Category: The Dish

Another Petraeus graph: showing again that the "surge," the Anbar tribe turn-around and the decision of Shiite militias to hold back while Maliki consolidates Shiite power have reduced the energy of the insurgency to levels of … eighteen months ago. I don’t see this as an end to the civil war, just an abatement. If you were worried about the insurgency in 2004, three years later, it is far, far stronger – and the political center has collapsed entirely. The tactical gains of the surge seem to have prevented a slide into an abyss – but not much more can be said at this point. And the announced aim of the surge – political reconciliation – has failed.

Here’s an intriguing new study of the neuronal impulses of self-described "liberals" and "conservatives":

New York University political scientist David Amodio and colleagues decided to find out if the brains of liberals and conservatives reacted differently to the same stimuli. A group of 43 right-handed subjects were asked to perform a series of computer tests designed to evaluate their unrehearsed response to cues urging them to break a well-established routine. "People often drive home from work on the same route, day after day, such that it becomes habitual and doesn’t involve much thinking," Amodio explained by way of comparison in an e-mail.

"But occasionally there is road work, or perhaps an animal crosses the road, and you need to break out of your habitual response in order to deal with this new information."

Using electroencephalographs, which measure neuronal impulses, the researchers examined activity in a part of the brain — the anterior cingulate cortex — that is strongly linked with the self-regulatory process of conflict monitoring.

The match-up was unmistakable: respondents who had described themselves as liberals showed "significantly greater conflict-related neural activity" when the hypothetical situation called for an unscheduled break in routine.

Conservatives, however, were less flexible, refusing to deviate from old habits "despite signals that this … should be changed."

And smart conservatives, recognizing their own flaws, can learn from liberal adaptivity.

Reading Petraeus’ letter to the troops, The Daily Bellwether asks:

Could that pose a problem for President Bush if Petraeus is correct and people start asking: Why were things bungled for so long? Where was the leadership in 2004, 2005, 2006? Why were we told things were going well when they obviously were not? Would the war and dying be over if the White House had recognized sooner the Pentagon and Central Command needed competent leaders?

Phil Carter is more circumspect about the import of the letter.

This is his account of civilian deaths in Iraq. Compare it to the independent assessment posted here. The data, at its most positive, suggests that we have reduced the carnage to the levels of early last year, after a huge surge last winter.

Not-so-lovely:

The people I met who were critical of the regime, when asked "Are there many people like you?" answered, "I have no idea."

As you can imagine this makes it extremely difficult to gauge exactly what people think about democracy, freedom and a future coexistence with Israel.

That’s a problem for much of the Arab world, alas.

They are easily among the most positive of Christian denominations: 42 percent in favor, 48 percent against in the new Pew poll (compared with 14 percent in favor and 81 percent against among white evangelicals). While that cannot please the Vatican, it reflects my own experience of tolerance, acceptance and a commitment to social justice in the pews.

[Update: The first version of this post didn’t mention the fact that mainline Protestants are in the same ballpark of tolerance.]

From Lisa DePaolo’s interview with Rumsfeld in GQ:

You still like [Bush]? "I do." You don’t talk, though, right? "Uhhh…I’m trying to think. No." Was the last time you talked to him the day you resigned? He can’t recall. What he does recall is that twice before, at the height of the Abu Ghraib disgrace, he offered to resign. "I wrote a note. The first note basically said, ‘Look, this is a difficult problem for our country, and it happened on my watch, and you have my resignation anytime you feel it would be helpful.’ And then I gave him that, and he rejected it. And then I wrote out a longer resignation, and, uh, resigned as opposed to offering a resignation. And he rejected that."

What does that tell you about him?

Long pause. "I don’t know that I want to go there. That’s none of my business. To analyze…"

A month and a half after our visit, Reuters would break the story that Rumsfeld gave his final (and apparently third) resignation letter to the president the day before the midterm elections, though Bush chose not to announce it until the day after, infuriating many Republicans who felt the election could have been won if Rummy had been sacrificed first. In Taos, I asked him if he considered resigning before the elections.

"Uhhh, no," he replied. "But it was very clear in my mind that if the Democrats won the House or the Senate or both, that it made sense for me to…that it would be best for the department if someone else was there."

So it could have been different for you if the Republicans had won?

"Mmm-hmm."

Think about it. If Americans had taken Bill Kristol’s advice and kept the GOP in power last November, Rumsfeld might very well still be SecDef.

One of the dangers of propaganda:

"The White House’s strategy of portraying ‘the surge’ of troops as a success could have an unintended effect. The poll found that if General Petraeus were to report that the situation in Iraq was improving, 56 percent thought the United States should then decrease or remove all troops, while 38 percent would favor increasing or keeping the number the same. If he reports that the situation is getting worse, the number supporting a reduction or withdrawal drops to 47 percent, with 43 percent favoring staying on."

He should try the truth.

New York, New York, 10 am.

I understand why some disagree with debates focused on one interest group or another. But as a practical matter, the major parties do have to contend with minority voting blocs. It seems to me a sign of considerable vulnerability that the Republicans all refused to debate in front of a gay audience and all but McCain refused to debate for Univision. The signal that the GOP is uninterested in anyone not white is not exactly the way to build a majority party.