General Raymond Odierno returned to the attack at a briefing in Washington: up to one-fifth of American combat troops may stay in Iraqi cities beyond the 30 June deadline.
Obama will make another general appeal for “engagement”, then have meetings and photo opportunities with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.
On Thursday I appeared, with Richard Millett of IsraelConnect, on Press TV’s
Four Corners to discuss the United Nations Board of Inquiry report on the deaths of Gazan civilians in the recent Israeli military operations.
Fortunately, our alert homeland security forces were able to stop Hernando Calvo Ospina, a Colombian writer corrupted by his residency in France, before he could strike us with biting sarcasm or villainous irony.
8 May 2009
Afghanistan-Pakistan Special plus...Clinton for the Supreme Court?
T
oday
on
Enduring America
If you want significance, it came not in Washington but back in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Here are the articles that mattered: “Civilian Deaths Imperil Support for Afghan War“, “In Pakistan, ‘Great Rage, Great Fear’“, and, this morning, “Afghans Protest over Farah Deaths“.
The “collateral damage” — not to the innocent but to the US military — must be limited.
This was far from being an urgent meeting to discuss ways to prevent the end of civilization as we know it. It has been all about the meticulous rebranding of the Pentagon’s “Long War”.
It’s worth stopping to consider what the “military solution” has been looking like recently in this region of the world.
If there were impeachment proceedings before the Supreme Court, he would be in a position of experience to lead.
Stephen Colbert: “President Raccoon had a magic letter, so it was not a violation of Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions”
Hamas Talks, Afghanistan-Pakistan Politics,
and The Legacy of Ronald Reagan
T
oday
on
Enduring America
The Lebanese broadcaster Al Manar is reporting
that Hamas has passed a message to the Obama Administration
through an European official.
United Nations Report: Israel Deliberately Fired on Gaza
Schools/Shelters
I’m not sure how many folks are still paying
attention — the Gaza War is so yesterday — but a United Nations
Board of Inquiry has found that the Israeli military
deliberately fired on UN schools, which were being used as
civilian shelters, during the conflict.
Video and Transcript: Obama Remarks After Meeting Afghanistan’s
Karzai and Pakistan’s Zardari (6 May)
Obama's message: "OK, boys, we’re not going to
push you out of office, but you best be co-operating with us
now."
Tuesday’s Mass Killing in Afghanistan: US Military Begins The
Lying
This is already a glaring example of how the
Obama policy in Afghanistan will be undone not only by US
military action, but by the attempts to cover up the
consequences of those actions.
Transcript: Pakistani President Zardari Gets Schooled by CNN (5
May)
Josh Mull: "Zardari is…trying to remain calm
and classy while the anchors explain to him how his country
works"
Economic Crisis: The World Bank Turns Into The World’s Good Guys
Will the descendants of today's
'conscientious' problem-solving guys will have enough concern
and courage to criticize the cyclical dynamics of global
capitalism when, after an upturn, there is again the possibility
of maximising profits?
Our partner, The Journal of American Studies,
has posted a challenging roundtable on Melvyn Leffler’s recent
book, For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet
Union, and the Cold War: "Were or were not leaders decisive?”
Republican Street Fight: Mitt Romney Runs from Bears, Ronald
Reagan, Sarah Palin
2008 GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney
got a bit lippy about Sarah Palin’s recent appearance on
Time magazine’s list of most influential people: “”Was that
the issue on the most beautiful people or the most influential
people?”
Devoted Palinists, rather than taking the
“most beautiful” compliment, hit back.
6 May 2009
US Shift on Israel-Syria?; Bringing Jesus to Afghanistan
Today
on
Enduring America
In the span of 24 hours, the Obama
Administration went from demanding dual peace tracks between
Israel and the Palestinian Authority and between Israel and
Syria to a simple acceptance of the Israeli line on Syrian
control of the Golan Heights as a security threat.
Or maybe not.
Biden's most challenging statement was a call
on Israel to freeze settlement expansion and grant greater
freedom of movement to Palestinians as a means of
demonstrating Israel’s commitment to Palestinian statehood:
“Show me.”
Nothing stunning in the talk, but a confident
and lucid Karzai emphasised Afghan advances in social
services and political development. Doing so, he set up a
powerful counter-narrative to the charges that he and his
advisors are corrupt and ineffective leaders.
Head US Military
Chaplain: "We do the same things as Christians, we hunt
people for Jesus. We do, we hunt them down. Get the hound of
heaven after them, so we get them into the kingdom."
Noah Pollak on the blog of Commentary
magazine: “The current chaos could provide a pretext for a
U.S. operation to seize or destroy the Pakistani arsenal.”
5 May 2009
Karzai Out-Manoeuvres the US, Netanyahu
Makes a Move,
Mullen Pushes on Pakistan
Today
on
Enduring America
Somewhere there are cats marvelling at the lives
of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai.
Mullen’s immediate purpose was to push both
countries as the priority for American foreign and military
policy: while the US “remain committed to the mission we’ve been
given in Iraq”, it had now been overtaken by crises which left
him “gravely concerned”: “This isn’t about can-do anymore, this
is about must-do.”
The six-minute presentation was a far-from-subtle
pitch to identify Tehran as Public Enemy Number One, linking it
to both Fascism and Soviet Communism.
The case of Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi,
jailed in Iran for eight years on charges of espionage, may be moving to
a legal and diplomatic conclusion.
A tongue-in-cheek look at the hysteria around concert
pianist Krystian Zimerman's criticism of US military policies.
4 May 2009
Violence, Politics, and Anti-American
Alerts
Today
on
Enduring America
More on “Bye, Bye Zardari”, Hello Pakistan Military
Video and Transcript: Secretary of Defense Gates on CNN
(3 May)
Iraq: The “Semi-Peace” Gets More Violent, the US Becomes
Less Relevant
Meanwhile in Iraq: Iran Looks for a Border Settlement
Anti-American Euro-Weenie Alert: Polish Piano Player
Really Mad at US
3 May 2009
Tremors from Pakistan, Israel, and Palestine
T
oday
on
Enduring America
What is significant in the latest report is the open
backing of Obama officials of Nawaz Sharif, Zardari's long-time rival.
A United Nations report, released Friday, has found that
up to 60,000 Palestinians are at risk of eviction in East Jerusalem.
Aerial weapons manufacturer Rafael: “Together, forever, I
will hold you in my heart. Together, forever, we will never be apart.”
2 May 2009
George Lipsitz, Clinton's Warnings, and US-Russian Strains
T
oday
on
Enduring America
On Friday, it was “get tough” Hillary, strapping on
her shoulder pads for a contest with Beijing and Tehran in Latin
America.
NATO expelled two top Russian diplomats after
accusing them of spying and Russia signed a treaty strengthening its
ties with the separatist regions at the center of the controversial
war. Are Russia’s relations with the West doomed to fail?
With a last-minute assist from Winnie the Pooh’s
intervention on Swine Flu, Enduring America has set a
monthly record for pageviews.
“Swine Flu? Man, I ain’t gonna let it catch me!”
1 May 2009
Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates on US Foreign Policy
T
oday
on
Enduring America
Quick question: which of these three — President of
Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari, President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai
(pictured), or former President of the West Bank Mahmoud Abbas — should
be feeling most secure this morning about support from Washington?
Gates’ statement is a clear indication that, for the
foreseeable future, the Obama Administration is committed to an
“engagement” to get a resolution: Iran renounces any intention of
pursuing nuclear weapons, the US eases economic sanctions, and the two
countries co-operate in some areas and reduce their conflict in others.
“The president instructed us that nothing we would do
would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations under the
Convention Against Torture….And so by definition, if it was authorized
by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the
Convention Against Torture.”
Here is today’s Palinism: “We still have no reported
cases of swine flu.”
30 April 2009
Obama's Press Conference Special plus Specter and Swine Flu
T
oday
on
Enduring America
The President's messages: Waterboarding is Torture,
Pakistani President Zardari is disposable, the Pakistani military is
not.
A new advertising pin-up for "opposite marriage"....
When all else fails in the face of farce and farcical
fear, turn to The Daily Show for the way forward on swine flu,
“last on the list of things that can kill you in Mexico”.
Michelle Malkin is sure that the cause is “uncontrolled
immigration”, but it’s radio talk-show host Michael Savage who puts the
vital question, “Could this be a terrorist attack through Mexico? Could
our dear friends in the radical Islamic countries have concocted this
virus and planted it in Mexico?”
29 April 2009
Obama So Far, Torture, and Swine Flu
T
oday
on
Enduring America
Scott Lucas on BBC Radio: How Is Obama Doing?
Gaza: Where’s the Reconstruction Money?
Video: US Public Diplomacy, Elizabeth Cheney, and the
Denial of Torture
Flashback: The Bush Administration Knew It was Torture
How Swine Flu Started: Nationalised Medicine, Poor
People, Democrats
28 April 2009
Why Torture Matters plus
"Security" in Egypt, Iran, and the US
T
oday
on
Enduring America
"
Any attempt to pretend that we can just whisk away torture as a silly
little aberration, is a disgrace to those of us who believe that
“America” should stand for something beyond the expedient and the
power-hungry."
We still believe that. So today
Enduring America features
three opinion pieces and analyses — by Frank Rich of
The New York Times
and by historians Mark Danner and Andy Worthington, that offer both
answers and reasons why we should never forget.
Andy Worthington: "It remains to be seen whether the
Obama administration is committed to abiding by the laws that President
Obama praised so lavishly during his election campaign, or whether,
instead, he and his administration are committed to reading from a
different book: How to Torture With Impunity And Get Away With It, by
former Vice President Dick Cheney and an array of associates, all
intoxicated with the thrill of unfettered executive power, which
concludes by claiming that you get away with breaking any damn law that
you please, so long as you’re voted out of office at the end."
Mark Danner: "The first paradox of the torture scandal is
that it is not about things we didn’t know but about things we did know
and did nothing about."
Frank Rich: "We don’t need another commission. We don’t
need any Capitol Hill witch hunts. What we must have are fair trials
that at long last uphold and reclaim our nation’s commitment to the rule
of law."
Global
Post:
"It
only
takes
spending
a
couple
of
hours
in
Egypt
to
discover
that
the
entire
structure
of
the
Egyptian
state
is
centered
around
the
security
apparatus."
This
week
Javed
Iqbal,
a
Pakistani
citizen
and
US
resident,
was
jailed
for
six
years
for
carrying
the
broadcasts
of
al-Manar,
the
television
channel
affiliated
with
the
Lebanese
political
movement
Hezbollah.
Last
October,
California
State
University
graduate
student
Esha
Momeni
was
detained
in
Tehran’s
Evin
Prison.
Momeni,
an
Iranian-American
dual
national,
was
researching
her
thesis
on
the
women’s
rights
movement
in
Iran
when
she
was
picked
up
by
the
authorities.
27 April 2009
Ahmadinejad's Weekend Interview with US Television
T
oday
on
Enduring America
Ahmadinejad’s most important message was: You can’t keep us out of the Middle East. And, indeed, if the US makes little progress before July — whether or not he still is President of Iran — he might be right.
When one is young and the world still resembles an oyster, when total reality has yet to hit, when annual sunshine — give or take a hurricane or two — is the staple diet, maybe the bubble that is Miami Beach is not so bad.
26 April 2009
Hillary in Baghdad; Lucas on Iran/Israel; Waterboarding for
Charity
T
oday
on
Enduring America
"[The latest attacks] do not reflect any diversion from the security progress that has been made."
The Israeli threat is best seen as a political manoeuvre to get Washington to break off engagement with Iran (and to stall on any negotiations over a Palestinian state).
GRODIN: Would you consent to being waterboarded?
HANNITY: Yeah. Sure.
GRODIN: And we can waterboard you. Are you busy on Sunday?
HANNITY: I’ll do it for charity.
What starts of as a novelty music video quickly becomes much more.
25 April 2009
Torture, Iraq, Sri Lanka, and Obama as JFK?
T
oday
on
Enduring America
However talented and however capable, Obama may struggle to develop a fully effective foreign policy until he can eradicate some of the difficulties that blighted the early hope of his Democratic predecessor almost fifty years ago.
A few of many notable examples from the excellent documentary Torturing Democracy.
Here’s a passionate, symbolic marker of the US crossing the Rubicon of the illegal, immoral activities of the Bush years.
Hillary Clinton's blame of “rejectionist efforts” for violence is uncomfortably close to Donald Rumsfeld’s confidence in 2003 that it was only “dead-enders” causing trouble in Iraq.
Global Post: "An estimated 70,000 Tamils have been killed in the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam’s decades-long struggle for independence against the Sri Lankan government. Civilians trapped between the Tamil Tigers and government troops are in particularly dire straits right now. But their suffering is largely unseen by the world."
"We weren’t fulfilling our objective of capturing terrorists, but instead creating enemies out of civilians."
24 April 2009
Israel v. Iran and President Chuck Norris
T
oday
on
Enduring America
It’s no surprise that Obama's "engagement", given a generation of tension between Washington and Tehran, has been challenged in the US. What’s more interesting is that the greatest threat to Obama’s engagement comes not from media sceptics from Fox News to the Wall Street Journal or the foundations now packed with refugees from the Bush administration or even the Middle Eastern institutes putting a priority on Israeli security. No, Obama’s most daunting opponents are within his own administration.
Global Post: "The two men couldn’t carry themselves more differently and you don’t have to be a longtime observer of Israel to know which one fits in better with the western diplomatic community and is most favored by America.
Trouble is they’re essentially the same guy."
When Texas declares independence from the liberally decadent United States, its first leader will be the star of Missing in Action, Delta Force, and, of course, Walker: Texas Ranger.
23 April 2009
From Durban II to Israel v. Iran, "Threat" in Pakistan, Torture, and
Polygamy
T
oday
on
Enduring America
The criticism, in the end, is not that Israel and Iran
have seized the “beacon of light” to control the “beacon of warning”. It
is that we let them.
“I think that we cannot underscore the seriousness of the existential threat posed to the state of Pakistan by continuing advances, now within hours of Islamabad, that are being made by a loosely confederated group of terrorists and others who are seeking the overthrow of the Pakistani state, a nuclear-armed state.”
“The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of ‘a few bad apples’ acting on their own."
Let’s hope that others, less publicly and much more relevantly than ABC Television, are moving towards a real resolution.
Really.
22 April 2009
Racism Conference, Obama/Cheney Speeches, and Culture Wars
T
oday
on
Enduring America
Presidents and their right-hand men — unless they are overthrown in coups or toppled by wars — don’t wind up in jail. Their lawyers, however, are expendable.
Jon Stewart: ”Apparently everyone’s not upset about the fact that we torture. They’re upset about the fact that we know about it.”
We now know the US plan for Israel and Palestine in full.
Let’s Talk. If Only for the Sake of Talking.
No rational individual should endorse any anti-Semitic statement or action. However, no rational individual should endorse a mentality that hides behind pretexts to justify the killing of an unarmed man protesting against ‘injustice’ in a non-violent demonstration.
Somehow, in less than a generation, a country that was once the world’s pariah has transformed itself from dictatorship to democracy.
This seems more like an attempt to put US companies at the forefront of any internet goldrush in the Arabic-speaking world.
21 April 2009
Racism Conference, Obama/Cheney Speeches, and Culture Wars
T
oday
on
Enduring America
Amidst all this diplomatic posturing, the foundation of the conference has been lost.
Dick, I know where the memos are that showed “what we gained as a result” of torture. They got misfiled in that big folder labelled, “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction”.
Even as Tea Party demonstrations were taking place, a significant episode was being played out on the Internet. In that battle lay not consensus but a victory for the dangerous “liberals”, one that would have been hard to conceive even 20 years ago.
“Did you know that if all 50 states approve same-sex marriage, straight marriage becomes illegal?”
20 April 2009
Who Leads Pakistan?, Torture Memos, and Saberi Update from Iran
T
oday
on
Enduring America
Question
of
the
Day:
Who
is
the
most
important
“reliable”
leader
in
Pakistan?
No,
it’s
not
— at
least
if
you’re
a
key
official
in
the
Obama
Administration
—
President
Asif
Ali
Zardari.
Two
articles
this
weekend
got
to
the
heart
of
the
matter:
the
Bush-era
torture
didn’t
work.
Iranian
politics
just
swung
in
favour
of
Roxana
Saberi.
19 April 2009
Iran, Somalia, and the Obama-Chavez Handshake
T
oday
on
Enduring America
It could
be that
judicial
forces
wanted
to show
“independence”
from
political
pressure
(ironic
given
that
this is
a
politicised
case)
and
moved
quickly.
Alternatively,
Iranian
political
elements
—
reacting
to
perceived
US
pressure
or
raising
the
stakes,
both in
internal
Iranian
political
manoeuvring
and in
US-Iranian
relations
— pushed
for a
lengthy
jail
sentence.
This is
one of
the
major
foreign
policy
stories
of this
Administration.
Flashback
to
October
2008:
"Somali
pirates
have
accused
European
firms of
dumping
toxic
waste
off the
Somali
coast
and are
demanding
an $8m
ransom
for the
return
of a
Ukranian
ship
they
captured,
saying
the
money
will go
towards
cleaning
up the
waste."
18 April 2009
In the Loop with Israel-Palestine, Somalia, and Bush-Era Torture
T
oday
on
Enduring America
Funny thing
about US
envoy George
Mitchell’s
latest visit
to the
Middle East:
most of the
US and
British
press didn’t
take much
notice.
You are
deceivers
and liars.
In an ideal
world, you
would be
held to
criminal
account for
your
actions; in
this world
(ironically
thanks to
yesterday’s
Administration
decisions)
you will
face no
formal
prosecution.
U.S. and
European
officials
are
increasingly
discussing
the
possibility
of bringing
the fight on
land to
address the
roots of the
problem in
Somalia.
17 April 2009
Torture, Trials in Iran, and After the Tea Party
T
oday
on
Enduring America
As fun as it was, the tea-bagging
parody doesn’t shoo away anger and it certainly
doesn’t banish the polarising and manipulative
groups behind the protests. Emotions will
continue to be fraught, so politics must be
fought through engagement rather than dismissal.
From warrantless surveillance to
rendition to unlimited detention, Gitmo-style,
at Camp Bagram in Afghanistan, the
Administration is playing the political game of
“Look at the other guys, don’t fret about us.”
When Richard Armitage tells Al
Jazeera that he should have resigned over the
Bush Administration’s treatment of prisoners of
war, this is not the regret of an official who
was opposed to the campaign against Al Qa’eda
and international terrorism.
It is essential that US-Iran
discussions, leading to a more productive
relationship diplomatic, economic, and cultural
relationship, continue. It is just as essential
that, in the name of those discussions, Roxana
Saberi is not seen as expendable.
While U.S. attention has rightly
been focused on Mexico’s drug wars — with
high-profile trips by President Obama and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before this
weekend’s Summit of the Americas — Mexico’s
southern neighbor is in far more serious danger
of becoming a failed state.
16 April 2009
Odierno Backs Down Over Iraq, US Talks to
Afghan Insurgent Leader,
and Assessment of US-Iran Talks
T
oday
on
Enduring America
The violence is far from new — and
it’s not just a “Mexican” situation, as even a
cursory glance at the US will show — but it is a
challenge to the institutional stability of the
country.
To put it bluntly, the real question
at hand is how many Somali people we really feel
like killing right now.
K'Naan: "Can anyone ever really be
for piracy? Outside of sea bandits, and young girls
fantasizing of Johnny Depp, would anyone with an
honest regard for good human conduct really say that
they are in support of Sea Robbery? Well in Somalia,
the answer is: it’s complicated."
“The quintessential Palestinian
experience,” historian Rashid Khalidi has written,
“takes place at a border, an airport, a checkpoint:
in short, at any one of those many modern barriers
where identities are checked and verified.”
Thousands took the leap of the
faithful and Tea-bagged in Boston, Philadelphia,
Washington DC, and even Batesville, Arkansas, a
newcomer to the Tea-bagging phenomenon.
15 April 2009
Odierno Backs Down Over Iraq, US Talks to
Afghan Insurgent Leader,
and Assessment of US-Iran Talks
T
oday
on
Enduring America
Launched in January,
Global Post has already established itself
as one of the leading sources of international news and
analysis. We believe that its international coverage is
the ideal complement to
Enduring America’s analysis of US politics
and foreign policy.
Global Post: "After the dramatic
rescue of American captain Richard Phillips from the
clutches of Somali pirates, U.S. President Barack Obama
announced his determination to end piracy: 'We remain
resolved to halt the rise of piracy in this region,' he
said. Easier said than done."
The trend continues to be towards US-Iran
negotiation, rather than confrontation.
The Iranian judiciary has announced that
Roxana Saberi's trial has opened.
Actually we’re #3 on Google for
“Republican teabagging” behind the YouTube videos of
“The Young Turks” and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, but we’re
hoping to become the #1 legitimate site by the time of
the Teabagging Parties on Tax Day tomorrow.
14 April 2009
Odierno Backs Down Over Iraq, US Talks to
Afghan Insurgent Leader,
and Assessment of US-Iran Talks
T
oday
on
Enduring America
A week before Israel launched its first
attacks on 27 December, US sources shipped 989 20-foot
containers of military supplies. The 14,000 tons of
munitions replenished those used by the Israelis during the
war.
The political situation in Pakistan has
twisted once again.
Enduring America can exclusively reveal that
CNN, well-known propaganda arm of the Obama Administration,
bumped the very important story of Obama's bow to King
Abdullah of Saudi Arabia for in-depth coverage of the White
House arrival of Bo, the Portuguese water dog.
13 April 2009
Odierno Backs Down Over Iraq, US Talks to
Afghan Insurgent Leader,
and Assessment of US-Iran Talks
Today
on
Enduring America
It appears the General — after his apparent
challenge to the White House withdrawal plan earlier this week —
has beat a retreat.
Beyond the electoral short-term, the Iranian
nuclear program should be compared to a ’slow boat to
self-independence’. It is a long and expensive journey, but it
will get there in the end.
US officials have been in discussions with a key
Hekmatayar assistant, Daoud Abedi, an Afghan-American
businessman based in California.
On the eve of George Mitchell's visit to the
Middle East, the Palestinian Authority leader and former
President of the West Bank, Mahmoud Abbas, has called the
current Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu for a
“friendly and warm” conversation.
12 April 2009
Funding Palestine's Civil War, The Military v. Obama,
and Glenn Beck Goes Crazy
T
oday
on
Enduring America
For the low price of $815 million, American
tax-payers have propped up an oppressive dictatorship, intensified a
Palestinian civil war, enabled acts of terrorism against Israeli
civilians, and provided the excuses Israel needs to further pummel
the Palestinian population.
Only weeks after the compromise of a 19-month
withdrawal was announced, Odierno has returned to the attack.
The extent to which the Obama Administration is
perceived as ‘successful’ in halting the recession through a
well-designed stimulus plan could re-shape beliefs. Could American
youth, two-thirds of whom do not embrace ” capitalism”, lead that
change?
Last Wednesday, as “Barack Obama”, Glenn Beck
pretended to douse a Fox staffer in gasoline/petrol and set him on
fire. Two days later, he brought Tom Paine to life.
11 April 2009
Guantanamo Threats, CIA Director's Rendition, Mister Rogers' Evil,
and Republican Party Teabag Revolution
T
oday
on
Enduring America
Clive Stafford Smith and
Ahmad Ghappour, lawyers for a number of
Guantánamo Bay detainees, have been
summoned to court over a letter they
sent to President Obama detailing the
torture their client Binyam Mohamed
claims he faced.
Before the secret prisons
were put out of business, they were sent
one more very special “guest”.
The deep thinkers at Fox
News, drawing upon a “study” by a
Louisiana State University professor,
now bring the shocking news that Mr
Rogers — more than the Soviets or the
Chinese or the North Vietnamese even
hippies — planted the seeds for the
downfall of America.
Preparing for Tea Parties
on 15 April, the deadline for filing US
tax returns, the new revolutionaries
have sent hundreds, maybe thousands, of
teabags to members of Congress. They are
promising to “Teabag Obama” and “Teabag
Liberal Democrats”.
10 April 2009
Israel-Syria Talks, US-Iran Engagement, and Petraeus-Obama Battles
T
oday
on
Enduring America
Did this stop the American
approach to Iran before it really started?
No.
What could Turkish Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s vacation and
the Obama strategy on the Middle East have
in common?
Quite a lot.
If the deal does break down,
it poses another challenge to the American
strategy against the “safe havens” in
northwest Pakistan.
What we are witnessing goes
beyond the egos and aspirations of two
intelligent, confident American leaders. And
it is beyond the dreaded v-word of the 1960s
or the contrasting myth of Petraeus’
successful Iraq surge.
Is Qaddafi just being a
concerned citizen of the world?
After watching this, I’m not
worried about Northrop’s moneypot drying up;
I’m more concerned that they could take over
the US Government, let alone some tinpot
regime,
9 April 2009
Direct US-Iran Talks to Begin?
T
oday
on
Enduring America
Washington is dropping its policy
of no direct discussions with Tehran.
Peter Jones: "In many ways,
discussions between Tehran and Washington will
be more of a watershed for their leaders than
they will be for us."
The deputy head of the
prosecutor’s office has claimed, “[Saberi] had
been carrying out espionage activities … under
the cover of a journalist … and she has accepted
the accusations.”
Jon Stewart to his right-thinking
friends:“I think you might be confusing tyranny
with losing.”
8 April 2009
Obama Takes on Netanyahu?; Pakistan Takes on Holbrooke;
Palin Takes on North Korea
T
oday
on
Enduring America
The initial skirmishes in an
Obama-Netanyahu battle may have begun.
Pakistani officials did not follow
the Obama script for a united War against Al Qa’eda/Taliban
terror.
There is a serious tension between
the local Sunni groups and Awakening Councils that
the US military have been funding in the “surge” and
the national Government.
Al-Zaidi had to do some jail time
(and take a beating) because of the Iraq
Government’s embarrassment. Now that Bush is an
ex-President, however, all the fuss can be put away
quietly.
Palin was deterred in no way from her
brave statement by the fact that North Korea’s
launch was a failure and that the satellite under
development was a threat to the placid water of the
Pacific Ocean rather than Wasilla or Anchorage or
even Juneau.
7 April 2009
Obama Speech in Turkey; Pakistan a Failed State?
T
oday
on
Enduring America
This was a talk which recognised that
Ankara has a central place in both short-term and
longer-term American initiatives and, doing so, set
aside other general issues that could trouble the
US-Turkish relationship.
When we call a country a failed state, it
leads to extra-judicial killings and exorbitant numbers
of civilian casualties.
Last week, a 25-page report by 11
non-governmental aid organisations set out concerns over
the civil-military tension in US strategy towards
Afghanistan.
Even as General David Petraeus and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen defy
the Obama engagement strategy and try out the latest
scare line — Israel is most definitely going to take out
an Iranian nuclear facility — here’s a little tip-off
from Agence France Presse that Tehran will not be
giving up its atomic-energy programme.
6 April 2009
Losing in Afghanistan, The NATO Summit,
and Obama the Anti-Christ
Today
on
Enduring America
Amidst all the flurry of Presidential
announcements and Congressional hearings on
Pakistan-Afghanistan, this is the most important
document to sneak onto the Internet this week.
President Obama pledged to rid the world
of nuclear weapons. His address, however, gave “a
hawkish edge to a peacenik pursuit".
The former National Security Advisor said
that the PJAK, the Iranian wing of the Kurdish PKK, was
operating against Iranian armed forces with the support
and encouragment of the George W. Bush Administration.
A Rasmussen poll announces “two thumbs
up” for a military smack of North Korea after its
(unsuccessful) test of a missile and satellite.
More evidence of Barack Obama’s uncanny
ability to combine atheistic Communism with
Satan-worship.
As we have been keeping a curious eye on
Conservapedia, it was upsetting not to see this included
as additional ‘proof’ of Obama’s ‘Muslim’ faith.
5 April 2009
Petraeus v. Obama (Again) and Zimbabwe
T
oday
on
Enduring America
4 April 2009
NATO, Petraeus v. Obama, and Palinwatch
T
oday
on
Enduring America
3 April 2009
State-sponsored Snitching, the Latest on Afghanistan,
and More Anglo-American Gift Wars
T
oday
on
Enduring America
Enduring America's Canuckistan in The Guardian on
"State-sponsored Snitching"
US Rethinks Af-Pak Strategy As Strikes Widen
Bagram Inmates Challenge Detention
Plus:
Michael Cohen on The Trouble With Counter-Insurgency
And:
Anglo-American Gift Wars 2: The Return Visit
2 April 2009
The US-Iran "Non-Meeting"
T
oday
on
Enduring America
The silver lining of the past and possibly future debacle in Afghanistan is likely to be a US-Iranian rapprochement. If that is to occur, however, it will face a specific and limited Tehran agenda vs. the general ambitions of Washington in its “re-development” of Afghanistan and Central Asia.
You might think that Glenn Beck, shouting and crying his way to prominence on Fox “News” in the US, is a headcase.
You are wrong. Very, very wrong.
1 April 2009
The Israeli Airstrike on Sudan
T
oday
on
Enduring America
This attack may have had catastrophic consequences, not only for Israel’s battle against Hamas, but for the US War on Terror, and on a much greater scale, those suffering from the horrible human rights crisis in Darfur.
This is a “hold the line” approach, trying to ensure that the Taliban does not expand its hold on territory, until the right partnership with the right Government in Kabul can be foreseen. More importantly, the line is to be held until the US can resolve its core problem, which lies not in Afghanistan but across the border in northwest Pakistan.
On Sunday, we reported on the arrest of Adil al-Mashhadani, an Awakening Council leader in the Fadhil section of Baghdad, and the subsequent gunfight between Council militiamen and US-Iraq forces.
Well, the story is far from over.
31 March 2009
US-Iran, Gaza, and Miss Universe Goes to
Guantanamo
Today
on
Enduring America
Those looking for real signals on what may come should note Iran’s careful consderation of the level of representation at the conference.
It was striking how quickly the Israel Defense Forces threw out the claims. Even more blatant, however, was the disconnect between the military’s “findings” and the actual statements of the Oranim soldiers.
Extracts from the soldiers’ accounts, as they appeared in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz
30 March 2009
Selling Mr Obama's War
T
oday
on
Enduring America
A gun
battle
is
continuing
between
Pakistani
security
forces
and
attackers
who
invaded
a police
training
centre
Monday,
throwing
grenades
and
firing
at
officers
taking
morning
roll
call.
The
Obama
Administration
has been
trying
to hold
the line
against
any
punishment
of the
Bushmen
for
their
actions,
and the
“Truth
Commission”
proposal
of
Senator
Patrick
Leahy is
unlikely
to
become
reality.
Overseas,
however,
the
battle
is not
yet
done.
Where’s
General
David
Petraeus
when you
need
him?
29 March 2009
Concerns and Applause for Mr Obama's War
T
oday
on
Enduring America
Gareth
Porter:
"The
argument
for
deeper
U.S.
military
commitment
to
the
Afghan
War
invoked
by
President
Barack
Obama
in
his
first
major
policy
statement
on
Afghanistan
and
Pakistan
Friday
-
that
al
Qaeda
must
be
denied
a
safe
haven
in
Afghanistan
-
has
been
not
been
subjected
to
public
debate
in
Washington."
This
week
Iranian
representatives
will
join
those
of
other
countries
at
the
US-led
conference
on
Afghanistan
at
The
Hague.
Most
of
the
media
will
note
this,
rightly,
as a
breakthrough
in
US-Iran
engagement.
Guess
what?
Those
discussions
have
already
started.
And
the
Gold
Medal
Goes
To....
President
Obama
has
been
a
bit
preoccupied
with
Afghanistan
and
Pakistan
this
past
week,
but
he
might
want
to
take
note
of
the
words
of
Lieutenant
General
Lloyd
Austin
(pictured),
the
senior
commander
of
US
ground
forces
in
Iraq,
about
the
American
intervention.
It
ain’t
over.
In
the
spirit
both
of
vigilance
against
Shifty-Looking
Foreigners
and
a
helping
hand
to
the
chronically
fearful...
28 March 2009
The Day after the Obama Speech;
EA Joins Britain's Anti-Terrorism Campaign
Today
on
Enduring America
Eighteen
hours
since
Barack
Obama
laid out
the
strategy
by which
the
United
States
will
defeat
Al
Qa’eda
and
“terrorists”
in
Afghanistan,
24 hours
after we
projected
both the
Administration’s
approach
and the
problems
with
it….
We got
it
right.
Who’s
happy
about
the lack
of
attention
in the
Obama
grand
strategy
to the
political
complexities
in the
centres
of Kabul
and
Islamabad?
This one
is for
our
Italian
colleagues,
inheritors
of a
long and
cherished
political
heritage.
The
start of
our
contribution
to
inspiration
in the
Fight
Against
Evil
Terrorists
Amongst
Us.
27 March 2009
The Obama War Plan in Pakistan and Afghanistan
T
oday
on
Enduring America
Could the Obama Administration really be pushing
for a tacit strategic takeover by the Pakistani military?
The magic is that Afghanistan has become a
sideshow.It’s a very expensive, very destructive sideshow, of
course, but it’s still a supporting act for the main event being
set up across the border.
Only one tiny problem: there is no sign — none —
of Washington strategy for the fundamental problem in Pakistan:
how is the country’s political stability to be assured?
Major General David Perkins tells reporters,
“Attacks are at their lowest since August 2003."
26 March
2009
Iran, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Walled Baghdad
T
oday on
Enduring
America
The cautious response from Iran’s supreme leader,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to Barack Obama’s new year greeting can be
interpreted as an effort to contain the debate on US-Iranian
engagement at a crucial moment in Iranian politics.
Suggesting that Iran was pursuing a constructive
approach to its neighbour through non-military programmes, Khatami
urged Australia and other countries to withdraw their forces, as
they were hindering rather than helping any solution.
From Global Post: two former high-ranking Taliban
officials speak.
This may be one of the strangest pieces of
journalism, hiding a significant story, I have ever read.
From Syria Comment: Hamas political director Khalid
Meshaal spoke for three hours last week with Paul McGeough, an
Australian journalist about relations with Israel, relations with
countries outside the region, and the political prospects of the
organisation.
25 March
2009
Waiting for Mr Obama's War
T
oday on
Enduring
America
So what is the Obama Administration’s new approach to
American intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Really. What is it?
Not only have unity talks between Fatah and Hamas failed
to reach a conclusion, but the Israeli-Hamas talks on a prisoner
exchange have also been fruitless. So what’s the hold-up?
Self-confidence. Hamas self-confidence.
Breaking News: Palestinian Unity Talks to Resume in Cairo?
NASA’s online
contest to name a new room at the International Space Station went awry.
The comedian Stephen Colbert won.
24 March
2009
The UN Report on Gaza
T
oday on
Enduring
America
A United Nations Human Rights
Council report has concluded that “there
are strong and credible reports of war crimes and other
violations of international norms” in Israel’s recent military
operations in Gaza.
There is no ‘but” after the revelation of
innocents lives taken by disproportionate and illegal military
operations. There is no escape with the hard-nosed declaration
“war is war”.
There is no new information on yesterday’s
assassination of Kamal Medhat (Kamal Naji), the Palestinian
Liberation Organization’s deputy representative in Lebanon, and
three others in a bombing outside the Mieh Mieh camp near Sidon.
As we predicted, however, this is not stopping speculation and
political point-scoring.
Mohamed could go free “if he pleaded guilty to
terrorism charges, ended his High Court case to prove his claims
of torture, and agreed not to speak to the media about his
ordeal”.
If the Washington press corps successfully links
Obama with the privileged in American society and nails him as
unable to curb the worst excesses of Wall Street, his Presidency
may descend into the disaster that few predicted and fewer,
except died-in-the-wool Republicans, wanted.
23 March
2009
Obama and Cheney
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Obama’s “Engagement”: Is Hamas Next?
Hamas political director Khaled Meshaal, speaking over the weekend
to the Italian newspaper
La Republicca,
said: “”A new language toward the region is coming from President
Obama.”
If Dick Cheney’s recent interview with John King on
CNN served any purpose, it was to demonstrate the the arguments of
the Bush Administration still have no wisdom and consciousness.
22 March
2009
Zardari Out in Pakistan? Engagement In in Iran?
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Statements indicate Washington’s recognition that the
Iranian leadership would be in no position to move to direct, general
talks before June’s Presidential election.
Juan Cole, one of the shrewdest American analysts of
Iran, complements our optimism on the developments in US-Iranian
relations in his blog today.
A story from Israel’s YNet News on Monday raises the
prospect of a Washington rebuff to Israel on how to approach Iran.
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani will meet opposition
leader Nawaz Sharif on Sunday with “a message of reconciliation and
goodwill”.
Now to watch the Supreme Court’s position towards Zardari:
the judges installed by his predecessor, Pervez Musharraf,
rubber-stamped an “amnesty” from the corruption charges that had forced
Zardari into exile.
----------------------
21 March
2009
The Obama Message to Iran; Gaza Revisited
T
oday on
Enduring
America
What is important, however, is that the US does
not follow Obama’s message with pressure for further economic
sanctions and that it damps the public rhetoric blaming Tehran
for stoking every Middle Eastern fire.
The Supreme Leader’s none-too-subtle message,
following official Government reaction, is that there will be no
Iranian concessions in advance of talks with the US. It is also
a clear statement that Iran will not give up its interest in
cases like Palestine, the Lebanon, and Iraq.
Iran is welcoming the prospect of talks with the
US. On the other hand, it is setting out clear lines that it
does not want crossed — specifically, Iranian sovereignty over a
nuclear energy programme.
Stephen Walt: "We’ve deterred bigger and tougher
adversaries in the past, and while I’d strongly prefer that Iran
decide not to become a nuclear weapons state, I’m not going to
panic if it does cross that line at some point down the road."
Minister of Defense Ehud Barak: "We
have the most moral army in the world."
Rose Mishaan:"I think the hardest
part is knowing that as a world, we utterly failed
the Palestinians of Gaza. We stood and watched them
die and justified our own inaction. It is something
that should bring a little shame to us all."
----------------------
20 March
2009
Death of a Blogger
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Stephen Walt: "We’ve deterred bigger and tougher
adversaries in the past, and while I’d strongly prefer that Iran
decide not to become a nuclear weapons state, I’m not going to panic
if it does cross that line at some point down the road."
When Gordon sat down to enjoy, let’s say,
Porky’s II,
he only received an eyeful of disappointment.
The last e-mail of Omidreza Mir Sayafi, who has
committed suicide in Iran's Evin prison.
----------------------
19 March
2009
Muddle on Iran?
T
oday on
Enduring
America
There may be the drama of a
proposed letter to the Supreme Leader, but
there is still no clarity on what exactly is
happening between Washington and the fist,
clenched or unclenched, of Tehran.
While Tel Aviv might be
pressing for an Iran-first approach —
strengthened sanctions and possibly military
action — Washington will not be “on the same
page”.
Andy Worthington: "The
administration has raised the possibility
that, after seven years’ imprisonment in
conditions that ought to be a source of
shame to any civilized society, a large
number of these prisoners — these “nobodies
formerly known as enemy combatants” — still
have a long way to go before they can hope
to see the end of their ordeal."
Good to see, even in times of
economic downturn, that American ingenuity
linking big missiles and advertising hasn’t
been diminished.
----------------------
18 March
2009
What Now in Pakistan?
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Having failed to get “stability”
in the War on Terror with Musharraf, having
failed with Zardari, it is not hope that moves
Washington but this question:
Who or what can come next?
According to senior
administration officials, two of the high-level
reports on Pakistan and Afghanistan that have
been forwarded to the White House in recent
weeks have called for broadening the target area
to include a major insurgent sanctuary in and
around the city of Quetta.
[This] leaves only the Pakistani
military, whichever way it chooses to play the
hand with the Americans, as the only significant
force in the country with a symbolic and real
modicum of power. If Zardari protests this, the
prospect of his overthrow emerges. If he accepts
his emasculation, he is no more than an
irrelevant figurehead. Either way, it’s an
effective coup.
Rory Stewart: "There are many
small simple things we can do to help Afghan
society. All require us to forge a long-term
engagement with the country. But such a policy
is only possible if we reduce our investment in
money and troops and develop a lighter, more
affordable and ultimately more sustainable
relationship with Afghanistan."
Ironically, Wikileaks earned its
place in Australian censorship by revealing a
secret Danish list of banned sites. And both
appropriately and ironically, it was Wikileaks
that revealed the news of its own banning,
noting in Fight Club fashion, “The first rule of
censorship is that you cannot talk about
censorship.”
Juan Cole: "The real question is whether anyone will have
the gumption to put Cheney on trial for treason and crimes against
humanity."
Quick Clue 1: Four
letters, starts with “I”.
Quick Clue 2: Seven letters, starts
with “K”.
----------------------
17 March
2009
Iran's Presidential Election; The Red
Cross on US Torture
Today on
Enduring
America
Chris Emery: "Former President Mohammad Khatami’s
decision to drop out of the upcoming Iranian presidential elections
seems to be based on the long-standing assumption that splitting the
“reformist” vote would be electoral suicide."
"The International Committee of the
Red Cross concluded in a secret report that the Bush administration’s
treatment of al-Qaeda captives 'constituted torture', a finding that
strongly implied that CIA interrogation methods violated international
law, according to newly published excerpts from the long-concealed 2007
document."
----------------------
16 March
2009
A Long March of Victory?, Target Iran,
and The Danger of Jon Stewart
Today on
Enduring
America
The
speed of the Zardari
Government’s
concession to its
legal and political
opponents is almost
breath-taking.
The
Chief of Staff of
the Israeli
Military, General
Gabi Ashkenazi, is
spending five days
in Washington. He’s
not only seeing the
sights but also
chatting with
National Security
Advisor Gen. James
L. Jones, special
State Department
advisor Dennis Ross
(still officially
concerned with
“Southwest Asia and
the Gulf”), and
military commanders.
One
of the side effects
of The Daily
Show’s takedown
of financial
pundits, and
specifically CNBC
and Jim Cramer, has
been a sustained
attempt by “proper”
journalists to put
Jon Stewart back
into a comedian’s
chair.
----------------------
15 March
2009
Pakistan, Israel-Palestine,
and What Happened to Jim Cramer after The Daily Show
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Here Jim
gives his best friend,
James Altucher of
TheStreet.com, a lesson
in how to read The
Sopranos, using
personal experience (you
know, making millions of
dollars in a single day)
to illuminate the
series.
One can
only hope that The
Daily Show and Jon
Stewart show some mercy
towards Jim Cramer, if
not the world of
financial “experts”,
after last week’s
pummeling of the Mad
Money host/former
hedge fund
manager/general shyster.
----------------------
14 March
2009
Rumours and Realities for Israel and Pakistan
T
oday on
Enduring
America
The latest
draft resolution for the
conference is remarkable in
its criticism of Israel,
even in comparison to the
declaration of the first
conference.
This morning
there are stories flying
around the Web that Admiral
Mike Mullen, the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
may have stopped a military
coup in Pakistan through a
series of phone call to
General Ashfaq Pervez Kiani,
through a series of phone
calls.
----------------------
13 March
2009
Protests, Marches, and Jon Stewart's Latest Triumph
T
oday on
Enduring
America
----------------------
12 March
2009
Setback on Israel, Showdown in Pakistan,
and Ahmadinejad and the Monkey
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Stephen Walt: "This outcome is
bad for everyone, including Israel. It means
that policy debates in the United States will
continue to be narrower than in other countries
(including Israel itself), public discourse will
be equally biased, and a lot of self-censorship
will go on. America’s Middle East policy will
remain stuck in the same familiar rut, and even
a well-intentioned individual like George
Mitchell won’t be able to bring the full weight
of our influence to bear.
The Latest from Israel-Palestine (12 March):
Talks But No News
In contrast to the barrage of
stories surrounding last month’s negotiating
manoeuvres between Israel, Hamas, and Fatah last
month, yesterday’s
resumption of “reconciliation” talks in Cairo
between Hamas, Fatah, and other Palestinian
factions went almost unnoticed by US and British
media.
Pakistan: On Eve of Political Showdown, Hundreds
Arrested
Top Iranian Children’s TV: Ahmadinejad and the
Stuffed Monkey
So there is this kids’ programme
in Iran called Amoo Pourang (Uncle Pourang),
watched by millions three times a week. The
presenter is talking to a young caller, who says
his father has given him a stuffed monkey for
good behaviour.
War on Terror Watch: You are the Millionth
(Suspected) Terrorist!
I’m hoping it’s me, and I’m
hoping there’s a super-duper prize (which
doesn’t involve rendition, detention, and/or
“enhanced interrogation”).
Laughing While Economic Fires Are Burning: The
Daily Show-CNBC Sequel
Jon Stewart completes Jim
Cramer’s humiliation with the help of Dora the
Explorer and Boots the Monkey
----------------------
11 March
2009
The US, Israel, and the Case of Charles Freeman
T
oday on
Enduring
America
As a story of how US
foreign policy is re-structured —
courtesy of Congress, a network of
private groups, and American
political culture — it offers an
essential lesson. “Israel” continues
to set limits on the “acceptable” in
US foreign policy.
The Director of
National Intelligence, Dennis Blair
—- on the same day that the Obama
Administration had to withdraw the
nomination of Charles Freeman as
Chair of the National Intelligence
Council — has just set the scene for
another political battle in
Washington.
Our Inaugural
Irrelevant Laureate, Mr John Bolton,
is at it again. Here is his
sure-fire recipe for glorious
American triumph in Iraq.
In the 2009
Recession-Not-Quite-A-Depression-Yet,
this is shaping up to be a comedy
saga.
----------------------
10 March
2009
The United Nations, Britain, and Torture
T
oday on
Enduring
America
The United Nations report
released yesterday is clear and concise:
Britain was complicit with a US-created
system which violated basic human rights
and condoned the torture of detainees.
When a person is tortured
by the State, that is not news. But if a
person is tortured by a rock-chucking
chimpanzee employed by the State….
----------------------
9 March
2009
Is Obama Clinging to Bush's War on Terror
Powers?
Today on
Enduring
America
Could a President willingly surrender the
power, which might or might not be used but
was always available, claimed by a
predecessor? If the answer is No, it appears
this will have to come from the courts, not
the 44th President of the United States.
“Aides…said Mr. Obama did not mean to
suggest that everybody held by American
forces would be granted habeas corpus or the
right to challenge their detention.”
Has the starting point of an Iran policy
based on discussions with Tel Aviv been
dropped, by the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy or — more importantly — the
Obama Administration?
----------------------
8 March
2009
Afghanistan Manoeuvres, A Syria Initiative, and Space Wars
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Toss aside the lazy
journalism of The New York Times,
keep your eyes for the moment on Pakistan,
and wait — possibly until the NATO summit at
the start of April — for a real story on an
Obama strategy in Afghanistan.
