Via Matt Taibbi, via David Sirota, I discover that David Brooks has identified the existential threat to our American democracy: Democratic Party Partisanship; more particularly, polarized, partisan Democratic voters, and the polarizingly partisan Democratic primaries that allow the polarized partisan Democratic voters to vote.
The Lamont-Lieberman election in Connecticut, Brooks says:
"...explained why polarized primary voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics."
Phew. I'm glad Brooks has finally shined the light on what ails the American republic. Primaries. And voting. And partisanship. And Democrats being partisan.
I'm just a little perplexed that Brooksie has happened upon this crisis only recently. Because I think partisanship has been pretty potent for like the last 26 years, maybe even longer. And it's been especially important and vile to boot, since 1994. And 1998 wasn't a partisan sleeper by any means either. And what about that time the Republican U.S. Senator from Vermont, Jim Jeffords, ditched the GOP for Independent status after he was re-elected? Do you really want me to dig up the unveiled threats to Jeffords eminating from the Republican White House and Republican Congress when that happened?
And what those little things we call elections in 2002 and 2004? Well, those things were downright partisan, let me tell ya, Brooksie.
But now, that Bush's polls have cratered, his war in Iraq is a Fiasco, some of the DC pundit class are predicting a Democratic tidal wave in 2006, and perhaps most offensively, beltway favorite Joe Lieberman lost his primary re-election bid, Brooksie has finally discovered the source of American malaise in the 21st century. There are elections. And party primaries. Who knew?
Of course, I must concede that Brooksie concedes this disease of partisanship and primary voting has infected his own party. There is indeed a pox on both our houses;
"...look at how Representative Joe Schwarz, a moderate Republican, was defeated by a conservative rival in Michigan."
I hope no one reminds Brooksie that long time Republican Senator Arlen Spector was challenged by a very partisan Republican in 2004 and barely got to hang onto his Judiciary Chairmanship. What's more, another Republican Senator, from Rhode Island, also faces a primary challenger. These Republicans are pretty partisan, they are.
But while Brooksie is forced to acknowledge the polarizing partisanship his own party has indulged in, if not driven to great heights over the last three decades, his real problem it appears is with Democratic partisans. That Democrats would vote to turn out one of his few buddies in the Democratic party was more than he, and many other political elites in DC can take.
As Taibbi notes:
There is something perversely exhilarating about watching the American political establishment in action, especially now, when -- with the Middle East in flames, the front pages filled with news of jarring electoral surprises, and the poll numbers of its once-brightest stars falling through the floor -- it has begun behaving like a cornered animal, lashing out incoherently at anything that comes near.
Lieberman himself has been stumbling around like a deer that has just been hit and thrown 200 yards by an F-150, taking the utterly insane position that his candidacy -- his, Joe Lieberman's candidacy -- somehow represents a fight against the "same old" Washington politics. You have Dick Cheney and a whole host of conservative talking heads, all pretense of two-party politics gone now, openly parroting the talking points of the supposed other side, the Democratic Leadership Council. And then you have Times columnist David Brooks, acting like a man high on laughing gas, committing to print that positively amazing assertion that "polarized primary voters should not be allowed to define the choices in American politics."
(That one might be my all-time favorite; flailing around in search of a new group on the margins to demonize, this yutz accidentally argues that voters shouldn't be allowed to decide elections. I thought it was funny, but Brooks this time nearly gave Dave Sirota an aneurysm.)
The reason the Lamont election has all of Washington so badly freaked out and dug in is that it's revealed a crack in the long-dependable mechanism of mainstream American politics. For almost four decades now conservatives in both parties have been governing according to a very simple formula. You run against Jane Fonda and George McGovern in election season, then you spend the next four years playing golf, shooting flightless birds, and taking $25,000 speaking gigs in Aspen while you let your fundraisers run things around the office.
But their problem now is that they've fucked up Iraq and everything else so badly that they've practically made "McGovernism" mainstream. A whole generation of hacks has reached office running against George McGovern, and now Joe Lieberman is threatening to ruin things for everybody, just like Jimmy Carter wrecked the Barry Goldwater gravy train for the last generation by falling on his face against Ronald Reagan. If there is such a thing as a principle in Washington, avoiding such a catastrophe as that is it. That's why they won't let Joe die easy -- no matter how much he seems to deserve it.
But it's not just the case that professional punditry is offended by the uptick in primaries, voting, and partisanship; it's that this demonstration of small "d" democracy is occuring among Democratic Party voters, and slowly trickling up towards their elected representatives. Don Imus, Chris Matthews, and Fox News were more than happy to have partisanship when the Democrats were having their rear ends handed to them every election. Now that the mood has turned, and the masses are unsettled, the political elite is worried and by most indicators, becoming increasingly irrational.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
From the Heart
The Washington Post:
Sen. George Allen on Tuesday sought to contain the political damage from remarks he made to a Fairfax County man that dredged up charges of racial insensitivity -- allegations that have dogged him for years as governor, senator and now presidential hopeful.
Despite a quick apology Monday, criticism poured in about Allen's use of the word "Macaca" to address a volunteer for the campaign of his Democratic opponent, James Webb, and also about another Allen comment, "Welcome to America." Democrats, left-wing bloggers and civil rights groups called him "insensitive" and "racist," while some conservatives called him "foolish" and "mean."
The question was fiercely debated all day: Was "Macaca," which literally means a genus of monkey, a deliberate racist epithet or a weird ad-libbed word with no meaning? And what was Allen trying to say by singling out the young man of Indian descent?
Allen's defenders rushed to his side, saying the comments, though careless, do not reflect what is inside the senator's heart. Sudhakar Shenoy, an Indian business executive from Fairfax who has known Allen for years, said he "has been an incredible friend to Indians" and is not a racist. "I'd stake everything I have that George is not that kind of a guy," Shenoy said.
Gospel of Mark:
Mark 7: 1-7.
And there are gathered together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashen, hands. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market-place, except they bathe themselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels.)
And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands? And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
This people honoreth me with their lips,
But their heart is far from me.
But in vain do they worship me,
Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.
(snip)
Mark 7: 14-15.
And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto them, Hear me all of you, and understand: there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.
The book of Jeremiah
Jeremiah 17:9.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it?
Sen. George Allen on Tuesday sought to contain the political damage from remarks he made to a Fairfax County man that dredged up charges of racial insensitivity -- allegations that have dogged him for years as governor, senator and now presidential hopeful.
Despite a quick apology Monday, criticism poured in about Allen's use of the word "Macaca" to address a volunteer for the campaign of his Democratic opponent, James Webb, and also about another Allen comment, "Welcome to America." Democrats, left-wing bloggers and civil rights groups called him "insensitive" and "racist," while some conservatives called him "foolish" and "mean."
The question was fiercely debated all day: Was "Macaca," which literally means a genus of monkey, a deliberate racist epithet or a weird ad-libbed word with no meaning? And what was Allen trying to say by singling out the young man of Indian descent?
Allen's defenders rushed to his side, saying the comments, though careless, do not reflect what is inside the senator's heart. Sudhakar Shenoy, an Indian business executive from Fairfax who has known Allen for years, said he "has been an incredible friend to Indians" and is not a racist. "I'd stake everything I have that George is not that kind of a guy," Shenoy said.
Gospel of Mark:
Mark 7: 1-7.
And there are gathered together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashen, hands. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market-place, except they bathe themselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels.)
And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands? And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
This people honoreth me with their lips,
But their heart is far from me.
But in vain do they worship me,
Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.
(snip)
Mark 7: 14-15.
And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto them, Hear me all of you, and understand: there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.
The book of Jeremiah
Jeremiah 17:9.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it?
Back to Iraq
In yesterday's NYT we learned that president Bush is apparently disappointed with the Iraqi people's lack of gratitude to the U.S. for their "liberation".
Today we find out that in addition to the sectarian violence between Iraqi Shia and Sunni Muslims, the Iraqi insurgency is also continuing to grow, launching the most attacks last month on American and Iraqi government forces since the start of the war. I'd almost become convinced the insurgency had more or less become subsumed if not replaced by a civil war; but apparently the turmoil in Iraq is not a zero-sum game in which either an insurgency or civil war can be waged but not both. Both are thriving as not only are attacks on U.S. troops and Iraqi soldiers up, so are the number of civilians murdered in Baghdad:
As the politics in Iraq have grown more polarized since the elections in December, in which many Sunni Arabs voted, attacks have soared, including sectarian clashes that have killed an average of more than 100 Iraqi civilians per day over the past two months.
Glenn Greenwald has this to say in response to the latest news:
Once the U.S. finally extricates itself from the Iraqi disaster, a comprehensive public accounting is critical. While much attention has been paid to the pre-war misinformation disseminated by the government and the media, the post-invasion deceit has been worse -- much worse. There was, at least, a reasonable question about whether Saddam had WMDs. Nobody knew the answer to that question for certain one way or the other prior to the war. But it has long been apparent that conditions in Iraq were deteriorating, that our occupation was achieving nothing constructive, that violence was spiraling out of control, and that our invasion had achieved the opposite of the goals we proclaimed to be pursuing.
But the political establishment -- the Bush administration, its followers, and our "serious" pundits alike -- were all so invested, so personally invested, in the invasion which they advocated and caused that they just all agreed to pretend that it was not happening. Pointing out the magnitude of the disaster we caused -- both to Iraq and, at least equally, to the U.S. -- was deemed inappropriate, distasteful, hyperbolic, and even subversive. As a result, and in stark contrast to the quick and open Israeli recognition that their war was going poorly, we continued to pursue a clearly misguided and destructive path because our political leaders and their media enablers were too weak and self-interested -- and, in many cases, still are -- to acknowledge reality.
There's certainly a lot of truth to Glenn's argument that the administration's post-war behavior has been worse than its pre-war behavior. And it's also true that many of the administration's think tank and media enablers have unfortunately followed suit, denying reports of Iraq's problems and trying to intimidate administration critics and members of the press interested in a full and truthful accounting of the war.
At the same time, it's worth recognizing the efforts turned in by journalists such as Tom Ricks, George Packer and Michael Gordon, among others, in fleshing out the mistakes and misinformation both prior to and after the invasion.
In addition, conservatives in the press and in the conservative movement also deserve kudos for being willing to recognize the failings associated with the administration's fantasy based war mongering and nation building, and in some cases, these players have acknowledged their own mistaken roles and been promptly attacked and disowned by their former collaborators, including this guy. George Will and William Buckley have also expressed criticism of the war and the administration's post-invasion strategeries.
And obviously, the public has become at least partly in tune to the results of the Iraqi invasion, driving down Bush's poll numbers and leading some observers to conclude the Democrats are on the verge of a take over of Congress.
Nonetheless, at least some of the dis-satisfaction with Bush and Iraq doesn't stem from what we might think of as liberal causes. Much of the mainstream angst seems primarily rooted in issues of war-management, rather than on the war's justification and moral worth. On the far right there is added the notion that the war was not waged violently enough.
And now, with the cease-fire still holding in Lebanon, the administration, and perhaps more importantly, it's rabid supporters in the mega-church, Christian Zionest movement, want to proceed with an attack on Iran. And even if Democrats make some gains in the Fall, it's hard to see the next two years, and even the next decade, being one of rational discourse and reasonable public policy whether here or abroad.
Today we find out that in addition to the sectarian violence between Iraqi Shia and Sunni Muslims, the Iraqi insurgency is also continuing to grow, launching the most attacks last month on American and Iraqi government forces since the start of the war. I'd almost become convinced the insurgency had more or less become subsumed if not replaced by a civil war; but apparently the turmoil in Iraq is not a zero-sum game in which either an insurgency or civil war can be waged but not both. Both are thriving as not only are attacks on U.S. troops and Iraqi soldiers up, so are the number of civilians murdered in Baghdad:
As the politics in Iraq have grown more polarized since the elections in December, in which many Sunni Arabs voted, attacks have soared, including sectarian clashes that have killed an average of more than 100 Iraqi civilians per day over the past two months.
Glenn Greenwald has this to say in response to the latest news:
Once the U.S. finally extricates itself from the Iraqi disaster, a comprehensive public accounting is critical. While much attention has been paid to the pre-war misinformation disseminated by the government and the media, the post-invasion deceit has been worse -- much worse. There was, at least, a reasonable question about whether Saddam had WMDs. Nobody knew the answer to that question for certain one way or the other prior to the war. But it has long been apparent that conditions in Iraq were deteriorating, that our occupation was achieving nothing constructive, that violence was spiraling out of control, and that our invasion had achieved the opposite of the goals we proclaimed to be pursuing.
But the political establishment -- the Bush administration, its followers, and our "serious" pundits alike -- were all so invested, so personally invested, in the invasion which they advocated and caused that they just all agreed to pretend that it was not happening. Pointing out the magnitude of the disaster we caused -- both to Iraq and, at least equally, to the U.S. -- was deemed inappropriate, distasteful, hyperbolic, and even subversive. As a result, and in stark contrast to the quick and open Israeli recognition that their war was going poorly, we continued to pursue a clearly misguided and destructive path because our political leaders and their media enablers were too weak and self-interested -- and, in many cases, still are -- to acknowledge reality.
