Party over the shutdown will be more of a “long-term” liability for the GOP, most Democrats know better. The ObamaCare disaster not only changed the political narrative that worked so well for them. It goes straight to the heart of an underlying liberal weakness: the belief that big government is not only incompetent but also a threat to the wellbeing and the pocketbooks of ordinary Americans.

Read More

What a difference a couple of weeks can make. In the wake of a disastrous decision to let Tea Party stalwarts muscle them into agreeing to a government shutdown, the Republican Party looked lost. Polls showed them bleeding support at levels that could conceivably hurt their hold on the House of Representatives next year as well as killing any hope they could take back control of the Senate. In doing so, it appeared as if this turn of events had saved the Obama administration from slipping into lame-duck status and irrelevancy. Democrats had good reason to crow about this and milked the general disgust about the shutdown as much as they could. But once the dust settled from that fiasco, it allowed both the media and the public to focus on what should have been the top story since October 1 but which had been obscured by the attention devoted to the shutdown: the farcical rollout of ObamaCare.

With each passing day since the president’s signature health-care legislation was launched it’s now obvious that the administration has lost control of the story. At first it was just a matter of a dysfunctional website. Then it became one in which the incompetence of the Department of Heath and Human Services was compounded by the arrogance of Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the denials of the White House. But once it became apparent that President Obama had been lying for the last three years when he repeatedly promised that Americans would be able to keep their insurance if they liked it rather than being forced onto the ObamaCare exchanges, a tipping point was reached. That more details are leaking out every day that reinforces the negative impression of ObamaCare is adding to the administration’s problems.

So it’s little surprise that the New York Times led its front-page with a story about how Democrats are “feeling anxious” about the future tied to the ObamaCare boondoggle. While some in the party are claiming, as Senator Chuck Schumer did, that the anger at the Tea Party over the shutdown will be more of a “long-term” liability for the GOP, most Democrats know better. The ObamaCare disaster not only changed the political narrative that worked so well for them. It goes straight to the heart of an underlying liberal weakness: the belief that big government is not only incompetent but also a threat to the wellbeing and the pocketbooks of ordinary Americans.

After a week spent dealing with Sebelius saying “whatever” to a question at a congressional hearing on the website disaster and a tortured denial and explanation from the White House about the fact that millions are losing their coverage in spite of the promises and guarantees from the president and other Democrats, the White House hoped they had hit bottom. But in the last day, we’ve gotten the first hard figures about ObamaCare enrollment that is subjecting the president to more derision as we now know that only six people in the entire country were able to enroll via the dysfunctional website on its first day and only a hundred or so the day after. Even worse, it now appears that some of the country’s top hospitals are opting out of ObamaCare. That means those forced into the exchanges won’t have access to some of the best medical institutions.

All this has created a political momentum shift that is startling in the swiftness with which it has undone the advantage the Democrats had recently enjoyed. In particular, the Virginia governor’s race, in which Democrat Terry McAuliffe seemed to have received a major boost from the shutdown fallout, has lost ground in the last week. While a week ago he looked to be pulling away with margins in some polls that were as high as 12 to 17 points, the focus on ObamaCare has pulled him back into single digits. While Democrats will focus on the polls that still show him leading by seven points, one is now measuring his advantage at only two points over Ken Cuccinelli. Though a last-minute comeback for the GOP seems unlikely given the changes in Virginia’s demographics, the shift in the polls still shows how badly the attention devoted to ObamaCare has impacted the president’s party.

This doesn’t mean the Republicans’ problems have gone away completely. The schism between Tea Party zealots and more mainstream Republicans still has the capacity to hurt the party badly. But what has happened with ObamaCare is not a two-week story. The more the public learns about its details and its impact on individuals and the economy, the less they are going to like it. Disingenuous explanations for the lies told while the White House was selling it are not going to help.

In order for the Tea Party theme to work for the Democrats, they are going to have to depend on a GOP civil war that will cripple the most electable Republicans. That could happen. But ObamaCare is a gift that will keep on giving for the GOP long after its website is made functional, assuming that ever happens.

Read Less

Is Pakistani Taliban Leader Mehsud Dead?