It will be far more difficult
for the Americans to dislodge Karzai, either
at the ballot box or through a political
coup, if they are presented as supporters of
his negotiating strategy.
There’s evidence to suggest
that warfare in Earth’s orbit is very
quickly accelerating from merely
hypothetical to a strategic reality
The Guardian: "
A
confidential EU report accuses the Israeli
government of using settlement expansion,
house demolitions, discriminatory housing
policies and the West Bank barrier as a way
of “actively pursuing the illegal
annexation” of East Jerusalem.
The most that can be said is
that yesterday’s event, while of symbolic
importance, is only the opener in a long
process.
----------------------
7 March
2009
Russia, the Budget, and DVDs for the Special Relationship
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Welcome to the Reset of the New
Realism.
The figures are mind-blowing.
About $3.55 trillion has been requested for the
Fiscal Year commencing October 2010. In excess
of $2 trillion of that amount is required for
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
There is perhaps no stronger
indictment of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s
recent visit to the White House and Congress
than yesterday's slow-news-day-controversy over
President Obama’s gift to the PM.
Hours after we asked, “[Is]
Washington envisaging a Pakistani military
running Islamabad’s policy, either behind the
scenes or quite openly after toppling President
Zardari?”, the Asia Times offers a
short-term answer.
See his political skills at work:
a clip from Limbaugh's short-lived TV show in
1990....
----------------------
6 March
2009
Mr Obama's: Afghanistan and Pakistan
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Clinton to Iran: You Can Play in the (Afghanistan) Sandbox
This latest Clinton move is the equivalent of a parent yelling at her
child, “No, no, no!”, then pointing the kid to the “right” place to play
in. Well, I’ve done that, and I can tell you a litte secret:
The little b****** wouldn’t stay in the sandbox.
Mr Obama’s War: The Spin is…It’s Not Afghanistan. It’s Pakistan.
Senior Administration official "Afghanistan pales in comparison to the
problems in Pakistan. Our primary goal has to be to shut down the
al-Qaeda and Taliban safe havens on the Pakistan side of the border. If
that can be accomplished, then the insurgency in Afghanistan becomes
manageable."
----------------------
5 March
2009
Ms Clinton's Wild Ride on the Middle East
and Iran
Today on
Enduring
America
With the text of the letter still secret,
here’s the key question: did it actually link a US
pullback on missile defense to a Russian concession on
Iran or did someone, possibly in Clinton’s circle, make
that up as part of the grand scheme she unfolded in the
Middle East?
This is shaping up to be a major US
diplomatic offensive to “put Iran in a box”, whether in
advance of another attempt at diplomacy from a position
of strength or further pressure on Tehran.
The Secretary of State and Iran's Supreme
Leader exchange pleasantries on Israel and Palestine.
Jim Lobe: "I...have the impression that
Ross and the so-called “Israel Lobby” whose interests he
represents believe that enhancing conditions on the West
Bank, combined with diplomatic engagement with Syria,
will somehow be sufficient for Washington to regain its
credibility in the region and rally the Sunni Arab
states — along with the European Union, Russia, China,
etc. — behind a policy of confrontation with Iran."
The video making the rounds in the Gulf
States....
And the winner is....?
----------------------
4 March
2009
An Obama Grand Strategy on Israel-Palestine-Iran?
T
oday on
Enduring
America
What is the broader strategy for the Obama
Administration if it is re-engaging with the
Israel-Palestinian process and the region beyond? There are
three issues to consider:
1. The pursuit of a “two-state”
Israel-Palestine settlement;
2. The contest between Hamas and Fatah for political
leadership in Gaza and the West Bank;
3. The US relationship with Iran.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Zardari is completely
above board with this defense of “democracy”. The point is
that few outside Pakistan have looked behind the cloak of
“terrorism” to see the equally critical issue of the
political storm brewing in Islamabad. And the question is —
if there are no more attacks on Sri Lankan cricketers to
deflect attention from that conflict— will that storm
threaten to sweep away the President?
Are the manoeuvres between the insurgent
groups and the Pakistani Government for cease-fires and
local deals going to free up these forces to wage an even
more intense campaign against the US and
its “Obama Doctrine” not just in Pakistan but across the
border?
----------------------
3 March
2009
The Obama Doctrine, The Grand US-Russian Bargain,
and David Miliband is "Economical with the Truth"
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Josh Mull:
“The ‘Obama
Doctrine’
looks
something
like this:
the United
States will
continue to
use its
military
power as its
premier tool
in
international
affairs and
may even act
preemptively.
However, it
will not do
so on issues
it deems
outside of
reasonable
American
national
security
concerns,
and it will
act only
with support
and
cooperation
from the
international
community.
To put it
frankly,
this is
something
like a cross
between
‘walk softly
and carry a
big stick’
and the
Buddy
System.
While still
violent,
imperial,
and
aggressive,
it is a
marked
departure
from the
so-called
Bush
Doctrine and
even the
Global War
on Terror.”
Taken
together,
stories
indicate
that the
Obama
Administration
is on the
verge of a
serious mis-step
in its
approach to
Iran. Either
out of
naivete or —
more likely
— the quest
for a
non-military
campaign
against
Iran, key US
officials
are
conflating
the pursuit
of nuclear
energy with
the pursuit
of a nuclear
weapon.
Afghanistan:
Karzai’s
Pre-Emptive
Political
Strike
In many
“Western”
systems, the
“snap”
election is
a
time-honoured
prerogative
of the
President/Prime
Minister. If
a leader is
in a strong
but possibly
short-lived
political
position, or
conversely
if he/she is
in trouble
but faces
worse times
ahead, then
Parliament
is dissolved
and everyone
heads to the
polls.
However,
when an
Afghan
President,
particularly
one who has
lost the
support of
the foreign
governments
who brought
him to
power, calls
such an
election,
it’s a much
different
matter.
War on
Terror/Torture
Breaking
News: David
Miliband Is
a Liar
Foreign
Secretary,
if you’re
going to lie
while
avoiding an
inquiry into
torture,
could you at
least give
us enough
respect not
to do in the
same
newspaper
which busted
you in the
first place?
Breaking
News: Sri
Lankan
Cricketers
Attacked in
Pakistan
Text:
Hillary
Clinton
Speech to
Gaza Donors
Conference
Obama is Not
Muslim/Hitler
Shock. He’s
Stalin. (And
Mao.)
It is a
pleasure to
report that
the “Obama
is Hitler”
debate
has now
moved on.
----------------------
2 March
2009
Fantasies on Pakistan, Hysteria on Iran
T
oday on
Enduring
America
On Friday, after President Obama’s speech on Iraq and its recommendation for talks with Iran and Syria, we wrote, “Watch the manoeuvres of those who are hostile to any engagement not only because they don’t like ‘rogue states’.”
And so it goes.
Beyond the US manoeuvres, northwestern Pakistan isn’t just a “sanctuary”. It is part of a country in which, right now, there is a complex political struggle taking place. Reducing local elements in that struggle to Taliban-supporting pawns is just as dangerous as reducing them to mujahideen-supporting pawns in the 1980s.
Watch for the extent to which the Palestinian Authority is exalted by the delegations, indicating how much support there really is for an attempt to put Fatah at the head of Gazan politics, and the extent to which Hamas is condemned. That should give an indication as to whether there is a hope, beyond this conference, of an engagement with all parties on the Israel-Palestine issue.
----------------------
1 March
2009
Israel-Palestine Manoeuvres, Republican Party Fun and Games
T
oday on
Enduring
America
On the eve of the Gaza donors’ conference, which is more of a political dance than a significant effort to rebuild the area, and the tour of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (pictured) of the Middle East, there are a lot of meetings for show but no substance…yet.
The Observer of London reveals today that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rejected a Hamas approach for secret talks before the Gaza War in December.
The move is an attempt to abate the fighting around the country and establish some base of political support for the Government.
Jindal used a story stolen from a dead man as the centrepiece of Tuesday’s GOP response, and in ten short minutes the future of the Republican Party became a laughing stock and a liar.
The latest on the Hockey Mom's 2012 prospects.
----------------------
28 February
2009
The Obama Speech on Iraq Withdrawal
T
oday on
Enduring
America
In his speech, President Obama apparently went beyond my immediate concern that some in the US Government were planning on the long-term stay of 50,000 American soldiers in the country. With those two words, however, he left himself room for manoeuvre or, put less positively, room for the US military and its supporters to maintain its pressure for permanent bases in the area.
"Military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all U.S. forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline."
Leaked NATO documents set out the propaganda line, such as "'Opposing Militant Forces' is the correct term [for the insurgency] but is not suitable for use with the media. Depending on the audience and the group being referred to, the phrases militants/insurgents/extremists/Taleban extremists/enemies of Afghanistan may be used."
"
Both Obama’s decision to agree to just over half of his field commander’s request for additional troops and the broader strategic situation offer striking parallels with the decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson in April 1965 to approve 36,000 out of a 49,000 troop request for Vietnam"
On Friday, a US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claim of Obama’s Justice Department that surveillance without warrants (if you prefer, “domestic spying”), a procedure extended by the Bush Administration, came under the category of “state secrets” and could not be reviewed by the courts.
Daily Telegraph: "Binyam Mohamed, the British resident released from US detention base Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, has told friends that Britain is too cold."
----------------------
27 February
2009
Iraq, The Budget, and Obama as Jed Bartlet
T
oday on
Enduring
America
"Even after August 2010, as many as 50,000 of the 142,000 troops now in Iraq would remain, including some combat units reassigned as 'Advisory Training Brigades' or 'Advisory Assistance Brigades', the administration and Pentagon officials said."
We’ll be searching for an announcement of how many US troops, as “support” units, will be based in Iraq after the end of 2010.
Bombing “Sanctuaries”, Now and Then: Mr Henry Kissinger
No Irony Here. Move Along.
Fact x Importance = News: The Stories We’re Watching (26 February)
Developments in Pakistan and Somalia and Canada's Toughness on Guantanamo Bay.
In today’s episode, we try to find Dennis’ new office in the State Department and ask if he is the now the Super-Envoy for Bahrain. Or Turkmenistan. Or maybe Sylvania.
President Obama’s State of the Nation: As Good as The West Wing?
John Matlin: "Both CNN and the New York Times have claimed that Obama’s speech harked back to the days of FDR and Lyndon Johnson, but it had many elements of vintage Jed Bartlet."
Text: President Obama’s Budget
The Latest from Israel-Gaza-Palestine (27 February): The Cairo Talks
----------------------
26 February
2009
Afghanistan, Gaza Macaroni, and State of the Nation Redux
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Only The Daily Show could bring Mr Rogers,
Baconnaise, and a cure for cancer into a single analysis.
----------------------
25 February
2009
The State of the Nation, Syrian Tales, and the "Withdrawal" Deal on Iraq
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Let it be clear: Mr Obama is going to war: “For seven years, we’ve been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price.”
The battle over the American occupation, however, is in the politically-distant future, barring a significant upsurge in violence against US forces.
In 2003, chatter in Washington was “Baghdad, Then Turn Left”. That thought of rolliing regime change can now be consigned to the dustbin of George W. Bush’s history. It’s envoys, not tanks, that are the talismen of this New Middle East Order.
Hours after we posted an analysis of Washington’s engagement with Syria, the story started fluttering across the Internet that Damascus had built a missile facility on the site of the alleged nuclear plant bombed by Israel in October 2007.
We’ve just learned about the impressive website Virtual Gaza, which tries to get information about conditions in the area to the world: a combination of Google Earth with witness reports and investigative journalism.
----------------------
24 February
2009
Revelations from Guantanamo Bay
Today on
Enduring
America
"The mujahadin shura decided that the leaders would combine forces for a joint struggle against coalition forces in Afghanistan and end hostilities against Pakistan."
"How shall we put this? Horse Gone. Stable Door Bolted. Nothing in this report will meet the requirement of an investigation not of Guantanamo Now but Guantanamo Then."
"The majority of the men being detained are in isolation. They go weeks without seeing the sun. Fluorescent lights, however, remain on 24 hours a day in Camp 5. According to the report, “improvements” cited by the military are, by and large, public relations activities rather than meaningful improvements in detainees’ conditions….The report details multiple cases of abuse occurring in the last month and a half."
"If the Obama Administration wanted meaningful engagement with Iran, Ross couldn’t be appointed as the point man."
Ali Yenidunya: "The hand has been extended, very indirectly and at a distance but still extended, to Hamas by Obama. The 44th President of the United States of America, unlike his predecessor, has given priority to an meaningful peace process rather than the rigid mantra of “Israeli security."
----------------------
23 February
2009
Mr Obama's War
T
oday on
Enduring
America
"MR OBAMA'S WAR"
"What we are witnessing is a long-term,
wide-ranging strategy of creating international legitimacy
and political credibility for an escalation of violence by
the US, Pakistan, and NATO against religious and tribal
insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
ALSO...
At the end of the day, the apology of from
the New York Post is likely to diminish the
tension. However the criticisms are unlikely to end.
----------------------
21 February
2009
Denial of Rights at Home and Abroad?
T
oday on
Enduring
America
----------------------
20 February
2009
A Bombshell on Iran?
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Keep an eye on whether the Obama Administration plays up the drama of the higher enriched-uranium figures and refers to more sanctions against Iran, or whether it plays down any threat, thus protecting the priority of engagement.
----------------------
19 February
2009
Engagement with Iran and Hamas, Uncertainty over Guantanamo Bay
T
oday on
Enduring
America
An interesting twist in the tale of the US military, notably General David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, and General Raymond Odierno, the US commander in Iraq, trying to undercut President Obama's plan for withdrawal of combat troops within 16 months.
"Sick urged the Obama Admininstration not to repeat the mistakes of Bush in having an incoherent policy towards Iran; however, I think "mixed signals" has been a perpetual theme of America's Iranian policy for the last thirty years."
Ironically, if the 17 had actually done something to threaten America, there might be the prospect of transferring them to the US for criminal proceedings. Because they are in effect innocent, however, there is nowhere to go.
"There has no denunciation of visits to Hamas by French and British delegations, either from their home governments or from Washington. So there is still a glimmer, and maybe more, of a long-awaited US approach to Israel and Palestine which includes all key parties."
If there is in fact an American and Israeli covert war of disruption being waged against Iran's nuclear program, it is now in my judgement, completely over, with the results being a humiliating loss for Israel, a lowering of hostilities with Iran, and a vastly strengthened American diplomatic position vis-a-vis the Iranian nuclear negotiations.
----------------------
18 February
2009
Outing Obama's Strategy, US Airbases, and the War on Terror
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Obama
may
have
played
for
time
by
throwing
the
military
a
half-fulfilled
request.
That
in
no
way
resolves
the
battle,
either
in
central
Afghanistan
or
in
Washington.
It
took
the
media
only
five
days,
after
Senator
Dianne
Feinstein
referred
in a
hearing
to
US
airbases
inside
Pakistan,
to
find
the
supposedly
super-secret
location
for
American
missile
strikes
and
bombing
raids.
Guantanamo
guard,
Brandon
Neely
(pictured),
is
about
to
rock
the
media
with
his
account
of
the
camp.
In
graphic
testimony
(reprinted
below),
Neely
reveals
a
system
in
which
untrained
and
undisciplined
guards
beat
up
and
abused
detainees.
None
were
ever
reprimanded.
Stella
Rimington,
the
former
head
of
MI5,
and
the
International
Commission
of
Jurists
launch
scathing
attacks
on
the
"security"
measures
adopted
in
the
US
and
Britain
after
the
attacks
of
11
September
2001.
----------------------
17 February
2009
Interpreting Israel and Iran, The Torture Story Unfolds,
and Barack-Obama-Still-A-Muslim Shock
T
oday on
Enduring
America
The
Daily
Telegraph
offers
up some
"Western"
psychological
warfare
against
Tehran.
The
revelations
keep
coming,
and the
story
gets
more and
more
unpleasant.
Pakistan
- Can
You
Balance
Sharia
and
Missiles?
Does the
political
gesture
of legal
autonomy
in
northwestern
Pakistan
outweigh
answer
over the
lack of
autonomy
when a
missile
hits
your
house?
Senator
Patrick
Leahy is
trying
"to
investigate
abuses
during
the
Bush-Cheney
Administration
— so
they
never
happen
again".
The
Latest
on
Israel-Gaza-Palestine
(17
February)
You just
can't
keep
dogged
anti-Obama
websites
down.
----------------------
16 February
2009
Hypocrisy in Gitmo and Pakistan, Tensions with Iran and Turkey
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Mohamed's
release is
the
overwhelming
priority. At
the same
time, there
is the
stench of
action being
taken to
avoid
embarrassment
for US and
British
authorities.
Sometimes
political
theatre has
to be
acknowledged
as farce,
especially
when it is
attempting
to obscure
tragedy.
Ali
Yenidunya:
"Because of
the
obstacles
faced by the
Obama
Administration
to dissuade
Iran from
developing
nuclear
weapons, a
possible
Israeli
airstrike —
similar to
the attack
on Osirak in
Iraq in 1981
— could come
to fruition
prior to
2013."
Ali
Yenidunya:
"Despite
political
conflict and
individual
statements
such as
[General]
Mizrahi's,
Israeli and
Turkish
armies do
not have the
luxury of
tolerating
any
interference
that can
harm the
special
relationship
between
their
institutions."
----------------------
15 February
2009
Behind the Headlines in Gitmo, Afghanistan, and Israel
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Turns out it was
the British
Foreign Office
who asked the US
to make the
threat
preventing a
British High
Court from
hearing the
details of
abusive
treatment.
The twist in the
excellent
article by Kim
Sengupta of The
Independent is
the detail of
Saudi Arabia,
notably the head
of Saudi
intelligence
Prince Muqrin
bin Abdulaziz Al
Saud (pictured),
in setting up
these secret
negotiations.
A
new image for
Blackwater Inc.
after Iraq....
The Israeli
Government was
so driven to
take action in
Gaza that it was
willing to risk
a peace process
to ease tensions
on its northern
border and a
strategic
relationship
with Ankara.
----------------------
14 February
2009
Iraq Up Close, Iran Taking Over America,
and a Valentine's Day Story
Today on
Enduring
America
"It
may come to pass —
amidst hesitant
Obama officials,
activists wanting to
take out an "enemy",
and a mainstream
media without the
time or judgement to
consider details
rather than
assumptions — that
grey becomes black
and Iran once more
becomes Threat
Number One to the
United States."
Dahr
Jamail: "At least
70% of Fallujah's
structures were
destroyed during
massive US military
assaults in April,
and again in
November 2004, and
more than four years
later, in the "new
Iraq", the city
continues to
languish….Unemployment
is rampant, the
infrastructure
remains largely in
ruins, and tens of
thousands of
residents who fled
in 2004 are still
refugees."
Once
it was Reds under
the Bed. Now it's
the Mullahs Hiding
behind the Curtains.
"On
Wednesday, Obama
called Israeli
President Shimon
Peres to express his
gratitude for
American and Israeli
model democracies
and to emphasise his
personal efforts for
a two-state
Israel-Palestine
solution. The
question is how much
room there is for
such a solution."
----------------------
13 February
2009
Hiding Torture and Death
T
oday on
Enduring
America
----------------------
12 February
2009
Obama-Military Clash, Pakistan Manoeuvres, Hiding of Torture
Evidence, and Khatami in Iran
T
oday on
Enduring
America
----------------------
11 February
2009
Iran and "Engagement", Attacks in Kabul, and Latest from
Washington
T
oday on
Enduring
America
"The Iranian
nation is prepared to talk.
However, these talks should be
held in a fair atmosphere in
which there is mutual respect."
At least 20 dead
in attacks north of Kabul and in
the capital on the Ministry of
Justice complex.
----------------------
10 February
2009
Obama's First Press Conference, Iran, and "Failing the Torture
Test?"
T
oday on
Enduring
America
COVERAGE OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
FIRST PRESS CONFERENCE
Obama signalled that
he is now going to accept, without
discussion and modification, the
military's surge proposal.
Specifically, he let it be known
that Petraeus's word isn't gospel —
however big the legend of "victory"
in Iraq — and Holbrooke is his point
man as he tours Afghanistan.
Obama's comments
appear to be a clear signal to Iran
that he is satisfied with the
opening at-distance exchanges.
OTHER ANALYSIS
Obama's Justice
Department, in a court case in San
Francisco, stands firmly against any
investigation of torture and
rendition.
Lieutenant Colonel
Yvonne Bradley, the lawyer for
British resident Binyam Mohamed,
with Britain's Channel 4 News about
the condition of her client, who is
supposedly near death in a hunger
strike at the Guantanamo Bay
detention facility.
Bush Administration
political appointees within the
Pentagon have been trying to find a
way around Obama's command to
suspend Military Commissions.
----------------------
9 February
2009
"Islamist Terrorism", Iraq Fall-Out, and The Battle over
Afghanistan
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Is President Obama
preparing to stall out the
military's request for 25,000 more
US troops to Afghanistan?
----------------------
8 February
2009
Cold Realities on the Biden Speech, the Middle East, and Dick
Cheney
T
oday on
Enduring
America
"The glimmer of light
is that Biden...said the US
"strategic review" on the two
countries is not completed — code
for the battle between President
Obama and the military on the way
forward — so Washington may pull
back from its full-speed,
military-first surge in Afghanistan.
If not, you can go back to Biden's
speech and see where all the talk of
a new, multilateral relationship
actually had the makings of an
almighty bust-up between the US and
its European partners."
The US military,
having fought Barack Obama since Day
2 of his Administration over
withdrawal of combat troops from
Iraq within 16 months, have now
tipped their hand. They are seeking
a 23-month limit on withdrawal,
although there is a compromise
proposal of 19 months also in play.
So the political
followers of the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr,
who have been stridently opposed to
the American occupation since 2003 —
at times quite violently, are now
linking up with the Prime Minister's
Daw'a Party?
Alaa al Aswany: "No matter how many
envoys, speeches or interviews Mr.
Obama offers to us, he will not win
the hearts and minds of Egyptians
until he takes up the injustice in
the Middle East."
Let's bring in a
couple of other friends — Jon
Stewart and Keith Olbermann — to
despatch the villain.
----------------------
7 February
2009
Gaza
Aftermath, Iranian Power, and Dick Cheney to the Rescue
T
oday on
Enduring
America
A
cyber-clue to US
discussions with Iran?
Obama vs. The Military:
The Battle for
Afghanistan Continues
The Pentagon continues
to put pressure on
President Obama to
approve in full its
request for additional
troops in Afghanistan.
Four days
after the provincial
elections in Iraq, the
political complexities
are beginning to emerge.
EA is
highlighting this story
from The Washington
Post because we
fear it will quickly
become a front-line
propaganda piece to
gloss over the civilian
deaths in the Gaza
conflict.
----------------------
6 February
2009
Gaza
Aftermath, Iranian Power, and Dick Cheney to the Rescue
Today on
Enduring
America
So how did
Israel's invasion of Gaza
reshape the political battle
between Hamas and Fatah?
Have a look at a revealing
poll from the Jerusalem
Media and Communication
Center.
Our colleague
Seyed Mohammad Marandi
discusses the Iranian
satellite launch with
Patrick Clawson and Hadi Amr.
The Onion:
Organizers reported Sunday
that the 44th White House
Carnival was a rousing
success, raising a record
$800,000,066,845 for the
federal government—$800
billion of which came from a
dunk tank featuring Dick
Cheney….
----------------------
5 February
2009
Iran, Keeping Torture Secret, and Dick Cheney is Always Right
T
oday on
Enduring
America
More evidence
that Iran representatives such
as Ali Larijani may be chatting
with US officials informally
this weekend in Munich.
Mike Dunn: "The
beauty of Cheney's version of
history is that he can't be
proven wrong and. should the
worst happen on Obama's watch,
he'll be able to pat himself on
the back and say he was right
all along.
"The judges made
clear that they had been told
the US threat remained in place
under the Obama Administration.
This outweighed their assessment
that there was 'no disclosure of
sensitive intelligence matters'
in the American documents."
A key unanswered
question is whether the Obama
Administration will tie this
grand initiative to other
issues, such as the Russian
position on Iran and the
competition in Central Asia, or
whether it will keep the nuclear
issue as a separate, distinct
negotiation.
E.T.Cook on
Likud, next week's elections,
and the possible course of
Israeli foreign policy
----------------------
4 February
2009
Inside Stories on US-Iran, Afghanistan, and Israel-Palestine
T
oday on
Enduring
America
----------------------
3 February
2009
Obama's Battles, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Ultimate Palestine Solution
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Admiral Mike Mullen:
"We are not an occupying force."
This is shaping up,
however, to be more than a contest
over Iraq policy; it could be a
symbolic showdown of who calls the
shots in Barack's White House.
Under the Obama White
House, usage of the term "war on
terror" is fading out.
"The Pentagon wrote in 2007 that
Blackwater Worldwide contractors in
Iraq are not subject to U.S.
civilian criminal laws."
The little-noticed
fact behind the recent rocket
launches into southern Israel.
Israeli Minister of
Defense Ehud Barak's grand
scheme....
----------------------
2 February
2009
Obama Outsourcing Torture?
T
oday on
Enduring
America
----------------------
1 February
2009
Will Obama Act on AIDS?
T
oday on
Enduring
America
State Department
officials at a United Nations
drugs conference in Vienna have
been blocking any reference to
"harm reduction" because the
phrase might refer to proposals
for the exchange of used needles
and syringes.
The Jerusalem Post
features a sensible post-Gaza
suggestion from Nitsana
Darshan-Leitner, the director of
the Shurat Hadin - Israel Law
Center.
The Turkey-Israel Clash on Gaza:
The American Jewish Committee
Joins In
----------------------
31 January
2009
Hopes and Fears over Obama, Secret Talks on Iran,
and the Turkey-Israel Row
T
oday on
Enduring
America
----------------------
30 January
2009
Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Miami Beyond Mars
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Analysis: Provincial Elections in Iraq
President Obama Goes to Ottawa
Battles within Obama-land: The Foreign Policy Disputes on Iraq and Iran
The Turkey-Israel Relationship: Reports of its Death are Premature
Update: Turkey, Israel, and the Crash in Davos
Palinwatch: Dinner With Obama
South Beach, Miami. Beyond The Planets
----------------------
28 January
2009
Obama's
Afghanistan, Gaza-Iran, and The Return of
Sarah Palin
Today on
Enduring
America
----------------------
27 January
2009
Obama's "Reach-Out" to Muslims, Iran Envoys, Camp Bagram,
and the EANewsFeed
T
oday on
Enduring
America
----------------------
26 January
2009
The Latest from Washington and from Gaza
T
oday on
Enduring
America
----------------------
25 January
2009
How Hamas Was Created, How Iran Will Be Contained,
and the Obamameter
T
oday on
Enduring
America
It appears the new President will
maintain the Bush and Co. executive orders for
wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping at home and
abroad, bypassing the courts and the 1978 Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Keep tabs on whether Obama's campaign
promises are kept!
The Foreign Office uses The Times of
London, with leaked cables and "spin", to lay out
the new strategy against Tehran.
----------------------
24 January
2009
The Latest on Obama's Foreign Policy and on Israel-Palestine-Gaza
T
oday on
Enduring
America
The latest in the Pentagon's attempt to
undermine the President by claiming ex-detainees are
rejoining terrorist groups.
A video of the special envoy's thoughts
on the path to a lasting settlement.
----------------------
23 January
2009
Torture, Afghanistan, and Gaza
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Obama has formally banned torture. Or, to be
precise, the techniques in the Army field manual used for "enhanced
interrogations".
Where we saw cause for concern in Secretary of Defense
Gates' muddled statement, Robert Dreyfuss, who asked the question that
led to Gates' response, sees hope.
A stunning article in The Jerusalem Post, which
exposes the attempt (and failure) to install the Palestinian Authority
in Gaza, both to topple Hamas and to score a major victory over Iran.
Two signals, and a hanging question, in Moussa Abu
Marzook's opinion piece.
----------------------
22 January
2009
After The Inauguration
T
oday on
Enduring
America
----------------------
21 January
2009
The Day After
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Updates on Barack Obama's first full day as
US President.
Caught between hope, enthusiam, and concern:
"I hope I'm wrong. But if [American failure in Afghanistan]
happens, it will be hard to reach back to the hope of today.
Hard to reach back not because we didn't believe in the
vision of this historic moment, but because we did."
"Today the challenge begins, as General David
Petraeus, the head of the US military's Central Command,
briefs Obama after meetings in Pakistan."
"In 2009 more than most occasions the
Inauguration reinforces the power of democratic renewal in
American and beyond."
A "wordmap" to help you decode the Inaugural
Speech.
"The conflict is very
unlikely to have prevented Netanyahu
from becoming the next prime
minister."
The latest on the
political, military, and
humanitarian situation.
----------------------
20 January
2009
Inauguration Day Special
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Barack Obama Becomes the 44th President of
the United States
A rolling account of today's events from first
light to the end of the Inaugural Speech.
This Moment We Hold Onto: The Day Pete Seeger Brought Us Our
Land
Whatever happens in the days, months, and years
after 20 January 2009, this was a moment not just for "America"
but for all of us.
How the emergency services saved President Bush from an imminent
threat.
Inauguration Day: America Is Getting Barack-Roll'd
Our little-brother site, The State of the United States, has put
up a classic video combining the excitement of the new
President, 1980s BritPop, and the power of the Internet.
"Mr President-Elect, you have been handed the
beginning of [our] future, use it to protect our children and
our distant descendants from anything like this ever happening
again."
An analysis, courtesy of The Onion, which turned out to
be eerily on the mark
From the mistake of Sky News graphics, during
Hurricane Katrina, a moment of eternal insight.
----------------------
19 January
2009
Gaza and A Welcome to President Obama
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Updates on the military,
diplomatic, and humanitarian situation throughout the day
Mark Kleiman: "The President-elect should, therefore, as his
first official act — indeed, perhaps as part of his Inaugural
Address — order the immediate detention of George W. Bush,
Richard Cheney, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, Donald
Rumsfeld, John Yoo, David Addington, and perhaps a few others."
The Bush Administration ends on "just plain
weirdness….Why me-e-e-e-e-e-e?"
----------------------
18 January
2009
Gaza
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Updates on the military,
diplomatic, and humanitarian situation throughout the day
Suicide bombing and a downed US helicopter on
Saturday.
The original report from the Intelligence and
Terrorism Information Center in December 2008.
While Olmert may revel in the short-term military
success, it is the politics of occupation that may ultimately
prove Barak right.
We debated whether to post this video of a Gazan
doctor, learning live on Israeli television of the death of his
daughters and niece, but decided that, while emotive, captures
the futility and horror of the conflict.
I'm telling you: Al Jazeera's Ayman Moyheldin
better watch out for his job.
----------------------
17 January
2009
Gaza and Muntazar al-Zaidi Update
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Updates on the military,
diplomatic, and humanitarian situation throughout the day
Muntazar al-Zaidi, the journalist who threw
his shoes at George W Bush, gets a birthday present from his
jailers and a visit from his brother, but is still not being
allowed to see his lawyer
In Ha'aretz, Amira Haas not only dares
to ask, "Is Israel using illegal weapons in Gaza?", but uses
reports and the expertise of military analyst Mark Garlasco
to give a definitive and detailed Yes.
Trita Parsi: "Rather than benefiting from the
instability following the slaughter in Gaza, Iran stands to
lose much from the rise in tensions. And so does Obama."
----------------------
16 January
2009
Gaza, The War on Terror, and Joe the Plumber
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Updates on
the military, diplomatic, and humanitarian situation throughout the day
Canuckistan on the "War of Terror": Oh, the short-term memory of the
media.
A
dramatic and revealing press conference from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.
A
misstep from the vaunted Israeli hasbara effort.
Channel 4 in Britain surprises the former Israeli Foreign Minister with
a surprising report from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information
Center.
----------------------
15 January
2009
Gaza, Afghanistan, and Torture
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Updates on
the military, diplomatic, and humanitarian situation throughout the day
Simon Toner: "We could end up with more than 60,000 US troops in
Afghanistan and still no strategy; not to mention an exit strategy."
The Pentagon's convenor of military commissions: "We tortured Qahtani."
Ali Fisher: "To Tweet or Not To Tweet, What is the Question?"
plus...
----------------------
14 January
2009
Gaza, Guantanamo, and Birmingham Blogging
T
oday on
Enduring
America
The Israeli Invasion of Gaza: Rolling Updates (14 January)
The Israeli Invasion of Gaza: Rolling Updates (13 Jan - Evening)
Updates on the diplomatic, military, and humanitarian situation
throughout the day
Follow-up: Obama Hedging on Guantanamo Promise?
Israel Requests, Bush Responds: The US Abstention
on the UN Cease-Fire Resolution
Bush, overruling (and humiliating his Secretary of State, Condoleezza
Rice) carrying out the wishes of the Israeli Government.
Gaza: The Unnecessary War
From The State of the United States: "The war in Gaza is simply
an unnecessary war made by people who aren't willing to co-operate and
act like adults, but are behaving instead like little children, who are
fighting over a toy."
Alive in Gaza: "We Do Not Know What Tomorrow is Holding For Us"
Two first-hand accounts of the situation, from photojournalist Sameh
Habeeb and from Muhammad al Ja'bawi
Gaza: More Tasteful Video Games
This time, you're not firing the Qassam rockets at southern Israel but
following Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's orders: "You get 5 minutes.
Eliminate as many Palestinians as possible."
A Farewell Song For George Bush Bonanza
The Farewell Song For George Bush Contest: "A Few Words In Defense Of
Our Country"
Three more nominations as we move to the vote....
Congratulations Created In Birmingham
Voted Best UK Blog in the 2008 Weblog Awards!
----------------------
13 January
2009
Gaza, Iraq, and More Twitter-Diplomacy
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Updates on
the military, diplomatic, and humanitarian situation throughout the day
American efforts can forge a basis for security between Israelis and
Palestinians by developing a professional Palestinian security system
that would help inhibit Hamas in the West Bank
and eventually allow
the PA to reestablish its authority in Gaza.
The Israeli publicity machine highlights a film receiving this praise:
"the message of futility of war has rarely been painted with such bold
strokes".
Two contrasting items highlight that the half-full, half-empty state of
"violent semi-peace" is likely to continue.
The latest good-hearted but erratic attempt from Foggy Bottom's public
diplomacy specialists.
All month long, we've been preparing our good-bye to the 43rd President,
but he has beaten us to the punch with this farewell message, prepared
with assistance of Will Ferrell:
----------------------
12 January
2009
Gaza Updates and Analysis, Afghanistan, Guantanamo,
and the Eve of Destruction
T
oday on
Enduring
America
Updates on the military, diplomatic,
and humanitarian situation throughout the day
Urgent Update: Reading Israeli Intentions
Israel could double its bets and go for a last
big push, possibly into Gazan cities.(But with each passing
hour, let alone day, the goal of toppling Hamas — just like the
goal of crushing Hezbollah more than two years ago — recedes.
The US-UK Divide on
Afghanistan
On the eve of Barack Obama's inauguration,
Afghanistan is shaping up as an immediate crisis for
Anglo-American relations.
Conclusion? The Guantanamo stain on America's
reputation won't be removed easily by the new President.
Jeremy Greenstock lights up BBC radio with claims
that Israel broke the cease-fire and Hamas is not a puppet of
Tehran.
The extraordinary observations and thoughts of a
young woman in Gaza.
Saturday's reportage in The New York Times
is a stunning exposure of the atrocity that took place last
week,
plus...
----------------------
11 January
2009
Gaza, Iran, and Joe the Plumber
Today on
Enduring
America
Updates on the military, diplomatic, and humanitarian situation
throughout the day
New York Times:
"President Bush deflected a secret request by Israel last year for
specialized bunker-busting bombs it wanted for an attack on Iran's main
nuclear complex."
So
did the Vice President step in or was it really "The Decider", as Bush
likes to style himself, who made a fateful decision?
"I
would say that the Gaza Strip controlled by Hamas is a burden not only
to Israel but to the Palestinians themselves."
You may have noticed the diplomatic development of Fatah leader Mahmoud
Abbas enthusiastically backing the proposal for "international monitors"
in Gaza while Hamas is resisting it. Why would that be?
A
feed streaming live video from Gaza City has been set up.
We'll be following Joe the Plumber as he solves the Middle Eastern
crisis, if not the seven-million cubic-foot sewage lake that has built
up in Gaza, bringing you his reports and insight.
plus...
----------------------
10 January
2009
Gaza and A Farewell Song for George Bush
Today on
Enduring
America
Updates on the military, diplomatic, and humanitarian situation
throughout the day
Gareth Porter: "Contrary to Israel's
argument that it was forced to launch its air and ground offensive
against Gaza in order to stop the firing of rockets into its territory,
Hamas proposed in mid-December to return to the original Hamas-Israel
ceasefire arrangement, according to a U.S.-based source who has been
briefed on the proposal."
On
preventing civilian casualties; "It is very difficult in circumstances
like Gaza, which is a very densely populated area."
How can anyone compete, for taste and decency, with "Save Israel?": "You
need to save Israeli citys. First, click on the city, to turn on the
alarm. Now you can click on the rocket, to blow it up."
plus...
----------------------
9 January 2008
Gaza, A Farewell Song for George Bush, and Dancing with Matt
Today on
Enduring
America
Updates on the military, diplomatic, and humanitarian situation
throughout the day
The surprise US abstention "does show resolve, calculated resolve.
Unfortunately, that resolve is for more military action and more deaths
until Hamas, in US and Israeli eyes, is cornered".
A
response to the report in The Guardian: Any talks with Hamas,
even at the lowest level, are still vulnerable to Israel (will it accept
a ceasefire which might lead to recognition of its enemy?) and the
Palestinian Authority (will it accept talks that might give legitimacy
to its rival and its dominant position in Gazan politics?).
As
the death toll mounts from the shelled house of the al-Samouni clan, a
question: Who shot the victims?
STRATFOR: "Take advantage of our
2-for-1 deal, where you get 2 years for the price of 1: just $349."
plus....
To Lift the Spirits: Dancing with Matt
----------------------
8 January 2009
Gaza, Twitter-Diplomacy, and the CIA
Today on
Enduring
America
Updates on the military, diplomatic, and humanitarian situation
throughout the day
A
well-source analysis of how Israel pursued a "strategic escalation" in
Gaza.
The Israeli Consulate in New York, trying to establish that Hamas broke
the cease-fire months ago, makes the case for its opponents.
For all the State Department's recent talk about using new media, it
seems to be recycling official statements without thought about the
consequences.
Announcing a two-day gathering at the Clinton Institute for American
Studies in Dublin in February
And don't forget....
Nominations open until 14 January....
----------------------
7 January 2008
The Best in Gaza Updates and Analysis
Today on
Enduring
America
Updates on the military, diplomatic, and humanitarian
situation throughout the day
"Our
goal must be the stabilization and normalization of life in Gaza. This
will require a principled resolution of the political challenges in Gaza
that reestablishes ultimately the Palestinian Authority's legitimate
control."
The Today programme makes life momentarily uncomfortable for the
Israeli Ambassador to Britain.
plus....
----------------------
6 January 2009
Why Gazans Must Die
Today on
Enduring
America
The
latest military, diplomatic, and humanitarian news on the conflict,
updated every hour.
Rolling Updates on
Israeli Invasion of Gaza (5 January)
International
Crisis Group: "Ending the War in Gaza"
"Palestinian reconciliation is a priority, more urgent but also harder
than ever before; so, too, is the Islamists' acceptance of basic
international obligations."
One Clue to Why
Gazan Civilians Are Dying: What is a "Hamas Stronghold"?
The
Daily Telegraph: All of Gaza City is a Hamas stronghold.
William Kristol on
Why Gazans Must Die….So We Can Defeat Iran
"A
defeat of Hamas in Gaza —
following on the heels of our success in Iraq — would be
a real setback for Iran."
US State
Department Twitter-Diplomacy- Colleen Graffy Responds
A
discussion with Assistant Secretary of State Colleen Graffy and readers
on our original post (4 January) on public diplomacy, social media, and
US foreign policy
----------------------
5 January 2009
Gaza, Iraq, and Twitter-Diplomacy
Today on
Enduring
America
Rolling Updates on Israeli Invasion of Gaza (5 January)
Updates on the
military, diplomatic, and humanitarian situation throughout the day
Gaza:
Rolling Updates on the Israeli Invasion (4 January)
Gaza: Was
the Israeli Attack Planned in June?
"Months ago, as
Israel prepared to unleash its latest wave of desolation against Gaza,
it recognised that blasting Hamas and 'the infrastructure of terror',
which includes police stations, homes and mosques, was a straightforward
task."
That US State Department Twitter-Diplomacy in Action
Last month Colleen
Graffy, the State Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public
Diplomacy, made a very big deal about how US diplomats are using new
cyber-media such as Twitter to connect with people around the world. So
what is she "tweeting" on during the current crisis?
Meanwhile, In Independent Iraq…At Least 40 Killed in Bombing
A female suicide
bomber attacked a Shi'a pilgrimage in northwest Baghdad on Sunday,
killing 40 and wounded at least 70.
Investigative Journalism of the Year: "Escape from Hamas", Become
a Christian
On Friday, Fox News
unveiled its dramatic hour-long documentary, "Escape from Hamas".
Bill Richardson Withdrawing as Secretary of Commerce
----------------------
4 January 2009
Gaza, Iraq, and "Moral Clarity"
Today on
Enduring
America
As expected, the UN Security Council could not reach
agreement on any action in its emergency session. The US blocked any
approval of a resolution calling for an "immediate cease-fire in the
Gaza Strip and southern Israel and expressing concern at the escalation
of violence between Israel and Hamas".
Urgent Update on Israeli Invasion of Gaza (4 January)
Urgent (Rolling) Update: Israeli Ground Forces Reportedly
Entering Gaza
A reader takes apart Charles Krauthammer's declaration of
"moral clarity".
In Tehran, there is the usual mix of stories of protest, support for
Hamas and Obama's Iranian 'dilemma'- but the strangest story is this
from the Los Angeles Times....
Apparently, the civil rights movement narrowly avoided disaster by Dr.
Martin Luther King's decision not to launch rocket attacks into the
Upper West Side from bases in Harlem.
Maybe it's because the timing was a bit off, given the
dominance of the news by the Israel-Gaza conflict, but the nominal
handover of power by the US and Britain to Iraqi forces on New Year's
Day didn't get the celebration you might have expected.
----------------------
3 January 2009
Gaza and Muslims (Not) On a Plane
Today on
Enduring
America
AirTran, after initially refusing any responsibility,
apologised Friday afternoon to the nine Muslims removed from its
Washington to Orlando flight.
Flashback in the War on Terror: The Muslims at Shoney's Big Boy
Restaurant
Amidst the furour over the AirTran case yesterday, an incident from 2002
highlighting the combination of fear and cultural differences.
----------------------
2 January 2009
Gaza, Iran, Magical Barack, and Not-Magical George
Today on
Enduring
America
The offices of lawyer and Nobel Prize laureate Shirin
Ebadi were raided on Monday by Government officials who said they were
from the tax office.
Could Tel Aviv be backing away from the objective,
declared on the eve of the Israeli assault, of overthrowing Hamas?
On 'Barack The Magic Negro'
Recognition of Republican National Committee chair candidate Chip
Saltsman's Christmas gift to potential supporters.
Brad Reed: "History demands that we at least make the
effort so that future generations will understand why we perform voodoo
rituals cursing Bush's memory before we go to bed every night."
----------------------
31 December
2008
Gaza, Crises You Might Want to Notice, and Redneck Greetings
Today on
Enduring
America
Israel has rejected a French proposal to allow aid into Gaza.There is no
fuel and electricity in Gaza, as Israeli airstrikes on Wednesday again
hit the offices of Gazan Prime Minister Ismail Haniya and the Interior
Ministry.
Gaza: This is an (Israeli) War of Choice
As soon as June's truce was agreed, the Israeli
Government was not only anticipating its breakdown but laying out its
course of action.
Update on Muntazar al-Zaidi: Trial Delayed Over Definition of "Assault"
Iran: Hossein Derakhshan Arrest Confirmed
Oh, Here's Another Crisis You Might Want to Notice (3): Iraq
While any decrease in deaths is to be welcomed, the attachment of these
figures to the emergence of Iraq under the wise occupation of the US
military needs to be recognised as an ongoing public-relations gambit.
Oh, Here's Another Crisis You Might Want to Notice (2):
Afghanistan/Pakistan
Pakistan security forces shut down a critical supply line to US and NATO
troops in Afghanistan.
----------------------
30 December
2008
Gaza, Somalia, and A Farewell Song for George Bush
Today on
Enduring
America
Rami Khouri: "God punished the arrogance and hubris of
the Hebrews in the Old Testament by making them wander the wilderness
for 40 years before allowing a later, more humble, generation to enter
Canaan. The current generation of Israeli Jews is not as proficient at
learning these 40-year lessons, it seems, to judge from Israel's current
ferocious attack on Gaza."
Bret Stephens: "The fox
cannot beat the hedgehog. But the bigger hedgehog can — and in this case
must — defeat the smaller one."
Remember the Government in Somalia? Well, it no longer
exists.
A Farewell Song for George Bush: "No One Likes Us — Don't Know Why"
----------------------
29 December
2008
A Question about Gaza
Today on
Enduring
America
Do the Israelis expect
the population at some point to turn against Hamas, blaming it for the
blockade and the bombardment? But by destroying what was left of the
Gaza middle class, surely they a throwing people into the arms of Hamas?
----------------------
28 December
2008
Gaza and
Redneck Holidays
Today on
Enduring
America
A five-step guide to understanding the events of the last 24 hours and
what is likely to happen in the next few days
Gaza Update (6 a.m. Israel/Palestine; 11 p.m. Eastern US): How Far Will
Israel Go?
Gaza Update: More than 220 Dead
Peace on Earth, Goodwill to All Men (Except in Gaza)
Holiday Greetings: Up Against the Wall, Redneck Mother
A musical guide to what it's like to be spending the holidays back in
Georgia in the American South
----------------------
27 December
2008
Gaza and Palin in 2020
Today on
Enduring
America
Peace on Earth, Goodwill to All Men (Except in Gaza)
Precious little will be done to ratchet down the violence as it plays
out for a necessary period for both Hamas to maintain its authority in
Gaza (which it will) and for key Israeli politicans — with Livni and
Netanyahu scrambling to show which one of them is tougher — and the
Israeli military to show that they are not "weak".
A Special Christmas Gift: Palin in 2020
I hasten to add that the gift does not come from Enduring America
but from Ms Ann Coulter.
----------------------
26 December
2008
Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, and the Best Christmas Song Ever
Today on
Enduring
America
Afghanistan: Stiffening Our Allies to Win the War
Listen up, all you sceptics about our strategy in Afghanistan. We've got
a secret to win this war:Viagra.
