Iran Document: Karroubi "In the End, the Wiser Ones Will Take Over Iran" (9 June)

Mehdi Karroubi's interview with Rooz Online, published 9 June and translated by Khordaad 88:

Mr Karroubi, you have said before that you expected after Imam Khomeini’s death you will become more isolated by some individuals , who are these individuals ? and Why?

There was difference of opinion and approach among the forces and factions [at that time] . In other words , some had different interpretations of Islam, state and the Islamic republic [than us]. Since these factions were more close to centers of power=;, their views and opinions were more likely to be implemented.

Which groups?

Political groups like Motalefeh Party, Association of Clergy, Association of Religious Teachers. We had differences of opinion that led to discussions and arguments between us. These differences revolved around issues such as , taxation, municipal land, and other issues that were important at the time. However, Imam Khomeini’s support for us or our ideas would set them back. They had also come to understand that Imam preferred our opinions over theirs despite the fact that he had respect for them and he would appoint some of their important members to the Guardian Council.



These differences led to formation of the Expediency Discernment Council . As Dr. Mehrpour mentioned [once], if the Guardian Council had adopted a more open policy toward various issues and would consider Imam Khomeini’s warning, the Expediency Council would not have been formed. But we knew after Imam’s death , those groups will increase their power and presence, and we will become more isolated. And this is what has happened. Using their power through the Special Clerical Court, the Guardian Council and individuals that I do not want to name isolated the Imam’s Path forces.

Are the individuals that you prefer not to name the same people that you have referred to previously and said: “They could not tolerate a party office or newspaper”, “They want [to take control of ] the government to satisfy their own interests", “They engaged in fraudulent activity after the death of Imam Khomeini"?  Who are these people?

They are the same people who run the country now. In the judiciary they are those who order newspapers and offices closed. They are in the Ministry of Intelligence....They are in Basij, IRGC [Islamic Revolution Guards Corps], and among the Friday Prayer Imams. I should also mention that the traditional conservative forces with whom we were friends before despite our many differences have also to various degrees supported these people. Unfortunately, now an entirely new group of people with Ahmadinejad on top and others in lower ranks are leading [the country].

[Previously] you talked about the boat of the state that does not have capacity for 70 million people. In this turbulent sea of politics, is there a chance that this boat will reach the shore safely?

It is obvious that a boat does not have much capacity to manoeuvre even in calm waters. The sea needs a giant ship. And when the sea turns stormy and turbulent , 70 million people should be present to safely guide the ship to the shore. Therefore I think the current situation will not last [for long] and we are eventually forced to return to reforms although we will have to pay the costs.

What do you think the most important issues of the country are?

Losing the trust of the nation, militarizing the society, and deviating from the ideals of the revolution [are the most important issues we face today]. We have reduced ourselves to such a low level that we treat the family of Imam Khomeini with such disrespect [a reference to the treatment of Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson, Seyed Hassan Khomeini, at the 4 June ceremony for his grandfather's death]. They dare tell Mr. Jamarani, who has been organizing ceremonies on this day for Imam for 20 years, to stop organizing the ceremony this year.

Do we have to witness changing the mood of the society to one of fear where tight security and control is imposed every day? Do we have to see forces armed with anti-riot shields march our streets every day? Nothing will work like this. The government should create security not constrain it. The way the authorities define "security’"seems very different [than what it should be]. Despite all, I believe this situation would not last; in the end the wiser ones will take over.

Everyone’s talking about the necessity to reexamine the Constitution. Where do you see the source of the problems in the Constitution? What should be done?

Every constitution has its own faults. I have said this many times. There is only one book without mistakes, and that’s the holy book, Quran. As Muslims we believe in that. It is possible that a non-Muslim becomes critical of Quran. [No book is perfect, and] it is for this very reason that Imam [Khomeini] allowed the possibility to reexamine the constitution. It is a common practice in the whole world to change the laws according to the most recent conditions and needs of the day. However, even if this constitution is acted upon [in our society], many of our problems would be resolved.

According to the existing constitution, the head of the judiciary is chosen by Supreme Leader. Does this process interfere with the independence of the judiciary branch? Do you not see any contradictions in this process?

At the time, those who created this process did the right thing. But right now we are degrading this law with our actions. Keep in mind that this process was not always like this, and later changed to become as such. Early on, five people constituted the leadership of the judiciary branch. Two of them were chosen by the Supreme Leader and three of them were chosen by a group of judges in a free and competitive election process. The problem right now is that the judiciary branch cannot act on its own and is taken over by the security officials.