Several different Pakistani news outlets are reporting that a U.S. drone strike has killed Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Here, for example, is the report from Karachi’s Dawn:

Hakimullah Mehsud, the chief of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), was killed in a US drone strike in North Waziristan tribal agency on Friday, intelligence officials and Pakistani Taliban said. Intelligence officials said the Pakistani Taliban supremo was leaving from a meeting at a mosque in Dande Darpakhel area of North Waziristan when the drone targeted their vehicle. Pakistani Taliban militants said that funeral for the TTP chief will be held tomorrow afternoon at an undisclosed location in North Waziristan… Five militants, including Abdullah Bahar Mehsud and Tariq Mehsud, both key militant commanders and close aides of the TTP chief, were also killed with two others injured in the drone strike, multiple sources confirmed. Foreign news agency AP reports that a senior US intelligence official confirmed the strike overnight, saying the US received positive confirmation Friday morning that he had been killed.

The Pakistani government is withholding confirmation, and this would not be the first time that Mehsud has been reported killed. Still, if he is dead then kudos to the Obama administration for executing the strike even as diplomatic pressure mounts to halt the tactic.

Read More

Several different Pakistani news outlets are reporting that a U.S. drone strike has killed Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Here, for example, is the report from Karachi’s Dawn:

Hakimullah Mehsud, the chief of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), was killed in a US drone strike in North Waziristan tribal agency on Friday, intelligence officials and Pakistani Taliban said. Intelligence officials said the Pakistani Taliban supremo was leaving from a meeting at a mosque in Dande Darpakhel area of North Waziristan when the drone targeted their vehicle. Pakistani Taliban militants said that funeral for the TTP chief will be held tomorrow afternoon at an undisclosed location in North Waziristan… Five militants, including Abdullah Bahar Mehsud and Tariq Mehsud, both key militant commanders and close aides of the TTP chief, were also killed with two others injured in the drone strike, multiple sources confirmed. Foreign news agency AP reports that a senior US intelligence official confirmed the strike overnight, saying the US received positive confirmation Friday morning that he had been killed.

The Pakistani government is withholding confirmation, and this would not be the first time that Mehsud has been reported killed. Still, if he is dead then kudos to the Obama administration for executing the strike even as diplomatic pressure mounts to halt the tactic.

Drone strikes are not a magic formula. The risk of blowback is real—especially as terrorists move from the mountains into the urban jungles of southern Punjab and Karachi—and the diplomatic price is high. Still, officials in countries over which drones operate should recognize, before they complain about the practice, that the best way to halt such strikes is to prevent their territory from being used to host terrorists who have declared war on America. To suggest that the violation of sovereignty inherent in drone strikes cancels out the benefit of killing a terrorist is to suggest that preventing speeding on a highway is more important than preventing murder. Nevertheless, targeting the Pakistani Taliban at a time when it and its supporters believe the Americans are in retreat and in defeat does more to bolster the prospects for diplomacy than ill-advised timelines and Afghanistan transitions.

Let us just hope that the Obama administration recognizes that diplomatic processes should never suspend the need to target terrorists, whether they are Taliban in Pakistan’s tribal territories or Afghanistan, or if they are Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen in Syria, or Hezbollah commandos in Lebanon.

Read Less

Don’t Blame Maliki for Iraq Violence

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will meet President Obama today, as Max Boot notes. His visit comes against the backdrop of a sharp escalation in violence, with terrorists killing almost 1,000 people a month. While Max notes the relative success of Iraqi Kurdistan (and he could have also mentioned much of southern Iraq as well), he places much of the blame for the current violence on Maliki himself:

…The overall situation is grim, and Maliki has no one but himself to blame. If he had pursued more inclusive policies, he could have kept the Sunnis who had turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2007-2008 in large numbers from reverting to the way of the gun. Instead Maliki has allowed his paranoia to run rampant by targeting senior Sunni figures for arrest and prosecution. 

Frankly, Max is not alone. The Washington Post published a masthead editorial yesterday calling on the United States “to hold Maliki accountable.” Certainly, there’s enough blame to pass around, but it would be wrong to place too much blame on Maliki.

First of all, when a terrorist detonates a car bomb in a crowded market, the fault lies with the terrorist. Period. There are many places in the world where political grievances exist; none excuses terrorism.