Stories to Watch After Christmas: Afghanistan and Somalia
From the Iraq Archives: When is Permanent not Permanent?
(21 June 2008)
In a week when Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates predicted that "several tens of thousands of
American troops" will be staying in Iraq beyond 2011 and when
The New York Times finally noticed the
"disquieting talk in Washington", a blog from
June that was already foreseeing American withdrawal as a necessary but
partial fiction.
Iraq: Showdown Averted?
It looks like the al-Maliki Government has avoided an
immediate crisis through a bit of manoeuvring, a bit of luck, and a bit
of a climbdown.
Update on Muntazar al-Zaidi: "His Was a Democratic Act"
Roger Cohen: "Bush dodged a shoe; he cannot dodge
shame."
Very Best of Holiday Wishes from Enduring America
The best Christmas song. Ever.
----------------------
24 December
2008
Syria, Lebanon, and A Farewell to Dubya
Today on
Enduring
America
Negotiations with Syria: The Battle Begins
Unnoticed by many, a complicated dance over talks with Syria — on a
settlement with Israel, on its position vis-a-vis Lebanon, and on its
relations with Iran and Hezbollah — is beginning.
Russian MiGs to Lebanon? And Israeli UAVs to Russia?
It's surprising that the US and Israel haven't made more fuss about
Lebanon's acquisition of Russian MiGs, but our take is that with all
eyes on isolating Iran the strategy may be to just let this one be.
More On Those Drones
A Farewell Song for George Bush: "Political Science"
Robin Williams On Dubya
"The reign of error is over. America is officially out of rehab."
----------------------
23 December
2008
Iraq, Zimbabwe, and the End of the US Empire
Today on
Enduring
America
"Muntazer al-Zaidi considers what he did when
he threw his shoes at President Bush as exercising his freedom of
expression, in opposing and rejecting the occupation, which has brought
misery to Iraq."
OK, Now It's Time to Talk Zimbabwe
Here's that latest exchange over Zimbabwe in full:
US and British
Governments:
Robert Mugabe, you must step down now.
Robert Mugabe: No.
Pakistan Update: The Missile Attacks Haven't Gone Away….
Suspected US missile strikes kill eight in northwest Pakistan
What is the reason for the closure of the Center for the Defense of
Human Rights, headed by lawyer and Nobel Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi?
There has been a worrying escalation of rhetoric from Israel, especially
from the two candidates — Tzipi Lvini and Benyamin Netanyahu — vying to
replace Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
What Russia...is as high as a Hollywood sppedballer from its victory.
Putting the two together in the same room --- speedballing Russia and
violently bad-tripping America --- is a recipe for serious disaster.
----------------------
22 December
2008
Iraq, Gaza, and Afghanistan
Today on
Enduring
America
Al-Maliki Showdown with Parliament over Troop Withdrawal?
Parliamentarians may bow to the will of the "main parties" — which I
presume include Daw'a and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. Then
again, members may choose to make a stand, as they initially did with
the Status of Forces Agreement with the United States.
Gaza Update: It's the Economy, Stupid….
The second most important story on Thursday about Gaza was the breakdown
of the truce between Hamas and the Israeli military. The most important
— although I suspect you may not have seen it — was this: "UN Agency
Suspends Gaza Food Aid".
Either because of political concerns or (more likely) the strains on
Britain's armed forces, the Brown Government isn't willing or able to
step up the military game in Afghanistan, at least in the short turn.
And that in turn means the US is taking over in another section of the
country.
plus...
----------------------
21 December
2008
Afghanistan,
Iraq, and....Sports Story of the Year
Today on
Enduring
America
"Either because of political concerns or (more likely)
the strains on Britain's armed forces, the Brown Government isn't
willing or able to step up the military game in Afghanistan, at least in
the short turn. And that in turn means the US is taking over in another
section of the country."
John Hutton, the British Defense Secretary, demonstrates
a sensitive understanding of the complexities of the situation in
Afghanistan. Just compare it to Germany in the 1930s.
By a vote of 80-68, the Iraqi Parliament has rejected the
draft law setting a withdrawal date of 31 May 2009 for troops from
Britain and five other countries.
"I felt sorry when I saw them beating him. His mouth
was badly injured and he did not utter a single word throughout until
one of the guards hit him in his left eye with a gun. Then he cried out
that he couldn't see, and I saw blood inside his eye. I am a police
officer but even I have to say I felt proud of what he did."
""The only thing they're teaching here is how to blow
shit up."
plus...
When top American sprinter Tyson Gay qualified for the
100 metres at the Beijing Olympics, the American Family Association
ensured he was entered under the correct name: Tyson Homosexual.
The Conservapedia team has now posted the scientific
study "What Triggers Reconsideration of Liberal Beliefs?" 15% apparently
do so because of the "loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting
or promoting liberal values, as in losing a loved one to crime caused by
pornography, drug addiction, gambling, etc."
----------------------
20 December
2008
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and...Barneycam
Today on
Enduring
America
Whether this becomes a "shoe intifada", as an Iranian
ayatollah colourfully labelled the Iraqi protests, remains to be seen.
Iraq's interior minister said all 24 of his officers who
had been arrested in a security crackdown this week would be released.
The Power of the Poppy: A Radical Solution for Afghanistan?
Reza Aslan:
Licensing and regulating poppy
cultivation would not only create stability and economic development, it
could sap support for the Taliban and help win the war in Afghanistan.
Pakistan: You May Want to Notice This
Thousands of antigovernment
protesters demanded Thursday that Pakistan shut the route along which
supplies are ferried to American and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
plus...
----------------------
19 December
2008
Iraq, War on
Terror, Sarah Palin, and...the University of Birmingham
Today on
Enduring
America
----------------------
18 December
2008
Iraqi Shoe-Gate, Torture, and...."So What?"
Today on
Enduring
America
Assuming that all those arrested are Sunni, the Shi'a-led
al-Maliki Government now faces a challenge that goes beyond plotters
— both political and military — in its midst.
Muntazar al-Zaidi "appeared" before an Iraqi court on
Wednesday. The ominous note is that he didn't appear.
"The Bush figure dodged, weaved and
taunted: "I can take it! I can take you all on!" But then somebody
hit him in the crotch with a sandal, and he fell to his knees."
"The State Department said that it would issue a
condemnation if it were true that Mr al-Zaidi had been beaten up."
It's one thing, from your office of Vice President,
to make an unprecedented grab for Executive Power. It's another to
lie blatantly about your efforts.
Perhaps the most interesting idea on fighting the
"War of Terror" was the "flypaper effect": invade a country so all
the terrorists would flock to it and then you could easily whip
them.
plus...
Iraq and Shoes: The Secret Videos
Iraq and Shoes: The Worst One-Liners (So Far)
Global Update: Iraq, Shoes, and Video Games
----------------------
17 December
2008
Iraq, Afghanistan, Lovely Obama and...Video Games
Today on
Enduring
America
This may be the
most horribly comic sentence of 2008. From the Times:
"Iraq is far from perfect, but at least its people have learnt to enjoy
freedom of expression."
Breaking News on the Iraq Non-Story: British Troops to
Withdraw
This, of course, is as dramatic as predicting that the
Sun will set in the west.
In contrast to the glare of publicity the Bush Administration shone on
its trial of 9-11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, cut short when he and
other defendants tried to plead guilty, all the President's men and
women are keeping quiet about the latest developments at Guantanamo Bay.
Corruption and Intrigue in Afghanistan
In contrast to most headlines that focus on "the Taliban", Sarah Chayes'
anger is directed at the Government.
Comment of the Day: Degenerate Secular Liberal Jihadist
Terrorism in Alaska
From the Daily Telegraph:"If
what is suspected turns out to be true, the burning of Wasilla Bible
Church is a metaphor for the onslaught against Christianity that
aggressive secularism has mounted in Europe and which, under the
influence of the morally degenerate Democrat Party, is now invading the
United States."
plus....
Bleed The World
Who could resist this Band Aid/ economic meltdown mashup?
----------------------
16 December
2008
Iraq, Gaza, Killer Robots, and...Obama Addresses the Nation
Iraq: Your Daily Shoe Update
I think it's safe to say that the star of the Bush
Farewell Tour is Muntazar al-Zaidi — sitting in a prison cell
somewhere in Iraq — rather than the President.
More than 12,000 people have joined a
group in honour of Muntazar al-Zaidi.
The proposed Iraqi legislation for Britain and five
other countries sets a deadline of 31 May for military duties, with
a two-month grace period for British troops.
"Okay, people. Now is the time to start
discussing the rules of war for
autonomous robots. Now, when it's still
theoretical."
The media miss the important story:
"Gaza Families Eat Grass as Israel Locks Border"
Readers have brought to our attention
the imprisonment of Seyed Mousavi, a US-Iranian national who
has been in detention since August 2007.
plus...
It's gonna be a new Presidency, America. Not only has
Barack Obama mastered the Internet to get into the White House, he's
going to stay there courtesy of kittens, fat guys on mopeds, and
body-poppin' kids….
As President Bush trots round the world on his
extended farewell, Enduring America is honoured to launch a
competition to find the appropriate song to say Good-bye to the 43rd
President.
Conservapedia strikes again: "It
struck me that denial of Conservative principles could be a result
of incipient or presenting mental illness."
----------------------
15 December
2008
Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Non-Conservative Controversy
FULL COVERAGE OF THE BUSH FAREWELL TOUR
PLUS....
Peter Beaumont: "With each death in
Afghanistan - civilian and
military - it becomes more of a commonplace to
say this is a war that can't be won....Yet still more US and British
soldiers are heading to this war."
We're especially impressed with Conservapedia's
"scientific" calculations now defining the reasons for liberal
deviance, for example, ""20% who refuse to rise above their personal
temptations".
----------------------
14 December
2008
Iraq, Non-Conservatives, and...Santa Claus (Again)
----------------------
13 December
2008
Iraq, Propaganda, Torture, and...Santa Claus
Things That Make
You Go Hmmmm: US
Troops in Iraq
for a Decade?
“[Iraq's]
government
spokesman, Ali
al Dabbagh
said…in
Washington that
the U.S. might
be needed in
Iraq for another
10 years.”
Update: The
Pentagon and
Propaganda
"The Pentagon’s
inspector
general said
yesterday that
the Defense
Department’s
public affairs
office may have
“inappropriately”
merged public
affairs and
propaganda
operations in
2007 and 2008."
The Torture
Blame Game:
Better Late than
Never?
The Senate Armed
Services
Committee
concludes that
top Bush
Administration
officials,
including former
Secretary of
Defense Donald
Rumsfeld,
then-National
Security Advisor
Condoleezza
Rice, and former
Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of
Staff General
Richard Myers,
authorised
torture in the
name of the War
of Terror.
Almost a
week after
Enduring
America
noted that
the Zimbabwe
story was
absent from
the US
media, in
contrast to
coverage
indicating
Sudan as a
priority for
the Obama
Administration, reporters
for the New
York Times
and
Washington
Post
have noticed
the crisis
in the
country.
Mike Dunn:
"I mean,
really.
Santa.
Dressed as
Uncle Sam.
Taking the
Pledge of
Allegiance.
In his
sleigh. In
the Oval
Office."
----------------------
12 December
2008
Afghanistan, Iran, and....Mega-Fantastic America
----------------------
11 December
2008
Pakistan, Iran, Illinois, and... Canada's Inferiority Complex
----------------------
10 December
2008
Iraq, Afghanistan, and...Oprah
Today on
Enduring
America
----------------------
9 December 2008
Mumbai, Obama's First Steps, and the Lego Terrorists
Today on
Enduring
America
Moves on
Guantanamo Bay
and on Cuba, but
not on Iran....
"There is a crucial
move that
President-elect
Obama could make to
chart a positive
course forward.
Obama should
renounce the 'war on
terror'."
----------------------
8 December 2008
Afghanistan, Africa, and Torture Fightbacks
Today on
Enduring
America
Pakistan and Mumbai,
Lebanon, Canada, and
Lego's "Islamic
terrorists"
----------------------
7 December 2008
The Fantasy War on Terror
Today on
Enduring
America
War on Terror Strategy: Let’s Make
Stuff Up
Richard Clarke, formerly
Counter-terrorism Coordinator under
Presidents Clinton and George W.
Bush, takes on the War on Terror in
a different way: instead of
considering the present, he projects
the future.
Follow-up — Torture: What Do We Do
Now?
Matthew Alexander: “For me, this
war, it’s more about preserving our
American principles than it is about
defeating al-Qaida. We can’t become
our enemies in trying to defeat
them.”
Keeping Watch on the Iraq
“Withdrawal”
"While the stated public line of
President-elect Obama is a
withdrawal of US forces from Iraq in
16 months, the Administration is
likely to retain a sizeable US
military presence beyond 2010."
----------------------
4-6 December
2008
The War on Terror, Iran, Afghanistan, and...Horses
----------------------
3 December
2008
The War on Terror, Iran Blogging, and Iraq "Success"
Today on
Enduring
America
The (Continuing) War on Terror: Let’s Kill All the
Crazies
Later today,
Enduring America’s inaugural podcast will be on the
following topic:
“Maybe five years
from now, an Aaronovitch or Kagan or Kristol — after
there is more violence, more terrorism, more
conflict — will admit some recognition that your
enemy is rational and that he/she sees a cause for
their violence. Maybe they will recognise that
dealing with the cause, while it may or may not
deter a particular individual from his/her path,
will in long run drain the swamp that supports the
mosquitoes.
Then again,
probably not.”
Iran: A Nation Of Bloggers
“Blogging is a
means for Iran’s young people to evade state
control: ‘a revolution within the Revolution’.”
Iraq: Today’s Super Surge Story
Iraqi women get
freedom of road. Meanwhile, 32 other Iraqis die in
suicide bombings.
----------------------
2 December
2008
India, Dangerous Professors, and Saving Christmas
Today on
Enduring
America
India’s 9/11?
Mike Dunn:
“Personally I can’t stand the implication that
September 11 2001 was Year Zero for terrorist
attacks.”
Fightin’ for Christmas the Enduring America Way
With a little bit
of help from Mr Toby Keith…
Professor Values Watch: How the Academic Left
Elected Obama
“Rest
assured that we the evil professors — previously
outed by Conservapedia and by George Will — did not
vote for Obama because of Iraq, the War on Terror,
the economic crisis, the rule of law, social
provision, the tax system, health care, community
service, education, or the perception that this
might be a President of intelligence, ability, and a
difference sense of justice and fairness than the
current resident of the White House.”
Today’s Musical Moment
Possibly the best
political song of the 1980s (but one which, of
course, has no relevance whatsoever 20 years
later)….
Fact x Importance = News (Dec 1)
“Mumbai has
dominated the news, but what other stories have we
been reading?”: From Al Qa’eda to Russian warships
to dangerous airline passengers
----------------------
1 December
2008
India, Dangerous Professors, and Saving Christmas
----------------------
30 November
2008
India, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and the Irish Obama
Today on
Enduring
America
Getting behind editorial comment for
inside stories on the Indian-Pakistani dynamic,
Ayatollah Sistani, and the Iran "threat"
The Story You May Have Missed: Afghanistan
"Washington may disagree with his
assessment, shared by some within the
Pakistani Government, that 'hard power'
is not offering a solution. If President
Obama shares that disagreement, however,
he needs to recognise that he is
proceeding in defiance of — not with —
his purported ally in what remains of
the 2001 'War on Terror'."
"The Corrigan
Brothers will soon be spreading
their single 'There’s No One As
Irish as Barack Obama' throughout
the world, formally releasing it on
12 December. We’d like to think that
this dramatic development is due to
Enduring
America."
----------------------
29 November
2008
Obama and the Pentagon, The Security Myth, and Iraq
Today on
Enduring
America
Obama’s Challenge: Curbing the Pentagon
Giles Scott-Smith: "The
possibilities for improving the US standing in the world are
equally great. To make the changes required, however, Obama
faces his challenge: curbing the Pentagon."
The Security Myth
Canuckistan: "Societywide,
there is an illusion of security created by the state to
encourage people to go about their daily lives but in reality
there is little that could be done to stop a determined
terrorist."
Agreement in Iraq: Half-Full, Half-Empty
"There is a dual negotiation
going on here. One is the negotiation between factions in Iraq
for influence, notably the Sunni struggle to retain some say in
political affairs at national level, and one is the negotiation
to limit and possibly remove the American presence. Neither of
these negotiations came to an end on Thursday."
----------------------
28 November
2008
Questions about
Mumbai, "Excellence" in Journalism, and Santa Claus
Today on
Enduring
America
More Questions from Mumbai
“Just
as the instability in Pakistan feeds from and contributes to the
ongoing instability in Afghanistan, so it may be the case that
instability in Pakistan — a central Government which is far from
strong, which is being undermined by the situation in the Northwest
Frontier, and which now be fragmented — is contributing to the
dramatic instability of the last 48 hours.”
After Mumbai: Assessing The Threat
“How can New York,
Mumbai, or any other city, legislate for a group of men armed with
light weapons and synchronised watches?”
Breaking Economic News: Santa Asks for Federal Bailout
“Santa Claus was
greeted with deep skepticism on Capitol Hill this afternoon as he
told members of Congress that he could not fund operations for the
remainder of the year without federal assistance.”
Journalism 101: Today’s Awards for Incisive Comment
Award-winning
punditry from Marine Captain Giles Clarke, David Ignatius,
Washington Post editors, and George Will….
----------------------
27 November
2008
Mumbai Attacks, Iraq Delays, Arabs on Obama, and Woolworth's
Today on
Enduring
America
Latest from Mumbai
More
than 100 dead and more than 300 injured. The
Times of India, relying on Indian military sources, says
four terrorists are still inside the Taj Hotel, along with
40 to 50 trapped guests. Twitter feed indicates explosions
and gunshots at Oberoi Hotel.
Obama, Race, and Arab Opinion
Brian Edwards: "When I
asked Cairenes - working class, middle class, students,
writers and intellectuals -- what they thought of the U.S.
President-elect, most replied with a telling word: "Menshouf."
We shall see."
Iraq Parliamentary Vote Delayed Again
"Why has the US Government not allowed publication and
discussion of the Agreement, even as the Iraq Parliament votes on it?
The McClatchy News Service, who have obtained a tranlsation of the
document, give pause to any who think this is a clear-cut settlement
leading to US withdrawal."
plus....
America on the Mat: Professional Wrestling Exclusive!
RIP Woolworth’s
----------------------
26 November
2008
Pakistan, The Gates Appointment, and Ann Coulter
Today on
Enduring
America
Follow-Up: The US Bombing Strategy in Pakistan
This US “targeted
assassination” may have the effect of disrupting and
destabilising Al-Qa’eda, but it also — for those inclined to
mythology — may have the Hydra effect. Take out one terrorist
with these tactics, and two may spring up in anger.
Obama and the Centre Lane of Foreign Policy
A reader
comments: “The Democrats finally have a mandate for actual
change but they don’t want to use it. Govern from the center;
appoint Republicans to the cabinet.”
Unsurprising News of the Day: Gates to Stay On at Pentagon
Will an Obama/Gates Pentagon in 2009 have
any approach for dealing with Al Qa’eda other than bomb, bomb,
bomb in Pakistan? Is there any new strategy for Afghanistan
other than putting some number of troops — 10,000? 15,000?
20,000? — into the country? As Iraq moves into a new stage of
political in-fighting and insurgency, albeit one with a lower if
still significant level of casualties, is there any
consideration of a US military role other than some number of
troops — 50,000? 75,000? 100,000? — as a deterrent to the
scheming Iranians across the border?
Ann Coulter’s Jaw Wired Shut
Literally.
----------------------
25 November
2008
Pakistan, Camp X-Ray, and Dangerous Atheists
----------------------
24 November
2008
Iran, Iraq, and William Kristol
Today on
Enduring
America
----------------------
23 November
2008
Iran and Palin's Turkey of an Interview
Today on
Enduring
America
Iran: The Way Forward
"Twenty specialists on Iran,
including ambassadors, government officials, and scholars, have issued a
statement calling on the new President to pursue “engagement” with Iran.
It should be an important and influential document. Whether it is will
be an important guide to how much “change” is delivered in US foreign
policy under Barack Obama."
Will Guantanamo Close?: Canuckistan on Press TV
Worst Political Interview 2008: Sarah Palin and Turkey Carnage
"Sarah Palin had just pardoned a
turkey for Thanksgiving 2008. What happened next?"
----------------------
22 November
2008
Iraq, Hillary Clinton, and Dangerous Professors
Today on
Enduring
America
Breaking News: Beyond Hillary Clinton
"Today’s media are likely
to be dominated by the celebrity and
dramatic value of the appointment of Hillary
Clinton as Secretary of State. All well and
good for headlines and viewers, but with
respect to foreign policy, almost all of
this will be tangential or speculative. Two
other appointments, one of which will get
little coverage, deserve attention today."
Why We Love Conservapedia: Outing Dangerous
Professors
"Professors’ common value system typically
includes atheism, censorship, socialism,
unjustified claims of expertise and
knowledge (for example, the dogmatic
promotion of the theory of evolution),
liberаl beliefs, liberal grading, liberal
bias, anti-patriotism, lack of productivity,
bullying or discouraging conservative
students (for example, homeschoolers), and
promotion of sexual immorality."
Iraq Surge Success Story of the Day
Bush Gets Snubbed
Panic! US No Longer Number One!
Less
than 24 hours after I argued, “America
should not be at the centre of our approach
to the world. It is not a case of ‘America
leads, we follow’,” I read headlines in the
British press of the American decline
----------------------
21 November
2008
Iranian Bombs and Intrigues, Guantanamo, and Reservoir Academics
----------------------
19 November
2008
Around the World and Back to Felon Ted and Pirates
Today on Enduring
America
Fact x Importance = News (18 Nov): Camp X-Ray, Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan-Pakistan, and Somalia
Felon Ted Will No Longer Be Senator Ted
“Let’s just savour that one of the most pernicious manipulators of
political power will no longer be in Washington.”
Bad Pirates, Good Pirates….
The rationale of one Sky News viewer: “These pirates are not Johnny Depp.
They give pirates a bad name.”
It’s That Clinton Woman….
“Yes, there is drama in the possibilities but, for now, they are
overshadowing significant developments such as the Obama-McCain
meeting.”
----------------------
18 November
2008
Obama: Muslim or Irish?
Today on Enduring
America
Why We Love Conservapedia: The Muslim Barack Obama
"We find a sense of
humour at Conservapedia, our bulwark against liberal bias — 'the truth
shall set you free'."
Correction: It’s the Irish Barack Obama (and Here’s the Music to Prove
It)
"We’ve snared the
music video for you — and for anyone at Conservapedia who wants to set
the record straight.”
----------------------
17 November
2008
Missile Defence, Gaza, the CIA, and Exploding Koalas
Today on Enduring
America
Iraq: Not So Fast….
“Is the United
States really going to abandon more than dozen permanent
bases, representing billions of dollars of investment,
by the end of 2011? Or will there be interpretations and
re-interpretations of the agreement to allow US units —
‘trainers’, ‘advisors’, ‘mobile forces’ — to remain in
Iraq?”
Do Not Panic: The Culture of Fear is Still Alive and
Well
“I
think it’s important to get a national security team in
place because transition periods are potentially times
of vulnerability to a terrorist attack.”
Fact x Importance = News (Nov 17)
-
The top two
American intelligence officials expect to lose their
jobs soon after Obama becomes President.
-
There is debate as
to whether the Democrats can investigate Bush
administration officials for alleged abuses carried
out during the ‘war on terror’.
-
Jason Burke thinks
we should lower our expectations for Afghanistan.
-
Activists in Tuscon,
Arizona are using guerrilla art to protest hardline
anti-immigrant law enforcement officials.
-
Nobody knows what
China’s new hospital ship is for.
-
Dubai
has gone bust
----------------------
16 November
2008
The Non-Story of the Economic Summit
----------------------
15 November 2008
Missile Defence, Gaza, the CIA, and Exploding Koalas
Fact x Importance = News: The Stories We’re Watching
Top Story of the Day: Hillary or Nicolas?
Under-noticed Story of the Day: Food rather than Rockets
Speculation of the Day: Obama and Gitmo
Negotiation of the Week: Talks with the Taliban?
Why We Love Conservapedia: The Exploding Koala
Today’s Moment of Political Wisdom: Why Liberal Women Hate Sarah Palin
Friday Special: Cat in A Box
Condi’s Interview: The Opening Reactions
Condoleezza Rice in the New York Times
CIA Director Steps Back In Time
----------------------
14 November 2008
False News, Real News, The Economy, and...Truck Nutz
Today on Enduring
America
Fact x Importance = News: If Only the New York Times Were Real
Which do you prefer:
Wednesday’s spoof front page or the story by Judith Miller on the Iraqi
Weapons of Mass Destruction?
The President gives a keep-the-faith speech....
"Rather than seeking another definition to encapsulate (or exclude)
certain actors, methodologies, or bureaucracies, I’ve been seeking
to think about what Public Diplomacy is it at its core."
Republican activists, trying to rebuild after the elections, have
launched a website called Rebuild the Party to solicit ideas.
----------------------
13
November 2008
Pakistan
,
Venezuela
, and Obama the “Hawk”
Today on Enduring
America
Fact
x Importance = News: Pakistan
"There have been a swirl
of news stories in the last 72 hours about the conflicts in
Afghanistan
and the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan. Beyond the escalation in bombings and
shootings, the most significant may offer clues to future
US
policy."
Same-Sex
Marriage: Six Minutes From (and About) The Heart
"In the excitement over
the Obama victory in the
United States
, there was a significant setback at the polls. Voters passed a Constitutional
amendment, 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in
California
.'"
Obama,
Chavez, and a New Relationship? The Strange Case of the Houston Consulate
"The Stonecypher Report
picks up on a flap over the Venezuelan Consulate in
Houston
,
Texas
, and draws an interesting conclusion."
"It takes Freedland
quite a while to get to his point, but when he does, it’s a stinger: 'Obama is
no dove. He is just a much smarter hawk, his eye more sharply focused.'"
----------------------
12 November
2008
Thoughts on an Obama Presidency
Today on Enduring
America:
An Obama Presidency: The Niggles Begin
Reaction to a speech by
Senator Patrick Leahy in Dublin: “I am still worried that the Democrats think
they will look ‘soft’ on national security if they challenge — at least without
assured support from some Republicans — the Bush Administration’s grab of
executive power.”
Niggles About Obama: Canuckistan Responds
“The Bush
Administration has left a counter-terrorist toxic waste dump for its successors
to clean up.”
Homeland Security: Obama = Nazi/Communist/Socialist Alert
“Today’s Vigilant Citizen
Award has to go to Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia.
“That’s because Broun has
uncovered Obama’s plot to impose an American Gestapo upon us. He tipped off the
Associated Press on Monday, ‘It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the
thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force.”
----------------------
11 November
2008
The Obama Administration, Transitions, and Iraq
Today on Enduring
America:
----------------------
10 November
2008
Celebrating Bankers, Palestine, and the Kristol-Palin Axis of Determination
Today on Enduring
America:
Celebrating Bankers: The $140 Billion Tax Cut in the Bailout
Obama, His Chief of Staff, and Palestine: The 2002 Interview
The Tinkling of Kristol: Turning an Election into Dogs (and Palin)
Why We Love Conservapedia: Melchester
The Inside Story of the Palin Nomination: Follow-Up
----------------------
9
November 2008
Questions for the President-Elect:
Russia
and Israel/Palestine
Today on Enduring
America:
Russia
to Obama: The Follow-Up
Obama
and Israel/Palestine: The Significant One-Liner
Great
Election 2008 Moments: Joe Biden’s Gesture to the Disabled
Obama,
His Chief of Staff, and the Middle East (Part 2)
Who
Will Be Advising Obama on Foreign Policy?
Russia
to Obama: Ball’s In Your Court
----------------------
8
November 2008
Election
Post-Mortems, the New Administration, and W
ELECTION AFTERMATH,
POLITICS, AND A BIT OF FILM
Oliver
Stone’s W: All You Need to Know
After
Obama’s Victory: The Unseen Riots
Obama,
His Chief of Staff, and the Middle East
Scott
Lucas on the BBC World Service: What Now for the Republican Party?
From
the Archives: Assessing the US Election
----------------------
7 November 2008
Your Grab-Bag of Post-Election Surprises
We're trying to get to grips with
the US and the world after the confirmation of President-Elect Obama. Meanwhile,
there is a buffet of surprises, best moments, and fallout from the 2008
election:
Blue State Iran
Great Post-Election Moments: The K-Hammer Gives History’s Verdict
Great Election Moments: The Genius who is Bill Kristol
Obama’s Surprise Number One Fan: Silvio Berlusconi
Obama’s State of the Union Message: An Advance Copy
Republican Blood-Letting: Knives Come Out for Palin
Reviving the Israel-Palestine Issue: Nader’s Letter to Obama
Race and the US Elections: Thumbs-Down for the BBC?
----------------------
6 November 2008
From Watching to Enduring America
Thanks to all who joined us
throughout Election Night on Enduring
America. We're continuing the move of the blog to the new site. Our
post-election and international stories for the last 24 hours:
Where Now for the Republicans?
Irreverent Election Postscripts (2): Bush Avoids Going Down the Sewer
Irreverent Election Postscripts: America Overcomes “Crappiness”
Return to the World: The Stories We’re Watching
Today’s Mythical “Surge” Moment
When the Honeymoon is Over (Part 2)
----------------------
4 November 2008
Watching-Enduring the Election Throughout the Day (and Night)
We'll be covering Election
Day all day and night on
Enduring America,
with a live blog beginning at 9 p.m. British Time (4 p.m. on the East Coast of
the US) and updates, comments, and humourous glances up to then. Join us and
offer your own projections, help us pick out an Election Night anthem, and
express happiness/anger/frustration.
Meanwhile:
Enduring America's Final Projection: Obama 338, McCain 200
More than a dozen overnight
polls have settled in a remarkably narrow range of a lead of about 7 points for
Obama-Biden. If they are on the mark, Obama has not only checked McCain’s
fight-back of the last week but has slightly widened his advantage.
In light of this national
trend and — more importantly — early voting patterns and state polls, Enduring
America is now putting Florida back in the Democratic camp.
plus
Worst Election 2008 Story: Obama Loses, Blacks Riot
Monday Night Update: Democratic Advantage in Florida?
Projections from "Canuckistan"
----------------------
3 November 2008
All The Election Talk:
Obama Victory, The Inside Story of the Palin Nomination
and Sarah Palin's Brief Encounter with "President Sarkozy"
We've got 72 hours of
Election treats on
Enduring
America, from the latest projection of the Presidential race
(still a comfortable Obama victory) to Sarah Palin's brief encounter
with "President Sarkozy" of France.
The projections of the likely outcome in the
race for the White House were carried out yesterday and this morning.
Enduring America predicts that the Republicans will hold the
swing states of Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina and may now
narrowly win Florida. However, McCain-Palin are struggling in other key
states like Virginia and Colorado, and the Republican strategy to take
Pennsylvania from the Democrats is a long-shot at best.
plus
----------------------
2 November 2008
48 Hours to Go: Despite Republican Scare Tactics, Obama Secure
It’s a sign of the new
politics that 72 hours away from a computer offers not only an old-fashioned but
distorted view of the Presidential campaign.
Relying in a
Dublin
flat on Sky News’s rolling Saturday morning news-loop, I could reduce the
race to The Terminator Comes Out for McCain. That dramatic headline was followed
by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger rallying the GOP faithful, and
probably more than a few star-spotters, with: “I played an action hero. But
John McCain is a real American action hero.” (And, oh yes, Barack Obama is a
girly-man, or something to that effect)
Like a DVD that will never
eject, Arnie repeated the theatrics every 30 minutes. So did the Sky reporters,
preferring screengrabs like “Lipstick Chicks for Palin” and keeping any
meaningful analysis in check. For example, why didn’t Schwarzenegger come out
in
California
weeks ago for Big John McCain instead of popping up as a last-minute guest in
Ohio
? Could it be that the Governor, even in his second term, wasn’t going to risk
his political image at home, linking himself for more than a moment with a
struggling campaign? And what does it say for the Republicans when their
Presidential candidate becomes no more than a flailing second-string actor —
“Senator Obama is going to take more than a trillion dollars from you in
taxes” — behind the star introducing him?
Most importantly, take note
of the guide to political and property success: Location, Location, Location.
The Republican star event was in
Ohio
, as Obama was whipping up the crowds in
Indiana
. Translation? While McCain was having to play for a must-win state for the GOP,
his opponent had the luxury of trying to snare a swing state that is far from
critical for Democratic hopes.
So, even in this analytic
backwater, a bit of insight was possible. Sky kept trying to whip up the drama
for its coverage — they have their own “White House” in
Florida
for Election Night! — with the headline reading that McCain was now slightly
ahead in Indiana and
Missouri
. In this race, that’s the equivalent of a 90th-minute goal when you’re 4-0
down (or, for my brother-in-law, the 4th-quarter touchdown for the
University
of
Georgia
so it only lost 49-10 rather than 49-3 to arch-rvial
Florida
).
Safe in cyber-land this
morning, I can confirm: for all the Schwarzenegger-aided attempt at sound and
fury, little has changed. McCain-Palin are still around seven points down (and
no closer than four points in any poll) in their Hail Mary target of
Pennsylvania
. Meanwhile, here’s the checklist on the states, held by the Republicans in
2004, that the Democrats could take — Obama-Biden need only a maximum of three
of these and, in some cases, one to get to the White House:
Florida
: Democrats up 2.5
Ohio
: Democrats up 5.1
Virginia
: Democrats up 6.5
North Carolina
: Democrats up 1.9
Indiana
: Republicans up 0.2
Missouri
: Democrats up 0.6
Colorado
: Democrats up 7.0
Nevada
: Democrats up 4.9
New Mexico
: Democrats up 11.6
And that doesn’t even
count the real surprises that have come into play: RealClearPolitics — which
seems more intent than FiveThirtyEight on hedging its bets has added to the
toss-up column McCain’s home state of Arizona to Montana, North Dakota, and
Georgia (my devout Republican brother-in-law is having a very bad weekend) and
has moved Arkansas — deep redneck Arkansas! — into the “leaning” rather
than “solid” Republican category.
I think those new supposed
battlegrounds are just a bit of bonus news for the Democrats. Indeed, I’m
still playing the conservative hand of McCain-Palin holding
Missouri
,
Indiana
, and
North Carolina
. But that’s no change on Obama 338, Big John 200 in the final electoral
count. (For what it’s worth, RealClearPolitics is tapping into Enduring
America’s oracle powers — with the exception of giving
North Carolina
to Obama-Palin, it’s in line with this projection.)
Here’s the latest smoke
signals of Republicans burning in desperation. Once their charge that
Obama-Biden were Marxists was rebuffed by Barack’s classic, “According to
Senator McCain, I must be a Communist because I shared my toys in
kindergarten”, they reached for a last handful of mud with
Obama-hangs-out-with-extremists. The bad guy in this scenario was Columbia
University Professor Rashid Khalidi, author of numerous books on the Middle East
and
US
foreign policy.
I’ve had the fortune of
not only reading but listening to Khalidi’s academic presentations. He is
engaging, challenging, and forthright. He is critical of
US
policy towards the Middle East and
Washington
’s support for
Israel
. Twinning that with the fact that Khalidi is Palestinian to make the charge of
“anti-Semitic” is a slur and no more.
However, even granting
Khalidi as an imminent danger to mankind and thus making Obama — who has
supported Khalidi’s work in
Palestine
— an appeaser of anti-Semitism, the Republican strategy has a couple of
flaws. Such as forgetting that the International Republican Institute, led by
one John McCain, gave more than $400,000 to Khalidi’s group. Such as putting
up this McCain campaign worker to prove that Obama hung out with devoted enemies
of Israel (hat-tip to Juan Cole)….
----------------------
30
October 2008
Election Talk: Socialists, Emerging Candidates, and "Wassup?"
We’re “in transition” to our new home for
blogging and commentary, Enduring
America. It gives us more freedom with layout, video, and interaction
with readers. Featured today:
Obama
Victory = Socialists on Your Doorstep
The
3rd Party Candidate Who May Deny McCain Victory
“Wassup?”
How Obama Won Via the Internet
The
Election Night Anchorman We’d Like to See: Lil O’Reilly
----------------------
30
October 2008
Election
Projection: The
Latest Reading of the Campaign
It appears some hearts are
a-flutterin’ today at the prospect that the Presidential race on November 4
may not be over by bedtime on the East Coast of the US, let alone here in
Britain. Four of the eight new national polls (Rasmussen, Gallup Traditional,
IBD/TIPP, and GWU/Battleground), including two of the three with the largest
samples, have Obama only up three points on McCain.
This quicker heartbeat
isn’t just the symptom of a broadcast media hoping for more drama (and
ratings) approching that of 2000 and 2004. Some colleagues, both in
Britain
and the
US
, are thinking that the Democrats — for all their spending and push for voter
registration — haven’t solidified their voting base.
All the same, I have to be a
bit of a party pooper. The issue is not that those “other” polls (including
the Gallup Expanded, which is more likely than the Traditional to be relevant in
a year of high voter turnout) have Obama with a steady 5-7 point lead. Let’s
even set aside that FiveThirtyEight.com, comprehensive and by far the shrewdest
assessor of what polls can and can’t indicate, has the gap still holding at
just under 6 percent.
To paraphrase Brother Bill
Clinton’s folks, it’s the states, stupid. And there is little movement
towards McCain in the nine battleground states (
Florida
,
Ohio
,
North Carolina
,
Virginia
,
Indiana
,
Missouri
,
Colorado
,
New Mexico
,
Nevada
) that will decide this contest. Yes, he has closed to level-pegging with Obama
in
Missouri
and he’s only 1 1/2 points out in
Indiana
. It’s a minor yes — even with
Missouri
and Indiana in his column, which we projected on Monday, the Republicans are
more than 130 electoral votes adrift.
If anything, the unexpected
shifts today are away from the
Republicans. RealClearPolitics, for example, has excitedly moved
Georgia
— yep, the red-state
Georgia
where my relatives live — into the toss-up column. I hasten to add that the
other top sites, including FiveThirtyEight, still have the Peach State firmly
Republican — it appears that RCP has made its move because of one poll that
has Obama down only a point and on the basis of strong early voting returns in
Georgia in favour of the Democrats.
That last point is
important, however, not necessarily for
Georgia
but for other states. FiveThirtyEight has noted an unprecedented early turnout.
In the states of
Louisiana
,
Georgia
, and
North Carolina
, the early returns already exceed 2004 totals. And, just as important, that
surge is favouring Obama.
The trend isn’t just at
state level. In key counties in
Ohio
, the pivot state of 2004, early returns are two to three times the entire 2004
turnout. If Obama is performing as well in those returns as in the state, his
lead would be more than enough to wipe out the narrow deficit that defeated John
Kerry in
Ohio
in 2004.
That’s a big if, of
course, as it assumes that all other things will be equal on Election Day. Of
course, McCain could surprise me with an unexpected surge. Of course, there may
be some truth to the legend of the “Bradley effect”, with declared
Democratic voters suddenly turning Republican as they enter the voting booth.
But “may” doesn’t
translate into likely. A friend sounded off earlier this evening that pollsters
don’t seem to be mentioning “margin of error” in their reporting of
samples — given that the margin for even a medium-sized poll is 3 percent
either way, it could more than wipe out Obama’s putative lead in key states.
It’s a fair point, but when you match up an accumulation of polls with
readings of other factors from organisation to high voter registration for the
Democrats to the early voting patterns, the case for an Obama victory — and an
early victory — on 4 November continues to be close to open-and-shut.
----------------------
28 October 2008
Election Talk: The Campaign
and The Races in the Senate
States
of Play
To
paraphrase Saturday Night Live’s
classic 1970s sketch on General Francisco Franco, “The McCain-Palin campaign
is stubbornly clinging to death.”
There are
no significant shifts in likely state outcomes from Monday. RealClearPolitics
has only two changes.
New Hampshire
is back in play, i.e., “leaning” rather than “solid” Democratics,
primarily on the basis of two polls that have Obama only 4-5 points up vs.
previous readings of 7-15 points. The problem here is that, in such a small
state, polling samples can be quite volatile. Even if
New Hampshire
is now up for grabs, with 4 electoral votes, it’s not a key player despite
all the “as
New Hampshire
goes, so goes the
United States
” clichés.
Much more
fun is Arizona --- that’s right, Big John’s home patch --- moving into
“leaning” rather than “solid” Republican. It’s a mirror image of
New Hampshire
, with a 21-point poll gap suddenly coming down to 5-8. Again, I don’t think
the state will shift on 4 November although, as FiveThirtyEight shrewdly notes,
the spillover effect from Obama’s rally in
Arizona
is that it bolsters his position in neighbouring
New Mexico
.
No changes
on FiveThirtyEight, which keeps both
Arizona
and
New Hampshire
safe for the respective favourites. Reading the state polls, however, they now
have McCain down to a 3% chance of triumphing on Election Day.
Just
for Comparison
In case
you’re suspicious of a pro-Obama bias here, Watching America is a bit more
cautious on his prospects than either FiveThirtyEight or RealClearPolitics. Our
338-200 prediction matches up with 351-187 on FiveThirtyEight and an Obama
landslide of 375-163 on RCP.
Turning
to Congress
We’ll
try and do a full run-down on both the Senate and House before next Tuesday,
particularly as they have been largely overlooked by the British media (Anne
Applebaum’s column in the Daily Telegraph is today’s exception).
Here’s a
snapshot of a quite interesting year for Senate contests, which features a
convicted felon (Republican Ted Stevens of Alaska, found guilty yesterday on
seven counts of violating Federal ethics laws), a comedian/best-selling writer
(Democrat Al Franken of Minnesota), former Cabinet member (Republican Elizabeth
Dole of North Carolina), and several long-serving Republicans in the fights of
their electoral lives.
The
current Senate is balanced at 49-49 between the two parties, although the
Independents Joseph Lieberman and Bernie Sanders are with the Democratic Caucus
(in the case of Lieberman, very “technically” with the Democratic Caucus).
However, with the “Bush effect” kicking in big-time, an Election Day bonanza
for the Democrats is possible.
There are
35 races this year (because of the six-year term of Senators, only one-third
come back to the voters in every two-year electoral cycle). The 2002 success of
the Republicans now turns against them, as only 12 of the seats are held by
Democrats. More importantly, all of those Democratic seats are safe.
In
contrast, no less than eleven of the Republican seats are now vulnerable,
including --- in a late turnaround at the polls --- that of the Republican
leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. In a country where an
incumbent Senator used to be only at risk if he is found naked in a park, is
outed by his mistress, or “does a Stevens” and gets jail time, this level of
vulnerability is extraordinary.
This,
however, is no ordinary year. In three of the Republican seats, the incumbent is
not standing. Those can be handed to the Democrats (Mark Warner in Virginia,
Mark Udall in
Colorado
, Tom Udall in
New Mexico
) right now. In New Hampshire, incumbent Republican John Sununu has been
trailing former Governor Jeanne Shaheen by about nine points In Oregon,
incumbent Republican Gordon Smith is trying to claw back a four-point deficit to
Jeff Merkley with a clever tactic: he’s claiming common ground with Barack
Obama in the hope that Oregonians, who lead the nation in their disapproval of
George W. Bush, will see him as a bridge-builder with the next President.
Three
other seats should have been safe Republican holds but, in the last few weeks,
have suddenly turned into real electoral races. Roger Wicker is down to a 1-2
point lead in some polls in
Mississippi
. Saxby Chambliss in
Georgia
, who got into the Senate in 2002 thanks to an atrocious smear campaign by
Bush’s political spinners against the
Vietnam
veteran Max Cleland, is only two points up. And Republican Senate leader
McConnell now finds he is only a couple of points ahead in
Kentucky
. It makes for interesting viewing (and, for partisan Democrats, hopes of a
night comparable to the 1997 Labour thrashing of the Tories in
Britain
), but all three races should stay with the Republicans.
That
leaves three Senate races in the balance. In a race which, for politicos with no
other life, has been fascinating train-wreck viewing, Elizabeth Dole in
North Carolina
has been tumbling against Kay Hagan --- she’s now two points down and can be
marked as the underdog. In Alaska, Felon Ted Stevens is now one point behind
Mark Begich --- FiveThirtyEight is confident that the Democrats will take the
seat but Stevens now only has the look and morals but also the
rising-from-the-dead quality of a vampire.
Last but
definitely not least, in the race which may capture the essence of the last
seven Bush years, Al Franken --- Saturday
Night Live member and author of books such “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat
Idiot” and “Lies and the Liars Who Tell Them” --- has come from way back
to a realistic shot of unseating Republican Norm Coleman, best known for getting
his political backside handed to him when he questioned George Galloway over
Iraq. This seat was held by the Democrat Paul Wellstone, one of the finest
persons ever to serve in Congress, until he died just before the 2002 election,
so it has a special resonance for activists.
How do the
numbers work out? At a maximum, the Democrats will be up 60-38 (with two
Independents) in the new Senate but a more realistic “high hope” is a 57-41
split (if Hagan, Begich, and Franken triumph).
In
practical terms, that isn’t an overwhelming turn of fortunes in the Congress.
The media’s one grasp of this is that the Democrats get a “lock” on the
Senate if they have 60 seats, as they can prevent another Republican filibuster
to block legislation. That, however, is a relatively minor consideration,
testimony less to political reality than to the fact that Jimmy Stewart and the
movie Mr Smith Goes to Washington
still defines the Congress for some onlookers. What
is clear, however, is that the Democrats don’t need Joe Lieberman anymore to
ensure a majority. So they solidify their hold on Committee chairmanships and
key posts.
More
importantly, a gain of eight seats for the Democrats will be a powerful symbol
in its own right, complementing that of an Obama Change. After close to a
generation of supposed defining of American values by the Republicans --- from
Ronald Reagan to little Bush --- the other party has the chance to take
responsibility. Whether it does, in a meaningful rather than rhetorical way,
will do a lot to answer the question of “What is
America
?” for those of us outside the
United States
.
----------------------
27 October 2008
Your State-by-State Snapshot of the 2008 Election
Eight
mornings to go before Indecision Day, as the Daily
Show would call it, and last week’s analysis (Watching America, 23
October) is holding up well. There might well be a party on 4 November but there
won’t be much drama.
Surprisingly
--- well, surprising to me because it seems to be a forlorn strategy --- the
media line that McCain-Palin were going to gamble on turning Pennsylvania
Republican seems to have borne out over the weekend. Unsurprisingly, the
Democrats countered by upping their presence in the state, with Obama attending
rallies in
Pittsburgh
and the
Pennsylvania
suburbs this week. Obama-Biden are still up between 11 and 13 points in the
latest state polls.
The more
important story, picked up by the New York Times this AM, is the desperate
attempt of the Republicans to hold onto “their” states from 2004: “Mr.
McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, are
planning to spend most of their time in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina,
Missouri, and Indiana.” That’s
significant because those are six of the 10 Republican-held swing states that we
identified on Thursday. What’s even more significant is that even a Republican
miracle in these states won’t be enough: there’s an indication here that the
Republicans don’t have the resources to defend
Colorado
,
New Mexico
, and
Nevada
--- a Democratic victory in
Colorado
plus one of the other two means a President Obama (barring a surprise McCain
win in
Pennsylvania
).
The
broader weekend spin was McCain’s Braveheart call to his troops, insisting,
“We’re going to win” and claiming that Obama and Co. are already treating
the election as won. It’s a shrewd if expected move, trying to win over
floating voters with the impression of an overconfident, even arrogant
Democratic campaign. However, in the equally shrewd and expected counter-move,
the Democrats are putting out the message that “it ain’t over until it’s
over” and no one should expect an easy walk to the White House.
My reading
is that McCain will close the national gap slightly over the next week.
Underdogs often do so in the last phase of a campaign (Ford v. Carter ’76,
Bush v.
Clinton
’92 as examples). That will be a token gain, however --- McCain may cling on
to a couple of states where he’s slightly behind, but there is no way that he
pulls out the “Hail Mary” of modern US politics and takes himself and the
Hockey Mom to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
I won’t
be putting my final picks into the office pools until next Monday, but here’s
a snapshot of the likely scenario. Remember that 270 electoral votes are needed
for victory.
SAFE
DEMOCRATIC STATES (20 and Washington D.C --- 259 electoral votes): I won’t
list them all but this includes
Michigan
,
Minnesota
, and
Wisconsin
, where the Republicans had hopes of wins, and…
Pennsylvania
(21 votes): Sorry, Big John. There’s not much hope
in the appeal to that mythical working-class, white multitude in “western
Pennsylvania
” to come out in force to stop Obama. Any bump in those areas will be more
than offset by big Democratic margins in the urban areas.
SAFE
REPUBLICAN STATES (19 --- 157 electoral votes): The fragment of good news for
the GOP is that
Georgia
and
West Virginia
, which should never have been in doubt, have been shored up in recent days. The
fun story, if it’s borne out in the next week, is that Obama is closing the
gap in McCain’s home state of Arizona, but I think that’s just a bit of
electoral froth and mischief.
THE 11
STATES IN PLAY (122 electoral votes): From largest to smallest…
Florida
(27
votes): Obama’s up by just over two points here, a margin which could easily
be overturned by the Republicans. Normally I would expect the diehard GOP folks
to bring this back to McCain-Palin but memories of 2000 are a force here. The
Democrats will want
Florida
big-time not only to lock down the election but as in-your-face statement to
those they think took the Presidency from them eight years ago. A nail-biter
but…
Obama-Biden
Ohio
(20 votes): Obama’s up 4-6 points and the 2000/2004
“bump” is in play here as well. This was the decisive state four years ago
and, discounting the theory that is still about that the Republicans stole the
state, the Democrats think they should have made sure of the Buckeye State last
time. This time…
Obama-Biden
North Carolina
(15 votes): Obama’s up a
point in the polls. This is one of those places where I expect a late Republican
push to make a difference --- a big turnout in the rural areas may make a
difference. Remember, this used to be the state of the late Jesse Helms, the
spectre of parochial, xenophobic Republicanism.
McCain-Palin
Virginia
(13 votes): Looking back on it, maybe the key state
in this campaign. Republican for the last generation but, with its mix of rural
areas and affluent suburbs, increasingly up for grabs --- in contrast to
North Carolina
to the south, not as definable in working-class, white terms. Swung early in
the campaign towards the Democrats and Obama’s now up 6-7 points.
Obama-Biden
Missouri
(11 votes): See
North Carolina --- Obama’s up a point but McCain’s small bounce-back this
week may take this one back into the Republican column. Still, I wouldn’t put
the house --- or even my children --- on the outcome here.
McCain-Palin
Indiana
(11
votes): The first vote to watch on Election Night, as it reports back just after
10 p.m. British time. If it goes for Obama, Democrat parties can already swing.
Obama’s lead is whisker-thin, though. This state was such a Republican lock in
2000 and 2004 that, disappointing my colleague “Canuckistan”, have to call
it…
McCain-Palin
Colorado
(9 votes): Obama up 6-7 points. In a state balanced between big-city liberals, Christian fire-breathers,
and rural whites, it’s the liberals who have been better-organised. No
surprise that Obama made an appearance in
Denver
this week to get the party started.
Obama-Biden
New Mexico
(5 votes): Obama has steadily gained in the last
month, turning a toss-up into an 8-9 point lead. Somebody sometime is going to
figure out the US Southwest has never been a die-hard “
Red
State
” area, particularly with Hispanic voters drifting away from the Republicans.
Obama-Biden
Nevada
(5 votes):
The real surprise for those of us who have always lumped it with
arch-conservative
Utah
. Enough swing voters --- by class and education, if not race --- to make this
possible hunting ground for the Democrats. The local organization has converted
the opportunity --- Obama’s up 2-3 points.
Obama-Biden
North
Dakota
and
Montana
(3 votes each): Should never have
been in doubt. Even listing them here is a sign of how McCain-Palin have
crumbled since early October.
McCain-Palin
YOUR
ELECTION NIGHT OUTCOME (MAYBE)
Obama-Biden
338
McCain-Palin
200
----------------------
25
October 2008
Grand Delusions: From McCain’s Defeat to “Victory” in
Iraq
Amidst this week’s rationalizations by numerous Republicans of John
McCain’s forthcoming defeat, one in particular is especially tragic. Michael
Gerson, who once wrote speeches for President George W. Bush, explains that
McCain will lose the election because he --- and Gerson --- were right about the
surge in
Iraq
whereas Barack Obama is completely wrong.
Forget, for the moment, that Gerson’s explanation ignores what happened
in
Iraq
between 2003 and 2007 in the aftermath of the war he supported. Gerson is
flat-out wrong on what is happening in
Iraq
, wrong not only in description but in what is likely to happen in
Iraq
in forthcoming months.
Listen
to podcast…
----------------------
23 October
Tales from the Presidential Campaign
Election Talk: The Republican
Alamo
Some Republicans were talking up a slight bump in
the polls this weekend for McCain-Palin --- translation: instead of being 5-6
points down in national surveys, they were "only" 4-5 points down.
FiveThirtyEight.com,
excellent as always, put this in perspective by noting that to overhaul Obama,
McCain would have to keep picking up a half-point each day, every day to the
election. There's a more important point, however: at this point, it's
not a question of the national poll but the numbers in each "swing" state.
So, to get to the nitty-gritty, McCain's limited
national gain plays out at state level with a movement back to him in places
like West Virginia and Indiana, which now lean back to the Republicans. These
states, however, should never have been in question --- at least in any scenario
where the GOP has a chance of winning --- they should have been "safe". So, to
be blunt, McCain is only clawing back a bit of his lost territory.
Contrast this with the important "swing" areas.
McCain-Palin - in my humble opinion - have no hope of taking any state that went
Democratic in 2004. In three states which were seen as possible Republican gains
only a month ago --- Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota -- Obama is up 10-12
points in polling.
That means McCain has to hold all but two (and
possibly all but one) states that Bush took four years ago. But in eight of
these, McCain is trailing by a clear margin in three (Virginia, Colorado, New
Mexico) and down 2-4 points in five (Missouri, North Carolina, Nevada, Florida,
and Ohio). And this doesn't even include Indiana and, bizarrely, North Dakota
which could still be in play.
The media line over the last 48 hours is that the
Republicans may make a last grandstand effort by throwing resources into
Pennsylvania to pray that state away from the Democrats. If true, this is either
desperation or mad genius, as Obama is up 11 points in latest polling.
More likely is the scenario that the Republicans
are going to the Alamo - a last, frantic defense to keep the eight states listed
above. But there are tales that they have given up on Colorado, which means it
comes down to clinging onto the other seven.
Possible? In a politics of "never say never",
sure. But you do know what happened to the defenders of the Alamo.
Election Talk: The Backfire of
the Culture Wars
The immediate furour over Colin Powell's weekend
endorsement of Barack Obama missed a key dimension of the reasons for his
decision. The
issue was not just Obama's "proving himself" or, conversely, the inexperience
and weaknesses of Sarah Palin but the Republican strategy of pitting "good
Americans" against others:
Now, I understand what
politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's
good. But I think this goes too far....I'm also troubled by, not what Senator
McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said
such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct
answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian.
But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with
being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there
something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he
or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party
drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This
is not the way we should be doing it in America.
I feel strongly about
this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo
essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at
the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she
had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused
in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple
Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of
death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it
didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent
and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan,
and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the
time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his
life.
I still Powell has a lot to
answer for, notably his failure to stand up to others in the Bush Administration
and stop the mad quest for executive power and a war in Iraq, but I think his
words should be a prominent reply to the political poison of "us" v. "them", a
poison which has not only threatened electoral politics but wreaked havoc in the
name of US foreign policy.
And there are other
encouraging signs. Sarah Palin has finally apologised -- well, kind of - for her
praise of "pro-American" parts of the United States (presumably those favouring
the Republicans) and implication that other areas were just a bit suspect.
Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's call for her colleagues to be
investigated and classifed by the media as "pro-American" and "anti-American"
has given a boost to her opponent both in finances and polling.
American fingers crossed
that this continues.
Election
Talk: McCain's Fightback --- An Unexpected Endorsement
"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a
commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely
linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the
"failing march of his predecessor," President Bush.
----------------------
21 October
Tuesday Buffet:
Obama, Khomeini, and the Chavez-McDonald's War
A Footnote to the Election
Talk: The Sublime....
I neglected to say in Monday's
Buffet that, in contrast to some of the media witterings over the Colin
Powell endorsement, Juan
Cole's detailed reading is almost as effective as the former
Secretary of State's simultaneous promotion of the Democrats and demolition of
McCain-Palin.
A reader, noting the Cole column, helpfully adds
that Powell's endorsement is just as valuable in offsetting Obama's supposed
weaknesses, namely, his lack of foreign policy experience, as it is in pushing
Obama's positives to uncommitted voters.
And The Ridiculous: Barack
Obama --- The Next Ayatollah Khomeini
I must confess I was not impressed by Sen.
Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was It is surreal to
see the level of hysteria in his admirers. This phenomenon is unprecedented in
American politics. Women scream and swoon during his speeches. They yell and
shout to Obama, “I love you.” Never did George Washington, Abraham
Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt. Martin Luther King Jr. or Ronald Reagan arouse so
much raw emotion. Despite their achievements, none of them was raised to the
rank of Messiah. The Illinois senator has no history of service to the
country. He has done nothing outstanding except giving promises of change and
hyping his audience with hope. It’s only his words, not his achievements
that is causing this much uproar.
When cheering for someone turns into adulation, something is wrong. Excessive
adulation is indicative of a personality cult....During 1979, when the
Iranians were tired of the dictatorial regime of the late Shah, they embraced
Khomeini, not because they wanted Islam, but because he promised them change.
The word in the street was, “anything is better than the Shah.” They found
their error when it was too late....
Listening to Obama…
it harkens back to when I was younger and I used to watch Khomeini, how he
would excite the crowd and they’d come to their feet and scream and yell.
And the Surreal: "I
Can See Russia in My Name"
"Publius" notes Monday's
story in The Times of London, "I
Can Live with Defeat, Says McCain", and comments, "In the guise
of America's "who cares who came second", to talk about defeat tells
me his internal polling is really bad news." Sprinkling a bit of salt on
the wound, he takes on McCain's declaration that "Mr
Obama was seeking to buy the election with his massive fundraising and
spending" with the rejoinder,
"The chutzpah of 'Obama's buying the election' when McCain did not avail
himself of McCain-Feingold, the law [on campaign finance reform that] he
championed, is just too much."
However, it is Publius's afterthought that
concerns me, either for his well-being or that of America under GOP
leadership: "If the name of McCain's VP is spelled S. Palin, try removing
the P and inserting a T."
Saying the Unsayable? The
US and Iran
Flynt Leverett, who handled Middle
Eastern affairs for the National Security Council, and Hillary Mann Leverett,
a National Security Council staffer who was involved in the
"unofficial" dialogue with Iran over Afghanistan
between 2001 and 2003, propose a US-Iranian "Grand Bargain".
Contending that "as a result of a dysfunctional Iran policy, among
other foreign policy blunders, the American position in the region is
currently under greater strain than at any point since the end of the Cold
War", they argue:
It is clearly time for a fundamental change
of course in the U.S. approach to the Islamic Republic. By fundamental change,
we do not mean incremental, step-by-step engagement with Tehran, or simply
trying to manage the Iranian challenge in the region more adroitly than the
Bush administration has done. Rather, we mean the pursuit of thoroughgoing
strategic rapprochement between the two nations.
Update: Hugo Chavez v. Ronald
McDonald
A reader from Alabama offers this
nostalgic reflection on the Venezuelan Government's temporary shutdown of
McDonald's outlets:
In 1989 there was a general strike in
Venezuela. Really eerie to have the entire city absolutely silent on a weekday
-- the only traffic were occasional security vehicles. I played city editor
from home because we were allowed only a certain number of workers -- two
reporters and photographers or something like that -- until after daytime
working hours.
McDonald's and, I believe, certain banks were just about the only ones to
remain open in defiance of the strike. The banks I understood because of
bankers' political beliefs, but McDonald's wasn't making any friends.
Remember, though, that McDonald's at least then was a relatively pricey meal
there.
Goon squads ... er, labor committees made sure people stayed closed and ended
up at one of the McD's in Caracas. A garbage can ended up going through the
plate glass and, by the end of the day, there was a tank and soldiers in the
parking lot protecting the restaurant. Very weird.
McD's in Caracas, unlike Burger King or Tropi Burger, was different than your
normal fast-food experience. It always was spotless, the food fast and fresh.
And the wholesome kids who worked there -- it was like stepping into a
television ad! You expected them to break out into song. Clearly, pay must
have been decent and upwardly mobile student-types were their main counter
help (janitorial, of course, was another story). They were probably all the
Venezuelan equivalent of the College Republican Club and the Future Business
Leaders of America.
Anyway, McDonald's always was crowded. Before and after the strike.
----------------------
20 October
Monday Buffet: From the US Elections to New Old Cold Wars
A General's
Endorsement
I must admit Colin Powell's
ringing call, made on the flagship Sunday TV programme Meet the
Press, surprised me. I was particularly shocked by his remark, "I
was...concerned at the selection of Governor Palin....Now that we have
had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's
ready to be president of the United States."
However, Watching America can now reveal the
reason behind the former Secretary of State's decision to back
Obama. Last week Powell appeared with Palin on the legendary US game
show "The $800 Billion (formerly $25,000) Pyramid".
Watching America has obtained an exclusive clip.
Funtime with Colin
Well done, Justin! Right-wing Republicans
wouldn't vote for Obama-Biden if Todd Palin, George W. Bush, and the
Lord Jesus endorsed the Democrats, and any anti-war Democrat is highly
unlikely to be backing the GOP. The groups to watch, of course, are
moderate Republicans who are unhappy with their Presidential ticket and
the sizeable group of "independent" voters who will likely be decisive
in this contest.
The anchor of Today, James Naughtie,
righted the BBC ship
with an entertaining grilling of Emily Walker, a Republican
spokeswoman who gave a dismissive wave of her hand to Powell's
statement. She explained that his words "would not change the direction
of this campaign". Quite right --- as Naughtie pointed out in a
subsequent question, the polls are always running away from the
Republicans.
President Obama:
Will It Make a Difference?
Readers have pointed Watching America to two
excellent but divergent views of the next Administration.
Mark Danner seizes optimism from the last eight years of despair,
"It is the very unpopularity of Bush and the atmosphere of profound
disillusion and crisis that helped produce a Democratic challenger whose
election—however remarkable his talents, however stirring his eloquence,
however bright his promise—would constitute a true revolution."
Mike Davis, however, worries that the Obama team may just follow its
predecessor into the abyss: "It is bitterly ironic, but, I suppose,
historically predictable that a presidential campaign millions of voters
have supported for its promise to end the war in Iraq has now mortgaged
itself to a "tougher than McCain" escalation of a hopeless conflict in
Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal frontier. In the best of outcomes,
the Democrats will merely trade one brutal, losing war for another. In
the worst case, their failed policies may set the stage for the return
of Cheney and Rove, or their even more sinister avatars."
It's the New Old
Cold War (Chapter 438)
Conveniently re-framing the link of Saddam
Hussein to terrorism, Reva Bhalla puts the Kremlin in the seat of Master
Planner Wanting to Kill All of Us: "The potential revival of Russian
state-sponsored terrorism is most likely still early in its development.
But one should not forget that after the Cold War, many experts
proclaimed a 'New World Order' in which terrorism had become a thing of
the past — and U.S. intelligence capabilities atrophied as a result.
About a decade later, the 9/11 attacks caught the United States off
guard and brought into being a new era of Islamist terrorism that is
only now declining. With state-sponsored terrorism back on the horizon,
the time has come to recognize the changing face of terrorism beyond the
post-9/11 world."
"Ultimately, what most risks "provoking"
Moscow is not Western resolve but Western weakness. This is where the
real weight of history lies. Accordingly, attitude adjustment in Moscow
first requires attitude adjustment in NATO capitals, and quickly, before
Moscow's swaggering leaders draw the wrong lessons from their recent
successes....Such an approach will not endanger Western security but
enhance it. And if Russia takes offense, better to know that now than
later, when the stakes for all concerned may be much higher."
----------------------
17 October
Friday Buffet: From the Campaign Trail to Iraq
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
WATCH-LIST
Four Signs That This Race
is Over
1. Joe the Plumber Goes Down the Drain
On Wednesday night, John McCain's economic shtick
was that he was the President who would look out for "Joe the
Plumber", a working-class fella from
Ohio who apparently would not be able to buy his business under Barack Obama's
tax proposals. JoeWurzelbacher instantly became the newest celebrity of
Campaign 2008.
Mr. Wurzelbacher had never held a plumber’s
license, which is required in Toledo and several surrounding
municipalities....
His full name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher.
And he owes back taxes, too, public records show. The premise of his complaint
to Mr. Obama about taxes may also be flawed, according to tax analysts.
Contrary to what Mr. Wurzelbacher asserted and Mr. McCain echoed, neither his
personal taxes nor those of the business where he works are likely to rise if
Mr. Obama’s tax plan were to go into effect, they said.
[OTHER FAMOUS JOES WHO COULD SAVE MCCAIN: Joe
Pesci, Joe Louis, Joe and the Volcano, Joe Mama, Joe 90, and
(hat tip to Liam Kennedy) Joe Soap]
2. One Last Wild Cultural Swing
Following on from the "Culture Wars"
theme: FiveThirtyEight.com took the line, immediately after the debate, that
McCain lost his early advantage in the debate when he took a pop at
Congressman John Lewis of Georgia.
A man I admire and respect -- I've
written about him -- Congressman John Lewis, an American hero, made
allegations that Sarah Palin and I were somehow associated with the worst
chapter in American history, segregation, deaths of children in church
bombings, George Wallace. That, to me, was so hurtful. And, Senator Obama, you
didn't repudiate those remarks.
So, the issue is not that the McCain-Palin
rhetoric with their question, "Who is Barack Obama?" and the
answer, "Palling around with terrorists....This is not a man who sees
America like you and I see America,”, was prompting crowd responses of
"traitor" and "terrorist...kill him".
Instead, it's Big John who is the
victim? Hmmm....
Here's what Lewis,
one of the leaders of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, actually wrote:
What I am seeing reminds me too much of
another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are
sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this
hostility in our political discourse."
George Wallace [segregationist Governor of Alabama and Presidential candidate
in 1968 and 1972] never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the
climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent
Americans who were simply trying to exercise
their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little
girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham,
Alabama.
Well, the way I read it, Lewis was not accusing
McCain and Palin of the crimes of the 1960s. Instead, he was warning that
character attacks on Obama with the clear message that he is
"un-American" and the (unstated) reminder that he is a black
un-American are not exactly conductive to good-neighbourly relations . If the
language was over the political line (and the Obama campaign quickly pointed
this out), Lewis' allegation doesn't stand up to the Republicans' own
guilt-by-association tactics.
It's not my reading that matters, however, but
the reaction of the American public. And, judging
by the hysteria coming from Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post,
the GOP's last cultural gambit --- please vote for us because we've been
terribly wronged --- has failed.
2A. One Last Wild Cultural Swing
--- UPDATE
Charles Krauthammer fades away screaming as
Saturday Night Live features "the crazy McCain-Palin Rally
Lady".
3. The First Swallows of the
Electoral Autumn
Leave aside the snap polls that
showed --- even on Fox --- Obama "winning" the debate by a
2:1 margin amongst undecideds. FiveThirtyEight.com has some dramatic
numbers on Obama's margins in five states allowing early voting:
% Voting Early Margin amongst Early Voters Margin
in Polls
New Mexico
10%
Obama +23%
Obama +6%
Ohio
12%
Obama +18% Obama
+4%
Georgia
18%
Obama +6% McCain
+11%
Iowa
14%
Obama +34%
Obama +10%
North Carolina 5%
Obama +34% McCain
+5%
Even if you pop a couple of grains of salt on
these numbers, say, that pro-Obama folks are quicker to get to the mailbox,
Obama's lead --- even in what should be "safe" Republican state of
Georgia and North Carolina, which McCain has to win to have any hope --- is
ominous if you're a Big John backer.
4. Crossing to the Other Side
The Times of London --- that's right,
the staunch defender of Thatcherism in the 1980s, flagship newspaper of Rupert
Murdoch --- endorses
Obama. (By the way, so
did the Washington Post.)
A Necessary Correction
JM writes from London:
"As a fervent reader of your Journal, I must
complain about the glaring omission in the Sarah Palin Flowchart (Watching
America, 16 October). You forgot THE WINK that tells the fellow travellers
that 'I've got this one right' and the rest of us, 'What am I doing
here?'"
Happy to set the record straight, JM. Consider the
flowchart amended with a special SP wink aimed straight at you.
TODAY'S IRAQ CELEBRATIONS
Petraeus may be uniquely capable of convincing
our friends in the region of America's long-term commitment, precisely because
he didn't leave Iraq to its fate -- because he is the man who stayed.
In the Times of London, Richard
Beeston has the classic line, "Without
the distractions of the bombings and shootings, it is easier to see Iraq for
what it really is." Which is bit like asking, "Apart from the
shooting, Mrs Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
Meanwhile...
----------------------
16 October
Nostalgia: Your Cut-Out-and-Keep Sarah Palin Debate Flowchart
----------------------
16 October
US Presidential Debate: The Anti-Climax
There was a 3rd presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain last night. And, before
that, there was the Main Event.
My thanks to Steve Hewitt, who organised the Election Roundtable at the University of Birmingham
yesterday, and to David Dunn and Mark McClelland, who joined me on the panel. It was 90 minutes
of wide-ranging discussion --- fun, sometimes sparky, and I thought informative --- which covered not
only the campaign but also what might come next with a President Obama or a President McCain.
The consensus was that it would be a President Obama. Everyone agreed that the key moment in the
campaign was the emergence of the economic crisis, although one of us held out the prospect that
--- with a stabilised stock market --- McCain might be able to rebound with attention on Obama's
weaknesses and an appeal to the American middle ground. What was of more interest to me, however,
at least with respect to what happens up to 4 November, was discussion of the role of "culture wars" in
this election. I hasten to add that doesn't mean a return to the hallowed Hockey Mom ground of Sarah
Palin, who barely made an appearance in the discussion. Instead, it was a lively consideration of whether
the Republicans' invocation of a battle against extremism, elitism and liberalism, including (clearly stated)
shadings of "working class" and (unstated) shadings of race, had been and would be of significance in the
next three weeks.
I have to admit that I played sceptic in these exchanges, repeating my line that in this economic situation
"Green Trumps Black and White". And, with apologies to the audience and panellists, I lost my cool when
the discussion turned to whether it was legitimate for McCain to tag Obama as an extremist because of
his association with his former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who was featured earlier this year for
his "anti-American" views,
Those exchanges were illuminating, however. It's not just a case of whether "culture wars" lose their impact
when people are more worried about their mortgages and jobs. On concrete issues of culture, let's say, that
of same-sex relationships, I don't see the political mileage in promoting conflict. For all the polarising effects
of talk radio and outlets like Fox News, I think in much of America there is a live-and-let-live tolerance that
was not evident even a decade ago. Note, for example, that McCain-Palin haven't pushed hard on issues like
abortion, stem-cell research, and immigration. The advantage of shoring up their electoral base is likely
to be outweighed by losing voters in the "center". Instead, the culture war is an abstract one against bogeymen
of a leftist media, do-gooder community organisers, former terrorists, the (unstated) dangerous blacks,
and foreigners.
This aspect of the Roundtable came back to me this morning when reflecting on the McCain-Obama debate.
The media headline is that an "aggressive" McCain went after an Obama who tried to appear in control and
"presidential". Fair enough, but McCain's aggression on the culture issue was staged to the point of
half-heartedness. He had to be invited by the moderator to go after Obama's alleged dangerous associations,
for example, with former Weather Underground member/current academic and community organiser Wiliam Ayers.
Even then, he hesitated. It was only a couple of minutes later that he seemed to
think, "I better have a go," and came out with this:
Yes, real quick. Mr. Ayers, I don't care about an old washed-up terrorist. But as Senator Clinton said in her
debates with you, we need to know the full extent of that relationship.
We need to know the full extent of Senator
Obama's relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating
one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country,maybe destroying the
fabric of democracy. The same front outfit organization that your campaign gave
$832,000 for "lighting and site selection." So all of these things
need to be examined, of course.
Desperation doesn't begin to capture McCain's
stab into the dangerous dark. One last go at tying Obama to
"terrorism" is followed by a more detailed reference to a community
organisation which has been pursuing voter
registration --- inevitably, given its community position, of folks more likely
to vote for the Democrats than the Republicans. Even if most, or even some,
Americans have enough knowledge of ACORN to
care, it's a weak allegation. As happens with most registration efforts, there
are registrations of false names, for example, because of canvassers who get
paid per voter and thus pad their lists. Few of these false names translate into
"fake" voters who make it into the booths on Election Day (a fact
backed up by the non-appearance of these false names in early voting in several
states). The headline in the Independent of London pretty much summed up
that last Republican tactic: "Obama
Stretches Poll Lead as Mickey Mouse Joins Fray".
(And I've got to add this. For Republicans
to be clinging to voter-padding and election-jiggling tactics after 2000 is pot
frantically painting kettle black.)
What is intriguing that McCain's attempt seems to
have flopped miserably. CNN's focus group of undecideds turned their dials to
"negative" during the passage, and the exit polls --- to the extent
that they can be trusted --- indicate that Obama outperformed Big John,
especially amongst "floating" voters.
Which, I think, puts this debate into the
category of Anti-Climax rather than Surprise Twist. And, as folks noted
yesterday, that means the huge questions are not what happens before 4 November
but afterwards. More on that in days to come....
----------------------
15 October
Lest We Forget: The Bush Administration and Torture
From
this morning's Washington Post: "The Bush administration issued
a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the
agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaeda
suspects -- documents prompted by worries among intelligence officials about a
possible backlash if details of the program became public."
Joby Warrick's front-page story
offers a narrative of how an Administration --- all high-level members of the
Administration, including the President --- sanctioned torture. Not only did
they sanction it, they did so repeatedly. Justice Department lawyers such as
John Yoo provided the "legal" rationale in 2002. The subsequent
memoranda were produced because of the worries of Director of Central
Intelligence George Tenet that his officers were still exposed, either to
criminal prosecution or as scapegoats for the Administration, if the programmes
of "coercive interrogation" were exposed. Tenet's second request for
legal cover came in June 2004, two months after the disclosure of the abuses of
detainees at Abu Ghraib in Iraq.
Warrick's article, however, is far
from original in its disclosures. Indeed, the reporter leaves out key details.
By coincidence, yesterday I was reading the section in Barton
Gellman's Angler disclosing the key official behind the
authorisation for torture: Vice President Dick Cheney. Within days of 9-11,
Cheney --- primarily through his assistant David Addington --- was seeking the
legal rationale to avoid any adherence to the Geneva Conventions and thus to
permit the widest possible range of interrogation techniques. By keeping other
officials (including Secretary of State Powell, National Security Advisor Rice,
and Attorney General Ashcroft) in the dark and using Addington's bullying
tactics, Cheney got the Executive Order necessary to implement the policy. He
presented it to President Bush, who signed it in November 2001, and then ensured
that it was processed before any other high-ranking advisor could object. The
Justice Department's memos of 2002, more than eagerly provided by John Yoo, only
put the gloss on Cheney's precedent-setting decisions.
It gives pause for reflection that,
amidst other stories of economic crisis and Presidential campaigns, Warrick's
piece will probably be seen as "history". Its revelations still
demand a contemporary answer. How did an American government, in the name
of "freedom" and "democracy", sanction these
activities?
The demand for that answer should
never be given up. By coincidence, the book After Bush is being formally
launched in London today. Amongst its many egregious errors, distortions, and
distractions --- all in the service of "proving" that George W. Bush
has established a legacy in the conduct of US foreign policy, one which should
be exalted and continued --- is this sentence: "'Prisoner
abuses’ were aberrations --- recurrent in every war --- rather than the
logical consequence of the authority under which Bush acted.”
These were abuses --- without the
quote marks. They were not aberrations. They were not just the logical outcomes,
they were the intended outcomes of a policy developed from September 2001 by the
Bush Administration, led by a Vice President dedicated to the expansion of his
personal power and that of the Executive, supported by second-level officials
like John Yoo happy to promote their own perversions of legality, and abetted by
colleagues from Condoleezza Rice to Colin Powell to George Tenet who were either
too cowed to fight back or too intent on covering their own backsides.
Any attempt to pretend otherwise,
that we can just whisk away torture as a silly little aberration, is a disgrace
to those of us who believe that "America" should stand for something
beyond the expedient and the power-hungry.
----------------------
14 October
Financial Meltdown 101, Palin-Dromes, and Kristol Balls-Ups
Your Ten-Minute Guide to the
Economic Crisis (Illustrated Version)
As a follow-up to yesterday's
Watching America, AlterNet
features an excellent explanation by Arun Gupta of the speculations, bank
manouevres, and government (de)regulations that have led to this bit of an
economic mess.
Anyone Can Be Vice
President....Yes, Anyone
Fancy yourself as a Hockey Mom and
US leader? Here's your chance, thanks to the
Palindrome. It's as easy as stringing a few words together in a soundbite.
While We're Playing Games with
the Vice-Presidency
In a tribute to the wonders of both
American politics and 1970s US game shows, Sarah
Palin makes a guest appearance on the $800 Billion (former $10,000) Pyramid.
The Award for Fastest 180-Degree
Turn by a Political Guru
Sunday, 5 October: William
Kristol showcases the political strategy of Sarah Palin:
Palin also made clear that she was eager for the
McCain-Palin campaign to be more aggressive in helping the American people
understand “who the real Barack Obama is.” Part of who Obama is, she said,
has to do with his past associations, such as with the former bomber Bill Ayers.
Palin had raised the topic of Ayers Saturday on the campaign trail, and she
maintained to me that Obama, who’s minimized his relationship with Ayers,
“hasn’t been wholly truthful” about this.
I pointed out that Obama surely had a closer
connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than to Ayers — and so, I asked, if
Ayers is a legitimate issue, what about Reverend Wright?
She didn’t hesitate: “To tell you the truth,
Bill, I don’t know why that association isn’t discussed more, because those
were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country, and to
have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that — with, I don’t know,
a sense of condoning it, I guess, because he didn’t get up and leave — to
me, that does say something about character. But, you know, I guess that would
be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up.”...
She paused, and I was about to thank her for the
interview, but she had one more thing to say. “Only maybe I’d add just a
couple more words, and that would be: ‘Take the gloves off.’ ”
Sunday, 12 October: William
Kristol comments on the campaign approach of Sarah Palin and John McCain:
Right
now Obama’s approval/disapproval rating is better than McCain’s. Indeed,
Obama’s is a bit higher than it was a month ago. That suggests the failure of
the McCain campaign’s attacks on Obama.
So drop them.
----------------------
13 October
Now It's War: Hugo Chavez v. Ronald McDonald
From
the New York Times: "The Venezuelan government ordered
nearly all McDonald’s restaurants in the country closed for two days last week
for what it called irregularities in the chain’s financial books.
The government’s tax agency said Friday that it
had ordered more than 100 McDonald’s restaurants to shut temporarily. José
David Cabello, the agency’s chief, announced on state television that
“inconsistencies” had been found in sales and purchases books, as well as in
taxes collected."
According to my informants, the US military
response is likely to include not only the Marines but also the
Hamburglar (working for Blackwater, Inc.), while Mayor
McCheese will be joining President Bush's War Cabinet. It is still to be
confirmed whether the US will supplement conventional operation with the
chemical warfare of Hot Apple Pies.
----------------------
Watching
America's Music Quiz of the Day
Is this
1980s tune the best country-and-western song ever?
----------------------
Your 10-Minute
Guide to the Economic Crisis:
"Whatever Is Necessary, For as Long as Necessary"
So my father calls up and says,
"What do you think is happening with this economy?" That's when I knew
the situation was serious. So I got a lesson in all things financial, including
swaps and derivatives, from my wife to figure out the following:
1. Capitalist systems are built on
faith that money is good, so economic crises are crises of confidence. If banks
or mortgage companies stop believing that they will get repaid, then they stop
lending to each other and to us. When they do, a crisis of confidence because a
very real crisis of no liquidity in the system.
2. The trigger for this crisis was
the amount of "bad" mortgage debt that accumulated. Because of
"swaps", not only the original lender but secondary lenders (who in
effect took over the mortgage, swapping for it with money given to the original
lender) ran into trouble on their books. When enough lenders --- not just
"sub-prime" ones but the big ones in the industry --- fought
themselves in this position, then the bubble of debt-financed growth burst.
3. Because Britain has the highest
percentage of home ownership in Europe and is a key financial/lending centre,
then it finds itself at the centre of the crisis, perhaps the most important
player outside the United States. And
that's why the British government has decided to move aggressively, in effect
part-nationalising large banks this morning.
4. Besides buying Prime Minister
Gordon Brown his political life, the British Government has bought itself some
time. The question: can it rebuild enough confidence in the system to withstand
the recession that is going to hit soon?
5. Second question: has the British
Government taken the essential step that the US Government has refused to
accept? Put another way, with
a nod to Paul Krugman of the New York Times, has the US tied itself so
firmly to a "private", case-by-case solution --- the latest measure
being a
quiet US Government guarantee for a Japanese buy-out of Morgan Stanley ---
that it has tied its hands in solving the confidence/liquidity crisis?
Listen
to podcast...
----------------------
10 October
Friday Buffet: Things That Make you go Mmmm
Eternal Progress
There is a philiosophical/mathematical concept called the Paradox of Xeno's
Arrow, in which the arrow perpetually approaches its target but never reaches
it.
Welcome to the 21st-century variant in US foreign policy: the Status of Forces
Agreement with Iraq.
We have been told for close to two years that this arrangement, which in no way
is a legitimation of the US occupation (and which in no way is a treaty,
otherwise the US Congress would actually have to give its approval), is near.
But, though it gets closer and closer, the agreement is never signed. US
Secretary of State Condi Rice was even in Baghdad this summer to put the ink on
the paper but had to go away empty-handed because of "bureaucratic
reasons".
So, on Wednesday, this from Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zubari as
he sat next to US Ambassador John Negroponte, "We are very close to a
satisfactory result."
You think? Given that the Iraqi Parliament still can't agree on provincial
elections across the country or an oil law and given that the Iraqi Parliament
(unlike its US counterpart) has to be consulted, I think more weight should be
put on Zubari's wishful call for "bold political decisions".
Translation? The US Government will not agree to any Iraqi political or judicial
oversight of the actions of the US military, which means the price of this
agreement is a pretty sizeable chunk of the sovereignty of a
"liberated" Iraq.
Commander-in-Chief Petraeus
This from Reuters "US
Army General David Petraeus said on Tuesday that security gains in Iraq are
increasingly durable but warned that the methods which helped reduce violence
there may not work in Afghanistan."
Would-be President Obama, take note, because you've got a rival for command of
US military strategy. Petraeus' statement translates as Surge in Iraq, No Surge
in Afghanistan. That's not only a warning shot for Obama and his declaration
that the fight for Afghanistan will define US foreign policy in 2009 but also to
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
I'm increasingly thinking that, in this electoral campaign, the most effective
politician is the one sitting with four stars on his shoulder in Baghdad.
Today's Palinwatch
Publius, a reader from London, replies with appropriate reverence, to "The
"Radicals" Take Over the White House!" (8 October):
"Palin is.....beyond the Palin ! What occurs to me is that Bob Dylan got it
right when he wrote: 'You don't need a Weatherman to tell which way the wind
blows.'
"I have bought a bumper sticker which reads, 'Republicans: You're Fired'. I
am sure you're right. Mccain is toast."
Move Along, It's Just a Coincidence
The New York Times on Sunday: "Reports
Link Karzai's Brother to Afghanistan Heroin Trade"
The BBC on Wednesday: "The
Afghan president's brother sat with former Taleban leaders at a religious meal
hosted by the Saudi King Abdullah last month. The meeting is regarded as a
possible prelude to talks between the Afghan government and the Islamic
movement."
So a case of good ol' free-market drug economics bringing together former
enemies or good ol' American "information" to stave off any
negotiations with the Taliban?
The Final Word on Billy Joel
Replying to "Watching America's Culture Debate of the Day" (8
October), a reader from Birmingham has tracked down the official story of
"Scenes from an Italian Restaurant":
"In 1982, I met Billy Joel through a friend who worked with one of the
producers on "The Stranger" (He calls himself "Bill"). I
asked Billy about this song and he told me it was actually three songs ---
rather, unfinished pieces of three songs. He tied them all together into the
medley we all love today as an homage to the B side of Abbey Road. The song, as
Billy himself told me, is based LOOSELY on some High School chums of his, not
the King and Queen of the prom (that was just some added flair he said), but
lovers who had a passionate relationship that fizzled after real-life set in. He
continued to say that the song is about how we are changed by time,
circumstance, and love; and also about how we adapt to those changes as we get
older and our own circumstances change around us. These words are from the man
himself."
In our opinion, however, the last word on this 1970s cultural memory has come
from a reader in Leicester:
"Scenes from an Italian Restaurant is rubbish. It doesn't matter if you
stripped down the production it would still be a really generic,
impersonal-sounding song that has no right to be upbeat in the middle section, a
fact that only highlights that it's actually two songs badly spot-welded
together. And the only thing that dates it to the 70s is the fact that it was
written by an ageing babyboomer known for whining about how things were better
when he was in high school and America was great and Kennedy was still
alive."
----------------------
8 October
Watching America's Culture Debate of the Day
Billy
Joel's "Scenes from an Italian Restaurant": Inspired musical
observation of 1970s America or just a load of overproduced rubbish?
----------------------
8 October
It's Almost Official: The "Radicals" Take Over the White House!
[Apologies to anyone who sees triumphalism in
the headline. But the
Red Sox beat the Angels in Game 5 of the Baseball Division Series --- a
"quarter-final" for you Brits who don't appreciate the finer sports
--- and Tina
Fey is becoming a comedy demi-goddess with her takeover of Sarah Palin.
So, all in all, a great week for culture if a dodgy one for politics and, oh
yeah, the economy.]
I noticed the story a couple of
weeks ago and then, with the financial crisis kicking off, filed it away. It
was irritating, as another example of distortion and name-calling
masquerading as news, but I didn't think it would have much of a shelf life. This
morning, I returned to that headline in the 23 September issue of the Wall
Street Journal.
This purported investigative journalism concerns
the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation supporting educational
initiatives in the city or, as the story frames it, "pour[ing] more than
$100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education
activists". It so happens that Barack Obama was a board member of
the CAC from 1995 to 2001. However, the main point of Stanley Kurtz's article
is not to critique Obama's approach to education, which apparently focuses
more "on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than
traditi]onal education". Instead, it is to tie Obama, once and for all,
to the radical menace named William Ayers.
Ayers, a teacher and community organiser, was
a founder of the political movement Weather Underground in the 1960s. The
"Weathermen" adopted violent methods in the early 1970s, including a
series of bombings between 1969 and 1975. Although he was never convicted
on criminal charges, Ayers was a fugitive until 1980. He subsequently returned
to education, becoming a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago
and serving on a series of community educational projects.
Now, since Barack Obama didn't even show up in
Chicago until the mid-1980s, it's a bit of a stretch to make him an honorary
Weatherman/terrorist. So Kurtz's strategy is to argue, "for Ayers, teaching
and his 1960s radicalism are two sides of the same coin". That, in turn,
makes the CAC is "infusing students and their parents with a radical
political commitment". Which mean Obama is "lending moral and
financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle".
One could, with the same series of leaps across
times, politics, and social activism, claim that Chicago Mayor Richard Daley
Jr., who supported the CAC, is also an accomplice in this support of
radicalism. The Annenberg Foundation, the legacy of the media magnate
Walter Annenberg, becomes the funder not of education, but of
terrorism and incredible evil.
Why spend valuable time replaying Kurtz's
allegations rather than, say, discussing last night's Presidential debate
between McCain and Obama? Well, because the real contribution of the Wall
Street Journal in this case is not to journalism but to a political
funeral. So long, John. And Sarah.
The media line has been that the McCain campaign
turned to the Big Negative this weekend when Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah
Palin labelled Obama as "someone who sees America as imperfect enough to
pal around with terrorists". She added, via the
increasingly-frantic William Kristol that it would be nice if someone
mentioned Obama's relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright: "I
don’t know why that association isn’t discussed more, because those were
appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country."
However, Kurtz's piece, published before the first
Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates, makes it clear that the
McCain-Palin camp and their media supporters have never let go of the
demonising, guilt-by-association strategy. It's just that, while the
Republicans thought they had a good shot at victory, these stories would just
be filtered --- not so loudly, but just as insidiously --- through the
coverage and chit-chat about the election.
The last gasp of that approach came last Thursday
when Palin played nice in the debate with Joe Biden. She set aside the swipes
at radical and extremists in favour of the "aw shucks"
smile-and-wink appeal to the American public. When it became clear in the
following 48 hours that Palin hadn't turned around the polls or the media
focus, the Hockey Mom start swinging her mean stick again.
Ain't gonna work. In the opening stages of a
campaign, playing nasty with guilt-by-association --- as the elder Bush did in
1988 against Michael Dukakis or the younger Bush did in the 2000 primaries
against McCain --- can give you a valuable advantage. That depends,
however, on no other "critical" issues emerging and taking over
the campaign agenda. Forgive my repetition, but economy, economy, economy is
now the name of this electoral game. (In an unguarded moment, a McCain advisor
admitted this over the weekend.)
Which is why you can file away last night's debate
in the Makes No Difference folder. The Palin tactic of "I'm not going to
answer that question, instead I'm going to talk about..." wasn't possible
for Big John. There was never a chance that McCain could respond to a question
like "How would you respond to the worsening situation in the stock
markets and the financial sector" with the reply, "My opponent
Barack is a raving socialist who will take down the entire economic system and
turn your children into Commie radicals." No possibility of leaping
from "What do you think of the downturn in a place like Wisconsin?"
to "Wow, did you know that Bill Ayers --- a neighbour of my
opponent --- once fire-bombed the University of Wisconsin?"
It's a somewhat bizarre and not-too-uplifting note,
but let's note it anyway....
Seems that, when the economy is collapsing,
folks don't have time for good ol' culture wars.
----------------------
7 October
You (and probably John McCain) Have Just Been Barack Roll'd
I'm
teaching in Dublin today. So, in advance of an Election Special on Wednesday,
here's a treat from the happy marriage of politics and culture.
Students
have told me of a
phenomenon called Rick Rolling, which must be good as it has propelled
1980s music legend Rick Astley into the cultural spotlight. While many are
now trying to seize upon Rick Rolling for their own worthy/dubious ends, it
seems the
Democratic candidate for President may have outdone them all....
----------------------
6 October
Iraq and Afghanistan: Can We Just Declare Victory and Go Home?
OK, I
give. Can we just call it a draw on the "victory of the Iraq surge" story?
Never mind that suicide
bombings are still a regular occurrence. Forget the political violence and
assassinations, which continue if on a reduced level from the worst days of
2006. Don't give a thought to the border issues, with Turkey attacking areas in
Kurdistan in retribution for the killing of their troops by Kurdish insurgents.
And don't try to get a grip on the manoeuvring for power, which has led to
"partial" democracy in 2009 --- provincial elections in parts of Iraq but not in
areas like Kirkuk.
Just hail King David (as
he is anointed in The Times today) --- General Petraeus, saviour of
Iraq.
Tragically, it's still too easy
to cut through this guff.
The
latest refutation comes from researchers at the University of California, Los
Angeles, who have used satellite imagery to establish that the drop in Iraqi
violence is due in large part to "ethnic cleansing". Simply and brutally put,
after years of fighting and intimidation, there weren't as many folks of the
"wrong" religion --- Shi'a in Sunni areas, Sunni in Shi'a --- to be killed.
The surge myth is necessary,
however, for two reasons. One is straightforward domestic politics in the US ---
who would want to admit that five years in Iraq end not with a glorious bang but
with the continuing whimper of American failure? Certainly not an outgoing
President whose "legacy", up to the economic events of the last month, was going
to be defined by the war. And certainly not a Republican candidate for President
whose strategy, up to the economic events of the last month, was to use Iraq to
show he was tougher than his Democratic opponent.
The second reason, a more
serious one in the long one, is to lay the platform for the long-term US
presence in Iraq. It's difficult to rationalise permanent bases and 50,000
American troops in the country on the basis that Iraq is going to hell. (Which
is a convenient way to understand why the Bush Administration rejected that
proposal, put forward by the Iraq Study Group, in December 2006) But, if you can
claim “post-surge” that your intervention has brought stability and
that it is necessary to keep a sizeable force around to ensure that continuing
stability, well, you're set up for the distant future.
While it’s still
questionable if 50,000 or 75,000 or even 100,000 US troops on giant military
bases can maintain political leverage inside Iraq --- would there really be a
show of military force in the Kurdish-Arab dispute over Kirkuk or the battle for
power ongoing in Mosul or an Iraqi Prime Minister who finally grasped the nettle
and distanced himself from Washington? --- I guess you can claim it as some sort
of victory against “foreign powers” such as Iran. Like I said, let’s call it a
draw.
No, the
real downside of the ongoing charade in Iraq --- “Do we get to win this time?”