There's certainly a lot of truth to Glenn's argument that the administration's post-war behavior has been worse than its pre-war behavior. And it's also true that many of the administration's think tank and media enablers have unfortunately followed suit, denying reports of Iraq's problems and trying to intimidate administration critics and members of the press interested in a full and truthful accounting of the war.
At the same time, it's worth recognizing the efforts turned in by journalists such as Tom Ricks, George Packer and Michael Gordon, among others, in fleshing out the mistakes and misinformation both prior to and after the invasion.
In addition, conservatives in the press and in the conservative movement also deserve kudos for being willing to recognize the failings associated with the administration's fantasy based war mongering and nation building, and in some cases, these players have acknowledged their own mistaken roles and been promptly attacked and disowned by their former collaborators, including this guy. George Will and William Buckley have also expressed criticism of the war and the administration's post-invasion strategeries.
And obviously, the public has become at least partly in tune to the results of the Iraqi invasion, driving down Bush's poll numbers and leading some observers to conclude the Democrats are on the verge of a take over of Congress.
Nonetheless, at least some of the dis-satisfaction with Bush and Iraq doesn't stem from what we might think of as liberal causes. Much of the mainstream angst seems primarily rooted in issues of war-management, rather than on the war's justification and moral worth. On the far right there is added the notion that the war was not waged violently enough.
And now, with the cease-fire still holding in Lebanon, the administration, and perhaps more importantly, it's rabid supporters in the mega-church, Christian Zionest movement, want to proceed with an attack on Iran. And even if Democrats make some gains in the Fall, it's hard to see the next two years, and even the next decade, being one of rational discourse and reasonable public policy whether here or abroad.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Focus on Your Own Family
Right-wing political sect masquerading as "Christian" group gets the heave-hoe from Atlanta Braves' Faith Day.
Hate is Not a family value.
Hate is Not a family value.
Every Decent Person
Every decent person in the world condemns a plot that would purposely kill innocents from many countries for no reason imaginable in a sane world.
Divorced from its context, it might not be immediately discernible of what plot or of which innocents the writer of the above paragraph was speaking. At a minimum the plot against innocents could refer to Iraq or the Israeli-Lebanon conflict, among other current hot spots.
In actuality, the quote is from Reed Hundt at TPM Cafe and refers to the recent arrests in Great Britain of 19 or so reputed Islamic terrorists of English citizenship but of Pakistani descent who, we're told, were in the final stages of a hideous scheme to blow up 9 or 10 airplanes headed to America.
Unlike the terror alarms that went up briefly two months ago about a reported Muslim terrorist group operating out of Miami and planning to bomb the Chicago Sears Tower, the group arrested in Great Britain appears to have been the real thing.
But back to this post's lead 'graph. Hundt is correctly outraged by the barbarism exposed in this plot and relieved the gangsters were caught before they could do any real damage. At the same time, as the civilian death toll in Lebanon approaches or exceeds 1,000, I can't help but think that many in the Middle East would apply Hundt's statement to themselves, their countrymen, and religious comrades.
Naturally, many of us in the West would be quick to point out that Israeli and U.S. attacks in Lebananon and Iraq, respectively, did not and do not target innocents, and are thus manifestly different, morally, than the designs of Muslim terrorists in Great Britain and throughout the world.
But I sense that this is a distinction meant primarily for Western domestic consumption, and a distinction completely lost on the Middle East mass public. The blurred line between the strategies and motivations is compounded by Western thought leaders who engage in morally relativistic talk about redefining the term "civilian" to exclude targeted populations that happen to live near and among Western enemies, such as Hezbollah, or those "innocents" who can be demonstrated as having at least a peripheral sympathy for, or allegiance to, the attacked, even if the sympathy and allegiance is forged in the context of their own destruction.
Divorced from its context, it might not be immediately discernible of what plot or of which innocents the writer of the above paragraph was speaking. At a minimum the plot against innocents could refer to Iraq or the Israeli-Lebanon conflict, among other current hot spots.
In actuality, the quote is from Reed Hundt at TPM Cafe and refers to the recent arrests in Great Britain of 19 or so reputed Islamic terrorists of English citizenship but of Pakistani descent who, we're told, were in the final stages of a hideous scheme to blow up 9 or 10 airplanes headed to America.
Unlike the terror alarms that went up briefly two months ago about a reported Muslim terrorist group operating out of Miami and planning to bomb the Chicago Sears Tower, the group arrested in Great Britain appears to have been the real thing.
But back to this post's lead 'graph. Hundt is correctly outraged by the barbarism exposed in this plot and relieved the gangsters were caught before they could do any real damage. At the same time, as the civilian death toll in Lebanon approaches or exceeds 1,000, I can't help but think that many in the Middle East would apply Hundt's statement to themselves, their countrymen, and religious comrades.
Naturally, many of us in the West would be quick to point out that Israeli and U.S. attacks in Lebananon and Iraq, respectively, did not and do not target innocents, and are thus manifestly different, morally, than the designs of Muslim terrorists in Great Britain and throughout the world.
But I sense that this is a distinction meant primarily for Western domestic consumption, and a distinction completely lost on the Middle East mass public. The blurred line between the strategies and motivations is compounded by Western thought leaders who engage in morally relativistic talk about redefining the term "civilian" to exclude targeted populations that happen to live near and among Western enemies, such as Hezbollah, or those "innocents" who can be demonstrated as having at least a peripheral sympathy for, or allegiance to, the attacked, even if the sympathy and allegiance is forged in the context of their own destruction.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Joementum!
52-48.
Not the smashing victory I was hoping for. It gave Joementum! an excuse to carry on with his "independent" campaign, although maybe Corporate Joe didn't care about the margin or the primary in any event. Anyway, now, as Matt Taibbi forecasted:
"...Lieberman's crowning insult—and perhaps his last fatal mistake as an (ostensible) member of the Democratic Party—was his recent decision to register and run as an independent in case he loses the primary to Lamont. Finally taking his mask off and revealing himself as a baldly self-interested political creature, this final-act version of Lieberman plans on dying hard, forcing liberal voters to kill him twice in the same movie, like Jason in Friday the 13th."
And how about Corporate Joe's concession/full steam ahead, primary voters be damned speech? Much like the rantings of his Washington buddies and DLC enablers, it was devoid entirely of anything resembling substance, just some platitudes about creating a new politics of non-partisanship after the guy's been in DC for the last two decades. Blah blah blah.
I know there are a lot of people on the Internets who think Lamont's victory tonight is miraculous. And I am cheered. Really. But the truth is, if Democratic primary voters can't get rid of a guy like Joe Lieberman in a liberal state like CT, I don't know what the future holds.
I do have a few words of advice for Ned as he seeks to beat Lieberman for a second time--keep the outta staters off the stage. Was there a reason CT voters needed to see media hounds like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson out there tonight? I don't care about their race. One of the big criticisms of Corporate Joe is/was his out of touchness with the people of his state. Ned, don't let Corporate Joe come off like the regular guy in the general election by letting the self promoters hog the spotlight. They work for you, not you for them.
OK, enough said. A long night. The netroots can claim a temporary victory. And I can go to sleep. Finally.
Not the smashing victory I was hoping for. It gave Joementum! an excuse to carry on with his "independent" campaign, although maybe Corporate Joe didn't care about the margin or the primary in any event. Anyway, now, as Matt Taibbi forecasted:
"...Lieberman's crowning insult—and perhaps his last fatal mistake as an (ostensible) member of the Democratic Party—was his recent decision to register and run as an independent in case he loses the primary to Lamont. Finally taking his mask off and revealing himself as a baldly self-interested political creature, this final-act version of Lieberman plans on dying hard, forcing liberal voters to kill him twice in the same movie, like Jason in Friday the 13th."
And how about Corporate Joe's concession/full steam ahead, primary voters be damned speech? Much like the rantings of his Washington buddies and DLC enablers, it was devoid entirely of anything resembling substance, just some platitudes about creating a new politics of non-partisanship after the guy's been in DC for the last two decades. Blah blah blah.
I know there are a lot of people on the Internets who think Lamont's victory tonight is miraculous. And I am cheered. Really. But the truth is, if Democratic primary voters can't get rid of a guy like Joe Lieberman in a liberal state like CT, I don't know what the future holds.
I do have a few words of advice for Ned as he seeks to beat Lieberman for a second time--keep the outta staters off the stage. Was there a reason CT voters needed to see media hounds like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson out there tonight? I don't care about their race. One of the big criticisms of Corporate Joe is/was his out of touchness with the people of his state. Ned, don't let Corporate Joe come off like the regular guy in the general election by letting the self promoters hog the spotlight. They work for you, not you for them.
OK, enough said. A long night. The netroots can claim a temporary victory. And I can go to sleep. Finally.
Meet the Wall Street Journal Democrats
You've met the Fox News Democrats. Now meet the Wall Street Journal Democrats. Hint: sometimes they're the very same people. See if you can match them.
1. Senator Joe Lieberman, please step up:
It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril (November, 2005).
2. Marty Peretz, Editor in Chief, The New Republic:
We have been here before. Left-wing Democrats are once again fielding single-issue "peace candidates," and the one in Connecticut, like several in the 1970s, is a middle-aged patrician, seeking office de haut en bas, and almost entirely because he can. It's really quite remarkable how someone like Ned Lamont, from the stock of Morgan partner Thomas Lamont and that most high-born American Stalinist, Corliss Lamont, still sends a chill of "having arrived" up the spines of his suburban supporters simply by asking them to support him. Superficially, one may think of those who thought they were already middle class just by being enthusiasts of Franklin Roosevelt, who descended from the Hudson River Dutch aristocracy. But when FDR ran for, and was elected, president in 1932, he had already been a state senator, assistant secretary of the Navy and governor of New York. He had demonstrated abilities (August, 2006).
3. Lanny Davis, former Special Council to President Clinton, and former frat brother of President Bush, and currently serving on President Bush's "privacy board", along side Ted Olson, anti-Clinton lawyer extraordinaire:
My brief and unhappy experience with the hate and vitriol of bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle comes from the last several months I spent campaigning for a longtime friend, Joe Lieberman (August, 2006).
Meet the Wall Street Journal Democrats. Same as the Fox News Democrats.
Are you a Democrat who hates Democrats and democracy generally? Don't just do Fox News. The Wall Street Journal is soliciting essays for use as potential op-ed columns. Our rich, conservative Republican readership especially enjoys reading opinion pieces by Democrats criticizing other Democrats. Note: competitive entries must really savage other Democrats, especially close to election time.
1. Senator Joe Lieberman, please step up:
It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril (November, 2005).
2. Marty Peretz, Editor in Chief, The New Republic:
We have been here before. Left-wing Democrats are once again fielding single-issue "peace candidates," and the one in Connecticut, like several in the 1970s, is a middle-aged patrician, seeking office de haut en bas, and almost entirely because he can. It's really quite remarkable how someone like Ned Lamont, from the stock of Morgan partner Thomas Lamont and that most high-born American Stalinist, Corliss Lamont, still sends a chill of "having arrived" up the spines of his suburban supporters simply by asking them to support him. Superficially, one may think of those who thought they were already middle class just by being enthusiasts of Franklin Roosevelt, who descended from the Hudson River Dutch aristocracy. But when FDR ran for, and was elected, president in 1932, he had already been a state senator, assistant secretary of the Navy and governor of New York. He had demonstrated abilities (August, 2006).
3. Lanny Davis, former Special Council to President Clinton, and former frat brother of President Bush, and currently serving on President Bush's "privacy board", along side Ted Olson, anti-Clinton lawyer extraordinaire:
My brief and unhappy experience with the hate and vitriol of bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle comes from the last several months I spent campaigning for a longtime friend, Joe Lieberman (August, 2006).
Meet the Wall Street Journal Democrats. Same as the Fox News Democrats.
Are you a Democrat who hates Democrats and democracy generally? Don't just do Fox News. The Wall Street Journal is soliciting essays for use as potential op-ed columns. Our rich, conservative Republican readership especially enjoys reading opinion pieces by Democrats criticizing other Democrats. Note: competitive entries must really savage other Democrats, especially close to election time.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Sharing the Despair
Bilmon has been getting some grief for what some feel is his overly-pessimistic tone, in posts like these for example. And I think Bilmon's wrong to downplay the impact a Democratic executive, a branch or two of Congress and Democratic appointments to the courts could have in at least helping to slow the march towards American theocracy and authoritarianism, at least for a time while we hope saner minds prevail.
But I have to admit I've been sharing the Whiskey Bar's mood these days. Take for example, Joe Lieberman, and his enablers in the press and pundit world. I've tried to downplay Lamont's prospects tomorrow, but even I'd forgotten just what a real cancer on the body politic Joe Lieberman is until I read these essays by Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone. And the truly sad thing is, Lieberman is probably not even the worst of the bunch. And maybe Lamont will prove no better over time, should he win tomorrow. As Bilmon points out, Lamont at the very least share's Lieberman's and the conventional U.S. view on the Lebanon-Israel conflict. So how different he'd be relative to the general level of silliness that's going on now concerning U.S. and the neocon's posturing towards Syria and Iran, and their defense of presidential signing statements and NSA wiretaps, etc, I don't know.
But along side of the problem presented by corruption and hypocrisy in Congress, it also seems to be the case that the fever pitch being worked up by neo conservative agitators in Washington and by their supporters in right-wing evangelical pulpits is, despite the abundance of counteracting evidence shining brightly from the Fiasco in Iraq, if anything only increasing.