Read More

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will meet President Obama today, as Max Boot notes. His visit comes against the backdrop of a sharp escalation in violence, with terrorists killing almost 1,000 people a month. While Max notes the relative success of Iraqi Kurdistan (and he could have also mentioned much of southern Iraq as well), he places much of the blame for the current violence on Maliki himself:

…The overall situation is grim, and Maliki has no one but himself to blame. If he had pursued more inclusive policies, he could have kept the Sunnis who had turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2007-2008 in large numbers from reverting to the way of the gun. Instead Maliki has allowed his paranoia to run rampant by targeting senior Sunni figures for arrest and prosecution. 

Frankly, Max is not alone. The Washington Post published a masthead editorial yesterday calling on the United States “to hold Maliki accountable.” Certainly, there’s enough blame to pass around, but it would be wrong to place too much blame on Maliki.

First of all, when a terrorist detonates a car bomb in a crowded market, the fault lies with the terrorist. Period. There are many places in the world where political grievances exist; none excuses terrorism.

There are two schools of thought with regard to terrorism. The first sees terrorism’s roots in grievance, and the second in ideology. Those who subscribe to the grievance-based approach believe if a grievance is addressed, the cause for terrorism goes away. I’d argue far more of the Iraq-based insurgents root their terrorism more in an absolutist ideology. To accept the grievance-based philosophy is a bit dangerous as well, not only because it legitimizes some terrorism but also because terrorists and other rogues know the susceptibility of Western diplomats to declarations of real or contrived grievance, and it simply encourages some elements of society to stake out ever more extreme positions.

When it comes to Iraq, Maliki is between a rock and a hard place. The surge was wise military strategy, but it was at times politically short-sighted, especially as some elements concluded that the shortest path to empowerment was the appeasement that followed violence rather than the ballot box. Indeed, the most extreme sectarian parties fared poorly in the most recent provincial polls; they were beat out by more moderate parties.

It is also dangerous to suggest that Iraqi security forces should not have sought to arrest Tariq al-Hashemi and Rafi Issawi if valid evidence against the two prominent Sunni politicians existed and, indeed, ample evidence exists. Being a Sunni politician should never lead to a free pass for terrorism. That Issawi is already paying blood money to those who his guards murdered suggests there may be something to the charges. Maliki should certainly target those leading Shiite death squads with the same fervor. While I would like to see Muqtada al-Sadr behind bars one day—and believe one of the Bush administration’s greatest mistakes in Iraq was not authorizing the shot when Muqtada al-Sadr was in the crosshairs—Maliki has dispatched his forces to take on Shiite militias in Basra and elsewhere.

Maliki may have flaws—though I cannot think of a single Iraqi politician (or American politician for that matter) that does not. But he has guided Iraq well through some turbulent times against the backdrop of a cabinet that as often answers more to political bosses outside the government rather than to the prime minister. Despite frequent accusations to the contrary, he does not cultivate a personality cult. Other Iraqi politicians do, however, most notably Muqtada al-Sadr and some Kurdish regional leaders. He is hardly authoritarian as his opponents too often seek to paint him because Iraqi political rhetoric still tends toward exaggeration. That said, Maliki should be held accountable, but that accountability should come first and foremost from the Iraqi people in the 2014 elections and not by an American administration which has largely abandoned Iraq hastily passing judgment. A major flaw of U.S. policy toward both Iraq and Afghanistan has been prioritizing personality over system. It is time to respect the system.

The United States should seek close ties with Baghdad. Not only would that enable Baghdad to better resist Iranian pressure, but it would also enable American businesses to take advantage of the growing Iraqi market. Long-term defense cooperation—for example, with regard to provision of the F-16 fighters Iraq seeks—would also help Iraq protect itself in a hostile neighborhood and would create a framework for decades of exchanges and interaction. It would make it harder for the Iranian government to try to run roughshod over Iraqi sensitivities. Such decisions should be based on American interests and Iraqi needs, not frustration with the outcome of the 2010 Iraqi elections or misdirected personal animus toward Maliki himself.

Read Less

No Time for Silence on More Iran Sanctions

It’s difficult to know what to make of a Haaretz story published today claiming four major American Jewish organizations gave the Obama administration a pledge that they would refrain from advocating tougher sanctions on Iran for the next 60 days at a meeting held at the White House earlier this week. According to the paper, “sources familiar with the meeting” said that while AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, have agreed to a “grace period” during which they will abandon the push for more sanctions on the Islamist regime in order to force it to stop its drive for nuclear capability. But a few hours after that story was posted, The Hill reported “a source at an organization present at the meeting told The Hill his group ‘categorically denies that any commitment was given for any such moratorium.’” 

