Defining Expectations Down

Erdogan begins to pour cold water on what was manifestly a poor idea from the get go.

Is the Worst Over?

Walter Russell Mead writes that the clouds may be clearing for Dubya and the Republicans.

Or maybe not.

Easterbrook and Anti-Semitism

Others have discussed this pretty extensively whether Instapundit, Roger Simon, Meryl Younish, Dan Drezner or Josh Chafetz. The only reason I'm blogging about it is because no one has mentioned another Easterbrook post that I remembered reading a few weeks back.

Before I get to that, let me say a few things first, however. I think it's absurd that ESPN has fired Easterbrook and think they should reverse their decision (whether it resulted from Michael Eisner being pissed that Easterbrook criticized Kill Bill [ed. note. doubtful], or because of the anti-semitic sounding comments, or both). Easterbrook has apologized. TNR readers are venting. Life moves on. I think Eugene Volokh has got it about right.

Now to the older post. Easterbrook was writing about Jonathan Pollard, the Israeli spy. For the record, and to put it plainly, I view Pollard as a loathsome character and agree with everything Easterbrook wrote.

But I was still taken back a bit by some of the tone. Especially given that the piece was showing up in TNR--a periodical that is generally pretty pro-Israeli. Suffice it to say, it didn't sound like something Marty Peretz would pen.

Here's what Easterbrook wrote:

"LET HIM ROT: The traitor Jonathan Pollard slithered through Washington last week, though now is back in his prison cell where, it is hoped, he will remain until the end of his natural life. Or until there is peace in the Middle East, whichever comes first....

Pollard has become an icon to the lunatic Israeli right, to the same sick crowd that cheered the assassination of the great Israeli patriot Yizthak Rabin and who cheered the revolting mass murderer Baruch Goldstein. Flown to Israel, Pollard would be greeted by adoring crowds that would swoon before him and chant his name. Even some non-lunatic center-right Israelis might be inveigled to join the celebration.

An image on American newscasts of a traitor against the United States being received as a national hero in Israel would do immense damage to U.S. support for the Israeli cause. Americans would be reminded that the Israeli government paid Pollard to steal classified documents from the United States; that Israel cooperated with Pollard's betrayal of the country that is Israel's greatest friend in all the world; that after he was caught Israel even decreed him an Israeli citizen--this last helping Pollard thumb his nose at the citizenship America was obviously so wrong to grant him. Images of a man who hates and betrayed America being cheered in the streets of Israel would send Americans into a fury. This is an international train wreck waiting to happen; the solution is to keep Pollard in the cell he so richly deserves to occupy." [Emphasis added]

My quibbles? Use of the word "slithered" seemed a bit, well T.S. Eliot like, perhaps? (Nor am I as sure as Easterbrook that Pollard would be greeted by "adoring" and "swooning" crowds in Israel).

Back to Eliot. He's commonly viewed as one of (if not the) greatest poet of the 20th Century. Check out a poem like "Burbank with a Baedeker: Bleistein with a Cigar"

Burbanks crossed a little bridge
Descending at a small hotel;
Princess Volupine arrived,
They were together, and he fell.

Defunctive music under sea
Passed seaward with the passing bell
Slowly: the God Hercules
Had left him, that had loved him well.

The horses, under the axletree
Beat up the dawn from Istria
With even feet. Her shuttered barge
Burned on the water all the day.

But this or such was Bleistein's way:
A saggy bending of the knees [ed. note. a "slither"?]
And elbows, with the palms turned out,
Chicago Semite Vienesse.

A lustreless protrusive eye
Stares from the protozoic slime
At a perspective of Canaletto.
The smoky candle end of time

Declines. On the Rialto once.
The rats are underneath the piles.
The jew is underneath the lot.
Money in furs. The boatmen smiles,

Princess Volupine extends
A meagre, blue-nailed phthisic hand
To climb the waterstair. Lights, lights,
She entertains Sir Ferdinand

Klein. Who clipped the lion's wings
And flea'd his rump and pared his claws?
Thought Burbank, meditating on
Time's ruins, and the seven laws.

[emphasis added]

To me, and most judicious observers, parts of this poem are undeniably anti-semitic. And yet we continue to read this poetry--it remains, just as undeniably, great art.

Both Eliot and Easterbrook were, in a fashion, discoursing on the canard of the "money-grubbing" Jew, whether Eliot's Bleistein with his "palms turned out", Harvey Weinstein turning higher profit margins on violent films, or Jonathan Pollard selling American secrets to Israel for cash.

The key to avoiding falling into anti-semitic discourse is to avoid evocative language that taps into the symbolic anti-semitism of the venal, deracinated, money-loving Jew. You get a tad close when you are describing someone as slithering through town who happens to be of Jewish origin and who sold out his country. But you haven't crossed the line. It's language that, ultimately, fairly describes a repulsive and shameless character traveling about. It's not anti-semitic.

You come closer when you accuse Jewish executives of "worship(ing) money above all else" and, while saying some Christian execs do the same, holding out the need for Jews to possess some form of higher ethical responsiblity because of their special history of persecution.

And you cross the line with you write something like: "The rats are underneath the piles. The jew is underneath the lot."

But you don't necessarily delete all that person's writings because of it. I'm happy I can still find Eliot's poem online. It is "creepy", as Glenn Reynolds put it, that Easterbrook's writings have been pulled from the ESPN site.

Also, to be clear, let's recognize that some hyperventilation in the blogosphere likely helped lead to Easterbrook's firing. We should all take this as a cautionary tale and pause (if just for a bit) before hitting the post button.

The movement of content as between blogs and the major media is getting more fluid. When the story moved from the blogosphere to the NYT--Easterbrook was suddenly facing a major scandal.

All this is partly a good story. Blogs are gaining in influence. We can force the Guardian to retract a faulty story claiming Paul Wolfowitz admitted the U.S. went to war in Iraq for oil. Or get, particularly more recently in the post-Raines era, the NYT to correct erroneous stories more often. Or, of course, get Easterbrook to apologize.

But with this enhanced influence comes enhanced responsibilities too. Both Easterbrook and his more fervent critics, as well as all the rest of us, should keep that in mind going forward.

Just Another Night Out in London

The world sure has changed a lot since 9/11. But no, this isn't going to be a post about the terror threat posed by the intersection of rogue regimes, WMD proliferation, and transnational terror groups. Rather, it's about the perception of Americans overseas. And there has been a sea change all right.

A few days after 9/11, I got this E-mail in my inbox from a nice Hungarian woman I had met in Bosnia when I was there in 1998 doing election monitoring as part of an OSCE mission.

"I am so so so happy to hear from you. You were the first one I was thinking of when I have seen the disaster at WTC. I think I can not imagine the mood and the scene in NY, I just assume it is very very sad and united. The word Americans has a different meaning as from now, everybody feels your sorrow and loos [sic.]. At the Hungarian Embassy in Israel we also put the black flag outside the building and tribute some minutes silence to those lost. I am very very happy that there is no close loved one among the dead or injured, it is still very hard to see those on TV who do. Here in Israel we are living with the 'fear' of terrorist attacks on a daily basis, but of course nothing comparable to this. Here everybody keeps eyes open, looking for suspicious subjects, faces. Otherwise it is very nice here, sunny, we actually live in a very nice area outside of Tel Aviv - I think I don't have to tell you that you are welcome for a visit to Israel any time, our guest!!"

Hard to remember, but those sentiments from a Hungarian living in Israel summed up a lot of world opinion at the time.

Fast forward a couple of years post-Afghanistan, post-Iraq. I'm at a dinner party in London last night. Lots of Oxford/Yale types about so you had a bit of the requisite left-leaning group think in evidence (most of the guests evidently weren't of the Oxdem variety!).

Among the crowd a Columbia academic (actually a really nice guy) sketching out the similarities between Roger Williams (or was it John Winthrop?) and Usama bin Laden.

You know how it goes. Early puritans viewed the Indians as heathen and massacred them in large number. There was, of course, a fervent reliogisity pervading the entire genocidal project. Put simply, America was born in dark shame.

Indeed, the academic suggested, Roger Williams types operated in a fashion that al-Qaeda's acolytes could learn from and appreciate--so rich the similiarities born of theocratic fervor and disdain for the infidels--be they Pequot Indians in colonial America or, you know, a Honduran waiter working at Windows on the World (the latter doubtless deeply implicated in the House of Saud's efforts to prevent pure Wahabism from flowering on the Arabian peninsula or plotting Sharon's latest military gambits).

Thus the relativism of the academic left reaches full circle! The apocalapytic theological barbarism that pervades al-Qaeda's thought--precepts that would lead its followers to be happy (nay, ecstatic) to massacre literally millions of Americans (if it only possessed the means to do so)--is compared by an Ivy League anthropologist to the actions and beliefs of some of our Puritan forebears.

Of course, all these allegedly evil-doings by the forebears happened about 400 years ago, while al-Qaeda is calling for the slaughter of innocents right now. Even as somewhat of a Burkean--I've espied some progress in human rights norms and such since then. You know, it's a basic belief (perhaps naive, but even hard-boiled cynics are allowed wisps of optimism every now and again) in some form of progress (tortured and slow, to be sure). But don't try those arguments over here.

You'll likely be pinned to the wall and treated to dogmatic seminars re: more recent historical episodes that showcase that omnipresent special breed of American nefariousness. Thankfully, this crowd spared me dark intimations about that "other" 9/11 (good guy Allende so bruthishly dethroned by the meanies of the CIA).

But, permit me to note in passing at least, that theme has been increasingly trotted out by varied dinner companions in the 7th arrondisment, Notting Hill and similar encampments--all of whom appear to have recently seen some movie on 9/11/73--one I was litererally forced to view at someone's apartment a month or so back (truth be told, I was underwhelmed).

It gets worse though. Since it was a Saturday night, and an easy Sunday loomed, I decided to go out post-dinner. I end up at a loft party in the environs of Shoreditch/Islington. I actually felt at "home" when I first walked through the door. Big loft space, a DJ spinning on one side of the room with an ethnically mixed crowd alternately hanging out, dancing, chatting. In a word, I felt like I was back in downtown Manhattan! Whoppie. (Take that dank, dark Isle Britannia)!

Felt at "home," that is, until one of the woman at the party insisted on introducing me (and a friend) to others as "Americans" in a tone and manner that evoked a tortured hybrid consisting of 1) disbelief that a couple hapless Yanks had happened upon the "hip" Shoreditch scene, 2) a strong dose of horror that we were indeed Americans (as, of course, we're pretty much ignorant, fascistic buffoons in the eyes of those who get their news from skimming the Guardian or intermittent pipe-ins from Auntie Beeb), and 3) a good deal of astonishment that we didn't pop out some grits, Freedom Fries, Pabst Blue Ribbon and start pounding our chests and going on about how Texas was the repository of all that was civilized, true and just in the world--starting with its speedy and efficacious enforcement of the death penalty--before discoursing on how imperial garrisons need to be erected with dispatch in Damascus, Teheran, NoKo, Tripoli, Kharthoum and Mogadishu.

Seriously, it almost felt like a couple of Einsatzgruppen types has waded in from the street. Fascists in the house, bespoiling the crib!

The solace of sleep loomed, thankfully. Sunday morning found me back in the (somewhat) safer precincts of Belgravia. Al hamdulillah!

UPDATE: Oh, check this out too. Amazing, isn't it?

Perhaps another day I'll blog about the "why they hate us" meme; and talk about the needs for more clarity and humility in the enunciation of American foreign policy by this White House. The interesting thing is, Bush's policies aren't that removed from Clinton's. But, for various reasons (some having to do with the cowboy gun-slinging caricature, some not) the Euro masses focus in on Dubya with a special consternation and revulsion.

Still, even if Dubya were unseated, the deep uneasiness and dislike of the U.S. in large swaths of the globe will still be very much present. So the issue of our plummeting popularity needs to be seriously addressed. But, to do that, you need serious listeners on the other side. The extent of the widespread curiousity re: crude 9/11 conspiracy mongering (peddled about with increasing alacrity) in sophisticated adult democracies like France and Germany is alarming. Better leadership is needed--both by the political and media elites. The anti-Americanism has become too primitive, as even Joschka Fischer had warned a few months back.

Tell us it's time we either try or release the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Tell us you have real worries about the ramifications of the preemption doctrine. Tell us we come off as heavy-handed in some of our diplomatic activity and handling of alliance relations.

But don't tell us Gitmo is akin to a concentration camp. Or that you are worried America is in danger of no longer being a democracy as it's becoming a hyper-militaristic society. Or that we solely issue diktats to friend and foe alike without any attempt at multilateral understandings.

Because those hyperbolic contentions are simply prima facie false.

On Iraq, tell us we were naive about being greeted as liberators--particularly in the Sunni areas. Tell us that our anti-resistance tactics are too often alienating the local populace and allowing for conditions of a more sophisticated and protracted guerrilla conflict to perhaps take root. Tell us we were dumb as hell to disband the Iraqi Army and not better secure all known munitions/weapons depots.

But don't tell us we went to war for oil or some form of neo-colonialist land-grab. Or that most Iraqis nostagically have a hankering for Saddam. Or that is was better under Saddam.

In a word, make the anti-americanism less primitive. That might help produce a more concerted effort to address valid (and soberly relayed) grievances.

The Blogosphere Gets Results!

Another NYT correction--if a tad reluctantly phrased and a bit late.

"An article on Oct. 5 about tensions between the White House and George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, referred incorrectly to the comment in President Bush's State of the Union address that Mr. Tenet was blamed for not having deleted. The president said Iraq had been seeking to buy uranium in Africa. He did not specifically mention the African country of Niger, though it was identified several weeks earlier — along with Somalia and Congo — in the National Intelligence Estimate provided to members of Congress on Iraqi purchase attempts."

An American "Success"

Sure, Colin Powell did well getting the resolution passed and deserves a cheer or two. But it really doesn't make much of a difference as this article makes clear.

The real lessons of all this U.N. rigamarole?

All these unanimous Iraq resolutions (Res 1441, of course, the one before) bespeak how increasingly chimerical the U.N. as guarantor of international stability etc etc really is.

Resolution 1441 basically showcased how, to make nice, a bunch of countries will vote for a resolution with no real intent of following it precepts should the going get rough and real action be necessitated.

And yesterday's resolution shows that, for a variety of domestic/foreign policy reasons (Syria appearing like a 'good' citizen over at Turtle Bay to, among other things, help stave off IDF air runs over its airspace; France/Germany to patch up with the U.S., Russia to stress that they (not the Germans) are the real middleman between Washington and Old Europe; and so on) countries will support a resolution they don't really believe in.

Why do I say that? Because, at the end of the day, the likes of France, Russia and/or Germany are barely going to lift a finger to contribute positively towards accomplishing the goals of the resolution.

No, the UNSC is just too often an extension of national interests (often clumsily and crudely) played out on the world stage. Not much more, and not much less (note I'm not talking here of excellent branches of the UN like the UNHCR, UNESCO, WHO etc).

Oh, take a look at Le Monde's editorial on the American "success".

"Même si les apparences sont sauves grâce à un communiqué conjoint France-Allemagne-Russie, celle-ci privilégiera toujours sa relation avec les Etats-Unis sur ses liens avec les moyennes puissances européennes. Cette réalité-là souligne l'inanité de l'axe Berlin-Moscou-Paris : Poutine a choisi Washington, et réciproquement."

Translation:

"Even if appearances are saved thanks to a joint communique among France-Germany-Russia, Russia will always privilege relations with the U.S. over its links to the middle European powers. This reality underlines the inanity of the Berlin-Moscow-Paris axis: Putin chose Washington..."

Well of course. But my point here is, really, that it's all more about keeping score than the actual content of the various resolutions, as this frank analysis showcases.

I hope to have more soon on the absurdities of the seeming Franco-German love in. That's a chimera too.

Grotesque Historical Revisionism Watch

Clinton's always been pretty shameless. But this one is really, really rich.

"At Wednesday's luncheon, Clinton said his inability to convince Bush of the danger from al Qaeda was "one of the two or three of the biggest disappointments that I had."

Wow, what a whopper from a guy who basically issued UBL a passe-partout through the '90s.