And although I felt it necessary to slightly poo-pah Glenn Greenwald's essay on neo-conservatism and realignment a few weeks ago, basically everything that's gone on since then has only buttressed his view that a new alignment hinging on neo-conservative international politics is driving and shaping our national politics, subverting at least for a time, even the hot-button domestic issues like abortion, gay rights, etc that have been so prominent even throughout the first years of the Iraqi excapade.
Thus it has been highly ironic to hear from Joe Lieberman and his supporters the complaint that Democrats shouldn't oppose Lieberman based on his vote for the Iraq war. While this canard has been dispensed with by other commentators, I think Digby's post here on the nature of the opposition to Joe Lieberman probably captures it as well as any:
"This article lays out all the gripes that Connecticut, a liberal state, has against old Joe and it's quite an indictment. But what it comes down to is that he's always tried to have it both ways. He rhetorically reinforces all the destructive GOP memes, hedges his bets on important votes and even though (like most politicians) he generally votes with the party he's effectively working for the other side a good part of the time. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that being a member of the minority party in the Senate for most of his career means that he's had a lot of free votes that don't mean diddly.
Rhetoric, on the other hand, is one of the few powers a minority party has as it tries to persuade the country to come over to their side and put the opposition on the spot. Helping the majority make its case is one of the most destructive things Joe does. Democratic partisans have been complaining about it for years and so apparently have his constituents."
Lieberman and the DLC aside, though, I've actually been far less concerned about the saber rattling concerning Iran than seemingly many other commentators have. My reasoning has been that despite all the talk and apprehension about pre-emptive wars and one-percent doctrines, and bellicose threats from the likes of Newt Gingrish, Bill Kristol and Max Boot, the neo-conservative administration basically had one military-force card to play, and that was in Iraq. If the neo-cons really thought Iran was a serious threat, they could have continued with the containment of Iraq and mobilized for Iran instead (or North Korea). But they didn't.
In any event, Iran and North Korea are not countries that, it seems to me, are going to be persuaded or changed by air power alone--substantial ground forces would need to be committed for any plan to invade Iran, and I don't see that happening, since a draft would be needed to provide the forces for such a misadventure.
But now I'm not sure if there isn't more to worry about. More than a few evangelical leaders with mass followings--and contacts at the White House--are sounding apocalyptic warnings about Iran, and the general level of "debate" has been such that I wonder if there hasn't been a point of no return already crossed. In that case, some sort of military action, however limited to air attacks it might be, and however unsuccessful those attacks might be, would seem to be necessary to let off the steam being generated by the press and the president's party's fan base.
And of course, rising gas prices are probably not going to relieve the tension clouding the war talk either.
So, I'm not optimistic about the future, even if Democrats take one or both branches of Congress this fall. The mess that's already been created, the expectations that have been built up around the "global war on terrorism" and "world war III/IV/V" will need considerable political skill to navigate, and I'm not reassured that the Democratic leadership and intelligencia is equiped to handle it. Considering that some faux Democrats are more aligned with the Republican neo-cons than their reputed party, my lack of faith is even more understandable.
But I have to admit I've been sharing the Whiskey Bar's mood these days. Take for example, Joe Lieberman, and his enablers in the press and pundit world. I've tried to downplay Lamont's prospects tomorrow, but even I'd forgotten just what a real cancer on the body politic Joe Lieberman is until I read these essays by Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone. And the truly sad thing is, Lieberman is probably not even the worst of the bunch. And maybe Lamont will prove no better over time, should he win tomorrow. As Bilmon points out, Lamont at the very least share's Lieberman's and the conventional U.S. view on the Lebanon-Israel conflict. So how different he'd be relative to the general level of silliness that's going on now concerning U.S. and the neocon's posturing towards Syria and Iran, and their defense of presidential signing statements and NSA wiretaps, etc, I don't know.
But along side of the problem presented by corruption and hypocrisy in Congress, it also seems to be the case that the fever pitch being worked up by neo conservative agitators in Washington and by their supporters in right-wing evangelical pulpits is, despite the abundance of counteracting evidence shining brightly from the Fiasco in Iraq, if anything only increasing.
And although I felt it necessary to slightly poo-pah Glenn Greenwald's essay on neo-conservatism and realignment a few weeks ago, basically everything that's gone on since then has only buttressed his view that a new alignment hinging on neo-conservative international politics is driving and shaping our national politics, subverting at least for a time, even the hot-button domestic issues like abortion, gay rights, etc that have been so prominent even throughout the first years of the Iraqi excapade.
Thus it has been highly ironic to hear from Joe Lieberman and his supporters the complaint that Democrats shouldn't oppose Lieberman based on his vote for the Iraq war. While this canard has been dispensed with by other commentators, I think Digby's post here on the nature of the opposition to Joe Lieberman probably captures it as well as any:
"This article lays out all the gripes that Connecticut, a liberal state, has against old Joe and it's quite an indictment. But what it comes down to is that he's always tried to have it both ways. He rhetorically reinforces all the destructive GOP memes, hedges his bets on important votes and even though (like most politicians) he generally votes with the party he's effectively working for the other side a good part of the time. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that being a member of the minority party in the Senate for most of his career means that he's had a lot of free votes that don't mean diddly.
Rhetoric, on the other hand, is one of the few powers a minority party has as it tries to persuade the country to come over to their side and put the opposition on the spot. Helping the majority make its case is one of the most destructive things Joe does. Democratic partisans have been complaining about it for years and so apparently have his constituents."
Lieberman and the DLC aside, though, I've actually been far less concerned about the saber rattling concerning Iran than seemingly many other commentators have. My reasoning has been that despite all the talk and apprehension about pre-emptive wars and one-percent doctrines, and bellicose threats from the likes of Newt Gingrish, Bill Kristol and Max Boot, the neo-conservative administration basically had one military-force card to play, and that was in Iraq. If the neo-cons really thought Iran was a serious threat, they could have continued with the containment of Iraq and mobilized for Iran instead (or North Korea). But they didn't.
In any event, Iran and North Korea are not countries that, it seems to me, are going to be persuaded or changed by air power alone--substantial ground forces would need to be committed for any plan to invade Iran, and I don't see that happening, since a draft would be needed to provide the forces for such a misadventure.
But now I'm not sure if there isn't more to worry about. More than a few evangelical leaders with mass followings--and contacts at the White House--are sounding apocalyptic warnings about Iran, and the general level of "debate" has been such that I wonder if there hasn't been a point of no return already crossed. In that case, some sort of military action, however limited to air attacks it might be, and however unsuccessful those attacks might be, would seem to be necessary to let off the steam being generated by the press and the president's party's fan base.
And of course, rising gas prices are probably not going to relieve the tension clouding the war talk either.
So, I'm not optimistic about the future, even if Democrats take one or both branches of Congress this fall. The mess that's already been created, the expectations that have been built up around the "global war on terrorism" and "world war III/IV/V" will need considerable political skill to navigate, and I'm not reassured that the Democratic leadership and intelligencia is equiped to handle it. Considering that some faux Democrats are more aligned with the Republican neo-cons than their reputed party, my lack of faith is even more understandable.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Amateur Hour
Does anybody know what's going on here?
Or here?
If you do, please send your resume to the White House.
The situation in the Levant, in particular, is especially disturbing and just flat out bizarre. CNN recently reported on new attacks in the south of Beirut in areas the reporter believed had not been forewarned with leaflets from the IAF and in which no Hezbollah institutions appear to reside. The Israeli attacks would be almost cartoonish if not for the misery and devastation they're causing. The Israeli air attacks remind me of one of those Bugs Bunny skits where Yosemite Sam or Wiley Coyote is coming up with all the Acme weapons of mass destruction to pound Bugs with but inevitably only ends up blowing himself up. Or someone trying to kill a fly in the house with a baseball bat.
I really don't get it. Neither apparently do Bilmon or The Belgravia Dispatch, a thoughtful conservative who's urging Rumseld be fired and replaced with Richard Armitage.
Or here?
If you do, please send your resume to the White House.
The situation in the Levant, in particular, is especially disturbing and just flat out bizarre. CNN recently reported on new attacks in the south of Beirut in areas the reporter believed had not been forewarned with leaflets from the IAF and in which no Hezbollah institutions appear to reside. The Israeli attacks would be almost cartoonish if not for the misery and devastation they're causing. The Israeli air attacks remind me of one of those Bugs Bunny skits where Yosemite Sam or Wiley Coyote is coming up with all the Acme weapons of mass destruction to pound Bugs with but inevitably only ends up blowing himself up. Or someone trying to kill a fly in the house with a baseball bat.
I really don't get it. Neither apparently do Bilmon or The Belgravia Dispatch, a thoughtful conservative who's urging Rumseld be fired and replaced with Richard Armitage.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Cuba, Castro, and Democracy Now!
I usually enjoy Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! newscasts. Locally, Democracy Now! airs at 8 am and 6 pm on WPFW 89.3. It's an important, alternative source of news in this age of conglomerized, cookie cutter, big business media. Some of the stuff on Democracy Now can be a bit obscure, but in a way that's the point--focusing on individual cases of government abuse in far away lands that aren't named Aruba. They give more attention to Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky than I think is necessary or useful, but other than that, I generally appreciate the show's commentary and that of their guests.
But this morning was just beyond the pale. They had a report concerning Fidel Castro, who's been in the news these last few days because of his health.
The report started off describing "President Castro's" condition and (temporary) transference of power to his brother. Goodman continually refers to the "president of Cuba" and "President Castro", seeming to forget that Castro is dictator, a term Goodman readily ascribes to Castro's predecessor, Batista, who was overthrown by Castro's forces (including Che Guevara) in 1959. Castro has never been elected or stood for re-election. Nor does he apparently take criticism, much less official challenges, very well.
The show was slated to have the "President of the Cuban National Assembly" on, as if this body was a real legislative actor in Cuba, as well as an interview with Peter Bourne, the author of an apparently sympathetic biography of Castro, and a clip from what sounds like a hagiographic movie: Fidel: The Untold Story. Here's the transcript of the movie, and here's the transcript of the interview with the "President of the Cuban National Assembly".
This is just terrible stuff. Yes, talking to someone in Cuba, particularly someone presumably among it's "leadership" is important and unique, but to act as if Cuba's government is just some oppressed, legitimate governing democracy is just nuts. You don't have to favor the almost 50 year U.S. policy of exclusion and embargo. I certainly don't. I'd like to see the embargo ended, it's not a rational or humane policy; it's just pandering to a very small slice of the electorate. And given that short-sighted, prejudiced policy, I wouldn't be surprised that Cuban officials, and probably much of the country's people don't like the U.S. much.
But from what we know of Cuba, the government is a one-man autocracy where information is tightly controlled and state run, there is no self criticism of the government or its dictator, and in which there are no meaningful elections and no political rights; dissidents are imprisoned or worse. That Goodman and Gonzalez (her cohost) didn't feel obliged to confront a representative from Cuba's repressive government on these matters is appalling. That Goodman would also use the interview to give Alarcon (the president of the national assembly) a platform to criticize U.S. actions (or lack thereof in Lebanon) is similarly ridiculous.
Democracy Now! has an admirable record of supporting freedom and democracy across the globe, and speaking on behalf of oppressed minorities, but on Cuba they seem to be either silent or outright supportive of a repressive, albeit left-wing, dictatorship. Right wingers deserve scorn for simultaneously demanding that the nation fight for "freedom and democracy" in the Middle East and against Communist countries while lovingly appeasing right wing dictatorships. But we on the "left" don't need to mimic the right wing's hypocrisies by giving left wing dictators a pass.
But this morning was just beyond the pale. They had a report concerning Fidel Castro, who's been in the news these last few days because of his health.
The report started off describing "President Castro's" condition and (temporary) transference of power to his brother. Goodman continually refers to the "president of Cuba" and "President Castro", seeming to forget that Castro is dictator, a term Goodman readily ascribes to Castro's predecessor, Batista, who was overthrown by Castro's forces (including Che Guevara) in 1959. Castro has never been elected or stood for re-election. Nor does he apparently take criticism, much less official challenges, very well.
The show was slated to have the "President of the Cuban National Assembly" on, as if this body was a real legislative actor in Cuba, as well as an interview with Peter Bourne, the author of an apparently sympathetic biography of Castro, and a clip from what sounds like a hagiographic movie: Fidel: The Untold Story. Here's the transcript of the movie, and here's the transcript of the interview with the "President of the Cuban National Assembly".
This is just terrible stuff. Yes, talking to someone in Cuba, particularly someone presumably among it's "leadership" is important and unique, but to act as if Cuba's government is just some oppressed, legitimate governing democracy is just nuts. You don't have to favor the almost 50 year U.S. policy of exclusion and embargo. I certainly don't. I'd like to see the embargo ended, it's not a rational or humane policy; it's just pandering to a very small slice of the electorate. And given that short-sighted, prejudiced policy, I wouldn't be surprised that Cuban officials, and probably much of the country's people don't like the U.S. much.
