Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia University today brought out the best and worst in modern American culture. Columbia University President Lee Bollinger showed courage in inviting such a polarizing and controversial figure to speak. There were calls to cancel the Iranian president’s invitation and now some politicians want to cut funding to Columbia University because he was allowed to speak at all. First I’ll speak about the man before I explain why he should be allowed give his speech and why those who wish to prevent him from doing so are performing a disservice to their country.

Ahmadinejad is without a doubt a smart, though intellectually dishonest, politician. Some may say that I’m being redundant but I want to make clear he’s not an idiot. He knows what he’s saying and why he’s saying it. He’s a talented speaker which only gives credence to the deceptions he bandies about.

But let’s be clear about one thing; he is not the source of power in Iran. He is largely a figurehead president who executes the wishes of the Leadership Council.

Article 113
After the office of Leadership, the President is the highest official in the country. His is the responsibility for implementing the Constitution and acting as the head of the executive, except in matters directly concerned with (the office of) the Leadership.

Ahmadinejad may be elected but that only gives the presidency a veneer of democracy on what is actually an autocratic theocracy. He doesn’t command the armed forces, he doesn’t issue binding decrees except as confirmed by the Leadership Council, and is only responsible for that which the Leadership Council has decided is not important enough for themselves to decide. The real power lies in Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has held that post since Ayatollah Khomeini’s death in 1989 and also appoints the members of the Leadership Council. So let’s put to rest the notion that Ahmadinejad is the source of Iranian foreign or domestic policy. He’s the true-believing, media-savvy puppet of Khamenei and the Islamic revolution.

The American constitution guarantees our right to free speech. Period. No exceptions.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Iranian constitution does not have such a blanket guarantee.

Article 24
Publications and the press have freedom of expression except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public. The details of this exception will be specified by law.

It is those exceptions that set Iran’s form of government apart from America’s. Any time allowance is made for exceptions to a fundamental right, it ceases to be a fundamental right. It is that exception that allows governments to dictate its’ opinions on those who would disagree and thus strip them of their ability to exercise that right.

You want to criticize the the U.S. President? Americans do it everyday without fear of being jailed for it. That is the beauty of the first amendment. You can say the most rancid, vile and moronic things and you’re safe from criminal prosecution.

You want criticize the Iran’s Supreme Leader? You better have a high tolerance for pain. In 2005, the Committee to Protect Journalists reported on how the independent media was faring in the face of the ascendant power of Iranian hard-liners.

Bloggers instantly became a popular source of dissident news and opinion, drawing the ire of Iran’s powerful judiciary, which launched a wave of arrests. All the bloggers detained in a 2004 crackdown were released except for Mojtaba Saminejad, who was sentenced in June 2005 to two years in prison and denied appeal. He was convicted of “insulting the supreme leader.” Many of the released bloggers said they were tortured in jail. Former Iranian president Mohamed Khatami ordered an investigation into the torture claims, but the judiciary threatened those who made the complaints. Since conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in June 2005, little has come of the investigations.

Does this mean Iranians can criticize the Supreme leader as long as they don’t insult him? What’s to criticize? He’s infallible. Just ask him.

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday that his authority is indisputable, apparently rejecting criticism from reformists who say he is not above the law.

Iranian radio quoted Khamenei as saying that the “true meaning” of the Iranian concept of “velayat-e-faqih,” or the authority of the leader, is that “the person in charge of the Islamic government does not make mistakes and if he does he will not be the supreme leader from that moment.”

“This is an obvious point that must be understood well and spelled out properly,” the broadcast quoted Khamenei as saying.

Free speech is a constitutionally protected right in America and that protection is what sets us apart from Ahmadinejad and the tyrannical regime he represents. This is one of the very things our troops fight and die for everyday. So when Congressman and presidential candidate Duncan Hunter to threatens to cut off all federal funding to Columbia University for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, he does a disservice to this country and the very troops he claims to be standing up for. The same goes for the New York state and city legislatures who are beating their chests in indignation that the Iranian president was allowed to speak. They are claiming that the university is legitimizing what he has to say and are therefore threatening to cut state and municipal funding. Allowing him to speak doesn’t legitimize what he has to say but it does reinforce the legitimacy of the first amendment. As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

It is painfully simple; you can’t protect free speech by restricting it. It is important for Ahmadinejad to be able to give his speech not because what he has to say is important, but rather that he can say it all. If you don’t like what he has to say- protest, write, yell, or get yourself invited to a university to share your view of the world, no matter how ridiculous it may be. If you want to restrict free speech, move somewhere that endorses that principle- like Iran.