That was confirmed in a separate story in The Jerusalem Post in which David Harris of the AJC explicitly denied on the record that any such promise was made and that they were still backing more sanctions on Iran. A source with an organization that was represented in the meeting also reached out to me personally to “categorically and unequivocally deny that any commitment was made to a moratorium on public or private efforts on sanctions.”

Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether it would be right for these groups to bow to the wishes of the White House and hold off on their advocacy—and I would argue that it’s a terrible idea that would elevate the value of continued access to the administration over the responsibility to fight the drift toward appeasement of Iran—the provenance of this story poses some fascinating questions. The contradictory reports leave me wondering who’s telling the truth about Jewish groups backing off on sanctions? And, even more to the point, who leaked the report about the moratorium and why?

Read More

It’s difficult to know what to make of a Haaretz story published today claiming four major American Jewish organizations gave the Obama administration a pledge that they would refrain from advocating tougher sanctions on Iran for the next 60 days at a meeting held at the White House earlier this week. According to the paper, “sources familiar with the meeting” said that while AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, have agreed to a “grace period” during which they will abandon the push for more sanctions on the Islamist regime in order to force it to stop its drive for nuclear capability. But a few hours after that story was posted, The Hill reported “a source at an organization present at the meeting told The Hill his group ‘categorically denies that any commitment was given for any such moratorium.’” 

That was confirmed in a separate story in The Jerusalem Post in which David Harris of the AJC explicitly denied on the record that any such promise was made and that they were still backing more sanctions on Iran. A source with an organization that was represented in the meeting also reached out to me personally to “categorically and unequivocally deny that any commitment was made to a moratorium on public or private efforts on sanctions.”

Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether it would be right for these groups to bow to the wishes of the White House and hold off on their advocacy—and I would argue that it’s a terrible idea that would elevate the value of continued access to the administration over the responsibility to fight the drift toward appeasement of Iran—the provenance of this story poses some fascinating questions. The contradictory reports leave me wondering who’s telling the truth about Jewish groups backing off on sanctions? And, even more to the point, who leaked the report about the moratorium and why?

Let’s remember that all the initial reports coming out of that meeting spoke of it being one that was marked by tension about the administration’s embrace of the Iranian charm offensive led by their new President Hassan Rouhani. While not opposed to diplomacy, they had good reason to wonder whether this latest attempt by President Obama to “engage” Iran was a prelude to an abandonment of his pledge to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons. According to Haaretz, the administration promised at the meeting that they would not relax existing sanctions and would also not follow through on a proposal to allow Iran access to its funds that have been frozen in the United States as an incentive to keep negotiating. But in exchange they appear to have extracted some kind of pledge from all or some of the groups present (and it was significant that the Jewish contingents at the meeting did not include, as is usually the case with this administration, representatives of left-wing groups that can be counted upon to back anything the president wants) to back down on advocacy for more sanctions.

It’s possible that the contradictory reports are based on the various parties at the meeting misunderstanding what might have been an agreement to disagree or at least to lower the volume on any pushback from pro-Israel groups about the administration’s full-court press this week to spike any move in the Senate toward making it even harder to do business with Iran. Different people at the same meeting could have walked away with different conceptions about its conclusions. But it is also possible that Haaretz is spot-on and the groups have essentially caved to the administration in order to give it more time to allow diplomacy to work. A third possibility is that the whole thing is a fabrication intended by the administration or its left-wing Jewish helpers to undermine the momentum for increased sanctions.

The guess here is that the source for the leak would be more likely to have come from the administration than the Jewish organizations since it is in the former’s interest to have the alleged agreement known to Congress while the latter would probably have wished to keep it secret so as to prevent their supporters from deluging them with protests at what appears, at least on the surface, to be a less-than-courageous decision. If, as some of the organizations are claiming, that the Haaretz story is untrue, is makes it even more likely that the administration is responsible for this story. The fact that it was leaked to Haaretz, a left-wing publication that is often highly critical of American pro-Israel groups, is also suspicious.

