Year: 2005

When I linked to the Sunday Times’ latest story on Iraq, about U.S. commanders negotiating with some insurgents, I certainly didn’t mean to imply that I disdain such tactics. It seems to me that one key to defeating the insurgency is to exploit the possibly growing rifts between Iraqi Sunni nationalists and foreign Jihadists. In fact, it’s very hard to see how there can be any end to the insurgency without such a split, without coaxing more Sunnis into the political and constitutional process. Rumsfeld yesterday made the obvious distinction; and a pragmatist will have to concur. As for Rumsfeld’s performances, I didn’t watch, but the transcripts are telling. Rummy’s bottom line: we are not going to defeat the insurgents, we’re leaving that to the Iraqis; the whole battle could take up to twelve years. For one, I’m grateful for this outburst of candor. No more Cheney hallucinations about “last throes.” But, as Adam Sandler might have put it, this is something that could have been brought to our attention, say, two years ago. There’s a real danger in low-balling expectations of costs in a war as a way to start it, and then slowly ratcheting up the sacrifice as we go along. The danger is that people will say they were misled and that public support for the war will crumble. Still, that’s what they’ve done and that’s where we are. Rummy’s honesty is far preferable to Cheney’s unhinged blather. I can only hope the president is as forthright and as sober tomorrow night. But words will not be enough. One way to help rebuild confidence would be to dismiss the architect of the war: Rumsfeld himself. He’s proven himself useless in guaging the necessary troop levels, he has presided over the worst p.r. debacle for the military since My Lai, his recruitment targets aren’t being met and he blames the military for decisions that were and are his to make. I love the man personally. But he’s got to go. It’s very hard to have confidence on our strategy with him still in charge of it. My attempt to assess where we are is posted opposite.

Amir Taheri calls the election of the extreme Islamist, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, nothing less than an earthquake. Reform is dead, it seems. In some ways, this might be clarifying. It may mean that the Europeans give up on the attempt to engage Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions; it may embolden the domestic opposition still further and make some kind of popular revolution more likely. But it also seems that Ahmadinejad has been able to use economic and populist issues to build some kind of base (in an election that was still, of course, a phony one). My own view is that developments in Iran make our success in Iraq all the more essential – if only to act as a democratic pressure point on the theocracy next door.

FREE SPEECH IN BRITAIN: The repulsively illiberal bill designed “to prevent hatred being stirred up against people targeted because of their religious beliefs” is slowly making its way through Parliament. Here’s a detailed account of why it’s misguided.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “let me put this delicately. some in my circles view your blog as giving aid and comfort to terrorists, which, if treasonous, is not protected under the first amendment… at the very least, you could be shut down, and, in the US at least, I trust you know the consequences of treason if determined by a court of law (other countries have no such compunction… in your travels, I suggest you watch your back). you call yourself a patriot. don’t you know we are at war?” – an emailer at Greg Djerejian’s blog, Belgravia Despatch. Greg’s sin is to be pro-war and anti-torture, making him a member of the fledgling “conscience caucus” of pro-war, right-of-center writers who oppose the Bush administration policy of allowing abuse of prisoners if “military necessity” demands it. Greg asks if I get similar emails. Every day, many times a day, usually accompanied by charming references to my sexual orientation. Hey, it’s hot in the kitchen. I’m not complaining. But the ugliness of some of this – egged on by Rove et al, in a desperate attempt to shore up public support for a war they have badly mismanaged – is saddening. By the way, here’s his first stab at a roster of the conscience caucus: Nat Hentoff, John Cole, Greg Djerejian, John Henke, Tacitus, and Jeff Jacoby. Who else?

My attempt to make sense of where we are in Iraq is now posted opposite.

A fascinating account of a new strategy in Iraq.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “The vacuum is being filled by the U.S. Army, which has been building bridges and schools, securing neighborhoods and power plants and, yes, adjudicating claims between Turkomans and Kurds. It is doing these things because someone has to. Secretary Rumsfeld has long argued that American troops should never engage in nation building, leaving that to locals. But while we waited for Iraqis to do it, chaos broke out and terror reigned. So the Army on the ground has ignored Rumsfeld’s ideology and has simply made things work. (It’s a good rule of thumb for the future.)” – Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek. Heh.

A DSM PRIMER: My British employer, the Sunday Times, provides a helpful guide to all the documents it has published, from the Downing Street memos on. The conservative paper editorializes:

Mr Bush should take a leaf out of his predecessor Franklin D Roosevelt’s book. On February 23, 1942, FDR told his countrymen: “Your government has unmistakable confidence in your ability to hear the worst, without flinching or losing heart. You must, in turn, have complete confidence that your government is keeping nothing from you except information that will help the enemy in his attempt to destroy us.”

Bush, sadly, is no FDR.

