There are times when you marvel at the discipline of the Bush administration. And then there are times when you despair. How on earth did the president let his secretary of state and his vice-president say two superficially contradictory things about U.N. weapons inspection in Iraq within days of each other? That kind of mixed message can only cause glee in the hearts of the anti-war coalition from Saddam to Mandela and Chirac (not to mention Brent Scowcroft and Howell Raines). Or does it? Cheney says inspectors are useless. Powell says they’re necessary. Is it possible that both could be right? Much of the global hostility to dealing with Saddam cannot be avoided. It comes from America-envy and the usual appeaseniks and terrorist-lovers. But some of it could be headed off if a Cheney-Powell Bad Cop-Good Cop routine became part of American diplomacy. Why not ask Cheney to come up with a rigorous weapons inspection regime that could actually do the job – dozens of inspectors, random visits, no limits on what they can investigate and look at, and so on? Then ask Powell to endorse it and demand instant compliance from Baghdad.
WHAT’S THE DOWNSIDE? I’m not sure there is one. If the U.N. balks at the stringent conditions for new inspections, then we tried. If the U.N. complies and Iraq balks, then we have added yet another justification for the war. Either way, our international position is strengthened. What if Saddam says yes to genuine inspections? He won’t. If he says yes and then tries to wriggle out as he has so often in the past, then we can invoke U.N. resolutions, and have a mighty force in the region with which to destroy his regime. And both parts of the strategy help each other. Our military buildup can be the force behind the inspections regime and its insurance policy. And our last-ditch diplomatic effort can help justify our action in the minds of those few world leaders who can swallow their America-envy and see what’s best for the entire planet. There are increasing signs that we may have more allies in this than now seems possible. But whatever strategy the president follows, he needs to understand that he cannot let this debate drag on any further without his presence. The drift is empowering the forces of appeasement. It is way past time for a major, impassioned counter-offensive.
SPEAKING OF COUNTER-OFFENSIVES: Our first book club selection of the fall is Michael Ledeen’s “The War Against The Terror Masters.” It’s a brief, crisp and extremely timely primer on how the forces of terror and their state sponsors are closely connected and deeply dangerous. Reading it this past month, it helped remind me of how perilous it is to revert to pre-9/11 beliefs about how terrorism is an isolated phenomenon, how it isn’t truly a part of geopolitics, how it can be defeated by piecemeal police work, rather than a concerted military and diplomatic offensive. I’ve known Michael for years and admire his dogged monitoring of the forces of evil now arrayed against us. He’s particularly sharp on the mullahs who control Iran. As the appeasement brigade gathers strength, and as they use classic tactics of distraction, delay and diversion to derail the war, this book couldn’t be more timely. Michael introduces it on the site today. We’ll start the debate September 23. You can buy the book here and also help to support the site.
THE DIFFERENCE: One society guns down “collaborators” on the street. The other wrings its hands about civilian deaths in the war on terror. It doesn’t get much starker than this, does it? (D’Oh! Oxblog just beat me to the punch on this.)
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: “The truly and deliberately evil men are a very small minority; it is the appeaser who unleashes them on mankind; it is the appeaser’s intellectual abdication that invites them to take over. When a culture’s dominant trend is geared to irrationality, the thugs win over the appeasers. When intellectual leaders fail to foster the best in the mixed, unformed, vacillating character of people at large, the thugs are sure to bring out the worst. When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes.” – Ayn Rand, The Objectivist, “Altruism as Appeasement,” January 1966.
HARD ROCK AND THE LEFT: Why the hostility?, asks blogger Andrew Ian Dodge.
THE FIRST: Two guys get wed. In time, this story will be boring. But not yet.