It may well be that the administration has repeated in private what it has been saying publicly all along: that it will never allow Iran to have a bomb and that all options are on the table to prevent it from doing so. It is also important that they are not so enthralled with the renewed nuclear talks that they are willing to weaken existing sanctions and that they have rejected the proposal they floated earlier this month about letting Tehran have its frozen cash.

But the argument the administration is using to try to persuade the Senate Banking Committee to hold off on more sanctions is so weak that it is hard to understand how anyone familiar with the diplomatic situation can possibly advocate it with a straight face. Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Kerry, and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, who were dispatched to the Senate for a private hearing on the subject, are claiming that more sanctions could blow up the diplomatic process. They are also saying that increased American sanctions would provide a justification for America’s European partners to go off on their own as well and that this would undermine the pressure on Iran rather than intensify it.

But, as the administration has told us, the only reason Iran is back at the table is because of the economic pressure the sanctions have put on their economy. More such pressure would only give them more of a reason to negotiate seriously rather than merely feigning such interest in order, as they have consistently done for the last decade, to run out the clock to give their nuclear program more time to succeed.

The Europeans and Americans have always had different sanctions laws, so the new proposals Obama is trying to stop wouldn’t change that. Nor would it scare the Iranians away from the table. To the contrary, an American decision to hold off on more sanctions would encourage the Iranians to think they have little more to worry about from Washington and allow them to dig in their heels in the talks at which they have, to date, offered nothing new.

At the heart of this debate is the fear that what the administration is after is not so much an end to the Iranian threat as an unsatisfactory deal that will allow it to avoid a confrontation with Tehran while still giving them cover to say the president kept his word. So far, all indications are that the renewed P5+1 talks are heading in that direction. With Iran refusing to give up enrichment of uranium or to agree to export their stockpile of nuclear fuel—positions that the ayatollahs have said constitute their “red line” in the talks—any agreement on those lines would be easily evaded. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said at an ADL event yesterday, “Engagement is not appeasement, nor is it containment.” But that depends on how it is employed, and there is little reason to trust that this administration knows the difference.

After all, the president and his minions have opposed virtually every effort to toughen sanctions on Iran, including the very measures they now boast about as proof of their toughness. Had Congress not acted to impose these measures against the president’s wishes, there would be no reason for Iran to negotiate.

The timing here is also important. If the moratorium reported in Haaretz is carried out, in effect the Jewish groups would be giving the administration three months to go on dithering and accomplishing nothing at a time when, as I wrote earlier this week, other reports are posing the possibility that Iran is actually much closer to nuclear capability than we have been led to believe. At a time when Iran may be moving toward or actually passing the point of no return on its nuclear program, more delays are unconscionable.

While no one should question the good intentions of these groups, bowing to administration pressure in this fashion would be a terrible mistake. Indeed, if they have made no such promise they deserve praise for standing up to the pressure. Now is the time for them to be raising their voices to increase the pressure on Iran, not lowering them to do the White House an undeserved favor.

Read Less

A Stop-and-Frisk Ruling All Sides Can Cheer

Whatever one thinks of the NYPD policy known as stop and frisk, yesterday’s appeals court ruling was a welcome act of judicial restraint. In August, Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled against stop and frisk’s constitutionality on flimsy arguments after conducting an irresponsible and transparent show trial against the New York Police Department. Yesterday, the Second Circuit appeals court granted a stay of the ruling and Scheindlin’s proposed changes to the policing policy.

But the appeals court went further, reprimanding Scheindlin’s behavior and ordering her to be removed from the case:

Upon review of the record in these cases, we conclude that the District Judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges … and that the appearance of partiality surrounding this litigation was compromised by the District Judge’s improper application of the Court’s “related case rule,” … and by a series of media interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the District Court.

What Scheindlin had done was improperly steer the case to her court so she could control the outcome, having telegraphed ahead of time that she wanted to put a stop to the tactic. The case that followed undermined her intentions, because the reality of stop and frisk is so far removed from the left-wing demagogues’ fantasy slander of the police. Scheindlin ruled against the evidence anyway, because she had come to her decision beforehand.

Read More

Whatever one thinks of the NYPD policy known as stop and frisk, yesterday’s appeals court ruling was a welcome act of judicial restraint. In August, Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled against stop and frisk’s constitutionality on flimsy arguments after conducting an irresponsible and transparent show trial against the New York Police Department. Yesterday, the Second Circuit appeals court granted a stay of the ruling and Scheindlin’s proposed changes to the policing policy.