President Bush has again displayed the nuance and diplomatic skills of a chainsaw. His flippant approach to Russian concerns about the deployment of an American anti-ballistic missile system in former East Bloc countries only serves to make it even more difficult to work with the Russians in the future. To underscore that, Russia has just frozen cooperation with NATO on the Conventional Forces in Europe arms control treaty and has threated to re-aim some missiles at Europe.

Russia is starting to re-assert itself on the world stage. It is displaying a longing for the level of stature and respect that it once had. The one thing that they always had to be proud of and knew commanded international respect is their nuclear ballistic missile arsenal. President Bush dismissive approach toward that pride can only backfire on America’s ability to negotiate with them. Russia has been somewhat insecure since the fall of the of the Soviet empire and the President’s backhanded diplomacy doesn’t help.

I agree with President Bush’s position of deploying a limited missile defense network in Europe, but it doesn’t have to be in Poland and the Czech Republic. Those locations were likely chosen more for political reasons than technical ones. Looking through the perspective of the insecure short-man syndrome that Russia is demonstrating, they claim that it is aimed at them despite the fact that even they admitted it could be overwhelmed with the sheer volume of ballistic missiles at their disposal.

Iran is the nation of most immediate concern to the U.S. and already have nuclear-capable missiles that can reach Israel and possibly far into Europe. Those same missiles also reach far into Russia. Given the recent boost in cooperation between Iran and a nuclear North Korea, a nuclear-tipped Iranian missile is a very real worry for both nations.

Diplomacy with a supposed ally such as Russia should not be handled in such a clumsy fashion. President Bush’s dismissive comment that “Russia is not a threat” could easily be construed by the Kremlin as a sign of disrespect to them and the potential threat they are. Not being taken seriously as a potentially powerful threat, even if it is between friends, can easily be seen as a public humiliation- especially to a nation insecure about its’ place in the world

It is clear that President Bush was unable to assuage Putin’s concerns during their recent meeting in Maine. Diplomacy is a game of patience and nuance, attributes neither Bush nor his administration has clearly demonstrated before. Russia is a proud and still powerful nation. If President Bush fails to grasp that a face-saving overture is needed help Russia agree to things they don’t like, then all he has done is needlessly stoke the flames of Russian nationalism and militarism when they could’ve been made a partner in missile defense instead. We already have enough missile worries in the world without having to add Russia to the list.

Our political leadership, congressional and presidential, has turned the most urgent and critical issue facing our nation into a an exercise in sound bite governance and diplomacy. “Cut and run” and “stay the course” compete with “bring the troops home” and “support our troops” as empty slogans masquerading as policy. The nation deserves a well developed and nuanced approach towards this very difficult problem but instead we are getting simple minded pronouncements that are more political posturing rather than leadership, statesmanship, or governance.

All parties concede the following about the Iraq quagmire:

• a reasonable level of safety and security must be established.
• safety and security cannot be established by military action alone.
• safety and security requires a comprehensive diplomatic and political solution.
• a full military withdrawal before safety and security are established would be a debacle likely resulting in the catastrophic failure of the Iraqi state.
• a failed Iraqi state would descend into unrestrained civil war, become a safe haven for Al Qaeda, and possibly lead to an unraveling of what remaining stability there is in the Middle East.
• this scenario would likely require our military involvement again.

Yet the debate inside the beltway, if you can call it that, is whether to bring the military home or not. It has been already established that withdrawing the military from Iraq before there is a sustainable level of safety and security is only going to cause larger problems for the U.S on a global scale and probably here at home also.

Democrats need to stop trying to sell immediate withdrawal. Offering the opposite of what the Republicans propose is not policymaking. It’s knee-jerk politics. Republicans need to stop offering empty platitudes about staying the course. Continuing to repeatedly do the same thing while hoping for different results is not policymaking either. It’s desperate wishing while in a state of denial. It’s also the mark of a fool.

The President needs to swallow his pride, accept that U.S. is unable to unilaterally impose security in Iraq, develop a coordinated diplomatic and political solution, and make that the administration’s primary thrust. That means dealing with Iran and Syria to a certain degree. It may be distasteful to do so but they are the regional players with the most at stake in the outcome and an unrestrained Iraqi civil war is not in their best interest either. Keeping a low-grade civil war brewing that bogs down the U.S. military is.

We can’t immediately withdraw, though I wish we could. America made a promise to the average Iraqi to not leave them to the wolves, be they Sunni, Shia, or Al-Qaeda. We would do even more damage to our battered reputation and integrity to abandon Iraq after having gone in roughshod the way we did.

I’m not suggesting we go in with overwhelming force either, ala the Powell Doctrine, because President Bush repeatedly missed those opportunities long ago and it is now simply too late for that. Both nations are running out of patience with the war.