And Clinton's forgetting these nettlesome details from the past too (go to the Chapter 7 link)

Madeline Albright On Tour!

She's buzzing about Europe and practicing her language skills on French radio (via Drudge).

Doubtless some of her continental crowd-pleasing anti-Bush musings might help create a little buzz and get her book off the racks a bit faster in jolly Old Europe, no?

UPDATE: I just saw Colin Powell interviewed by Tony Snow and asked about Albright's comments. He noted, very diplomatically, of course, that Madeline Albright was on a "book tour in France"
when she made the comments.

Translation: Madeline should never even have been promoted from US Ambassador to the UN up to SecState. Can't she at least stay quiet on the post-war travails in Iraq and peddle her book less offensively?Particularly as nothing she said provides deeper insight or helps add value to the policy debate...

Or at least that's what I think Colin Powell really meant....

Ground Zero Update

A story regarding one of the FDNY's many firehouses--this one on Liberty Street.

European Backbone Watch

Check out Solana rather forcefully telling Arafat to deliver on security or, if he can't, to step aside--by handing over the security administration reins to a competent PM.

Maybe if the Europeans and Russians bash the message in as well Arafat will finally let a PM handle the security enforcement tasks he so woefully fails to perform time after time.

Which, in turn, might help Dubya feel he has a stake in the peace process again.

UNSC Vote

Looks like a three-way telecon among Putin, Schroder and Chirac is leading to a yes vote by all said countries. But it's being done pretty reluctantly--and no troops or major funding donations appear in the offing from any of these three either.

Sign of the Times

Guess what parties are pressuring our allies the French and Germans to vote yes rather than abstain on the latest UNSC resolution? The Chinese and Russians!

"China and Russia offered their support on Wednesday for the latest version of the draft Security Council resolution on Iraq's future, putting heavy pressure on Germany and France to vote in favor of the measure, rather than join Syria in abstaining, Council diplomats said."

UPDATE: The WaPo provides better detail on the current state of play.

Post-Raines Watch

Poor Dave Sanger appears a bit torn today. On the one hand, there's the temptation to describe Dubya as an incurious buffoon when it comes to the greater world outside of Crawford:

"Past presidents have taken in the restaurants of Sydney or the wonders of the country. Not Mr. Bush: He cut the trip down to a visit to Canberra, a capital that is a bit like Ottawa but not quite as vibrant."

Note: Thanks for the Canadian and Australian travel tips Mr. Sanger!

And, on the other, there's the temptation to make it look like we are so badly losing the war on terror that Dubya can't even overnight in Southeast Asia (though even Sanger concedes he's in Thailand for a spell):

"This visit [Manila] will have no overnight. It lasts exactly eight hours, because the Secret Service will not permit Mr. Bush to stay past dinner in a country whose army officers are sometimes of dubious loyalty and where terrorist groups still strike with audacity.

But the Philippine government is not complaining. Indonesia gets the presidential presence for only three hours. It is all part of what one official calls "the trip from Al Qaeda hell."

Good work digging up some hypochondriac over at the Secret Service for the money quote, huh?

Oh, there's a third theme too. It seems Bush has spoiled all that rosy Clinton era globalization fun with all this nettlesome talk of security and such.

"The enforced haste shows how much Southeast Asia has changed from the region Mr. Bush's predecessors once traveled in so freely.

For 15 years, when American presidents visited Asia, it was to celebrate the region's dynamism and to marvel at the semiconductor factories and auto plants that sprang up like bamboo before the Asian economic crisis.

But the politics of globalization, too Clinton-sounding to be a favorite subject in the Bush White House even before terrorism took center stage, seems to be the furthest thing from Mr. Bush's mind.

Instead of factories, Mr. Bush is visiting Thai troops who recently returned from Afghanistan.

When Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, briefed reporters about the trip on Tuesday, she described no new economic programs with Asian allies and never mentioned the trade deficits with China or a decade of stagnation in Japan. Mr. Bush, she said, was intent on putting "security at the heart" of the Asian talks."

[emphasis added]

When terrorism took center stage? You mean that little 9/11 thing?

UPDATE: Reader ES writes in:

"Appreciated your bit today on the Sanger piece. Perhaps he'll be so kind as to print a retraction when Mr. Bush announces intent to negotiate bilateral free trade agreement with Thailand this week, and uses the APEC forum to
renew interest in the WTO Doha Round. There's that damned globalization thing again..."

Indeed.

Of Maps and Mockery

Some bloggers are making sport of a section of the State Department website where the map of Saudi Arabia doesn't make mention of Israel.

They ignore the other maps on the site. How about Syria? Or Jordan? Or Egypt? And look, those nefarious kow-towers at Foggy Bottom even sneak in the word "Israel" in this map of Lebanon! Or, put differently, Israel is prominently indicated in every State Dept. map of every country that borders it.

Hey pundits, don't just concentrate on the negative. There's good stuff too, right? Give us the whole picture!

Meanwhile, we've lost security personnel connected to a U.S. diplomatic convoy today in a tragic terrorist attack in Gaza. Yeah, they were probably there trying to make something of the oft-derided roadmap. Let's remember State Dept personnel face perilous risks too--just like our GIs in Iraq.

Straussian Self-Awareness Watch

Hey, are you a neo-con? Now you can take a quick quiz to find out!

UPDATE: So my initial score put me in the "realist" camp. But since I've been "accused" by so many friends and acquaintances of being a neo-con, I went back and changed one answer I was really wavering on.

And well, that tipped the balance! Voila, I was then in the neo-con camp! So I guess I'm right in the border regions between Kissingerian realpolitik and Wolfowitzian messianism. Or something like that.

I wonder what all those guys over at Oxblog would score? Is Belton more of a realist than Adesnik? What of the mysterious Urman? And Chafetz, perhaps the biggest neo-con among them? Or does that title go to Adesnik?

Condi Redux

Dan Drezner courteously links my thoughts on the NSC Advisor's performance.

But he goes on to directly contradict my post, particularly, the part about how Condi needs to actively broker/mediate, ie. play a Brent Scrowcroft role.

I wrote:

"But this is what the National Security Advisor should have been doing all along. Condi should be acting as a Brent Scrowcroft type. By that I mean she shouldn't merely be synthesizing different policy recommendations as between State and Defense. She needs to act like a broker, to proactively mediate, to suggest policy perhaps different than Powell or Rummy (or Cheney) would put forward.

Put differently, the NSC advisor shouldn't merely be a conduit for policy proposals that happen to be dispensed by an individual the President is comfortable hanging with at Camp David or hitting the treadmills with."

Drezner writes:

"For those tempted to criticize Rice's management skills, it's worth remembering that her attitude of what the NSC advisor should do is a direct copy of Brent Scowcroft's management style. H.W.'s administration is considered to be an exemplar of foreign policy management. The problem isn't with the management style -- it's with the President and the foreign policy principals that have been selected."

Dan's simply wrong on this one. Check out, for instance, Larry Kaplan in the current TNR (subscription required):

Money graf:

"But the fault hardly rests with the Pentagon alone. The White House--and, specifically, the NSC--bears ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the war in Iraq and its aftermath. It does so because it is the responsibility of the president and his national security adviser to have the final say on matters of foreign and defense policy and, as such, to mediate the frequent disputes between State and Defense. They have done neither.

Rather than coordinate the positions of the State and Defense departments, Rice has been overpowered by them. On Iran, North Korea, the United Nations, and Iraq, the United States has not one, but two policies."

The efficaciousness of the "management style" of an NSC Advisor--first and foremost--is judged by how well disputes between the ever bickering State and Defense Departments are mediated. Brent Scrowcroft, to take one example, did that well. Condi hasn't been--at least she hasn't been effectively--particularly on the big issues.

And when, as in this Administration, you've got virtually open trench warfare between State and Defense--this NSC Advisor brokering role is even more important. Perhaps critical even, vis-a-vis the successful implementation of foreign policy by the President.

Nor should Condi get a pass because of allegedly mystifying and unbridgeable philosophical divides between Rummy and Powell. Put differently, there is no mission impossible here. A new Secretary of State or Defense need not be appointed to assure smooth policymaking takes place.

It's about hammering out smart policy in the midst of strongly held and often differing views. And it's simply not happening often enough. So we've got dangerous drift (see Iran, NoKo, Middle East peace process, Iraq).

And, as Kaplan points out, creating a new layer of bureaucracy won't solve the problem. A more forceful Condi (or new NSC Advisor) might.

Important too, and this coming from an often Dubya fan, the President is not Nixonian in his foreign policy facility and apercus. All the more important that he be provided with forcefully and intelligently brokered policy options he can expeditiously act on.

We can't have him get off the phone with Powell thinking one thing, and then talking to Cheney or Rummy and feeling another. Too often, the President then goes on to emit confusing signals to foe and friend alike.

Note: In all fairness, Condi's role is made more difficult by the presence of an uncommonly (unprecedentedly?) powerful Veep who appears to have assembled his own NSC. Dan Quayle (even ably assisted by Bill Kristol!) he ain't.

Turkish Embassy Bombing

You mean they will even try to kill fellow Sunnis! Who would have thunk!

BTW, readers of this blog might think, by looking at my surname, that I'm biased on issues Turkish given my part Armenian background.

Just to clarify, note that I recently returned from a trip to Armenia. Some nationalist opinion there would prefer that the Turks go into Iraq.

Why? Because, to put it plainly, they think Turkish troops will die there--and maybe even in significant number. That goes some way towards outweighing regret in some nationalist quarters that a Turkish troop contribution might contribute to a U.S.-Turkish rapprochment or help better ensure protection of vital Turkish national interests in northern Iraq.

No, I'm looking at this purely from the prism of the U.S. national interest. I won't bore readers by linking my original post on five reasons why this is a dumb idea again. Suffice it to say that I remain stunned this is flying in the Beltway.

Oh, and since you've likely been getting Iraqi polling date thrown at you--check this one out too.

Geneva Accords

The NYT now has a story on Yossi Beilin's peacemaking efforts. The main aspects of the plan:

* The Palestinians will concede the right of return. Some refugees will remain in the countries where they now live, others will be absorbed by the PA, some will be absorbed by other countries and some will receive financial compensation. A limited number will be allowed to settle in Israel, but this will not be defined as realization of the right of return.

* The Palestinians will recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

* Israel will withdraw to the 1967 borders, except for certain territorial exchanges, as decribed below.

* Jerusalem will be divided, international force will ensure freedom of access for visitors of all faiths. However, Jewish prayer will not be permitted on the mount, nor will archaeological digs. The Western Wall will remain under Jewish sovereignty and the "Holy Basin" will be under international supervision.

* The settlements of Ariel, Efrat and Har Homa will be part of the Palestinian state. In addition, Israel will transfer parts of the Negev adjacent to Gaza, but not including Halutza, to the Palestinians in exchange for the parts of the West Bank it will receive.

* The Palestinians will pledge to prevent terror and incitement and disarm all militias. Their state will be demilitarized, and border crossings will be supervised by an international, but not Israeli, force.

* The agreement will replace all UN resolutions and previous agreements.

Barak denigrated the plan as "delusional." Frankly, I think that's partly because he's wasn't involved and felt out-maneuvered by some fellow left-leaning Israeli politicians. For one, there isn't too much here that goes beyond what Barak had offered at Camp David II.

And no, the Palestinians do not get a right of return--it's worth stressing again.

I agree with Haaretz that opines that this entire Geneva Accords effort shouldn't be viewed as a product of a "secret and illegitimate relationship with the enemy"as some Likudniks are darkly suggesting.

It's actually a pretty good plan and mirrors much of the Camp David II negotiations. Of course, it's doesn' t have a snowball's chance in hell of getting anywhere. Sharon and other Likudniks detest Yossi Beilin. On the Labor side of the fence--Peres is pretty much saying nothing and Barak is pouring water on it. And, not suprisingly, not a peep out of the White House.

Still, we can perhaps categorize all this under the oft-used "developing" label. Sharon hasn't delivered security to the Israeli people. If you're actually living in Israel--and so aren't issuing arm-chair diktats from far afield to round up all the Palestinians and kick them across the Jordan River--you've actually got to worry, on a daily basis, about existential threats born of the scourge of suicide bombing. Sharon hasn't really helped his public on that score.

The fence is increasingly problematic and will not stem all bombings. Remember, the Haifa bomber got in via a fence checkpoint. It's not a fail-safe solution.

So there is a continuing rationally-derived appetite for the contours of a peace deal. At the very least, Beilin's peace efforts show that the Israeli left hasn't become totally scelerotic. It has survived the last three years of bloodshed--not really in spite of all the violence--but to some extent because of it. Further, and to their credit, people like Beilin realize there is no morally viable military solution to the conflict, ie. the peace processing must go on.

Not as quixotic, academic and rosy-eyed gambits pursued just for kicks, Nobel Prizes, and such--but to try to make real, material progress towards a general settlement. But, to get there, you also need an active U.S. mediation effort. Especially when the Israeli government in power is reticent to make significant concessions. And, on that score, we're pretty much AWOL. So keep expectations low. Real low.

Anti-Yank Hyperbole Watch

Uh, did you hear the one about the future of American democracy being under threat?

"Roxanne Jekot, who has put much of her professional and personal life on hold to work on the issue full time, puts it even more strongly. "Corporate America is very close to running this country. The only thing that is stopping them from taking total control are the pesky voters. That's why there's such a drive to control the vote. What we're seeing is the corporatisation of the last shred of democracy.

"I feel that unless we stop it here and stop it now," she says, "my kids won't grow up to have a right to vote at all."

What's sad is that relatively educated Britons buy this paper and actually believe this crapola. But what can you do?

Funding Watch

Walter Slocombe has an op-ed worth reading over at the WaPo. It's basically a call to various Washington actors to stand strong and help push through the requisite funding per the President's request for $87B. To drive that point home, Slocombe writes:

"Iraq is rich in resources -- not just oil, water and fertile soil but a resourceful population with a respect for education and hard work. But for those resources to be mobilized as the basis of a stable, democratic, prosperous and peaceful country, everything from the railroads to the electric grid to the school system must recover -- not from war damage, which was minimal, but from a generation or more of neglect, corruption and mismanagement.

This task will take many years, and most of the money after the president's supplemental funding request will have to come from Iraq's own efforts, private investment and the support of the international community as a whole. The U.S. contribution now being considered is designed to address only the most urgent needs -- to bring electricity production close to demand so factories can reopen, to increase the safety of drinking water, to repair the worst of Hussein's depredations on the environment, to build basic conditions for private investment, to bring communications into the 21st century and to meet the most critical of a host of similar basic needs. Doing that contributes to security every bit as much as training police or reopening border control posts." [emphasis added]

Get it? The $87B (on top of the money already spent) is just to cover the cost of the troop deployment and funds deemed to be urgently required for basic reconstruction expenditures. Much more cash will be needed going forward.

That's fine, we all knew what a massive undertaking this was going to be. But, assuming that Bush doesn't cut and run (very contra his personality), and further assuming that we don't get as much funding as we'd like from partners, varied "allies," oil production etc, we should get prepared for another large funding request next year.

Resolution Watch

The latest Turtle Bay going-ons via Brian Knowlton of the IHT:

"By incorporating a deadline [ed. note: for constitution/election], if only for a transitional step, the new draft being circulated today represented a departure from the earlier version, and gave a nod to its critics, notably France."

Here's Dominique de Villepin's reaction:

"There is progress compared to the previous text," Dominique de Villepin, the foreign minister of France, said today in Luxembourg, according to Agence France-Presse. "The real question is whether this progress is enough."

Well sure--it's blatantly obvious that's the question. Might the French Foreign Minister instead clue us in to the Quai d'Orsay's position rather than state the blindingly self-evident?

Doubtless a long and tortured Derrida-like inspection of the latest draft needs to take place first, bien sur?

Meanwhile, Spanish PM Aznar is quoted as saying:

"I have the impression that some in Europe think that if things go wrong in Iraq they could benefit," Mr. Aznar said, according to Reuters. "That seems to me a very serious error."

Hmmm. Wonder who he's talking about?