What is the main demand of the Green Movement, and what can it be?

This movement that manifests itself through calm, nonviolent protests that takes the form of civil disobedience is created out of the insult and dissatisfaction that resulted from different elections.

Which elections?

The 7th and 8th parliamentary elections and the 9th and 10th Presidential elections. All the dissatisfactions piled up until it exploded after the 10th Presidential elections. This movement is originates from the hearts of people; it is a self-evolving movement. It is a movement that was created over the structure of force that the authorities created for people.

What are you after in this movement?

We are looking to see the full enactment of the Constitution: that we can have a free and sound election,and benefit from free political parties and newspapers; that students are free [to express what they want]. What we are looking for is that no one chooses the destiny of people for them. Accordingly, I believe that if even the current Constitution is enacted, despite the criticisms, many solutions would unfold. But unfortunately, some even don’t abide by this law. Those in power right now act despotically out of their own interests.

To achieve victory, how should the Green Movement move on from here? Wouldn’t the current process gradually degrade the movement? What must be done? What can be done?

Discontent and defiance in the nation will continue. Though people are more conservative in expressing their discontent, they are just waiting for the right moment to express themselves. This does not weaken the movement but the government. With regards to ways that the movement can proceed: first, people’s presence is the most important and critical thing for this movement or any other movement. Second, the movement cannot be after instant success; what comes easily goes just as easily.

The movement must be lively, it must reach out to people and strengthen its grass-root support. The gentlemen are presenting an untrue depiction of this movement to the public. They say this movement is against your religion and culture. They are publicizing this movement as a threat to national security and claim it will bring about a similar situation in Iran as is present in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must fight off these false publicized accusations while spreading our own messages to widest possible audience.

We are after security, peace, and calm for the country. We are loyal to this country. We are fighting dictatorship and fascism. We want to establish the rule of law. Thus evangelizing, organizing, and staying in touch with each other are important. The government is quite sensitive to these activities as it has confronted them in many occasions. This is a great testament to the effectiveness of these activities. So, despite what they might say, I don’t think the movement is diminishing,-; it is in fact growing.

What did Mehdi Karroubi think of the future in 1989 and how does that compare to the way events have been rolling out?

We thought the revolution would bring about mutual respect for every person and her/his ideas and rights. We wanted the revolution to bring about equality and respect for Islam. But that did not happen.

In those days, people were in with the government, they knew everything that was going on. That’s because we realized our legitimacy came from people’s approval. We wanted to be a role model and a leader in the world and tried hard to reach these goals. Of course some of the blame lies with us and some with others.

The fact of the matter is that in the beginning of the revolution, there were some violent struggles. Parts of the country stated independence and invaded central government’s military bases. Azarbayejan, Gonbad, Khozestan, and Kordestan were amongst those regions. The late Mr. Taleghani and Mr. Foroohar traveled to these regions to speak to the people and try to resolve the conflicts. After that, assassinations of the country’s intellectuals and leaders started: Martyrs Motahari, Beheshti, Ghazi, Tabatabaie, Mofateh, and many others.

In those day, secret shared homes were created by the armed militants and violent confrontations started taking shape. The war against Iraq started as these conflicts were still ongoing. When the presidential headquarters and political party headquarters of a country are blown up by internal anti government militants, it is obvious that the country is headed towards radicalism. In any case, they didn’t make it possible to achieve the goals that we had; we missed the chance. In those years, after the bombings, we had the worst situation in the Parliament. Government officials were under pressure by the war, internal conflicts and assassinations, and the country’s management…. These were difficult times. Those who created the internal conflicts did a great injustice to this country.

On the Israel-Palestine issue: If two countries reach an agreement,  what would be your position?

We might have an ideal position in our mind, but we should realize that Palestine belongs to Palestinians, so if they reached an agreement that they find pleasing, we should congratulate them.

Iran is facing detrimental quandaries in its foreign policy, if you were in charge what policy would you adopt regarding the following issues: the US?

I believe that,with the exception of Israel, we should have relationship with all other countries. Despite everything that has happened between Iran and United States, I think we should reestablish the relations without neglecting Iran’s dignity and independence. Unfortunately Iran-US relations have become a domestic political discussion in Iran. When one side agrees to normalizing relations , another side opposes and vice versa . It has become an internal quarrel between different streams.

Relations with China and Russia?

