Democrats (Defeatocrats?) really do have a one-track mind: surrender! surrender! surrender! I mean I know there are plenty of Democrats who are veterans, but I didn't know so many were products of the French military.
But in all seriousness, multiple reports are suggesting that the Democrats are readying for a multi-pronged push for withdrawal in both houses. According to Politico, there will be timelines for withdrawal introduced in both the House and the Senate (where, unsurprisingly, Russ Feingold is playing a leading role); there are also efforts to repeal the use of force authorization (attached to the Defense appropriations bill) and barring the construction of permanent US bases in-country ready in the House. Finally, and perhaps most comically, there are discussions that a "readiness" bill will be put forward that will not allow troops to return to the combat zone until they've spent an equal length of time stateside - so a six-month tour of duty in Iraq must be followed by six months at home. I find this ridiculous. On the one hand, I understand the rationale for tours of duty, but their inherent weakness (endless learning curve, among others) were witnessed in Vietnam.
In contrast, during the Second World War, there was no such thing as six months on/six months off. Sure troops got respites, either after a campaign (between the surrender of the Deutches Afrika Korps and the invasion of Sicily or between island-hopping landings in the Pacific Theater) or just being moved to quieter sectors (though that logic caused the destruction of an entire division in the Ardennes as the front-line forces had hardly heard a shot fired in anger when the panzer spearheads came tearing through them). Equal periods at home and at the front are rather ridiculous; why not just move forces to quieter sectors (Kurdistan, Kuwait) for a week in six or something?
Okay - returning to the matter at hand. Pelosi is also apparently trying to build a stronger coalition - both getting the "Out of Iraq" crazies to shut up, sit down, and be constructive while also trying to strong-arm the Blue Dogs into staying in the fold. It's unclear if there will be any real success.
Another similar article can be found at Huffington Post (blech), where it's alleged that Democrats are going to try and open fissures over Cheney's claim that he's a rather separate branch of government. They also lay out the logic that in suburban districts, Democrats are winning against Republicans on the war but need to remain on the offensive over all (because their approval ratings too are in the john). Democrats hope that by tying some of these amendments to the defense appropriations bill (which they claim, and I'm not sure if they're high or correct, doesn't actually fund the troops), their members are no longer in the fund the troops/don't fund the troops vise that they were in with the Iraq supplemental a few months back.
Of course all of this is happening because Democrats have, in their infinite wisdom, decided that the surge is not working. Because they're experts in counterinsurgency and all. They're too impatient to even wait for September and Petraeus's reprot, which makes me wonder on some level whether they fear that the report will bring good tidings and thus hurt them.
So write your Congressman and tell them first of all, to show some spine for the long-run or at least wait until September.
Oh and the four documents comprising the polling cited in the HuffPo article can be found here under June 2007 On the Offense
Friday, June 29, 2007
Dems Readying Another Withdrawal Drive?
Bombing Thwarted in London
You've heard about it by now, I hope: police have located and disarmed one (two?) car bombs in London. This comes on top of a post on a jihadi website, promising attacks. PJM has a good roundup here.
Of course the Left believes it's just a story, just trying to scare the people. Islamic terrorism = bogeyman.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Fairness Doctrine - Good News
So as I mentioned the other day, Congressman Mike Pence was working to prohibit the FCC from dictating content. His amendment came up today and passed 309-115. If your Congressman supported the amendment, thank them; otherwise lambaste them. Also send a nice note to Congressman Pence.
Three COIN Articles
Blackfive is among my favorite milblogs - and not without good reason. The crew there has a trio of worthwhile articles on counterinsurgency, focused in part on the work of Colonel Kilcullen.
Oh and just for added kicks, I'll link to one of Kilcullen's seminal writings, 28 Articles. Again, read, enjoy, learn and spread the word.
Growing West Bank Consensus
According to Haaretz, there's a growing consensus in Israel that a withdrawal from the West Bank is no longer possible. The feeling is that even if there is a wall, relinquishing control over the territory is strategically impossible. This of course is a product of the Qassam rocket attacks from Gaza, last summer's war with Hizbullah, and most recently the devolution of Gaza and the rise of Hamas. It's a wise move but the international community needs to be made to understand that.
One hopes that the same logic precludes any discussion of returning the Golan Heights to Syria (which is a sponsor of both Hamas and Hizbullah. There's been some chatter about that recently, but any sign of Israeli weakness will only embolden their enemies (and their proxies).
(h/t Powerline)
A Big New Survey of the GOP
Marc Ambinder rounds it all up; what's interesting is the decline of the economically-focused voters, instead replaced by national security voters (me!). However, the social/cultural conservatives remain the single largest bloc. According the polls, the party is united on
– Desire to balance the budget – Belief that government spends too much – Belief that taxes are too high – Belief that federal government is too big and does too many things – Belief that current immigrations laws should be followed and no special treatment – War in Iraq was the right decision – Belief that our Foreign Policy should be based on our own security and economic interests – Support of employment non-discrimination for gays.and substantially dived on
Top priority – cutting taxes or balancing budget – Whether health care coverage is a right – Fund SS or allow private investment – Level of military/defense spending – Role of federal government in education – Allowing gays to serve in the military – Role of federal government on global warming – Private initiative vs. government safety net – Abortion – Influence of religion on public policy
It's well worth a read.
Byrd....