Reservists Here, There, Everywhere

Here. And here.

And from the Haaretz ticker:

"22:05 Syrian diplomat tells New York Times that Damascus calling up reservists due to heightened regional tension"

How Not to Start a Peacekeeping Mission

This is getting off to a great start, isn't it?

"Turkish soldiers deployed in Iraq will open fire on Kurdish fighters if they come under attack, a senior general has warned."

"If the convoys are attacked, the necessary response will be given," said the army's deputy chief of staff, General Ilker Basbug.

"The Turkish armed forces have the abilities and capacity to protect their convoys and themselves."

What convoys? What happened to Bill Safire's sea route?

UPDATE: Mort Abramowitz has more on all this.

Middle East Round-Up

Lots of links worth reading re: the current Mideast situation. Check out Rob Malley's op-ed in today's WaPo. His dire assessment about the moribund state of American peacemaking efforts is pretty much on the mark. Nor will these types of de minimis fact finding expeditions tip the balance into a reassertion of a strong U.S. "honest broker" role.

So, much like with the Oslo process, some Israelis are picking up the slack (through Swiss rather than Norwegian intermediaries). Yossi Beilin has been working on a peace plan. Former Labor PM Ehud Barak thinks it's "delusional."

Sharon, no surprise, doesn't like it either--and denies that he was being briefed on the plan as the negotiations were underway--as Yossi Beilin contends.

Note that all this peace negotiating, while unlikely to prove frutiful given the overall bleak atmospherics throughout the Holy Land, showcases that the Israeli left is emerging from the somewhat comatose state its been in since the start of the last intifada three years hence. There are now some stirrings of life.

Partly, this is a result of the limitations of Sharon's strategy. His military actions in the Occupied Territories have failed to deliver security to the Israeli public. A military solution remains a chimera--thus the necessity to continue to strive for a political settlement.

For instance, what's really accomplished by this Rafah raid? That's a lot of newly homeless people to close three tunnels (and doubtless there are others the IDF hasn't found--so arms will still filter in from the Egyptian border).

Is this smart strategy? Given the human costs--I doubt it. Reports indicate dozens of individuals were injured when a helicopter gunship shot into a crowd. A couple young children were killed. Doubtless many gunmen were felled as well. But, and it's worth noting as innocent Palestinian lives are worth every bit as much as Israeli ones, that shooting missiles into crowds doesn't just get the bad guys. Put simply, I think Sharon sometimes is too comfortable accepting so called collateral damage resulting from missile attacks in crowded population centers like refugee camps.

On the Syria front, the Jpost has a series of Syria-related articles worth looking at--particularly the article detailing the IDF's massive military advantage in any prospective confrontation.

Finally, the JPost also has an alarming story that terror groups may be planning attacks against British Jews.

Candidate for Understatement of the Year

"As a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, I know something about managing investigations of the White House and even more about managing the White House when it's under investigation."

John Podesta, Bill Clinton's old Chief of Staff, writing about Plamegate in the WaPo.

Condi in the Spotlight

The WaPo has a piece on Condi Rice and, more generally, the role of a national security advisor, that closely mirrors a Belgravia Dispatch post of a few days back.

Some key grafs:

"Many officials with firsthand knowledge of White House decision making contend that Rice is weak at forging those decisions, sometimes attempting to meld incompatible approaches that later fail. She is also perceived as not resolving enough issues before they reach the president and doing a poor job of making sure his wishes are carried out.

Administration officials said the situation has left many problems unresolved, especially at lower levels, and led to frequent policy shifts. Decisions are made and then altered or reversed, and feuding advisers have been emboldened to keep pressing their case or to even ignore policy guidance in the hope of achieving final victory."

Indeed.

Nobel Peace Prize

Patrick Belton of the always estimable Oxblog has a good roundup re: this year's winner.

Glenn Reynolds Gets Results!

As Dan Drezner might put it. The NYT comes out with a more, shall we say, "fair and balanced" Iraq piece. Instapundit blogs it here.

All well and good. I'm happy the Administration is being more forceful about getting the message out that it's not all doom and gloom over in Iraq. Dubya made a good speech re: that theme recently. Jerry Bremer is getting the message out too.

But I hope Condi doesn't waste too much time on spin. I remember hearing a depressing tale of George Stephanopoulos virtually running a national security meeting re: Somalia during the Clinton years. No real discussion of the security implications of the going-ons in the environs of Mogadishu. Instead, the press flaks were running the show. Spin, spin, spin.

The Bushies need to keep in mind the paramount challenge in Iraq right now. And that's security, security, security. The rest can follow. People typically prefer even brutishly delivered order to conditions rife with anarchy.

We've got to give Iraqis a better deal on security--by devastating the foreign jihadis and Ba'athist remnants. The trick, of course, is to do all that without creating legions more disaffected Iraqis who might take up arms because of heavy-handed tactics. That's where the adminstration needs to focus it's thinking.

Phoney Jobs Watch

The UK has got Kelly-Gate and we've got Leak-Gate. What's cooking in Paris?

Corruption? Alain Juppe? Perhaps Jacques Chirac? Say it ain't so....

"Mr Juppé has insisted that all RPR officials paid for by the public purse exercised real town hall jobs that had dual political and administrative functions.

However, this line of defence met with scepticism yesterday as the court was told that Patrick Stefanini, who succeeded Mr Cabana as Mr Juppé's chief of staff, had received €210,000 ($247,000) from the city - even though he allegedly never kept an office in the town hall, never appeared in the municipal directory and would appear to have left little or no written trace of his existence.

It has taken a long time for such grubby details to reach a courtroom. But now old practices are coming to haunt France's political establishment, precisely at the moment when everything is presented as being in good order. The outcome could yet affect high-profile political careers, from the president down."

Surely these are some of the values of which Dominique de Villepin speaks, so eloquently, in Le Monde?

Resolution 1441 Revisited

Another strong piece by Charles Krauthammer.

Key grafs:

"Kay's list is chilling. It includes a secret network of labs and safe houses within the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi foreign intelligence service; bioorganisms kept in scientists' homes, including a vial of live botulinum toxin; and my favorite, "new research on BW [biological weapons]-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin" -- all "not declared to the U.N."

I have been to medical school, and I have never heard of Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever. I don't know one doctor in 100 who has. It is a rare disease, and you can be sure that Hussein was not seeking a cure.

He was not after the Nobel in physiology (Yasser Arafat having already won the peace prize). He was looking for a way to turn these agents into killers. The fact that he was not stockpiling is relevant only to the question of why some prewar intelligence was wrong about Iraq's WMD program. But it is not relevant to the question of whether a war to preempt his development of WMD was justified."

And this very key point, which I've discussed before, wholeheartedly agree with, and stress again:

"...Resolution 1441, unanimously passed by the Security Council, ordered Hussein to make a full accounting of his WMD program and to cooperate with inspectors, and warned that there would be no more tolerance for concealment or obstruction. Kay's finding of "dozens of WMD-related program activities" concealed from U.N. inspectors constitutes an irrefutable material breach of 1441 -- and an open-and-shut justification for the U.S. decision to disarm Saddam Hussein by force."

Putin's NYT Interview

This Putin interview is a from a couple days back but there are some fascinating nuggets which weren't picked up in the blogosphere. As they say, read the whole thing (it's long though).

But here are some excerpts I found particularly intriguing.

Q.: Can it happen that America will get bogged down there for 10 years?

Mr. Putin: You are a dangerous person. You are taking from my stomach everything that I am trying to hide. I think that what the U.S. administration is trying to do now to internationalize the situation there is the right course, because such danger exists, of course. For the internationalization to take place, one has to take into account the interests of those who are going to be involved - first of all, the Iraqi people.

Yeah, I know. It's that lame (and predictable) New York Times quagmire question. But Putin's answer (employing an old Russian saying) is of interest. Maybe I'm naive, but I really don't think Putin has been infected by the Franco-German schandenfreude virus. So it's interesting to see him answer the "Q" Q thus. Sure, it's in his interest to tout internationalizing the effort and so on. But he's got a point--it helps our exit too, doesn't it?

But be careful how you internationalize! Putin touches on this a bit later.

"Mr. Putin:...But if you allow me, I would share few of my thoughts. Perhaps I will express aloud one thought of mine. It is not the answer to your question, it is just a conversation over tea. But this is something that deserves some thinking about. Of course, the more different types of contingents that are there, the broader the political base of support for the coalition forces will be. And this is very important, but there is nothing good in it from a military-technical point of view.

Even now these multinational, or I would call them, motley forces do not add anything good to the stabilization of the situation there. In order to act efficiently there, professionals are needed. There must be people who understand where they are, people who know the traditions of the local population and are capable of respecting these traditions, who are capable of finding and improving contacts, are capable of demonstrating their force and are capable of displaying big-heartedness. Today, according to information we have, these are poorly trained military formations, which think about fleeing as soon as possible, about being replaced as often as possible every three or four months. Then new untrained people come and commit the same mistakes for the third of fourth time.

Q.: What contingents ... The Polish? The Mongolian?

Mr. Putin: Different countries of the coalition. I will not name them. You know them better than I do. Some abuse alcohol. Some write slogans offending and insulting local people and cause multithousand rallies and demonstrations against the coalition forces. The third begin to sell weapons. In general, multinational forces are good politically, but there is nothing good in it from the military point of view. This is why I think that the Americans could very well be put at the head of the forces of the international coalition because unity of command is needed. But as of now, there is a political drawback here that the local people are not very enthusiastic about presence of the U.S. military. I think that in order to improve it, we need patience and coordination of all the forces."

Putin is on to something here too, I think. Just because Rummy can proclaim from the Pentagon podium that we've got 30 plus nations serving doesn't make it smart to have random Salvodorean and/or Mongolian contingents running about the Iraqi hinterlands. Who knows if any of them are slamming back the booze, insulting the locals, or selling arms? But I still think myriad contingents from a bunch of countries isn't the way to go...

Later, on Chechnya:

Q.: Did President Bush raise the question of Chechnya during the meeting at Camp David?

Mr. Putin: I informed him of the current status of affairs there.

Q.: But did he raise the question?

Mr. Putin: Well, I do not remember at this time whether he raised it, but we did discuss it.

I think Dubya did raise it. Good for him.

AND FINALLY:

Q.: Which terrorist organizations?

Mr. Putin: From all Muslim world. Different fundamentalist organizations send their militants there. These organizations struggle against legitimate regimes in their own countries and in general oppose the entire civilized world in many regions of the planet: in Afghanistan, Iraq, in the Middle East, in our country, in other parts of the world. The coalition forces received two enemies at once both the remains of the Saddam regime who fight with them and those who Saddam himself had fought in the past - the fundamentalists. It is a difficult task to fight them efficiently. As for the weapons of mass destruction, in this respect we did not have any contradictions with the U.S. administration. We also thought that there might be weapons of mass destruction on the territory of Iraq. The question is what has happened to them? In this sense, it would be better if the armed forces and the special services knew in advance what was located where and would have seized these places during the first hours of the military operation. But if it did not happen, I would not like to blame or criticize anybody. I think we have to act differently. We have to unite efforts to do everything to neutralize these possible threats."
(my emphasis)

Yeah, it was just Dubya and Poodle Tony who thought Saddam had WMD, right?

Naive Romanticism Watch

Dominique de Villepin has penned another quasi-tome in Le Monde. This time it's not about U.N. resolutions--but French decline. Soundbite: France ain't in decline. We're king (or at least the conscience) of the world!

"Et c'est au moment où notre pays retrouve sa voix originale dans le concert des nations, c'est au moment où un grand nombre de peuples se reconnaissent dans les valeurs que la France défend...."

Translation: "And it's at the moment where our country rediscovers it original voice in the community of nations, it's at the moment that a large number of peoples recognize themselves in the values that France defends..."

What values are those? The obstruction of the legitimate enforcement of unanimously passed U.N. resolutions?

More:

"Point de déclin, mais un destin. Au regard destructeur et désenchanté, j'oppose celui que je croise jour après jour, renvoyant l'image d'une France influente, entendue et attendue, respectée pour ses idées. Je veux continuer à défendre cette France audacieuse et solidaire, servie par un Etat moderne. La force du compromis national réside dans l'équilibre qu'il a su trouver entre sacralité des libertés individuelles et solidarité publique, initiative et protection, humanisme et universalisme."

Translation: "No to decline, but to destiny. To the destructive and disenchanted look....let's send back a message of an influential France, heard and waited for, respected for its ideas. I want to continue to defend a France of audacity and solidarity, served by a modern State. The force of the national compromise resides in the equilibrium that was found between the sacredness of individual liberties and public solidarity, initiative and protection, humanism and universalism."

Take that you brutish Hobbesian Anglo-Saxons!

Talking Turkey

Glenn Reynolds thinks the Turks want to go into Iraq because they are betting the Americans will come out the victors there, ie. hey it's good news!

Nah. Here's the real reason the Turks are going in.

All of this has nothing to do with stealthfully mounting operations against the PKK, protecting the Turkomen minority in the north, keeping a presence in places like Kirkuk and/or Mosul, and otherwise pursuing Turkish national interests in Iraq (including where said interests conflict with U.S. interests).

And who gives a damn if the Iraqi governing council is unanimously opposed. The Turks think we're gonna win! So send 'em in...

Note: If you missed it please check out my previous post on the top five reasons why sending Turkish troops to Iraq is a really bad idea.

Condi Watch

OK, so Condoleezza Rice is going to head up the so-called Iraqi Stabilization Group. And Rummy isn't too happy about it-- despite these reports.

But this is what the National Security Advisor should have been doing all along. Condi should be acting as a Brent Scrowcroft type. By that I mean she shouldn't merely be synthesizing different policy recommendations as between State and Defense. She needs to act like a broker, to proactively mediate, to suggest policy perhaps different than Powell or Rummy (or Cheney) would put forward.

Put differently, the NSC advisor shouldn't merely be a conduit for policy proposals that happen to be dispensed by an individual the President is comfortable hanging with at Camp David or hitting the treadmills with.

Dan Drezner writes:

"Many have given the president a pass on these issues and blamed NSC advisor Condoleezza Rice for the kinks in the policy process. That would be grossly unfair. The only real leverage an NSC advisor has is the ear of the president, and that only matters when the president takes an interest in the process."

I don't think that's quite right. An NSC advisor has more leverage than the ear of a President. For one, they have their own sizable staff. They can bring some muscle into the policy-planning process. Think of Zbigniew Brzezinski, for instance.

Further, as alluded to above, NSC advisors are supposed to broker disputes as between and among outside agencies. That's a lot of power right there. You're, in essence, in a position to "make" the policy by ingeniously bridging the inevitable gaps that appear between State and the Pentagon (and sometimes the CIA).

Regardless, to say the "only" leverage a NSC Advisor has is the "ear of the president" is somewhat disingenuous. There's nothing more important than that in all of Washington! A huge part of the battle is having the ear of the President. It's often the determinative advantage in any Beltway policy battle.

It's pretty much common knowledge in Washington that Rummy and Wolfy appeal to Dubya's "heart" and Powell occasionally to his "head". In other words, Bush remains firmly ensconced emotionally in a 9/11 frame of mind. Homeland security is paramount. He views entire regions through that prism.

So Putin gets a pass on Chechyna. And Arik Sharon can go and bomb Syria for the first time in thirty years and Bush will talk about how Sharon shouldn't feel any "constraints" (with some modifying verbiage appended). After all, Arik's got to defend the homeland. And so does Putin.

But Bush is smart enough to adjust his policy for the U.S. national interest. He'd be tougher on Musharraf, for instance, given Pakistani-supported terror-like activities in India, were it not for the massive U.S. interest in Musharraf cooperating with the U.S. post 9/11 (though that's in some abeyance now).

My point? Too often, Powell hasn't had the President's ear. And Rummy/Cheney/Wolfy have more or less had a free rein because they appeal to Bush's heart and are all very capable individuals in their own right who couch their policy proposals in an intelligent manner.

But we are now nearing a stage in the Middle East where, I believe, serious policy errors are being made. We need to be less AWOL in terms of the brewing situation among Israel/Lebanon/Syria. We need to really think hard about the impact Turkish troops might have in Iraq. We need to (honestly, seriously) ponder whether we really have enough troops in Iraq.

