Month: November 2003

A timely reminder from a while back:

The war in the Persian Gulf could end within weeks, but what if it drags on? Many people assume that a protracted war will deepen the current recession, delaying the US recovery from late 1991 to mid-1992 and raising the peak unemployment rate from 7.5 per cent to as much as 9 per cent.
The lesson of history, however, is that wars cause booms not recessions.
Every US war in this century has been associated with rapid growth and falling unemployment.
The economic costs of war – primarily inflation – came after the peace treaties. Military conflict is awful, but it need not result in economic disaster.

Who produced this gem of politico-economic insight? Step forward … Paul Krugman, long-running prophet of wartime economic collapse. (The column ran in the Sunday Herald, February 3, 1991.) Maybe he’ll explain in a future column how things have changed in a decade.

How much money did Rahm Emmanuel make in the brief interlude between being a Clinton hack and a Congressman? In thirty months, $16.5 million. In an investment bank. For deals involving people he’d previously had political contact with. All legal. All familiar. But please tell him to shut up when he starts grandstanding about the corruption of “crony capitalism.” He was a crony. He’s now a capitalist.

Bush was dumb to have put that banner up (and dumber to say it had nothing to do with him). But if he was wrong, how wrong was Madeleine Albright, who trumpeted “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq in … 1998!

Just read the following paragraph:

Democratic strategists have blamed the Massachusetts senator more than his campaign, saying he is known to be a candidate who doesn’t take advice well or likes to split his staff into competing camps. Indeed, his presidential campaign is layered with high-priced advisers, some of whom have duplicative roles and are roughly divided into two factions: those based in Washington, where Kerry has been a senator for 18 years, and others from his home town of Boston.

If this is how he runs a campaign, how would he run an administration?

Here’s an important change in the conduct of the war. For the first time, Islamist terrorists – both in Iraq, in league with Baathists and now, in Saudi Arabia – are clearly targeting Arabs and fellow Muslims. Strictly speaking, this isn’t the first time, of course. Al Qaeda and the Egyptian Brotherhood, from whose lineage they spring, have killed heretical or wayward Muslims before. But in the context of the West’s declared war on them, this strikes me as a new and fundamental error on their part. Maybe it’s because our success at knocking al Qaeda off-stride means they have no option but to hit soft targets in the Muslim world, rather than hard targets over here. Maybe the pressure on them in Iraq is now forcing them to display some kind of “success,” even if it means murdering Muslim women and children. But whatever the reason, this is a propaganda coup for the good guys:

The tactic will not only backfire on al-Qa’eda, say security officials, but will help the intelligence services gain support in a conservative society where tribal taboos prevents people from informing on other clan members. In slaughtering women and children, the terrorists broke the code that binds tribal Muslims, handing police a unique opportunity to infiltrate the dozens of terrorist cells in Saudi Arabia, where al-Qa’eda gains much financial and ideological support. Information from tribal leaders and the public on terrorist activities soared following last May’s attacks on western compounds in Riyadh, enabling police to smash a huge number of cells and arrest more than 600 suspects in the past six months.

We’re at the very beginning of change, but there’s no reason that the Arab and Muslim world cannot wrest itself free from these pathologies in time.

George Soros has very rarely spoken to Jewish groups, but last week broke this rule to speak to a conference of the Jewish Funders Network, a philanthropic group. He shares Paul Krugman’s belief that rising anti-Semitism in Europe and Asia is in part the fault of the Bush administration, but Soros goes further and argues that, in fact, it’s also, in part, the fault of Jews:

When asked about anti-Semitism in Europe, Soros, who is Jewish, said European anti-Semitism is the result of the policies of Israel and the United States. “There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that,” Soros said. “It’s not specifically anti-Semitism, but it does manifest itself in anti-Semitism as well. I’m critical of those policies.” “If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish,” he said. “I can’t see how one could confront it directly.”

Refreshingly frank, I guess. Soros even blames himself for contributing to anti-Semitism by being a wealthy, er, Jew, who makes money on the currency markets, among other things:

The billionaire financier said he, too, bears some responsibility for the new anti-Semitism, citing last month’s speech by Malaysia’s outgoing prime minister, Mahathir Mohammad, who said, “Jews rule the world by proxy.” “I’m also very concerned about my own role because the new anti-Semitism holds that the Jews rule the world,” said Soros, whose projects and funding have influenced governments and promoted various political causes around the world. “As an unintended consequence of my actions,” he said, “I also contribute to that image.”