But the appeals court went further, reprimanding Scheindlin’s behavior and ordering her to be removed from the case:

Upon review of the record in these cases, we conclude that the District Judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges … and that the appearance of partiality surrounding this litigation was compromised by the District Judge’s improper application of the Court’s “related case rule,” … and by a series of media interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the District Court.

What Scheindlin had done was improperly steer the case to her court so she could control the outcome, having telegraphed ahead of time that she wanted to put a stop to the tactic. The case that followed undermined her intentions, because the reality of stop and frisk is so far removed from the left-wing demagogues’ fantasy slander of the police. Scheindlin ruled against the evidence anyway, because she had come to her decision beforehand.

Because I have defended the policing tactic at the center of this–it has been found constitutional by the Supreme Court because it is constitutional, and it has saved countless lives, especially among minority communities–it would be easy to dismiss this as championing judicial restraint simply to save a policy of which I approve. But the truth is that this ruling is far better for the anti-stop and frisk crowd than Scheindlin’s ruling was.

The reason for that is simple: although Ray Kelly and the NYPD get high approval marks, on Tuesday in all likelihood Bill de Blasio will be elected mayor. De Blasio is an inexperienced ideologue (he was inspired to government service by his time spent with Marxist Sandinistas and honeymooned in Cuba), and as such has openly campaigned against responsible public servants like Kelly and the NYPD. Opponents of stop and frisk saw the momentum moving their way, after twenty years of Giuliani-Bloomberg public safety campaigns.

And just as de Blasio’s son Dante had become the public face of the de Blasio campaign, lending even more credence to de Blasio’s claim to understand the impact of city policing on the African-American community, Scheindlin swooped in and made the case all about her. A mayor who promised to end stop and frisk that was elected in a landslide lends a heavy dose of democratic legitimacy to his policing policies. An activist judge who steers a case to her courtroom and then has to be removed from the case because of her inappropriate behavior does the opposite.

This discussion takes place on a host of controversial issues. One argument against a broad Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage, for example, was that the country is making its peace with same-sex marriage and elected state legislatures are already enacting marriage-equality legislation. A court ruling imposing social rules on the country risks removing that democratic legitimacy and thus polarizing the two sides far more, as happened with Roe v. Wade, an example of judicial overreach that has ensured the matter would not be settled by democratic means.

This line of argument was that the cause of gay-marriage legalization had the most to benefit from the court staying out of the way of popular change, especially because it seemed so unnecessary. The same can be said for stop and frisk’s opponents. They are on the verge of electing their champion. Additionally, Scheindlin’s ruling was of course going to be appealed, thus freezing the process. It’s entirely possible that Scheindlin’s ruling would have ended up delaying changes to stop and frisk, while also stripping away the legitimacy of those changes.

This is why judicial restraint is so important in a democracy, and why those on both sides of stop and frisk should cheer the Second Circuit’s infusion of propriety into the case.

Read Less

Iraq’s Violence: What Can Be Done?

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq is in the United States this week for high-level meetings, including a sit down today with President Obama. It seems like an awfully long time ago that Obama proclaimed the Iraq War a “success” and claimed “we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” 

That speech–Obama’s own “Mission Accomplished” moment–occurred on December 14, 2011 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Nearly two years later Iraq is unraveling. Violence has returned to 2008 levels, with an average of 68 car bombings a month. No exact figures exist, but it’s estimated that 7,000 people have been killed in terrorist attacks this year, and Gen. Lloyd Austin, head of Central Command, is warning “it could easily get worse,” with a “continued downward spiral that takes you to a civil war.” 

Even the White House concedes that al-Qaeda in Iraq has staged a dismaying comeback, spreading its tentacles into Syria and emerging as “a ‘transnational threat network’ that could possibly reach from the Mideast to the United States.” There is, in fact, a very real danger that the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq, as al-Qaeda in Iraq has now restyled itself, can consolidate a fundamentalist emirate stretching from western Iraq to northern Syria which will become what Afghanistan was prior to 2001: a magnet and breeding ground for jihadist terrorists.