He's now speaking for 20 minutes after the death of the immigration bill. He looks and sounds ancient and awful; his left hand is visibly palsied.
I'm wondering if he might resign? Or he may just be refuting critics who seem to be preemptively dancing on his grave?
Immigration Bill Dead?
I'm watching the cloture vote live on C-Span 2 right now; if the bill's proponents can't get 60 votes, Reid will pull the bill (again). Coastal Democrats seem generally supportive, as do some interior lefties (Kohl just voted aye). I'll keep up with this one as well.
UPDATE: It's dead!! 46-53 (Johnston not voting, I suspect).
UPDATE 2: Finally got the roll call (thanks to Hotair!). Almost all of the Republicans who voted for cloture are either up for reelection, RINOS, both, or "mavericks." One of the few exceptions to this rule is Jon Kyl, whose conservative credentials are beyond criticism. I feel like his support was based on this being a somewhat workable fix and him being a border-stater.
Supreme Court: Limits Race in School Assignment Plans
Finally a decision on one of the most anticipated decisions of the session - whether race can play a significant role in distributing children in public schools, specifically in Louisville and Seattle. This may be the death throes of a forced desegregation movement that saw phenomena like Boston's forced busing. Details are still slim, I'll update later with more.
UPDATE: SCOTUSblog finally got some analyses and the like up: here, here, and here; the full opinion (all 185 pages of it) is here.
UPDATE 2: Washington Wire has a simple, easy round-up of the case.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
More on Ethanol
The other day, as part of an attack on Democrats' "energy" bill, I noted some of the weaknesses of emphasizing ethanol. I'm not the only one who feels that way. I wonder how many environmentally-concerned citizens (mostly Democrats) realize that their embrace of ethanol may be raising the price of food (and ironically fuel) for their fellow citizens - most notably the middle class they so often worry about; it should go without saying that the impact would be even more pronounced in the developing world.
An Interview with Jon Bruning
Townhall's Patrick Ruffini had a worthwhile interview with Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, the man who's doing us all a favor and challenging Senator Chuck "Lets withdraw from Iraq and impeach the president" Hagel in the primary. The only polls Bruning cites are rather old, but are still pretty hopeful - an easy nine-point advantage for the challenger. He also said that many out-of-staters are contacting him, asking how they can help. If you're so inclined, I've been nice enough to give you a link to his website.
Friends of Jon Bruning for United States Senate
I'll be watching this one with interest.
The Return of the Fairness Doctrine?
I'm starting to think that old or bad legislation doesn't die, it merely goes away to wreak havoc another day. First the immigration bill, now the so-called "fairness" doctrine. Reagan rightly repealed it during his administration, but now Democrats including Hound Dog Kerry, want to revive it - because the media is unbalanced. Right.
Thankfully, Republican Mike Pence (IN) is on the case and will be offering legislation to strip the FCC of its ability to dictate content. There's a lot more from Captain Ed here, and here; both are well worth reading.
Meanwhile, check Heritage's dissection of the "fairness" doctrine here; it points out that the reason the FCC's doctrine was upheld as constitutional in the sixties was that "because broadcast frequencies were scarce, the government may intervene in broadcast media in ways that would not be allowed toward traditional media, such as newspapers" - a situation no longer true. On those grounds, the doctrine should not be reinstated. If somehow it is, I expect it to be challenged and the Supreme Court to overturn. There's are also a "slippery slope" argument to be made - that once talk radio is re-regulated, why not TV or the internet?
When Democrats first started making noises about this a few months ago, I didn't take it seriously. Since then, Trent Lott infamously claimed that "talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem" (check out the full Fox News Sunday transcript); I'm not sure how widely his sentiments are shared within the Republican Party, but I don't think it's sufficient to pass this monstrosity. Still, I may have been wrong before.
But does it matter? One of my favorite interlocutors claims that it would be relative ineffective in the modern age - that the proliferation of new media (such as satellite radio and the Internet) would just allow talk radio pundits to flourish elsewhere. Sadly, the "slippery slope" argument makes such hopes short-lived at best. But there's also the principle of the matter: the FCC shouldn't have the right to dictate content; it can regulate for public morality purposes, but not to demand equal time.
When the Aurora newspaper slandered some of the Founding Fathers, their supporters didn't whine for equal time, they just founded their own papers! Democrats aren't concerned about fairness - after all, they own the MSM lock stock and barrel - they'd love nothing more than to silence Rush, Hannity, Bennett, Laura, and the rest of them. And since the talk radio crowd hasn't been willing to stand idly by as more members of the GOP back the immigration/amnesty bill, they'd like to shut them up too (Trent Lott). The fairness doctrine is just the Beltway elite lashing out in frustration and trying to muzzle the opposition - it is in essence un-American!
"Understanding Current Operations in Iraq"
Colonel David Kilcullen PhD is the Senior Counterinsurgency Adviser MNF-Iraq; he's also among the foremost thinkers of modern counterinsurgency doctrine. This is his latest. Read it all.
I’ve spent much of the last six weeks out on the ground, working with Iraqi and U.S. combat units, civilian reconstruction teams, Iraqi administrators and tribal and community leaders. I’ve been away from e-mail a lot, so unable to post here at SWJ: but I’d like to make up for that now by providing colleagues with a basic understanding of what’s happening, right now, in Iraq.