To help these policy deliberations really get going, it would help to have a major broker role played by the NSC advisor.

Can she pull this off? I'm a bit skeptical. She's not a Middle East expert--so I'm not sure she will bring major insights in that realm. And her regional expert on the Middle East, Elliot Abrams, is pretty much going to tout a Wolfowitz type line on what we need to do in the region.

Further, Rummy, Cheney and Powell are skilled bureaucratic blackbelts and all have more Washington experience than her. So what am I saying? I guess I'm just not sure this new bureaucratic structure is going to make any difference.

And that's a bit concerning. We're six months into the nation-building effort in Iraq. Time is racing by. And we're simply not where we should be at this stage.

Too much doom and gloom over here in Belgravia? Maybe. But I think people like Tom Friedman are right. We need to get more sophisticated in our policymaking approach in the Middle East. And I don't think enough people really get that in Washington right now.

All this said, take a look at this bleak alternative. Gosh, Dean is certainly not ready for primetime:

"Regarding Iraq, Dr. Dean, who opposed the American invasion this spring, promised to bring National Guard and Army reserve troops home, leaving 70,000 American troops, and to add about 110,000 international troops, mostly from Muslim and Arab nations. "

Um, yeah, whatever.

Troop Contribution Watch

So even Ahmed Chalabi is against this dumb move (the Governing Council is unanimously opposed).

Why isn't this getting more attention in the press and/or blogosphere?

Beats me.

Poor Journalism Watch

Big bloggers like Sullivan and Reynolds are approvingly linking to this Ralph Peters story--seemingly endorsing it in toto.

The theme? What Glenn Reynolds has been hitting on for weeks--ie, that the media is downplaying any success in Iraq and solely focusing on the negatives. Sure, but not as much as Reynolds makes out.

Listen, you're a reporter. You're in Iraq. In one area the power has come back on, a new school has opened, a symphony orchestra is back on tap.

And in another, say, three GIs have been killed. Or the United Nations headquarters has been blown up. Or a major cleric has been killed in a bombing. What story are you going to cover?

The answer is: mostly the latter category. Sure, one should be duty bound to give a full picture and cover the former category as well. Yes, there's a valid complaint being made by Reynolds. Indeed, it's one I often make myself--regular readers of this blog no I spend a lot of energy catching media bias against the Bush Adminstration.

But let's not get carried away with Panglossian visions of how it all goes in Iraq--if it weren't for those damn journalists.

But put all that aside. This Peters line sure is rich, isn't it?

"Of course, things still could go badly. Even if we do everything right, we may find, in the end, that the Iraqis aren't ready for prime-time. Iraq ultimately may fail because the Iraqis fail themselves."

Where to start with this absurd quote?

For one, let's show a little humility. No one is infallible. Even the most ardent (and serious) supporters of our postwar performance wouldn't argue we are doing "everything right" in post war Iraq today. That's risible.

And what is "prime-time" in this context? Stepping up dutifully to the responsibilities bestowed by the American liberator--all ethnic and religious complexities to be tossed aside before the kleig-lights--the better so that the American public can more easily enjoy the show around the living room with Fox News being beamed in?

Who has responsibility for security given that the coalition disbanded the Iraqi army? Or getting the oil back on tap? Or the power?

Does Peters even think of these questions?

UPDATE: QandO has more on this.

Bureaucratic Trench Warfare (Part Two)

Rummy speaks to the FT.

The interview transcript.

Key snippet:

"Q: Not to belabor the point, but it sounds from your response there that you had not been briefed about this prior to Dr Rice's briefing of the Times and the memo.

DR: That's true.

Q: OK. Did you talk to the president about this beforehand?

DR: Have I talked to him about it? No.

Q: OK. OK. Did it come as a surprise to you then?

DR: No, that's what the NSC's charter is. It's a kind of - the only thing unusual about it is the attention. I kind of wish they'd just release the memorandum.

Q: You said already, working for one year in the way you said, told us, why then is it necessary to make the memorandum?

DR: I don't know. You'd have to ask them. I don't know.

Q: Do you have any [inaudible] why?

DR: I've already responded to that.

Q: It's not quite clear why.

DR: Pardon me?

Q: It's not quite clear for me why.

DR: I said I don't know. Isn't that clear? You don't understand English? I was not there for the backgrounding.

Q: One might think you'd talk about it with Condoleezza and with others in the National Security Council when you're sitting together, five or six of you.

DR: Yeah, we talk about everything.

Q: And she doesn't say: Now I'm writing a memo, by the way, I'll tell you.

DR: I happen not to know that she was going to write a memo, but that's true every day that somebody on the NSC writes a memorandum, or someone in one of the principle departments. I mean I write memorandums all the time that people don't know I'm writing until people receive it. I think you're looking for something that's not there."

Sounds likes Rummy was just taken down a peg or two.

Is the Bush-Musharraf Honeymoon Coming to an End?

Some tough talk from the next U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan:

"Mr. Khalilzad indicated a new, tough line against Pakistan, saying that the first priority was for Afghanistan's neighbor to stop cross-border activity and stop providing sanctuary to Taliban and Al Qaeda members.

"That is really critical," he said. "Pakistan cannot become a sanctuary for Taliban and Al Qaeda people who want to attack Afghanistan."

He added: "There has to be a decrease, and at best an end, to cross-border attacks by Taliban and Al Qaeda people from Pakistan. I welcome the recent actions by the Pakistani government but we would like to see more, in fact a lot more."

A Potentially Very Negative Development in Iraq

Today brings news that the Turkish parliament has approved a troop deployment to Iraq. This is being greeted as good news in some quarters. Here are five reasons why it is anything but.

1) The Iraqi governing council opposes the move. Do we really want the first major non-U.S., non-U.K., non-Polish troop contingent to come from a country whose troops the (U.S. appointed) Iraqi governing council doesn't want inside Iraq? What message does that send to all those who think solely the Americans are calling the shots in Baghdad?

Oh, and don't let this month old report comfort you. An Ahmed Chalabi spokesperson doesn't speak for the entire governing council. By a long shot.

Note that it's not just the Kurdish members of the Iraqi governing council complaining:

"We believe any interference from a neighboring country, either north, south, west or east, is unacceptable," said Mouwafak Al-Rabii, a Shiite council member and longtime human rights activist. "This interference is unacceptable. This interference will jeopardize Iraq and that country."

2) Which leads me to the second reason. If Turkey is allowed into Iraq in such significant fashion--the Iranians are more likely to begin to make mischief in predominately Shi'a areas of Iraq. They simply won't allow Turkey to consolidate (through supply chains and communications networks) a stronger foothold in northern Iraq while not making their own inroads in Shi'a areas.

And it it won't be hard. For one, there's major human traffic between the two countries. It's not hard to imagine a large amount of Iranian agents seeping over the border.

A (not too tangential) digression: In 1995 I was in Sarajevo and got a good look at the Iranian Embassy. A large and spanking new structure. Myriad accredited "diplomats" were based there. They weren't all chugging along to Foreign Ministry meetings and audiences with Alija Izetbegovic. Instead, the Mullahs had sent them there to use Bosnia as a European beachhead from which to export the Islamic revolution. They weren't successful--but they did manage to infiltrate the U.S. led "train and equip" program of the Bosnian Federation military (a project I worked on and that ultimately lessened Iranian influence in the region).

My point? The Iranians are good at this type of thing. They might even try to scuttle Dubya's electoral bid like they did to Carter. Don't underestimate them--and don't facilitate their tendency to trouble-make by letting the Turks in.

3) The Turks are most likely going to be based somewhere in the Sunni sector. Why? To have them actually based in the Kurdish area would be folly. And to have them located in the Shi'a area would piss off the Iranians even more. So it is pretty much a no-brainer that they will go to the Sunni areas.

Another reason they will likely be headed to Sunni regions? Some planners actually believe that--as most Turks are Sunni Muslims--assorted Saddam Fedayeen, Ba'athist remnants and foreign jihadis will be less likely to kill them than, say, Americans or, you know, Serb troops and the like.

Well folks, if you believe that one, come on over so I can tell you about how amazingly charismatic Gray Davis is or what a dashing figure Cruz Bustamante cuts on television.

Incidentally, some Turks realize they might lose some of their soldiers too. It's a real concern.

4) Oh, some "analysts" believe the presence of Muslim forces in Iraq will mollify Muslim public opinion about the nefarious Crusader occupation of Iraq.

Rubbish. From Jakarta to Marrakech, few will give a damn. This won't change perceptions a wit.

Further, regarding Arab Muslims, the tendency will be to view the presence of Turks in Iraq as a negative. To fears of a Wolfowitzian American empire asserting itself through the region--old and nasty memories of Ottoman dominion will swell to the fore to boot. Swell.

5) The prospects of a conflagration between Kurdish peshmerga and Turkish troops "passing through" their territory is very real. The northern front has been pretty quiet so far. This might help ruin that.

Folks, I said this is potentially a bad development in the title to this post. I used the italicized word because, despite parliamentary approval, there is still a good amount of time that is going to pass as details are fully hammered out and the troops deployed. Here's hoping someone gets around this debate in Washington and brings an end to this dumb policy before the troops are actually deployed.

UDPATE: Sully doesn't get it. Nor does Safire--who writes:

"To reassure the democratic Kurds who fought Saddam, we are setting up ways to transport and supply Turkish troops without establishing that army's presence in cities like Mosul and Kirkuk. A sea route may be the solution." [my emphasis]

What "sea route" might that be? Through the sea of Atlantis?

Believe me, enough Turkish troops will cross the long, contiguous border with Iraq to increase friction in Kurdish areas--even if other contingents are shipped over to the Gulf to come in via Kuwait or through chopper lifts from Jordan.

Note: True, the Turks are very worried about keeping Iraq as a unitary state in its current borders like the U.S. (indeed, they are probably the only state that cares about this more than the U.S.)

Beyond that, however, our interests will diverge significantly and the Turkish presence will cause us good sized headaches.

If Don Rumsfeld claims we don't need more troops in--why are we making such a bad move just to get 10,000 more boots on the ground?

Israel-Syria Watch

From the Haaretz news ticker:

18:09 Sharon: Israel will not be deterred from defending its citizens, will hit its enemies any place and in any way.
18:04 Israel releases map pinpointing homes and offices of Palestinian militant leaders in Damascus.

Sharon is certainly keeping the pressure up. But I doubt Asad would deport and/or arrest all those militant leaders. Would Sharon strike targets in Damascus? He just might--particularly if he calculates Washington would accept it.

Despite speculation otherwise, however, I don't think that the Israelis have received a blanket authorization from Washington to engage in purportedly preemptive actions throughout the neighborhood.

Sharon has to be careful to balance the totality of Dubya's statements:

"I made it very clear to the prime minister, like I have consistently done, that Israel's got a right to defend herself, that Israel must not feel constrained in terms of defending the homeland," Bush said in Washington.

"However, I said that it's very important that any action Israel take(s) should avoid escalation and creating higher tensions," he said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the United States had urged Israel and Syria to avoid "actions that heighten tensions or that could lead to hostilities."

"But we have repeatedly told Syria that they need to stop harboring terrorists," he said.

I think attacking targets in Damascus is just the type of action that would create "higher tensions." Developing.

UPDATE: Some informed Israeli opinion thinks that moving more robustly against Syria could be a bad idea:

"But others, among them former chief of military intelligence Uri Segui, suggested that the Syria raid would do little to persuade Damascus to curb terror chieftains, whether in the Syrian capital, south Lebanon, or in central Gaza.

"One possibility is that the war on terror, justified as it may be - and on principle, it is justified - will spread to other battlefronts as well, and I am not certain that the results will be any better," said Segui, once Israel's chief negotiator with Damascus.

Suggesting that the Syrians were most likely to attack Israel through Hezbollah, which has often acted as Syria's client militia, Seguisaid the current situation was a "a sort of game, a balance of horror."

Many felt that Israel might be saved from war with Syria not through the wisdom of its own policies but only because of the crippling military, economic and diplomatic weakness of Syria, stripped by the end of the Cold War of its chief ally, the Soviet Union, and by the Iraq conflict of its sole ally in Ba'ath politics, Saddam Hussein."

Arabic Speakers at State

Josh Chafetz, I think, points to perhaps the only time ( ed. note: or should I say only country?) where purposefully keeping a fluent Arabic speaker from serving in one of our Embassies in the Arab world was "intentional policy" (though I couldn't access his Weekly Standard link and maybe he has other examples).

But why would we let the Saudis get rid of a Hume Horan anyway? Surely this represents a poor precedent of kowtowing to a host government on the selection of our envoy. If an Ambassador is ludicrously under-qualified we should be receptive to a host country's concerns. But not when they are perfectly qualified for the position in question. Hume Horan was a real regional expert--and likely spoke the best Arabic out of the entire Foggy Bottom clan. The USG should have held firm and kept him in Saudi.

Of course, he's just the type of person the Saudis wouldn't want hunting about the Kingdom with too much language and cultural facility. Not only because he might stir up and embolden some dissenters--but also because of the embarassing information he might have unearthed.

But Horan wasn't some Robespierrian figure trying to stir up revolutionary fervor in the Kingdom. He was a talented career diplomat who was simply advocating U.S. interests in Riyadh. And just the kind of guy we should have poking around doing so.

I'm with David Adesnik on this one. Let's flood the zone with Arabic speakers. Boy do we need them right now.

Bureaucratic Trench Warfare

Bill Kristol on Saturday.

"One reason for this is that the civil war in the Bush administration has become crippling. The CIA is in open revolt against the White House. The State Department and the Defense Department aren't working together at all. We are way beyond "fruitful tension" and all the other normal excuses for bureaucratic conflict. This is a situation that only the president can fix. Perhaps a serious talk with Messrs. Tenet, Powell, and Rumsfeld can do the trick, followed by strengthening the National Security Council's role in resolving intra-administration disputes. Perhaps a head or two has to roll. But the present condition is debilitating, and, given the challenges facing us in postwar Iraq, in Iran, and in North Korea, it is irresponsible to let it fester." [my emphasis]

The White House yesterday:

"President Bush announced yesterday that the White House will take a stronger role in overseeing the struggling effort to rebuild Iraq through a new group intended to speed the flow of money and staff to Baghdad and streamline decision-making in Washington."

The Admin might consider such a 'consolidation of policy process' for Iran, Israel/Occupied Territories/Syria/Lebanon, and NoKo as well.

Escalation Watch

More worrisome developments from the Middle East. And was Sharon's Syria strike simply a substitute he pursued because he didn't feel he could yet deport Arafat?

Meanwhile, Ze'ev Schiff has some new information about the strike that is likely pretty reliable:

"The Syrians announced that one person had been injured in the attack, but sources say there has been loss of life as well. A number of hours passed between the attack and Syria's announcement, an indication of its surprise and confusion over the strike. The casualties were probably not high-ranking officials of the organizations, who live in Damascus."

What Kay Found

"The interim findings of David Kay and the Iraq Survey Group make two things abundantly clear: Saddam Hussein's Iraq was in material breach of its United Nations obligations before the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 last November, and Iraq went further into breach after the resolution was passed."

Secretary of State Colin Powell, October 7th 2003, writing in the Washington Post.

The Northern Sector

This hasn't been reported much. If handled in an overly heavy-handed manner--it could create difficulties for the coalition in the Kurdish sector.

And if this is partly meant to facilitate a Turkish parliamentary decision to send troops into Iraq--I continue to believe that's a poor idea. We shouldn't allow any neighboring countries to supply troops. For one, look for Iran to enhance its Iraq related activities if Turkey sends in a force. And look for increasing Kurdish discontent if Turkish forces have extensive communications and supply lines cutting through predominately Kurdish areas.

Give New York Its Due

This report is worrisome. While on the topic of NYC, take a look at this interesting report.

The Iraqi Constitution

Somebody should show this report to Dominique de Villepin. Message: you just can't do this stuff overnight.

One Middle East Policy

The U.S. needs to make its policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more coherent and cohesive. Such stories depress me as they indicate the lack of a systemic, disciplined approach to Middle East policymaking.

