news

Commentary: "Don't ask, don't tell" must go

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:11:38 -0400

Too many valuable soldiers have been lost to this discriminatory policy.

by Joe Sestak

Last week, an Army board recommended that Lt. Daniel Choi be discharged from the Army National Guard under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Choi - a West Point graduate, Arabic speaker, and Iraq veteran who has demonstrated an exceptional commitment to the nation's values - was the most recent example of the thousands of servicemen and women affected by the policy.

I understand that the military must follow the law as it's written. But Choi's discharge further underscores the need for President Obama and Congress to work together now to change this discriminatory policy.

In both the current and the previous Congress, I have been a cosponsor of legislation to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and permit gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members to serve their nation openly, honestly, and honorably.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is discriminatory and detrimental to national security. It was a flawed compromise that should never have been enacted, and I continue to regret every instance of its enforcement I witnessed as an officer in the Navy.

During my 31 years in the military, I served alongside and in command of men and women of all backgrounds, beliefs, and identities who fought valiantly and selflessly. When a man or woman puts on a military uniform, he or she immediately assumes a commonality of purpose with all fellow service members. I cannot and will not turn my back on anyone who serves this nation honorably.

I can remember several instances when outstanding servicemen, with all the qualities I could ever ask for as a commanding officer, approached me about these issues. I did not want to lose any of these sailors. My only thought was that the nation needed their skills, talent, and patriotism.

Failing to treat everyone with the same level of dignity is counter to our national values and to the concept of brotherhood and sisterhood that is essential to the spirit of our armed forces. How can we say someone who went to war for his country doesn't deserve equal rights?

Since 1993, more than 11,000 men and women have been discharged from military service under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Rather than receiving the gratitude of their nation, they had their careers ruined and their reputations assailed.

I am not alone among former officers in wanting to end discrimination in our armed forces. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and more than 50 other retired generals and admirals believe it is time to end "don't ask, don't tell."

And the American people agree: 75 percent of the public favors repeal, according to a recent Washington Post report.

Moreover, our military is stretched to its limits by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We face a persistent threat of terrorism. And our modern military depends on highly skilled, meticulously trained troops, ranging from front-line soldiers to computer technicians to linguists. It jeopardizes our national security to dismiss exceptional service members.

As evidenced in Israel and more than 20 other nations that allow openly gay service members, changing our policy will not negatively impact our military readiness.

There are those in the Washington establishment who say that, even though repealing "don't ask, don't tell" is a worthy cause, we cannot act on it in the short term because of political considerations. I am aware of the numerous challenges facing Congress, but I wholeheartedly reject this excuse.

I understand that time is of the essence as we work on long-overdue reforms of our health-care and energy policies. However, once critical legislation on those issues has been passed, we must address "don't ask, don't tell." I will fight to overturn the policy this year.

This is not akin to highway appropriations or the acquisition of one weapons system or another. It is a civil-rights issue that concerns the ideals on which our nation was founded, and it cannot be ignored.

It is a matter of equal justice under law, human rights, and the honor of America's fighting men and women. Our president - our commander in chief - must be with Congress at the forefront in overturning this discriminatory ban.

Joe Sestak, a retired Navy admiral, is a Democratic congressman from Delaware County.

Op-Ed: Investigate Origins, Not Just Acts, of Torture

Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:27:28 -0400

I understand the need to do whatever it takes to protect our country in the war with terror. As the first Director of the Navy anti-terrorism unit, “Deep Blue,” I helped craft strategies to fight the war on terror -- I know the temptation to operate on the “dark side,” as we have seen detailed in the release of a years-old CIA investigation alleging abusive and potentially illegal treatment of detainees. But to resort to rendition, black sites, abuse, and torture is not the recourse of a great nation. These tactics do not keep us safe, they forfeit the crucial battle for “hearts and minds” around the world, they expose our own troops to greater risk, and they erode the principles that make us better and stronger than our enemies.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to open an investigation into CIA interrogators and contractors is a difficult but necessary step toward justice. While I agree with the President that men and women who acted in good faith in defense of this nation and within the legal guidance they were given should not face prosecution, we must always remain committed to the rule of law.