This post is not about whether current ops are “working” — for us, here on the ground, time will tell, though some observers elsewhere seem to have already made up their minds (on the basis of what evidence, I’m not really sure). But for professional counterinsurgency operators such as our SWJ community, the thing to understand at this point is the intention and concept behind current ops in Iraq: if you grasp this, you can tell for yourself how the operations are going, without relying on armchair pundits. So in the interests of self-education (and cutting out the commentariat middlemen—sorry, guys) here is a field perspective on current operations.
Ten days ago, speaking with Austin Bay, I made the following comment:
“I know some people in the media are already starting to sort of write off the “surge” and say ‘Hey, hang on: we’ve been going since January, we haven’t seen a massive turnaround; it mustn’t be working’. What we’ve been doing to date is putting forces into position. We haven’t actually started what I would call the “surge” yet. All we’ve been doing is building up forces and trying to secure the population. And what I would say to people who say that it’s already failed is “watch this space”. Because you’re going to see, in fairly short order, some changes in the way we’re operating that will make what’s been happening over the past few months look like what it is—just a preliminary build up.”
The meaning of that comment should be clear by now to anyone tracking what is happening in Iraq. On June 15th we kicked off a major series of division-sized operations in Baghdad and the surrounding provinces. As General Odierno said, we have finished the build-up phase and are now beginning the actual “surge of operations”. I have often said that we need to give this time. That is still true. But this is the end of the beginning: we are now starting to put things onto a viable long-term footing.
These operations are qualitatively different from what we have done before. Our concept is to knock over several insurgent safe havens simultaneously, in order to prevent terrorists relocating their infrastructure from one to another, and to create an operational synergy between what we're doing in Baghdad and what's happening outside. Unlike on previous occasions, we don't plan to leave these areas once they’re secured. These ops will run over months, and the key activity is to stand up viable local security forces in partnership with Iraqi Army and Police, as well as political and economic programs, to permanently secure them. The really decisive activity will be police work, registration of the population and counterintelligence in these areas, to comb out the insurgent sleeper cells and political cells that have "gone quiet" as we moved in, but which will try to survive through the op and emerge later. This will take operational patience, and it will be intelligence-led, and Iraqi government-led. It will probably not make the news (the really important stuff rarely does) but it will be the truly decisive action.
When we speak of "clearing" an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation. If we don't get every enemy cell in the initial operation, that's OK. The point of the operations is to lift the pall of fear from population groups that have been intimidated and exploited by terrorists to date, then win them over and work with them in partnership to clean out the cells that remain – as has happened in Al Anbar Province and can happen elsewhere in Iraq as well.
The "terrain" we are clearing is human terrain, not physical terrain. It is about marginalizing al Qa’ida, Shi’a extremist militias, and the other terrorist groups from the population they prey on. This is why claims that “80% of AQ leadership have fled” don’t overly disturb us: the aim is not to kill every last AQ leader, but rather to drive them off the population and keep them off, so that we can work with the community to prevent their return.
This is not some sort of kind-hearted, soft approach, as some fire-breathing polemicists have claimed (funnily enough, those who urge us to “just kill more bad guys” usually do so from a safe distance). It is not about being “nice” to the population and hoping they will somehow see us as the “good guys” and stop supporting insurgents. On the contrary, it is based on a hard-headed recognition of certain basic facts, to wit:
(a.) The enemy needs the people to act in certain ways (sympathy, acquiescence, silence, reaction to provocation) in order to survive and further his strategy. Unless the population acts in these ways, both insurgents and terrorists will wither, and the cycle of provocation and backlash that drives the sectarian conflict in Iraq will fail.
(b.) The enemy is fluid, but the population is fixed. (The enemy is fluid because he has no permanent installations he needs to defend, and can always run away to fight another day. But the population is fixed, because people are tied to their homes, businesses, farms, tribal areas, relatives etc). Therefore—and this is the major change in our strategy this year—protecting and controlling the population is do-able, but destroying the enemy is not. We can drive him off from the population, then introduce local security forces, population control, and economic and political development, and thereby "hard-wire" the enemy out of the environment, preventing his return. But chasing enemy cells around the countryside is not only a waste of time, it is precisely the sort of action he wants to provoke us into. That’s why AQ cells leaving an area are not the main game—they are a distraction. We played the enemy’s game for too long: not any more. Now it is time for him to play our game.
(c.) Being fluid, the enemy can control his loss rate and therefore can never be eradicated by purely enemy-centric means: he can just go to ground if the pressure becomes too much. BUT, because he needs the population to act in certain ways in order to survive, we can asphyxiate him by cutting him off from the people. And he can't just "go quiet" to avoid that threat. He has either to come out of the woodwork, fight us and be destroyed, or stay quiet and accept permanent marginalization from his former population base. That puts him on the horns of a lethal dilemma (which warms my heart, quite frankly, after the cynical obscenities these irhabi gang members have inflicted on the innocent Iraqi non-combatant population). That's the intent here.
(d.) The enemy may not be identifiable, but the population is. In any given area in Iraq, there are multiple threat groups but only one, or sometimes two main local population groups. We could do (and have done, in the past) enormous damage to potential supporters, "destroying the haystack to find the needle", but we don't need to: we know who the population is that we need to protect, we know where they live, and we can protect them without unbearable disruption to their lives. And more to the point, we can help them protect themselves, with our forces and ISF in overwatch.