But from what we know of Cuba, the government is a one-man autocracy where information is tightly controlled and state run, there is no self criticism of the government or its dictator, and in which there are no meaningful elections and no political rights; dissidents are imprisoned or worse. That Goodman and Gonzalez (her cohost) didn't feel obliged to confront a representative from Cuba's repressive government on these matters is appalling. That Goodman would also use the interview to give Alarcon (the president of the national assembly) a platform to criticize U.S. actions (or lack thereof in Lebanon) is similarly ridiculous.
Democracy Now! has an admirable record of supporting freedom and democracy across the globe, and speaking on behalf of oppressed minorities, but on Cuba they seem to be either silent or outright supportive of a repressive, albeit left-wing, dictatorship. Right wingers deserve scorn for simultaneously demanding that the nation fight for "freedom and democracy" in the Middle East and against Communist countries while lovingly appeasing right wing dictatorships. But we on the "left" don't need to mimic the right wing's hypocrisies by giving left wing dictators a pass.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Sunday, Bloody Sunday
From CNN:
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Sunday again demanded an immediate halt to violence between Israel and Hezbollah, condemning an Israeli airstrike that killed more than 50 people.
He told the Security Council he was "deeply dismayed" that his previous calls for a cease-fire had gone unheeded.
At an emergency meeting of the council called to address the killings, Annan said the region was growing impatient that U.N.'s most powerful body had yet to issue any meaningful response after three weeks of war in Lebanon.
"We meet at a moment of extreme gravity first and foremost for the people of the Middle East, but also for the authority of this organization and especially this council," Annan told reporters before heading into the meeting.
"Action is needed now before many more children, women and men become casualties of a conflict over which they have no control."
Annan told reporters during a news conference that the 15 members "are aware that if we don't handle it right, it could lead to further escalation and could spread."
Qatar later circulated a draft statement on behalf of Arab nations meant to address Annan's concerns.
It would call for an immediate cease-fire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon and condemn the "loss of civilian lives in the town of Qana due to the deliberate targeting" by Israel. It would also seek an international investigation "into the Israeli massacre."
Yet the sharply worded draft had virtually no chance of being accepted by the full council for the same reason that the council has been able to do little up until now.
The United States has so far refused to back Annan's call for a cease-fire, and U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the United States does not want any condemnation of the attack.
He repeated the American insistence that any statement must address what the U.S. says is the root cause of the conflict -- Hezbollah's continued grip on southern Lebanon and its attacks on Israel.
(snip)
In the three weeks since fighting began, the Security Council's only response has been a weak statement expressing shock and distress at Israel's bombing of a U.N. post on the Lebanon border Tuesday that killed four unarmed military observers.
The Unite States, Israel's chief ally, is primarily responsible because of its refusal to agree to seek a cease-fire.
In unusually frank terms, Annan said the council risked undermining its own authority if it does not do something.
The concern was underscored by attacks on the U.N. headquarters in Beirut earlier Sunday, when protesters angry about the Qana attack smashed windows and hurled stones, he said.
"People have noticed its failure to act firmly and quickly during this crisis," Annan said. "I am deeply dismayed that my earlier calls for the immediate cessation of hostilities were not heeded, with the result that innocent life continues to be taken and innocent civilians continue to suffer."
Lebanese special envoy Nouhad Mahoud echoed those complaints.
"Israel is committing atrocities against humanity," Mahoud said. "The fact that such massacres are yet ... to be taken up by resolutions of this august council, condemning an Israeli airstrike that killed at least 54 people . . . does not mean that the truth is to remain hidden."
UN authority? Hmmm. When have we heard that before? Oh yeah:
The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?
The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.
UN authority good. Glad we have that straight.
Meanwhile, before you think disarming Hezbollah is a necessary and sufficient condition of a cease-fire, read Matt.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Sunday again demanded an immediate halt to violence between Israel and Hezbollah, condemning an Israeli airstrike that killed more than 50 people.
He told the Security Council he was "deeply dismayed" that his previous calls for a cease-fire had gone unheeded.
At an emergency meeting of the council called to address the killings, Annan said the region was growing impatient that U.N.'s most powerful body had yet to issue any meaningful response after three weeks of war in Lebanon.
"We meet at a moment of extreme gravity first and foremost for the people of the Middle East, but also for the authority of this organization and especially this council," Annan told reporters before heading into the meeting.
"Action is needed now before many more children, women and men become casualties of a conflict over which they have no control."
Annan told reporters during a news conference that the 15 members "are aware that if we don't handle it right, it could lead to further escalation and could spread."
Qatar later circulated a draft statement on behalf of Arab nations meant to address Annan's concerns.
It would call for an immediate cease-fire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon and condemn the "loss of civilian lives in the town of Qana due to the deliberate targeting" by Israel. It would also seek an international investigation "into the Israeli massacre."
Yet the sharply worded draft had virtually no chance of being accepted by the full council for the same reason that the council has been able to do little up until now.
The United States has so far refused to back Annan's call for a cease-fire, and U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the United States does not want any condemnation of the attack.
He repeated the American insistence that any statement must address what the U.S. says is the root cause of the conflict -- Hezbollah's continued grip on southern Lebanon and its attacks on Israel.
(snip)
In the three weeks since fighting began, the Security Council's only response has been a weak statement expressing shock and distress at Israel's bombing of a U.N. post on the Lebanon border Tuesday that killed four unarmed military observers.
The Unite States, Israel's chief ally, is primarily responsible because of its refusal to agree to seek a cease-fire.
In unusually frank terms, Annan said the council risked undermining its own authority if it does not do something.
The concern was underscored by attacks on the U.N. headquarters in Beirut earlier Sunday, when protesters angry about the Qana attack smashed windows and hurled stones, he said.
"People have noticed its failure to act firmly and quickly during this crisis," Annan said. "I am deeply dismayed that my earlier calls for the immediate cessation of hostilities were not heeded, with the result that innocent life continues to be taken and innocent civilians continue to suffer."
Lebanese special envoy Nouhad Mahoud echoed those complaints.
"Israel is committing atrocities against humanity," Mahoud said. "The fact that such massacres are yet ... to be taken up by resolutions of this august council, condemning an Israeli airstrike that killed at least 54 people . . . does not mean that the truth is to remain hidden."
UN authority? Hmmm. When have we heard that before? Oh yeah:
The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?
The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.
UN authority good. Glad we have that straight.
Meanwhile, before you think disarming Hezbollah is a necessary and sufficient condition of a cease-fire, read Matt.
A Voice in the Wilderness
From today's NYT.
Although I disagree with conservative evangelicals over most of these issues, the morally relativistic militarism and rabid nationalism is perhaps the most disturbing of these items. I appreciate this pastor's courage. There's a lot of pressure on pastors to build their memberships, which in turn, is an incentive to pander to conservative ideologues. But as this article shows, not all of the flock are Republicans and at least some appear tired of conservative bullying.
Although I disagree with conservative evangelicals over most of these issues, the morally relativistic militarism and rabid nationalism is perhaps the most disturbing of these items. I appreciate this pastor's courage. There's a lot of pressure on pastors to build their memberships, which in turn, is an incentive to pander to conservative ideologues. But as this article shows, not all of the flock are Republicans and at least some appear tired of conservative bullying.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Late Bloomer
I've always been a bit of a late bloomer, missing the trendy trends, getting all geeky interested in something just as the public turns to something more exciting.
Take the Iraq war. I tried to read Cobra II, and did manage to get through the first 100 pages or so, but until recently, I'd stayed away from books about the war and the administration's foreign policy. Then I read The One Percent Doctrine and State of War. This week I began reading The Assassin's Gate, and although I probably won't get to it for at least another week, I also picked up Fiasco today.
But as it turns out, just as I'm finally getting around to reading about The War to Save American Civilization, Glenn Greenwald is noticing that The War That Was Once So Very Very Important, Even to the Point of Ostracizing, Threatening, and Terrorizing American Opponents of America's Holy War In Mesopotamia is getting about as much coverage now as a National Hockey League playoff series:
"And having insisted for years that the fate of the free world and American security hangs in the balance in Iraq, they now just want to forget about the whole thing, pretend it never happened, and shut their eyes to the disaster they created and which they so plainly cannot control.
It isn't just that our occupation of this imploding country is being ignored by the media. What is so striking is the way which Iraq is now being talked about. It is purely surreal how the primary challenge to Sen. Lieberman is described -- in a way that is intended to be dismissive, to belittle it -- as all stemming from just one little, tiny disagreement: Iraq. Gosh, Sen. Lieberman is such a great Senator -- he votes the right way on the environment and everything -- and all he did was make one little mistake -- Iraq -- and now everyone is turning on him. That is so irrational and mean and unfair.
It is the proponents of this invasion who have insisted that Iraq is the centerpiece of American national security, that it is the primary front in the war on terror, that failure is not an option, etc. etc. They used their militaristic posture in Iraq -- and the "appeasing weakness" of opponents of the invasion -- to win two consecutive national elections. And now that the extent of the damage they created is too glaring to be denied, they want to walk away from it all, insist that it's unfair to hold them accountable for it, and hope that the media moves on to more interesting and exciting adventures than the plodding, depressing collapse of Iraq."
As we say around these here Internets, read the whole thing.
Actually I'd been noticing this trend for awhile, most of all from the neo-cons themselves, bored with the shockless follow-through to the Shock and Awe of March 2003. The neo-cons had some time ago turned aside from Iraq towards Iran and Syria. The Iraq war was boring them. What was next?
But the conflict in Lebanon has both enabled a shift of attention away from Iraq while affirming the neo-con's new Iran-Syria mission. Mindful of this change in national priorities and popular obsession, I also picked up a book on Iran, just to stay ahead of the curve.
Take the Iraq war. I tried to read Cobra II, and did manage to get through the first 100 pages or so, but until recently, I'd stayed away from books about the war and the administration's foreign policy. Then I read The One Percent Doctrine and State of War. This week I began reading The Assassin's Gate, and although I probably won't get to it for at least another week, I also picked up Fiasco today.
But as it turns out, just as I'm finally getting around to reading about The War to Save American Civilization, Glenn Greenwald is noticing that The War That Was Once So Very Very Important, Even to the Point of Ostracizing, Threatening, and Terrorizing American Opponents of America's Holy War In Mesopotamia is getting about as much coverage now as a National Hockey League playoff series:
"And having insisted for years that the fate of the free world and American security hangs in the balance in Iraq, they now just want to forget about the whole thing, pretend it never happened, and shut their eyes to the disaster they created and which they so plainly cannot control.
It isn't just that our occupation of this imploding country is being ignored by the media. What is so striking is the way which Iraq is now being talked about. It is purely surreal how the primary challenge to Sen. Lieberman is described -- in a way that is intended to be dismissive, to belittle it -- as all stemming from just one little, tiny disagreement: Iraq. Gosh, Sen. Lieberman is such a great Senator -- he votes the right way on the environment and everything -- and all he did was make one little mistake -- Iraq -- and now everyone is turning on him. That is so irrational and mean and unfair.
It is the proponents of this invasion who have insisted that Iraq is the centerpiece of American national security, that it is the primary front in the war on terror, that failure is not an option, etc. etc. They used their militaristic posture in Iraq -- and the "appeasing weakness" of opponents of the invasion -- to win two consecutive national elections. And now that the extent of the damage they created is too glaring to be denied, they want to walk away from it all, insist that it's unfair to hold them accountable for it, and hope that the media moves on to more interesting and exciting adventures than the plodding, depressing collapse of Iraq."
As we say around these here Internets, read the whole thing.
Actually I'd been noticing this trend for awhile, most of all from the neo-cons themselves, bored with the shockless follow-through to the Shock and Awe of March 2003. The neo-cons had some time ago turned aside from Iraq towards Iran and Syria. The Iraq war was boring them. What was next?
But the conflict in Lebanon has both enabled a shift of attention away from Iraq while affirming the neo-con's new Iran-Syria mission. Mindful of this change in national priorities and popular obsession, I also picked up a book on Iran, just to stay ahead of the curve.
Friday, July 28, 2006
We're All Defeatists Now
Billmon very rightly gives David Frum the business for now recognizing the Fiasco in Iraq due to internal opposition and external support for insurgents, both factors Frum, Perle and others sought to dismiss prior to the invasion.
But there was another aspect of Frum's NRO post that bears further attention.
To take back the capital from the militias that now terrorize it will take thousands, not hundreds, of American plus tens of thousands of Iraqis. No sector in Iraq can spare the loss of so many forces (our current troubles in Anbar date back to the decision in 2004 to shift troops from Anbar to the siege of Fallujah - when they returned, they discovered that every pro-US informant and ally in the province had been murdered, usually horribly and publicly). So a real plan for success in Baghdad will have to be built upon additional troops from out of area, potentially raising US troop levels back up to the 150,000 or so of late 2005.
Manifestly, neither the administration nor the Congress will contemplate such a move.
(snip)
Averting such a fate means fighting to win Baghdad. But if the president decides against such a fight - either because it would be too bloody or too politically costly or even because he doubts that the US can ultimately succeed - then we need a backup plan.
(snip)
This is not, as some American commentators argue, because the Iraqis refuse to fight for their country. Thousands of brave Iraqis, civil and military, have laid down their lives fighting or working for a secure and democratic Iraq. But Iraq has powerful enemies, inside and out. To date, the US has fought only a limited war against those enemies. Iran understands that the war in Iraq is a regional war. Syria understands it too. Only the US has tried to pretend that the war zone stops at the international border.