The reasons we invaded Iraq were thin, twisted, and resulted in bait and switch justifications from the Bush administration. However there are compelling reasons to stay in Iraq until we can reasonably expect that it’s not going to implode. But we must forge ahead with a sensible and nuanced policy that is rooted in diplomacy, realpolitik, and a more thoughtful application of military force.

If we leave Iraq to descend into civil war and wash our hands of the whole mess, it will be the harbinger of America’s permanently decreased moral stature in the world. Our credibility would be heavily damaged. Our ability to lead would be hampered by the global memory of what we did for generations. We would no longer be the world’s policeman, but rather its dirty cop.

There is a silver lining in the Iraq war cloud. After spending almost $400 million thus far at a cost of nearly 3500 U.S. military lives with no end in sight after four and a half years, it’s easy to name the numerous ways that the war has been bad for America. But what about the ways it’s been good for the country? Mind you it’s a silver lining in a very large and foreboding storm cloud, but still a lining nonetheless.

1. Sensitized the population to the very real risks, costs and dangers of going to war. The relative ease with which the U.S. won our battles over the last 25 years has made it seem to the general population that going to war was about as risky as going shopping. In 2000 only 12.7% of the adult population had ever served in the military in some manner. This has been declining dramatically since 1980 when veterans made up almost 18% of the adults. Nobody knows the true cost of war like a veteran, whether they were in combat or not. The more veterans there are in the country, the less likely the country will mobilize itself for war without a clear compelling reason. We just created a whole new batch of veterans who understand very well what war is and educate those around them just by living their lives.
2. Decreased the likelihood of war with Iran. I believe the Bush administration’s original long term plan, sketchy though it may have been, was to develop democracy and a friendly Arab ally in Iraq which could serve as a launch point for future military operations into Iran. Had Iraq gone in accordance with the wishful thinking the administration uses in lieu of actual planning, Iran would have been effectively surrounded on three sides (Iraq, Afghanistan, & the Persian Gulf) by American forces. This would’ve given the administration considerable leverage in which to try to bring about regime change which probably would have developed into outright war. Iran has a strong sense of national identity going back thousands of years, very rugged and mountainous terrain almost four times the size of Iraq with nearly three times the population, and a battle-seasoned military that has credible and homegrown ballistic missile capabilities that can strike far into Europe. War with Iran would make the Iraq war look like a lazy evening stroll.
   
3. Demonstrated that ideology is neither a strategy nor a capability. The presidency has always been a bit of a jobs program for the those who knew the winner well. This is not unexpected nor necessarily a bad thing. Good leaders bring their best people with them. Unfortunately President Bush has defined “best” as loyalty to him and his ideology rather than on capability or experience when selecting people for key positions. Even worse, he appears to evaluate their performance more on their ideological loyalty than their actual success. This has led to a rash of poorly conceived or poorly executed strategies over the past several years of which Iraq is only the most prominent example. Think FEMA, Justice Department, Defense Department, Veterans Affairs, World Bank, Coalition Provisional Authority, etc.
4. Added credibility to future threats of war. We all know the person who is constantly making empty threats. At first you take them seriously but after a while you realize that the person never actually throws the punch and is nothing more than a paper tiger. We also all know the ones whose threats everybody takes seriously because they’ve acted on them before. Even Saddam, despite his experience with the Americans during Operation Desert Storm, still believed until the final weeks before the war “that the United States and the United Kingdom lacked the stomach for war” and that the Americans “would not fight a ground war because it would be too costly.” It has been extremely costly but I think it’s fair to say that U.S. threats are taken far more seriously now.
5. Stimulated for the American economy in the short term. Back in January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected that percentage of the GDP spent on defense would actually shrink from 3% to 2.7% by 2006. As a result of the Iraq war and the Global War On Terror, defense spending has risen to 4% of GDP. Perhaps you’re thinking, “So what?” Ok, let’s put it in real terms that anybody with a wallet can understand. Since 2001, the U.S. has poured over 530 billion more dollars into the economy via defense spending than originally planned in 2001. Those are inflation adjusted dollars too. Since defense spending largely goes into American companies due to the nature of the industry, it has likely done a lot to minimize the economic impact of the burst tech bubble and the 9/11 attack. A lot of manufacturers, and by extension their employees, have drank mightily from the government spigot for the past five years. This doesn’t even begin to count the rest of the increased government spending on homeland security, intelligence, other ballooning budgets. A recent economic analysis report suggests that the benefit to the economy is short-lived though and will become a burden after five years. We may have funded all that spending with a spectacularly huge amount of foreign-owned debt, but when you’re searching for silver linings, you have to look at very dark, dense clouds.