Of course, we still go after all the terrorist and extremist leaders we can target and find, and life has become increasingly “nasty, brutish, and short” for this crowd. But we realize that this is just a shaping activity in support of the main effort, which is securing the Iraqi people from the terrorists, extremist militias, and insurgents who need them to survive.
Is there a strategic risk involved in this series of operations? Absolutely. Nothing in war is risk-free. We have chosen to accept and manage this risk, primarily because a low-risk option simply will not get us the operational effects that the strategic situation demands. We have to play the hand we have been dealt as intelligently as possible, so we're doing what has to be done. It still might not work, but "it is what it is" at this point.
So much for theory. The practice, as always, has been mixed. Personally, I think we are doing reasonably well and casualties have been lower so far than I feared. Every single loss is a tragedy. But so far, thank God, the loss rate has not been too terrible: casualties are up in absolute terms, but down as a proportion of troops deployed (in the fourth quarter of 2006 we had about 100,000 troops in country and casualties averaged 90 deaths a month; now we have almost 160,000 troops in country but deaths are under 120 per month, much less than a proportionate increase, which would have been around 150 a month). And last year we patrolled rarely, mainly in vehicles, and got hit almost every time we went out. Now we patrol all the time, on foot, by day and night with Iraqi units normally present as partners, and the chances of getting hit are much lower on each patrol. We are finally coming out of the "defensive crouch" with which we used to approach the environment, and it is starting to pay off.
It will be a long, hard summer, with much pain and loss to come, and things could still go either way. But the population-centric approach is the beginning of a process that aims to put the overall campaign onto a sustainable long-term footing. The politics of the matter then can be decisive, provided the Iraqis use the time we have bought for them to reach the essential accommodation. The Embassy and MNF-I continue to work on these issues at the highest levels but fundamentally, this is something that only Iraqis can resolve: our role is to provide an environment in which it becomes possible.
All this may change. These are long-term operations: the enemy will adapt and we'll have to adjust what we're doing over time. Baq’ubah, Arab Jabour and the western operations are progressing well, and additional security measures in place in Baghdad have successfully tamped down some of the spill-over of violence from other places. The relatively muted response (so far) to the second Samarra bombing is evidence of this. Time will tell, though....
Once again, none of this is intended to tell you “what to think” or “whether it’s working”. We’re all professional adults, and you can work that out for yourself. But this does, I hope, explain some of the thinking behind what we are doing, and it may therefore make it easier for people to come to their own judgment.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Another Republican President?
Much to the discomfort of liberals everywhere, WaPo's Richard Cohen suggests a historical argument for a Republican victory in 2008.
Social networking divide: Facebook is for preps, MySpace for the fringe
The title says it all; read it here. Note the author, a Berkeley sociology student, doesn't care to capitalize her name and engages in some pretty Lefty forms of intellectual discourse.
Politics and Strange Bedfellows
An anti-Wahhabist Shi'ite cleric is killed in Iran; the Iranian government condemns his murder. On matters of principle, I hate agreeing with Iran. But outspoken Muslim opponents of Wahhabism are simply too few. On the other hand, such statements coming from a Shi'ite might actually be counterproductive - it is Sunnis who need to stand up against perversions of their faith.
Barone Dissects the Polls
Michael Barone takes a look at months of polls; worth a read. I think we're already seeing Giuliani peaking. Romney of course is on the air in Iowa and New Hampshire, with resultant leads there. I'm just hoping Fred can overtake him in one or both states - a Romney nomination would effectively hand the election to whichever Democrat is nominated.
But he also raises the question about whether Giuliani and/or McCain will bypass the Iowa caucuses all together; if either were to do so, Romney's apparent victory there might become meaningless.
Campaign News
Fred's apparently getting serious, as the staff decisions show. Ambinder rounds up all of today's 2008 presidential news.
The more I see of and ponder a Fred Thompson candidacy, the more I'm pleasantly surprised. Given that he's still coy, Rudy's still my boy, but it's unclear how much longer that will remain the case. (It may be a big tip-off if I create a separate Fred tag)
101 Sports Experiences
ESPN's Caple runs down the "101 Things All Sports Fans Must Experience Before They Die." Sitting at #19? Duke-UNC, though he doesn't differentiate between contests held in the Dean Dome and Cameron. One's a huge stadium filled with morons in baby blue. The other one is an intimate experience with the fans in your face. Which is the real experience?
There are plenty of things I want to see - Chelsea-Arsenal (though the latter side without Henry is a different beast), Celtic-Ranger, the Masters, All-Blacks; and some I don't - the Women's College World Series, the Show-Me State Games. Anyways, worthy of an amused read.
WaPo, NYT Legally Complicit in Terrorism?
I've thought so for a long time; now a lawyer is saying the same thing: "The NY Times and Washington Post are every bit the supporters of the terrorist organizations that Tehran and Damascus are when they facilitate the publication of Hamas' messages."
Two French Evenments Of Note
I'll start with the more straightforward, satisfying one: former president Jacques Chirac will be investigated over allegations of corruption during his time as mayor of Paris (same period: Saddam Hussein's ami). Corruption (as well as latent antisemitism and/or pro-Arab sentiments) were among the primary reasons the French so opposed our invasion of Iraq.