The President must direct, from the top down, the specific policy direction on issues of significant import like the Israeli security fence. This type of story, if true, is unnacceptable:

"According to the sources, Israel reached an agreement on the fence with the White House, not the State Department, during a recent visit to Washington by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's
chief of staff, Dov Weisglass, and the director-general of the Defense Ministry, Amos Yaron.

"The route that is to be built in the coming six months is not disputed by the Americans, and was spoken of in talks held between Weisglass, Yaron and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice," the sources said.

"Once these six months are over, there will be further talks between Israel and the Americans on the continued construction.

"On the one hand, therefore, Powell's stand is not surprising as he has always objected to the fence. On the other hand, he is probably unaware of the details of the agreement reached between Israel and the White House." [my emphasis]

This almost sounds like Henry Kissinger running roughshod over William Rogers.

Here's another depressing view of the state of U.S. peace processing efforts.

The Israeli Strike on Syria

It's perhaps a bit early to get too worked up about this strike. For one, the target in question appears to have been pretty much deserted.

Put differently, the IDF didn't intend to inflict human casualties on Syrian soil with this strike. It was meant as a carefully calibrated action meant as a signal to Syria to reduce cooperation with the likes of Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

Still, what appears carefully calibrated to one side can appear a reckless provocation to another. This was the first attack this deep in Syria for three decades.

Bashar Asad knows that he has no satisfactory military option. The Israelis have overwheming military superiority. Still, he might allow Hezbollah to pursue rocket attacks and the like from southern Lebanon (a front that has been relatively quiet recently despite the continuing violence in Israel and the Occupied Territories). It's not hard to see how, pursuant to robust Israeli responses to such attacks, a more significant escalation could occur in the coming weeks.

I'm also worried about whether Tel Aviv is signaling a change of strategy going forward. Over the weekend, both Dore Gold and another Israeli spokesman made mention of an "axis of terror" involving Syria, Iran and Gaza.

The undertone of the message is pretty obvious. If the U.S. has its "axis of evil"--and feels it can pursue its national security interests vigorously vis-a-vis the axis countries--so can Israel with its "axis of terror."

But as Arik Sharon contemplates further moves he should recall that, to date, the U.S. hasn't pursued military action in two of the charter "axis of evil" countries--Iran and NoKo--preferring to employ diplomatic pressure. And the Administration, while not explicity condemning the Israeli action--has pretty much made it clear that further attacks on Syria would be counterproductive.

Indeed, the Administration has sought to distance itself from the attack a bit by stating that it had no foreknowledge of the planned Israeli strike. Still, the Administration's reaction has been perceived as something of a blinking green light extended to the Israelis--especially in the Arab world--where conspiracy theories run rife and few think Sharon would have attacked Syria without prior approval from Washington.

We have no way of knowing what Bush has communicated privately to Sharon. But I would suspect that he has indicated that further military action by Israel in Syria would negatively impact U.S. interests in the region. For one, it would make it more difficult to ask Bashar Asad to seal his border with Iraq if he needs to be concerned about a possible conflagration on the Israeli border. For another, there will be a perception that the U.S. occupation of Iraq has emboldened the Israelis to violate Syrian sovereignty for the first time in decades. This would further antagonize Arab public opinion.

For such reasons, it would be a mistake if the Israelis feel they have a green light from the U.S. to pursue more significant strikes on Syria. If that were to occur, Asad would be compelled to respond in a manner more forceful than callling a UNSC special session and perhaps turning on the spigot of Hezbollah activity in southern Lebanon.

The risk of a regional war would thereby be significantly enhanced. If history is any guide, there's been one about every decade (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982). All parties should do their best to help prevent another one. Avoiding further attacks on Syrian territory would be a good start from the Israeli side. And Syria making more stolid moves on closure of Jihad Islami and Hamas offices in Syria would be another.

Beeb Watch

An excellent FT magazine cover story on the Beeb:

A key graf:

"Relations between the British government and the BBC have often been fractious. The broadcaster has been infuriating governments almost since its founding in 1922, from the 1926 General Strike, to the second world war, Suez, the Falklands and Northern Ireland. And a national broadcaster's ability to criticise its government is an important test of a democracy's strength. Even so, it is hard to think of another time in recent history when these two British institutions have displayed such outright contempt for each other. And after talking with politicians of different parties, aides, BBC executives and industry insiders during the past month, it has become clear to me that something far more corrosive lies behind this latest conflict: the political class now believes that the BBC, the world's biggest and most respected public broadcaster, has been infected with the cynical, tabloid newspaper values that dominate much of the British media. As the aide who was talking about political reporters put it: "We don't see the BBC as a medium any more. It's a barrier."

Pfaff on Terror

Take a look at William Pfaff's IHT op-ed contending that terrorist violence often results from excesses of devotion.

I'm not sure I agree with his concluding graf. But it's worth thinking about:

"What the leaders of the Bush administration are intellectually unprepared to acknowledge is that they are at war with the dominant phenomenon of man's history, as identified by Koestler: the pitiless violence that comes from an excess of devotion."

Profile of a Suicide Bomber

The Haifa suicide bomber: not only a woman-- but an attorney as well.

Clarification: She was to qualify as a fully-fledged laywer next week after consummation of her trainee peroid.

Meanwhile, check out this story on young secular Israelis leaving Israel and heading to Williamsburg.

Keller Watch

"DOES anyone remember Sept. 11? No, not that one, the Sept. 11 of less than a month ago. If you channel-surfed on that day, you caught some of the children reading their lost parents' names at ground zero. Then, in all likelihood, you moved on, just as the networks did.

Or you made my mistake and, in an effort to retrieve some meaning from our new memorial day, visited a couple of the theaters that observed the second anniversary of the terrorists' attacks by staging plays about 9/11. The American theater has a history of rising to the occasion of national crises, from Clifford Odets's Depression-era "Waiting for Lefty" to Larry Kramer's enraged call to arms in the AIDS crisis, "The Normal Heart." But the two 9/11 shows I caught, "Omnium Gatherum" and "Recent Tragic Events," are, as Dick Gephardt is fond of saying about George W. Bush, miserable failures. They are tiny but pungent examples of the cultural bankruptcy of a moment when the most cunning dramatist in the country is its wartime president." [my emphasis]

Frank Rich, writing in the New York Times today.

Le Monde's Incredibly Shrinking President



"Don't talk about poll numbers" whispers Colin to Condi.

What a wearily predictable paper Le Monde is, no?

Oh, and see here what happens when you dare to cross those mighty editorialists of Le Monde--so woefully infected by Schandenfreude over the Seine group think.

"Mr Schneidermann says that instead of countering the accusations openly, Le Monde "reacted like a Sicilian clan insulted by the provocation of a rival clan."

Germany Rising

So France is in decline. Tony Blair is sorta busy shoring up his domestic support.

And the estimable German Chancellor? Holding court with Dubya, reasserting an Atlanticist foreign policy, significantly involved in Afghanistan, and looking to replace Blair as umpire between the U.S. and Europe on Iraq.

Who would have thought? Sure his electoral position is weak, but he's not done too poorly for himself all told.

So don't be surprised that middle power Germany is eager to start suggesting that it's ready to start punching a little bit more above its weight:

"Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said Friday that Germany had been right to oppose the American-led war in Iraq, driving home his defiant message by repeatedly using the German word for power, which leaders here have long eschewed because of its associations with the Nazi era.

In a speech marking the 13th anniversary of German reunification, Mr. Schröder described the country as a "civil power" and an "economic power," responsible for fueling the growth of the European Union.

The word macht, or power, has been laden with meaning since Hitler used it to describe a Germany bent on dominating its neighbors. But Mr. Schröder talked about Germany's "civil power," which he said manifested itself in a peaceful foreign policy that could be spread throughout the world.

"German peace polices are policies for Europe and beyond," he said in a nationally televised speech in Magdeburg."

I don't know about you, but I get a bit spooked when German leaders start talking about spreading their policies "for Europe and beyond"--whether "peace" policies or other. And, believe me, veteran diplomats in places like Paris and London likely don't like the rhetorical muscle-flexing emitting from Berlin too much either.

Have you read John Mearsheimer's "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" lately?

If you haven't, here's a little teaser. The U.S. pace Mearsheimer, plays the "American pacifier " role in Europe. Were the U.S to pull out all its troops from Europe--"Europe would go from benign bipolarity to unbalanced multipolarity, the most dangerous kind of power structure. The U.K., France, Italy and Germany would have to build up their own military forces and provide for their own security. In effect, they would all become great powers [ed. note: ie, within Europe], making Europe multipolar. And...Germany would probably become a potential hegemon and thus the main source of trouble in the new Europe."

Don't buy the (very transient) Franco-German love-in born of jealousy (and some shock) that the U.S. decided to, from a European view, show that it is willing to seek "conquest" outside the Western Hemisphere (among other factors). Nascent talk of a Euro-defense corps remains more farsical than serieux (see the inclusion of Luxembourg and Belgium). Deep in the bowels of the Quai D'Orsay (far from de Villepin's fanciful notions and dreamy neo-Napoleonic musings) and Whitehall the professional diplos are still keeping Mearsheimeresque realities well in mind. And they're wise to.

The Wall

John Burns, easily the best correspondent currently at the NYT, sends in a dispatch from the environs of Israel's so called security wall. Here are some excerpts, but do go read the whole thing.

"To a visitor who last saw the West Bank a few days before the current uprising began in September 2000, the length of barrier already completed and the wider changes in the territory brought about by the intifada are a shock. Three years ago, an air of hope and growing normality prevailed. Mostly, Israelis and Jewish settlers moved safely through Palestinian areas, visiting casinos and shopping at roadside bazaars.

Now, the West Bank has the appearance of a wasteland. Life is mostly at a standstill, with big cities, as well as the towns and villages, cut off from one another by a maze of Israeli-built "bypass roads" — open to settlers but closed to most Palestinians — Israeli Army checkpoints and new concrete-slab walls and fencing and piles of bulldozed rubble blocking roads everywhere.

To a Westerner with a permit to travel the territory, it seems like an archipelago of brooding ghettos, of weary men, women and children crossing a patchwork quilt of checkpoints and barriers. East of Jerusalem, where only limited sections of the fence have been completed, it cuts across the hills near Bethlehem. North of Tel Aviv, at Palestinian cities like Qalqilya, which has been surrounded by the fence, farmers heading for their lands and children heading for school must reach gates operated by Israeli soldiers at the set opening hours, especially at dusk, or face camping out overnight.

The deep divide between Palestinians and Israelis is captured by the mood here and in Ariel. Ariel projects modernity and middle-class prosperity, with its blossom-lined avenues, attractive stone houses and apartment blocks, arts and sports centers, well-equipped hospitals and schools, and its own Japanese-financed mini-golf center. It is the citadel of settlements, a vision that the 230,000 Jewish settlers across the West Bank and Gaza, many still in trailers, see as their future.

Haris, barely two miles away, is deeply dispirited. Here, only two of the men, among a dozen who stopped to talk about the fence, had work of any kind. The men focused part of their recriminations on President Bush, dismissing as "theater" American pressure on the Israeli government over the fence. Mostly, they spoke of their fears."

Let's be clear. This wall isn't going to bring Israel long-term security. That's a chimera.

The only thing that will provide Israelis with real long term security is a general peace deal--with the U.S. (and others in the Quartet) acting as guarantor of the settlement.

At the risk of sounding like a Shimon Peres (his critics view him as too much a dreamer re: a new Middle East, too effete, too Euro and so on) let's be clear: walls separating populations are supposed to be a thing of the past. Who can forget the euphoria of the Berlin Wall coming down? Who has forgotten one of Radovan Karadzic's more noxious plans for Sarajevo (erecting walls dividing Serbian and Muslim sections)?

Is this where the Zionist project currently stands? If so, it's a tragedy.

And no, I'm not equating Bosnian Serb genocidal thugishness with Arik Sharon's government. Sharon is reacting to very real security concerns. The campaign of suicide bombings is a grotesque outrage. All effective efforts must be made to stamp out such terror activity. But trust me, the wall won't do it. Instead, it will create more willing to die to inflict brutally haphazard harm on Israeli targets. They will find ways to reach Israeli targets no matter how high and wide the wall.

Back to the Burns' piece

"When they take your land, kill your sons, deny you food for your family, demolish your houses, and deny you any freedom of movement, what do they expect you to do?" said 52-year-old Najeh Souf, who returned to Haris from more than 20 years working as a hospital clerk in Kuwait and invested his savings in olive groves near the bypass road. "All this I will write in my diary, all they have done, all we have suffered, so it will be read and remembered by my children, and my children's children. We will never give up. Write that down. We will never give up."

Mustafa Salami, 24 and never employed, belongs to the under-30 generation of Palestinians that Israeli security officials regard as most threatening. Most days now, he said, he stands by the road, selling artificial sunflowers to passing motorists.

Early on Wednesday, before the cabinet decision, he watched as Israeli troops with a bulldozer demolished his uncle's corrugated shed beside the road for continuing his plant business without an Israeli permit that had been regularly denied.

"I am very angry, very angry," he said. "I can't work, I can't marry, I can't build a house. "Life is not worth living. I want to die. Many of us do not care if we live or die." [my emphasis]

As long as such conditions exist--more innocent Israeli civilians will die in the Holy Land. That's the brutal reality--wall or no wall.

UPDATE: Powell weighs in.

ANOTHER UDPATE: Well, here's another horror today-- this time in Haifa.

Vidal Award

Yes, I know, I haven't handed one of these out in a long time. But this Arthur Schlesinger piece really got to me:

"Looking back over the forty years of the cold war, we can be everlastingly grateful that the loonies on both sides were powerless. In 2003, however, they run the Pentagon, and preventive war—the Bush Doctrine—is now official policy. Sixty years ago the Japanese anticipated the Bush Doctrine in their attack on the US Navy at Pearl Harbor. This was, FDR observed, an exploit that would live in infamy—except now, evidently, when employed by the United States."

We can quibble about whether the Iraq campaign constituted a preventive war as opposed to preemptive (contra Schlesinger, I'd argue the latter, albeit based on faulty intelligence and in a climate characterized by post 9/11 "better safe than sorry" reasoning).

But to simply call Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz "loonies" is not befitting an eminent historian.

And, most galling, note the gross relativism Schlesinger employs comparing Axis Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor with the Bush Administration's attack on Iraq.

Did Imperial Japan consult international bodies before sending suicide planes into our Navy ships? Was there a rough equivalent of Dubya's September 12th speech to the U.N. followed up by a unanimous UNSC resolution emitting from the Emperor's chambers in Tokyo? Most assuredely not--and not just because the League of Nations was no longer extant.

And then there is this gem:

"I think the press and television are also to be blamed for the absence of opposition. Comments by Cheney and Rumsfeld were given top billing in most American papers, even The New York Times, while thoughtful and reasoned speeches by Edward Kennedy and Robert Byrd opposing the rush to preventive war were consigned to a paragraph on the back pages or wholly ignored." [my emphasis]

Yeah, the NYT is supposed to provide neo-Kennedy court hagiography style slant on all matters Iraq, didn't you know? How dare they not give front page billing to the Iraq strategy musings of Ted Kennedy?

But there's more:

"There were no such apologies in Mr. Bush's inaugural address. He acted as if he had won in a landslide and had earned an electoral mandate—and he got away with it.

"For all his buffoonish side, the President is secure in himself, disciplined, decisive and crafty, and capable of concentrating on a few priorities. He has maintained control of a rag-tag Republican coalition, well described by Kevin Phillips (author of The Emerging Republican Majority, 1969) as consisting of "Wall Street, Big Energy, multinational corporations, the Military-Industrial Complex, the Religious Right, the Market Extremist think-tanks, and the Rush Limbaugh Axis." All these groups agree in their strong support of their president, though they sharply disagree among themselves."

Oh yes, Simian George, the bufoonish cretin widely derided in Central Park West pads. The moron even thought he had an electoral mandate after winning the electoral college. Imagine that!

Oh, and what's the "Rush Limbaugh axis"? Pill-popping fellas who don't think African-American QBs can cut it?