(snip)
As I said, we may need a backup plan.
(snip)
It's a second best. First best is to win. But that will take more commitment than the administration was prepared to offer yesterday. If we forfeit the best outcome, and refuse to plan for * second best *, we stand in very grave danger of ending up with the worst.
The gist of Frum's column is that the U.S. has not committed to go all out, to wage war unleashed. Since the U.S., both its president and worst of all, its feckless masses, have no stomach for real war, we'll have to settle for second best; Frum is posing as the conservative of conscience making for posterity's purpose a statement asserting we're only losing because of the great lack of Will. Of course this "fighting the war with one arm tied behind our backs" refrain on the part of conservatives isn't unique or new. You can find much of the same talk in Ralph Peters' and Shelby Steele's laments about not sufficiently exterminating the enemy.
And in a sense I think these conservatives are right, at least about one thing that's gone ignored in the neo-con utopian nightmare these last few years: war is messy, nasty business and should only be fought if one is willing to commit genocide, sparing neither man, woman, child, aged or animal. There's another type of war, a war of very specific, limited aims, and likewise conducted with brute, efficient and terrifying force--the type of war believed in by former Secretary Powell and most other realists.
But the neo-con vision and the Bush presumption was that neither type of war was needed in Iraq and neither paradigm accurately reflected American ability and Iraqi hopes for liberation. The war would be short, successful and received gladly by the country's oppressed masses. Collateral damage would be minimal. And in the war's early days, there was much to support this expectation.
But the ethnic and religious fissures that many critics of the war warned about prior to the invasion soon came to the fore, as did a predictable lawlessness and chaos as the American forces, lacking anything like a post-war plan, failed to secure the peace.
With three years of escalating violence and instability, some conservatives are falling back on the argument that if we had only really sacked the country and completely destroyed it would the war have been successfull, seemingly forgetting the liberating aspirations war was supposed to bring for the country's inhabitants. Some of these conservatives are cranky now either because they think America is being dishonored by the quagmire or because they want to move onto other, better wars.
Of course, other conservatives, as I've suggested, might not be at all displeased by the course of events in Iraq. Just the birth pang of a new Middle East, just the sort of creative chaos needed to ensure American hegemony.
But there was another aspect of Frum's NRO post that bears further attention.
To take back the capital from the militias that now terrorize it will take thousands, not hundreds, of American plus tens of thousands of Iraqis. No sector in Iraq can spare the loss of so many forces (our current troubles in Anbar date back to the decision in 2004 to shift troops from Anbar to the siege of Fallujah - when they returned, they discovered that every pro-US informant and ally in the province had been murdered, usually horribly and publicly). So a real plan for success in Baghdad will have to be built upon additional troops from out of area, potentially raising US troop levels back up to the 150,000 or so of late 2005.
Manifestly, neither the administration nor the Congress will contemplate such a move.
(snip)
Averting such a fate means fighting to win Baghdad. But if the president decides against such a fight - either because it would be too bloody or too politically costly or even because he doubts that the US can ultimately succeed - then we need a backup plan.
(snip)
This is not, as some American commentators argue, because the Iraqis refuse to fight for their country. Thousands of brave Iraqis, civil and military, have laid down their lives fighting or working for a secure and democratic Iraq. But Iraq has powerful enemies, inside and out. To date, the US has fought only a limited war against those enemies. Iran understands that the war in Iraq is a regional war. Syria understands it too. Only the US has tried to pretend that the war zone stops at the international border.
(snip)
As I said, we may need a backup plan.
(snip)
It's a second best. First best is to win. But that will take more commitment than the administration was prepared to offer yesterday. If we forfeit the best outcome, and refuse to plan for * second best *, we stand in very grave danger of ending up with the worst.
The gist of Frum's column is that the U.S. has not committed to go all out, to wage war unleashed. Since the U.S., both its president and worst of all, its feckless masses, have no stomach for real war, we'll have to settle for second best; Frum is posing as the conservative of conscience making for posterity's purpose a statement asserting we're only losing because of the great lack of Will. Of course this "fighting the war with one arm tied behind our backs" refrain on the part of conservatives isn't unique or new. You can find much of the same talk in Ralph Peters' and Shelby Steele's laments about not sufficiently exterminating the enemy.
And in a sense I think these conservatives are right, at least about one thing that's gone ignored in the neo-con utopian nightmare these last few years: war is messy, nasty business and should only be fought if one is willing to commit genocide, sparing neither man, woman, child, aged or animal. There's another type of war, a war of very specific, limited aims, and likewise conducted with brute, efficient and terrifying force--the type of war believed in by former Secretary Powell and most other realists.
But the neo-con vision and the Bush presumption was that neither type of war was needed in Iraq and neither paradigm accurately reflected American ability and Iraqi hopes for liberation. The war would be short, successful and received gladly by the country's oppressed masses. Collateral damage would be minimal. And in the war's early days, there was much to support this expectation.
But the ethnic and religious fissures that many critics of the war warned about prior to the invasion soon came to the fore, as did a predictable lawlessness and chaos as the American forces, lacking anything like a post-war plan, failed to secure the peace.
With three years of escalating violence and instability, some conservatives are falling back on the argument that if we had only really sacked the country and completely destroyed it would the war have been successfull, seemingly forgetting the liberating aspirations war was supposed to bring for the country's inhabitants. Some of these conservatives are cranky now either because they think America is being dishonored by the quagmire or because they want to move onto other, better wars.
Of course, other conservatives, as I've suggested, might not be at all displeased by the course of events in Iraq. Just the birth pang of a new Middle East, just the sort of creative chaos needed to ensure American hegemony.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Time for another "Truth Tour"
Hey, I know they canceled that gal's trip to Israel, but isn't it time to send these guys back to Baghdad?
Not a Good Sign
From Steve Gilliard:
Israeli troops wave captured Hezbollah and Lebanese national flags as they cross the border into Lebanon Thursday July 27, 2006.
Considering this war/skirmish/conflict was supposed to be just about Hezbollah, the waving of a captured Lebanonese flag doesn't strike me as useful, appropriate, or good PR across the Arab world.
"The Israeli official line is that they are only fighting Hizbullah and that the huge number of civilian casualties is an accident. But why are they bombing the regular Lebanese army north of Beirut if their real enemy is Hizbullah, a southern Shiite paramilitary? Why are they bombing radio relay stations?
Note that the only way this conflict can end is for the Lebanese state to be strengthened so that it has a hope of dealing with Hizbullah. Uh, these actions are not, like, strengthening the Lebanese state."
From the start it was obvious that Israel's stated claim to be waging war on Hezbollah, and only on Hezbollah, and the West's adjunct claim that appearances to the contrary, supporting Israel's bombing of Beirut was actually good for Lebanon and in the service and for the benefit of that country's budding Cedar Revolution was fiction.
But as the conflict expands to officially welcome in opposition to the Lebanese army and the Lebanese government, not to mention the resurrecting of Al Qaeda, who also wants a place at the table, and add to this toxic stew the rantings and fervor of people like this, it's hard to say or see how this gets resolved in some rational, peaceful manner.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Nice UN Observation Post You Have There
--Be a shame if something happened to it.
After the IDF bombed a clearly marked UN observer post, killing four of its personnel, you might be forgiven for agreeing with Kofi Annan that Israel either has lousy aim, lacks adequate military intelligence, or targeted the observation post deliberately.
But have no fear, two of our U.S. Senators were already briefed with the applicable talking points (from Larry King Live):
KING: We'll start with Senator Allen, what do you make about these two observers killed and the apparent anger of Kofi Annan toward Israel?
SEN. GEORGE ALLEN (R), VIRGINIA: Well, it's unfortunate. I don't think that Israel wants to hit the U.N. What they're trying to hit is Hezbollah. They're trying to degrade them, pound them, and make sure that they're not attacking and they're protecting themselves.
So, I'm sure they'll find out what happened. But Israel has a right to defend itself and now they have these latest threats that they're going to be launching missiles further into Israel.Kofi Annan's statements I think are unduly harsh. It would be nice if the United Nations actually showed such resolve and anger and determination in actually enforcing Security Council Resolution 1559, which has as its purpose the removal of Hezbollah or disarming the militias along the Israeli-Lebanon border.
KING: Senator Bayh, is this then, do you consider this a casualty of war?
SEN. EVAN BAYH (D), INDIANA: Unfortunately so, Larry. I simply don't believe that the Israelis would intentionally kill U.N. observers. I'd be interested to know what Mr. Annan, what facts he has at his disposal that lead him to that assertion but until I see such facts I simply don't believe it.
And, I think George was right. We have to remember who was responsible for this. It was the Hezbollah that attacked across an internationally recognized boundary, killed soldiers, took others captive.
All this violence and tragedy flows from that act, so we have to focus on bringing Hezbollah under control, disarming them, getting a force in there that can keep them from reconstituting themselves. And then ultimately, Larry, we have to look at Iran because they're in the background of all of this. And, I think Kofi Annan would be better advised to focus upon the role that Iran has played and just think how bad things would be if Iran had nuclear weapons right now. So, this is a tragedy but we got to remember who's really to blame.
"Israel has a right to defend itself..."
"U.N. Resolution 1559"
"Hezbollah...terrorists..."
"Iran...Syria"
"Islamic fascism..."
"terrorists..."
"Iran...nuclear..."
"1559"
"UN-bad"
"Israel-good"
"Syria"
"terrorists"
rinse and repeat.
Juan Cole suggests a reason why the IDF might have "accidently" targeted the UN observers:
"The Israelis denied that they hit the base deliberately, but Kofi would know. Why do it? When you have in mind war crimes, it is better not to have neutral observers in the region."
The "accidental" bombing of the UN observation post also sounds eerily familiar to this.
Glenn Greenwald is more cautious than I am in accepting Annan's "apparently deliberate" claim:
"(5) Oddly, the very pro-Israel New York Sun says that the Israel-U.N. incident "could prove a turning point in Israel's war to rid its northern border of Hezbollah." I don't see why that would be the case. Almost every war has incidents of this sort. The U.S. bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killed a group of Canadian troops in Afghanistan in an F-16 strike, and shot missiles at media offices in Baghdad. Incidents of this type are not uncommon.
Additionally, it was somewhat surprising that Kofi Annan would so quickly and impulsively make such serious accusations against Israel -- namely, that the bombing of the U.N. observation post was "deliberate," rather than accidental. That may well be the case, but it may very well not be, and it is hard to see how Annan could know that already."
On a 2008 note, I'm a little distressed to hear Evan Bayh employing the same saber-rattling on Iran as the administration and its neo-con supporters. I don't know if his stand here is based on a genuine fear of Iran's capabilities and intentions, or if he's posturing for a national campaign, or both. Of course, it's often the case that candidates and prospective candidates sound more alarmist or beligerent before entering office. Bill Clinton, for instance, campaigned against the first President Bush's "soft on China" policy but ultimately adopted much of the same policy once in office; the current President Bush likewise criticized his predecessor's "nation-building" efforts while going on to become among the most nation-building of presidents in Iraq.
But a harsh stance towards Iran could come back to bite Bayh, and other Democratic contenders, if they ultimately are not prepared to put up or shut up when it comes to exercising force against Tehran.
After the IDF bombed a clearly marked UN observer post, killing four of its personnel, you might be forgiven for agreeing with Kofi Annan that Israel either has lousy aim, lacks adequate military intelligence, or targeted the observation post deliberately.
But have no fear, two of our U.S. Senators were already briefed with the applicable talking points (from Larry King Live):
KING: We'll start with Senator Allen, what do you make about these two observers killed and the apparent anger of Kofi Annan toward Israel?
SEN. GEORGE ALLEN (R), VIRGINIA: Well, it's unfortunate. I don't think that Israel wants to hit the U.N. What they're trying to hit is Hezbollah. They're trying to degrade them, pound them, and make sure that they're not attacking and they're protecting themselves.
So, I'm sure they'll find out what happened. But Israel has a right to defend itself and now they have these latest threats that they're going to be launching missiles further into Israel.Kofi Annan's statements I think are unduly harsh. It would be nice if the United Nations actually showed such resolve and anger and determination in actually enforcing Security Council Resolution 1559, which has as its purpose the removal of Hezbollah or disarming the militias along the Israeli-Lebanon border.
KING: Senator Bayh, is this then, do you consider this a casualty of war?
SEN. EVAN BAYH (D), INDIANA: Unfortunately so, Larry. I simply don't believe that the Israelis would intentionally kill U.N. observers. I'd be interested to know what Mr. Annan, what facts he has at his disposal that lead him to that assertion but until I see such facts I simply don't believe it.
And, I think George was right. We have to remember who was responsible for this. It was the Hezbollah that attacked across an internationally recognized boundary, killed soldiers, took others captive.
All this violence and tragedy flows from that act, so we have to focus on bringing Hezbollah under control, disarming them, getting a force in there that can keep them from reconstituting themselves. And then ultimately, Larry, we have to look at Iran because they're in the background of all of this. And, I think Kofi Annan would be better advised to focus upon the role that Iran has played and just think how bad things would be if Iran had nuclear weapons right now. So, this is a tragedy but we got to remember who's really to blame.
"Israel has a right to defend itself..."