However, this inquiry may shed light in one corner of a dark chapter, but by focusing on the end result -- not the origin -- of misconduct, it will not provide the broad transparency and accountability we owe the American people, and it will not help us fix what went wrong. When a ship runs aground, it is not justice to forgive the captain and prosecute the helmsman. And criminal inquiries and prosecutions will prove to be inadequate when so many controversial activities involved not law breaking, but skirting and manipulating the law. We must affirm that we are a nation of principle -- and when government bends a law, it breaks the principle that law is created to protect.

How can we remain the leading voice of democracy in the world if we do not adhere to its core principles of transparency and accountability? If, for example, we fail to investigate violations of the Geneva Conventions -- not just specific instances, but the orders that led to those violations -- we undermine all agreements and treaties that protect our own troops and set international standards of human rights.

President Obama is right to urge the nation to move forward. But there is a difference between moving forward and burying the past. Moving forward demands an understanding of and responsibility for our mistakes so they are never repeated.

Some in Congress argue that the Department of Justice alone should handle any investigations. This is insufficient for several reasons. Prosecution should not be our primary objective, and many activities may be immune from prosecution due to opinions rendered by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Council. In fact, those opinions, and the politicization of the Department of Justice in general, are at the root of many of the Bush administration’s abuses and must themselves be the subject of inquiry.

In the past, Congress has served this investigative function, as with the Church Committee in the 1970s. Congress today is too complicit, too polarized, and, sadly, lacks credibility in the eyes of the American people to carry out such an investigation effectively. Congress would better serve the people by remaining focused on the important policy challenges before us.

However, justice demands we adhere to the rule of law; good governance demands we do everything possible to prevent misconduct in the future. That’s why I have called for an inquiry, similar to the military’s two-fold mishap investigations, which have concurrent criminal and fact-finding proceedings.

First, as a nation of laws, we must remain open to the possibility of prosecution -- potentially by a special prosecutor -- of those who authorized or engaged in illegal conduct.

Second, I learned in the military that to avert accidents in the future you have to fully investigate them when they occur, from their strategic origins to failures in communication and execution. I have advocated the creation of a non-partisan commission, possibly comprised of retired federal judges, to operate independently of the executive and legislative branches with the power to call members of both branches to testify under oath -- but with immunity -- and in closed-session where security requires.

This kind of two-fold investigation is our only opportunity for accountability and understanding of the series of breakdowns in command that occurred in this country over the last several years and which have compromised our national security, civil liberties, and standing in the world. Only when we assess what has happened and determine where violations were incidental or systematic can we institute proper safeguards for the future. A failure to do so will not be looking ahead, it will be turning a blind eye.

Remarks: A National Security Strategy of Re-engagement

Wed, 9 Sep 2009 22:35:24 -0400

In my time in the military, I witnessed two major paradigm shifts. The end of the Cold War left us the sole superpower, and 9/11 showed us how vulnerable that position can be.

9/11 confirmed what we’d long feared -- that in the modern world, having the most capable and powerful military force in the history of the planet cannot always protect us from a determined few.

The response of the Bush administration to this realization might best be described as crisis-driven. The response was to lash out at threats -- real or contrived -- and rush into conflict without clear missions, benchmarks, or exit strategies.

We pursued a “with us or against” attitude that cost us valuable allies and lowered our standing in the eyes of those allies we kept.

We dismissed our core principles, such as a commitment to human rights, as “quaint,” even nostalgic.

We let our investment in foreign aid and development dwindle, and viewed adept diplomacy as weakness, and reliance on force as strength.

As a new administration sets a new course, we must fundamentally reconsider the function of our military in the nation’s foreign policy.

We are now in a world where the unconventional threat has become conventional, and the conventional threat is steadily being subtracted form the calculus of our national security.

We must recognize that, increasingly, there will be no military solution to the problems of the 21st century.

The growing power of conventional weapons and the mutually assured destruction of nuclear arms means the near end of full-scale war between major powers. And traditional military structure, strategy, and role in foreign policy will be increasingly unable to cope with insurgency, extremism, and terrorism, as well as environmental and humanitarian crises.

There are conflicts around the globe, but none of these involve pitched battles of infantry and tanks, dogfighting planes, or ships at sea trading salvos. The combat of the 21st century will generally be small-scale, and the wars will be technological, ideological, and economic.

If we do not begin now to plan for the obsolescence of the traditional concept of warfare that has persisted since the beginning of civilization and better address transnational threats like the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, it will mean -- at best -- the loss of an opportunity for the United States to lead the world into a new era, or -- at worst -- a military catastrophe the likes of which we were blessed enough to avoid during the Cold War.