We have normal relations with both countries now, and I agree that we should. I travelled to both countries when I was head of the parliament numerous times in order to expand our political and economical relations. Russia is our neighbour, therefore we should maintain our relations. I should mention though that states only seek their own interests in relations with other states. Having relations with another country should be based on benefits [that we seek].

Nuclear issue?

We should become more transparent We should negotiate, we should defend our rights, but we should also make [our intention and conduct] more transparent.

The human rights file?

The human rights are those rights that belong to all people. These rights are undermined today in many countries. For example, in Palestine, these rights are completely ignored by the Israelis. In our country too, on some issues these rights are undermined. We must not abuse human rights like a political tool.

What I believe is that we cannot take human right issues very seriously for one country, and then ignore them completely for another one. One obvious example of the latter is the human rights issue in the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

If we divide the history of Islamic Republic into different periods, from Mr. Karroubi’s perspective, which period would be closest to the ideals of the Islamic Revolution and which period was the furthest from them?

Naturally every revolution is closest to its ideals at the very early state. I have said this many times. In every revolution, radical moves and abrupt reactions break out due to inexperience and immaturity. I can say this confidently: most of those who act radically now are those who acted in a radical way back then. The first decade was one of ideals. We gradually entered a different atmosphere that concluded in what we see right now. I believe the worst conditions are what we have right now.

And last question: What is your greatest wish today?

I wish for governance of people, denial of outsiders’ interference, and insiders’ despotism. I wish for health and prosperity of this nation, for the greatness of Iran, development of our country. I wish for rise of pride for Islam and enactment of its rules. I don’t believe in imposing our perspectives; I don’t mean interfering with private lives of people. What I mean by wishing enactment of rules is enactment of ethics in the society, enactment of justice, and keeping the dignity and respect of people.

Latest Iran Video: Obama Statement on Sanctions...and Rights (9 June)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Iran Analysis: What’s Most Important Today? (Hint: Not Sanctions)
The Latest from Iran (9 June): Paying Attention

The Latest from Iran (9 June): Paying Attention

2030 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Human Rights Activists News Agency reports that the head of Mir Hossein Mousavi's campaign in Babolsar has been arrested.

2000 GMT: A Friendly Notice. To all journalists riding the two-dimensional bandwagon on Twitter & Iran, treating cliches like "Twitter Revolution" as if they were the core of meaningful analysis, I'm not going to respond for the moment --- this is a made-up dramatic revelation, which recurs every few months and does not get to the heart of what social media has meant in the post-election crisis. Best to let it serve as tomorrow's chip paper.

But if you keep it up, I may change my mind....

1900 GMT: Mahmoud Snaps Back. President Ahmadinejad, who has had post-election encounters with dust (read his "victory speech") and insects (see video), worked both into his response to the UN sanctions resolution: "These (U.N.) resolutions have no value...They are like a used handkerchief that should be thrown in the dust bin. Sanctions are falling on us from the left and the right. For us they are the same as pesky flies....We have patience and we will endure throughout all of this."

NEW Latest Iran Video: Obama Statement on Sanctions...and Rights (9 June)
NEW Iran Analysis: What’s Most Important Today? (Hint: Not Sanctions)
NEW Iran Analysis: 4 June “The Day the Regime Will Regret” (Verde)
Iran Election Anniversary Special: The Power of the “Gradual”
Iran Special Report:The Attack on Civil Society (Arseh Sevom)
The Latest from Iran (8 June): Tremors and Falsehoods

1855 GMT: Back to 22 Khordaad. BBC Persian reports on the increased security presence on the streets of Tehran on the eve of 12 June,the anniversary of the election.


1725 GMT: President Obama has just made a statement about Iran in the aftermath of the UN vote on sanctions. We've posted the video.

Here's the quick read: Obama proclaimed that the sanctions were the "most comprehensive" Iran has faced, said that the UN resolution sent an "unmistakeable message", and spent most of the rest of the time justifying the position on sanctions in connection with his policy of "engagement": "We recognize Iran's rights, but with those rights come responsibilities. Time and again the Iranian Government has failed to meet those responsibilities."

Then, in one of the eight minutes of the statement, having declared,"These sanctions are not directed at the Iranian people," Obama switched from nukes to rights. He noted this Saturday's anniversary of the election, "an event that should have been remembered for how the Iranian people participated with remarkable enthusiasm but will instead be remembered for how the Iranian Government brutally suppressed dissent and murdered the innocent, including a young woman [Neda Agha Soltan] left to die in the street".