In other news, France has thrown up additional obstacles to Turkey's quest to join the European Union. Sarkozy has been unflinchingly and unapologetically opposed to Turkish entry. I'm torn on this issue; I've debated it ad nauseum with a Turkish friend of mine who is fervently nationalist and staunchly secular, as well as pro-EU. On the one hand, I understand why Turkey so desperately wants to join the club - partially for its perceived economic benefits (especially the open markets) and partially as a fulfillment of its European-looking Kemalist legacy. I also feel that as Turkey's stability is repeatedly questioned (has been the case for decades, just today it's Islamism and not the secular military), tying it closer to Europe could be beneficial. But there are also pressing questions. On the one hand, is Turkey really eligible to join the EU? There are of course questions of culture and religion (which, given demographic trends in Europe, are becoming increasingly superfluous) but also questions about whether Turkey can actually make the prerequisite reforms. There is also an argument to be made that Turkey shouldn't bother joining the EU, that the union's hyper-regulatory nature is antithetical to Turkey's interests.
But let's be honest: if worst-case scenarios for both Europe and Turkey are accurate - that is to say that if Europe is fated to become Islamic and Turkey's secularism is doomed, then isn't Turkey's formal entry to the EU sort of a moot point? They'll all be in the ummah together.
Lugar and Iraq
Dick Lugar, (R-IN), former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, came out today and said that we need to undergo some serious self-examination in Iraq. The media has basically spun it as Lugar throwing up his hands - they'd love that - but I think the reality is more nuanced, as his remarks reveal. This isn't to say he's proclaiming that we stay the course, but neither is he demanding we leave tomorrow.
He also, I think, does a fair job of slapping Democrats for their politicizing of the conflict:
The prospects that the current "surge" strategy will succeed in the way originally envisioned by the President are very limited within the short period framed by our own domestic political debate. And the strident, polarized nature of that debate increases the risk that our involvement in Iraq will end in a poorly planned withdrawal that undercuts our vital interests in the Middle East. Unless we recalibrate our strategy in Iraq to fit our domestic political conditions and the broader needs of U.S. national security, we risk foreign policy failures that could greatly diminish our influence in the region and the world.
The current debate on Iraq in Washington has not been conducive to a thoughtful revision of our Iraq policy. Our debate is being driven by partisan political calculations and understandable fatigue with bad news -- including deaths and injuries to Americans.
What he misses is that in saying all of this, he's part of the problem. We don't need 535 commanding generals - we need to essentially shut up and let the war be run by the generals (who have the training) and the executive branch (who don't have the training but do have the prerogative of running foreign policy). Imagine if after the losses at Normandy and the bloody struggle in the Norman bocage, Congress had voted to cut funds for our boys over there! But I do agree almost entirely with this statement:
The task of securing U.S. interests in the Middle East will be extremely difficult if Iraq policy is formulated on a partisan basis, with the protagonists on both sides ignoring the complexities at the core of our situation.He's right in saying that - it's mostly the Democrats he's aiming at (after all, no one on the left side of the aisle has ever said what Iraq will look like if we precipitously withdraw).
He then more or less jumps ship but also hedges his bets:
In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved. Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.So the surge isn't working...but it may yet work but anyways, let's look for an easier course of action (this coming from a guy who was reelected last year with 87% of the vote!). He also kindly identifies three factors that he views as the root of the problem: "the political fragmentation in Iraq, the growing stress on our military, and the constraints of our own domestic political process." Who to blame? British, Democrats, Democrats. His arguments about the first of these are troubling:
I do not come to this conclusion lightly, particularly given that General Petraeus will deliver a formal report in September on his efforts to improve security. The interim information we have received from General Petraeus and other officials has been helpful and appreciated. I do not doubt the assessments of military commanders that there has been some progress in security. More security improvements in the coming months may be achieved.
I see no convincing evidence that Iraqis will make the compromises necessary to solidify a functioning government and society, even if we reduce violence to a point that allows for some political and economic normalcy.His omission of sectarian labels here obfuscates issues: the Shia (especially more radical elements, those allied with Moqtada al-Sadr) would love a free hand to deal with their Sunni co-religionists and pay them back for the years of mistreatment under the Hussein regime; of course they're calling for our withdrawal - that would give them the freedom of action they covet! But if we can reconstitute our spine and show some commitment to building a better Iraq, many of them will fall into line for lack of a better option. He continues with this line of argument:
In recent months, we have seen votes in the Iraqi parliament calling for a withdrawal of American forces and condemning security walls in Baghdad that were a reasonable response to neighborhood violence. The Iraqi parliament struggles even to achieve a quorum, because many prominent leaders decline to attend. We have seen overt feuds between members of the Iraqi government, including Prime Minister Maliki and Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, who did not speak to each other for the entire month of April. The Shia-led government is going out of its way to bottle up money budgeted for Sunni provinces. Without strident intervention by our embassy, food rations are not being delivered to Sunni towns. Iraqi leaders have resisted de-Baathification reform, the conclusion of an oil law, and effective measures to prevent oil smuggling and other corrupt practices.
[Foreign Minister Zebari] believes other policy advancements will take considerable time, but that consensus is the safest and most appropriate approach in a fledgling democracy.In effect, we're a nation with the attention-span of a toddler and we're stamping our foot and demanding something new now that we've grown tired of the struggle in Iraq; and whose blood will be shed for our childishness? Iraqis' of course. As I stated earlier, I disagree with his belief that even a change in the military balance won't affect the calculus of the leaders - they'll adjust to fit the new playing field.