During my time in the Clinton administration, I helped develop a National Security Strategy of Engagement that foresaw many of our recent strategic errors and recognized that the challenges of the future call for a comprehensive approach to foreign and domestic policy. It called for use of force when vital or important American interests were threatened; demanded clear benchmarks, timetables, and strategies for withdrawal; and promoted strong diplomacy and robust foreign aid programs that were to take precedence over force whenever and wherever possible. We must return to these priorities, and to the understanding that America is peaceful and prosperous when the world is peaceful and prosperous.

Increasingly, technology is making this world a very small and very crowded place. Effects ripple farther and faster than ever before, threats are never far away, and everywhere interests are intertwined: military, diplomatic, economic, environmental, humanitarian. We cannot partition our view of national security into discrete artificial spheres that no longer exist.

We have recently seen, for instance, how international overfishing off the Horn of Africa resulting from the collapse of the Somali state and allowed it to become a haven for pirates who have threatened American citizens and commerce.

We must take a comprehensive approach to our engagement in the world that utilizes robust diplomacy, strategic foreign aid, and military force only as a last resort.

Though threats may emerge from anywhere, we cannot and should not seek to police the globe. We maintain the right to defend ourselves and strike at our enemies -- unilaterally, if necessary -- but we must unequivocally deny the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war and reject the cynical belief that the moral principles of this nation are luxuries for quieter times that do not have tangible strategic value in a dangerous world.

Our principled leadership in the world has long inspired allies to join us, and more than ever we must depend on shared vigilance to guard against threats that are defined by no nation or border.

We must have a strategy of engagement that is creative and constructive.

As a nation, we have already learned the power of this philosophy. World War I was supposed to be the “war to end all wars.” Instead, we failed to support the League of Nations, arms control, and institutions of international economic stability. The result was the Great Depression, the rise of fascism, and World War II.

After World War II, we recognized the need to construct institutions to provide international stability and began to develop a comprehensive view of our national security. We recognized economic threats are as potent as military ones, and instituted the Marshall Plan and founded the IMF and World Bank. We entered into arms control and defense agreements with dozens of nations around the globe. And we built firm alliances that continue to strengthen our country today.

It was the strength of these institutions, under U.S. leadership, and a commitment to a proactive foreign policy -- not just technological and military prowess -- that allowed us to prevail in the Cold War.

Recently, however, we have turned away from these international tools and institutions that for so long have been reliable forces of stability -- like the ABM treaty and Kyoto Protocols -- and have favored going ahead unilaterally instead of promoting multilateral engagement and coordination, even in conflict, if one compares the first and second gulf wars. Simultaneously, neglect of domestic institutions that help us engage abroad has also hindered our ability to project our foreign policy. For example, during Vietnam, USAID had 20,000 foreign affairs officers. Now we have only half as many, and just a handful in Afghanistan.

The question today is not whether to recommit ourselves to these institutions and approaches, but how to adapt them to modern contingencies.

My experience in the military was bounded by two controversial wars -- Vietnam and Iraq. My thought process was formed by the ravages of war, and the challenges of peace. I have learned that the military can stop problems; it can’t fix them. Similarly, effective foreign policy doesn’t just solve problems, it prevents them. What I believe in is preventive diplomacy -- not a preemptive military. It is a foreign policy approach that, rather than leading with force, uses all elements of our power to help shape the world and create conditions for peace and prosperity.

To have a viable preventive diplomacy requires:

- First, a comprehensive acceptance of our real national security challenges -- not just military, but economic or political. The Director of National Intelligence rightly called economic instability around the world the primary danger to our nation’s security. For example, thousands of Muslim men from Turkmenistan, having lost their employment in Russia’s oil fields during this global recession, have returned home, without a means of livelihood, next to Afghanistan, where a living wage -- more than ideology -- attracts them to the Taliban. Studies suggest that up to 70% of the Taliban may be fighting for economic rather than ideological reasons.

- Second, we need a comprehensive response to these challenges that incorporates not just a transformed and multi-functional military, but also the power of our economy, our rule of law, and non-governmental organizations, while utilizing our military forces as a constructive tool, rather than just military force as a destructive weapon.

- And, third, we need changes in our internal decision-making apparatus that allow us to respond in a multi-faceted way to complex threats. We presently have an interagency governmental system of questionable coordination, one still based upon traditional foreign policy domination by the military and intelligence organizations.