It was a bit awkward for the President to link back to uranium and sanctions, and he did not help by throwing in the spectre of Tehran's War of Terror --- "Actions do have consequences. And today the Iranian Government will face some of those consequences. Because whether it is threatening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation regime or the rights of its own citizens or the stability of its own neighbors by supporting terrorism, the Iranian Government continues to demonstrate that its unjust actions are a threat to justice everywhere".

However, at least for one moment, "Iran" was seen in more than the one-dimensional image of a nuclear weapon.

1720 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani's office has released a letter which, in the eyes of Deutsche Welle, criticises the Supreme Leader's silence over President Ahmadinejad and implicitly acknowledges fraud in the 2009 election.

1620 GMT: Sanctions. The UN Security Council has voted 12-2, with 1 abstention, for new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme.

The relatively limited measures include restrictions on transactions with Iranian banks, asset freezes on Iranian individuals and companies, and an expanded arms embargo on items such as attack helicopters and missiles.

Turkey and Brazil, who recently signed an agreement with Iran on procedure for talks over uranium enrichment, were the two countries who voted against the resolution. Lebanon abstained.

1605 GMT: Karroubi Watch. Al Arabiya has just published an interview from May with Mehdi Karroubi. Topics covered include the rise of the Green Movement, party politics, accusations of prison abuse and torture, Government mismanagement, and Ahmadinejad's foreign policy. Karroubi also offered this in anticipation of 22 Khordaad (12 June), the anniversary of the election:

We promise and give assurances that no incident will occur. I am certain that if a march is held, paramilitary forces will attempt to turn it violent, but our people are wise, and politically mature enough that even if certain individuals come chanting radical slogans, the people have the ability to control the scenario and confront them. However, if authorisation is not granted for demonstrations, we will then decide what to do; but it is currently not possible to say much.

1545 GMT: On the International Front (Mahmoud Stays Home). On Monday, Iranian state media were trumpeting that their internationally-esteemed President would be showing his strength, in the face of Western pressure, by going to the Shanghai Expo in China.

Today, Agence France Presse says that Ahmadinejad plans to stay away from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting to snub Russia and China for supporting the US-backed sanctions resolution in the United Nations.

1120 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Amnesty International has launched a new campaign, "One Year On: Stop Unfair Trials". Cases include journalists Abolfazl Abedini Nasr, Hengameh Shahidi, Emaduddin Baghi, Shiva Nazar Ahari and Ahmad Zeidabadi, student activists Majid Tavakoli and Mohammad Amin Valian, and Zia Nabavi of the Council to Defend the Right to Education.

1015 GMT: The Nuclear Discussions. A piece of news that slipped under the media radar....

The International Atomic Energy Agency has announced that it has received replies from France, Russia, and the US to the Iran-Brazil-Turkey declaration on procedure for uranium enrichment talks.

No details were given beyond the note, "Attached to each of the letters was an identical paper entitled ‘Concerns about the Joint Declaration Conveyed by Iran to the IAEA’."

That, however, indicates co-ordination between the three governments. And the timing of the IAEA's statement, together with the lack of substance, indicates that it is happy to let the news be overtaken by today's sanctions vote in the UN.

0955 GMT: Reflecting on The Year. Journalist Masih Alinejad has offered her recollections and analysis in an extended video interview with Voice of America Persian.

0935 GMT: A Signal for the Week? Hamshahri features the colourful cover identifying the bad guys in "Sedition '88".

0930 GMT: Intimidation of Kurdistan Businesses? Human Rights Activists News Agency reports that, following a general strike on 9 May to protest executions, members of bazaars across Kurdistan have been summoned and threatened by government authorities and the businesses of others have been sealed.

0800 GMT: What is the Green Movement? An interesting interview with Fatemeh Sadeghi, a former professor at Tehran University, who argues that the Green Movement is not the opposition of the "secular" against the "religious".

0750 GMT: The Post-Election Abuses. Abdul Ruholamini has resurfaced to declare that those responsible for the abuse and killing of detainees in Kahrizak Prison must "pay for their deeds".

Ruholamini, the campaign manager for Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei, is the father of Mohsen Ruholamini, who died in Kahrizak last summer. The case was instrumental in bringing the abuses to light and pressing the Supreme Leader to close Kahrizak. Ruholamini had gone farther in public statements at the start of 2010, declaring that high-ranking officials must take responsibility for the crimes, but had been silent in recent months.

