We’ve been subject to grim news lately, so forgive me for connecting some positive developments. They’re unrelated on the surface, but I wonder if they are completely unconnected beneath. The first is the president’s attempt to give the Iraq process one more, giant push. He’s been lucky again. The coincidence (and I presume it is) of Zarqawi’s death, the formation of an Iraqi government, the scheduled review of Iraq policy, and Bush’s visit to Baghdad yesterday has been a real morale boost for the war. And morale matters. Part of what we’re fighting is the sense that this really is hopeless, and there are two publics for which that could be fatal: Americans and Iraqis. I have my doubts about whether the long harder slog is going to become much easier in the future, but the president has rightly thrown his full political weight behind the endeavor. He has little alternative. But his somewhat detached attitude of last year has mercifully disappeared.
Then we have news that the Pentagon may retreat from its intent to wriggle out of the McCain Amendment by including separate interrogation techniques in a classified annex to the Army Field Manual. The three key senators in this entire debate have been McCain, Graham and Warner. All three seem to have been able to win the argument – so far – against Cheney and Rumsfeld. Money quote:
Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham said having two sets of interrogation techniques would violate the legislation that Mr. McCain sponsored and that was enacted last December to bar cruel and inhumane treatment of American detainees. The measure requires that only interrogation techniques authorized by the new Army field manual be used on prisoners.
In addition to the lawmakers’ complaints, some senior generals also objected. At a recent meeting of the nation’s top worldwide commanders, Gen. John P. Abizaid, the head of the Central Command, and Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said the new interrogation techniques had to be clear and unambiguous "so our corporals in the field can understand them," said a military officer briefed on the remarks.
Then we have an interesting election for president of the Southern Baptist Convention. Readers may know more about the back-story (and I’d be eager to find out more), but Frank S. Page strikes me as a bit of a change. There was a real, contested election, and Page cut a slightly different figure than his rivals or predecessor:
Page said although his election did not mean that the church was moderating, it certainly meant that change was in the wind. "I believe in the Word of God," he said. "I am just not mad about it. Too long Baptists have been known for what we are against. Please let us tell you what we are for."
A little less Christianism and a little more Christianity? Here’s hoping.
(Photo: Brooks Kraft for Time.)
The Dish 