"U.N. Resolution 1559"
"Hezbollah...terrorists..."
"Iran...Syria"
"Islamic fascism..."
"terrorists..."
"Iran...nuclear..."
"1559"
"UN-bad"
"Israel-good"
"Syria"
"terrorists"
rinse and repeat.
Juan Cole suggests a reason why the IDF might have "accidently" targeted the UN observers:
"The Israelis denied that they hit the base deliberately, but Kofi would know. Why do it? When you have in mind war crimes, it is better not to have neutral observers in the region."
The "accidental" bombing of the UN observation post also sounds eerily familiar to this.
Glenn Greenwald is more cautious than I am in accepting Annan's "apparently deliberate" claim:
"(5) Oddly, the very pro-Israel New York Sun says that the Israel-U.N. incident "could prove a turning point in Israel's war to rid its northern border of Hezbollah." I don't see why that would be the case. Almost every war has incidents of this sort. The U.S. bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killed a group of Canadian troops in Afghanistan in an F-16 strike, and shot missiles at media offices in Baghdad. Incidents of this type are not uncommon.
Additionally, it was somewhat surprising that Kofi Annan would so quickly and impulsively make such serious accusations against Israel -- namely, that the bombing of the U.N. observation post was "deliberate," rather than accidental. That may well be the case, but it may very well not be, and it is hard to see how Annan could know that already."
On a 2008 note, I'm a little distressed to hear Evan Bayh employing the same saber-rattling on Iran as the administration and its neo-con supporters. I don't know if his stand here is based on a genuine fear of Iran's capabilities and intentions, or if he's posturing for a national campaign, or both. Of course, it's often the case that candidates and prospective candidates sound more alarmist or beligerent before entering office. Bill Clinton, for instance, campaigned against the first President Bush's "soft on China" policy but ultimately adopted much of the same policy once in office; the current President Bush likewise criticized his predecessor's "nation-building" efforts while going on to become among the most nation-building of presidents in Iraq.
But a harsh stance towards Iran could come back to bite Bayh, and other Democratic contenders, if they ultimately are not prepared to put up or shut up when it comes to exercising force against Tehran.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Now, Back to the Oil
Today's NYT:
...But Iran's ability to rebuff the West on these matters has only increased as oil prices have risen from about $27 a barrel at the start of the Iraq war, to $65 a barrel in the spring as tensions rose over Iran's nuclear program, to $75 on Monday as the conflict continued in Lebanon.
Indeed, according to Cambridge Energy Research Associates, each $5 increase in oil prices translates into $85 million a week for Iran's bank account, emboldening its leaders and making whatever aid it supplies to Hezbollah easier to finance even as the crisis threatens to spread.
(snip)
New oil money has given not only Iran but also Russia more resources to resist Western pressure. As he played host to the Group of 8 summit meeting in St. Petersburg last week, President Vladimir V. Putin was able to swat away criticism from President Bush about Russian domestic and foreign policies.
He boasted, in fact, that Russia's oil, natural gas and nuclear energy capacities made it the biggest energy player in the world.
Months before the summit meeting, Russia was hoping to use the final communique to endorse its approach on energy, in which the state basically controls the oil sector. The Bush administration joined with Europe to block such an endorsement, American officials say.
But energy remains a major American irritant with Russia and by extension China.
The Bush administration has stepped up its efforts to support pipelines that would carry oil and natural gas to the West, bypassing Russian territory.
Russia, in turn, has pressured Central Asian countries to oppose American energy projects and the use of the area for military bases.
To do that, Russia has joined with China to mobilize a five-year-old group called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, whose members include several Central Asian countries. The Defense Department is even worried that the group could move from its focus on energy to become a military alliance to rival NATO.
Many American analysts say energy issues are driving Russia and China into each other's arms politically, and that if anything American policies are accelerating the trend.
Meanwhile, the new oil politics are rearranging the international playing board, not simply giving Iran latitude in the Middle East but allowing Venezuela, for another example, to try to blunt Washington's influence in Latin America.
"We are seeing a radical change in how countries like Russia, Iran and Venezuela on the supply side, and China and India on the demand side, bring the world marketplace to bear on foreign policy," said Carlos Pascual, a former top aide to Ms. Rice and now foreign policy studies director at the Brookings Institution.
"I don't think any of us have done a terribly good job of thinking through how far behind the eight ball we are on these issues," he said.
So, our support of Israel's aggression in the Middle East, our invasion and stymied occupation of Iraq, and our sabber-rattling towards Iran have helped drive up the price of oil, which in turn has increased the wealth of our new supposed worst enemy, Iran. Meanwhile, Russia and China have forged an economic-energy pact, and Russian in particular, is reviving its opposition to American hegemony throughout Asia by encouraging resistance to sponsoring American military bases and forcing the U.S. to hope for an oil-gas pipeline that bypasses Russia. And if each $5/barrel increase in oil prices results in an extra $85 million/week for Tehran, than the increase in oil prices from approximately $25/barrel before the Iraq invasion to $75 now means that we've enriched Iran by approximately $75-$25 = $50, and $50 is 10-$5's meaning that 10*$85 million = $850 million/week, or about $45 billion/year. That may be chump change, or the price of one year's estate tax revenue here. But it probably helps out a lot over there.
And, oh yeah, a former top aide to Secretary Rice says we haven't done a terribly good job of thinking through these issues. Ya think?
But General Kristol and our American Mullahs still want us to attack Iran, and Syria while we're in the neighborhood.
...But Iran's ability to rebuff the West on these matters has only increased as oil prices have risen from about $27 a barrel at the start of the Iraq war, to $65 a barrel in the spring as tensions rose over Iran's nuclear program, to $75 on Monday as the conflict continued in Lebanon.
Indeed, according to Cambridge Energy Research Associates, each $5 increase in oil prices translates into $85 million a week for Iran's bank account, emboldening its leaders and making whatever aid it supplies to Hezbollah easier to finance even as the crisis threatens to spread.
(snip)
New oil money has given not only Iran but also Russia more resources to resist Western pressure. As he played host to the Group of 8 summit meeting in St. Petersburg last week, President Vladimir V. Putin was able to swat away criticism from President Bush about Russian domestic and foreign policies.
He boasted, in fact, that Russia's oil, natural gas and nuclear energy capacities made it the biggest energy player in the world.
Months before the summit meeting, Russia was hoping to use the final communique to endorse its approach on energy, in which the state basically controls the oil sector. The Bush administration joined with Europe to block such an endorsement, American officials say.
But energy remains a major American irritant with Russia and by extension China.
The Bush administration has stepped up its efforts to support pipelines that would carry oil and natural gas to the West, bypassing Russian territory.
Russia, in turn, has pressured Central Asian countries to oppose American energy projects and the use of the area for military bases.
To do that, Russia has joined with China to mobilize a five-year-old group called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, whose members include several Central Asian countries. The Defense Department is even worried that the group could move from its focus on energy to become a military alliance to rival NATO.
Many American analysts say energy issues are driving Russia and China into each other's arms politically, and that if anything American policies are accelerating the trend.
Meanwhile, the new oil politics are rearranging the international playing board, not simply giving Iran latitude in the Middle East but allowing Venezuela, for another example, to try to blunt Washington's influence in Latin America.
"We are seeing a radical change in how countries like Russia, Iran and Venezuela on the supply side, and China and India on the demand side, bring the world marketplace to bear on foreign policy," said Carlos Pascual, a former top aide to Ms. Rice and now foreign policy studies director at the Brookings Institution.
"I don't think any of us have done a terribly good job of thinking through how far behind the eight ball we are on these issues," he said.
So, our support of Israel's aggression in the Middle East, our invasion and stymied occupation of Iraq, and our sabber-rattling towards Iran have helped drive up the price of oil, which in turn has increased the wealth of our new supposed worst enemy, Iran. Meanwhile, Russia and China have forged an economic-energy pact, and Russian in particular, is reviving its opposition to American hegemony throughout Asia by encouraging resistance to sponsoring American military bases and forcing the U.S. to hope for an oil-gas pipeline that bypasses Russia. And if each $5/barrel increase in oil prices results in an extra $85 million/week for Tehran, than the increase in oil prices from approximately $25/barrel before the Iraq invasion to $75 now means that we've enriched Iran by approximately $75-$25 = $50, and $50 is 10-$5's meaning that 10*$85 million = $850 million/week, or about $45 billion/year. That may be chump change, or the price of one year's estate tax revenue here. But it probably helps out a lot over there.
And, oh yeah, a former top aide to Secretary Rice says we haven't done a terribly good job of thinking through these issues. Ya think?
But General Kristol and our American Mullahs still want us to attack Iran, and Syria while we're in the neighborhood.
From Our Mullahs to Your Mullahs
On the heels of my post yesterday about the connections between neo-conservative foreign policy and American megachurch evangelicalism, TAPPED tells us that some of our leading teevee mullahs are lobbying Washington to attack Iran for reasons that, as Sarah Posner has documented, stem from a toxic brew of end-times biblical literalism and apocalyptic forecasting.
So, you know, just in case you thought sanity or reason might prevail relative to the latest Middle East crisis, well, it doesn't look good.
So, you know, just in case you thought sanity or reason might prevail relative to the latest Middle East crisis, well, it doesn't look good.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Megachurch Evangelicalism and Neo-Conservative Foreign Policy
I'm sure someone's made this connection in one form another before, like maybe this guy, and this other guy.
But it still seems to me an unholy merger that warrants continued investigation, like an onion constantly peeled back to show yet additional gradations. For one thing, both megachurch evangelicalism and neo-conservative politics are heavily oriented around the nation of Israel, the former for its presumed role in bible prophecy leading to the rapture and return of Christ, the latter for other reasons, mostly geopolitical. So in regards to Israel, both movements have the same goal--the preservation of the Jewish state and the destruction of its infidel neighbors.
And both emerged at around the same time, in the late 1970's, as reactions against cultural liberalism and realist detente politics. And both represent significant breakages from the traditional Republican coalition and thought. Once upon a time, it was the mainline Protestant churches, Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc, that made up the Republican elite and its core northern support. Now, mainline Protestantism is in decline, replaced by megachurch evangelicalism, and political Christianity is more rooted in the south and west than in the north.
Meanwhile, neo-conservative politics got its start in the late 1970's as the Reagan/Kilpatrick wing of Republicanism, which desired a more beligerent posture towards the Soviet Union and an end to the realist policy of detente and arms control led driven by Nixon-Ford-Kissenger. George H.W. Bush, General Scowcroft and Colin Powell resurrected a realist foreign policy vision as the U.S. entered the post-Cold War era. The election of Bill Clinton brought with it a more internationalist and humanitarian tweaking to the old realism, an adaptation that provided a ready target for discontented conservatives anxious to flex America's newly buffed muscles now that the other bully on the beach--Soviet Russia--had been vanquished.
But there is a sense in which megachurch evangelicalism and neo-conservative foreign policy are marketably different. The former seeks domestic authoritarianism, a destruction of the Constitutional wall between church and state, and a hyper-invasive posture towards privacy rights, lifestyle issues, and personal morality and religiosity.
But where megachurch evangelicalism demands hyper-order and control in the homeland, neo-conservative foreign policy advocates international disorder and chaos abroad. The old Republican realism of Nixon and Kissinger aimed for world order and a balance of power. In a word, stability. The new neo-conservatism of Gringrich and Kristol wants no order and relishes, if not purposely orchestrates, global instability. That's the only conclusion I can draw from the administration's Iraq strategery and its latest policy, or lack thereof, on Israel, Palestine and Lebanon.
There's a well known anecdote from Secretary of State George C. Marshall's visit with Stalin in the Soviet Union just before the formulation and announcement of the Marshall Plan. During the visit, Marshall was appalled to realize that Stalin didn't care about the reconstruction of Europe or the fate of the nations and peoples so ravaged by the war. Rather, Stalin appeared indifferent, if not pleased, by conditions of the countries borderin his own. The better, no doubt, to ensure the Soviet dictator he wouldn't be enduring any more invasions from the west.
The current neo-conservative foreign policy elite seem to share a similar mindset. Splinter the enemy, exploit the divisions, or attempt to exploit the divisions between Sunni and Shia Muslims, decapitate regimes deemed unfriendly to American power, and reap the benefits of countries left in turmoil or cowed into obesience. As I've mentioned before, the civil war in Iraq works for neo-conservatives for at least two reasons. One, it reduces Iraq's future opposition to U.S. middle east policy by causing the state to war against itself. Two, the continued chaos aids the neo-conservative story about the middle east and the global war on terror by providing an example of another situation where America is seemingly interested in promoting democracy but is hindered by terrorist opponents.
This latter point was made by Newt Gringrich on C-Span yesterday. For the Newter, the bloodshed there is indicative of the enemies we face and justifies continued American beligerence and war-mongering. That's the beauty of the neo-conservative foreign policy nightmare. There are no circumstances that don't reaffirm and justify its ambitions. If a friendly democracy is created in Iraq (or Iran or Syria) than the effort was worth it. On the other hand, if as a result the state disintegrates into sectarian violence, than that proves how dangerous and anti-American the area's peoples are, which in turn, reaffirms and justifies the American initiative.