We need a military that is unmatched, with a demonstrated capability to prevail under any circumstance, to act as an effective deterrent to conventional threats that still persist. But we also need a military that can respond quickly and effectively to the exigencies of the global war against terrorism and is prepared from the outset to wage and win a battle that is as much ideological, political, and economic as it is military.

We must discard permanently our compartmentalized view of the the threats and challenges we face. The real world does not align with our bureaucracies, and our adversities do not neatly categorize themselves into domestic or foreign, economic or political, military or diplomatic.

For example, how should we approach the problem of narcotics? It’s a domestic health issue, a border control issue, a criminal issue of both national and international law, a problem for ourselves and our allies, an economic issue for the impoverished farmers with no alternative, and -- when the money goes directly to support terrorists -- it’s an intelligence and military issue. If we view or try to tackle the problem piecemeal we will fail.

That’s why we need to revamp our internal, decision-making entities to allow for the collective decision making needed to tackle complex problems. 9/11 brought to light a failure to communicate between the CIA and FBI. But what we need is productive communication between even our most seemingly disparate institutions and agencies. We cannot respond to modern threats with the same old institutions, archaic bureaucracies, and petty turf wars. We need clear and decisive leadership at the highest levels and we have to send the message throughout the ranks -- it’s time to put aside institutional politics because America’s security is at stake.

I’d like to offer three key illustrations of how we can put preventive diplomacy into action.

The first is by taking the lead once more on proactive international institutions and treaties, from counter-proliferation to the IMF and World Bank. Take, specifically, the Kyoto Protocols. This is far from simply an environmental issue. Internationally, it is an opportunity to restore America’s leadership, and domestically it is a chance to reduce pollution and improve the health of our people. It can strengthen our strategic position economically by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and it can begin to curb climate change which threatens to create all over the world the economic adversity, cultural upheaval, and political instability that breeds insurgency, extremism and terrorism.

The second is how we evolve our more conventional strategic systems to focus on contemporary and more unconventional threats, such as a potential nuclear-armed missile threat from nations such as Iran. Currently, we are planning to put fixed missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland to counter Iran, which -- in Russia’s eyes -- threatens the strategic balance of power. Instead, at minimal expense, we can upgrade our AEGIS Navy Cruisers to provide theater and even national defense that can protect all -- not just some -- of Europe, and even Israel; can adapt to shifting threats worldwide; and can do so in a manner that won’t be seen as a direct provocation of Russia and China. In fact, we can bargain our plans for fixed sites in exchange for Russia withholding its support of Iran’s nuclear program. We lose nothing in terms of capability, and take a potential for instability and turn it into a opportunity to increase global stability.

Finally, we must examine our role in the global war on terror, specifically beginning with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Our experience has shown that we need a military that can not only overwhelm an enemy, but can earn the trust of the populace. Our military cannot achieve success alone. It cannot operate side-by-side with diplomatic and aid efforts, it must be intertwined with them. And we have to be as tough and cunning diplomatically as we are militarily. We must have the national, ideological, and diplomatic confidence to engage and convert elements of the Taliban, many of whom are economically displaced and simply looking for a way to make a living.

We must recognize the limits of what our military can do using force in the global war on terror, but our forces used in support of security for the trust needed for economic development efforts in Afghanistan are what will eventually permit us to exit an area where we cannot remain forever, and allow us to achieve our goal of a legitimate, if limited, central government in Kabul that governs in conjunction with local and regional authorities. But, importantly, the administration must provide a clear exit strategy, and there must be measures along that path to assess success or failure and measure the reward of continuing to invest troops and money in the effort.

It is crucial that we develop these tools, because we cannot fight and nation-build everywhere. The Afghanistan-Pakistan border is the fulcrum of the entire war on terrorism. U.S. force can play a role in stabilizing Afghanistan, providing some support to Pakistan, and occasionally striking at Al Qaeda and the Taliban in that country, but we cannot solve the challenge of Pakistan militarily. We must use every tool in our arsenal in a coordinated effort to encourage -- and pressure -- Pakistan to turn its focus away from India to the real, internal threat it faces from insurgency and terrorism.

In sum, what the United States has lacked is an overall template of how to engage the world. We had one during the Cold War -- it was successful. It was against a fixed and known threat in a fairly stable world where national boundaries were respected.