Ruholamini may have been prompted to his statement by the news that the trial of 12 people over the Kahrizak case has finished behind closed doors.

0745 GMT: The Events of 4 June. Another perspective, complementing that of EA's Mr Verde, on last Friday's developments at the ceremony for Ayatollah Khomeini comes from Hamid Farokhnia in Tehran Bureau.

Tehran Bureau also features a review by Muhammad Sahimi, "The Green Movement at One Year".

0740 GMT: Parliament v. President (and Supreme Leader). It seems that Ayatollah Khamenei's intervention --- calling for Parliament-Ahmadinejad co-operation and threatening the Majlis with new "oversight" --- may not have been an overwhelming success.

Key MP Ahmad Tavakoli, an ally of Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, has commented in Khabar Online that the Constitution is written for people to cooperate, not to fight. So far, so good for the Supreme Leader.

But then Tavakoli re-asserts, "The Government has no right not to implement the laws from the Majlis."

0715 GMT: On a day when "Iran news", for most non-Iranian media, may be dominated by the passage of the US-led sanctions resolution in the UN Security Council, we set out priorities with two analyses: Scott Lucas declares, "What's Important Today? (Hint: Not Sanctions), and Mr Verde looks at "4 June: A Day the Regime Will Regret".

One US outlet shares our attention to the internal: Newsweek notes last Friday's events, with the shout-down of Seyed Hassan Khomeini, under the (over-blown) headline, "Iran's Hushed-Up Civil War":

For his part, Supreme Leader Khamenei did little damage control, even though he has worked hard to present a united front for Iran’s leadership, knowing that discord suggests vulnerability. He took the stage after Khomeini and asked the crowd to act in a more appropriate manner. But that was it. No defense of Khomeini and no rebuke to the crowd. With the anniversary of the contested election just days away now, Khamenei has been trying to manage a delicate balancing act between quieting and frightening the opposition—and sending mixed messages in the process.

In another warm-up for 12 June, the anniversary of the election, Zahra Rahnavard gives an interview to the Italian paper La Republicca. Beyond general criticism of the Government and the declaration, "I hope to shed the last drop of my blood in the cause of freedom and democracy," she focuses on key issues:

The demands of the women in Iran are twofold: 1) National demands such as freedom, democracy, the rule of the law, freedom of political prisoners, right to individual freedoms; 2) Elimination of discrimination and strengthening of cultural rights, women's rights and equal rights under the law.

....Democracy is not possible without women and without paying attention to the demands of women.

Afghanistan Feature: Unprecedented "Civilian Surge" Begins for 468th Time

Forgive the headline, but I have read varieties of this story so often in the past 8+ years that I had to smile when it was framed as a seemingly dramatic change of approach --- "Afghanistan Strategy Shifts to Focus on Civilian Effort" --- by The New York Times for Rod Nordland's story.



I leave it to readers to convert the public-relations spin into political, economic, and military significance, especially given the revised narrative of the Marja "victory" and the apparent delay in the "Kandahar offensive", which had been promised by the US military since early this year:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — The prospect of a robust military push in Kandahar Province, which had been widely expected to begin this month, has evolved into a strategy that puts civilian reconstruction efforts first and relegates military action to a supportive role.

Afghanistan Analysis: Assessing the National Consultative Peace Jirga (Mull)

The strategy, Afghan, American and NATO civilian and military officials said in interviews, was adopted because of opposition to military action from an unsympathetic local population and Afghan officials here and in Kabul.

There are also concerns that a frontal military approach has not worked as well as hoped in a much smaller area in Marja, in neighboring Helmand Province.

The goal that American planners originally outlined — often in briefings in which reporters agreed not to quote officials by name — emphasized the importance of a military offensive devised to bring all of the populous andTaliban-dominated south under effective control by the end of this summer. That would leave another year to consolidate gains before President Obama’s July 2011 deadline to begin withdrawing combat troops.

In fact, there has been little new fighting in Kandahar so far, and the very word “offensive” has been banished.

“We cannot say the term offensive for Kandahar,” said the Afghan National Army officer in charge here, Gen. Sher Mohammad Zazai. “It is actually a partnership operation.”

The commander of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, insisted that there never was a planned offensive. “The media have chosen to use the term offensive,” he said.  Instead, he said, “we have certainly talked about a military uplift, but there has been no military use of the term offensive.”