This is all pretty inflammatory fare. I think Schlesinger can and should do better than this. This reads too much like a hoary screed hastily written up contra the Crawford redneck. Doubtless it will get a few guffaws of appreciation among the oh-so multilateralist folk pining for Dominique de Villepin in selected (and soi disant) sophisticate Manhattan parlors. But all that aside, it's simply not a judicious appraisal of the Bush Presidency worthy of a major American historian.

Some Perspective

From Charles Krauthammer. Meanwhile, check out David Ignatius writing in the WaPo too.

Money grafs:

"American soldiers have been attacked again here the day I visit this smoldering core of revolt in Iraq's Sunni Triangle. But what is worrying Sheik Khamis Hassnawi, the leader of one of the region's largest tribes, isn't the possibility that the U.S. occupiers might stay, but that they might leave.

"It would be a disaster," says Hassnawi of a quick American pullout. "If coalition forces withdraw now, the strong will eat the weak and people will start killing each other in the streets."

Fallujah is the last place I thought I would hear Iraqis plead for the United States to stay the course. But the tribal leader's comments are an illustration that things in postwar Iraq aren't always what they appear from a distance. What angers most Iraqis isn't the U.S. invasion -- which nearly everyone I met still describes as liberation from a hated regime -- but America's surprisingly poor performance in delivering services and security."

Home News

September was a pretty good month for us over here at the Belgravia Dispatch. The site averaged about 500 unique visitors daily. Of course, this isn't significant traffic by many bigger blog standards--but this humble site feels pretty good about it (particularly given time constraints on blogging activity resulting from long work days, frequent travel and an alarming tendency to want to pop out for drinks in London town now and then [best Martini found to date, if you're curious, at Duke's Hotel in St. James])

We hope you will keep visiting and thank you for reading. And please write in with any comments/criticisms/suggestions at belgraviadispatch@hotmail.com.

Iraq Report

Newsweek has a pretty gloomy Iraq story up. There isn't much new ground covered in the report. I'm blogging about it because of this interesting snippet from Ehud Barak:

"Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak recently passed a message to Rumsfeld. It ran roughly: “There’s a 5 percent chance you get Saddam tomorrow, the energy goes out of the resistance and things get dramatically better. There’s a 5 percent chance a car bomb takes out the entire Governing Council, and things go to hell. In between those, it will get better over time, or worse over time. Right now, I say it’s twice as likely that it gets worse.” It’s not known how Rumsfeld responded."

Of course, none of us really know what the coming months will bring. But this struck me, coming as it does from someone who knows the region like the back of his hand, as an appraisal worth mulling over.

And I get back to thinking we need, in greater number, highly trained constabulatory forces out there. Yeah, I know that's not a panacea. But I think it will help. I'm not sure moving quickly to "Iraqify" various police will do the trick--until they have been trained by, say, the Germans and such.

No to an Independent Counsel

Say two law school profs. Viet Dinh, my old Corporations prof in law school, is a Republican--but Neal Ketyal served under Clinton. They make some very cogent points:

"The problem was with the law itself. The independent counsel was a constitutional orphan, with no base in any branch of government. The person in the job had nothing to do but investigate a single entity for some kind of wrongdoing. Independent counsels were almost entirely insulated from budget constraints, investigation deadlines and Justice Department policy and practice. And because they were judged by the indictments and convictions they obtained, they had an incentive to investigate, accuse and pursue relentlessly. To paraphrase a saying made famous by Mark Twain: to a man with a hammer, a lot of things look like nails.

Such incentives are particularly problematic in a case involving leaks. Leak investigations often drag on endlessly and rarely culminate in indictments. They can demoralize government staff members, who often must take several polygraph tests. They also have a chilling effect on reporters and columnists, who face tremendous pressure from the government to reveal their sources.

In a case like this one, where national security concerns may be pitted against the First Amendment freedom of the press, it is important that the investigation proceed carefully and methodically and with accountability. So far, there is absolutely no reason to think that the Justice Department is incapable of handling it."

Indeed.

In Other News

Meanwhile, if you can pull yourself away from hunting down photos of Valerie Plame or observing the carnivalesque going-ons of the gubernatorial race in the great state of California, we bring you the following developments:

NoKO. Israel. Iran.

You know, just to take stock of in between Ah-nuld, Kobe, and Val (ed. note: insert obligatory proviso that blowing the cover of an undercover agent is a really big, big deal).

It is, or course. And we love the mono-maniacal coverage we can expect from a Mickey Kaus on CA or a TPM on Plame-Gate.

But given the immense importance of counter-proliferation efforts (see, for instance, Dubya's recent speech to the U.N.)--we might just keep abreast of Iran and NoKo here and there too.

And, for the record, I think the decision to proceed with the wall makes, even more than before, a continued mockery of the current state of the road-map. Though, in all fairness, U.S. pressure has resulted in some Israeli concessions re: the fence.

Nevertheless, continued building out of the separation fence represents the kind of action that is seen by many (with some justification) as pre-judging final status negotiations.

As the so-called "honest broker," we're supposed to ensure that we don't allow that to take place. So why aren't we?

UPDATE: See Tom Friedman on this too:

"I know a vast majority of Israelis want a decent, normal society, but their ideologically driven leaders are lost in space, squandering their people's great strength rather than channeling it into creative options. And the Bush team, which should be acting as a reality check, has fallen so deep into the pocket of Ariel Sharon you can't even find it anymore."

Clark in the NYRB

Is it something in the Arkansas water? Check out this Clark piece in the NY Review.

Some fair points. But isn't the last graf kind of Clintonian in a wishy-washy, amorphous, fence-sitting kind of way?

I'm throwing in the towel. I still don't really know if Wes Clark wanted this Iraq war or not. Readers, help!

The Biggest Headache So Far

Is that, for some reason, the press is still stressing a possible Rove role in the whole Plame affair. We'd expect that from the Guardian--who continue to go full throttle on a possible Rove role.

But, more worrisomely (as we are dealing with a serious newspaper rather than the Guardian), take a look at this NYT piece. It concentrates on Ashcroft's potential conflicts of interest given his ties to Rove.

Sure, it's predictable fare coming from the gang over at W. 43rd St. But they're running copy that is still hanging out a good-sized shingle that Rove might still have been involved in all of this. They wouldn't do that lightly, I'd wager, at least post-Raines.

So why would this still be a story given White House press spokesman Scott McClellan's denial of Roves' involvement in this whole mess?

Well, for one thing, Bush's enemies (amidst the political and media classes) are smelling blood. And yeah, you've kinda got the "perfect storm" conditions brewing.

An election is approaching. All know that Bush, especially sans active Karen involvement, needs Rove big time.

And then, there's something about Scott McClellan's initial handling of what might be called the "it ain't Rove" angle that wasn't totally convincing:

Here's the key exchange:

"QUESTION: Ambassador Wilson has said that he has information that Karl Rove condoned this leaking, and I've seen your comment that that's absolutely false -- [my emphasis]

McCLELLAN: It is ridiculous. It's ridiculous.

QUESTION: What do you --

McCLELLAN: And keep in mind, I imagine that only a limited number of people would even have access to classified information of this nature.

QUESTION: So he doesn't have information?

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

McCLELLAN: Yes, go ahead. And, Helen, you may always follow up. Go ahead.

QUESTION: What, then, do you think the -- given that you say Rove condoning this is ridiculous, what do you think Ambassador Wilson's motivation is for leveling such a scurrilous charge?

McCLELLAN: I can't speculate about why he would say such a thing. I mean, I saw some comments this morning, where he said he had no knowledge to that effect. But I can't speculate why he would say that.

QUESTION: Did Rove say, "ridiculous"?

McCLELLAN: I did, for him.

QUESTION: Did you speak with him about it?

McCLELLAN: Yes, I've spoken to him.

QUESTION: But he told you, "ridiculous"?

McCLELLAN: No, I said -- I told some of your colleagues that it was ridiculous. And, remember, I said this back -- what, July and September this issue came up, and said essentially what I've said now.

QUESTION: Can you characterize your conversation with him about this?

McCLELLAN: I talk to him all the time, so --

QUESTION: About this?

McCLELLAN: No, about a lot of issues.

QUESTION: But can you characterize your conversation about this subject with him?

McCLELLAN: I don't think there's anything to characterize. I mean, I think that what I said speaks clearly, that the accusations just simply are not true."

Note that McClellan is calling Rove's condoning of the leak ridiculous--not the allegation that Rove himself was the leaker. A pretty strong denial.

And yet. I didn't like the part where McClellan is getting into a debate about whether he or Rove used the word "ridiculous."

I mean, so what did Rove have to say about it? Well, nothing, at least on the record, it appears.

Which smells a lot like a laywer told him to clam up. Sage advice, doubtless, but gets you curious, doesn't it?

Back to McClellan. The back and forth at the press conferences was a bit awkward. You might chalk this up to a relatively new press spokesman handling his first full-blown Beltway scandal.

At least I hope that's what explains it. And that there isn't some murkiness that's being papered over in terms of Rove blessing a lower-level staffer's decision to out Plame--that may have been corroborated by a stray E-mail or handwritten annotation somewhere. And so on. You get the drift...

Well, as they say, this one sure's developing.

And Why?

Call it the Andrew Sullivan question.

The WaPo leaps on the bandwagon musing as to possible rationales as well:

"Here's today's question, chattering class: If the White House wanted to discredit and/or shut up Joseph "Yellowcake" Wilson, who was embarrassing the administration over Saddam Hussein's alleged quest for nuclear weapons, why would aides try to accomplish this by dragging his wife into it?"

Oh, and TPM merits a mention in the piece as well.

Bearish Buttonwood

I don't normally blog about matters related to international economic issues. For one, a bunch of people in the blogosphere are likely better positioned to pontificate on such matters. For another, I deal with a lot of international finance related issues as part of my day job.

Blogging is meant as a bit of a break from all that. A chance to scratch my foreign policy (defined as traditional "high politics") itch--not discourse on Doha rounds and the like.

So I haven't blogged about the balooning deficits in the U.S. Yeah I'm aware, that in a recessionary environment, some deficit spending isn't all bad. But the deficit is spiraling out of control in worrisome fashion--as most judicious observers realize.

But there is something else that's been bugging me lately. Perhaps predictably, it's the weakening dollar. But not just because it hurts my pocketbook, I swear!

Rather, and especially if there is a precipitous decline in the dollar, for these reasons.

Bob Rubin, where art thou?

UPDATE: See too Jim Hoagland who see a bit of wider disarray these days emanating from the Administration:

"As the U.S. campaign approaches, the Bush team already shows a disturbing tendency to merge political and other agendas with foreign-policy and economic decisions. The recent effort by Treasury Secretary John Snow to jawbone China and Japan into steps that would devalue the dollar against their currencies is an especially transparent example.

China predictably rebuffed Snow's calls to adopt flexible exchange rates. Beijing correctly assessed that Snow was really speaking to American manufacturers and workers disturbed by inexpensive Chinese imports and that China would pay no price for politely brushing off the demand."

Joe Wilson: Having A Grand Old Time Amidst the Maelstrom?

Hardly a man deeply troubled that his wife's career has inexorably been scuttled because of thug-like leaking over at 1600 Pennsylvania, huh?

"As the world now knows, Wilson is married to Valerie Wilson, nee Plame. She is his third wife. She is 40, slim, blonde and the mother of their 3-year-old twins. In the photos in his office, she has the looks of a film star.

"She is really quite amazing," Wilson said. "We were just discussing today who would play her in the movie," he cracked."

O.K., so now expect a lot of of such searches [ed. note: Don't waste your time, no results].

But, more seriously, should Wilson really be cracking barbs about future film roles for his wife? Of course, he's free to play the showman and, to be sure, the charges remain dead serious. If she was a full-blown undercover agent, and the leaker(s) knew this and nevertheless had the intent to out her, send him/them to the docks I say.

But Wilson isn't doing himself too many favors appearing on myriad news shows and looking a tad too showboaty. Don't you think?

Guardian Watch

Here's the Guardian on L'Affaire Plame.

Some key grafs:

"President George Bush's closest political adviser, Karl Rove, was yesterday at the centre of a criminal investigation into allegations that he leaked the name of a CIA agent in an attempt to suppress criticism of the administration's Iraq policy, in what is fast becoming the administration's worst scandal since coming to office." [my emphasis]

And more:

"If Mr Rove was implicated, it would seriously damage the president's standing at the start of his re-election campaign and rob him of an electoral mastermind who orchestrated his rise to the Texas governorship and then the presidency.

One veteran of the Clinton administration compared it to the Hutton inquiry. "In the Kelly case there's a body but no crime. Here there's no body but there is a crime," he said."

Whoah there. The White House press spokesman is on the record saying Rove wasn't the "outer".

From the WaPo Q&A to the Plame going-ons:

Q: Why was White House political adviser Karl Rove initially thought to be the leaker as opposed to someone in Vice President Cheney's office or the National Security Council?

A: Wilson initially said he thought Rove had told Novak about his wife's undercover work, although he has since backed off that assertion. He now says that he believes Rove "condoned" the leak. Asked about the accusation, a White House spokesman responded on Rove's behalf by saying, "It is a ridiculous suggestion, and it is simply not true." [my emphasis]

So either the Bush White House has f*&$*d up big time and not taken the old adage to heart--about the cover up being worse than the crime (a close call with this scandal given how egregious the charges)--or the Guardian is out to lunch again.

I think I know where the smart money is on this one. I mean, is it responsible journalism to describe Rove as being at the "centre of a criminal investigation" when the White House is already on the record having expressly denied that's the case?

And geez, even Josh Marshall thinks, given what has been said from the White House podium, that Rove isn't the guy.

But bad news for Dubya is too tempting for the Guardian to run away with, in hyperbolic Fleet Street fashion, facts be damned. They've got a major Howell Raines problem--and badly need some adult supervision.

More Cartoon Fun From Le Monde



Osama is saying: "It wasn't me?" The book's title, with Dubya's face interposed between the Towers, reads "The Real Culprit."

Note this cartoon is linked to a story that states that 19% of Germans think the U.S. was responsible for 9/11.

Classic hypocrisy. Put the revolting cartoon up in your nation's main paper but make it appear it's describing the German world-view (for more on that angle go here).

Oh, and doesn't the timing and prominent placement of this cartoon reveal, as well, the French elite's increasing discomfort with the burgeoning U.S.-German rapprochment?

Cockburn's Scriveners

You knew it was coming.

What? A polemic titled "Does a Felon Rove the White House"?

Cute, isn't it?

Scandal Watch

One of the fascinating aspects of unfolding scandals in the Beltway is surveying the breathtaking hypocrisy of the politicians carving out their partisan positions. The winner today, for me at least, has got to be Tom Daschle:

"Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the minority leader, said an outside counsel was vital. "The conflicts that would exist in the Justice Department are obvious," Mr. Daschle said. "John Ashcroft won't even go after Ken Lay. How will he possibly go after someone appointed, who appointed him as attorney general?"

Kenneth Lay, who was once friendly with President Bush, is the former chairman of the Enron Corporation, which collapsed amid allegations of corporate wrongdoing.

When a questioner noted that Democrats had opposed several calls for independent prosecutors during the Clinton administration, Mr. Daschle said, "We don't have confidence in John Ashcroft. I had confidence in Janet Reno." ."

Um, ok. But wait, the Enron Task Force is pretty busy. Ken Lay isn't sleeping easy just yet.

And more confidence in Janet Reno? Oh my.

Oh, and there is this too:

"One Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, said on Monday that the situation was reason enough to revive the independent counsel law, which Congress allowed to die in 1999 after widespread concern over Kenneth W. Starr's Whitewater investigation".

Here's what Lieberman was saying back in '99:

"I see the Starr investigation and some of what I would call its excesses as a reason, a basis for us to amend the law when, as I believe we should, we reenact it. For instance, I think we ought to narrow the number of high officials of our government who are subject to this investigation. We ought to -- independent counsel. We ought to raise the threshold a bit for when the counsel gets appointed." [my emphasis]

Put on your seatbelts. There' s a lot more of this on the way...