Constructing an analogous template today is more challenging. Lines are blurred between domestic and international problems, and threats to our ideals and interests are constantly shifting. But if we want to create conditions for U.S. interests to thrive -- as they did during the Cold War -- and ensure constructive and creative U.S. decision-making will best shape the world, we cannot have a crisis-driven foreign policy.

There was a best effort to confront this challenge of constructive engagement during the Clinton administration, as international institutions were not abandoned after the Cold War, but were realigned to a new world, as with the expansion of NATO. It is crucial that we return to developing the strategic template of preventive diplomacy today.

Without that strategic template, we will be at the mercy of unintended consequences, as decisions at home will be made in a reactive, ad hoc, and uncoordinated manner. Every commander knows how quickly short-sighted tactical gain can lead to long-term strategic failure. For one example, the abandonment of a coherent U.S.-led international template for proper interagency analysis for nuclear arms control meant that the potentially unintended repercussions of a recent proposal to replace certain nuclear warheads with conventional ones on look-alike missiles went overlooked.

Modern threats are too widespread, too rapidly developing, and too potentially devastating to allow this to happen. We cannot lack a template abroad that focuses proper resource allocation and decision-making for it at home. We must have a clear template for engaging the world that shifts focus and resources to diplomacy and foreign aid, reasserts the importance of international treaties and organizations and our leadership of them, and views our military forces as a constructive tool that supports our foreign policy efforts. This view represents a fundamental shift from the dominant policies of recent years, and it will no doubt face significant institutional opposition on many fronts. But it will be necessary if America wants to again lead and shape the world, rather than be at odds -- and at the mercy -- of it once again.

In Allentown, Democrats are getting to know Joe Sestak

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:28:52 -0400

In Allentown, Democrats are getting to know Joe Sestak
He visits during statewide sweep of counties. He's set to challenge Specter in 2010

By Scott Kraus | OF THE MORNING CALL

July 21, 2009

The congressman who hopes to knock Arlen Specter out in the 2010 Democratic primary left his calling card with local party leaders at the Allentown Brew Works on Monday night.  For U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, D-7th District, it was the 64th stop on a whirlwind get-to-know-you tour of all 67 Pennsylvania counties before he is expected to enter the race.  If and when that happens, he'll face a five-term senator who, despite switching to the Democratic Party just a month ago, has the backing of party heavyweights Gov. Ed Rendell and President Barack Obama.  But Sestak told the invited group of about 15 activists, volunteers and elected leaders that he's well aware of who's against him and that he wants the job because he's passionate about issues such as health care and jobs. 
''It's not the establishment that is trying to push me in,'' he quipped to open the evening.  Sestak, a retired Navy vice admiral from the Philadelphia suburbs, has not officially entered the race, but on Monday, he all but promised the group at the Brew Works that he will run.  ''I'm going to do this,'' he said at the close of the 45-minute sit-down. ''I cannot not do this.''  Sestak touched on his Catholic family upbringing and his 8-year-old daughter's battle with brain cancer, offered an analysis of naval strategy and how it relates to military spending, and cautioned Democrats against ''anointing'' Specter the nominee.  ''I think there should be a choice,'' Sestak said.  Whether Democratic voters choose Sestak could depend on how uncomfortable they feel with longtime Republican Specter as their standard bearer.  On that front, Sestak, who has said Specter is not a ''true Democrat,'' gained some ground with Celeste Dee of Whitehall Township, an Obama volunteer who said she has always respected Specter.  Dee said Sestak seemed genuine.  ''I like Specter, I have always liked and respected Arlen Specter,'' she said. ''That being said, Joe Sestak really swayed me this evening.''  Dee said Specter still needs to win Democratic voters' trust.  ''He needs to show us…how well he plans to align with Democratic positions on the issues,'' she said.  Lehigh County Democratic Chairman Rick Daugherty said he can't gauge how the average Democratic voter views Specter, but he thinks primary voters will pay closer attention to issues than to Specter's switch.  He said he thought Sestak made a good first impression.  ''He articulated his positions clearly and demonstrated his passion and intelligence,'' Daugherty said.  Some came into the meeting ready to back Sestak.  Steve Raysley, a steelworkers union official from Coplay, said he and other union members will back the pro-labor Sestak, no matter what their leaders say.  Courtney Robinson, a vice chairman of the Lehigh County party, said he plans to back Specter but is glad to simply have a choice.  ''Just a few years ago, it was difficult to find anybody to run for Senate,'' he said.