I also seems clear to me that Newt Gringrich is emerging as the neo-conservative's leading political spokesman. Although out of office, his re-emergence in the last few months and his adoption of the neo-conservative war agenda gives the neo-con establishment a fresh, new believer, ready to take up the banner when George W. vacates the WH in two years. And it wouldn't surprise me if Gringrich both runs in 2008 and wins the nomination. He's the only True Believer among the prospective contenders who also brings an articulate nightmarish vision, unlike others, such as George Allen, who while being sufficiently ideological, I think lacks the charisma necessary for winning the presidency. Then again, who knows. Maybe someone like Allen would be the perfect, pliable Bush replacement, while Gringrich and Kristol procede with the real work of influencing public opinion and manipulating the bureaucracy to extend America's power across the globe and to destabilize our enemies, both real and imagined.
But it still seems to me an unholy merger that warrants continued investigation, like an onion constantly peeled back to show yet additional gradations. For one thing, both megachurch evangelicalism and neo-conservative politics are heavily oriented around the nation of Israel, the former for its presumed role in bible prophecy leading to the rapture and return of Christ, the latter for other reasons, mostly geopolitical. So in regards to Israel, both movements have the same goal--the preservation of the Jewish state and the destruction of its infidel neighbors.
And both emerged at around the same time, in the late 1970's, as reactions against cultural liberalism and realist detente politics. And both represent significant breakages from the traditional Republican coalition and thought. Once upon a time, it was the mainline Protestant churches, Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc, that made up the Republican elite and its core northern support. Now, mainline Protestantism is in decline, replaced by megachurch evangelicalism, and political Christianity is more rooted in the south and west than in the north.
Meanwhile, neo-conservative politics got its start in the late 1970's as the Reagan/Kilpatrick wing of Republicanism, which desired a more beligerent posture towards the Soviet Union and an end to the realist policy of detente and arms control led driven by Nixon-Ford-Kissenger. George H.W. Bush, General Scowcroft and Colin Powell resurrected a realist foreign policy vision as the U.S. entered the post-Cold War era. The election of Bill Clinton brought with it a more internationalist and humanitarian tweaking to the old realism, an adaptation that provided a ready target for discontented conservatives anxious to flex America's newly buffed muscles now that the other bully on the beach--Soviet Russia--had been vanquished.
But there is a sense in which megachurch evangelicalism and neo-conservative foreign policy are marketably different. The former seeks domestic authoritarianism, a destruction of the Constitutional wall between church and state, and a hyper-invasive posture towards privacy rights, lifestyle issues, and personal morality and religiosity.
But where megachurch evangelicalism demands hyper-order and control in the homeland, neo-conservative foreign policy advocates international disorder and chaos abroad. The old Republican realism of Nixon and Kissinger aimed for world order and a balance of power. In a word, stability. The new neo-conservatism of Gringrich and Kristol wants no order and relishes, if not purposely orchestrates, global instability. That's the only conclusion I can draw from the administration's Iraq strategery and its latest policy, or lack thereof, on Israel, Palestine and Lebanon.
There's a well known anecdote from Secretary of State George C. Marshall's visit with Stalin in the Soviet Union just before the formulation and announcement of the Marshall Plan. During the visit, Marshall was appalled to realize that Stalin didn't care about the reconstruction of Europe or the fate of the nations and peoples so ravaged by the war. Rather, Stalin appeared indifferent, if not pleased, by conditions of the countries borderin his own. The better, no doubt, to ensure the Soviet dictator he wouldn't be enduring any more invasions from the west.
The current neo-conservative foreign policy elite seem to share a similar mindset. Splinter the enemy, exploit the divisions, or attempt to exploit the divisions between Sunni and Shia Muslims, decapitate regimes deemed unfriendly to American power, and reap the benefits of countries left in turmoil or cowed into obesience. As I've mentioned before, the civil war in Iraq works for neo-conservatives for at least two reasons. One, it reduces Iraq's future opposition to U.S. middle east policy by causing the state to war against itself. Two, the continued chaos aids the neo-conservative story about the middle east and the global war on terror by providing an example of another situation where America is seemingly interested in promoting democracy but is hindered by terrorist opponents.
This latter point was made by Newt Gringrich on C-Span yesterday. For the Newter, the bloodshed there is indicative of the enemies we face and justifies continued American beligerence and war-mongering. That's the beauty of the neo-conservative foreign policy nightmare. There are no circumstances that don't reaffirm and justify its ambitions. If a friendly democracy is created in Iraq (or Iran or Syria) than the effort was worth it. On the other hand, if as a result the state disintegrates into sectarian violence, than that proves how dangerous and anti-American the area's peoples are, which in turn, reaffirms and justifies the American initiative.
I also seems clear to me that Newt Gringrich is emerging as the neo-conservative's leading political spokesman. Although out of office, his re-emergence in the last few months and his adoption of the neo-conservative war agenda gives the neo-con establishment a fresh, new believer, ready to take up the banner when George W. vacates the WH in two years. And it wouldn't surprise me if Gringrich both runs in 2008 and wins the nomination. He's the only True Believer among the prospective contenders who also brings an articulate nightmarish vision, unlike others, such as George Allen, who while being sufficiently ideological, I think lacks the charisma necessary for winning the presidency. Then again, who knows. Maybe someone like Allen would be the perfect, pliable Bush replacement, while Gringrich and Kristol procede with the real work of influencing public opinion and manipulating the bureaucracy to extend America's power across the globe and to destabilize our enemies, both real and imagined.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Random Thoughts on Israel-Lebanon
1. Cease-fire. There's a lot of all-or-nothing talk regarding a cease-fire. Israel and its patron--us--say no cease-fire because...well...that would only help the Hezbollah terrorists who've "provoked" the current crisis. But why not call for a cease-fire concerning Beirut and all points central and north in Lebanon? There's justification for Israel to combat Hezbollah in the south of Lebanon, where their power base is and from where they're launching rocket attacks into northern Israel. So why is the notion of a cease-fire being talked about as if it has to be a total cease-fire or none at all?
2. Disproportionate force. The Israeli bombing of Beirut has been way over the top, outrageous and immoral. There's anywhere between 500,000 and 1 million refugees and dislocated persons as a result, not to mention hundreds of civilians already dead from the attacks.
3. Forcing a crisis. The motive of Israel's over-reaching seems to be to provoke an international crisis. Israel probably thinks that absent a crisis of monumental proportions, Hezbollah would never be disarmed per the United Nations Security Council resolution 1559 and for the lasting peace of the Lebanon-Israel border generally.
4. The Bush-Rice response to the Israeli attacks has been despicable. Digby says Rice's They've put all the blame on Hezbollah, and talked about the group's attacks on northern Israel as if no broader, more destructive attacks on Lebanon were being conducted by Israel. Hezbollah did "start" the current series of events by kidnapping the Israeli soldiers. But the rocket attacks into northern Israel didn't start until after the knee-jerk air attacks on Beirut by Israel.
4a. Digby says: "The Bush administration are monsters. That is not hyperbole. There can be no other explanation as to why the secretary of state, the person in charge of American diplomacy, would be so crude and stupid... Jesus. They don't even know how to fake it anymore. Isn't it at least smart to pretend you care about the dying children?"
4b. What Glenn Greenwald says.
5. Media coverage. I generally only watch CNN and for the most part, it's coverage (except for Lou Dobbs) has been OK; they've paid attention to the refugee crisis and to the Israeli destruction of Beirut generally. They continue to raise the question of Israeli's disproportionate response. But the Bush administration and most American pundits have been tone deaf to the consequences of Israel's actions.
6. Lasting peace. I referenced Richard Cohen's op-ed yesterday in which the Wash Post columnist alluded to Israel's 1948 creation and location in the midst of Arab Muslims having been a mistake. I don't know if that is true. As I mentioned, Egypt and Jordan have ultimately established peaceful relations with Israel, so it doesn't strike me as completely impossible for the surrounding governments to peacefully accomodate the Jewish state. But lasting peace won't be possible if Israel destroys Lebanon and scatters half or more of it's four million people. And the damage has probably already been done now, regardless of whether an eventual cease-fire and international force in southern Lebanon is agreed to.
7. Long term implications. Although Egypt, Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia's governments have issued official statements condemning Hezbollah, I can't help but think that the response on the Arab Street is and in the future will be, anything but further inflammation against Israel. I doubt any of us living well in the U.S. have any sense of what it's like to be living as most Arabs live in the Middle East. We had two skyscrappers and 3,000 people killed and we freaked out. Arab countries have the rough equivalent of 911 on an almost continual basis. If you think the nationalist response from Americans after 911 was significant, take that reaction to the nth power for a sense of how humiliated most Arabs probably feel, given the poverty most Arabs live under and how little their governments represent their aspirations (Bush is largely right on this point although the new "democracy" in Iraq he has helped create does not appear to be either stabile or supportive of our Israeli friends).
7a. James Wolcott says we're complicit in our government's contribution to the massacre in Lebanon, not to mention the civil war in Iraq. And he's right. I don't know if World War III has started, but I can see our unapologetic defense of Israel's savagery causing many of us who gave the administration a pass on Iraq to start taking to the streets and withdrawing our support and discontinuing our enabling of our society for sanctioning this new war.
2. Disproportionate force. The Israeli bombing of Beirut has been way over the top, outrageous and immoral. There's anywhere between 500,000 and 1 million refugees and dislocated persons as a result, not to mention hundreds of civilians already dead from the attacks.
3. Forcing a crisis. The motive of Israel's over-reaching seems to be to provoke an international crisis. Israel probably thinks that absent a crisis of monumental proportions, Hezbollah would never be disarmed per the United Nations Security Council resolution 1559 and for the lasting peace of the Lebanon-Israel border generally.
4. The Bush-Rice response to the Israeli attacks has been despicable. Digby says Rice's They've put all the blame on Hezbollah, and talked about the group's attacks on northern Israel as if no broader, more destructive attacks on Lebanon were being conducted by Israel. Hezbollah did "start" the current series of events by kidnapping the Israeli soldiers. But the rocket attacks into northern Israel didn't start until after the knee-jerk air attacks on Beirut by Israel.
4a. Digby says: "The Bush administration are monsters. That is not hyperbole. There can be no other explanation as to why the secretary of state, the person in charge of American diplomacy, would be so crude and stupid... Jesus. They don't even know how to fake it anymore. Isn't it at least smart to pretend you care about the dying children?"
4b. What Glenn Greenwald says.
5. Media coverage. I generally only watch CNN and for the most part, it's coverage (except for Lou Dobbs) has been OK; they've paid attention to the refugee crisis and to the Israeli destruction of Beirut generally. They continue to raise the question of Israeli's disproportionate response. But the Bush administration and most American pundits have been tone deaf to the consequences of Israel's actions.
6. Lasting peace. I referenced Richard Cohen's op-ed yesterday in which the Wash Post columnist alluded to Israel's 1948 creation and location in the midst of Arab Muslims having been a mistake. I don't know if that is true. As I mentioned, Egypt and Jordan have ultimately established peaceful relations with Israel, so it doesn't strike me as completely impossible for the surrounding governments to peacefully accomodate the Jewish state. But lasting peace won't be possible if Israel destroys Lebanon and scatters half or more of it's four million people. And the damage has probably already been done now, regardless of whether an eventual cease-fire and international force in southern Lebanon is agreed to.
7. Long term implications. Although Egypt, Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia's governments have issued official statements condemning Hezbollah, I can't help but think that the response on the Arab Street is and in the future will be, anything but further inflammation against Israel. I doubt any of us living well in the U.S. have any sense of what it's like to be living as most Arabs live in the Middle East. We had two skyscrappers and 3,000 people killed and we freaked out. Arab countries have the rough equivalent of 911 on an almost continual basis. If you think the nationalist response from Americans after 911 was significant, take that reaction to the nth power for a sense of how humiliated most Arabs probably feel, given the poverty most Arabs live under and how little their governments represent their aspirations (Bush is largely right on this point although the new "democracy" in Iraq he has helped create does not appear to be either stabile or supportive of our Israeli friends).
7a. James Wolcott says we're complicit in our government's contribution to the massacre in Lebanon, not to mention the civil war in Iraq. And he's right. I don't know if World War III has started, but I can see our unapologetic defense of Israel's savagery causing many of us who gave the administration a pass on Iraq to start taking to the streets and withdrawing our support and discontinuing our enabling of our society for sanctioning this new war.
8. If you don't know this already, Juan Cole is the preminent Middle Eastern commenter around these parts. Go read up. He's generally pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian. But if you want the Israeli view point, you can get that on just about any cable network.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Organized Disorganization
Just finished reading State of War by James Risen, the author who neo-conservative scold, William Bennett, said belongs behind bars for...well I'm not really sure; obstensibly because Risen's reporting on the CIA's secret overseas prisons and NSA's massive domestic surveillance program damaged "national security", but most likely because Risen's reporting sheds light on, and deigns to criticize, the Republican administration and its foreign policy. And that's downright illegal and unAmerican. Anyway, if Bennett says the guy's reporting warrants inprisonment, than you just gotta go out and get the book, don't you?
I read State of War on the heels of reading most of the way through The One Percent Doctrine, a more recent book that covers much of the same ground, the war on terra through the frame of the CIA, although Risen's book comes across as more critical, particularly of Tenet, who was apparently the primary source for One Percent Doctrine.