(©Sylvester Stallone/John Rambo) --- now plays out in Afghanistan. There, the
script of perpetual victory was ripped up last week by no less than America’s
Best Friend Forever, the British. First the
British Ambassador in Kabul was quoted, in leaked French diplomatic
dispatches, as saying that Afghanistan needed a dictator to right itself. Then
the leading British commander set out the military reality: no prospect of
securing a win over the Taliban.
What to
do, what to do? Well,
Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai has tried to steal a march on the United
States by negotiating --- via Saudi Arabia --- with members of the Taliban.
This shouldn’t be a shocker: I’ve known from friends for some time that
Pakistan, with whom Karzai has been trying to rebuild relations, thought an
agreement with the “moderate Taliban” was the way forward. The revelation got
little play in the US and UK media, however, so it’s unclear whether it is
connected in any way with the revelations of British attitudes on the ground.
Would London, facing the increasing financial and military costs of intervention
in Afghanistan and unable to put in more troops, accept a negotiated settlement?
No
doubt – at least publicly --- both candidates Obama and McCain would reject any
such notion. Each needs to hold up the prospect of extending the good fight in
Afghanistan --- Obama because it is the logical, get-tough complement to his
criticism of the US approach in Iraq; McCain because it is the logical,
get-tough complement to his praise of the “surge” (if it works in Baghdad, it
can work anywhere, right?).
And it
is here each gets tripped up by King David and his merry myth-makers. You can
only make the all-out effort in Afghanistan if you let go of the Iraq-first
vision. Otherwise, the reinforcements for the US military effort outside Kabul
come in token dribs and drabs. And a few thousand extra American troops, I
suspect, aren’t going to convince anybody --- not the Taliban, not those
villagers whose hearts and minds we’re supposedly winning, not the international
allies who are balking at upping their own military deployment --- that there
will be a decisive end to the conflict.
The
silver lining of this all-too-evident contradiction in the US approach is that,
by default, it might open the political space in Afghanistan for meaningful
discussions. This won’t, of course, end up in that wondrous “liberation”
presented for a brief moment in 2001 before American attention turned to Saddam
Hussein. The endpoint is more likely to be a confirmation of a partitioned
country with one faction in control in Herat, one in Mazar al-Sharif, one in
Kandahar, etc. I suspect, though, that if it leaves an “acceptable” regime in
place in Kabul --- acceptable to Pakistan and to countries such as Britain and
the other members of the International Security Assistance Force --- it might be
viable.
Except
for the question: how, even in King David’s World, can it be represented as a US
“victory”?
----------------------
3 October
After the Vice Presidential Debate:
Palin Remains Upright --- Democrats Come Out Alright
I
was asked for early-morning television to give an easy-to-digest soundbite. Here
it is:
The
good news for the Republicans is that Sarah Palin didn't fall on either her face
or her backside last night. The bad news for the Republicans is that you can
stick a fork in this election because it's done.
The
Palinesque strategy, from the first seconds when she talked about parents at
their kids' hockey/baseball/football games, was to play up the icons of
Hockey Mom (or as Sky TV framed it, Wal-Mart Mom) and Joe Six-Pack. Sprinkled
with "aw shucks" and "you knows", it was the cultural ploy
of Sarah the Outsider representing all of us hard-workin', honest folks against
the big, bad beasts of Washington.
She
delivered it well enough. She dialled up the positive imagery of middle-class,
middle America and dialled down the attacks, prominent in her acceptance speech
at the Republican Convention, on liberal/elitist/extremist boogeymen in
politics, culture, and the media. When she could focus that on specific battles,
such as her supposed defence of all of us against Big Oil, she was at her
political sharpest.
This
is why the media line this morning is that Palin won the "emotional"
dimension of the debate. And, if this election was still being determined
on the playing out of cultural stereotypes, the Republicans might still have a
prayer for a comeback. That train, however, took off as soon as the financial
crisis rolled into town. As with last week's McCain-Obama showdown, the worries
over credit crunches and Wall Street yo-yoing took over the debate.
Put
simply, there was no way that Palin could do more than throw a beauty-pageant
wave at the topic. She was sticking too obviously (to me) to scripted talking
points --- indeed, almost every time before beginning a reply, she looked down
at her crib sheet. Those points offered her little more than a flail at the
"predators" who were handing out large mortgages to folks who couldn't
afford them. Otherwise, she had to defend rather weakly against Joe Biden's
attacks --- directed wisely at McCain rather than Palin --- that the Republican
campaign was doing little more than push for tax cuts for companies (including
Big Oil). At one point, that defence took the all-too-easy-to-parody Little
Hockey Mom posture of "I've only been in this position five weeks, but I'm
going to go to Washington to represent you against the Government".
Well,
here's the problem. "The Government", or at least the Executive Branch
of it, is held by the Republican Party. And "the Government" included
a sizeable Republican minority in Congress (majority until 2006 in the Senate)
which has helped preside over this fast-and-loose economy. So, for Palin, to
revise her cultural card and mark it as "Change" --- stealing that
word from Barack Obama --- is a bit like the Pope claiming he'll reclaim Vatican
City from the Catholics.
And
here's the bigger problem. Primarily because of the economic situation, the
polls have been running away --- quickly --- from McCain-Palin. The biggest news
this morning may not be the post-debate ponderings but the confirmation that
McCain's workers in Michigan are being moved to Virginia.
That's
right. The Republicans, at least for the moment, are giving up on one of the few
states where the Democrats are vulnerable. Why? To mount a defence in a state
that they have to hold to keep the White House. Unfortunately, for them, that's
not their own vulnerability --- in the last week, the Democrats have drawn even
or taken the edge in North Carolina, Nevada, and (big-time news) Florida as well
as Virginia. Even Ohio, the state critical to George W. Bush's successes in 2000
and 2004, may be tilting Democratic.
To
be blunt, for all us Hockey Moms and Joe Six-Packs, our Sarah not only needed to
survive last night. She had to mount a cultural stampede to knock out Biden and
Obama. Short of that, folks like us who shop in Wal-Mart might still be thinking
more of mortgages and other debts than they are of "culture wars".
As
for Joe Biden, well, he was competent. He was in control of his information,
careful not to be aggressive with Palin, and effective enough with his targeting
of McCain's own Washington record. He even matched Sarah in the emotion stakes
at the end as each talked about a family member serving in the armed forces in
Iraq.
There
weren't any breakthrough Democratic policies on offer. But there don't need to
be. Cool (Obama) and competent (Biden) will be enough this year.
----------------------
1 October
The US Financial Crisis: Ideology Trumps Economics
It
was hard enough getting to grips with the scale of the crisis. Then on Monday,
the House of Representatives unexpectedly turned befuddlement into
incomprehension when it rejected the Bush Administration's plan to prop up the
banks and investment firms with billions of dollars.
What
happened?
To
be blunt, this is the ultimately perverted triumph of a group of (mainly
Republican) politicians who are so strident in their exaltation of an abstract
"free market" that they are willing to risk the actual free market by
blocking necessary short-term legislation.
And
even if the ideological posturing is set aside to get Congressional approval of
the Government subsidy/partial buy-out of the financial sector, the evasions
continue. This bailout may buy some time, but it does not deal with the
fundamental problem of public and private debt, the long-present, long-ignored
issue that can no longer be covered by the triumph of American capitalism.
Listen
to podcast...
[Joseph
Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate in Economics, offers
a challenging reminder that it is not the free-market evangelicals of the
Republican Party who have blocked the Bush plan. Thomas Friedman, supporting the
plan, panics.]
----------------------
September 29
After the Debate: When A Tie is a Victory
For
Obama, that is. On the Monday after the "Duel in the Delta" (can you
tell I'm hoping for a guest spot on CNN), let's set it down.
To paraphrase George Bush's remark on Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, "John
McCain is toast."
Barring
a lightning strike from God, from Al Qa'eda, or any other group prompting a
national security emergency, the only hope for McCain is a miraculous
turnaround from his suddenly burdensome Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.
While
the debate drew 80 million viewers in the US, which highlights how different
this campaign has been for mobilising interest (and which, I think, plays to the
advantage of the Democrats in November), I think best policy was to avoid snap
reaction for 48 hours. That way you get not only the debate but the post-debate
spinning from both sides, the media manipulation (Fox News: MCCAIN WON! WE'RE
TELLING YOU --- HE WON!; CNN: Here's another graph), and the settling down when
rhetoric gives way to the real world.
McCain
was able to pull the "experience" trick on the ground of national
security/foreign policy. I'm still not sure why it's better to have a tough guy
at the helm --- as one sceptic put it, if Big John was in charge during the
Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, we might have been eating nuclear dust rather than
TV dinners --- but, for the campaign, the macho posture plays well against
Obama's supposed inexperience.
(The
low levels to which foreign policy discussion has sunk because of this "who
stands taller" contest were in high profile on Friday. Obama's
consideration of how to engage Iran was replaced with McCain's "We cannot
have a second Holocaust", complete with a mispronunciation of the Iranian
President's name and this ridiculing of his opponent: "We sit down with
Ahmadinejad, and he says, 'We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the
Earth,' and we say, 'No, you're not'? Oh, please."
So
Obama played his trump card: if a President needs to pick a target to be, well,
in charge, "if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level
lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we
should take them out."
It's the final incorporation of
The Sopranos into US foreign policy: before you can make foreign folks an
offer they can't refuse, you have to whack one of them, figuratively or
literally.)
McCain's
national security has long bolted, however, in the fright over the economic
situation. Friday's debate, after all, was supposed to be exclusively on foreign
policy but, in the wake of the now-declared financial crisis, the first half was
given over to economic matters. And it was there that Obama established a clear
advantage over his Republican opponent.
This
isn't to say that Obama established a clear economic way forward on Friday: the
problems with liquidity and the US system are now far bigger than either
candidate. Instead, his advantage is little more than a reversal of
"experience": Senator McCain has been in Washington far longer than
Senator Obama, so he has a much longer track record of supporting the financial
structure --- the deregulated financial structure --- that is now
imploding.
To
get out of the trap, McCain tried to play up "insider" role with his
Magical Mystery Tour to Washington at the end of last week, complete with the
soon-reversed decision to suspend the debate. It was a rather silly manoeuvre
--- Obama countered by making sure he, too, was in the photographed discussions
with President Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson.
And
then it all went wrong for Big John when some of his Republican buddies, notably
Representative John Boehner, threatened to block any deal. The conspiracy theory
--- that McCain, who was embracing Boehner only hours before the threat was
issued, was trying to get an alternative proposal through with his name on it
--- may be off the mark. At the least, however, McCain looked ineffectual.
Meanwhile Obama was aiming more
realistically in the let's-claim-some-credit stakes. With the call to make sure
the financial "fat cats" don't benefit from the bailout and "protect the
interests of the taxpayer" (an economically tangential but politically potent
slogan that will be common currency on both sides of the Atlantic for some time
to come), the Democratic candidate was well-positioned to fit an eventual
settlement into his wider campaign of protecting "Americans" --- whatever class,
whatever colour, provided they weren't one of the Wall Street tycoons --- from
the downside of politics and economics.
In the twisted political scenario
that this crisis has brought, it's the Democratic leadership in Congress that
has had to rescue President Bush's plan from the sniping of Republicans who see
this as an unwarranted intrusion into the "free market". It's the Democrats who,
with less doctrinaire Republicans, who have worked with the Treasury to put in
oversight provisions and amendments --- only part of the bailout money now,
framed as a Government "investment" which make the ever-important taxpayers a
few bucks if the banking situation stabilises, as well as the assurances that
CEOs of failed banks can walk away with big bonuses.
So Obama profits either way --- if
the bailout is seen to be effective or potentially effective, it's part of that
bipartisan cooperation that he has advocated to deal with crisis and "change"
America; if the financial crisis continues (which is likely), the Republicans
and thus McCain carry the burden of past mismanagement.
McCain's last hope? Let's just turn
away from the economy and get back to the marvel of Sarah Palin and her
leadership in the "culture wars". Friday's one-off Vice-Presidential debate is
her chance to seize the initiative, especially as Democratic opponent Joe Biden
has to be cautious: defer to the lady too much and lose any advantage, go on the
attack and look like a mean old man.
Problem is that Palin's exceeding of
expectations in the last weeks has been in her provision of unintended humour.
Saturday Night Live's satirical epitaph for the Republican tombstone was
re-inscribed last weekend
with another Tina Fey as Palin classic. It's morbid enjoyment, and it's
spot-on, with some of Fey's Palinisms taken directly from Palin's interview with
NBC's Katy Couric.
----------------------
September 26
Your One-Minute Guide to the Presidential Election
I've
done a bit of media work over the last 48 hours trying to read the shifts in the
campaign, particularly in relation to the financial crisis. Put in soundbites
for use around the office coffee urn:
1.
Yes, McCain's proposal to withdraw from tonight's debate so he and other great
minds can bail the US out of economic deep water is a political stunt.
2.
No, it won't work.
3.
Because the Republicans, to win this election, had talk about anything ---
dangerous elitists, whacko liberals, honest Hockey Moms, lipstick, dangerous
whacko elitist media, football (American) --- except the economy. Recent events
have sabotaged that strategy.
4.
Obama is now up by
several percentage points in national polling. More importantly, he's
securing his position in key states for the Democrats while the Republicans are
increasingly shaky even in states like North Carolina where they thought they
had locked down a clear lead.
5.
Here's a
Wall Street Journal story that sums up Republican desperation.
But
wait! I've just learned of a shift in McCain strategy which may prove
me wrong. He now has a campaign ad outlining
his economic solution for America.
----------------------
September 26
Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran? (Chapter 536)
In
Paris in spring, thoughts turn to love. Well, in Washington and New York at the
start of autumn, thoughts turn to....
Bombing
Iran?
Yep,
even in the midst of a serious financial crisis, a political/military mess in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, and a shaky declaration of victory in Iraq, the
chatter on the eastern seaboard of the US made its annual pilgrimage to the
necessary showdown with Iran. The
Wall Street Journal got nasty with
President Ahmadinejad, “Could
the Islamic Republic possibly have an uglier face? Of course not. And that’s
the whole point of your presidency. Your goal has been to define Iranian
deviancy down.” The
Washington Post fretted, “There
seems to be little prospect that the Security Council will agree anytime soon on
a fourth round of UN sanctions --- much less the tough measures that might
command Tehran’s attention.” The
New York Times was panicking,
“Remember Iran?....Tehran’s scientists are getting ever closer to mastering
the skills that are the hardest part of building a nuclear weapon.”
Remember
Iran? Please, do you think there is any chance of forgetting this annual
theatre? Even mild-mannered, “change is coming” Barack
Obama was happy to lead the chorus, “[I] am disappointed that [President
Ahmadinejad] had a platform to air his hateful and anti-Semitic views....The
threat from Iran’s nuclear program is grave.” In no way seeking political
advantage, Obama called on John McCain “to join me in supporting a bipartisan
bill to increase pressure on the Iranian regime by allowing states and private
companies to divest from companies doing business in Iran.”
Such
posturing has been given some impetus by headlines around the International
Atomic Energy Agency’s statement, “The
Agency has not been able to make substantive progress on the alleged studies and
associated questions relevant to possible military dimensions to Iran´s nuclear
programme. These remain of serious concern.” The IAEA report is only an
excuse, however, rather than the fundamental cause: its understandable
frustration with lack of full disclosure by Iran is part of a long-running dance
around the documentation of Tehran’s programmes.
Almost no one in the Western media and certainly none of the politicians
noted the IAEA’s call on Western states to provide their supposed intelligence
documenting a resumption of Iranian nuclear weapons programmes. And none noted
the IAEA’s caveat, “The Agency has not detected the actual use of nuclear
material in connection with the alleged studies.”
No,
the catalyst for this week’s flutterings was the annual political pageant of
national leaders before the UN General Assembly. Ahmadinejad was going to use
his minutes at the platform to have a pop at the US, and pressure groups opposed
to the Iranian regime were going to set up high-profile shop in front of the UN.
(Indeed, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were going to join the rallies unless
political calculations prompted their withdrawals.) The importance lay in
symbolism rather than substance: the US Government is playing a relatively weak
political hand in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East, and Central Asia, and Iran
--- despite serious economic problems --- is in a stronger position because of
developments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the region. Indeed, within 24 hours of
the spate of US media and political comment, the Russians threw up a roadblock.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made it clear that not only would Moscow refuse
to join any further UN sanctions against Iran, it would not even sit down with
the Americans to discuss the nuclear situation.
This
is not to give Iran the all-clear on the nuclear issue but to point out that
little, in fact, has changed in the last year. Instead, if there is a threat, it
still lies well beyond the show in New York. The Guardian
revealed today that Israel proposed an airstrike upon Iran in May but President
Bush withheld his support. While
stories of Israeli action have been put out in the past as a warning to Tehran,
this time the sources are European diplomats, indicating genuine concern and a
hope to limit further Israeli plan by making the details public.
A
few weeks ago, a friend offered some substance to the Guardian’s
revelation. Israel military planners, he said, had briefed a group of academics
and consultants on a plan to hit the iranians. When I suggested that this meant
a three-front war, given that Hezbollah and Syria might respond on Israel’s
northern border and groups in the West Bank and Gaza would also rise up against
Tel Aviv, he responded, “Right. And that is what they are planning for.”
I
still think that the scenario is unlikely. After this week’s rhetorical surge,
Israel will go back to a domestic political situation that is far from stable,
Ahmadinejad will return to Tehran to face opposition to his economic
manoeuvrings and a 2009 election, and the US will return to the Presidential
campaign. But the worry remains that the silliness of this fist-shaking, by
miscalculation or a bit too much heat in the gestures, could prompt a
confrontation.
----------------------
September 25
The Great Decider Hangs On for His Reputation:
Bush at the UN and on the Economy
Well, President Bush almost made it.
Despite all the overseas turmoil stirred up in part by his
Administration’s attempt to display and extend American power, despite the
near-reckless spend-and-cut-taxes approach to the US economy, despite the
mismanagement of affairs at home from Enron to Katrina and beyond, Bush almost
got out the White House door with a shred of reputation fluttering, if not
intact.
His spinners parlayed Petraeus-worship into the mirage of the
victorious surge in
Iraq
, even as the country staggers from health worries to collapse of services to
corruption charges to political gridlock. He belatedly returned to the original
arena for the War on
Terror
,
Afghanistan
, to throw in a few thousand troops so he could proclaim that the valiant fight
goes on. He kept up the rah-rah of the sound fundamentals of the economy even as
debts, including those of his Federal Government, spiralled and the red flag of
sub-prime mortgage crisis was raised.
Earlier this month, Bush tried to draw the curtains with a
self-proclaimed farewell speech on foreign policy, covered with the loud
declaration of a token withdrawal of US troops from
Iraq
. And on Tuesday, he took the nice-knowing-you swagger to the United Nations. He
recycled old themes: gotta fight terrorism, gotta be firm with
North Korea
and
Iran
, gotta help
Iraq
, gotta love freedom. His speechwriters added an audacious touch, however.
Having pretty much trashed international action over the last seven years by
pulling out of treaties, rejecting institutions such as the International
Criminal Court, shredding international law, and defying the UN with the rush to
war in Iraq, Bush said that the tasks he set out were for “multilateral
organizations” rather than, say, a would-be unipolar superpower. The audience
at the United Nations responded to this proclamation with silence and the
US
media weren’t that fussed about the speech, but Bush had made it through one
more ceremonial exit.
Unfortunately for the President, trying to sail away
peacefully doesn’t work when the big wave is about to hit. He declared as late
as last week that the fundamentals of the American economy were strong, but the Washington
Post left an ominous portent at
the top of its (Page 8) story on the UN appearance: “On a day when other
world leaders largely focused on the global economic crisis, President Bush
sought to turn the attention of the United Nations to his core foreign policy
goals of fighting terrorists and promoting freedom around the world.” Oh, yes,
that pesky “global economic crisis”, the one that was only a “situation”
when it was a question of rising food prices and resource shortages but got
critical when Wall St investment banks discovered they were way in the red.
So last night, Bush had to undo the farewells and make a
I’m-still-your-Commander statement. In an 18-minute speech, he converted
“sound economy” into “serious financial crisis” before offering his
guide in troubled times: “How did we reach this point in our
economy? How will the solution I've proposed work? And what does this mean for
your financial future?”
It probably goes without saying that Bush’s answer to
“How did we reach this point?” had nothing to do with Government policy,
spending, or lack of regulation of the economy and financial sectors. No,
American trouble stemmed from its own amazing success: “A massive amount of
money flowed into the
United States
from investors abroad, because our country is an attractive and secure place to
do business.” So private Americans (not the
Government) built up debts to pay for small items like college tuition, and
constructors were crazy enough to build a lot more houses. All of a sudden,
“American could slip into a financial panic.”
An unsurprising if irritating skating
over the past, irritating for anyone who dared take Economics 101,
eyebrow-raising if you were one of those foreigners who shouldn’t have
invested in the US, one of those parents who shouldn’t have borrowed to pay
for their kids’ education, one of those builders who shouldn’t have built.
But tangential to the main question: having come out of early retirement, what
would the Great Decider decide?
Well, nothing really. The decision, of
course, was made last week, first by reversing course after the Lehman Brothers
debacle with the $85 billion to rescue AIG, then with the grand gesture of the
$700 billion promise to bail out the investment banks. All Bush was doing last
night was trying to take out the political interference, not only from Democrats
in the Congress who were raising quibbles over “rewards” for executives of
the bailed-out institutions and questions over the lack of regulation of
financial but from Republicans who were questioning the haste to intervene in
the “free market”. So Bush, the President who presided over the effective
nationalisation of America’s mortgage providers and the largest-ever
Government subsidy of private firms, declared, “I’m a strong believer in
free enterprise.” He vaguely threw out a promise to “modernise our financial
regulations”.
And then, having hit the panic button,
“more banks could fail...the stock market would drop even more...the value of
your home could plummet...foreclosures would rise dramatically..more businesses
would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs,” he
declared, “Americans have good reason to be confident in our economic
strength.”
To be fair, if one can be fair to a
President who sapped that economic strength with seven years of binge spending,
Bush had no alternative to his tap dance of panic but be strong, my citizens.
The risk to the US economy, which has been building for a long time but
symbolically showed up with this summer’s collapse of investment firms, is
that the liquidity financing private and public debt would suddenly dry up. As
Harold Meyerson pointed out today, that liquidity has been coming from overseas
sovereign funds in recent months. When certain banks, such as Lehman Brothers,
had to face up to the fact, however, that even those funds weren’t enough,
then concern became a real panic, not just the political scare whipped up by
Bush last night.
So the $750 billion had to be set
forward to secure some confidence in Wall Street and beyond. The problem now is
that even this confidence is proving to be shaky. In the end, this is a
faith-based move: investors, financiers, and businessmen have to be convinced
that someone somewhere will finance that $750 billion. It cannot simply come
with an add-on to the US Government deficit, or the borrowing cycle that got the
US into this mess only takes a faster spiral.
And so the irony. Having played out his
political string for 7 1/2 years, still putting his faith in American leadership
(which means his own), George W. Bush finds himself dependent on foreigners.
Yep, the same foreigners who had to accept the US unipolar, who had to follow or
stand aside in Wars on Terror to War on Iraq, and the foreigners whom Bush
blamed last night for the current American economic crisis. These are the folks
who now hold whatever is left of the 43rd President’s reputation.
----------------------
September 22
Election Update: So Long, Sarah, It was Nice Ogling Ya....
OK,
I'm not proud. It's an arrogant, very politically incorrect headline. But I'm
riding on the high of a prediction coming true within a few weeks.
The
McCain campaign hasn't been able to maintain the daily culture war. I'd like to
think that this is because of the jujitsu of spot-on satire, with
Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey (the political hot chick for thinking
folks) doing Palin better than Palin, but it's more to do with the
near-meltdown on Wall Street.
Not
surprising that folks may put down their guns and their pit-bull lipstick and
any other icons of proper American-ness when the economy rears up and bites even
the big financial boys in the butt. Even hot chicks have to give way to the
(lack of) dollars and economic sense.
The
post-GOP convention bounce has now dissipated, with
Obama showing a 2-3 percent lead in national polls. That's statistically
insignificant, but the key numbers are in the battleground states. While more of
them are in play --- the Republicans are no longer on safe ground in Indiana and
the Democrats need to shore up their position in Minnesota --- economic downturn
becomes a Democratic advantage in those states, even when Obama still shows
little sign of joined-up domestic policies.
Of
course, I could get my own kick in the butt if the Moose Mom wins over our
hearts and eyes once more, say, by joining an anti-Iran rally in front of the
United Nations to prove her expertise for foreign policy. And, before she has
her night of one-on-one with Democratic VP nominee Joe Biden, Friday's first
showdown between Obama and McCain may shift the electoral ground.
For
now, though, I'll ride high on short-term success.
----------------------
September 22
Your 10-Minute Guide to the US Financial Crisis
The Fantastic Moment of, Well, Fantasy
Wanna-be
President John McCain: I will support the Government subsidy of $700 billion to
bail out the financial industry and I will cut taxes and "“I
believe we can still balance the budget”. (To be fair to Big John and his
economic expertise --- © Keating 5 --- his Democratic opponent is also
promising no tax increases and the very useful step of monitoring the pay of
chief executive officers.)
The
Great Big Global Reality
Who's
going to provide the funds for the US Government's subsidy of the financial
sector? Well, it won't be the US taxpayer, since no one dares up their tax
burden in an election year. It won't be the US Government, you know, the one
with the $500 billion annual budget deficit.
So
step up, foreign investors, to buy the American bonds that will be floated for
this victory of capitalism. Step up, Gulf oil money (and maybe even Venezuelan
oil money?). Step up, Chinese financiers, such
as the China Investment Corporation, who almost bought up Morgan Stanley last
week.
Listen
to podcast...
----------------------
September 18
Hit or Miss in Pakistan: With an Ally Like This, Who Needs...?
Last Thursday, I embarked on a new, challenging, and exciting
project, working with postgraduate students at the Clinton Institute for
American Studies in
Dublin
. Introducing a course on contemporary
US
foreign policy, I tried out the idea of dissecting that morning’s Page 1
story, whatever it might be, in the New
York Times.
I punched in the URL and upon the large screen is the
headline, “Bush
Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan”. The opening paragraph
confirmed I had more than enough for discussion, “President Bush secretly
approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special
Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside
Pakistan
without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior
American officials.”
Well, there you go. By chance rather than design I could open
the course with perhaps the most significant development in
US
foreign policy this year. Significant because the US Government was making
clear that it was taking the war against the
Afghanistan
insurgency across the border into
Pakistan
. Even more so because the
US
would be fighting not just with bombs from the air but special forces on the
ground. Especially so because the
US
would do so without the over t co-operation of the Pakistani Government.
To be blunt: on Monday, Asif Zardari finally reached his goal
of becoming Prime Minister of Pakistan, a country portrayed as a steadfast ally
of the US in the “War on Terror”. By Thursday,
Washington
didn’t give, to use the academic term, “a rat’s ass” about the thoughts
of Zardari. On Monday,
Pakistan
’s military was portrayed as side-by-side with American counterparts; by
Thursday, there was the prospect of armed clashes between the two sets of
troops.
With allies like these, who needs....? You fill in the blank.
The backdrop to this story is now well-known. On 11 September
2001, the Head of Pakistan’s intelligence services, Mahmood Ahmed, was in
Washington
discussing co-operation with US officials. Indeed, as the planes hit the
World
Trade
Center
and the Pentagon, Ahmed was having breakfast with the chairmen of the House and
Senate Intelligence Committees. Within 24 hours, discussions had become a
showdown. Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage set out a seven-point
ultimatum to Ahmed. When Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf confirmation to
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the American conditions would be met,
the essential alliance in the War on Terror had been established.
There were holdover tensions from
Pakistan
’s years of support for a liaison with the Taliban. In January 2002, Seymour
Hersh of The New Yorker blew the whistle on the hundreds, maybe
thousands, of Pakistanis who had fought on the wrong side and been captured by
the Americans during fighting in
Afghanistan
. The detainees were shipped to Kunduz, from where Pakistani helicopters took
them home. As US attentions turned to
Iraq
, the inconvenience that Osama bin Laden was also now sheltered in
Pakistan
’s autonomous tribal areas as gradually accepted. Months turned into years,
and President Musharraf’s attention (and that of his critics) turned to
internal political/judicial matters and, eventually, the imposition of martial
law.
So what has happened to re-make
Pakistan
from sturdy if arguably ineffectual partner of the
US
in regional politics and the War on Terror into obstacle to
US
operations? No doubt the forced handover from Musharraf to Zardari is a partial
explanation; there is no sign of American faith in the reliability of the new
Prime Minister, who is likely to be focused on his battle with the judiciary
rather than a showdown with Al Qa’eda.
The catalyst, however, is the Bush Administration’s last
roll of the dice in
Afghanistan
. As I noted Monday, the President’s statement two weeks ago offered both
victory without substance and a challenge without an answer. If the small number
of
US
troops being pulled with
Iraq
belied a long-term occupation that is increasingly out of touch with political
developments, the small number of US troops being sent to
Afghanistan
showed that the Administration has nothing but a small bandage to slap on its
new Number One Emergency Case.
An extra 9000 boots on the ground won’t cover much of the
problem area in
Afghanistan
. At most, it will allow the
US
to carry out well-publicised operations to clear the Taliban from villages
which are likely to vulnerable during the next counter-attack of the insurgency.
Put very bluntly, in the absence of effective political and economic
reconstruction,
Washington
has to hope that local leaders and their militias are strong enough to keep the
Taliban out. It’s notable, for example, that
Herat
in the western part of the country is relatively stable under a local regime on
good terms with
Iran
, while Mazar-al-Sharif in the north is “secure” because of the local but
forceful presence of General Dostum.
This doesn’t add up to long-term influence, however, for
the Americans and it far from signals long-term authority for the Kabul
Government of Hamid Karzai. So
Washington
gets the worst of both worlds: potential rivals reap the benefits from the
areas that they control or influence while the
US
carries the can for instability in other regions.
Even if European governments and other allies in NATO and the
International Security Assistance Force were willing to shift a token number of
soldiers to the conflict zone in the south and centre of the country, that
wouldn’t offer any resolution of the underlying problems. And it certainly
wouldn’t address the emerging headache for the Americans and
Kabul
, the insurgent violence in the east along the
Pakistan
border.
So, if you haven’t got the troop numbers or a meaningful
plan of reconstruction to bring villages into a secure nation, what do you do?
Well, you resort to those limited but hopefully effectively targeted operations
that “decapitate” the opposition. That means air power and that means
special operations on the ground, special operations to assist with targeting of
the airstrikes and special operations to liquidate the bad guys.
It is no coincidence that the “surge” in
Iraq
has included recently-hyped “fusion cells”, small units of
specially-trained soldiers to capture and kill insurgents. And, given the
incomplete if not false impression that this has made a long-term difference in
Iraq
, the Americans will be trying to spread the model to the next battleground.
But even as this strategy covers up the problem of the lack
of long-term troop numbers to “stabilise”
Afghanistan
, it ignores some fundamentals of special warfare. Even the
Iraq
example should be instructive: the “fusion cells” complement the
cultivation of local leaders and their militias to secure a particular area. In
Pakistan
, where is that cultivation of leaders in the tribal areas going to take place?
Well, given that the airstrikes and operations are alienating that leadership,
their families, and their communities, the answer would be Nowhere. Tribal
leaders have already responded by promising to raise forces to fight the
US
.
And here’s another lesson that it ignores. You can’t
limit the effect of dropped bombs and elite forces trained to kill. Far more
important than any ripples of stability you hope to get on the other side of the
border are the waves of instability you set off in
Pakistan
. The warning of the Pakistani military leadership that it will opposed American
ground incursions may be a bluff or even the Janus trick of giving a stern face
of defending their people and sovereignty while privately giving another face of
acceptance to the Americans. But, at a minimum, Zardari is exposed as a
political leader with barely a shred of authority.
And, in
Pakistan
with its recent history, what do you think that means? I’m guessing that it
leaves only the
Pakistan
military, whichever way it chooses to play the hand with the Americans, as the
only significant force in the country with a symbolic and real modicum of power.
If Zardari protests this, the prospect of his overthrow emerges. If he accepts
his emasculation, he is no more than an irrelevant figurehead. Either way,
it’s an effective coup.
I’ve only seen one commentator reach back for the
historical parallel. In 1969/70 the Nixon Administration, frustrated at the
mobility of the Vietnamese insurgency, starts the airborne demolition of
Cambodia
. Eventually that tearing apart of the Cambodian “sanctuary” took the ground
from under the country’s leadership, and Prince Sihanouk was overthrown. The
eventual victors who promised to restore sovereignty and dignity? The Khmer
Rouge.
It’s not an exact replay of history, and
Pakistan
may not have to be reset to Year Zero. Neither, however, does the American
strategy offer any advance. Seven years after promising that it would pursue the
War on Terror to preserve the security and sovereignty of those were “with
us”,
Washington
is now shredding that assurance.
UPDATES:
On
Wednesday, an American missile strike on Waziristan killed six people. While
doing nothing to relieve the tension, the airstrike is unlikely to shake US
relations with the Pakistani military, given that the Americans have had a free
hand to hit from the air, probably since the seven-point ultimatum of September
2001.
The
missile strike came only hours after the sudden visit of Admiral Mike Mullen,
the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Islamabad. He paid lip service
to respect for Pakistan's sovereignty but refused to rule out further ground
attacks. Even more significantly, his visits were with Pakistan army chief,
General Ashfaq Kiyani and Prime Minister Yousaf Gillani. Notice who is not on
that list?
That's
right. Zardari,
who dashed to London on Tuesday to urge Prime Minister Gordon Brown to restrain
the US. There was a bit of spin from a Pakistani official, "The
UK
agrees with us that such moves are counterproductive.
Britain
has a major role to play [here] – they know the area better than the
US
." The chances of Brown making a move, however, are probably Less than
Zero; if he's been close to paralysed by his domestic situation, he isn't going
to be intervening in the American theatre of military operations.
For
further anlaysis, Tariq
Ali offers an interpretation which is close to our reading of the
situation.]
----------------------
September 15
Hit or Miss? Power(less) Surge in Iraq
Last Friday's HIt-or-Miss? on the
McCain-Palin campaign was a huge provocative success. My relatives from the US
South, preparing to vote Republican en masse, denounced it as a total Miss,
while a close friend --- let's call him The Reverend --- sent a wonderfully
scurrilous e-mail pointing out that we hadn't launched enough of a Hit against
the Moose Mom/Wannabe VP (if you like scurrilous-ness, I've snuck in the text
at the end of the blog).
Thus encouraged, here's the first of a set of
Hits-or-Misses for this week:
IRAQ: POWER(LESS) SURGE
Prediction: "In Anbar, Diyala, Kurdistan,
and other parts of Iraq, the new lines of battle are being drawn up between
local forces, including those supported by the US surge' of the last 18
months, and the Al-Maliki Government. Tucked away in their large bases inside
Iraq, it's unclear what the US military --- and its commanders in Washington
--- can or will do in that forthcoming confrontation." (Watching America,
4 September)
Outcome: A HIT
I've waited a few days before commenting, mainly
to see if Bush's speech, touted as his last major statement on Iraq, would
last into the weekend's press. It didn't. Apart from aonther puff-piece
on General David Petraeus, there is not even a dribble from Bush's
proclamation.
Rightly so, becaue this is no more than a
shuffling of deck chairs on a Titanic foreign policy. The reduction in forces
in Iraq barely deserves the moniker "withdrawal". Even after the
departure of the 8000, which will only occur after Buh's farewell to the White
House in January 2009, almost 140,000 American troops will remain on duty in
Iraq. That's more than the number that were in the country at the start of
Bush's second term.
Which clearly isn't going to happen. Petraeus
covered his military/political back 12 months ago with the phrase
"contingent on an improvement in Iraq's security situation", and he
trotted out the same line in interviews last week. The General got away with
it once again, as the media didn't pursue the obvious follow-up: if his
"surge" is proving so triumphant, when exactly will we see Iraq
overseen by the Iraqis rather than an American occupying force?
Yet, even if Petraeus maintains his wall of Iraq's
fragile success, his rhetorical drumbeat points --- probably inadvertently ---
to the crumbling foundation at the base. He might have 135,000 troops at his
beck-and-call but, even with double that amount, he doesn't have a political
strategy. Nor does his Commander-in-Chief, who said nothing --- nothing ---
about the political dynamics and manoeuvrings amongst the Iraqi Government and
factions throughout the country. Betraying the tributes to
"stability", this weekend a bomber took out another 30+ Shia north
of Baghdad. Even more ominously, the fractious dispute between Kurdish
militias and Arab forces, focused for the moment on the town of Khanaqin,
escalated with the killing of nine Kurdish peshmerga. A close political ally
of Ahmed Chalabi, the former favourite of the Bush Administration, has just
been arrested by US forces on charges of providing intelligence to
Iranian-backed "special groups", while Chalabi survived an
assassination attempt. (The excellent
Juan Cole has an excellent round-up on these developments.)
(And, amidst the continued killing and scramble
for local power, an ironic touch. If the American invasion for Iraq was, in
part, an attempt to control oil production, it has ended with the Iraqi
Government cancelling the no-bid contracts it had signed with six
"Western" firms for exploration. Step up the big winners of the
US adventure....the Chinese, with their $3+ billion deal to tap iraq's energy
resources).
Still, the continuing Iraq debacle is the lesser
of two important dimensions. If Bush's statement on Iraq was an
almost-pathetic attempt to claim a victory, any victory, before he is evicted
from Washington, his posturing on Afghanistan is little more than spitting
into a whirlpool. With the deployment of the 4500, the US will have 37,500
troops in the country. That's one-quarter the size of the force in Iraq in a
country with three times the population. The current violence in Afghanistan
may not (yet) be on the same macabre level as that in Iraq, but there is even
less of a vestige of central control. This weekend, a provincial governor and
former member of the Karzai Cabinet was assassinated, and a senior UN advisor
noted that the display of force by British troops in central Afghanistan was
aiding rather than crippling the Taliban.
If the US Government was serious about a head-on
military effort, even in the absence of any political strategy, to win back a
country it supposedly won in 2001, then the deployment would be in the tens of
thousands. So why didn't it happen?
Step up, from under the Emperor's New Clothes,
General David Petraeus. As Bob Woodward's wayward but useful new book points
out, it was Petraeus that save the President in 2006/7 when almost every other
military commander was telling Bush that a decrease, rather than increase, in
US forces in Iraq was advisable. It was Petraeus that publicly played up his
counter-insurgency "magic bullet" through the support of Sunni
politicians and militias. And it has been Petraeus who, in the face of the
complexity of Iraq, has insisted that the surge has approached if not turned
(indeed, will never turn, to the point of reducing the US military presence to
even 50,000) Victory Corner.
And it is Petraeus who, as commander of the US
forces in Iraq and soon Chief of Staff (?) in Washington, has insisted on
the Iraq-first approach. Iran, Pakistan, that "War on Terror",
Afghanistan all have to take their place around the centre of Baghdad. When
Admiral William Fallon, the head of Central Command, questioned whether the
focus on Iraq was sapping American capabilities elsewhere, everywhere,
Petraeus's persistence prevailed as Fallon was kicked into retirement. And,
even as the current heads of the US military in Washington are warning that
Afghanistan is the looming defeat that can't be risked, Petraeus is skillfully
working the press and the President to get his way.
So nothing --- nothing --- of significance happens
with a US military presence which is large but peripheral to developments in
Iraq and Afghanistan. This doesn't mean, however, that Bush's speech has no
ill effects, for it makrs only the start of a chain of consequences. Those
consequences will be front-and-centre in the next Hit-or-Miss on Pakistan.
----------------------
Palin Update
"The Reverend" testifies:
"I just have to vent about
this: I am so tired of Alaskans who posture as rugged individualists. The state
maintains its independence in the wilds by existing on handouts from the federal
government. And even on the state level, every rugged individualist GOP
small-government, welfare Cadillac-hatin', gun-totin', freedom-loving citizen
gets a handout from the Alaska Permanent Fund every year.
And on this: Claiming that Palin is no less experienced than Obama and no less
qualified. Call me an elitist, but compare these two sets of experience and
qualification:
Education:
She: Five different colleges (OK, Idaho is in there twice), eventually
graduating from Idaho.
He: Two different colleges, graduating from Columbia. Harvard Law, president of
Law Review.
Professional Career:
She: A year, maybe two?, as a sportscaster. Helping in husband's fishing
business.
He: Consulting group, then political organizing before law school. Three years
in community organizing (that is, democracy where people live). 12 years as
lawyer and lecturer at Chicago Law.
Political career:
She: City council, then mayor of Wasilla. First-term governor.
He: State legislator, First-term U.S. Senator.
The huge difference is the ponds they have been swimming in. She bounced around
through a succession of small colleges (Matanuska-Susitna
College?) and he excelled at the top of the most rigorous schools, including
law school (OK, I'm an elitist). She had a government career, but nothing else
substantive before becoming governor. I don't think teaching, whether it be law
school or first grade, should be dismissed but McCain seems to think so. I don't
think community organizing, doing something to connect people and help them to
help themselves, is worthless, but McCain seems to think so -- even though it's
exactly the sort of thing that faith-based programs do! I don't think a career
in law should be dismissed, but McCain apparently thinks so -- though he didn't
think so back in the Keating
5 days!
I think it's enough to dismiss her because of her troglodyte political beliefs
and policies. But the McCain campaign and its "journalistic"
hangers-on are getting on my last nerve. Clinton promised a bridge to the 21st
century. McCain is providing us with a bridge to nowhere.
----------------------
September 12
Hit or Miss? Betting Against McCain-Palin
After
the Republican National Convention, we admired Sarah Palin’s performance but
confidently predicted, "In a campaign where the key issues cannot be addressed (by
the Republicans) and apparently will not be addressed (by the Democrats), I
think this is a gamble that fails." (Watching
America, 5 September).
So,
of course, the McCain-Palin ticket took off in the polls, overtaking the
Democrats in most samples of the popular vote and narrowing Barack
Obama’s projected lead in the Electoral College. The media line now is that
the Obama camp is “jittery”, taking sage advice from veterans like Bill
Clinton.
I’ve
had a couple of butterflies myself. It’s clear that Palin is going to eat up
the media spotlight, to the point of pushing McCain as well as the opposition to
the wings. And although some journalists are daring to point out that she is 1)
a liar, e.g., on her supposed “reformist” opposition to Federal projects
such as the “Bridge to Nowhere” and to State support for, say, paying a
Governor to live in her own home in Wasilla, 2) a defender of “freedom” to
the point of seeking the removal of books from her local library, and 3) a
hopeless ingénue in affairs beyond Alaska, to the point of ignorance of the
current Administration’s foreign policy, the Republican line that this
is merely the sniping of an “elitist” media seems to be holding.
That
said, can the McCain-Palin strategy serve up enough daily distractions to avoid
any reference to issues? Wednesday’s set piece was the “lipstick on a pig”
episode, in which Obama’s comment on the weakness of Republican policies (and
his inversion of Palin’s “lipstick on a pit bull/Hockey Mom” line)
was turned into an ungentlemanly attack on a hot chick, sorry, upstanding woman.
That
vulgar corruption of one of my favourite expressions --- have you seen lipstick
on a pig in the Southern US? --- worked pretty well. I’m not sure, though, Big
John and Bigger Sarah can find another 59 days of diversions. Yesterday, the
Republicans had to put attempted substance to Palin’s style, risking an
extended interview of ABC’s World News Tonight. She responded, at least
to an observer well outside the US, by being scary (giving a blank cheque to an
Israeli airstrike on Iran and indicating she wouldn’t object to US troops
facing off Russians in Georgia), robotic (sticking to scripted answers, even
when they were tangential at best), and clueless (Bush Doctrine? What is the
Bush Doctrine?).
Of
course, those features may not be those picked up by American voters. Republican
minders were putting out the word “determined” for Palin’s appearance, and
her anti-intellectual (and at times anti-intelligence) postures probably have
more resonance than I like to admit. Even this early in the final lap of the
campaign, however, the determined Moose Mom is finding her act far from
invulnerable.
The
next few weeks may turn on whether Obama-Biden, overshadowed by the Palin
phenomenon, get their act together and put out points of substance --- the
economy, anyone? You know, the one where leading investment banks like Lehman
Brothers might go to the wall? --- rather than defend in the “culture wars”.
Although the shine is well off the Campaign for Change, I still think that’s a
possibility.
Which
is why I’m looking at the odds lengthening on an Obama victory and thinking
that may be money in my bank come first Wednesday in November.
Then
again, I could be spitting against the electoral winds. This just in from the
great state of Georgia (and, trust me, these were the gentlest of the images
despatched to me....)
----------------------
September 9
Far from Foggy, Far from Collateral: Problems in Afghanistan
Out
here in the wilds of northwest England, where I’m on University duty for a few
days, it’s tricky to stay in touch (which is my way of apologising for a dark
day on Libertas on Monday). Mobile
phone service is erratic, and the Internet lifeline has been cut in our
conference room. If it wasn’t for Sky Sports in the hotel bar, with the
pressing international developments in the US Open tennis final, we’d be
adrift.
Yet, even in this isolated state, it is possible to be ahead of the media curve.
Sources cross the hills to tell me that “the
U.S. Central Command will send a senior team, headed by a general and
including a legal affairs officer, to reinvestigate a U.S. air attack last month
that U.N. and Afghan officials say killed 90 civilians”.
Good. Even better if the US military has done this two weeks ago after the 21
August bombing near Herat in western Afghanistan. (Of course, even better, if
they hadn’t wiped out “non-combatants” in the first place but, for reasons
set out below, that’s a forlorn hope.)
Let’s say this with non-military precision. Even though western Afghanistan is
almost as isolated as this place, it was clear within 48 hours of the attack
that dozens of civilians had lost their lives. Subsequent reports indicated that
a tribal leader, settling a feud with a rival group, had given the Americans
misleading “intelligence” that the Taliban had gathered in the buildings
targeted by US planes.
The US military’s response to the revelations was to stall. And then to
lie. Even after the United Nations had confirmed that about 90 people had been
killed, almost all of them innocents, more than half of them children, US
spokesmen threw out denials. An American “enquiry” tried to get away with
the claim that only seven civilians had died while 30 Taliban/insurgents had
been wiped out.
This is not “fog of war”. This is not “collateral damage”. This is
the far-from-foggy, far-from-collateral outcome of an American military strategy
which no good alternative.
As Tom Englehardt has pointed out in a series of exceptional articles, the
US military has had to move increasingly to aerial operations to counter
insurgencies. Afghanistan is only one of the arenas; Iraq and Pakistan have also
been part of the tactical shift. It’s
a cold, hard reality that when the US can’t put enough boots on the ground to
deal with local opposition, it calls in the Air Force. The “surge” that will
keep on giving us victory in Iraq --- President Bush is about to announce that
his long-promised drawdown of US forces will be a measly 8,000, leaving more
American military in the country in January 2009 than there were in January 2005
--- may have reduced the airstrikes there, but in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they
are on a sharp upward curve.