This may be true, but Americans want results in months. Meanwhile, various Iraqi factions are willing to wait years to achieve vital objectives. Even if the results of military operations improve in the coming months, there is little reason to assume that this will diminish Sunni ambitions to reclaim political preeminence or Shia plans to dominate Iraq after decades of Saddam's harsh rule. Few Iraqi leaders are willing to make sacrifices or expose themselves to risks on behalf of the type of unified Iraq that the Bush Administration had envisioned. In contrast, there are many Iraqi leaders who are deeply invested in a sectarian or tribal agenda. More often than not, these agendas involve not just the protection of fellow Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, but the expansion of territorial dominance and economic privileges.
Even if U.S. negotiators found a way to forge a political settlement among selected representatives of the major sectarian factions, these leaders have not shown the ability to control their members at the local level. After an intense year-and-a-half of bloodletting, many sub-factions are thoroughly invested in the violence. We have the worst of both worlds in Iraq - factional leaders who don't believe in our pluralist vision for their country and smaller sub-factions who are pursuing violence on their own regardless of any accommodations by more moderate fellow sectarians.
There's much more that I don't have the time or interest to quibble with; feel free to do so yourself!
Mr. Swann of Pennsylvania?
Let's be honest: Pennsylvania last year was a bloodbath for the Republican Party: incumbent Senator Rick Santorum was crushed by Bob Casey 59-41, four sitting Representatives were defeated (one was in the awkward position of admitting yes he had had an affair but no he had not strangled his mistress), and former Pittsburgh Steeler-turned-gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann was defeated 60-40.
But something funny happened in the Pennsylvania 4th, out near Pittsburgh: while incumbent Republican Melissa Hart lost to Democrat Jason Altmire 52-48 and Santorum - himself a Pittsburgher - also lost the district, Lynn Swann ran well there. So well, in fact, that he may run there next fall.
As the article notes, it'll be a fight: the DCCC has put itself squarely behind Altmire, who has done himself a favor of keeping to the right of his party. But Swann's star-power in a district that Bush carried 54-45 and one presumes is rabidly pro-Steelers could prove to be the key. Either way it goes, this will be a fun one to watch.
Monday, June 25, 2007
A Brilliant Article and a Bold Act
Over at Slate (which I admit to reading only rarely anymore), the inestimable Christopher Hitchens destroys Muslim Rage Boy:
But how are we to know what will incite such rage? A caricature published in Copenhagen appears to do it. A crass remark from Josef Ratzinger (leader of an anti-war church) seems to have the same effect. A rumor from Guantanamo will convulse Peshawar, the Muslim press preaches that the Jews brought down the Twin Towers, and a single citation in a British honors list will cause the Iranian state-run press to repeat its claim that the British government—along with the Israelis, of course—paid Salman Rushdie to write The Satanic Verses to begin with. Exactly how is such a mentality to be placated?
We may have to put up with the Rage Boys of the world, but we ought not to do their work for them, and we must not cry before we have been hurt. In front of me is a copy of this week's Economist, which states that Rushdie's 1989 death warrant was "punishment for the book's unflattering depiction of the Prophet Muhammad." There is no direct depiction of the prophet in this work of fiction, and the reverie about his many wives occurs in the dream of a madman. Nobody in Ayatollah Khomeini's circle could possibly have read the book for him before he issued a fatwah, which made it dangerous to possess. Yet on that occasion, the bookstore chains of America pulled The Satanic Verses from their shelves, just as Borders shamefully pulled Free Inquiry (a magazine for which I write) after it reproduced the Danish cartoons. Rage Boy keenly looks forward to anger, while we worriedly anticipate trouble, and fret about etiquette, and prepare the next retreat. If taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean living at the pleasure of Rage Boy, and that I am not prepared to do.
Meanwhile, in Denmark, home of those hateful, racist, bigoted cartoonists (known elsewhere as people exercising their right to free speech), a group celebrating traditional midsummer festivities have burned Mohammed rather than the usual witch in effigy. All I can say is bravo! (I also hope that this is the beginning of a spinal-rehabilitation in Europe)
Three Democrats Tied in Iowa
A new Mason-Dixon poll shows Edwards, Obama, and HRC effectively in a dead heat in Iowa. Though the nation's first contest is rapidly losing significance, I still believe that a loss for Edwards here will kill his campaign. Obama's got the star power and the $$ to keep fighting if he takes second; should HRC run second, she too can bounce back. But any amount of analysis right now is basically worthless; with seven months till caucus day, a lot will change.
CAIR Breaking the Law Again?
Apparently CAIR's New York chapter is getting pretty close to violating constraints on its lobbying ability as a 501c3 organization. The matter at hand? Trying to make Muslim holidays publicly applicable!
I certainly hope that whoever has oversight goes after these clowns; coming on top of the national organization's new-found status as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a terrorist fundraising scheme, it would further damage the organization's credibility to shill for Hamas.
(h/t PJM)
I Thought Democrats Didn't Do Preemptive War?
(At least not when it comes to overthrowing genocidal maniacs with a desire to obtain WMD.) But when it comes to former Senators from Tennessee? Preemptive attacks all around!
When the DNC is going after a candidate before he's officially in the race, I think that means Democrats are nervous. In related news, I heard on Fox this afternoon that Thompson could have $10 million on hand at the end of the quarter, more than the declared John McCain.
Court Roundup
It's been an interesting day in the legal world, both at the nation's highest court and at lower levels.