THAT SOUTH AFRICAN MARCH: There it was on the front page of Sunday’s New York Times. The Times’ caption read as follows: “MARCH ON POVERTY: Protestors demonstrated in South Africa’s Alexandra township yesterday before a United nations meeting on development. The marchers seek help for the poor and criticized president Bush for not attending.” My suspicions were raised simkply by looking at the picture itself. “Israel Is A Rogue State,” says one banner, urging “help for the poor.” “Israel, USA, UK: The Toxic Axis.” “Ariel Sharon: the War Criminal,” is another legible banner. The Times’ report cites the presence of some Palestinians opposed to Irsale’s policies, but leaves the seamier side of the march untouched. Here’s another report from a more local source. According to South Africa’s Independent , “Muslim protesters under the banner of the Palestinian Solidarity Committee made up a major block at the rear of the civil society march that began at Alexandra Stadium, north of the city. Among the chants of “Free, free Palestine” there were also shouts of “Viva bin Laden” and “Phanzi (down with) George Bush”. One man wore a T-shirt saying ‘Long live Osama bin Laden’.” I wonder how the New York Times missed that part of the march. (Just kidding).
BUSH’S CORPORATE PROBLEM: It seems to me that he does have one. The awful steel tariff decision, the cosiness with energy companies, the comfort with corporate welfare, and so on, need, in my view, to be tempered with a far more aggressive attempt to exapnd free trade, cut corporate subsidies, tackle agricultural welfare and lower taxes for more middle- and working-class Americans. Do I sound like Paul Krugman? I hope not. With any luck, I sound like James Surowiecki, the excellent economics writer for the New Yorker. Check out this column if you want to appreciate an argument made well for being made without all the extremist, pa
ranoid rhetoric of, say, the economics columnist for the New York Times.
RAINES VINDICATION: I was worried that, while I was lazing through the dog-days of August, no-one would monitor Howell Raines’ continued abuse of the New York Times’ erstwhile reputation as the paper of record. How wrong I was. The number of Times critics seemed to balloon in August, after a particularly unhinged series of slanted non-stories against the administration. From Will to Kaus to Krauthammer to Gigot to Kurtz and then even to lefties, Cynthia Cotts and E.J. Dionne (who both largely support the Times’ new slant), the consensus is overwhelming. The coup de grace was Bill Keller’s memorable admonition of Raines on the Times op-ed page no less! I may be hallucinating but I’ve also noticed a slight amelioration in the last week or so, as I mention in my latest London column. Some Iraq stories even seemed to be attempts to provide real information and analysis, rather than Nation-style propaganda. Has someone had a word with Captain Queeg?
BLOGS WORTH READING : In my break, I found myself able to browse blogs not because I was searching for material but simply for the pleasure of it. I’ve long been hooked on Lileks and Welch. But OxBlog, from my alma mater, is also top notch. Their dissection of a recent thought-free Dowd column was excellent. Geitner Simmons is also a graceful writer and fair thinker who rarely strikes a wrong note. Norah Vincent is finally up and running. Kausfiles just gets better and better. I’m not sure how Paul Krugman can ignore the fact-checking any more, but, hey, it’s Raines’ Times. The facts barely matter. My favorite black lesbian is also now online. Eric “Too Vile Not To Read” Alterman has undoubtedly mastered the formula. Instapundit is right to call him a natural. Brad DeLong gives a pretty good impression of a fair-minded liberal, even though he thinks the New York Times is ideologically neutral. Brink Lindsey is also consistently well-mannered and astute. In fact, I could learn a little from his restraint. John Ellis is always worth a gander (yes, he’s a friend and donor) and Julian Sanchez is a rising star, as are Two Blowhards. Volokh is now an institution. Have I missed anyone? Probably. But it just goes to show that pleasurable and informative surfing is now possible completely outside the established media. Together, these blogs rival any op-ed page in the country. And they’re all free.
SOUTHERN HYPER-LIBS: A reader writes in, following my piece on the New York Times’ evolution under Howell Raines:
You touched briefly on one of the underlying reasons for Raines’ leftist ideological posturing – a guilt ridden southerner who wishes to expunge himself of the original sin of having been born in the South. I note that in recent years the most vehemently liberal journalistic ideologues seem to have been produced in the South. The list of these secular “born-again’s” is quite long and I would like to see a column of yours on the phenomenon of the Southern-born leftists in journalism.
My correspondent mentions Bob Beckel, Paul Begala, Jack Nelson. Molly Ivins also springs to mind, along with Clinton apologist Gene Lyons. It seems to me important to distinguish between genuine Southern liberals, and those who seem to pursue an extremely liberal agenda precisely because they feel the need to credentialize themselves with blue America colleagues. Any further suggestions?
The Dish 