And, once you get past the Boys’ Own tales of super-duper Hellfire
missiles and smart bombs that can pick out an evildoer from a stray bystander
only a few feet away, it should be an easy read that civilians will die.
Indeed, if American politicians had the guts to declare that, seven years
after the Taliban were supposedly routed once and for all, the US is still in a
war in Afghanistan, they could admit that. As we eloquently put it where I grew
up, “S*** happens.”
But,
of course, that admission cannot be made. Partly because the US public has to be
assured that all is under control, partly because any confession that these
incidents will occur --- again and again and again --- cuts away the political
ground that the Taliban kill, we protect. In the phrase that now risks being
darkly comic in its over-use, we have to keep winning the battle for “hearts
and minds”.
Trying to appear whiter than white, even in the fading grey of the
perpetual skirmishing across Afghanistan, the US risks not just embarrassment
but failure. And we’re not talking the failure of a futile campaign against
local insurgency. This could be the failure of countries spiralling into a civil
disorder that makes the pre-9/11 Taliban look like America’s best friend. As I
write, newspapers are noting that the US has just taken out more than 20 people
in an airstrike in Pakistan. The official line will be that they were all
connected with Jalaluddin Haqqani, alternately as “one of Pakistan’s most
prominent Taliban leaders” and “an associate of Bin Laden”. The unpleasant
truth is that those dead associates include “one of
Jalaluddin Haqqani’s two wives, his sister, sister-in-law and eight of his
grandchildren”.
I doubt that residents of that Pakistan village will be celebrating this
display of American power. I doubt that this will ensure their support of
Pakistan’s new government under Asif Zardari. And so today’s headline in The
Times of London, “The new Pakistan President must be held to his promises
on fighting the threats to his country”, will not only be fatuous but ominous.
America’s use of the bomb and the
missile is not as much a demonstration of military strength but both a sign and
a further contribution to political weakness. And for those of you who still
have a hankering for Donald Rumsfeld’s phrase, that is where this “long
war” will be lost.
There’s a terribly humourous,
humoursly terrible irony in the news that drifts in this morning. In the latest
rah-rah, stay-the-course opinion piece in the Washington
Post, David Gross, the “U.S.
coordinator for international communication and information policy”, and Amir
Sai Zangin, Afghanistan’s Minister of Communications, proclaim, “ A
key component of the Taliban's suppression was preventing people from
communicating with one another; the country had virtually no telephones and no
access to the Internet....Working together after the Taliban was removed from
power, the U.S. and Afghan governments recognized the importance of dramatically
increasing access to communications networks and establishing access to the
Web.”
The
irony lies in the reason why the US military, having lied in its initial inquiry
into the bombing near Herat, has been forced to announce a new, improved
inquiry. Why? As the Independent
bluntly put it, “Harrowing video footage emerged showing the broken bodies
of at least 11 children among the dead. The grim, eight-minute clip, filmed on a
mobile phone in the aftermath of the bombing, shows rows of shrouded bodies laid
side by side in a make-shift morgue.”
----------------------
September 5
Now the Campaign Begins: Assessing the US Election
With the conclusion of the Party Conventions, we can finally
get to the real campaignin'. Convenient then that the folks at the
British-American Business Council asked me for a 500-word reading of who might
be walking into the White House next January. In the end, fascination and a bit
of obsession led to 1500.
In
a nutshell: The first major clues will come next week after the big polling
organisations use the Labor Day weekend to get a post-convention snapshot of the
electorate.
But
Barack Obama, even at 9-4 on, is looking good value for a bet.
THIS
IS THE DEMOCRATS’ ELECTION TO LOSE
Of course, the Republicans do not have the advantage of
incumbency, as President Bush could not run again under American law. Equally
important, it is a hard task to hand over to a successor --- since 1945, a Party
has only retained the White House for a 3rd term on 1 of 6 occasions.
(George H.W. Bush was able to follow Ronald Reagan in 1989.) Given the
unpopularity of the Bush Administration, the task is even tougher this time.
That is why President Bush and his close advisors have been tucked away in the
broom cupboards by the McCain campaign, with the President making a lacklustre
eight-minute appearance on video and Vice-President Cheney holding court in
Georgia --- not the American Georgia but the one halfway around the world.
The issues are running against the Republicans. Iraq has
turned from immediate victory to extended, tiring nightmare to a conflict that
most Americans would like to forget; the War on Terror hasn’t captured Osama;
and Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East, and now the conflict in the Caucasus
are confusing issues with no easy resolutions. Far more importantly, the US
economy is faltering into possible recession, accompanied by a series of
symbolic “crises”. Voters are worried about their pensions, their mortgages,
and rising prices for food and energy.
A colleague captured the moment in May when he spoke for many
comfortably middle-class neighbours: “We’re worried that our 411Ks (pension
funds) have halved in value.”
In 2004 Bush offset accusations of economic mismanagement by
playing the “national security” card. Even so, he barely made it back to the
White House, surviving by the margin of a few thousand votes in Ohio. Four years
later, waving the red flag of warning against terrorists and tyrants is an even
riskier proposition.
SNATCHING
DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY?
The Democratic campaign, however, has failed to capitalise on
its opportunity; indeed, by mid-August, the Obama campaign was looking more than
a bit jittery.
Obama, as an politician, as an orator, and, for some, as a
visionary, played a blinder at the start of 2008. He captured the imagination of
many current voters with his concept of “change”; more importantly, he
brought in the largest number of new voters in recent history.
Then Hillary Clinton, seeing her grasp on the Democratic
nomination slip away, counter-attacked. Using a pernicious tactic of guilt by
association (and sneakily inserting the question of African-American
“reliability”), she labelled Obama an extremist because of his church
leader, Jeremiah Wright, and political activists such as the former ‘60s
radical William Ayers. When Obama blocked this with an outstanding speech on
race, she switched to the theme of her representation of the “working-class”
(read whites) with their love of guns, church, and community.
Obama slipped up, notably through an off-the-record talk in
San Francisco noting that said love of guns and church could be distractions
from economic worries. What was needed was a full presentation of those economic
worries and some ideas for dealing with this, but Obama --- short on policy as
opposed to vision --- didn’t deliver.
While this didn’t deny the nomination to the Senator of
Illinois, it offered a liferaft to the Republicans: “culture wars”.
RELEASE
THE CULTURAL HOUNDS
Throughout US history, it has been an electoral tactic and a
feature of political life to hold up the threat of the “un-American”. Since
the 1960s and especially in the last twenty years, that “un-American” tag
has been slapped on certain issues, such as immigration and, after 9-11,
“national security”. Those issues, however, may not prove long-term
vote-winners. The Republicans, for example, have relegated immigration as a
campaign theme in the face of a sizeable backlash against anti-immigrant
rhetoric and a very sizeable Hispanic-American vote. And, in contrast, to recent
campaigns, they are no longer bashing “gay rights” and even the possibility
of same-sex marriage.
So the culture war is one best fought against caricatures:
“angry leftists” who would support enemy governments and terrorists,
“extremists” like outspoken feminists and African-American activists, and
“elitist liberals”. It is this war that underlay both the choice of Sarah
Palin as the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee and her acceptance speech,
which mobilised the Republican Convention, on 3 September. While unsubtly trying
the tactic of a woman will vote for a woman, the Republicans can also position
Palin as the small-town Mom who is “one of us”. This in turn means she can
cut loose on those who not “part of us”, the working-class, church-loving
folk of America.
WILL
IT WORK IN PEORIA? PROBABLY NOT
The Democrats yet again failed to slam the door on this
Republican strategy. Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention
was great on style, which in turn gave a significant “bounce” both in polls
and in registration of voters, but short on an approach to economic and social
issues. Failing to even note the economic gorilla in the room, the Federal
budget deficit, he relied on general platitudes about taxing fat cats (while
cutting taxes for the small business and working man) and making American health
care and education the best in the world.
But, with the Palin strategy, the Republicans have probably
handed back this gift. If the Democrats have failed to put forth key issues,
McCain will not be able to avoid them. Palin’s importance, after the press
gets over the beauty-queen, Hockey Mom novelty, lies in her political stances.
She’s staunchly anti-abortion, for the teaching of creationism, very much for
guns, and sceptical of environment and energy-control measures to the point
where she denies that global warming is a man-made phenomenon.
This will all come out, Simply put, elections are not won by
appealing to the activist edges of American politics, which is often your base
Party support, but to the centre. George W. Bush made that play in 2000, even as
Vice President Cheney hovered behind him, with the spin of “compassionate
conservatism”.
The hope for the Republicans is that McCain could balance
Palin by putting forth his own centrist position. Indeed, in style, he did so in
his acceptance of the Republican nomination with a low-key speech calling for an
end to partisan rancour. However, he did not do so on issues. Absent was any
reference to his earlier stance that climate change must be addressed. Absent
was his centrist position on an acceptance, rather than a stigmatising, of
immigration. Absent was his now-distant call for an end to US torture of enemy
suspects.
And absent was any semblance of an economic strategy. Of
course, that’s because there is no easy fix to the mess --- national and
global --- that has been stirred up since 2001, but McCain has also been
brutally honest about his own weakness in grasping and dealing with economic
concepts.
Which brings out the curiousity in McCain’s speech. Far
from praising the Bush Administration, he came to slay it. His speech was an
effective dismissal of President Bush for his failure to bring together the
Republican Party and “America”. So, he said, I can be the guy to heal the
divisions.
McCain and Palin, the “outsiders”, running against
“Washington insiders” who include their current Party leaders? Palin the
red-meat-huntin’-chewin’-spittin’ activist alongside McCain the maverick
moderator?
In a campaign where the key issues cannot be addressed (by
the Republicans) and apparently will not be addressed (by the Democrats), I
think it’s a gamble that fails.
DOING
THE MATHS
The saving grace in evaluating the curiosities of the
campaign is that the maths, if not the US electoral system, are much simpler.
Of the 50 US states, 34 (as well as the District of Columbia)
are pretty much “locks” for one candidate or the other. That in turn means
Obama has a grip on 183 of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory; McCain
has 142.
Obama’s lead seems secure in four states (Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon) which the Democrats carried in 2004 and one (Iowa)
which they lost. That’s another 55 electoral votes, for a total of 238. The
possible slip-ups are in Michigan (17 votes), which has been a tighter race than
the Democratic victories in the last two elections (but where Obama’s lead has
been increasing), and in New Hampshire (4 votes).
What does this mean? If McCain cannot pull Michigan or New
Hampshire into his column, then the Republicans have to avoid any unexpected
surprises (keep an eye on Missouri). They not only have to hold the “Big
Two” that put Bush into office both in 2000 and 2004 --- Florida (27 votes)
and Ohio (20) --- but also almost all of the following: Nevada (5), Colorado
(9), New Mexico (5), Virginia (13), and North Carolina (15).
----------------------
September 4
Your Soundbite Guide to Sarah Palin's Speech
GUNS. HOT CHICKS. AMERICA. VOTE
McCAIN-PALIN
[The New York Times has
the prepared text of the speech, complete with spaces for applause and
boos.]
Soundbite 1: Definitely Seeking Sarah....
Get this message across: I'm one of you but a
special one of you. I have the relative in the military. I'm a mom ---"in
my family, it's two boys and three girls in between." Obliquely refer to
the teen pregnancy --- "Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge." ---
but segue into "special needs". [TV cameras cut away to youngest
daughter holding baby son with Down's Syndrome.] Play up husband as both
working-class white guy and an "Eskimo".
"I was your average Hockey Mom." [Update on
the Clinton campaign in '92 worked the media spin that the election would be
decided by "Soccer Moms".]
Leave unspoken: I am a special one of you because
I am a woman. [Favourite incorrect analysis of this ---
the
Daily Show's Samantha Bee on the emergence of the "Vagina-America"]
Also leave unspoken: I am a special woman because
I look good. [TV cameras cut away to delegate badge: "Hoosiers for a Hot
Chick".]
Soundbite 2: Small-Town Culture Wars
Use political "experience" to trash the
Democratic opposition --- "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a
community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities." What did I
do? Not important --- "we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who
lavishes praise on working people when they're listening and then talks about
how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't
listening".
Use political "experience" to trash the media ---
"if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in
the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone". What did I do
as Governor of Alaska? Not important --- "I'm not going to Washington to seek
their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this great
country."
OK, here's what I did. I sold the Governor's
luxury jet on E-Bay. I drove to work. I got rid of the personal chef. "I stood
up to the special interests, and the lobbyists, and the Big Oil companies, and
the good-old boys."
Soundbite 3:
Find An Issue. Any Issue.
"Lead America...farther away from dependence on
dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart." Drilling for
oil and gas will show the enemy --- Russia? Check. Iran? Check. Venezuela?
Check. [But not Saudi Arabia. No, definitely not Saudi Arabia] --- that
we can be self-sufficient.
Any other issues? Uh, no. Instead...
Soundbite 4:
Did I Mention the Evil of Obama?
"America needs
more energy; our
opponent is
against
producing it.
Victory in Iraq
is finally in
sight, and he
wants to
forfeit.
Terrorist states
are seeking
nuclear weapons
without delay;
he wants to meet
them without
preconditions.
Al Qaida
terrorists still
plot to inflict
catastrophic
harm on America,
and he's worried
that someone
won't read them
their rights."
Soundbite 5:
McCain is Really
Fab
He's one of us.
A special one of
us. Even if he's
not a woman.
Because he was a
prisoner of war.
"Thank you, and God bless America. Thank you."
----------------------
September 4
Iraq Update: Shadow Victory, Emerging Conflict
The US military "handover"
of responsibility for security in Anbar Province to the Iraqi national
government may have been the excuse for a parade and some hyperbolic comment ---
one military observer called it a victory comparable to Okinawa in World War II
--- but it's a bit distant from "Mission Accomplished".
In Anbar, Diyala, Kurdistan, and
other parts of Iraq, the new lines of battle are being drawn up between local
forces, including those supported by the US "surge" of the last 18
months, and the Al-Maliki Government. Tucked away in their large bases inside
Iraq, it's unclear what the US military --- and its commanders in Washington ---
can or will do in that forthcoming confrontation.
Listen
to podcast...
----------------------
August 30
The Ill Winds of Symbolism:
On Sarah Palin, Katrina, and the Presidential Campaign
I first learned of the Republican
Party's selection of Vice-President on Friday morning when a mischievous friend
wrote, "My initial thought, hearing 'Palin as Vice-Presidential nominee,
was that John McCain had tapped Michael Palin as his Number Two. My second
thought, after learning that it was Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, was
that one of the Monty Python members might have been a far better choice."
That may be a tad harsh, but after a
weekend reading up on Ms Palin --- and, maybe more importantly, the reasons for
her selection --- I see the point. I wrote on Friday morning that Barack Obama
and the Democrats, despite a good convention, may have failed to close the door
on the Republicans; their symbolism of "change" did not seize on the
economic and foreign policy issues that would give them a lasting advantage over
John McCain. The Republicans, I thought, could still rely on the shadow
"culture wars" with its fatuous labelling of
elitists/liberals/un-Americans, to hold the White House.
Ironically, with Palin's selection,
McCain's folks have overplayed their symbolic hand. They did it, first and
foremost, by selecting a woman not for her qualities but as a gender statement.
Specifically, it's an unsubtle gender statement that says to would-be Hillary
Clinton supporters, "You all can come over to our side now."
Just as it's presumptuous to think
that you could pick up African-American votes simply by putting forth a black
candidate or seize the gay/lesbian vote by adding the cast of Will and Grace
to your team, going with the "mom-just-like-you" approach is shallow
politics. Because, even in the age of symbolism, a woman might choose a
candidate not because of a biological resemblance to that politician but because
of a stronger link on an issue or two.
And that's where the choice of Palin
poses problems. As soon as the media exhausts its first 24 hours of wonder ---
44-year-old mother of four is former beauty queen! Likes moose stew and
snowmobiling! Goes hunting and fishing! --- it has to pay at least token
attention to the candidate's political positions. And some of the first
positions it will notice are: staunchly anti-abortion, staunchly pro-gun,
staunchly pro-tax-cut and anti-govrenment-spending.
It also, given Palin's position in
Alaska, will notice that she is firmly for exploitation of energy resources,
complementing this by cutting taxes on fuel consumption and giving
"rebates" amidst the soaring oil prices that are benefitting energy
producers and, of course, states like Alaska. Palin is so committed to that
consumption-first policy that she easily wishes away any thought that global
warning is "man-made".
Maybe some women, maybe some Hillary
supporters, will accept these positions and cross to the Republicans. I suspect,
however, that far more people will see these stances as too rigid, too committed
to conflict. On topics such as abortion, social programmes, and now the
environment, there is a wariness about "extremism" on either side of
the issue. And that means Palin, just as much as the mythical raving liberal
that supposedly inhabits the Democratic Party, could be an electoral liability.
Of course, the media made an
immediate read that Palin will appeal to the "evangelicals" in
American religion/politics. No doubt that's right. But there is a huge
misconception that evangelicals are the swing votes in Presidential races.
They're not. They weren't the reason that Ronald Reagan took office in 1980,
they didn't keep Bill Clinton out of power in the '90s, and they didn't even put
little Bush into the White House in 2000. (Hat tip to my postgraduate student
who has done detailed work on this.)
And, as the Republicans misread the
political breezes, there a far more serious wind kicking up. Understandably,
given the disaster of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, everyone (even President Bush)
has gone on alert this time over Hurricane Gustav. The alert, however, is not
necessarily one of concern and compassion for those who might be directly
affected --- as
my colleague Anna Hartnell pointed out on the website of The Guardian,
the poor and displaced of New Orleans have been swept aside --- it's a
Grade 5 political warning.
The Republican Party has gone into
its own storm bunker by curbing the opening day of its convention and cancelling
the appearances of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. If we're talking
symbolism, however, that's not going to be enough to make folks forget or even
to distance McCain from this Administration.
The possibility of Gustav making
landfall revives the memories that politics isn't just about making the right
noises and going through the right motions. Sometimes it should be about taking
the required action to save lives and minimise suffering. The current Republican
guard, fixated on adventures like Iraq rather than the crisis at home, didn't do
that three years ago. Asking the public to believe they'll do it now is a bit of
a reach.
Beginning with the inadvertent
symbolism of the Palin-esque and with it: An Alaskan friend of a friend has sent
a circular e-mail hailing Sarah Palin "as the US's answer to Margaret
Thatcher". Maybe her economic and energy measures are not only helping
Alaskans but portend that she would be a shrewd national leader (rather than
showing, for example, that she is using borrowing from Peter --- Alaska's
windfall in energy revenues --- to buy off the Pauls and Paulines in her
constituency).
Still, the e-mail's conclusion is
just a bit unsettling on this day: "She is going to be a fresh wind, but
also a strong wind."
----------------------
August 29
The Obama Speech:
Mission Accomplished, Mission Incomplete
A
soundbite to sum up this week’s Democratic Convention and Barack Obama’s
acceptance speech last night?
The first
task was not to lose.
Mission
1: Rebuff the chit-chat about
the insurmountable split between Obama and Clinton supporters.
So the
script set out Monday with an ailing Senator Edward Kennedy, long past the
images of Chappaquiddick and failed Presidential bids, ably representing the
grand history of the Party. Hillary Clinton on Tuesday going beyond peacemaking
to hail her former rival, and Brother Bill laying on hands on Wednesday to bless
the next President.
Mission
accomplished.
Mission
2: Counter the pernicious but
effective tactic of labeling Obama as an elitist, proto-celebrity
“un-American”.
That would
call for Michelle Obama on Monday, flanked by two chatty daughters, setting out
that she and Barack are just regular folks. Joe Biden, the prospective Vice
President, follows on Wednesday with the boy from
Scranton
,
Pennsylvania
routine and about 100 family members swarming the stage. Lots of American flags
and banners on display.
So far, so
good.
Mission
3: Get back on the front foot.
Since
March, Obama has lost a lot of the lustre of his meteoric rise to Presidential
frontrunner. In part, that’s an inevitable outcome of an electoral process
that last about 4 zillion years --- even Martin Luther King Jr. (obligatory
reference, given his presence at the Convention this week) couldn’t lay on
“I Have A Dream” each day, every day from January to November.
In part,
however, it’s because Obama has been playing defense since Hillary laid down
the “extremist” card on him with
the Jeremiah Wright (Obama’s Reverend, who apparently hates everything
American) allegations. Initially, Obama brilliantly countered in his speech
openly and ably dealing with the past and present dynamics of race in
America
. However, when Hillary shifted to the
I-love-working-class-white-families-with-their-guns-and-churches tactic, Obama
never quite got his footing, even if he had enough momentum to take the
nomination.
Unsurprisingly,
the Republicans took up where Senator Clinton reluctantly left off, recycling
some of their 2004 tactics against John Kerry, you know, the dangerous Democrat
who speaks French, has a rich European-looking wife, and was a clear traitor to
America in Vietnam, despite his Purple Heart.
(Indeed,
they’re still building on the 2000 Presidential campaign. The one where George
W. Bush, born to wealthy family of the US political and financial establishment,
educated in top private schools, subsidized by friends and relatives through all
his bungled business ventures, became a regular guy by wearing jeans and cowboy
boots. His opponent, Al Gore, also was from a family of the
US
political and financial establishment and educated in top private schools.
Unfortunately, he looked very silly in jeans and cowboy boots.)
So, going
into last night, Obama had a double challenge. He had to establish that he was
just one of us, but he also needed to re-capture the message --- “Change,
Change, Change” --- that will let the Democrats set the campaign agenda in the
autumn.
How did he
do?
It’s a
combination of foolhardy and arrogant to offer a definitive morning-after
answer, but meeting that first challenge, Obama did more than OK.
The
approach was unsubtle, to say the least. In the opening seconds, he handled the
internal Party issue by not only giving effusive thanks to Hillary and Bill but
tying them to his campaign theme --- “President Clinton…last night
made the case for change as only he can make it.” And seconds after that, he
was taking the one-of-us test: his parents were “a young man from
Kenya
and a young woman from
Kansas
who weren't well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in
America
, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to”. The speech was
populated by “ordinary men and women - students and soldiers, farmers and
teachers, nurses and janitors”, by the “woman in Ohio, on the brink of
retirement”, by the “man in Indiana [who] has to pack up the equipment he's
worked on for twenty years and watch it shipped off to China”, “those men
and women on the South Side of Chicago who I stood by and fought for two decades
ago after the local steel plant closed”, “my grandmother who worked her way
up from the secretarial pool to middle-management”.
In other words: Senator McCain, you don’t know
Americans. I, Barack Obama, know Americans.
A good, if
unexceptional, approach. More importantly, Obama delivered it well enough for
the “ordinary” to be combined with the “extraordinary” --- the regal,
even imperial, faux-setting of Colosseum dais and pillars --- and the
“unprecedented”, again unsubtly represented by the watching larger-than-life
image of Martin Luther King. For Patrick Tyler of the New York Times, he “show[ed] he could take the fight to Senator
John McCain over Mr. Obama’s own image and the best way forward for the
nation”. For Dan Balz of the Washington
Post, it “was what many nervous Democrats were hoping for: a forceful
challenge to John McCain and the Republicans, and a restatement of the message
to change
Washington
and the nation”. Most enjoyably, if unimportantly, it rattled the cage of the
beast named Charles Krauthammer: “Eerily missing at the Democratic convention
this year were people of stature who were seriously involved at some point in
Obama's life standing up to say: I know Barack Obama. I've been with Barack
Obama. We've toiled/endured together. You can trust him. I do.”
But is an
immediate Mission Accomplished enough? After all, the Republicans get their
four-day shot at prime time next week with their Convention, and I’m certain
they won’t be giving up on the “naďve/celebrity/inexperienced/shifty/elitist/radical/not
one of us” line.
In other
words, Obama has to get some substance into this campaign, dare one say it?,
“issues”. The second half of his speech last night took a stab at this with
“what…change
would mean if I am President”.
Problem is that “change”
seems to be a shopping list where the items don’t necessarily fit together.
So, for all those tales of economic deprivation of the “ordinary” man/woman,
change the tax codes, cut capital gains (of course, Obama specifically linked
this to “small businesses and start-ups”), and cut taxes for the “middle
class”. At the same time, we’ll have “affordable” health care and
world-class education.
How to pay for this? (Special
note: Obama did not mention, not once, the Federal Government’s budget
deficit.) Well, while cutting taxes, he’ll also “close corporate loopholes
and tax havens that don't help
America
grow”. And while expanding good social programs, he “will also go through
the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and
making the ones we do need work better and cost less”.
Sorry, but to me that’s the
standard mish-mash that any candidate --- Republican or Democrat --- could lay
out for the
US
electorate. (Have a glance at Ronald Reagan’s 1980 acceptance speech.) Throw
in 21st-century twist of
ending American dependence on foreign oil in 10 years, which was the hook for
some of the media going for “substance” in the speech. Oppose the war in
Iraq
but get tough elsewhere, “finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban
in
Afghanistan
…rebuild our military to meet future conflicts…renew the tough, direct
diplomacy that can prevent
Iran
from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression”.
At the end of the speech, and
thus this convention, Obama still runs the risk of talking “change” without
any distinctive, coherent presentation of why that change puts him
head-and-shoulders above McCain.
He could have taken on the
abysmal economic record of the Bush Administration and the equally abysmal
economic conceptions of McCain, much as Bill Clinton used the economy to take
out George H.W. Bush in 1992. He did not.
He could have gone beyond his
superficial “end dependency on foreigners and their oil” message with a
clear statement putting the issue of energy not just in American but
international context. He did not.
He could have set out a foreign
policy while, while noting the mistake of the Iraq War, also noted the mistake
of simply “getting tough” in other arenas --- let’s say Afghanistan ---
instead of stepping back and considering alternatives to military boots on the
ground. He did not.
While swatting away the immediate
challenges to his candidacy, it remains to be seen if Obama has successfully
occupied centre ground for the next two months. For all the accolades for his
charismatic speech, he has allowed the Republicans to reoccupy the battlefield
as they, evading the economic and foreign policy legacy of the Bush
Administration, bang loudly on their drums of culture and “Americanism”.
----------------------
August 28
Reading behind the Headlines: From Tbilisi to Denver to Kabul
THE UNSURPRISING:
Russian President Dmitri Medvedev’s declaration of support for the
independence of the Georgian enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
This was such a shocker that “Watching America” had predicted it on
Tuesday, but it still brought howls of disbelief.
The New York Times, while putting “considerable blame” on the Bush
Administration “for letting this crisis get so far out of hand”, fretted that
“ties between Russia and the West are the worst in a generation”, while
The Guardian, under the inscrutable headline “The Princip Precedent”,
blustered that “Russia appears to be willing to trash its strategic
relationships”. The Wall Street Journal put out an all-points alert of
Russian perfidy.
The editorial board spotlighted the “carving
up [of] a sovereign nation to the Kremlin's liking” and let loose
the former philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy to announce that “Russian power is
extraordinarily brutal” while Europe “is weak”. The Washington Post
limited itself to
David Rifkin, better known as a defender of “coercive interrogation” practices,
and Carlos Ramos-Mrosovky identifying “a peculiar blend of political
autocracy and corruption, seamlessly fusing political, economic and military
power, [which] threatens world peace”.
Medvedev’s attempt to blunt criticism
through a series of interviews with foreign reporters to define this as a
specific case, using the rationale, ““There was a
special situation in Kosovo, there is a special situation in South Ossetia and
Abkhazia,” was an exercise in futility:
The Times of London declared,
“Dmitri Medvedev Raises Spectre of New Cold War”. Perhaps more disturbing, the
BBC used
reporter Bridget Kendall’s interview with Medvedev to conjure the vision of
an escalating crisis through Moscow confrontation’s with the Ukraine,
a fear stoked by Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko. The Independent
of London, usually more measured in its analysis, has also fallen prey to
this rush to the next conflict, both
in analysis and
in a panicky “report” by Askold Krushelnycky.
(UPDATE: From Tbilisi to London --- in what may be a very
unhelpful development, the Russian-Georgian has now become a plaything in
British domestic politics. The conservative Foreign Minister, David Miliband,
setting himself up to replace Prime Minister Gordon Brown, is
using the crisis to establish get-tough credentials. He’s not alone, though;
the Conservative opposition,
via the Daily Telegraph, is doing the same.)
THE UNSURPRISING (STATE-SIDE)
Bill and Hillary Clinton’s rousing endorsement of Barack Obama on the last
evenings. Most in the US and UK media, letting themselves be led by the
nose, had been putting out portents of doom with a bitter Hills putting the
knife into the Senator from Illinois and her supporters fleeing the Democratic
party to put John McCain into the White House (the BBC’s Boy Justin Webb proved
a particularly gullible messenger).
A moment’s reflection might have identified the source of
these tales as the McCain campaign. Instead, the media spent its time tracking
down a Clinton backer who would never, ever forgive the “other side” for the
nomination battle. Turning this interviewee into the “typical” voter offered
fleeting but wildly misleading drama.
A better analysis should have been a no-brainer: whether or
not Obama is the next President, Hillary will be wielding power as top dog in
the US Senate. If McCain wins, she’s in the Presidential mix for 2012; if Obama
wins, she sets up for a bid no later than 2016. Sabotaging the Democratic
campaign this year ruins those prospects.
THE UNEXPECTED
Back on the Georgian front, it turns out that
Dick Cheney’s deputy assistant for national security affairs, Joseph Wood, was
hanging out in Tbilisi just before Georgia’s assault upon South Ossetia on 7
August.
The official explanation is that Wood was helping set up Cheney’s visit
to Georgia, along with stops in the Ukraine and Azerbaijan, in the first week of
September. Hmmm......
THE ONES TO
WATCH
Campaign Woes
in Afghanistan: US bombs took out more than 90
“insurgents” last Friday.
Only problem is that few of them turned out to be the bad guys; 60 were children.
President Karzai is just a bit unsettled, and
the Afghan Council of Ministers is demanding a “status of forces agreement”
(I know, ironic given that the US --- for far different reasons --- is pressing
for such an agreement in Iraq) to give them some say in operations by
international forces. It’s doubtful they will get any satisfaction. Instead, the
“winners” are likely to be the Taliban, who are building up their presence in
villages and even on the outskirts of Kabul.
(UPDATE: The US military, continuing to throw away credibility,
is still trying to deny the civilian eaths. Meanwhile, the Washington
Post reveals that current US operations
are “regulated” by a two-page “diplomatic note”.)
A Bit of
Craziness in Pakistan:
The Financial Times of London broke the story on Tuesday that
would-be Pakistani leader Asif Zardari “suffered from dementia, major depression
disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder”. Seems that his lawyers claimed
this in paper filed in a London court, contending that Mr Zardari could not to
face charges of corruption linked to his purchase of a British manor.
The story is probably not that a madman is on the verge of assuming the
Presidency in Islamabad. Instead, this is another indication of a politics in
which the choice is between Zardari, and all that “corruption” baggages, and
opponents who ensured that this story made it into the hands of a London
reporter.
(UPDATE:
The Swiss Government has just released $60 million, held up by the
corruption charges, to the no-longer-crazy Mr Zardari.)
QUOTE OF THE
DAY:
Jon Stewart on The Daily Show: “She’s a Democrat, [so] Michelle
Obama must prove she loves America. As opposed to Republicans, who everyone
knows love America. They just happen to hate half the people living here.”
----------------------
August 26
Day 20 of the New Cold War:
The Follies of the "New" Containment
A warm welcome to the New Cold War!
Here are today's highlights:
The Rhetoric:
Wanna-be British Prime Minister
David Cameron and actual Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek turn the Russian
occupation of Georgia 2008 into the Soviet assault on Czechslovakia 1968 to
inveigh, "we
must be strong and vigilant in defence of our values, and not look the other way
when a small independent country is invaded by its neighbour".
Senators Lindsay Graham and Joe
Lieberman, once a Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, use the Wall Street
Journal to declare "Russia's
Aggression is a Challenge to the New World Order".
The Journal's Bret Stephens
goes one better and
calls for Stinger missiles to be sent to the valiant Georgian resistance.
The Washington Post takes the
moderate path, demanding
that Russia be kept out of the World Trade Organization and that arms control
talks be suspended.
And the Guardian of London
wrings its hands, "The
checkpoints are a noose around
Georgia
's neck, which
Russia
can tighten at will."
The
Reality:
It
might not be pleasant to say it, but Russia's occupation --- with strategic
checkpoints rather than a presence in Georgian cities --- is a logical step to
1) set up a buffer against another Georgian assault against South Ossetia 2)
control key points such as the oil pipeline across Georgia and 3) keep the
pressure on Georgian President Saaskashvili.
The
Symbolism:
Rather
than deal with that reality, which has been the path of Europeans such as French
President Sarkozy, the US seeks a counter-demonstration to Russian power. So
it's Secretary of State Rice dashing to Warsaw to sign a missile defense
agreement with Poland and noises about a renewed alliance with the Ukraine.
The
Unpleasant Problem:
This
ain't the Cold War of the 1950s, and a practically useless missile defense
system and bilateral posturing with Kiev ain't much of a containment strategy.
Listen
to podcast...
----------------------
August 25
The Return of the "Un-American"
As some of you might have
picked up by now, I often strike a pose of anger/exasperation/sheer indignation
at opinion pieces in American and British newspapers that, under the thin
disguise of analysis, try to rule positions on
US
foreign and domestic policy out-of-bounds. Occasionally, however, the anger and
concern is very real.
And so it is with a
poisonous bit of opinion from Janet Daley in today’s Daily
Telegraph of
London
.
Daley’s pretense is that she
is offering a reading of the
US
Presidential campaign, an explanation in advance of why Barack Obama will fail
in November. Unfortunately for her, if she is feigning analytic expertise, the
game is given away in the headline: “Obama won’t lose for being black but
for not being American enough.” Covering her own back and trying to negate the
supposed Democratic strategy of tarring their Republican opponents as racist,
she explains, “What is left of his uniqueness is now…the difficulty one has
in understanding the sense in which he is identifiably American.”
Daley’s column does have one
specific point of engagement with campaign events, namely the selection of
Senator Joe Biden as Obama’s Vice-Presidential running mate. Throwing in a
reference to Biden’s plagiarism of Neil Kinnock in his failed Presidential bid
in 1988 (get ready, that allegation is going to appear quite often in the next
two months), Daley beams in on Biden’s identification of himself as an
“Irish Catholic boy from
Scranton
,
Pennsylvania
”.
Fair enough: the Obama camp is
playing the balancing card of a white, working-class Catholic to complement
their African-American, not-so-elitist Protestant Presidential candidate.
Similarly (although Daley has no intention of going in this direction),
Biden’s 35 years of service in the Congress and his foreign-policy expertise
balances Obama’s relative lack of experience. That, my friends, is the
politics of why Biden was chosen (in my opinion, a “safe” selection, albeit
not an adventurous).
Daley’s use of Biden,
however, is merely to set up an attack on “Obama’s failure to offer any life
experience with which striving, struggling working-class
America
can identify”. Still, nothing earth-shaking: this is a repetition of Hillary
Clinton’s tactics when her advantage over Obama slipped away in the Democratic
primaries.
Then,
however, Daley makes her own leap beyond race, class, religion, and, indeed, any
meaningful political, economic, or social position. This is an issue of “the
American experience: the fact of having chosen this nation and this way of life
(or being descended from someone who made that choice) as an act of individual
will, with all the consequences for personal responsibility and action that that
entails”. That experience is a “self-consciously patriotic schooling” and
being “immersed throughout adolescence in the popular culture which (to a
sometimes risible degree) inculcates optimism and the values of family and
community”.
There
you have it:
America
, love it or leave it. Somehow Obama --- who, after all, went to patriotic
American schools and was baptized in American popular culture --- must not have
established his allegiance. His family, both the literal one of suspect
wife/career woman Michelle and his children and the figurative one of his
supporters, must not be part of American family values. His communities must
stand apart from acceptable American communities.
This
Presidential campaign is not, first and foremost, about race. It can’t be:
Obama’s supporters have to establish that his qualification for the office is
not that he is “black”, and his opponents would be socially and politically
crude if they up-front said that you can’t have a darkie crossing the
threshold of the White House.
No, the
tipping point is even more pernicious. It is the linking of race to an
unreliable, dangerous “extremism”. And through that linkage, it is the
depiction of the “un-American”. Let’s allow Daley to make this clear:
“It is that core of experience – of growing up American – which Obama
lacks. His problem is…that he is an African-American in the literal sense of
being half African and only half American.”
In no
way is this an issue of a specific economic policy, even as the
US
face its most severe recession in 20 years (and possibly longer than that). It
is not an issue of a specific foreign policy, even in the entanglements of
Iraq
, the Middle East,
Afghanistan
,
Russia
,
China
. It is not an issue of a specific policy on climate change or health case or
international trade. In Daley’s screed, and in many of the complementary
attacks on Obama in the
US
, there is not a single word about policy (or, of course, a reference to those
policies of the current occupant of the White House).
Nope,
this isn’t even --- in the end --- an issue of Barack in November. He’s just
the token, and yes, I use the word deliberately, for a wider “enemy”. It is
an enemy which does not criticize “
America
” but may propose an alternative to the current emphasis on free-market,
tax-cutting, big Government-spending economics of the Bush years. It is an enemy
which may suggest that talking to your supposed foes overseas is preferable to
attacking them. It is an enemy which may propose that national health care is a
right, not a privilege.
It is
an enemy which may suggest that “American” identity is more than pledging
allegiance to one’s flag or one’s political leaders, that this identity is
the greatest embodiment of American values which it exercises its Constitutional
right to question and challenge as well to support.
For
Janet Daley of
California
, who offers nothing more than unquestioned obedience to the current
Administration, that enemy --- and I, Scott Lucas of
Alabama
--- must be “un-American”. The real danger of this campaign, beyond Barack
Obama’s supposed lack of an American experience, beyond November 2008, beyond
the inauguration of the next President, is that this portrayal is allowed to
fester within US politics and thus within America’s relations with the rest of
the world.
----------------------
August 22
Iraq --- Did You Know?
Did you know, amidst
the latest fantastical declarations of American victory in Iraq, that the
country is in the midst of suicide bombings, political in-fighting, and a
possible breakdown in relations between the national Government and the Sunni
"Awakening Councils" supported by the US?
Indeed, did you know that --- in the
supposed American experiment to bring democracy to the Iraqis --- provincial
elections in October will not be held?
All of this highlights this week's
theatre of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visiting Baghdad to push through
the long-stalled Status of Forces Agreement rationalising the permanent US bases
in the country. Even if the Bush Administration, using the vague promise of
"aspirational timetables" for withdrawal, gets the agreement past the
Iraqi Government and the Iraqi public, those bases will be increasingly
irrelevant to the political battles going on inside Iraq.
Listen
to podcast....
----------------------
August 20
The Departure of Musharraf: What Next in Pakistan?
After his last
supporter in Washington, President Bush, gave way, President Musharraf
packed in his job on Monday. The easy --- and completely useless --- reaction to
the news was to shout,
"Islamabad is in the front line of the fight against terrorism."
Here's one lesson from putting Pakistan
front-and-centre in the War on Terror: when US-led operations fail to bring
stability in Afghanistan (and, incidentally, to capture Osama bin Laden), then
you're not going to enhance stability in Islamabad.
And here's a second lesson: that perpetual War on
Terror isn't the central issue in Pakistan. It's merely a sideshow to the
difficulties of corruption, in-fighting, and the suspension of an effective
political system. If this is our "front line", it might be best to head quickly
for the rear....
Listen to podcast....
----------------------
August 14
A New Cold War with Russia? Some Inconvenient Truths
Amidst
comment verging on hysteria in the US and British media, a reader asks cogently,
"Is this a new Cold War? Or a Cold War light?"
To
answer that, some inconvenient truths to offset the "historical"
guidance of Putin as Stalin, Putin as Hitler, Putin as Napoleon Bonaparte, etc.
1.THE
IMMEDIATE CONFLICT: The Georgians started this war. They lost.
2.THE
US REACTION: A significant US response? While the Russians moved into Georgia,
Condoleezza Rice didn't even bother to interrupt her vacation.
3.THE
FUTURE: It's a question of US global strategy v. Russian regional interests. If
there is to be a "new Cold War", it will be one chosen not by Putin-Stalin-Hitler-Bonaparte
but by an American administration. And right now, the voices screeching for that
Cold War (Kagan, Schmitt, Schoenemann, Kristol et al.) are outside rather than
inside the White House.
Listen
to podcast...
----------------------
August 13
Yesterday's Crisis: The Nuclear Negotiations with Iran
Just
in case anyone has forgotten yesterday's crisis....
Last
week, before the flare-up of hostilities between Russia and Georgia, the
drumbeats were briefly sounding over Iran. The US, with measured support
from European countries, had laid down a two-week ultimatum for Tehran
to suspend uranium enrichment. If Iran complied, then Western powers
would suspend economic sanctions --- a "freeze-for-freeze". If
Iran refused, then the US would press for further economic measures to
punish the Iranians. It appeared that Washington, having made the
concession of high-level attendance at talks in Geneva on 19 July, was
now returning to a strategy of pressure.
The
deadline proved a bit of a damp squib, however. Last
Tuesday, the Iranians replied to Javier Solana, the chief negotiator
for the "5+1" powers (the US, UK, Germany, France, China,
Russia), “The Republic of Iran is ready to provide a ‘clear
response’ to your proposal at the earliest possibility, while
simultaneously expecting to receive your ‘clear response’ to our
questions and ambiguities as well.” The US Government spluttered,
"The Iranian government needs to respond in a very clear way to the
generous offer [from] the international community," while "a
European official" criticised the "stalling tactic". The
European 3 of the UK, Germany, and France made a token gesture of
tightening up on credit and investment in Iran, but Russia moved just as
quickly to block any concerted effort in the UN Security Council to
impose harsher measures. The American and British media, adrift in
confusion over the process, framed Iran's "evasive" tactics
but soon walked away from the story.
It
is unlikely, given this week's change of events, that Washington will
soon decide to put the Iran issue front-and-center. Still, in case
it does, it's worthwhile to get some perspective on the latest
developments.
It
is an unhelpful distortion to represent this as the simple issue of
whether Iran responds to a Western offer. This is a case of each side
putting forth a proposal, as last Tuesday's message from Tehran to
Solana emphasises. The Iranian proposal, published
in the newspaper Payvand, sets out a
"modality" for a three-stage process. Talks between the
chief Iranian negotiatior, Saeed Jalili, and Solana to set out an agenda
would be followed by a second stage of talks between the
"5+1" (or, in Iran's language, "3+3") powers and
Tehran to define core issues and principles for agreement. At that
point, there would be a suspension of economic sanctions while "the
7 states...start to negotiate to produce and sign a comprehensive
agreement relating to their "collective obligations" on
economic, political, regional, international, nuclear, energy, security
and defense cooperation".
Even
more importantly, this Iranian approach is one that they have pursued
since May, when Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki set out Tehran's
"package" to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. Thus in
Tehran's portrayal --- whether from genuine belief or the sake of
diplomatic spin --- it is the Western powers who are caught up in a
"stalling tactic".
The
significant difference between the Iranian "modality" proposal
and the Western "freeze-for-freeze" concept is that, under the
latter, Tehran has to give up full control of its nuclear programme before
any negotiating process begins. Even if Iran was willing to consider an
arrangement in which its supply of uranium came from outside the
country --- which I doubt, as this would mean perpetual dependence
on a foreign state and a symbolic denial of Iranian sovereignty --- it
makes no sense to set out this position at the start of talks. Simply
put, you don't throw away your bargaining chips.
That
said, the Iranian proposal isn't simply a blocking response to the
West's demand for suspension of nuclear activity. The evidence lies in
its assurance that "the Islamic Republic of Iran will
continue to cooperate with the [International Atomic Energy Agency"
during the second and final stages of negotiations and its aspiration
that "following the conclusion of the comprehensive and long-term
agreement on "collective obligations", Iran's nuclear issue
must be concluded in the UNSC and fully and completely returned to the
Agency." It is far from coincidental that last Wednesday, 24 hours
after the latest exchange with Solana, the Iranians hosted a visit by
the senior IAEA official monitoring Iran's nuclear programme.
The Iranian test for the "West" is
not, as the European official offered to the Post put it, that
Tehran is complicating efforts get further sanctions: ""To be
fair to the Iranians, they do this kind of thing rather well."
Rather, it is the challenge: do you really have faith in your system of
oversight through the IAEA or is this just a sham?
It's a fair question. The US Government has
effectively shredded the IAEA's authority over the last six years,
trying to get forged documents past the Agency (the infamous Niger
yellowcake document used to "prove" Saddam Hussein was
pursuing weapons of mass destruction), bypassing the Agency when it
could be inconvenient, and publicly slandering IAEA head Mohammad el-Baradei
when he questioned Washington's assertions. And only last week, there
was the spectacle of the US pushing through acceptance of the nuclear
programme of India while castigating Iran. (Guess which one has yet to
sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty?)
The Iranian proposal is not a golden
document of deliverance. It does not take that long a memory to recall
that Tehran pursued a secret programme of research and development,
avoiding scrutiny by the IAEA, until 2003. The fact remains, however,
that Iran suspended the military side of that programme five years ago
and --- on best evidence available to Western intelligence --- has not
resumed it. An honest assessment of recent diplomacy would pose this
question. Which is more likely to produce a lasting arrangement to
ensure that Iran's programme continues to focus on non-military uses of
nuclear energy: the precondition that Iran give up enrichment or an
international supervision arrangement based on the Non-Proliferation
Treaty and the IAEA's regime of supervision?
Then again, an honest assessment might
recognise that this lasting arrangement is not really the endpoint, at
least for some in the Bush Administration. If the goal is to curb
Iranian political influence and hinder its economic stability, then nuclear
capability is a pretext rather than the central issue. Maybe, if
that's the case, Iranian "stalling tactics" and empty Western
ultimata until 2009 don't seem so insidious.
----------------------
August 11
The Sideshow....
President Bush hijacked the non-stop media
build-up to Beijing 2008 last week
with his proclamation in Bangkok, "I have spoken clearly and candidly
and consistently with China's leaders about our deep concerns over religious
freedom and human rights."
Quick quiz. Which will have more
lasting significance: CNN's stage-managed enthusiasm --- "I've got the
torch! I've got the torch!" --- or Bush's stage-managed Freedom Agenda?
Listen
to podcast...
----------------------
And
The
Main Event....
Bush was upstaged --- and the
Olympics relegated to split-screen coverage --- hours later when Georgia
launched a military operation to take control of the autonomous region of South
Ossetia. Russia counter-attacked, claimed it was
defending the Russians in the region, and extended airstrikes into the heart of
Georgia.