So wealthy Jews are somehow responsible because others observe their wealth and invent crack-pot notions of Jews ruling the world? Huh? Anti-semitism doesn’t fester in every climate. But it does particularly well when it is excused, rationalized or appeased. It seems to me that this is what George Soros has just done – and it’s the only thing for which he should feel in any way responsible.

They’re investigating how Arafat funds terror. I’m in shock.

ANOTHER IRAQI BLOGGER: They’re springing up all over. This new one writes:

Many people ask whether we have heard the President’s speech. Yes we have. Immediately the Chorus of AlJazeera, Al Arabiya, etc. and amazingly, CNN, BBC etc, started their spoiling, doubt-sewing, bitchy insinuations, interviewing this character from Egypt and that “analyst ” from Syria etc. (seldom is an Iraqi asked, or if they find one, a well known former close associate of the Saddam regime or someone like that). Pretending to be objective, pretending to be “balanced”, they try their best to kill the joy that the shining reassuring words bring to our frightened hearts.

I know how you feel, buddy. But just remember what the president said. In a couple decades’ time, maybe everyone will. One thing the blogger gets right: “American public opinion is a matter of life and death to us here, at this particular time.” That’s why some of us are still fighting in a different and far safer way over here as well.

BLOG FOR CHARITY: John Scalzi has a favor to ask of you.

I think her argument that the administration predicted an easy post-war comes down to this interview with the vice-president, Dick Cheney:

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.

Notice that this is all about the war itself, not the post-war, which was clearly the context for Dowd’s comments. Notice also that Cheney was right about almost all of this. Russert’s question was about the fear that we would be bogged down in Baghdad, unable to topple Saddam, and losing what was predicted as several thousand troops. None of that happened. Both the regular army and the Republican Guard melted away. We were greeted as liberators in many parts of Iraq, especially the Shiite South and Kurdish North. Now add to this all the statements I have cited where the president specifically and categorically warned about the difficulties of post-war occupation, and Dowd’s claim that the administration said the whole post-war would be “easy” seems to me to be, er, unfounded.

MAXIMA CULPA: Jack Shafer reports on my challenging Stephen Glass on what appears to be his bogus contrition last Friday. Everyone deserves a second chance. But Glass hasn’t even done the bare minimum to win back trust. Donating the proceeds of his first novel, which exploited his perfidy for profit, would be a start.

BONUS MODO-BASHING ITEM! You’re all aware of Ms Dowd’s take on the current administration’s policy toward Saddam: it’s all a function of their testosterone/delusions of grandeur/stupidity/mobsterism/small penises/imperial dreams … well, you know the score by now. Yesterday, this was her analysis:

Mr. Rumsfeld thought the war could showcase his transformation of the military to be leaner and more agile. Paul Wolfowitz thought the war could showcase his transformation of Iraq into a democracy. Dick Cheney thought the war could showcase his transformation of America into a dominatrix superpower. Karl Rove thought the war could showcase his transformation of W. into conquering hero. And Mr. Bush thought the war could showcase his transformation from family black sheep into historic white hat.

None of it could conceivably be because they actually viewed Saddam as a threat, or even because Saddam was a threat, could it? So it’s helpful to remember Dowd’s response to the threat of WMDs from Saddam when Clinton was in power. Here’s a column written six years ago this month. Guess what her concern was? That the Clinton administration was too weak to deal with a strongman like Saddam! A trip down memory lane:

Suddenly there are fears about Iraqi crop dusters spraying death on the Mall, about the nation’s capital being another Nagasaki… Having covered President Bush’s efforts to demonize the Iraqis, I understood the motive behind Secretary Cohen’s alarmist performance art. We are talking about a world-class monster who strangles people with his bare hands, gasses entire villages, assassinates members of his family and uses babies as shields. Wondering if the Clinton crowd has the spine for its first big crisis is giving me a bad case of the jits. The suspicion lingers about these alumni of make-love-not-war that they are not entirely comfortable with things military … Even with George Bush’s sometimes scattered style and Colin Powell’s inhibition about the use of force, the Bush-Baker-Cheney-Powell-Schwarzkopf team still gave the impression of command … I want Madeleine Albright, the most virile of the lot, to stop wearing picture hats around the Mideast. Saddam Hussein is not threatening Ascot. I fret that toothy Tony Blair is no Iron Lady.