White House Counsel's Email

Here's the text:

"PLEASE READ: Important Message From Counsel's Office

We were informed last evening by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee. The department advised us that it will be sending a letter today instructing us to preserve all materials that might be relevant to its investigation. Its letter will provide more specific instructions on the materials in which it is interested, and we will communicate those instructions directly to you. In the meantime, you must preserve all materials that might in any way be related to the department's investigation. Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Associate Counsels Ted Ullyot or Raul Yanes in the counsel to the president's office. The president has directed full cooperation with this investigation." [my emphasis]

OK, so this debate (see "What Is Her Job") is moot--she was undercover--or Gonzalez is a really, really careless lawyer. I'm betting on the former (very obviously).

Meanwhile, Howard Kurtz has an interesting media roundup.

UPDATE: David Corn started the whole thing so his current take is worth checking out. This part stuck out at me (I'll explain why in a second):

"Scott," one reporter said, "the statement you gave about why there shouldn't be a special prosecutor was almost word for word what the Clinton people said in 1994 about why there shouldn't be a special prosecutor in Whitewater. Why should it stand now if it didn't stand then?" McClellan answered: "I just reject that comparison." The reporters laughed."

I was just watching CNN Int'l and saw footage of Dubya discoursing on the Plame affair. He said, and I think I've got the quote right, "If that person violated the law that person will be taken care of..."

It all sounds a bit like "no controlling legal authority" (Gore) or the myriad Clintonian tortured legalistic parsings.

C'mon Mr. President--you can do better. How 'bout "if anyone in my Administration revealed the identity of one of our undercover CIA agents they will immediately be relieved of their duties and I will urge that they are prosecuted to the maximum extent allowed by the law..."

Or something like that.

Blair Watch

He's still in the driver's seat.

"Acknowledging he felt battered after 6 1/2 years in office and seeing growing dissent over his policies, Blair told the party's annual conference: ``So what do we do -- give up on it, or get on with it?''

Delegates gave him the response he wanted -- ``Get on with it!''

Constitution Drafting

Can someone show this to the French?

And, even if you want to argue that sovereignty can be handed over before the Constitution is finalized, note this peril:

"Noureddine and other council members said a longer timetable to write the constitution should not result in a longer occupation. They rejected the Bush administration's view that a constitution and elections must precede a transfer of sovereignty, insisting that the issues should be separate.

Bush administration officials contend that if they transfer sovereignty before a constitution is drafted and a democratically elected government is seated, the interim political authority could prolong or subvert the process. "If a constitution has to be drafted before there can be a government, you bet we'll get a constitution," one U.S. official said."

It's smart to pressure the Iraqis to get the Constitution drafted before sovereignty is handed over. That way, we can at least ensure the Constitution contains "principles [of] federalism, democracy, nonviolence, a respect for diversity and a role for women."

Bremer takes pains to stress the document will be drafted by Iraqis. That's, of course, critical. But it's fair to at least monitor that the resulting document contain the above key principles/rights.

So the Constitution-writing process is likely going to prove messy, protracted and complex.

But the larger point is simply to pause and witness how such important debates, ideas, horse-trading etc. are playing out in the nascent Iraqi polity.

Delegates to a constitutional convention to be chosen by popular vote? Or the selection of "wise men" to ward off the dangers of crude Shi'a majoritarianism?

No, wait. How about:

"A compromise approach that appears to be gaining support is to hold caucuses in provinces where religious, political and tribal leaders could assemble and select a few delegates to represent them at the convention. The 250 or so delegates could be augmented with a few appointed members, particularly legal scholars and other academics, supporters of that approach said."

Caucuses? In Iraq? Who would have thought?

From the ashes of Saddam's totalilatarian regime, democracy is stirring. Fitfully, yes. In the midst of a dismal security situation in (one part) of the country, yes.

But progress is being made. Let all the Iraq nay-sayers continue to castigate Dubya for his foolhardy and reckless adventure.

But History's verdict is still very much at play. And I'm betting Dubya's big bet is yet going to pay off. He may yet create a functioning democracy in Mesopotamia. It's just going to take a while. And cost a lot in terms of blood and treasure. But the potential rewards are immense. So keep the faith. This was never going to be easy.

UPDATE: Go check out how Pat Tyler writes up the same story in the NYT. Might there be a "coalition efforts are floundering" kind of agenda at play here? Just asking.

Pull a Clinton

Joe Klein has got some advice for Dubya. On a policy basis, given balooning deficits, Klein's ideas make sense. But the last thing Dubya wants is to risk another "read my lips" pledge-breaking imbroglio. So don't expect anything like this to happen.

Valerie Plame

The WaPo provides the latest on this worrisome affair. BTW, my view on all this, at least at this stage, is pretty similar to this take.

UPDATE: So, it's not Karl Rove, right? (Or Scott McClellan is smoking lots of crack). Aside from Rove being the person Joe Wilson had fingered as the key culprit--it's interesting to see the Administration come out swinging defending Rove first. At this stage, I'd wager, Dubya needs Rove around more than, say, Cheney. It's getting rough out there....

ANOTHER UPDATE: Via Instapundit, this is a must-read.

Prolific Priest

Much output from Dana Priest in the WaPo today. First, you have got this piece on intelligence shortcomings related to Iraqi WMD. Next, along with Mike Allen, Priest writes about the developing scandal related to the "outing" of Joe Wilson's wife.

On the latter, go see Tom Maguire and Josh Marshall. For what it's worth, my thoughts at this stage are to wait and see if the story is accurate. Next, discipline whatever individuals were involved--to the maximum extent allowed by the law--if the story ends up proving true.

But I think it's a tad early to speculate about whether it was Andy Card, Ari Fleischer (on the day of his departure), Karl Rove or Dan Bartlett who "outed" Mrs. Yellowcake. And let's certainly not start hyperventilating about impeachment of Dubya and the like. We're so far from that stage it's risible to even write about it in serious fashion.

And for the record, don't you find it pretty rich that some like Josh Marshall and Atrios are suggesting that the White House (rather than merely refer to matter to the Department of Justice) should just reveal the alleged leakers right off?

Josh Marshall must surely be thinking of the approach the Clinton White House took re: such matters, doubtless (and no, I'm not just talking of the Monica peccadillo, but several other scandals besides). Wait, I seem to recall that the Clinton White House was not, uh, exactly forthcoming about turning over the goods...

That said, Bush's White House should not be striving to approximate the ethical moorings of the Clinton White House. They must do better. And to "out" the professionally-employed CIA agent spouse of a retired government official who is making public information inconvenient to the Administration is gang-land style politics. It's reprehensible. But this story has many moving parts and nothing definitively damning is yet evidenced. Referring this over to DOJ is the right way to go at this stage. Patience.

On the first Priest story regarding intelligence shortcomings, I'm going to put aside the alleged shortcomings related to the links to al-Qaeda and the nuclear program. On the former, that wasn't one of the reasons that I favored going to war against Iraq. I felt the links between Baghdad and al-Qaeda were pretty de minimis (given the very differing world views of Saddam and Osama). So I'm not surprised to see that the intelligence was pretty weak in that area.

Likewise, on the nuclear angle, I never viewed Saddam's nuclear program as necessarily constituting an imminent threat and suspected a judicious reading of intelligence on Iraqi nukes would render people, if not sanguine, at least not pushing a preemptive war on that basis alone.

That's leaves the intelligence related to the chemical and biological weapons. Saddam's potential possession of chemical and biological WMD is always what concerned me--particularly post 9/11. We've all heard it before, but it's worth stressing yet again. Post 9/11, the possible nexus among transnational terror groups, rogue regimes and WMD forced a reappraisal of U.S. strategic policy.

If Saddam wasn't a madman, irrational demon, etc etc--he was at least a strategic blunderer. To allow such a leader, who has used chemical weapons against people in his own country (and who was commonly considered to still possess chemical and biological weapons capability by myriad intelligence services) to retain such a capability post 9/11 would have constituted (at least) negligence in terms of a government's national security obligations.

Now back to the Priest story. The money graf (in terms of the chem/bio angle at least):

"The absence of proof that chemical and biological weapons and their related development programs had been destroyed was considered proof that they continued to exist," the two committee members said in a letter Thursday to CIA Director George J. Tenet. The Washington Post obtained a copy this weekend.

Now, let me say right off that I have tremendous respect for Porter Goss. And so I don't take his comment on this lightly at all.

But let's analyze that sentence from the letter. Even if you end up agreeing with Goss' conclusions--they aren't that damning.

We all know Saddam possesed WMD at some stage (see Halabja, for instance). We didn't have conclusive proof that he had dismantled the program or destroyed his WMD weapons stockpiles. We knew how he had made a speciality of evading U.N. inspection schemes. Faced with these realities, given the post 9/11 strategic framework, the lack of compelling proof that the chem/bio capability had actually been dismantled didn't leave us with any easy policy options.

In other words, the burden of proof had shifted to those rogue states accused of possessing WMD. And Saddam failed to meet that burden.

Meanwhile, it's worth keeping in mind that collecting and appraising intelligence information is a highly imperfect science. And so to conclude that a threat existed, from a composite picture (no proof of destruction of the WMD and fragmentary indications of renewed activity, ie. possible mobile bioweapon labs) that a chem/bio capability existed doesn't strike me highly irresponsible. Indeed, it strikes me as just the opposite.

Moral Bankruptcy Watch

An interesting read on the terrorist money trail.

Here's an insight into the amoral nature of terrorists fund-raisers we are dealing with:

"In one bizarre money-raising scheme, investigators discovered that Hezbollah financial leaders talked about taking out life insurance policies for operatives in Lebanon who would eventually carry out suicide bombings. The idea was to have family members tell the insurance company that the suicide bomber "had disappeared without a trace," an investigator said, and then try to collect on the policy."

Oh, and here's another reason to quit smoking:

"In Charlotte, N.C., last year, members of a Hezbollah cell were convicted of racketeering in a cigarette smuggling scam. Cigarettes purchased without paying state tax in North Carolina were trucked to Detroit, where they were resold, for cash. The cash was then sent to Lebanon, by courier or by mail. A photo introduced as evidence at the criminal trial showed several cell members sitting at a table overflowing with $20 and $100 bills."

This is Actually Good News

Pat Tyler paints this as a pretty bad story, ie. the troop shortage (contra the Danielle Pletka's of the world) continues. But this is actually good news. Any of Indian (magnets for terror attacks), Turkish (dumb policy to allow troops of any neighboring countries in, too big a tempation for mischief) or Pakistani (more domestic strains on Musharraf, ISI troublemakers in the lot etc.) troops in Iraq would have likely proved detrimental rather than helpful to the U.S. in the middle to long term.

Euro roundup

Lots of good Europe-related material around over the past few days--mostly specifically on the state of Euro-U.S. relations.

First, U.S.-Russian relations. I, like David Adesnik, had spotted the "deuling" NYT vs. WaPo headlines re: the results of Bush's summitry with Putin. But, reading the actual WaPo piece, one would see they were pretty much in agreement with the NYT's take. Regardless, the WaPo has updated their headline and story today with a Dana Milbank analysis of the summit. [Does Milbank get a bit carried away with the analysis of Putin's black turtleneck? Yeah, I think so]

As I suspected a few days back--Putin appears to still be getting a bit of a free pass on Russian assistance to Iran's nuclear reactor.

Second, a clarification from an earlier post (go to "Eurodefense Force Issue" section) where I might have downplayed, if to a small extent, the degree of U.S. discomfort regarding the establishment of an independent Euro-defense force. The key issue I neglected to analyze was that there is much sensitivity, at least in some quarters, that painstaking steps be taken so that such a Euro force not overlap, in any material way, with NATO's functions. This article describes the situation pretty well.

Finally, Elaine Sciolino says U.S.-French relations aren't that bad after all. She must have been smitten after all that time with Chirac. Richard Holbrooke, quoted in her article, agrees that the Franco-U.S. spat has been overblown. Take a look too at this piece that uses gender role analysis explain why we appear to have a differing approach to France versus Germany.

Oh, and just in case you missed it, check this out too. Pretty sobering fare.

Not Neo-Cons or Neo-Straussiansm, But Neo-Hobbesians

In an interview (French language) in Le Figaro, Peter Sloterdijk opines that neo-conservatives seek to return world politics to a "state of nature." He therefore labels them neo-Hobbesians.

Sloterdijk's "Critique of Cynical Reason" remains a wonderful text. Who can forget his treatment of the haunting picture of the entry sign at Auschwitz that read "Arbeit Macht Frei" or "Labor is Liberating"? Little surprise, in his narrative, such events help an "enlightened false consciousness" take root after such grotesquely cynical treatment of the most evil barbarism.

But, as do many Euro-intellectuals these days, Sloterdijk goes off the deep end a bit when it comes to the USA. Not only are brutish neo-Hobbesians populating the Beltway--but Europe has become the idlyic America of the 18th Century:

"Nous sommes devenus des Américains du XVIIIe siècle, proclamant notre droit à vivre dans des espaces où l'histoire ne peut plus nous atteindre."

Translation: "We [the Europeans] have become the Americans of the 18th Century, proclaiming our right to live in the spaces where history can not reach us." [ed. note: yes Sloterdijk does credit Robert Kagan for having made related arguments recently]

But is that what America's founders were seeking? To live in a blissful nation unscarred by History's march?

No, I'd wager. The Founding Fathers were boldly staking out a new polity--not with the goal of creating a paradise outside of history--but with the hope of creating a freer society than that which they had come from. But the key point is that they were surely conscious that threats would gather and need to be confronted to retain the fruits of liberty achieved in the new polity. They had not embarked on a frivolous mission with the chimerical goals of "escaping" history.

Ultimately, Sloterdijk is too tempted to analyze the state of world politics through overly ironic lens thus reaching too cute conclusions:

"Les Etats-Unis se sont construits justement pour échapper à la réalité européenne décrite de façon exemplaire par Hobbes. Car l'auteur du Léviathan justifiait philosophiquement l'absolutisme étatique. Les premiers Américains sont les ennemis de cet absolutisme et ils n'ont qu'un rêve : fuir une Europe où Hobbes a raison. Or aujourd'hui, que voit-on ? On voit les Américains faire leur le pessimisme ontologique de Hobbes et se convertir à l'idéologie même dont le rejet constitua la raison d'être de leur nation!"

Translation: "The U.S. built itself precisely to escape the European reality described in exemplary fashion by Hobbes. Because the author of Leviathan justified philosphically state absolutism. The first Americans were the enemies of this absolutism and had but one dream: to flee a Europe where Hobbes was right. And today, what do we see? We see Americans make Hobbes' ontological pessimism their own and convert themselves to this same ideology whose very rejection constituted the reason for their nation's creation!"

Doubts about Kyoto, the International Criminal Court, de-mining protocols, and the like do not, even collectively, evince a desire among key policymakers in Washington to return to the "state of nature." Nor does sober analysis evidence attempts by the Administration, acting pursuant to Presidential direction or imperatives, to purposefully make irrelevant any of the varied post-WWII international security/economic architecture. And note only two post-WWII conflicts (Korea and Gulf War I) enjoyed explicit UNSC approval.

So what is it about this latest war in Iraq that causes this intense distrust of U.S. policymakers among so many in Europe, these hyperbolic arguments bandied about by intellectuals about a reversion to the "state of nature"?

I think we need to conclude that it's the presence of a sole hyperpower that's really to blame--the resentment of a behemoth like hegemon without any counterweight(s) on the international stage. It was all tolerable in the '90s when the actions undertaken were either in response to direct aggression against a neighbor (Kuwait) or to tidy up Euro-messes (Bosnia, Kosovo). But its seemingly gotten a bit too burdensome now. And many need to lash out because of it--often in irrational manner.

There's more to this, of course, and we share a bit of the blame. But the lion's share of the lashing out against the U.S. on this side of the Atlantic, I'd wager, stems from the simple fact that the hyperpower appears so omnipotent.

The international system is off-kilter and unmoored from traditional balance of power politics. This has upset many in Europe who, particularly post 9/11, fear that American policy is taking a militaristic turn without any nation (or group of nations) able to restrain such perceived tendencies. All this helps expain some of the happiness (barely concealed) at the perceived comeuppance of the U.S. in Iraq during the post-war slog.