Washington DC's "$67 Million Pants" lawsuit ended with victory for the accused owners of the dry cleaners. That these immigrants didn't get abused by our judicial system is heartening; what's still depressing is that though the judge forced the plaintiff (himself a judge) to reimburse the defendents' court fees, it's not clear yet whether they'll recover their tens of thousands of legal fees. This perfectly illustrates the kind of common sense reform the American legal system desperately needs.
The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Alaska's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" (aka Morse v. Frederick) case, finding for the high school principle and limiting students' free speech. That said, the Court's decision (found here) restricts this limitation to the case at hand because of the illegal substances angle. The case produced some interesting bedfellows as the ACLU and religious freedom groups lined up behind the accused student, the former for obvious reasons, the latter fearing an infringement of students' expression of religion on campus.
The case that generated the most buzz, both in the blogosphere and the media at large, relates to the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA aka McCain-Feingold), specifically the law's provision banning issue ads in the last 60 days before an election. Speaking personally, this is one issue where I've moved right over the last few years; BCRA was an assault on free speech and as such I'm glad to see the Court rolling it back. Check out the chatter at Captain's Quarters,
Powerline, and several interesting pieces from SCOTUSblog here, here, and (oh well there was another but the link's being goofy). Whether BCRA can sustain another attack like this remains to be seen; I hope the answer is no.
Most of the chatterati still await the Court's decisions on a trio of school desegregation cases; nothing yet. For today, I think these cases are the big three (the first of course being from the realm of the absurd).
Book Review: Crashing the Gate
And now for something completely different! Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics is the product of a civil union between two of the Left's leading bloggers, Jerome Armstrong (of myDD.com) and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (of DailyKos). It's also rather unlike anything I've read recently. [I have to point out that I read this for purposes of research not out of any ideological attraction.]
The two bloggers-turned-authors are actually ideally situated to write about the emergence of a new progressive movement; perhaps because of that they discard entirely any semblance of objectivity. Because they are still to some degree outside of the party hierarchy (even if Harry Reid et al now kowtow to them), the book is a rant against the Democratic Establishment as much as it is an anti-Republican screed. In that spirit, they start by examining the GOP, slandering at will while grudgingly respecting the electoral juggernaut that's been built over the last few decades before turning on their own.
But within Democratic ranks, they lambaste both the establishment, which they accuse of being nothing more than "Republican-lite" (thus the nutroots' derision for the Democratic Leadership Council and Clintonian Democracy) as well as incompetent (an honest indictment), as well as the progressives which they view as self-centered and narrow-minded. This, then, is one of the central points of their arguments: if Democrats are going to reassert themselves, they're going to have to overthrow the calcified hierarchy and weld "progressive" organizations (abortionists, labor, environmentalists, to name the big three) into a cohesive coalition focused on victory.
Not that history gives them much reason for optimism. As they relate, a conference putting progressive leaders into a room together had much in common with a kindergarten, where everyone was a cry baby if "their issue" wasn't put front and center. But they also cite some successful case studies: the Montana Miracle of 2004 (where despite Bush's overwhelming victory in the state, Democrats succeeded in seizing the state government) and Colorado in the same year. The two were different: Colorado brought the progressive organizations together (allowing them to support only those candidates who didn't offend their delicate sensibilities) while in Montana, Governor Brian Schweitzer basically discarded the interest groups, understanding them to be far outside of the Montana mainstream.
Though I won't delve into it too deeply, they also have an interesting discussion of the technological revolution in politics, in terms of voter-targeting, utilizing the Internet, and new ad strategies. Again, they grudgingly admit a Republican superiority. Of course much to their chagrin, the Democratic establishment has ignored many of these developments; it's also for this reason that they clamor for the establishment's overthrow.
Armstrong and Zuniga also jealously analyze the VRWC ("Vast Right Wing Conspiracy") - the think tanks, foundations, development organizations, and publications that nurture the Republican farm team, produce innovative policies (all of which they dismiss as ineffective in reality), and generally have destroyed Democratic candidates over the last thirteen years. Of course, their description of this nefarious infrastructure is necessarily hyperbolic and self-deceptive (as well as revealing about their worldview) when they say things like "There's no doubt, as our personal experience demonstrated vividly, that the Right dominates the media." Excuse me? What planet are you two clowns on? (I often feel this empty Leftist critique really means "dammit, Katie Couric never calls for state ownership of the means of production!").
They close with some tactical notes: the importance of a viable ground game, both on the part of the candidates and a grassroots outreach effort, as well as "challenge every Republican." This last part, I think, is one of the more unorthodox and dangerous parts of their plan. Challenging every Republican ties down incumbents and often forces cash to be spent as an insurance policy in safe districts. The GOP should do the same as much as possible; sure even a libertarian in San Francisco wouldn't have a shot of unseating Nancy Pelosi, but if it forced her to stay home, that'd be a victory in itself (I think the fact that Democrats can find so many willing sacrificial lambs is telling).
I've got issues with this book on so many levels. I have to acknowledge that it's not intended as a dispassionate look at the rise of a new political movement (that's what my thesis will be for!); instead it's a manual for their followers and should be treated as such. Its BS factor is sky-high, but there are some valuable insights within.
But my biggest complaint is with the mob-rule direct-democracy movement it embodies; this country's republican foundations have long since been dismantled, and we're worse for it.