Trying to understand the turn of
events, a few modest suggestions: 1) do not forget the hundreds and possibly
thousands who have died in this push-and-shove for a bit of power in the
Caucasus; 2) do get a bit of perspective before casting your judgements on
"democracy", "tyranny", etc.; 3) don't use this to launch
the New Cold War (are you listening, William Kristol? Robert Kagan?) because
then there might be some hope that international diplomacy can defuse this
conflict and find a settlement.
Listen
to podcast...
----------------------
August 8
Putting "Europe" in its Place: Power and American Posturing
Five days into the vacation,
and I finally felt that I had detached myself from "America". Even in
Naples --- loud, chaotic, jumbled Naples --- the anchor of CNN dragged me into
questions such as "Obama may be liked in Europe, but does that help him at
all at home?", "Is Obama's grey hair real?", and my favourite,
"What do shoes tell us about this year's Presidential contest?" But as
we worked our way along the coast, the grasp of. America on top of our world
slipped.
We had not detached ourselves from Americans, any more than Brits or Spaniards
or French or even Australians. Pompeii, Capri, and even Sorrento are
international gathering points --- backpackers, families (usually with boredom
hanging over the kids), and a relentless procession of tour groups following
their leaders. Even now, as I write aboard the ferry back to the mainland, an
American couple are complaining to South African counterparts at the price of
burger, chips/fries, and beer --- 32 euros! (Helpful hint: don't take your lunch
at the first place you see in the Capri marina.)
But I have left behind the politics of "America". Naples, simmering
with tensions, is festooned with fly-posters for political rallies from
Socialist Left to Berlusconi Right and with graffiti railing against injustices
and the police state. No evidence, however, of Obama-mania or Bush-phobia; even
the lead international event of the Karadzic trial makes no ripple, and there is
no reference to Iraq or Afghanistan or the Middle East.
Which, if you can put America aside, isn't that surprising. Italy is --- has
been --- in an economic/social downturn which is too protracted to be a
"crisis". The rubbish is no longer in evidence on the streets of
Naples, and there are showpiece projects such as the extension of the
underground/subway. But the universities verge on collapse as working
institutions, the transport system is struggling, and no one has much idea how
to ensure social provision and welfare. Prime Minister Berlusconi, in a grand
gesture both to avoid these problems and to raise other spectres, has just
ordered the army to take up positions in Italian cities to counter the threat of
"crime", which is an unsubtle way of raising the internal bogeyman of
immigration.
Yet it is in that absence of the US from the centre of discussions here that I
might make my way back to the political "America". Not America as
such, I hasten to add, but how an American elite is currently framing
"Europe".
Before I set off on this vacation, I was a tad agitated at some of the
superficial comment in the British press on liberals/Lefties
hating/misunderstanding/misrepresenting the US. I realise now that my primary
concern is not about their caricature of "America" --- that country
will take care of itself, for better or worse, irrespective of what David
Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen, let alone this blog, might set forth. The immediate
damage lies instead in their portrayal of the non-American. That includes "Islamists",
of course, but its target closer to home is the "European".
Europeans are weak. Europeans are naďve. Europeans are unreliable. Europeans
would rather run away from issues than spend their money on, say, military
equipment. Europeans, some of whom were extremists (you know, like Nazis),
coddle extremists.
Of course, if it was only Aaronovitch, Cohen, and a few London scribblers who
used this invective to prop up their macho-defender-of-humanity pose, this would
be harmless irritation. But they're minor players in a larger orchestra: from
Charles Krauthammer to Anne Appelbaum in the Washington Post, William
Kristol and David Brooks in the New York Times, the gang at the
American Enterprise Institute, anyone at the Wall Street Journal, National
Review, and Weekly Standard.
And, far more disturbing, some of the key contributors to this tune are well
outside the lines of Bush foreign policy. On the eve of Barack Obama's stop in
the UK last month, his advisor Susan Rice made her belief clear --- and,
pointedly, to the Euro-skeptics at the Daily Telegraph --- that Europe
had to raise its contribution and its general foreign-policy game.
Why disturbing? In part, disturbing because this poking at the Euros is far from
original. The latest swipes are little more than echoes of Robert Kagan's
fatuous division of Americans preferring power and Europeans preferring
paradise. And that in turn grew from rich Cold War soil, be it the 1950s rants
of a James Burnham or a Leslie Fiedler about the degraded, self-hating European
or the 1970s sneering of Henry Kissinger about the European hiding behind US
power or the 1980s denunciation of Europeans who thought that US power --- in
the form of more atomic weapons in their countries --- might not be the best of
ideas..
Disturbing in part because this is a supreme deception hiding a base motive. I
am extremely doubtful whether the primary focus of a Krauthammer or a Kristol or
a Susan Rice is European welfare. After all, they don't seem to write or speak
about the social changes which concern European countries or the changing shape
of the European economic community or even the "grand project" (which
was bound up with the Marshall Plan) of European integration.
Nope, the chief and possibly only issue for these folks is what Europe can do to
prop up an American power which finds itself in a spot of bother. This may take
the form of "just leave us be" (US plans in Iraq; US policy on
Israel/Palestine), "show a tough face" (the Iran issue), or
"put in troops and resources" (Afghanistan). But, underlying each of
these variants is the unchanging command: don't oppose us.
A shrewder analyst than any of the Euro-bashers might have considered, for
example, recent cases that contradict the assumption of European weakness.
He/she might have noted that the continued pressure --- not the hard pressure of
threat of force but the "softer" pressure of diplomacy and economic
incentive --- upon Serbia had created the space for the arrest of Radovan
Karadzic. He/she might hvae considered that with Iran, far from accepting an
impasse which might raise the prospect of military action, European diplomatic
manoeuvres have kept open the possibility of settlement. He/she might have
pondered that European insistence on action against climate change, despite the
lies, distortions, and outright sabotage of the Bush Administration, helped keep
a post-Kyoto process alive.
But any analysis like this would undo the faux-logic of those berating the
weak-willed Europeans. It would grant "Europe" some measure of power
and influence that was not tied to American direction. It would open the
possibility that aspirations and hopes --- and conversely fears and concerns ---
are not simply those laid out by Washington.
This isn't a case of "Europe right, America wrong". There is no
Utopian ending for the constitutional wrangles over the future of this
continent. More importantly, the social issues that will always be in tension as
each country deals with changing populations are only going to be magnified in
the forthcoming recession. The point is they are --- if I can be European for
the moment --- "our" issues, not simply annexes to the US Government's
desired global agneda.
Here's the real paradox of power here. The preachers of US dominance wouldn't be
screaming if "America" was in a position of strength. Obama advisors
wouldn't be wagging fingers if they were walking upon background of US success,
one analogous to the post-World War II analogies that they --- just like
Reservoir Academics --- invoke.
No, this current rush of comment is just the backwash of the Bush
Administration's failure. The Bushmen pursued an unprecedented project, a grand
scheme to enshrine American dominance through the example of power against and
in Iraq. The problem, of course, is that grand schemes can be grand failures.
But no one --- not Bush, not those who supported his ambitions, not even those
Democrats who opposed the Iraq War --- wants to admit that. "We", if I
may be American for the moment, don't do defeat. "We", as proclaimed
at our sporting events, are always Number One.
That mirage of superiority still persists despite the last seven years. Indeed,
it has to persist or there would be a psychic crisis in Washington to match the
political, economic, and social crises that have been unleashed.
So take your rightful place in our perpetual drama, "Europe", or be
damned.
----------------------
July 29
Before the Honeymoon: A Liberal Intervention to Help Nick Cohen
Nick
Cohen of London's The Observer got very upset on Sunday that
"liberals" don't make fun of Barack Obama. But he was even more upset
that we don't realise that "George Bush is a liberal's best friend":
"In January, Bush will be history, leaving liberals all alone in a
frightening world."
A
few days ago, I wouldn't have been frightened; I would have been angry (see July
22 on "anti-Americanism" and David Aaronovitch --- P.S.: Mr
Aaronovitch, still waiting to hear from you!). But, you know, marriage
changes a guy: now I'm just very, very worried that Nick is in imminent danger
of a seizing heart and an exploding head.
Listen
to podcast...
FOOTNOTE: THE ME, TOO! AWARD
The Washington
Post's
Anne Applebaum, whose head is not about to explode but who has a habit of
joining the liberals-are-weaklings chorus, does add a twist to the "Bush
didn't do it" message. It's the Europeans who are the lily-livered problem:
"Few European statesmen view change in
Washington
as an opportunity to propose something new. Most simply feel relief that Bush
will be gone, coupled with anxiety about what is to come."
But how do we know that, Anne? Step
up, Nick Cohen --- "'Bush
allowed them to explain away radical Islam as an understandable, even
legitimate, response to the hypocrisies and iniquities of American policy,' one
British columnist wrote this week"
----------------------
July 25
Get to Know Your Libertas Staff
Well,
I'm getting married. So no diatribe about politics, academic freedom, or even
David Aaronovitch. In lighter spirit, since the bride doesn't know enough about
me to escape our appointment at 3 p.m. (I hope), here are 20 questions and
answers about the author of this blog. (My thanks to the Communications Office
of the University of Birmingham; my apologies that the replies weren't quite
what they expected.)
1.
What do you do?
I’M
PROFESSOR OF AMERICAN STUDIES, DIRECTOR OF THE RESEARCH CENTRE LIBERTAS: THE
CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF US FOREIGN
POLICY, (www.libertas.bham.ac.uk)
AND AN AMBASSADOR FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM AROUND THE WORLD
2.
What do you really do?
WRITING
ARTICLES AND A TWO-VOLUME STUDY OF THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE GEORGE W. BUSH
ADMINISTRATION, WORKING WITH THE MEDIA, UPDATING LIBERTAS,
SENDING REPLY E-MAIL TO HELP THE SON OF THE LATE PRESIDENT MOBUTU OF ZAIRE WITH
HIS $14 MILLION, SNEAKING OFF TO WATCH JEREMY KYLE
3.
How do you get to work?
WALKING
ACROSS HILL AND DALE, SINGING A MERRY TUNE AS BLUEBIRDS SIT ON MY SHOULDER.
UNLESS I’M LATE. WHICH IS QUITE OFTEN.
4.
What’s the best aspect of your job?
WRITING,
DEVELOPING LIBERTAS AND INTERNATIONAL
PARTNERSHIPS, WORKING WITH TOP-QUALITY POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS. AND, OF COURSE,
RESTRUCTURING --- ONCE A YEAR, EVERY YEAR, I SAY!
5.
What’s the worst aspect of your job?
NOT
ENOUGH PAPERWORK --- YOU KNOW, IDLE HANDS ARE THE DEVIL'S WORKSHOP! ALSO, NOT
ENOUGH OPPORTUNITIES TO MENTION LIBERTAS.
6.
What would you like to be doing in five years’ time?
HAVING
A SCHOOL OF POLITICAL THOUGHT NAMED AFTER ME
7.
What do you most enjoy about University life?
THE
FREEDOM TO WRITE, COLLEGIALITY, KINDRED SPIRITS, AND THE MADCAP ANTICS OF DELTA
HOUSE. (SORRY. THAT LAST ONE MIGHT BE ANIMAL HOUSE,
RATHER THAN THE
UNIVERSITY
OF
BIRMINGHAM
.)
8.
How do you unwind?
THERE'S
A SMALL KEY BEHIND MY RIGHT EAR (ACCESSIBLE TO VERY CLOSE FRIENDS)
9.
Which book is on your bedside table?
101
BOOKS YOU SHOULD READ BEFORE YOU DIE
10.
What is your favourite tipple?
1)
JACK DANIEL’S 2) AMARETTO 3) PEPSI-COLA --- WHEN POSSIBLE, SERVED IN THE SAME
GLASS
11.
What makes a good night out?
INSTANT
REACTION IS “OIL” AND “WRESTLING”.
BUT
MY FIANCEE MAY READ THIS.
SO,
LET’S GO WITH “STROLLING AND HOLDING HANDS ON A MOONLIT BEACH” (IS THAT
OK, LESLEY?).
12.
Which animal are you most like?
SCOOBY
DOO
13.
Describe your favourite holiday?
INTERNATIONAL
TALK LIKE A PIRATE DAY --- 19 SEPTEMBER!
14.
What is your favourite sport?
PROFESSIONAL
WRESTLING, OILED OR NON-OILED: A) IT IS A SPORT B) IT IS REAL C)
WHERE ELSE CAN YOU FIND A TEXAS STEEL CAGE DEATH MATCH?
15.
Who are the top three people on your fantasy dinner party list?
AIMEE
MANN (TO SING), BILL HICKS (TO ENTERTAIN), RAYMOND BLANC (TO COOK) --- SPECIAL
GUEST APPEARANCE: GEORGE W. BUSH! (TO SERVE DRINKS AND
WASH
UP)
16.
If you were a superhero who would you be?
WHAT
DO YOU MEAN “IF I WERE A SUPERHERO”?
17.
What has been the highlight of your life, to date?
THE
BIRTH OF MY TWO CHILDREN --- MOMENTS OF INDESCRIBABLE JOY FOLLOWED BY YEARS OF
UNMITIGATED STRESS
18.
If you could banish one thing from the world what would it be?
EXISTENTIAL
ANGST AND FEAR (OR IS THAT TWO THINGS?)
19.
Describe yourself in three words?
I. AM. SPARTACUS.
20.What
is your personal motto?
"YOU
REALLY SHOULDN'T PUT THAT IN YOUR MOUTH"
----------------------
July 24
How to be (Better Than) a New York Times Reporter
How
to Miss the Real Iran Story
It’s
a classic example of how even the most respected of US papers can’t get a
grasp of “all the news that’s fit to print”.
In
Tuesday’s New York Times, Elaine
Sciolino offered a summary of the talks in Geneva last week over the
Iranian nuclear programme: “Iran Offers 2 Pages and No Ground in Nuclear
Talks”.
The
tone of the piece was set with this observation, “The title of the
English-language text had two mistakes. “The Modality for Comrehensive
Negotiations (None paper)”. Sciolino continued, “For the six powers —
the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany — the
paper’s substance was just as disappointing as its style. Sergei Kisliak,
the Russian deputy foreign minister, could not suppress a laugh when he read
it, according to one participant.
Sciolino
concluded, “Both in their paper, and throughout the talks, the Iranians did
not discuss the formula, called a “freeze for freeze.” As a result, they
left the impression that they wanted to lure the parties into an open-ended,
cost-free, high-level negotiating process.”
Well,
that’s that, then. Relying on unnamed US and European officials, the New
York Times has --- in the name of in-depth news coverage --- declared the
discussions on the nuclear issue over, only days after the breakthrough of a
high-level US diplomat sitting at a table with the Iranians for the first time
since 1979. Doing so, the newspaper effectively supports the US-European
gambit of a threatened two-week deadline for Iran to give up nuclear weapons
or face further economic sanctions.
Here’s
how, in the space of a few minutes, from the safety of your home, you can top
a New York Times reporter and complicate an easy narrative.
I’ve
received a copy of an Iranian document which lays out Tehran’s position in
advance of the Geneva talks. (Let me reassure you, in light of the Nottingham
academic freedom case, that I didn’t spy or snoop or commit heinous acts of
international espionage to obtain it. It is a very public statement. I'm happy
to pass it on to anyone who is interested.)
A
cursory look at the document rewrites Sciolino’s piece. The Iranians did not
offer the “None paper” that she gives her a giggle. As I wrote here weeks
ago, the non-paper came from the lead European negotiator, Javier Solana. In
other words, it was the Europeans plus China plus Russia, not Iran,
that opened up discussions of the future negotiating process: “While
welcoming Mr Solana and his accompanying delegation, we received the proposed
package of the six countries plus their idea for dialogue and talks in the
form of a Non Paper….We wish to reiterate that the main heading of the
proposed pages of Iran and the 3+3 (the European powers, US, China, Russia)
have certain similarities. These similarities can be the basis for
comprehensive and broader negotiations.”
Now
it could be the case that, at the Geneva talks, the “Western” delegates
were disappointed that Iran did not go beyond that acceptance of negotiations
to discuss a detailed “package”. It may be that the very positive response
of the Iranians to Geneva --- with officials from the lead negotiator, Saeed
Jalili, the Foreign Minister, and President Ahmadinejad praising “a step
forward” --- is a devious playing for time.
But,
if she had thought beyond the "information" fed to her by officials,
Sciolino might have deconstructed her own final paragraphs to find the real
story: "The Iranian nuclear issue will no longer be dealt with by the
Security Council or the 35-country governing board of the International Atomic
Energy Agency. Only the atomic energy agency itself can deal with the subject,
the paper said."
In
other words, the Iranians are willing to discuss montioring and verification
but not on the basis that the monitoring is done by those with a political
interest in limiting their nuclear program, i.e., other governments from
Washington to London to Paris. Instead, they are claiming that, as signatories
to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they should be subject to the same oversight
regime used for other countries.
The
real question should be whether Tehran will, in fact, accept full inspection
by the IAEA. That is down the line, however, at least for the US Government.
As we've noted, the nuclear issue is simply a pawn for Washington's pursuit of
other issues --- regional influence, the situation in Iraq, the
Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Lebanese conflicts --- with what they see as
Iran's challenge.
Here's
that wacky fact again, which Sciolino never mentions: according to US
intelligence agencies, the Iranians suspended research and development of
nuclear weapons in 2003. This is not a case of an "imminent threat"
but of a much wider political game. She, however, is locked into a news cycle
in which the game is not to be revealed.
So,
if you fancy a career in journalism and --- incidentally --- offering the full
story beyond "the news that's fit to print", the e-mail should go to
managing-editor@nytimes.com.
Just remember to give me my 10 percent cut for pointing you in the right
direction.
P.S.:
Someone Help the Washington Post with Iraq
The
editors of the Post are panicking that a President Obama might be
giving up on the Grand Iraq Project. Newsflash: he's not --- notice that he is
referring to the withdrawal of "combat brigades. That leaves
"logistical brigades", "training brigades",
"oversight brigades", "engineering brigades", any other
label you want for the pretext of assisting Iraqi security forces, as well as
about a zillion folks from Halliburton, Kellogg Brown Root, DynCorp, Aegis,
Blackwaters, and those private contractors who have served with honour for
five-plus years.
But
anyhow, the Post boys offered
this classic editorial on Wednesday: "By Mr. Obama's own account,
neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually
support his strategy."
Right
on the US commanders --- to a point; spectacularly wrong on Iraq's principal
political leaders. The Post, trying to counter Iraqi Prime Minister
Nouri Al-Maliki's clear call for withdrawal of all US forces by 2010, claimed,
"an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable
would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it
would be 'a timetable which Iraqis set'."
Only
problem: that was not an Iraqi government statement but the words of a
"spokesman", Ali al-Dabbagh, who had no apparent authority for this
supposed clarification. A
shrewd column by Juan Cole on Monday gave the full context and
perspective, but just to be clear: even as the Post was trying to hold
back the tide of unacceptable Iraqi opiniop, al-Maliki reaffirmed yesterday
that he supported Obama's 16-month timetable for a drawdown of US forces.
The
Post, however, has no real interest in giving al-Maliki a significant
voice in what happens in Iraq. Accompanying their editorial
was
a hatchet job on the Iraqi PM by Reservoir Wannabe-Imperialist Max Boot:
"This
is part of a pattern for Maliki, who, though he won office and has stayed
alive (literally and politically) with American support, has hardly been an
unwavering friend of the
United States." A clear case, then, of trying to sweep away the
"local" when it doesn't fit an American-defined agenda.
And,
while we're here, would someone like to note
that Kurdish opposition has effectively ruled out any Iraqi provincial
elections this year?
----------------------
July 22
Forecasts, Evasions, and the Stinking Cape of "Anti-Americanism"
A Challenge to David Aaronovitch
I’m in
the process of clearing out years of newspapers from the study. Can’t say
I’m too upset, as it’s for a good cause --- I’m getting married on Friday
and I owe a modicum of feigned tidiness to my fiancée (a lovely Virgo).
But, as
the papers have been dispatched to recycling Nirvana, there have been some
unexpected nuggets:
FORECASTS
OF THE DECADE
George
Trefgarne, Daily Telegraph, 24 March
2003:
“Once
Iraq
’s oil floods on to the world market, I see no reason why the price won’t
slump to $15 or even $10 a barrel….This would be a devastating blow to
OPEC.”
Hamish
McRae, The Independent, 9 April 2003
“
Iraq
could become a huge economic success story.”
Roland
Watson, The Times, 16 April 2003
“[US]
officials are emphasising that, largely owing to Iraq’s oil reserves, the
country’s aid needs are limited to the short term. ‘
Iraq
is not
Afghanistan
, you can’t compare the two.
Iraq
has much more infrastructure,” said one official.”
CLINGING
TO OPTIMISM AWARD
David
Aaronovtich, The Guardian, 15 April
2003
“Is This
Plundering Really So Bad?”
Johann
Hari, The Independent, 15 April 2003
“The
Looting is Ugly, but It’s Better Than Torture”
[New
York Times, 21 July 2008: “Britain should no
longer rely on assurances by the United States that it does not torture
terrorism suspects, an influential parliamentary committee said in a report
released Sunday.”]
--
Yep,
I’m cleaning the study, having to fall back on the tragi-comic (accompanied by
Bill Hicks on the stereo) and wondering if play-acting as a newspaper
“expert”, like Love, Means Never Having to Say Sorry. Then serendipity
brings me today’s
column from a Mr David Aaronovitch in The Times.
His
proclamation? “Eventually, we will all hate Obama too: What
makes America such an indispensable power is precisely what makes
anti-Americanism inevitable” Hard to sum up this far-seeing projection, as
Aaronovtich gets a muddled in his anger and angst, but let’s try this:
“Anti-Americanism is linked to a view of change as decline. The imagination is
that dynamic capitalism, associated with the
US
, is destroying our authentic lives, with our own partly willing connivance.”
So
it all comes to this: “
America
” is disliked because “there is no magical cure for the envy of others”.
Thank
you, sir. Not exactly an original approach --- the American literary critic
Leslie Fiedler, after a 1954 tour of
Europe
, attributed dislike of the “Good American” to the “self-hating
European”. But I’ll sleep easier tonight --- as a native of
Alabama
--- knowing that criticism of the
United States
is no more than the Little Green Monster in the eye of the foreigner sizing up
our money, our cars, our food, our television programmes, and, heck, maybe even
our fine-looking men and women.
But
just to double-check, what’s your evidence for this envious hatred of all
things from across the
Atlantic
? A production of Bernstein’s Candide by
the English National Opera, apparently satirising ““Democracy, the
American Way
and McDonald's”, and Andrew O’Hagan’s book The
Atlantic Ocean, deriding popular culture. Pretty impressive stuff. Just as
impressive as an insulted English nationalist could whip out Disney’s
predilection for Jeremy Irons-accented villains and the 1990s films of Mel
Gibson. Just as impressive as a nationalist from the Middle East thinking that True Lies or Hot Shots or
a New Republic cover with Saddam
Hitler photo-cropped as Hitler is the sum of America’s views of the Arab
“other” (actually, it’s far more complex than that, but I’m betting
you’re not a fella who likes to reflect on the work of Edward Said).
You
want to get in a culture-spitting contest? OK, I like American culture. Really
like it. I’ve spent the morning i-Tune hopping from Bruce Springsteen to Aaron
Copland to R.E.M. to Randy Newman. Even before I scanned your column, I was
checking out the Boston Red Sox, the pride of baseball, praying that we snapped
our three-game losing streak. Tomorrow morning, I’ll start with The
Onion, the best satirical newspaper on the Web. But tonight
I’ll probably watch a bit of Family Guy.
(Although,
in the spirit of true confessions, I’ll also watch a re-run of Coupling
and think, for the 47,563rd time, that it’s way better than Friends.
Does that make me anti-American?)
It
makes me happy that I can listen to Hank Williams, Jr. and his decadent
pot-smoking, drink-swilling “Family Tradition” and not have to resolve
“pro-American/anti-American” given that he is both 1) a flag-waving redneck
and 2) a trenchant critic of “American morality”. It makes me happy that I
can listen to Toby Keith, telling post-9/11 enemies. “You’ll get a boot in
your ass, it’s the American way,” and not have to suspend permanently my
judgement on how and where
America
is kicking ass. It makes me happy that I can indulge in my “
America
” --- unlike your jazz-hating, Hollywood-hating father, for whom you may or
may not be making amends.
I
can indulge in my “
America
” and have to forego any criticism of
US
foreign policy.
Ahh,
there’s the rub, isn’t it, Mr Aaronovitch? In your column, you mention Curb
Your Enthusiam and The Wire (quite
right, too, I left that one off my list) to offset the stick-figures of the Egg
McMuffin and Die Hard 10. But you only
mention
US
foreign policy once --- getting irked that Andrew O’Hagan has you amongst the
“idiots who supported that bad and stupid war (ie,
Iraq
)”. But that’s it: you never mention
Iraq
again. Or
Afghanistan
. Or
Israel
and
Palestine
. Or
Iran
. Or
Latin America
. Or international law. (You do mention “
Kyoto
” but, apparently, the problem isn’t really the Bush Administration’s
position but “our hypocrisies” on global warming.)
And
I don’t think you want to mention these inconveniences. In fact, I don’t
think it takes even your basic level of Freudian psychoanalysis to realise that
you’re using this “anti-American” shtick as sublimation. If you can make
it all about “our” envy of American culture, then you don’t have to deal
with the troublesome reality that it is not American culture but
US
foreign policy that is at issue here.
After
9-11, you flew the flag in your columns for a war in
Afghanistan
. Then you flew the flag in your columns for a war in
Iraq
. When others objected that such a war might liberate
Iraq
but also might leave it in disorder, chaos, and civil war, you called them
appeasers of Saddam. When others suggested that such a war, unaccompanied by a
meaningful effort to deal with the issues raised by the Israeli-Palestinian
conflicts and other disputes in the
Middle East
, would not resolve problems but exacerbate them, you called them allies of
Islamic extremism. When others noted that the bypassing of the United Nations
and international law would have consequences lasting far beyond Saddam’s
demise, you called them weak-willed members of the Left. When others protested
that the war was more about extension of
US
power than about a way forward for liberal intervention, you called them
“anti-American”.
Mr
Aaronovitch, labels are all that you have, indeed all that you wish to have,
when you find it too difficult to meet the challenges of “liberation”. As I
was clearing my study, I found two other interesting snippets:
David Aaronovitch, The Guardian, 29
April 2003: “Those Weapons Had Better Be There….”
“If nothing is
eventually found, I - as a supporter of the war - will never believe another
thing that I am told by our government, or that of the
US
ever again. And, more to the point, neither will anyone else.”
But still
you believed. You had to: otherwise your personal fight, your self-positioning
as the honest liberal voice, would have been for nought. So --- like Christopher
Hitchens, like Nick Cohen (but unlike George Packer, unlike Johann Hari, unlike
Fred Kaplan, unlike Michael Ignatieff, all of whom reflected amidst the
catastrophe of post-liberation Iraq, they just might have been wrong) --- you
pressed on, reducing the continuing objections of others to their venomous
hatred of the United States.
David Aaronovitch, The Guardian, 11 May 2003, “What Jack Bauer Taught
Rumsfeld…”
“Perhaps we are, after all, looking at a policy and pathology, which
arises from a particular idea of the war on terror. If so, this is the point of
departure for liberal interventionists.”
Hear,
hear. But others had warned of that torture well before March 2003, well before
the subsequent scandals at Abu Ghraib and other detention centres in
Iraq
. They had noted
Guantanamo
Bay
,
Camp
Bagram
in
Afghanistan
, the disappearance of suspects in rendition flights around the world. And you
had never granted them the respect of listening. You simply stuck your labels on
them.
And now?
Even now, your polite phrasing is that George Bush “somehow allowed torturers to photograph
each other in the fallen dictator's house of tortures”. Allowed? No, the Bush
Administration sanctioned the use of those interrogation techniques, as Philippe
Sands and Jane Mayer have documented in recent books. They shredded
international law and rewrote
US
military practice to make waterboarding, the use of dogs, degradation of
detainees, “stress positioning” the norm. Not even the exception but the
norm.
And
now? Now, your own defence of culture and evasion of policy and politics is no
more than caricature and a challenge to Mr O’Hagan to an intellectual
fistfight: “[I] am willing to match my idiocy against his intelligence in any
debating forum that he cares to name.”
I can’t
speak for Mr O’Hagan, so let me speak for myself.
I am an
American. I take pride in that: where I grew up, what I brought with me to
Britain
, what I still bring with me into the classroom, the conference hall, and this
blog. So I’ll meet you and chat with you “in any debating forum that you
care to name”.
But a
request. Don’t you dare hide
behind the culture of the land where I was born and grew up. Don’t you dare
put yourself on a fake moral pedestal, supposing defending “
America
”, to keep yourself out of the mire of your political positions. Let go of
your stinking cape of supposed "anti-Americanism” to lay out the
arguments that matter.
Because,
son, if you don't give up your posturing for some honest discussion, you know
what's gonna happen?
You'll
get a boot in your ass. After all, it is the American way.
----------------------
July 21
It's the Local Politics, Stupid (Update):
A Triple Podcast on Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan/Pakistan
On July 7, I
tried out the wild-and-crazy argument that there were
"cases where attention to local and regional politics might be essential.
Two weeks
later, after a break for the International Summer School in Dublin, I return to
find that: 1) far from going to war with Iran, the US is sitting at a
negotiating table with the enemy; 2) far from confirming the occupation of Iraq,
President Bush is having to accept a "general horizon" for withdrawal; but 3)
Barack Obama is talking about a master plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan without
any apparent cognizance of the complexities of a situation that may get worse
before it gets better.
Iran
The US Government, far from maintaining pressure
on Iran over the nuclear issue, sent a high-ranking State Department official to
the "5+1" talks last weekend in Geneva. William Burns was the highest-ranking
American diplomat to meet the Iranians since 1979.
Media are now spreading the line of Washington
(and London, with the hapless Gordon Brown trying to appear relevant) that the
talks were a stalemate and the Iranians have two weeks to suspend enrichment
or face dramatic action.
Wrong. As official Iranian sources are not shy to
point out, the Iranian delegation and President Ahmadinejad are quite happy with
the outcome. The Iranian line --- that there needs to be a "modalities
agreement" setting out the process of further negotiations on enrichment and
economic/political matters --- is still the basis for the "5+1" talks. Could we
be on the point of a "trust but verify" breakthrough on the Iran nuclear
programme?
Listen to podcast...
Iraq
Another surprise. Having pressed for months for a
Status of Forces Agreement as the basis for a long-term US presence in Iraq,
President Bush gave some way to the al-Maliki Government on a (still vague)
timetable for a reduction in US troop levels. It's not the beginning of the end
of the occupation, but it does indicate SOFA is dead and that local Iraqi
political groups have some leverage vis-a-vis Washington.
Now, the big question: what does Barack Obama
mean by "withdrawal" of US forces in 16 months? If it is not a full withdrawal,
but merely reduced US troop levels in permanent bases, the conflict with "local"
politics will be lasting well beyond the departure of George Bush.
Listen to podcast...
Afghanistan/Pakistan
And speaking of Mr Obama, his wide-ranging speech
last Tuesday for a "tough, smart, and principled" US foreign policy built on the
dramatic acts of US troops moving from Iraq to Afghanistan and $1 billion for
Kabul.
Only problem: the situation is Afghanistan is now
well beyond a few thousand more American marines and infantrymen and a big
dollop of foreign aid. Does Obama really have a grasp on the shifting economic,
social, and political dynamics in the country? And does he really think that
sending US troops and bombs after Osama bin Laden in Pakistan will add to local
stability?
Listen to podcast....
----------------------
July 11
Update: The McCain Solution to the Iran Problem
From the Washington Post: Responding
to a question on Tuesday about a survey that shows increased exports to Iran,
mainly from cigarettes, McCain said, "Maybe that's a way of killing them."
He quickly caught himself, saying "I meant that
as a joke" as his wife, Cindy, poked him in the back.
----------------------
July 11
Fanning the (Non-Existent) Flames:
How to Avoid Peace-Mongering over Iran
Contacts in
Iran give me some fascinating and important information: when EU President
Javier Solana was in the country two weeks ago to discuss Iran's nuclear
programme, he handed over three documents to Iranian negotiators.
Two of the
documents --- a message from the "5+1" countries to Iran and a set of proposals
linking the suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran to political and economic
incentives offered by the "West" --- are publicly known, having been posted by
the British Foreign Office. The third is not: it is (in the wonderful phrasing
of the Iranians) a "non-paper" in which Solana set outs a protocol for the
conduct of future negotiations. My understanding is that the Iranians are
generally in accord with Solana's suggestions.
I mention
this because no one else in the American and British media seems to have
noticed.
Only the Guardian has a passing reference, tucked away at the end of
a story on US assurances to defend its Israeli ally against Iran, and even that
is hopelessly "befuddled" (and wrong):
The EU
foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, is due to visit Tehran this month to
discuss incentives offered by the UN security council's permanent members and
Germany in exchange for Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment and
reprocessing. Iran's response has not been published, but public statements by
Iranian officials have been mostly negative.
This has been
a terrible week for coverage of the Iran issue, even in comparison to the
standard levels of mis-reporting. The last 48 hours have been consumed by
observations on Iran's testing of missiles, including the "long-range" Shehab 3
which can reach Israel, accompanied by
reports of Israel Defence Minister Ehud Barak's vow that "Israel
will not hesitate if threatened" and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's
not-too-subtle warning that
"we
take very, very strongly our obligations to defend our allies and no one should
be confused of that”. This in turn follows panicking headlines in supposedly
"moderate" papers that
an aide to Supreme Leader Khamenei had declared, "We
will burn American navy and set Israel alight if attacked".
So the real story
of possible diplomatic breakthrough gets set aside for fire-stoking speculation
of who will attack whom. There was no better example than this
in a grand-standing story --- which required the efforts of three reporters ---
in last Saturday's Independent. The exclusive began with
promise, "Iran has handed over its
long-awaited response to the West's offer of incentives to halt its suspected
nuclear weapons programme...." (in other words, the general acceptance of
Solana's non-paper as a way forward). But it then immediately detoured into
sky-is-falling mode, "....after a warning by one of its top military leaders
that any strike against it would trigger war". (This might have been a shocker
for us had Libertas not blogged on that so-called warning the day
before.) So the headline was not, "Possible Breakthrough in Talks on Iran's
Nuclear Position" but "Strike and We'll Strike You Back, Warns Tehran".)
Once more, let's try to dissipate the doom. Iran
is not going to attack Israel --- today, tomorrow, next week, next month,
next year, in the foreseeable future. I'll skip my ritual unveiling of double
standards. (Although, as a fun exercise,
try converting Jonathan Freedland's proposal for the way forward "Tehran is
not yet being forced to make a tough choice. It has to and soon - before Israel
makes an even tougher one." into "Israel is not yet being forced to make a tough
choice. It has to and soon - before Iran makes an even tougher one.") Let's just
recap one line of the scorecard:
Iran's stockpile of nuclear devices: 0
Israel's stockpile of nuclear devices: At least 150 (courtesy
of a Mr. Jimmy Carter, resident of Plains, Georgia, and formerly of Washington,
D.C.)
The Iranian "threats" are not precursors of
offensive action. Rather, they are 1) tough talk to challenge any consideration
of a US/Israeli airstrike --- do that, and we'll take out your shipping and 2) a
play to domestic opinion --- they've got missiles, look, we've got missiles.
There is an old but established political manoeuvre: when you're privately
embarking on negotiations, which may be productive but have to show some element
of compromise, you do so from public strength, not weakness.
If the "West" thought the Iranian missile test
was anything more than posturing, then the Solana talks would not still be in
motion. Condoleezza Rice would have done much more than commit the US to defence
of Israel, since the Israelis are more than capable of responding to a direct
Iranian assault --- she would have taken the initiative with talk of more
economic sanctions and hints of US intervention in the Persian Gulf.
What is happening instead is that the US is doing
its own posturing, with military exercises in the Gulf, and putting its chips on
incremental economic pressure.
There has been great play of the decision by the French energy company Total to
back away from exploitation of Iran's reservoirs of natural gas. That may be
a largely symbolic step, or it may be a clear indicator that the downside of
investment in Iran (with insurance costs and a "political risk" premium as well
as the finger-wagging of Western government) may be too great for European
firms. What matters is that it is here, and in the private conference rooms
where "non-papers" are discussed, where the real story of relations with Iran is
playing out.
Which in turn means that, instead of panicking,
you might even have a bit of fun.
After all, what is the real meaning of a missile test when it has been subjected
to PhotoShop?
----------------------
July 9
Beware the Children: Iraq
Relief at
return from two days of academic meetings (up in the gorgeous countryside of the
Lake District, which I enjoyed from the windowless conference room) dissipated
this morning.
The BBC's
grandstanding attempt at covering the local dimension in Iraq consisted of
sending fearsome anchorman John Humphrys to Britain's last stronghold in the
country, Basra Airport.
Every half
hour between 7 and 9 a.m. (and, for all I know, between 6 and 7), John
offered an extended consideration of the political, economic, and military
situation. With one exception, this consisted of asking a British colonel, "How
do you think it is going?" to which the in-depth reply, "Very well" was offered.
John fearsomely accepted this explanation --- violence down, stability up,
corner turned, etc. --- to lay down his challenge, "But what do you say to the
relatives of British soldiers who have died? Was this worth their sacrifice?"
To which the
colonel said, "Yes."
If I can
muster enough stamina to keep anger in check, I may return to this tomorrow. But
let this be mentioned: the highest state of disgrace in these reports lay in
their representation of the Iraqis for whom "we" sacrificed. John's one venture
beyond the airbase was --- in the presence of heavily armed British troops ---
to shops in the centre of Basra. He asked a couple of shopowners, "Are things
better than they were two years ago?"
To which each
said, "Yes."
And then John
--- rather than following up with questions about why the threat from the
militias had receded, about who was in local political control, about the state
of the economy (given that he had mentioned the small inconvenience that
electricity kept cutting out) --- noted, "So you even a casino here. Gambling!
But no alcohol?!"
To which
everyone had a good laugh.
Also worth a
giggle were the reflections of the British colonel, delivered with a straight
voice and presumably straight face, that the British had trained the Iraqi Army
since the 1920s, so the Iraqis had a historic appreciation of such instruction.
(The colonel didn't mention that a lot of Iraqis had no such appreciation, which
is why British forces had to use chemical warfare and bombing on them and why
--- in 1958 --- the British military was finally turfed out of the country.) He
explained that Iraqi officers were ready to "mimic" all the actions of their
British teachers, for example, how to hold a rifle and command respect from your
troops. He was optimistic that this "mimicking" would result in a competent
Iraqi force. (Although not one competent enough so British forces could leave
Iraq in the foreseeable future.)
Well, if he
is not inclined to parse this not-subtle portrayal of British adults raising and
protecting Iraqi children, John might reflect what he (and, with exception of a
fleeting reference, the BBC) missed during his tourist gig.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki made it clear --- very clear ---
this weekend that he wanted a definite timetable for American (and British,
presumably, although no one in Baghdad seems to notice them much) withdrawal
from the country. As Juan
Cole has noted shrewdly, al-Maliki's line is following demands made by the
current US-UK bogeyman, Moqtada al-Sadr.
It would be
naive (or worse), however, to think that al-Maliki is simply "caving in" to al-Sadr.
Like it or not, there is a consensus across most Iraqi partities that an
indefinite US stay is not in the best interest of Iraq (as opposed to US
economic interests). The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the key group in al-Maliki's
government, is trying to maintain its role as pre-eminent Shi'a party, and they
know full well that the image of Americans imposing their wishes on Iraq plays
into the hands of Sadr. Those Sunni groups whom the US are holding up as
defenders of Iraq --- the "Awakening Council" --- may have an advantage (as long
as US money is coming to them) of playing the partnership game with the American
military, but those groups have a limited geographic reach. They aren't the
central players in Baghdad, and --- more importantly --- they have to recognise
a Shi'a majority.
The blessing
right now --- which not-so-fearsome John and the BBC missed --- is that key
groups wanting an immediate US withdrawal are largely taking the political path,
rather than that of violence, to pursue their goal. Keep treating these groups
and other Iraqis as "children" --- naughty or trainable --- and that blessing
might disappear.
----------------------
July 9
Reservoir Academics Corner: Our Musical Gift
You may have
noticed that we're
really into music here at Libertas.
And, at the moment, there's a heated debate going on over the merits or demerits
of North Carolina's finest piano player (in my opinion) Ben Folds.
Well, put
this together with our admiration for the macho posturing of the Reservoir
Academics, and we think
we've got the ideal theme song.
----------------------
July 7
Here is the (Real) News: It's the Local Politics, Stupid
(To Paraphrase Bill Clinton, Wherever He Might Be)
As
the US Government, aided and abetted by the "Western" media, persists
with its simple representation of international relations as "victory"
over Al Qa'eda and other bad guys, here are four cases where attention to local
and regional politics might be essential....
Listen
to podcast (Iraq)
Listen
to podcast (Afghanistan)
Listen
to podcast (Pakistan)
Listen
to podcast (extremists abroad)
----------------------
July 4
Alternative News of the Day: Iran, Syria, and the 4th of July
A THOUGHT FOR
THE 4TH OF JULY
"My patriotism is not an exclusive thing. It is all-embracing and I should
reject that patriotism which sought to mount the distress or exploitation of
other nationalities." (Mohandas K. Gandhi)
Best wishes to those of you celebrating the holiday!
IRAN
Mainstream media is still in not-so-blissful ignorance or confusion over the
political developments over Iran (Dan
Froomkin, who is usually very sharp in his round-up blog, inadvertently shows
that the US media is lagging far behind the story). Still, it’s a probably a
hopeful sign for negotiations when the Daily Telegraph panics. Its leader
writers bluster,
“Iran Remains a Threat to Israel’s Very Existence”, while
Con Coughlin --- usually a reliable mouthpiece for fire-breathers who want to
give foreigners a good thumping --- is befuddled, not by the Iranians but by
Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff:
“There
are two ways of interpreting this week's warning by America's top military
officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, that opening a new front in the Middle East by
launching air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities would be "extremely
stressful".
Either the
United States, with the help of its favoured Middle Eastern proxy, Israel, is
already preparing to take out Iran's main nuclear facilities, and is simply
preparing public opinion for the likely consequences of such action.
Or America's
top brass, who already have their work cut out prosecuting two major military
campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, are trying to pre-empt any thoughts President
George W. Bush, the nation's commander-in-chief, might have about ordering his
armed forces into action against the mullahs.”
(Allow me to
help you, Con. It’s not the first interpretation.)
Meanwhile,
Ian Black at The Guardian is even more confused over Iran’s “mixed
signals”. Perhaps not realizing that he is parroting a media line from several
days ago, he begins, “Iran is
keeping the world guessing.” Then he spectacularly misinterprets a statement by
Ali Akbar Velayati, the advisor to Supreme Leader Khamenei, "I talked about
accepting negotiations and not accepting the proposed package”, as a change in
Tehran’s direction.
Ah, no. It would
be the most Pollyanna-ish of diplomats who would expect Tehran to accept,
without any questions or clarifications, the proposals over its nuclear
programme. The apparent breakthrough is that the Iranians have not rejected
talks but are now looking for the further negotiations to which Velayati refers.
The
British Foreign Office has released the text of the “5+1 package” presented
by EU President Javier Solana to Tehran. It sets out “topics
for negotiations between China, France, Germany, Iran, Russia, the United
Kingdom, and the United States, joined by the High Representative of the
European Union, as long as Iran verifiably suspends its enrichment-related and
reprocessing activities”. The long list of topics includes “support [for] Iran
in playing an important and constructive role in international affairs” with
“promotion of dialogue and cooperation on non-proliferation, regional security
and stabilisation issues”, “reaffirmation of the obligation under the UN Charter
to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in
any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations” (i.e., a
guarantee to Iran against an attack by another country), “Steps towards the
normalization of trade and economic relations”, and “steps towards the
normalization of cooperation with Iran in the area of energy”.
Two points
occur to me. First, the document is a clear recognition that there are wider
political and economic issues beyond the nuclear question. As we have often
noted on Libertas, it should be recognized that Iran’s “nuclear threat”
is not as much the overriding issue but a pawn played in a game for influence in
the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. Is it possible, with negotiations on the
5+1 proposal, that this pawn could be turned from an excuse to press and
challenge Tehran into an opening for dialogue and co-operation?
Second, that
prospect could found on a reactor-sized gap in the 5+1 package. While it calls
for Iran’s suspension of enrichment, it also pledges the readiness of the 5+1
countries “to recognize Iran's right to develop research, production and use of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes”. But, of course, that nuclear energy
depends upon a supply of enriched uranium which --- in other countries --- is
produced at home rather than imported. So the question still remains: when, if
ever, will the 5+1 countries have the “international confidence in the
exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme” which would allow
domestic enrichment?
Amidst all the smoke and fog surrounding US and Israeli intentions towards Iran,
Laura Rozen of Mother Jones asked several specialist observers --- Daniel
Levy, Yossi Melman, Trita Parsi, Danny Postel, and Jacqueline Shire --- about
the prospects of military action. Amidst the thoughtful responses, there is
still no consensus as to whether the recent US and Israeli manoeuvres portend
military action, but Postel cuts to the chase effectively, “Even
if it is just posturing, it's a very dangerous
game with
potentially cataclysmic consequences.”
Rozen also has a useful follow-up with the panel on the possibility of a
breakthrough in the “5+1” negotiations with Iran on nuclear issues. And Trita
Parsi, writing with former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami in the
Christian Science Monitor, lay out the case for a serious, "linking"
diplomacy. That is, a diplomacy which not only links the nuclear issue with
issues of Middle Eastern security and the Arab-Israeli dispute but also links
the Iran nuclear question with the Israel nuclear question:
"For regional security to be
possible it is not only necessary for Iran, Israel, and the US to grant one
another minimum levels of recognition, it would also be necessary that Israel
discard the notion that the regional order should be based on its nuclear
monopoly."
Earlier in the week
Farideh Farhi, analyzing comments by the head of the Islamic Revolution’s Guards
Corps, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, concluded, “Jafari
is very clear that Tehran is ready to match the Bush Administration’s words and
deeds if need arises, even at a time when the Iranian government is taking the
possibility of a military attack more seriously than before.” (This assessment
parallels private correspondence from Iranian friends noting the potential for
Iranian retaliation against US ships in the Straits of Hormuz.)
SYRIA
And now for a bit of “blowback”. The Bush Administration’s intermittent bluster
against the Syrian Government is yielding unanticipated (but unsurprising)
results. The
Oxford Business Group notes:
“Syria appears
to be on track to return to the days of its political and economic alliance with
Russia. Foreign direct investment (FDI) is flowing into the country and Russian
firms are being given preference in a number of infrastructure projects crucial
to the Syrian economy.