And on and on. All this reveals is that it’s a little futile attempting to criticize Maureen Dowd. She’ll write anything that comes into her head at the moment. There’s no argument, no thread of consistency that I can glean from one moment to the next. If the Clintonites are in power, they’re wimps in the face of Saddam’s threat; if the Bushies are in power, they’re testosterone-crazed imperialists, hyping Saddam’s threat. We should confront/appease Saddam right now/never, because the threat is real/bogus, imminent/non-existent and we have to do something/hang loose before all hell lets loose/or I get off deadline. But my favorite part of the column is the opener:

I was peaceably eating my penne at lunch the other day when my friend, another reporter, told me he thought Washington was in imminent danger of being gassed, germed, VX’ed or anthraxed.

Yes, imminent! Bush may never have said it. Rummy may never have believed it. But Ms Dowd wrote it six years ago – and now blames the Bushies for allegedly agreeing with her.

Desperate to prove the notion that the administration did too call the threat from Saddam “imminent,” Josh Marshall, becoming ever more stridently anti-Bush, came up with a contest. He asked his readers to send in the best administration “imminent threat” quote. Well, you can judge for yourself. But, to my mind, he comes up completely empty. No administration official used that term. None. The best Marshall can come up with are reporters’ off-the-cuff formulations in questions to Ari Fleischer which evinced the response “yes.” He links to Rumsfeld testimony in which the secretary of defense specifically spells out the core of the administration’s case:

So we are on notice: An attack very likely will be attempted. The only question is when, and by what technique. It could be months; it could be a year; it could be years. But it will happen, and each of us need to pause and think about that. If the worst were to happen, not one of us here today would be able to honestly say that it was a surprise, because it will not be a surprise.

So we have no administration reference to an “imminent threat” and a chief spokesman saying that the threat could be as much as years away and, at the least, months. We have the president himself saying explicitly that “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late.”

THE DEEPER ISSUE: We can fight over words in this way, but the fundamental reality also undermines Marshall’s case. The point about 9/11 is that it showed that we were in a new world where we could be attacked by shadowy groups with little warning. The point about Saddam is that he was a sworn enemy of the U.S., had been known to develop an arsenal of WMDs, was in a position to arm terrorists in a devastating way, and any president had to weigh the risk of him staying in power in that new climate. The actual threat hangs over us all the time. It is unlike previous threats from foreign powers. It is accountable to no rules and no ethics. We know it will give us no formal warning. But we cannot know it is “imminent”. If we had such proof – that the U.S. was under an imminent threat of attack – there would have been no debate at all. Of course a country has the right to defend itself when it is faced with an imminent threat. The debate is over how seriously to take the threat we now face. The strongest argument of the anti-war crowd is that we now know that the WMD threat from Saddam was much less than almost everyone (including most of them) believed. They’re right – at least from the evidence so far. But that doesn’t resolve the question of what we should have done before the war, when we had limited knowledge and information. Josh implies we should have risked it, and kept Saddam in power, with fingers crossed. But then Josh wasn’t president. He wasn’t responsible for guessing wrong. The question we have to answer is a relatively simple one: do we want a president who will veer on the optimistic side when it comes to Islamist terror, or do we want a president that will veer on the side of caution and aggression? Do we want one who will hope for the best or one who will act, assuming the worst? I thought 9/11 ended that debate. It clearly hasn’t. But it’s the central debate of the coming election.

This non-story story is getting weirder and weirder. On Thursday, the Prince of Wales’ office put out a statement denying as completely untrue an allegation that no-one in Britain or the U.S. has yet published. This might be a first. The idea that you quash a rumor that no one has yet published by publicly referring to it is not exactly a brilliant P.R. initiative. If you’re also the heir to the British throne, it guarantees putting the story on the front pages. The allegation of a witnessed “incident” between Charles and another man which the Guardian elegantly refers to as “not a boating accident” may well be completely untrue. But it is now a story, with details in the European press and even – for twenty minutes or so – in the New York Times. I can’t help but concur with the Guardian:

[Y]ou would need a heart of stone not to feel some sympathy for the House of Windsor at the end of such a week. The pay’s good, the hours are hardly onerous and the perks – free travel, lavish accommodation and hot and cold running servants – are to die for. But the near daily humiliations involved in being a Windsor at the start of the 21st century must surely be starting to outweigh the purely material benefits of the royal life.

Poor Charles. The days when monarchs got their heads chopped off are beginning to seem preferable to today’s privacy-free Internet sewer.