Former Hollinger International CEO Conrad Black leaves court June 18, 2007 in Chicago, Illinois. Closing arguments begin today in the case against Black, who is charged with racketeering, mail and tax fraud, money laundering and obstruction of justice, allegedly committed while he was at the helm of Hollinger. By Scott Olson/Getty Images.
Andy Bacevich calls for an end to a military institution:
The Joint Chiefs of Staff inhabit the seam at which war, statecraft, and domestic politics intersect — an environment saturated with political considerations. Charged with providing professional advice to civilian policymakers, they also represent the institutional interests of the armed services. In pursuit of those interests, the natural tendency of the chiefs is to encroach on territory ostensibly reserved for civilians. Likewise, the tendency of strong-willed civilians — for example, defense secretaries in the mold of Robert McNamara or Donald Rumsfeld — is to encroach on the territory claimed by the generals.
As a consequence, instead of military professionals offering disinterested advice to help policymakers render sound decisions, the history of this civilian-military relationship is one of conniving, double-dealing, and mutual manipulation. As generals increasingly played politics, they forfeited their identity as nonpartisan servants of the state. …
In his own words:
Ross has no problem with Nixon in a pant suit:
I like my liberal Presidents to offer "no big ideas, no crusading causes" – particularly after eight years of George W. Bush, Big Thinker.
Tim at Balloon Juice says Clinton Panic is worse than Bush Derangement Syndrome:
Electing Nixon in a pantsuit sounds pretty scary until you realize that the alternative is Bush in a dress.
That’s Rudy, by the way. If it’s Giuliani vs Clinton next March, Michael Bloomberg will have his fifteen minutes. Three New Yorkers for president? It could happen, I guess. I’d pick Bloomberg over the others.
Not an auspicious sign.
Nanny-liberalism finds a new frontier in Belmont, California: "You Agree to Stop Smoking, and We Agree Not to Fine You." Jacob Sullum reports.
He seems to think it could have been an "inside job":
I don’t think the official investigations have told us the complete truth. They haven’t even told us half the truth.
He can’t help himself. There’s video!
Many bloggers are crying foul at Ezra Klein’s recent screed against liberal interventionists. Kevin Sullivan tees off:
I think the progressive isolationist has in fact created a convenient strawman of their own. By bemoaning the "war narrative" of the "liberal hawks" and the "Neo-cons," they can dismiss any and all arguments made in favor of taking a tough stance with Iran. If it’s a "war narrative," rather than a diplomatic use of leverage against a very real enemy, well than all talk is suspect. Invading Iraq is hawkish. Staying in Iraq is hawkish. Talking tough to a totalitarian (and he is a totalitarian, Ezra) becomes the same as President Bush mismanaging the war in Iraq. It becomes the same as failing to capture Osama Bin Laden, or aligning ourselves with obviously dubious regimes like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. To the progressive isolationist, any and all talk involving our military is apparently what distinguishes the "liberal hawk" from just a plain old liberal.
Sullivan’s point is well taken. The policy decisions before us – how to redeploy, regroup or withdraw from Iraq, how to deal with Iran at the same time – are simply different questions than if you supported the Iraq war in the first place or not. Yes, one position affects another. But it does not compel another. It is perfectly conceivable, for example, to hold a liberal position that opposed the Iraq war in the first place, but opposes withdrawal now. (There aren’t many such liberals out there, but it’s a respectable stance.) Of course, if we have learned nothing from occupying a Muslim country for four years, then we’re in trouble. But equally, if we over-learn and get lazy, if our criterion is solely whether Bush supports something or not, or if we simply follow "hawk" or "dove" camps in all instances without discrimination, we’re in worse trouble.
My view of the surge is that it cannot work; and my view of the occupation is that it is now part of the problem, not the solution. But this prudential judgment is logically separate from all the questions surrounding the initial invasion.
Ditto the very tough question of how to tackle Iran. Back to Sullivan’s good sense:
A "liberal hawk" is simply a liberal who understands that fighting a war involves brains and brawn. They understand that you must use the former in order to avoid the latter, and that you must always have a balance of both when dealing with an enemy of the United States. The conservative approach, much like the progressive isolationist’s, seems to be feast or famine. Either you engage enemies with a statist mindset, or you ignore them entirely and pretend they don’t threaten you.
Liberals, such as Senator Kerry, understand that war is often fought over information, ideology and principle. Liberals have almost always understood this. We understood that World War II wasn’t merely against a man in Berlin, but in fact a brutal and twisted Fascist ideology. Liberals understood that the Cold War wasn’t simply a war against Moscow, but a war against a philosophy that ran contrary to liberal democracy.
"Liberal hawks" are liberals that acknowledge the existence of very real enemies in the world, and maintain any and all options in dealing with those enemies. You thank God when you can avoid confrontation, but act swiftly and decisively when left with no other diplomatic options.
The questions before us are bigger and more important than whether you despise the presidency of George W. Bush. Can we all just agree he has failed, and his policy has failed, and go on to decide, solely on the merits of the data in front of us, what to do now?
Bill Roggio reports on the Battle of Baquba. I’ll link to what I can, but from experience, I’ve learned it takes days to get a clear idea of what is going on in the fog of war. We should certainly pray that the push against al Qaeda operatives in Diyala helps, at least, take out a few. I’m not optimistic it can do much more. In a sign of what we’re up against, another gruesome mass murder took place at a Shiite mosque today and the daily numbers of tortured murdered Sunni corpses turning up on the streets of Baghdad seem to be back in the 30s.
(Photo: Smoke billows from the site of an explosion in at a Shiite mosque in central Baghdad, 19 June 2007. At least 75 people were killed when a truck bomb exploded outside the mosque, Iraqi security and hospital officials said. By Sabah Arar/AFP/Getty.)
Chris Kelly investigates:
You know what’s great about Google? You get scared that you’ve opened yourself up to a lawsuit from the Marriott Corporation, so you retype a porn title you’ve copied, but you get it wrong, and Google replies:
Did you mean: interracial facials?
Why did Chris go there?
There are vague grumblings on the right-wing web sites about another Mitt Romney values issue. This one involves his ten years as a board member at Marriott, and how they seem to have made millions of dollars off in-room porn. Millions and millions. And millions.