Read More

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq is in the United States this week for high-level meetings, including a sit down today with President Obama. It seems like an awfully long time ago that Obama proclaimed the Iraq War a “success” and claimed “we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” 

That speech–Obama’s own “Mission Accomplished” moment–occurred on December 14, 2011 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Nearly two years later Iraq is unraveling. Violence has returned to 2008 levels, with an average of 68 car bombings a month. No exact figures exist, but it’s estimated that 7,000 people have been killed in terrorist attacks this year, and Gen. Lloyd Austin, head of Central Command, is warning “it could easily get worse,” with a “continued downward spiral that takes you to a civil war.” 

Even the White House concedes that al-Qaeda in Iraq has staged a dismaying comeback, spreading its tentacles into Syria and emerging as “a ‘transnational threat network’ that could possibly reach from the Mideast to the United States.” There is, in fact, a very real danger that the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq, as al-Qaeda in Iraq has now restyled itself, can consolidate a fundamentalist emirate stretching from western Iraq to northern Syria which will become what Afghanistan was prior to 2001: a magnet and breeding ground for jihadist terrorists.

To be sure, not all is awful in Iraq today. One of the few bright spots is surging oil production, which has increased 50 percent since 2005. Iraqi Kurdistan, almost a separate country by now, is also flourishing. But the overall situation is grim, and Maliki has no one but himself to blame. If he had pursued more inclusive policies, he could have kept the Sunnis who had turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2007-2008 in large numbers from reverting to the way of the gun. Instead Maliki has allowed his paranoia to run rampant by targeting senior Sunni figures for arrest and prosecution. 

Feeling cornered, the Sunnis have fought back the only way they know how—with car bombs targeted against Shiites. This is the deadly strategy perfected by al-Qaeda in Iraq from 2003 to 2007, and it is risking a repeat of what happened in those dark days when Shiite death squads retaliated by torturing and killing innocent Sunnis.

Problem is, while it’s easy to see the toxic trend, it’s hard to reverse it. The administration, never particularly interested in Iraq in the first place, lost most of its leverage when it pulled U.S. troops out at the end of 2011. Maliki is now hoping to buy high-end American hardware including F-16 fighters and attack helicopters, and that gives us a bit of leverage–but only a bit. Iraq is rich enough to buy from Russia or China or, for that matter, France if the U.S. decides not to sell it weaponry. 

There are, however, certain capabilities that the U.S. has that no other nation can match, and it is those that should be used to try to affect Iraqi behavior. As the Edward Snowden revelations have made plain, the U.S. has unrivaled intelligence capabilities, especially in the sphere of electronic snooping, which could be shared with the Iraqis. So, too, we have drones and Special Operations Forces that once helped to unravel al-Qaeda in Iraq’s networks. If sent back into Iraq, they could probably do it again.

Obama should offer Maliki the use of these forces and capabilities, but only on certain conditions: namely that Maliki start accommodating and stop persecuting the Sunnis. Specifically, he should re-start the Sons of Iraq program, which between 2007 and 2008 enrolled some 100,000 Sunni men to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq. This pro-government militia was critical to the success of “the surge” in Iraq, and it could help to catalyze a new, smaller surge—one that would not involve any conventional American ground troops but that would send more Special Operations and intelligence personnel to work with their Iraqi counterparts. 

Re-establishing relationships which once existed between the U.S. and Iraqi military could pay further dividends by giving the U.S. side greater “situational awareness” of events in Iraq. This would allow American personnel to help their Iraqi partners in the security forces to resist Maliki’s attempts to misuse them for political purposes. 

It would also give the U.S. greater insight into Iranian machinations in Iraq: Iran has been gaining power ever since the departure of U.S. troops. Not having the U.S. support to fall back on, Maliki has turned to the Iranians for advice and support in fighting back against al-Qaeda in Iraq. Unfortunately, the Iranians are Shiite hardliners whose involvement only further radicalizes the Sunnis and makes the situation more toxic.

Greater U.S. involvement in Iraq is necessary to counter the Iranians, but it is unlikely to happen because it conflicts with Obama’s desire to pull out of the Middle East at all costs. The cocksure president is also unlikely to take any action which suggests that his 2011 troop pullout was a mistake—which it was. That, unfortunately, increases the likelihood that Iraq will continue to drown in a sea of blood.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.