I'll probably have more to say about both books in future posts, but one thing that stands out from them, and Cobra II as well, is (a) just how poorly the Iraq invasion was planned and (2) the planning, or lack thereof, was so bad, it couldn't have been by accident.
Cobra II's authors write about how uninterested the Pentagon was in identifying, much less securing, the supposed sites of Iraq's WMD in the lead up to the war, to prevent those arms and materials from ending up in the hands of foreign jihadists or would-be-insurgents. Risen notes the lack of Arabic speakers in the CIA, kind of a surprising one would think when invading two Middle Eastern countries.
When I read these accounts and see the chaos and killing Iraq, I can't help but think that while an Iraqi civil war might not have been the war architect's plan or hope, there's a sense that how Iraq has played out isn't necessarily counter to the neo-con's vision of global affairs.
I wrote a week or two back about different foreign policy perspectives including neoconservatism. One thing about neoconservatism that I probably didn't emphasize is that orientation's comfort level with instability and chaos. But the administration's response, or again, lack thereof, amidst the most recent Middle East explosion in Lebanon just reinforces the idea that the neocons would just assume see the Middle East, except Israel, meltdown. That would seem to carry over to the neo-con's call to bomb/invade Syria and Iran. That we presently lack the troops needed for such a mission, and that our Iraq debacle should be an object lesson, a negative object lesson, for planners wanting to bomb/invade any more Middle Eastern countries is beside the point. In the world of Bill Kristol, and the neocons still spread throughout the administration and reporting the "news" at Fox, any instability in the Middle East caused by our bombing and destruction is either irrelevant or actually beneficial, to the degree that it weakens ours, or Israel's, opponents.
For an administration "creating its own reality", there's little need to play by the old rules, or any rules at all. All of which would have been largely irrelevant had it not been for 911, which was absolutely fortuitous for the neocons spreading throughout the administration. As Ron Suskind notes in The One Percent Doctrine, 911 not only gave the neocon defense establishment a perfect opening to invade Iraq and expand executive power, but created, or at the very least, reinforced, in the mind of the president the idea that any past historical evidence, practice, or practicioners (including his father) were unreliable or inapplicable for the crisis posed by global terrorism, meaning that the administration insulated itself to an even greater degree in its decision-making than it probably would have anyway.
A final inference I draw from State of War is that the administration's governmental neglect extends beyond the most obvious domestic linkages to FEMA and the Mine Safety and Health Administrations of the executive branch, but even to foreign policy agencies including the CIA and the State Department. Both were regarded by the neocons in exile as subversive and insufficiently political. And while State was initially awarded to the administration's most distinguished member, Colin Powell, the General was all but shut out of the major decision making process and he and his successor, Condi Rice were barreled over by an aggressive Rumsfeld Pentagon.
And the latter, while dominating the foreign policy decision-making has made clear it's disdain, both before hand and afterwards, for "nation-building". The result has been a narrow circle of insulated decision-makers in Washington, playing hit and run over the Middle East, with little regard for diplomacy or for reconstructing the desecrated society's they leave in their wake. Afghanistan, the first point of entry, is over-run with heroin growers, Iraq is awash in blood, and Lebanon has all but been destroyed. Think the "west" will include in its strategy for "peace" the healing of Beirut? Not likely. Syria and Iran await.
I read State of War on the heels of reading most of the way through The One Percent Doctrine, a more recent book that covers much of the same ground, the war on terra through the frame of the CIA, although Risen's book comes across as more critical, particularly of Tenet, who was apparently the primary source for One Percent Doctrine.
I'll probably have more to say about both books in future posts, but one thing that stands out from them, and Cobra II as well, is (a) just how poorly the Iraq invasion was planned and (2) the planning, or lack thereof, was so bad, it couldn't have been by accident.
Cobra II's authors write about how uninterested the Pentagon was in identifying, much less securing, the supposed sites of Iraq's WMD in the lead up to the war, to prevent those arms and materials from ending up in the hands of foreign jihadists or would-be-insurgents. Risen notes the lack of Arabic speakers in the CIA, kind of a surprising one would think when invading two Middle Eastern countries.
When I read these accounts and see the chaos and killing Iraq, I can't help but think that while an Iraqi civil war might not have been the war architect's plan or hope, there's a sense that how Iraq has played out isn't necessarily counter to the neo-con's vision of global affairs.
I wrote a week or two back about different foreign policy perspectives including neoconservatism. One thing about neoconservatism that I probably didn't emphasize is that orientation's comfort level with instability and chaos. But the administration's response, or again, lack thereof, amidst the most recent Middle East explosion in Lebanon just reinforces the idea that the neocons would just assume see the Middle East, except Israel, meltdown. That would seem to carry over to the neo-con's call to bomb/invade Syria and Iran. That we presently lack the troops needed for such a mission, and that our Iraq debacle should be an object lesson, a negative object lesson, for planners wanting to bomb/invade any more Middle Eastern countries is beside the point. In the world of Bill Kristol, and the neocons still spread throughout the administration and reporting the "news" at Fox, any instability in the Middle East caused by our bombing and destruction is either irrelevant or actually beneficial, to the degree that it weakens ours, or Israel's, opponents.
For an administration "creating its own reality", there's little need to play by the old rules, or any rules at all. All of which would have been largely irrelevant had it not been for 911, which was absolutely fortuitous for the neocons spreading throughout the administration. As Ron Suskind notes in The One Percent Doctrine, 911 not only gave the neocon defense establishment a perfect opening to invade Iraq and expand executive power, but created, or at the very least, reinforced, in the mind of the president the idea that any past historical evidence, practice, or practicioners (including his father) were unreliable or inapplicable for the crisis posed by global terrorism, meaning that the administration insulated itself to an even greater degree in its decision-making than it probably would have anyway.
A final inference I draw from State of War is that the administration's governmental neglect extends beyond the most obvious domestic linkages to FEMA and the Mine Safety and Health Administrations of the executive branch, but even to foreign policy agencies including the CIA and the State Department. Both were regarded by the neocons in exile as subversive and insufficiently political. And while State was initially awarded to the administration's most distinguished member, Colin Powell, the General was all but shut out of the major decision making process and he and his successor, Condi Rice were barreled over by an aggressive Rumsfeld Pentagon.
And the latter, while dominating the foreign policy decision-making has made clear it's disdain, both before hand and afterwards, for "nation-building". The result has been a narrow circle of insulated decision-makers in Washington, playing hit and run over the Middle East, with little regard for diplomacy or for reconstructing the desecrated society's they leave in their wake. Afghanistan, the first point of entry, is over-run with heroin growers, Iraq is awash in blood, and Lebanon has all but been destroyed. Think the "west" will include in its strategy for "peace" the healing of Beirut? Not likely. Syria and Iran await.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Dimwits
This Wash Post editorial is about the dumbest thing I've read yet on the latest Middle East conflict:
In other words, the current warfare in Lebanon, Gaza and Israel stems not from Israel's occupation of Arab lands or its holding of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, but from a blatant bid by Iran and Syria and their allies in Hamas and Hezbollah to stop the creation of a democratic Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza and the parallel consolidation of a democracy in Lebanon.
So, Hamas, which surprisingly won control over the Palestinian Authority in recent elections, is trying "to stop the creation of a democratic Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza..."? That makes no sense. Same with Hezbollah. They're trying "to stop...the parallel consolidation of a democracy in Lebanon"? What does that mean? Now, I doubt Hamas and Hezbollah care anything about democracy, liberal or otherwise. But to suggest that Hamas and Hezbollah--spurred on by their patrons in Syria and Iran of course--are deliberately self-sabotaging their own societies strikes me as pretty way off the mark.
Richard Cohen, of all people, may be closer to the truth when he suggests here that the latest outbreak of violence between Israel and its neighbors has an air of historical determinism about it:
The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
At the same time, Egypt and Jordan, which have previously and unsuccessfully warred against Israel, have more or less come around to Israel's regional presence (and hegemony) and have established peace and normal diplomatic relations with it. That there are still forces within both nominally friendly and officially unfriendly countries, however, suggests that the conflict remains largely intractible and highly complex.
The latter is perhaps why the Bush administration has taken a reserved posture on the conflict and in contrast to its GWOT and Operation Iraqi Freedom days, recognizes an ambiguity here that is either not amenable to simplistic black and white depictions or in any event, presents conditions that do not lend easily lend themselves to simple, dramatic solutions or modes of intervention.
All of which is to say the world of puritanical neo-conservatism is not happy with the Bush administration's words and actions so far. Seemingly unaware of ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the neo-con machinery is geering up for another war or wars for someone else's children to fight. Even normally moral absolutionist commentators such as George Will are at the breaking point with his movement's ideologues:
The administration, justly criticized for its Iraq premises and their execution, is suddenly receiving some criticism so untethered from reality as to defy caricature. The national, ethnic and religious dynamics of the Middle East are opaque to most people, but to the Weekly Standard -- voice of a spectacularly misnamed radicalism, "neoconservatism" -- everything is crystal clear: Iran is the key to everything .
"No Islamic Republic of Iran, no Hezbollah. No Islamic Republic of Iran, no one to prop up the Assad regime in Syria. No Iranian support for Syria . . ." You get the drift. So, the Weekly Standard says:
"We might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions -- and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement."
"Why wait?" Perhaps because the U.S. military has enough on its plate in the deteriorating wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which both border Iran. And perhaps because containment, although of uncertain success, did work against Stalin and his successors, and might be preferable to a war against a nation much larger and more formidable than Iraq. And if Bashar Assad's regime does not fall after the Weekly Standard's hoped-for third war, with Iran, does the magazine hope for a fourth?
As for the "healthy" repercussions that the Weekly Standard is so eager to experience from yet another war: One envies that publication's powers of prophecy but wishes it had exercised them on the nation's behalf before all of the surprises -- all of them unpleasant -- that Iraq has inflicted. And regarding the "appeasement" that the Weekly Standard decries: Does the magazine really wish the administration had heeded its earlier (Dec. 20, 2004) editorial advocating war with yet another nation -- the bombing of Syria?
In other words, the current warfare in Lebanon, Gaza and Israel stems not from Israel's occupation of Arab lands or its holding of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, but from a blatant bid by Iran and Syria and their allies in Hamas and Hezbollah to stop the creation of a democratic Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza and the parallel consolidation of a democracy in Lebanon.
So, Hamas, which surprisingly won control over the Palestinian Authority in recent elections, is trying "to stop the creation of a democratic Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza..."? That makes no sense. Same with Hezbollah. They're trying "to stop...the parallel consolidation of a democracy in Lebanon"? What does that mean? Now, I doubt Hamas and Hezbollah care anything about democracy, liberal or otherwise. But to suggest that Hamas and Hezbollah--spurred on by their patrons in Syria and Iran of course--are deliberately self-sabotaging their own societies strikes me as pretty way off the mark.
Richard Cohen, of all people, may be closer to the truth when he suggests here that the latest outbreak of violence between Israel and its neighbors has an air of historical determinism about it:
The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
At the same time, Egypt and Jordan, which have previously and unsuccessfully warred against Israel, have more or less come around to Israel's regional presence (and hegemony) and have established peace and normal diplomatic relations with it. That there are still forces within both nominally friendly and officially unfriendly countries, however, suggests that the conflict remains largely intractible and highly complex.
The latter is perhaps why the Bush administration has taken a reserved posture on the conflict and in contrast to its GWOT and Operation Iraqi Freedom days, recognizes an ambiguity here that is either not amenable to simplistic black and white depictions or in any event, presents conditions that do not lend easily lend themselves to simple, dramatic solutions or modes of intervention.
All of which is to say the world of puritanical neo-conservatism is not happy with the Bush administration's words and actions so far. Seemingly unaware of ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the neo-con machinery is geering up for another war or wars for someone else's children to fight. Even normally moral absolutionist commentators such as George Will are at the breaking point with his movement's ideologues:
The administration, justly criticized for its Iraq premises and their execution, is suddenly receiving some criticism so untethered from reality as to defy caricature. The national, ethnic and religious dynamics of the Middle East are opaque to most people, but to the Weekly Standard -- voice of a spectacularly misnamed radicalism, "neoconservatism" -- everything is crystal clear: Iran is the key to everything .
"No Islamic Republic of Iran, no Hezbollah. No Islamic Republic of Iran, no one to prop up the Assad regime in Syria. No Iranian support for Syria . . ." You get the drift. So, the Weekly Standard says:
"We might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions -- and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement."
"Why wait?" Perhaps because the U.S. military has enough on its plate in the deteriorating wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which both border Iran. And perhaps because containment, although of uncertain success, did work against Stalin and his successors, and might be preferable to a war against a nation much larger and more formidable than Iraq. And if Bashar Assad's regime does not fall after the Weekly Standard's hoped-for third war, with Iran, does the magazine hope for a fourth?
As for the "healthy" repercussions that the Weekly Standard is so eager to experience from yet another war: One envies that publication's powers of prophecy but wishes it had exercised them on the nation's behalf before all of the surprises -- all of them unpleasant -- that Iraq has inflicted. And regarding the "appeasement" that the Weekly Standard decries: Does the magazine really wish the administration had heeded its earlier (Dec. 20, 2004) editorial advocating war with yet another nation -- the bombing of Syria?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)