Escalation Watch

Is the IDF heading into Gaza come October?

Old Media Lion Watch

Eminence grise Walter Cronkite lets loose in the august pages of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Money grafs:

"In his two and a half years in office, Attorney General John Ashcroft has earned himself a remarkable distinction as the Torquemada of American law. Tomás de Torquemada, you might recall, was the 15th-century Dominican friar who became the grand inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition. He was largely responsible for its methods, including torture and the burning of heretics - Muslims in particular.

Now, of course, I am not accusing the attorney general of pulling out anyone's fingernails or burning people at the stake (at least I don't know of any such cases). But one does get the sense these days that the old Spaniard's spirit is comfortably at home in Ashcroft's Department of Justice."

Condi Watch

Lexington on the National Security Advisor.

But is Lex right when he writes:

"And what about Ms Rice's own prospects? Uniquely among Mr Bush's foreign-policy team, she has the potential for a separate political career." [my emphasis]

Powell still does, doesn't he? You never know...

Conspiracy Theories

Guess how someone landed at this humble blog.

Keller Watch

I couldn't find the link but a trusted source at the NYT forwarded the below via E-mail to me (contents of E-mail italicized):

September 25, 2003, Thursday Late Edition - Final
Section A Page 2 Column 3 Desk: Metropolitan Desk Length: 125 words
Type: Correction

Corrections

An article on Monday about Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz's comments at a forum on Iraq misstated President Bush's position on whether there were contacts between Al Qaeda and the government of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Bush has said there were such contacts; he has not said they were unsubstantiated.

So they came clean re: this catch. Hats off to Mr. Keller. It appears there is hope for the Times in the post-Raines era!

UPDATE: Here's the link.

Iran Nuclear Program Watch

More on Iran's nuke program. Keep a close eye on what Bush and Putin have to say on the issue after the weekend at Camp David.

This is one of the few areas where Democrats can say that Republicans have taken their eye off the ball on a national security issue, ie. giving Putin a bit of a passe-partout in his dealings with Iran.

W. 43rd St. Watch

Is the Times going soft and fuzzy? Will it get boring (heaven forbid) under Keller? A look at the post-Raines vibe in the Observer.

Sample graf:

"If Mr. Keller lacks the booming Rainesian charisma that could suck the oxygen out of a room, all the better. But Mr. Keller does have something of his own to offer. Attracted like old ladies to the sensitive new young vicar at a country church, the Times is singing a more modern hymn of inclusiveness, humaneness and general good-feeling. The era of fire and brimstone is over; pass the crumpets, please, it’s time for a heart-to-heart!"

How 'bout a "heart-to-heart" about their corrections policy? Still none re: this story a couple days out....

Reader Feedback

Not surprisingly, I'm catching a bit of flak on my somewhat negative take re: Dubya's address to the UN yesterday. Reader DG's missive was pretty typical of some of the feedback I've gotten:

"I generally agree with your comments and value the time you spend making your views known on your website, but I strongly disagree with your modest criticism of Bush’s speech. Listening to him made me proud to be an American. He stated clearly and concisely his positions on Iraq and other world issues. The world does not respect not [ed note. "nor"?] follow humility, but strength and Bush exuded strength. Anything less would have energized France and Germany, if not others, with renewed vigor to oppose a resolution to gain UN support in whatever form it might take. They now know Bush will not back down and attempts to sidetrack or veto a new resolution will be futile and will force them into a corner as obstructionist, particularly France. Bush showed that he has resolve and will not be deterred by domestic political considerations...."

This was one of the aspects of my criticism that I was a bit concerned about, ie. expressions of humility can also have negative ramifications. Sadly, humility often leads others to trample on you and/or lose respect in your outlook. Such is, unfortunately, often the state of human nature.

I generally agree that it's very important to project strength in the implementation and enunciation of foreign policy goals. But I wasn't arguing that Bush needed to kowtow to Berlin and Paris. I was just arguing for a bit more of a realistic appraisal of where things stand in Iraq today and little doses of humility sprinkled through the speech. I don't think such an approach would have necessarily led to "renewed vigor" from Franco-German quarters to oppose the U.S. in its attempt to secure a new Iraq resolution. Regardless, nowhere did I mean to intimate Dubya needed to go in on bended knee.

Anyway, thanks to readers who wrote in. I appreciate the level headed feedback. And let the debate continue.

What's Katrina Smoking?

Katrina vanden Heuvel asks what Bill Kristol has been smoking over at the Nation. Kristol was basically arguing that all the Iraq doom and gloom is getting overblown. Yes, his contention that the U.S. has done an "amazing job" in Iraq is a bit rich--but he made some pretty sober and cogent points about the relative dearth of U.S. casualties and how much of the country outside of the Sunni triangle has remained pretty stable.

Let's turn the tables and ask Ms. vanden Heuvel what's she's been smoking given recent posts such as this one or this one.

Call it the Eminemization (or Madonnaization) of foreign policy analysis. The resulting apercus aren't exactly breath-taking, it must be said.

Baghdad Poll

A Pat Tyler piece from Baghdad that isn't overly negative! Check it out.

Money graf:

"After five months of foreign military occupation and the ouster of Saddam Hussein, nearly two-thirds of Baghdad residents believe that the removal of the Iraqi dictator has been worth the hardships they have been forced to endure, a new Gallup poll shows."

Remember that if you've been sitting on your couch from locales like Berkeley and Cambridge cursing Dubya's brutish unilateralist tendencies.

Bush's U.N. Speech

As regular readers of this blog know, I'm a pretty strong Bush supporter. But I found his speech to the U.N. today somewhat mixed. The speech was basically divided into three sections (or "challenges"): 1) Afghanistan/Iraq, 2) WMD proliferation, and 3) humanitarian crises ranging from AIDS to famine to the sex trade. I'm not going to discuss 2 and 3 here--despite their obvious importance--but will rather concentrate on Iraq.

My basic beef with that part of the speech was that it didn't show enough humility (the projection of a humble America that Bush campaigned about back in 2000) and there was nothing really new in it, ie. Dubya sounded like a broken record here and there. In a way, both of these issues can sometimes go hand in hand.

For instance, even the most die-hard Bush supporters would admit that the post-war in Iraq hasn't gone too swimmingly. So maybe Bush might have mentioned that the going had been a bit rough and that was one of the reasons he needed more international support.

This would have also served to inject a bit of new language into his speech (over and above the Iraq is the "central front in the war on terror" mantra) while simultaneously showing we can eat a little humble pie now and then.

Nah. Instead he just says as follows:

"Our international coalition in Iraq is meeting its responsibilities. We are conducting precision raids against terrorists and holdouts of the former regime. These killers are at war with the Iraqi people, they have made Iraq the central front in the war on terror, and they will be defeated."

Great, but such language doesn't smell like a fully honest reckoning.

For example, how precise are the "precision raids"?

And are we really meeting our responsibilities? If those responsibilities include provision of security and basic services to the Iraqi people--we simply haven't to date.

We can't just blame it on terrorists and assorted dead-enders. Iraq's our baby now. We've got to make it work--no matter the legions of saboteurs that are rearing their heads to scuttle our efforts.

Sure it's early days. But we should be confident enough to get in front of the podium at the U.N. and talk about the difficulties we are facing in Iraq--rather than sound a bit too pollyannaish.

Another snippet:

'Our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq were supported by many governments and America is grateful to each one.

I also recognize that some of the sovereign nations of this assembly disagreed with our actions. Yet there was and there remains unity among us on the fundamental principles and objectives of the United Nations. So let us move forward." [my emphasis]

Why the need for the word "sovereign" here? Was that ever in question, as if the U.S. holds sway over the national security decision-making processes of other states? And great to stress common ground--but the "so let us move forward" sounds a tad breezy--and perhaps to some ears a bit like a diktat of sorts.

All this said, there were some good parts of the speech. Bush made specific mention of the "vital" work the U.N. carries out in Iraq every day--with an eye towards signaling to the French that the U.S. is happy to see the U.N. play a major role in Iraq.

That said re: warming up to the French demands a bit, I also liked the swipe at Chirac and de Villepin's highly unrealistic timetable for transfer of key governing responsibilities to Iraq (that the self-government process would be "neither hurried nor delayed").

Still, it might have been better if that sentence wasn't placed directly before Bush turned to the prospects of a new U.N. resolution on Iraq. Not the most diplomatic juxtaposition.

There were also eloquent parts of the speech that reminded us of why we are engaged in this war on terror: "24 months ago--and yesterday in the memory of America--the center of New York City became a battlefield and a graveyard and the symbol of an unfinished war."

It was also positive to see Bush, in such an international forum (and with many Euro leaders prancing about), state that the U.S., in Iraq, had undertaken "the greatest financial commitment of its kind since the Marshall Plan." A powerful reminder of the scope of the current task as well as the work undertaken after WWII to help create a peaceful and prosperous Europe.

No doubt, Bush has definitely put his (well, our...) money where his mouth is. He's really striving to make a success out of Iraq (more than say, his efforts with the roadmap or NoKo). It's probably still all going to work out pretty well--and the doom-sayers will be proved wrong again. But it wouldn't hurt to project a bit more humility and adjust some of the themes to the changing situations we are confronted with now and then.

Chirac's NYT Interview

Yeah I know this is a day late but I'm on the road. Anyway, the interview is pretty long but worth reading.

Funny to think, but the piece is actually Chirac's counterpoint to Gerard Schroder's somewhat conciliatory NYT oped from a few days back. It's actually an attempt at rapprochment with those jingoistic Anglo-Saxons--but a la Parisienne--meaning with some verbal epingles thrown in, the requisite haughtiness, an annoying didactic tone sprinkled about, and a good dollop of Gallic disingenuousness.

Why is it a rapprochment interview? Because ultimately he says he won't veto a new resolution unless the resolution is "provocative" (translation: as long as you don't really rub our noses in it, make us feel grossly irrelevant, or don't even attempt to negotiate what might get us to a yes vote).

He then provides somewhat of a roadmap re: what would get a yes vote-- "a precise deadline for the transfer of sovereignty, and second, a timetable for transferring responsibility, and a key role for the U.N."

A "key role" is suitably vague language where middle ground can be easily broached by the diplomats negotiating the resolution. The sovereignty deadline and reponsibility transfer timetable are tricker issues. That said, we could probably push the French on the symbolic sovereignty handover to 3-6 months hence with the transfer of the lion's share of responsibility to about 18 months (double the 6-9 month time frame Chirac mentioned, that's an initial negotiating position, and one he said would happen "little by little").

All this to say--I think we can get a yes--and that would be a pretty good outcome in terms of helping heal the ill feelings over all the spilt milk at Turtle Bay earlier this year. Still, if the French don't agree to more realistic sovereignty handover time frames--we will likely see an abstention. But they are telegraphing that before the negotiations get down and dirty--thus reducing their veto leverage mightily. So, especially viewed in that context, it's all pretty conciliatory fare that Chirac laid out in the interview. Put simply, and critical, the veto cloud has been lifted.

Other key take-aways: 1) no French troops in Iraq (at least in the short to mid-term, ie. he doesn't definitively take the possibility off the table but comes very close to doing so) but the French will likely be happy to help train an Iraqi police force (with some of the training perhaps taking place in Iraq), 2) a view of the world as moving towards multipolarity but with the U.S. and Europe acting with "solidarity for each other, vis à vis the others, which have a different culture", and 3) Chirac stressing an effective Euro defense capability is in the offing so that Europe could act outside NATO when it deems it in its interest.

Eurodefense Force Issue

Related to #3 above, Chirac said as follows in the interview:

"We have seen this recently in Macedonia. Our American friends have told us that we should take responsibility for the Balkans from now on. We can do this, but how? With a flute? We have seen it in Africa; we need a system, a European defense policy." [my emphasis]

The Gaul's gall! First, it's worth noting that we bailed the Euros out of the Balkan imbroglio at Dayton. When in 1991, a Eurodiplomat enthused that the "hour of Europe" had arrived (ie., Europe would solve the Balkan mess), Bush 41 was happy to let the Europeans take the lead. Of course it didn't quite turn out that way, did it?

Second, who in Washington DC is leading the call to oppose the creation of a Eurodefense force? Not many people, as far as I know. In fact, the whole Bob Kagan thesis that had post-Kantian Euros keeping defense spending low and enjoying a U.S. paid security umbrella (in somewhat ingrate-like fashion) likely has some in the Beltway cheerleading increased European defense expenditures (as long as they don't get too robust, bien sur).

So why Chirac's sarcastic reference to the "flute"? By all means, get a Euro defense force up and running. And then use it to patrol "your" neighborhood--Macedonia, Kosovo and Bosnia.

But don't disingenuously argue that the U.S. is keeping Europe from assuming its perceived security obligations and/or ambitions. Its been more a story of European abdication than the U.S. restraining possible Euro military groupings.

The System is Broken, Dude

Note as well that the French still haven't dropped the de Villepinian (and hyper Cartesian) analysis of the "logic of occupation" (Chirac calls it the "system").

"On the contrary, I’m simply giving my view of how things are. One, it is a complicated business, two it is a dangerous business, and is becoming more dangerous by the day. Three, we must try and get out of it. It is my conviction that the current system-- let’s be clear, I mean a system of occupation-- will not allow us to find a solution to this situation. It will generate more and more reaction against this system, which will grow even more complicated, as you say, due to the difficulties that already exist among the Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis and so on. All of this is true, but I do not see any other way out. I only see the probablity of the situation getting worse." [my emphases]

This is all pretty bogus stuff. As Dan Drezner points out:

"In what way will the transfer of de jure sovereignty without de facto responsibility accelerate statebuilding in Iraq? Is sovereignty without responsibility merely an example of organized hypocrisy, or is there normative content to this concept?"

Indeed.

A Couple Final Thoughts

Isn't it sad that a French President even has to say something like this in an interview with America's leading newspaper?

"This is all the more necessary since we are watching with sorrow and distress the attacks that have been taking place, often against American soldiers. And frankly, it hurts us whenever. It hurts us to hear about the attacks against American soldiers or to see images on television; the attacks against others as well, of course, but particularly American soldiers. It hurts us."

I'm still left just a tad muddied as to whether Chirac chokes up more when a Ba'athist loyalist dies or an American G.I.--but let's take him on his word--why does this even need to be said? Ca va sans dire, non?

And don't look to the French to come up with major innovations to replace the near-dead roadmap:

"Q: And what can be done about the Israel-Palestinian crisis?

A: It fills me with sadness. But I’m afraid I must go since I have a plane to catch …"

The NYT and Wolfy

So a courageous (or mad) Paul Wolfowitz gave a talk to the crowd at NYC's New School University. Eric Schmitt writes it up in the Times.

We are treated to this vignette:

"Mr. Wolfowitz has had a lot of practice in the last two years as the administration's lightning rod for Iraq policy. He barely flinched when a burly, bearded protester rushed the stage, yelling, "Nazi war criminal!" Security guards tackled and removed the man, the first of six people ejected."

And then:

"The United States waged war for three reasons, he said: the concern over Iraq's drive to obtain chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; Iraq's connections to terrorism; and Mr. Hussein's reign of terror that Mr. Wolfowitz said was responsible for perhaps a million Iraqi deaths.

"It was a human rights nightmare," he said, emphasizing a reason that was not a principal one the administration articulated before the war, but has become so since.

When pressed by Mr. Goldberg and audience members, some of these justifications seemed less certain. "Iraq did have contacts with Al Qaeda," Mr. Wolfowitz insisted, momentarily silencing the audience with an accusation even President Bush now says is unsubstantiated. He added, "We don't know how clear they were." [my emphasis].

Wait a second. Dubya merely said that Saddam (or Iraq) didn't have links to 9/11--not al-Qaeda writ large. It's a bit Guardian-esque of the Times to suggest otherwise.

Even this Beeb story makes that clear:

"US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

Mr Bush did however repeat his belief that the former Iraqi president had ties to al-Qaeda - the group widely regarded as responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington." [my emphasis]

Will the Times now issue a correction? Don't hold your breath.

9/11 Plot

It could have been even worse.