Whatever it is called, it is not happening this month. Views vary widely as to just when the military part will start. General Zazai says it will begin in July but take a break for Ramadan in mid-August and resume in mid-September. A person close to Tooryalai Wesa, the governor of Kandahar, says it will not commence until winter, or at least not until harvests end in October. He spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the press.

American officials, on the other hand, say it has already begun, not with a bang, but with a steady increase of experts from the United States Embassy and NATO and aid workers — a “civilian surge” — accompanied by a quiet increase in American troops to provide security for them. The Americans strongly deny that they planned an offensive they are now backing away from.

Whereas in Marja the plan was to carry out a military assault to oust the Taliban, followed by rapid delivery of government services, in Kandahar the approach is now the opposite. Civilian aid workers, protected by an increased military force, will try to provide those services first, before any major military action.

“This is not going to be a door-to-door military campaign,” said one American civilian official, who requested anonymity in line with his agency’s policy. “You’ll see more Afghan National Police checkpoints, but it’s not going to be an aggressive military campaign. They’ve looked at it and realized it wouldn’t work.”

The troops have been arriving on schedule; for the first time, Afghanistan now has more American soldiers than Iraq does. Some 94,000 are here, compared with 92,000 in Iraq, with roughly half of them in Helmand and Kandahar, though the full troop levels will not be reached until August.

The United States Marine Corps assault on Marja that began on Feb. 13 was called Operation Moshtarak Phase II (after the Dari word for “together”), and planners initially called the Kandahar offensive Operation Moshtarak Phase III. Now Phase III has a new name, Operation Hamkari (Dari for “cooperation”).

“I’m not sure exactly what happened at the political level above us, but the very name of the thing changed,” said one NATO official in Kandahar, whose government’s policy requires that his name be withheld.

It is not so much what happened as what did not. Marja did not go nearly as well as hoped, and the area is still not sufficiently controlled for the local government’s activities to resume or take root.

Marja, with 60,000 residents, is far smaller than Kandahar, with more than a million in the city and the surrounding districts. If Marja was hard, planners worried, what might Kandahar be?

Read rest of story....

The US and The World: Pentagon Creates Office for International Legitimacy (Ackerman)

Spencer Ackerman writes in The Washington Independent:

For the first time, the Department of Defense has established an office to guide policy on emerging non-traditional military activities like compliance with the rule of law, humanitarian emergencies and human rights. It’s a bureaucratic change that effectively frames international legitimacy as a security issue, a reflection of the legacy of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars among some policymakers. And the office’s first test may be its perspective on the thorny questions surrounding how the department handles al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees.

Announced within the Pentagon in late May, the Office for Rule of Law and International Humanitarian Policy is being led by Rosa Brooks, a senior adviser to Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy and a former director of Georgetown Law School’s Human Rights Center. It endeavors to ensure that the broad strategic aims of the Obama administration regarding adherence to a rules-based international order don’t get lost in the pressures of military contingencies. It will also advise senior Pentagon officials on their contributions to interagency planning and White House requests for advice on rule-of-law compliance, and will work with Congress and non-governmental organizations focusing on its host of issues.

The office — created by Flournoy with support from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and run by a staff that will eventually number 20 people — reflects a recent recognition that the legitimacy of the U.S. military in combat plays its own battlefield role, especially in conflicts like Afghanistan, where perceptions by civilians about whether to support America’s allies or its adversaries are considered decisive. “The counterinsurgency and counterterrorism doctrine has really moved in the direction of saying that these issues are not luxuries,” Brooks explained in a Monday interview at the Pentagon. “These issues are absolutely central to achieving our military objectives in a counterinsurgency or a counterterrorism environment, where the name of the game is ‘Do you have credibility? Do you have legitimacy? Are you building the structures that support long-term stability?’”

Many of the office’s emerging responsibilities will center on entrenching respect for the rule of law and human rights as a core focus within the Defense Department. Previously, Pentagon officials who worked on those issues were spread throughout the policy directorate, in bureaus as disparate as Counternarcotics and Detainee Affairs, a reflection of the secondary — Brooks called it “ad hoc” — treatment the department has traditionally provided to humanitarian concerns. Karen Greenberg, the director of New York University’s Center on Law and Security, said the office needs to “restore the notion that the rule of law is there on the table no matter what.” Matthew Waxman, a deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs at the end of the Bush administration, added that “sometimes important strategic issues can fall into bureaucratic seams, and redrawing parts of the organizational map can help address that.”

Read rest of article....