ROMENESKO’S BIAS: I don’t begrudge anyone making a good salary from blogging. Good for Jim Romenesko for getting the Poynter Institute to give him a great salary. He’s brought so much attention to Poynter that he deserves every cent. But he is a highly biased, left-wing blogger, who rarely links to blogs who provide media criticism from the right, and omits stories that the left doesn’t like. Again: fair’s fair, and he can blog as he wishes. His journalistic audience is skewed very left, so he’s giving them what they want. But anyone, including Jack Shafer, who thinks this guy’s neutral, is dreaming.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “It seems to me that so much of the political divide boils down to the issue of American exceptionalism. The dominant conservatives have blind faith in American exceptionalism (more and more fueled by religious faith) and have no reservations about the use of American power. The most vociferous liberals categorically reject American exceptionalism and any use of American power (internationally). Independents (as well as independent thinking liberals and conservatives) seem to be tolerate simultaneously seeing that America is great, we do have special role in the world, and that we are capable of intentional and unintentional bad acts. We therefore see the use of American power as sometimes appropriate but approach it cautiously. Too bad that, in the current climate, any politician capable of independent thought gets eviscerated and “disciplined” by their own party.”

I guess some might call me an Independent, in as much as I’ve backed Democrats and Republicans in the past. Backing Reagan and the two Bushes as well as Kerry and Clinton puts me somewhere in the center, I suppose. I’m more of a conservative of doubt in my own mind. Whatever. This new poll contains something interesting to me:

Among Republicans (36% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 84% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 12% disapprove. Among Democrats (38% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 18% approve and 77% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among Independents (26% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 17% approve and 75% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.

The disapproval levels of Independents and Democrats are now indistinguishable, but the Republican bloc is solid. This strikes me as a direct result of the Rove strategy of brutal partisanship, Christianist pandering, and general fiscal and military fecklessness. Some readers have said that my criticism of the administration makes me sound like a liberal these days. Well, from these results, I’m not the only one being pushed by right-wing extremism into opposition.

He went into he Lion’s Den and told the European parliament that the continent had to liberalize its economy, reduce its absurd agricultural subsidies and reform itself to become more democratic. And guess what? Many agreed. Is the tide turning? Money quote:

Italian politicians hailed Tony Blair’s vision of Europe, and declared that a new ‘Rome-London axis’ would provide the driving force of the new EU, replacing the exhausted Franco-German motor. Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, said last night: ‘Europe must reform, as Prime Minister Blair says, and I am in total accord with him.’ Piero Fassino, leader of the Democrats of the Left, the main opposition party, said that Mr Blair was charting the way for Europe. Antonio Polito, editor of the left-wing review Reformista, said: ‘The European Left must understand that it cannot remain attached forever to the Franco-German idea.’
Most worryingly for President Chirac and Herr Schröder is that their own countries’ newspapers fell under Mr Blair’s spell. The left-wing French newspaper Libération declared in its headline: ‘Blair’s new deal for Europe.’ Its veteran Brussels correspondent, Jean Quatremer, said: ‘For a long time, we have been talking about the French social model, as opposed to the horrible Anglo-Saxon model, but we now see that it is our model that is a horror.’ The country’s most influential newspaper, Le Monde, backed Mr Blair’s demand for a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), calling for the partial ‘renationalisation’ of farm aid so that EU countries pay part of the subsidies themselves. The paper declared that the only way to find the funds needed for EU research and technology was to cut spending on agriculture.

My admiration for Blair grows. He’s the best Tory prime minister currently available. Maybe he’s on the verge of becoming a Tory EU president. Here’s hoping.

Mystery pollster went back and looked at the polling data on how self-described “liberals” responded to 9/11. Bottom line:

Two weeks after the attacks, 84% of self-described liberals supported “military action” against the terrorists and 75% supported “going to war with a nation that is harboring those responsible.”

What a bunch of wimps and traitors. Of course, the Bush-Rove strategy of dividing the homeland while at war for partisan purposes has turned this around somewhat. The hard left’s vileness and stupidity did the rest.

“Liberalism triumphed yesterday. Government became radically unlimited in seizing the very kinds of private property that should guarantee individuals a sphere of autonomy against government. Conservatives should be reminded to be careful what they wish for. Their often-reflexive rhetoric praises “judicial restraint” and deference to — it sometimes seems — almost unleashable powers of the elected branches of governments. However, in the debate about the proper role of the judiciary in American democracy, conservatives who dogmatically preach a populist creed of deference to majoritarianism will thereby abandon, or at least radically restrict, the judiciary’s indispensable role in limiting government.” – George F. Will, today. Like Will, I favor a judiciary that keeps itself in check. But I do not favor – and I don’t believe conservatives should favor – a supine judiciary when it comes to individual liberty and equality. The courts are there for a reason. And sometimes when they strike down majority or legislative decisions, they are absolutely right to do so.

I’m not permitted to mention her actual age (it’s a landmark day), but I owe so much to her. She was never able to go to college because her family needed her to work for a living; but she made it part of her life’s work to make sure I got a better chance. She made sacrifices that I only later appreciated, gave me the confidence to reach for the stars, and nurtured the faith that still nourishes my soul. She’s my heroine in so many ways. So happy birthday, mum.