I'm not going to tell you to go read this, I'm going to say that if you believe Sun Tzu and wish to know your enemy (and have a strong stomach for BS and distortions), feel free.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Book Review: Dreadnought
With Dreadnought Britain, Germany and the Coming of the Great War, Robert K. Massie succeeds where few authors could. He has written an insightful and engaging volume that captures the personalities of all of the key players while fitting them exactly into the bigger picture. Indeed, Massie's character sketches are in many ways the highlight and the key to this book and to understanding Europe's tragic path to war.
It should go without saying that this was not my first exposure to the causes of the Great War; in fact a class I took a few years ago devoted several lectures to the conflict's origins as an example of why rigid alliance structures and arms races are inherently dangerous. But where such theoretical explanations fail (and this is my primary criticism of political science as a discipline) is that they fundamentally underestimate the human element. Essentially, Massie suggests that without Kaiser Wilhelm II (or at least with a Kaiser that was more like his liberal-minded parents and less like his authoritarian Iron Chancellor) there would be no war. Too often, it was the insecure, egotistical, meddling, short-sighted Kaiser - motivated in part by a sense of German inferiority and jealousy of Great Britain - that pushed Europe to the brink. Whether it was his pursuit of a great navy, an expensive diversion for a nation whose power had always been land-based, or colonies as an object of national pride and a justification for that navy, Wilhelm was badly misguided.
Exacerbating the Kaiser's personality were many other members of his government who were equally motivated. To some degree one might include Bismarck in this category, though there remains a critical caveat: Bismarck had a grand vision and an understanding of other nations' capacity for bullying, humiliation, etc. that allowed him to remain fully in control of the situation so long as he remained in power and the ruling Hohenzollern did not meddle. Indeed in some way, Bismarck comes across as a tragic figure who should not be seen as the origin of the Great War (though too often fingers are pointed at him).
Massie also does an admirable job of illustrating various attempts to defuse tensions (the Haldane Mission and the Naval Holiday being two pertinent examples), too often derailed by Germany for one reason or another.
Finally he also paints a picture of a bygone era. A British society still ruled by the landed gentry whose ministers socialized at country house parties every weekend and who often came to office more out of duty than ambition while social change produced a powerful middle class, represented in the halls of power by men like Joe Chamberlain. A Europe where all of the rulers were related - Wilhelm II was the grandson of Britain's Queen Victoria, and nephew of Edward VII.
Dreadnought is by no means a brief read, but is insightful and rewarding. If you've got a week ( or two or three) free, it's well worth your time.
[No I haven't read this 900+ page tome in its entirety since I posted a review of Freakonomics a few days ago]
Liberal Loons Pt. 2
Apparently Cameron Diaz has angered Peruvians with a Mao handbag; Peruvians were rightly upset given their brutal experience with the Maoist Shining Path guerrillas. While the article lays out why the locals are upset, it fails to ask one crucial question. Why is Cameron Diaz using such a bag in the first place? Does she think that Mao wasn't that bad of a guy? Someone should ask!
This is much the same phenomenon as the cult of Che-adoration that has arisen on the Left, with the same willful ignorance of the man's blood-soaked history.
Liberal Loons Pt. 1
I recently worked on an independent study on prophetic religion and progressive politics in US history; my advisor was among other things, a history professor and an ordained Presbyterian minister. He asked me my faith background, and when I responded UCC he was understandably confused. The United Church of Christ (Obama's a member) is sort of the Democratic Party in ecclesiastical form. And former Reagan Political Director Jeffrey Lord gives the church a piece of his mind. The church has at various times in recent years stood for divestment from Israel, support for gay marriage and an end to the war in Iraq. Even better, Lord points out that conservatives are persona non grata with the church; the leadership has described conservative dissenters as "serpents in our midst." Leftists everywhere hate dissent.
As Lord points out, the saving grace of the church is its emphasis on local decision making, keeping the propaganda out. But he also rightly points out that as the UCC has drifted from the mainstream of American belief, it has hemorrhaged members and congregations (though this is a shift seen across America as the conservative-minded denominations and independent churches have seen enormous growth in membership).
But what I find depressing about all of this is the overt politicization of churches in America. We should be able to come together, regardless of politics, over our faith. Whether that will ever be possible in the future is at best unclear.
Fred Thompson's Legions of Women
Think Hillary's got a lock on the estrogen vote? Think again, according to today's (London) Times. While all of the focus has been on Rudy's marital issues, the fact that Fred Thompson is himself divorced and married to a woman twenty four years his junior has gone largely unremarked. But apparently he was also among Washington's most eligible bachelor during his time in the Senate, and these women are lining up behind him in his bid for the nomination.
Biggest problem I see with these legions of adoring ladies? They and Hillary-supporting women don't see eye-to-eye. Just to cite one of his exes:
“Fred is a perfect example of chivalry. He’s the kind of man little girls dream about marrying, who opens doors for you, lights your cigarettes, helps you on with your coat, buys wonderful gifts. It’s every woman’s fantasy.”Feministas everywhere just lost their lattes and organic omelettes. Still, it does mean that in stark contrast to Giuliani, he can talk about his romantic past without too much evasion. Rudy's past is messy, Fred's is straight-forward. Though the current wife may raise some eyebrows (and help with the men's vote?).
[For the record, the fact that her name is Jeri does sort of scare me. Jack "I like to have sex in clubs with my wife" Ryan was also married to a Jeri. Please no deja vu!]