Russia is looking to rebuild its status as a power in the Middle East. As a part
of this process, one of its first ports of call was Syria, a logical choice
given that it is ostracised by the other main international player in the
region, the US.
For its part, Syria is actively seeking both FDI and influential allies. It
appears to have found both in Moscow.”
----------------------
July 3
The Alternative News of the Day:
Iran Negotiates the EU Package on Nuclear Development
About 48 hours ago, we started
getting information that the Iranian Government was going to announce its
acceptance of further negotiations on the proposals, presented by European Union
President Javier Solana in Tehran last month, concerning Iran's programme of
nuclear enrichment. If true, this was a major development, given that the
Western media had been reporting (erroneously) that Iran had rejected Solana's
approach.
Sure enough, yesterday Gareth Porter
of IPS --- one of the best US-based reporters of developments in Iran --- was
circulating the reports from Iranian news agencies, "A senior Iranian
official reportedly told members of the Iranian parliament Monday that Iran has
agreed to freeze its enrichment programme for six weeks and begin negotiations
with the P5+1 group of states as early as next week." Porter also noted
similar statements by Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki and Velayati, an
advisor to Supreme Leader Khamenei, raising the possibility that Iran might
suspend further progress towards enrichment (for example, through additional
centrifuges) in exchange for a freeze on sanctions against Tehran.
There are other signs, not picked up
by most of the Western media, that the Iranian Government is serious about its
engagement with the EU initiative. For example Ali Bagheri,
a senior Foreign Ministry official, had taken over as the
deputy to Iran's lead negotiation,
Saeed Jalili. As
Vaeedi had served as the
deputy in charge of international affairs for the Supreme National
Security Council, one interpretation
is that Jalili (and behind him, Supreme Leader Khamenei) is ensuring he has the
initiative in discussions with the Council
over the Iranian position.
Although the
Washington Post reported Mottaki's comments yesterday --- "Iran
Warms to Diplomacy" --- observers in the United States and Britain seem to
be struggling to cope with Tehran's new line. The funniest example was the
New York Times yesterday, which framed the Mottaki and Velayati
statements, "Iranian
officials on Tuesday continued their long history of befuddling Western
diplomats."
Those
darned Iranians, with their clever strategy of befuddlement! What devious step
will they take next? Unsurprisingly, neither the New York Times nor the Post
had any report today analysing the Tehran response to the EU (the
Post is still caught up with the "war scare" story over a
possible Israeli attack on Tehran).
Yet
even as they missed the evolving story, the US papers offered further clues that
the diplomatic ground is moving. Perhaps the
most surprising but significant statement came from the Chairman of the US Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, "Opening
up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us . . . This is a
very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable."
That's not-too-subtle code for any hawks in Israel (and in the Bush
Administration) to back off the talk of military action, which in turn opens up
the diplomatic path.
Whether
that path will be taken is now the critical question. It's too early to get
Washington's response, and it may be possible that the Bush Administration ---
caught up in its own splits between the hawkish Vice President and the State
Department --- will play a public talk-tough line while sounding out the
Iranians privately.
The
risk is that talk-tough may lead the Iranians to pull back. The
BBC did cover the Iran story this morning but did so in the worst possible way.
On their flagship programme, Today, Jeremy Bowen --- who is usually
pretty good --- offered a personal example of "befuddlement". Prodded
by the host, he rambled into speculation that Iran might be responding to
threats from Washington and Jerusalem. He completely misread the Mullen press
conference as a further US "warning" to Tehran, and at no point did he
show any cognizance of what was happening inside the Iranian Government.
My
concern is that, if the Iran offer to negotiate is framed as weakness (and,
conversely, as a sign that aggressive jaw-jaw threatening war-war gets them to
cave in), this opportunity will be lost. No one should lose public face here,
otherwise the cost will be far more than befuddlement.
----------------------
July 3
Update: An Ethical Hitch?
Philip Carter, the blogger on
military affairs in the Washington Post, has
an interesting take on Christopher Hitchens' voluntary subjection to
waterboarding:
"Honestly,
I thought we learned in grade school to be a little smarter than this -- that it
wasn't necessary to stick a metal fork in the electrical socket to know there
was electricity there. Unfortunately, for some people personal experience trumps
all other forms of learning, and they must learn at the school of hard knocks.
Or, in this case, the school of hard torture.
What
next? Will we wake up to read this headline in Vanity Fair?
Hitchens Loses Legs to Munition in Southern Iraq
Author
was trying to understand arguments against cluster-bomb treaty
Carter, complementing our argument yesterday
that the evidence of waterboarding as torture was established long before
Hitchens' show-drowning, adds, "If
you're looking for serious discourse on this issue, I recommend you read Mark
Danner, Scott Horton, Jane Mayer, or Malcolm Nance (who Hitchens quotes in his
article). These are people with the common sense to know better."
Still, I'd like to take Carter's
analogy further. For his next piece in Vanity Fair, perhaps Hitchens
could have foreign forces (Iraqi?) occupy his home for an indefinite period. Or
maybe he could request the US Air Force to drop a couple of bombs on his place.
Or build a razor-wire wall around his neighbourhood, setting up several
checkpoints between home and workplace. Or go without electricity for long
periods of the water and swim in fetid water outside his front door.
Perhaps, after those experiences. he
could revise his definitive judgements on the wars that he has so earnestly
advocated.
----------------------
July 2
An Ethical Hitch?
Speaking about the latest attention
(or inattention) to Iraq in the American and British media, I speculated that
developments there only matter if it's about "us". It is not just that
"they" do not matter; "they" disappear entirely.
A greater mind than mine has now
spectacularly made the point about "us" and "them".
Christopher Hitchens has just written in Vanity Fair about his experience
of "waterboarding", the rather innocuous term for forcing liquid into
the lungs of detainees. In graphic terms, he recounts the experience of trying
to breathe while water is being fed into his nose. He concludes that it is an
"official lie" to claim that waterboarding
merely "simulates the feeling of drowning". The reality is that
"you are drowning --- or rather, being drowned".
On
first read, this comes across as an intrepid writer going to the physical limit
to test his own beliefs and challenge the statements of political leaders. We
should be grateful that Hitchens puts his body on the line for "us".
Ah,
yes, for "us". If Hitchens' primary concern had been for those who
have already been waterboarded --- you know, "them" --- he might not
have needed to go through the agony of personal experience. He might have read
the overwhelming body of evidence --- from physicians, psychiatrists, lawyers,
and even the private statements of Bush Administration officials --- that
waterboarding crosses the line of intensive interrogation. He might have
acknowledged that the claims for torture's efficacy --- that it extracts vital
information --- are shaky at best. (Maybe he'll eventually read the
article in today's New York Times that US methods are based on those
used by Chinese Communists in the Korean War, even though a 1957 US Air Force
study concluded that many of the extracted confessions were false.)
No,
the Hitchens ethical test can only be applied --- six years after the opening of
Camps Delta/X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay, five years after the development of
waterboarding at Abu Ghraib --- when he personally speaks to a specialist on the
subject (a Mr Malcolm Nance, who works at the Pentagon who "speaks Arabic
and has been on al-Qaeda’s tail since the early 1990s". Others' agony,
anger, frustration (not to mention the pain, injury, even death of those who
have been tortured) can only be validated once Hitchens has personally suffered.
And written about it. And when other journalists have expressed their gratitude
to "the Hitch".
I
apologise if, in my anger, I show a lack of gratitude. This, however, is only
the latest of Hitchens reducing the man-made catastrophes of recent years to his
feelings. Last November, he featured the death of an American soldier in Iraq
who was "deeply influenced" by Hitchens' writings. He agonised for
pages --- many pages --- over whether he had sent Mark Daily to his death. He
met Daily's family and received absolution.
And,
at the end of those many pages, Hitchens absolved himself. He did so through the
consolation that Mark Daily felt himself "morally committed" to the
cause in Iraq. He did so through the invocation of Orwell --- always Orwell ---
who framed his (front-line) experience of the Spanish Civil War, "No bomb
that ever burst/ Shatters the crystal spirit."
I
guess it would be over-egging this comment to ask how many times Hitchens
mentions an Iraqi --- any Iraqi --- as he wrings his hands and then holds them
up spotless. And it is a futile (if pertinent) point to note that Hitchens still
shows no interest in the economic, political, cultural dynamics of what is
happening in Iraq. (In the context of "if it happens to me, then it
matters", the powerful symbol is still of Hitchens flying over Iraq in a US
military helicopter in Iraq, talked through what he is seeing by Undersecretary
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.)
And
this protest will make no ripple before the waves of Hitchens-ography --- that's
just the way of how "we" lay claim to our liberal sensitivities even
while defending the liberal damage and destruction of our interventions in the
countries and lives of others.
Still,
I think it should be made. Not for "us". For "them".
----------------------
July 1
The Tuesday News Buffet
ONGOING STORY OF THE DAY
For those who haven't caught up with
it yet, I recommend a read of Seymour
Hersh's dramatic exposé in the New Yorker on US covert operations
against Iran. Put alongside recent developments such as the much-hyped
"secret" Israeli Air Force exercise simulating an attack on Iranian
installations, Hersh's story confirms what we've known for a while: the Bush
Administration, in a last roll of the dice, is waging an intensive political
warfare campaign to destabilise the Iranian Government.
We'll be blogging at Libertas
later in the week on the wider implications of US covert and not-so-covert
operations, but in putting the pieces together, Hersh opens up some important
insights. Those in the Bush Administration pressing for regime change were so
determined that they effectively forced out the head of US Central Command,
General William Fallon. Reports in the Iranian press of assassinations and
sabotage take on a new light when seen through Hersh's reporting, and the
article exposes the pernicious double standard at the heart of Bush foreign
policy. Despite being listed as a terrorist organisation by the State
Department, the MEK --- Iranian dissidents who initially launched bombings,
assassinations, and other operations from Baghdad in the 1980s --- are still
supported by the CIA and the Pentagon.
Having ridden the back of Hersh's
story on Sunday and Monday, the US and British press have largely walked away
today. Juan Cole has a useful
analysis, and Dan
Froomkin's blog gets to the beating heart of the matter: Dick Cheney's role
in stoking US operations against Tehran.
WACKY FACT: According to
US intelligence agencies, Iran's nuclear weapons programme was suspended in
2003!
WACKY COINCIDENCE: From
today's Washington
Post --- "A
former CIA operative who says he tried to warn the agency about faulty
intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs now contends that CIA officials also
ignored evidence that Iran had suspended work on a nuclear bomb."
TOP STORY OF THE DAY
New York Times: Amid
U.S. Policy Disputes, Qaeda Grows in Pakistan
"Late last year, top Bush
administration officials decided to take a step they had long resisted. They
drafted a secret plan to make it easier for the Pentagon’s Special Operations
forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan
to capture or kill top leaders of Al
Qaeda....
But
more than six months later, the Special Operations forces are still waiting for
the green light. The plan has been held up in Washington by the very
disagreements it was meant to eliminate. A senior Defense Department official
said there was “mounting frustration” in the Pentagon at the continued
delay."
EVALUATION:
Not that surprising, really. As we've noted before, others in the region are not
just bystanders. In this case, the opposition of the Pakistani Government ---
nominally allied to the US --- is a major obstacle to unilateral US military and
covert action. While the Americans still carry out bombing operations in
Pakistan (indeed, it appears that there was a missile strike yesterday), sending
in ground units to go over OBL is a much tricker matter. Far from capturing
Public Enemy No. 1, it could break the US-Pakistani relationship or topple the
Government in Islamabad.
WACKY
FACT: The Bush Administration, after 9/11, repeatedly criticised President
Clinton for not killing or capturing Osama bin Laden with aggressive covert and
military operations!
TOP
CAMPAIGN STORY OF THE DAY
World
Net Daily: Is
Obama devotee of monkey-god idol?
----------------------
June 30
So What's Immoral about the War in Iraq?
As we watched the powerful film In the Valley
of Elah, with its message of America in distress, my fiancée asked, "So why
is the war in Iraq more immoral than, say, World War I or the war in Vietnam?"
I couldn't quite find the answer to that question
but, after
reading Juan Cole's framing of death and destruction in Iraq and the belated
revelations in the New York Times (19
June and
29 June) of Western oil companies being handed no-bid contracts to exploit
Iraqi resources, here's a thought.
Maybe it's not about "us". Maybe it's about
"them". Or, to be precise, maybe the immorality is in the hypocrisy of what "we"
are doing for "them".
Listen to podcast...
----------------------
June 25
A Tribute to Our Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush
I just learned this morning that a fine group of
up-standing citizens have formed the Presidential Memorial Commission of San
Francisco to honour our leader before he leaves the White House. They wish to
place before voters in November 2008 a modest proposal: renaming the Oceanside
Wastewater Treatment Facility as the George W Bush Sewage Plant.
Unfortunately, time is short to join this
laudable effort. The deadline is today to put your name on the petition to be
placed before the civic leaders of California's finest city. But I for one am
sprinting
to
the website of the Commission right now to endorse this fitting tribute to
the works and legacy of the President.
----------------------
June 24
Academic Freedom Update
A few years ago I was asked to
review a manuscript for a British press. After reading the collected essays on
"anti-Americanism", I offered the thoughtful critique, "This book
should never see the light of day." It was a healthy check to my ego that
the publisher proceeded to distribute the collection.
I mention that because of the news
that the University of Michigan Press is cutting all ties to the British
publisher Pluto. Michigan's explanation is "that this is because of
appropriate new rules about the press role in distributing books it hasn’t
itself vetted", but it is a pretty thin pretext. Last year Michigan was
besieged by letters and e-mails after it distributed Pluto's Overcoming
Zionism by Joel Kovel.
I have to admit a personal interest
here. Pluto published my last book, The Betrayal of Dissent: Beyond Orwell,
Hitchens, and the New American Century, and they did a fantastic job with
editing, publicity, and distribution. What's more, they took a big chance,
taking over the project after another publisher got cold feet about a book
challenging "liberal hawks" --- past and present --- for their
attempts to suppress the arguments of others.
So it's tragically ironic that Pluto
itself should be silenced, at least when it comes to a particular distributor in
the middle of the United States, because some of its books might not be
politically acceptable to someof Michigan's potential readers. Pluto's so-called
"radical agenda" supports authors such as bell hooks, Howard Zinn, Zia
Sardar, Noam Chomsky, and many others across a diverse political and cultural
spectrum; putting those writers beyond the cultural pale is a flagrant
limitation of thought, reflection, and debate.
A "free society" such as
that in the United States is to be credited --- indeed, it has set a notable
example --- for promoting in its Constitution freedom of publication and
expression. That's the easy part, however, because there are always economic and
cultural barriers that can be put in place to ensure only the "right"
points of view get a wide audience.
My complaint with the manuscript
that I reviewed was not that I thought it inappropriate to set out the notion of
"anti-Americanism"; my issues were over the lack of academic and
intellectual rigour supporting that notion. If the University of Michigan Press
has an issue with the quality of analysis in Pluto's books, then its editors
should say so clearly and honestly rather than hiding behind the excuse that
"because Pluto doesn’t have peer review on the Michigan model, it would
be inappropriate to keep the ties".
To do otherwise is to raise the
suspicion that, in the American "marketplace of ideas", it is
political acceptability rather than the merit of argument or evidence that will
prevail.
----------------------
June 24
Reservoir Academics Update
RESERVOIR ACADEMICS' ORIGINALITY
AWARD: ANDREW ROBERTS
Reservoir Academics Timothy Lynch
and Rob Singh, After Bush (2008)
Eight years after entering office,
the president departed the White House under a cloud. With his nation seemingly
mired in an unwinnable and intractable war in a faraway land of which most
Americans knew little and cared less, the president's political reputation lay
in tatters both at home and abroad. His partisan rivals seized the opportunity
of a rare electoral triumph, while critics within his own party pondered with a
mixture of bafflement and despondency how a momentous opportunity for a
generational partisan advantage could have been squandered by their leader.
If that tale seems familiar, so it
should. For it is that of Harry S. Truman, not George W. Bush. Or, more
accurately, it is the tale of both Truman and Bush.
Wanna-be Reservoir Academic
Andrew Roberts, Sunday Telegraph, June 22, 2008
As he leaves the White House at the
end of his second term, the President has a poll rating of only 23 per cent, and
is widely disliked and even despised. His foreign policy has been judged a
failure, especially in view of the long, painful, costly war that he declared,
which is still not over.
He doesn't get on with his own
party's presidential candidate, who is clearly distancing himself, and had lost
many of his closest friends and staff to scandals and forced resignations. The
New Republic, a hugely influential political magazine, writes that his
historical reputation will be as bad as that of President Harding, the
disastrous president of the Great Depression.
I am writing, of course, about
Harry S Truman, generally regarded today as one of the greatest of all the 43
presidents, and the man who set the United States on the course that ended
decades later in the defeat of Communism.
If the West wins the modern
counterpart of that struggle, the War Against Terror, historians will look back
in amazement at the present unpopularity of George W Bush, and marvel at it
quite as much as we now marvel at the 67 per cent disapproval rates for Truman
throughout 1952.
RESERVOIR ACADEMICS
WANNA-BE RESERVOIR ACADEMIC
RESERVOIR ACADEMICS' INDEPENDENCE
OF THOUGHT AWARD: ANDREW ROBERTS
Andrew Roberts, Sunday
Telegraph, June 22, 2008
The
time will come when George W Bush will be able to say what Lord Salisbury called
the four cruellest yet sweetest words in the English language: "I told you
so."
Tom Baldwin and Sam Coates, The
Times, June 17, 2008
Only the fancy dress was missing
from Sunday night’s history-themed party inside 10 Downing Street, thrown as a
final send-off for George Bush before he leaves Europe for the final time as
President....
In one corner was Simon Schama, who
labelled Mr Bush as an “absolute f***ing catastrophe” in 2006. In another
was Andrew Roberts, who is close to Mr Bush and his inner circle and was
displaying a pair of presidential cufflinks he was given the last time they met.
He told The Times that it was
“a completely wonderful and fabulous occasion — I sat next to the President.
We talked about the interaction between history, politics, and personalities.
That is about as far as I can go because it was a private dinner.”...
Roberts did not rule out the
possibility he could act as Mr Bush’s ghostwriter in future. The historian
said that he was flattered still to be on Mr Bush’s “radar screen” and
that “it would be an honour to be considered” as a possible collaborator
writing the President’s memoirs.
----------------------
June 20
Reservoir Academics: An Apology
I was invited to a discussion on the
Islam Channel last night on the Bush Administration's foreign policy. As I
joined, the presenter was chatting with a "Dr Lynch".
Over the next hour (even though I
had told the producer a maximum of 20-30 minutes), I had a wide-ranging exchange
with Timothy Lynch on topics ranging from democracy promotion to past and
present American policy on Iraq to US approaches on Hamas to the American image
in the Muslim world. It was high-spirited but good-natured, and there were even
points of convergence.
I am still troubled by many aspects
of the Lynch-Singh thesis on the Bush Administration and its supposed place in
the "continuity" of US foreign policy, but I realised during the
discussion that Dr Lynch's position stems from a passionate belief in the value
of "American exceptionalism" rather than mere posturing or putting
academic power in the service of State power. That makes it more difficult to
take on the assertions of American pragmatism/idealism --- it's far easier
exposing cynicism or naked self-interest --- but at least there's a hope of
making connections. As Dr Lynch accepted in the exchange, others can have
conceptions of democracy that differ from the American model. It's only a small
step --- there is still a reluctance to accept the existence of "civil
society" in the Arab world --- but better than nothing.
Yesterday I had a pop at the
Lynch-Singh book which, even in knockabout spirit, was unfair. The book deserves
a fairer response, one which I hope to offer in due course. To do otherwise is
to preclude possibilities such as those offered by last evening's conversation.
----------------------
June 19
Reservoir Academics Presents
Reservoir Academic Book Review:
All You Need to Know About Douglas Feith's 688-Page Memoir
I haven't had the time or the fortitude
to sit down with the recollections of Douglas Feith, former Deputy
Undersecretary of Defense in the Bush Administration and "the f****** stupidest
guy on the face of the Earth" (General Tommy Franks, commander of US forces in
Iraq in 2003), but a colleague has offered this concise review of Feith's
analysis:
The CIA is unprofessional and untrustworthy.
So is the State Department.
I think it's "dishonest and harmful" for
anyone to politicise intelligence.
But I do have some good sources/documents in
the book.
And they will prove to my detractors that I
was right all along.
(Except they don't)
Fearless Reservoir Academic Predictions (We
Will Rule the World!):
Wait for It. It's Going to Happen. Really.
A source resurrects this column by
Charles Krauthammer from November 2001:
Jewish World Review, November 30,
2001 (Also in Washington Post)
Victory Changes Everything
HUNDREDS of holy warriors lie dead in a prison near Mazar-e Sharif.
Ramadan is violated by the hail of American bombs. Infidel Americans
land in force on Muslim soil near Kandahar. "We now own a piece of
Afghanistan," says Brig. Gen. James Mattis.
Just weeks ago the Middle East experts were warning that such violations
of Islamic sensibilities would cause an explosion of anti-Americanism.
Where, then, is the vaunted "Arab street," the pro-Osama demonstrations,
the anti-American riots? Where are the seething masses rising up against
America and its nominal allies from Egypt to Pakistan?
Nowhere to be seen. Bin Laden T-shirts are going begging in Peshawar.
The street is silent.
The Middle East experts, who a decade ago made identical warnings that
war on Iraq would cause the Arab world to rise against us, don't get it.
They never do. Indeed, with the war on terrorism poised to expand beyond
Afghanistan, the experts are already repeating these dire -- and false
-- predictions.
In a prescient lecture Oct. 20, Middle East Quarterly editor Martin
Kramer (who has just published "Ivory Towers on Sand," a devastating
critique of the illusions and biases advanced by the Middle East studies
programs throughout American academia) explained why: The way to tame
the Arab street is not with appeasement and sweet sensitivity but with
raw power and victory.
Kramer's indisputable point was that there has always been and always
will be poverty and oppression, anger and resentment in the Arab world.
And much of it will be directed against America. That is a constant.
The variable factor is whether
America commands respect or contempt.
The Arab street has fallen silent not
because the president hosted Muslim envoys for a White House Iftar
dinner. Nor because American children convinced their Muslim pen pals of
our goodwill toward Islam. But because the United States astonished the
street with one of history's great shows of arms: destroying a regime
7,000 miles away, landlocked and far from American bases, solely with
air power and a few soldiers on the ground --
and with but a single combat death (thus
far).
The Taliban's collapse shattered two myths: Islamic invincibility and
American weakness -- myths amplified over eight years by the Clinton
administration's empty gestures and demonstrable impotence in the face
of Islamic terror.
The Islamic street exploded after Sept. 11, not because of rage -- the
rage is there always -- but because of triumphalism. The war that began
with the 1983 bombings in Beirut had finally been taken to the American
homeland. America lay bleeding, "filled with horror and fear from north
to south and east to west," bin Laden boasted. This was their day and
they were going to seize it.
Turns out it is not their day. Osama was wrong. America is no paper
tiger. The street now knows it. The world knows it. Which is why it is
time for us to seize the moment.
Our astonishing display of power has demonstrated the deadly seriousness
of the Bush Doctrine. We will no longer fecklessly go after low-level
terrorist operatives in a New York court, or even more ridiculously in
The Hague. We are, instead, at war with their leaders and, even more
important, with the regimes that harbor them. It is now a capital
offense to harbor terrorists. Literally. Harbor them and your regime
dies.
We not only have enunciated a new doctrine. We have demonstrated both
the will and the power to carry it out. The fruits are already visible.
What regime, after all, is going to provide bin Laden safe harbor?
The elementary truth that seems to elude the experts again and again --
Gulf War, Afghan war, next war -- is that power is its own reward.
Victory changes everything, psychology above all. The psychology in the
region is now one of fear and deep respect for American power. Now is
the time to use it to deter, defeat or destroy the other regimes in the
area that are host to radical Islamic terrorism.
Hence Stage Two. No, not Iraq yet. It surely
is the worst terrorist threat, but because it is the worst and the most
difficult, it will require more planning, and more political and
military preparation. Now is the time to go for the low-hanging fruit:
giving the Philippines assistance in crushing their own al Qaeda
guerrillas. Telling the thugs running Sudan, Syria, Libya and Yemen to
cease and desist, to shut down the training camps, to cough up the
terrorists -- "or else," as the president so delicately puts it.
And then on to Iraq. The experts are already warning us that we dare
not, lest the Arab street rise against us. They never learn.
Reservoir Academics Update
I'm 2/3 of the way through the
faith-based book by Reservoir Academic icons Timothy Lynch and Rob
Singh,
After Bush. It's even worse than I feared....
----------------------
June 19
The Real Persian Puzzles
Part of the curiosity, and the
frustration, of the focus on an American showdown with Iran --- possibly over
the nuclear programme, possibly over Iraq, possibly over wider Middle Eastern
issues --- is that it misses a more intricate and arguably far more important
story. Thirty years after the Islamic Revolution, the country is in the midst of
a web of political, economic, and religious exchanges, often fraught with
conflict. It is unclear where these exchanges will lead; indeed, it is unlikely
to see an immediate resolution. Recognising these negotiations and tensions,
however, would be essential to any engagement with Iran and the wider region in
the short- and long-term.
Iran is in the midst of
economic difficulties. Friends tell stories of soaring property prices,
especially in Tehran, and of day-to-day difficulties with the increasing costs
of foodstuffs such as rice. President Ahmadinejad's political strategy, pursued
since he entered office in 2005, has been to call for reduced inequalities in
incomes and, in support of "social provision", State intervention on housing.
It's an approach which may have political and social merit, but it is also one
that is hard to support in the midst of high inflation. The external pressure of
sanctions, although not the overriding factor in the economic picture, and
bureaucratic complexities and inefficiencies add to Iran's problems. Meanwhile,
the possibility of capitalising on high oil prices to alleviate the situation is
limited by Iran's lack of refining capacity and the politics of OPEC.
As Colette Mazzucelli has noted
on our Analysis pages, the economic situation is the essential backdrop for
political tensions, both amongst the governing elite and between the religious
and political establishments. A year before the Presidential elections,
Ahmadinejad faces the possible rivalry of Ali Larijani --- the new Speaker of
the Parliament, former lead negotiator on the nuclear issue, and until he
resigned from the post earlier this year, the Secretary of Iran's National
Security Council. Larijani commands respect amongst a wide section of the
Iranian political and bureaucratic elite --- as well as in the international
community --- and he is also close to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah
Khamenei.
Larijani, however, is far from
an accomplished electoral campaigner. He was only sixth in the 2005 Presidential
race, and he has never been able to complement his backroom skills with charisma
in the public arena. Only a fool or risk-taker
would write off Ahmadinejad; as a colleague writes, he "is
a ferocious competitor, an edgy populist
who ins the hearts of his (lumpenproletariat) countrymen even while he is
demolishing the economy".
Reducing the Iranian arena to Larijani v. Ahmadinejad
also
ignores several other candidates, such
as the Mayor of Tehran and former security chief, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, and
cannot take account of what role "reformists", such as the supporters of former
President Khatami, may play in 2009.
Yet even this
complicated scenario does not begin to capture the immediate battle, which may
be emerging between Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader. On both domestic issues
and questions of foreign policy, Ayatollah Khamenei has not been happy with the
President's positions. Substantive disputes over economic policy and Iran'
approach to the nuclear negotiations have been paralleled --- and indeed
illuminated --- by concerns over "symbolic" positions such as Ahmadinejad's
promotion of the Holocaust conference in Tehran. Far from controlling the
Iranian system, or standing apart from it, the Supreme Leader is manoeuvring
within it --- allying with and developing his political approach in consultation
with advisors and Government officials (such as Larijani) as well as clerics.
And, far from deferring to Ayatollah Khamenei, Ahmedinejad is holding to his
challenge as "a
supremely ambitious politician who is a threat to the entire
post-revolutionary establishment".
This building conflict has been
highlighted by a curious case in recent weeks. A Government official has accused
a wide range of public figures, including prominent clerics, of corruption. He
in turn has been arrested for making the charges. While it is still being
debated how close the official is to Ahmadinejad, and indeed whether the
President encouraged the public allegations, and whether the Supreme Leader is
the ultimate if indirect target, it does appear that the battle for "Who Speaks
for the Revolution?" is increasing in intensity.
(It
has been claimed that some activists are now even daring to assert that the
revolutionary system of "velaya-te faqih", establishing clerical authority in
Iran's political culture, may not be viable. In fact, it appears that the main
lines of battle are not over the system but how to curb Ahmadinejad's authority
and remove him from office next year. Indeed, it is likely that some reformist
factions will concentrate on support of "principlists/conservatives" like
Qalibaf or Larijani.)
For those of us trying to write
a quick blog or make an incisive comment for the media, this is all a bit of a
challenge. It would be far easier to stick with President Bush's narrative ---
which does not create but builds upon the storyline from 1979 --- of
"democracy's battle" in which it is either the Iranian people (supported by the
US Government, of course) or the theocracy/President Ahmadinejad who triumphs.
Easy paths, however, are usually not the right ones, especially if Iran is to
remain at the centre of the American view of the world.
----------------------
June 18
Bush's Last Chance: Tehran, Tehran, Tehran
After several days traipsing across Europe, the George W. Bush
Farewell Tour reached a strange conclusion
on
Monday
in
London.
In short, not much
happened. Topics that might have been of interest to American and
European leaders, e.g., NATO, the looming economic crisis,
protectionism? Absent. All the pesky international issues that could
have made an appearance --- climate change, energy and food
distribution, AIDS, strike in Sudan, developments in Latin America,
even old stalwarts such as Israel/Palestine and missile defence and,
oh maybe, Iraq? Nowhere to be found. For American newspapers, there
was only one topic for a headline.
See if you can
spot it. Here's the
New York Times
today:
"[British Prime Minister Gordon] Brown Says Europe Will
Tighten Iran Sanctions".
Washington Post?
"Iran to Face New E.U. Sanctions, Brown Says".
Why, if he's crafting the legacy for the "history"
he thinks is out there to vindicate him, is Bush riding a one-issue
pony across the continent?
The clue came,
ironically, from some classic examples of bad journalism. Amongst
such inglorious media moments were Sky News's incessant proclamation
of "exclusive/scoop" interview with Bush, given that he was handing
out face-time to
The Times
and the
Observer (but not the BBC, who might have
posed some tricky questions). And speaking of
the Times,
any claim to an expert interview by Gerard Baker and Tom Baldwin
went south as the Two Little Boy Reporters got rock-hard excited
about their flight on "Air
Force One...the biggest and shiniest symbol
of virility in global politics". (They were a bit upset they didn't
get "goodie bags" with gifts to take home to Other Little Boys.)
Yet
even as Bush
was making his token gesture of reconciliation to Europe via Baker
and Baldwin --- "I think that in retrospect I could have used a
different tone, a different rhetoric" about the war in Iraq (a
"confession" which is akin to your local mugger saying he could have
smiled while he whacked over the head with a baseball bat) --- he
was laying out the line that Iran "can either face isolation, or
they can have better relations with all of us".
To the
Observer
he elaborated, ""We need more sanctions. The next step is for the
Europeans and the United States and Russia and China to understand
that diplomacy only works if there are consequences". And to anyone
granted an audience,
he returned to that pointed if shadowy threat
that "the Iranians must understand that all options
are on the table".
All of which not
only echoes the rhetorical run-up to Iraq but offers to replace it.
For several years, the campaign against Baghdad --- and not, let us
remind ourselves, the "War on Terror" --- was the symbolic,
political, and military centre of the Bush Administration's global
strategy. Remake the Iraqi regime and you could remake the Middle
East and thus the world. Only problem is that, seven years after
first proposing this, the Bushmen are no closer to remaking Iraq ---
at least a stable, functional, America-following Iraq --- let alone
every other country of concern.
Iraq and
Afghanistan still play their roles in Bush theatre.
He lets
The Times
know that he is "keen to bind his successor into a continued
military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq". He warns the
Observer
that the smattering of Her Majesty's forces outside Basra shouldn't
leave just yet, and Gordon Brown --- playing helpful ally amidst his
own political travails --- offers a few hundred more British troops
for Afghanistan.
Iraq and
Afghanistan have long passed their sell-by date as gleaming hopes
for liberation, however, which is where Iran takes its place.
There's actually little chance, amidst military overstretch in Iraq,
the complications of interventions like Afghanistan, and a lack of
foreign appetite for more destructive "hard power", that Bush will
be able to give Tehran a slap. But the campaign against Iran, no
matter how futile, is the last, desperate hope for an Administration
searching for the crusade of "we lead, you follow". All those issues
that may be higher up on others' agendas --- you know, climate
change, food, oil, international peacekeeping --- aren't exactly cut
out for the unipolar.
Only
one small problem for George ---- he’s not in a position to go it
alone and “allies” are not exactly clamouring for a joint venture.
Brown's parting
gift to Bush did
not, as the
Post
proclaimed,
"signal a growing willingness by Western allies to join
President Bush in punishing Tehran for its nuclear enrichment
program".
As Julian Borger of the
Guardian
noted, the announcement "wrong-footed" European partners. It was
only on Saturday that EU President Javier Solana presented Tehran
with a new proposal linking incentives to a suspension of uranium
enrichment. While informal reactions indicated that Iran would not
accept the offer, the formal reply is still awaited. I doubt there
will be any shift in Iran's position --- sovereignty is a very hard
issue to break down, especially when it puts your energy supplies in
the hands of others --- but Brown's declaration, "Action will start
today on a new phase of sanctions on oil and gas," is a bit of
pre-emptive punishment.
Actually, though,
it's pre-emptive punishment without much substance. The EU has
agreed in principle to freeze the assets of Iran's largest bank,
Bank Melli, but has not implemented the decision pending the outcome
of the Solana talks. Even if it now goes ahead, guess what? The
Iranians have been busily moving assets to non-European banks and
holdings. Far more serious for Tehran are the continuing
restrictions on investment (there's a pretty sharp "insurance/risk"
premium on any "Western" company wishing to operate in Iran) but,
having borne that burden so far, it's doubtful the Iranian
Government will cave in now.
The political
reality, apart from the press-briefing puffery of Trans-Atlantic
co-operation, is that no European leader sees confrontation with
Iran as the overriding priority at the moment.
Bush’s bestest buddy Nicolas
Sarkozy in France did
not join in the President’s warning
to the Iranian
people
“that their leadership is willing to isolate them further". The
French leader’s grand vision is elsewhere,
as he laid out yesterday
in his proposal for a strategic re-design of France’s armed forces.
Angela Merkel in Germany also stood aside from any
endorsement of the Iran-first approach.
Both Merkel and
Sarkozy --- and every other person who hasn't been rendered
unthinking by the empty homilies about "American leadership" on this
trip --- know Bush is soon out the door. The hard talking on future
policies, in which Tehran's menace is only one sub-heading on a
crowded agenda, awaits the new Administration.
Far more importantly, however, the crisis for European
leaders is not thousands of miles away: as the Irish rejection of
the Lisbon Treaty set out all too clearly, bilateral ventures with
Washington will have to await more pressing issues of
multilateralism at home.
That
won’t stop George, of course. Having pulled Saddam’s statue five
years ago, he is still struggling to build one to himself.
At last
Friday’s state dinner in Paris, Sarzoky tried to put a diplomatic
full stop to the last seven years: “When the Bush family looks back
upon its past, it will have every reason to be satisfied.” Not so
fast, Nicky. Bush responded to the toast, “"You've
kind of written my political obituary tonight. I remind you, I don't
leave until January. And there's a lot we can still do."
Which
– despite all the indications that there isn’t much he can do --- is
a statement that both raises a smile and sends chills up the spine.
----------------------
June 13
Iraqi Government to US: Thanks but No Thanks
Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime
Minister, has just announced that talks with the US Government over a Status of
Forces Agreement are at a "dead end". CNN is reporting
"exclusively" that the Americans put a revised draft to the Iraqis
last weekend (just as Watching America mentioned it not-so-exclusively on
Wednesday). An aide to al-Maliki has made clear that the revision is no
different "in principle" from the original. And, in a clever political
turn, Iraqi officials are now saying that their own Parliament --- using
mandatory orders laid down by the Coalition Provisional Authority --- can draw
up their own guidelines for the continued presence of American forces
The rejection of the SOFA starts the
clock ticking on the American military but, with 6 1/2 months before the
UN mandate expires, the crisis lies elsewhere. Al-Maliki and advisors made their
decisions after weekend discussions in Iran. Spot the connection? It's not the
case (just to pre-empt Michael Ledeen and any other Reservoir Experts) that the
Iraqi Government is Tehran's puppet but it is clear that an acceptance of the US
provisions would have been difficult domestically, given the level of opposition
inside Iraq and splits in the Cabinet, and would have put al-Maliki in a very
tricky position as he tries to negotiate Iraq's position in the region.
With George Bush reduced to playing
the "Iran, Iran, it's all about Iran" card in his tour of Europe and
27 weeks before his successor pulls up in the White House, the US political
position is looking quite wobbly. If it doesn't break, that's due more to the
forebearance of others --- inside and outside Iraq --- than it is to the ongoing
surge.
----------------------
June 11
Wednesday Buffet
New British Counter-Insurgency
Strategy: Make Love, Not War
The Daily Telegraph concludes yet
another story of how British troops are winning the war in Helmand province in
Afghanistan with
this quote from a British soldier: "The Taliban took us from the rear
and we gave them a good spanking."
Just One Small Oversight
David Brooks, smartest social
commentator (ever) and ardent Republican, in
Tuesday's New York Times: "The most rampant decadence today is
financial decadence, the trampling of decent norms about how to use and harness
money....Between 1989 and 2001, credit-card debt nearly tripled, soaring from
$238 billion to $692 billion. By last year, it was up to $937 billion."
Number of times that Brooks mentions
the Federal
Government's budget deficit of $500 billion per year: 0
Number of minutes the BBC's Today
programme spent on Tuesday on protest over the Pakistani Government's
failure to reinstate Supreme Court judges: 6
Number of times the BBC mentioned
outstanding court indictments against Asif Zardari, the leader of the Pakistan
People's Party: 0
Reservoir Academics Update!
Our good friends Timothy Lynch and
Robert Singh have recycled their Wall Street Journal contribution ---
Bush Foreign Policy Yesterday, Bush Foreign Policy Today, Bush Foreign Policy
Forever --- in
Tuesday's Guardian.
Since Lynch and Singh haven't
remedied the lack of substance in the original piece, there's little that we can
add to our response of 3 June. Let's just say that we continue to admire their
shtick. Since few folks in what passes for the "mainstream" media will
have a kind word to say about the lame-duck President (even while they continue
to give policies such as the "surge" in Iraq a relatively free pass),
Lynch and Singh can position themselves as the edgy alternative. Style can go
some way to stand in for content, provocation for analysis.
Which brings us to....
Reservoir Academics' Great Moments in
History
George
Bush, 10 June 2008: “One of the untold stories of Iraq is that we explored
the diplomacy a lot — we all wanted to solve this ‘disclose, disarm, or face
serious consequences' in a diplomatic fashion. After all, I went to the United
Nations Security Council.”
George Bush, September 2002:
"'Do you want to know what the foreign policy of Iraq is to the United
States?", Bush asked angrily. The president then answered his own question
by raising in his middle finger and thrusting it inches in front of Senator
Daschle's face....'F*** the United States!' Bush continued. 'That's what it is
--- and that's why we're going to get him!'" (David Corn and Michael
Isikoff, Hubris, p. 117)
George Bush, 10 June 2008: "I
don't look at this thing in personal terms."
George Bush, 26 September 2002:
"After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time."
(Corn and Isikoff, p. 115)
----------------------
June 11
Update: Iraq and the "Status of Forces Agreement"
On Monday in Tehran, Iran
and Iraq signed a Memorandum of Understanding on defence cooperation. Shiite
lawmakers have told McClatchy Newspapers that the US, in the Status of
Forces Agreement, is requesting the use of 58 military bases; a
Kurdish Member of Parliament has told Al-Hayat newspaper that the Americans
have reduced their demands.
The
Washington Post, belatedly catching up with the story, has a telling quote:
""The
Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq,"
The significance is the source: Sami al-Askari is a senior Shi'ite politician
who is close to Prime Minister al-Maliki.
The
Post reports that President Bush has telephoned al-Maliki to persuade him of the
value of the agreement and that the US is circulating a watered-down
version of the proposal. It also has an interview with Mahmoud Othman, the
Kurdish MP quoted by Al-Hayat: he clarifies that the American concessions are
not on the number of bases but on provisions that "private contractors
would no longer be guaranteed immunity; detainees would be turned over to the
Iraqi judicial system after combat operations; U.S. troops would operate only
with the agreement of the Iraqi government; and the Americans would promise not
to use Iraq as a base for attacking other countries".
There is a useful analysis, "Al-Maliki’s
Balancing Act Leaves Iran Cool", via
GorillasGuides.
----------------------
June 10
When is Permanent not Permanent?
The US "Status of Forces Agreement" with Iraq
Last
Friday morning the BBC's flagship radio programme, Today, turned its
eagle-eyed attention to a proposed agreement between the US and Iraqi
Governments. This which would provide a mandate for the continued presence of
the American military, replacing the current UN-sanctioned mandate which expires
at the end of 2008.
What ensued was a propaganda piece
which not verged on falsehood but sprinted over the line. Correspondent Jim
Muir, evaluating the situation from deep inside the Green Zone, assured
listeners that the "Status of Forces" agreement was essential to
prevent Iraq from falling into disorder. A platform was then offered to retired
General Jack Keane, the man "behind the surge strategy in Iraq", to
lay down the law, so to speak.
Any Iraqi opposition, Keane assured,
was due to the "hubris" of the apparent Iraqi success in establishing
control of areas such as Basra and Sadr City. Iraqi security forces still were
in need of American support. (Thus, as the expertise of Jon Stewart's The
Daily Show has long noted, the perfect argument: If there is instability in
Iraq, we need to put in more American forces; if there is some sign of
stability, we need to keep those forces there.)
Having put America's supposed ally
in its place, Keane could then add that there was no provision in the agreement
--- none whatsoever --- for the US to carry out aerial operations without the
authorisation of the Iraqi Government. No provision, none whatsoever, for the
exemption of American military forces from Iraqi law.
The only problem is that Keane was
blatantly lying. And the BBC, had it had the integrity that it claimed in its
report, could easily have called up the evidence to show he was lying.
They could have done so because, the
day before their report, Patrick
Cockburn of the Independent had spectacularly exposed the provisions of
the agreement. The US Government is seeking an indefinite right to use more
than 50 bases throughout Iraq. And (take note, General Keane) "American
negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and
contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military
activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government".
(Cockburn
had a bit more the following day. Far from this being a free-and-fair
negotiation, the US Government was threatening a "freeze" on $50
billion of Iraqi assets in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The funds are
linked to $20 billion in outstanding court judgements in the US against the
Iraqi Government. Currently the US Government has kept them "immune"
from seizure, but they are threatening to revoke this immunity if there is a
hitch in the negotations over the Status of Forces Agreement.)
All credit to Cockburn for pulling
this together, but this is far from a new story. The negotiation has been going
on for months and, as was discussed during the most recent Petraeus-Crocker show
before the US Congress, the Bush Administration is avoiding any reference to the
agreement as a "treaty" to avoid putting it up for Congressional
approval.
The story has taken on new
impetus, however, not just because of the 31 July deadline set for its
completion but because of the growing opposition --- private and public --- in
Iraq. Unnoticed by most media outlets in the US and Britain, thousands of Iraqis
have been taking to the street in demonstrations. Leading
clerics in Iraq, including Ayatollah Sistani and Grand Ayatollah Mudaressi, have
not only objected but warned of "a popular uprising". The issue
may lay behind a serious split in the Iraqi Government, with
former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari being expelled from current Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party.
And, in the latest development, the
Status of Forces Agreement now appears to be playing into the hands of Iran.
Only last month, the US Government spin was that Iraqi officials were travelling
to Tehran to chastise the Iranians for providing weapons to insurgents. Well,
Prime Minister al-Maliki was in Iran last week and --- guess what? --- Iranian
duplicity wasn't the Number One item on his agenda.
Instead, al-Maliki is all but
pleading with the Iranians to lift their opposition to the agreement, assuring
Tehran that “we
will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and
its neighbors”. Significantly, according
to reports of the talks, the Iraqi delegation was discussing with Iranian
counterparts increased cooperation on issues such as border control and
intelligence.
The
SOFA episode is the ultimate demonstration, as the Bush Administration
approaches its end, of the "hubris" not of Iraqi but American
over-confidence. To the end, the US is trying to play a military hand in the
belief that the presence of its equipment and troops assures power (not to the
Iraqis, I hasten to add, but to Washington). The game, however, is now more
political than military. As Iraqi support --- on the street, amongst the
clerics, and within political factions --- erodes for the purported US
"cooperation", American force is now a bystander. A far-from-powerless
bystander, to be sure, but still a bystander as the "new Iraq" emerges
in a complex local and regional environment that can no longer be organised by
agreements despatched from Washington.
----------------------
June 6
Libertas Funtime Corner: Where's Ehud?
For all those who enjoyed the 1990s
phenomenon "Where's
Wally?" (or even for those who thought it was a pointless waste of
time), here's a sequel with a political edge:
Can you spot, in the city of
Washington DC, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert?
Now, even though the US capital is a
pretty big city, I have to admit I found this surprisingly easy. Here's a clue:
Ehud Olmert (left) with Senate
majority leader Harry Reid, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, and Senator
Richard Lugar
Ehud Olmert (left) with a man with a
very nice tie
So I was betting that, on Wednesday,
Ehud just might be at the US Capitol and that big mansion on 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue. And sure enough, the White House website gave away the secret, "President
Bush Meets with Prime Minister Olmert of Israel".
It seems, however, that this
challenge was too difficult for the reporters of both the New York Times and
Washington Post. Neither mentioned Olmert's discussions with the
President, except for the Post's use of it as wallpaper for the curious
feature, "Bush
Talks with Israeli Author [Natan Sharansky] Before Meeting Olmert".
Now, why should this matter?
Possibly because, according
to the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot, "Ehud Olmert will urge
President Bush to prepare an attack on Iran....Olmert...will say that 'time is
running out' on diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear program." And
while their meeting was behind closed doors, Olmert was not shy in
telling the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee that Iran 'must be
stopped by all possible means.'
Actually, it might be reassuring
that America's finest journalists on its finest papers (apart from the excellent
blogger Dan Froomkin) couldn't find this story. If the US Government was setting
up for an attack, its past form indicates that it would be spinning the Iranian
threat incessantly. (For the latest on how Bush and Co. lied --- yes, lied ---
to get war in Iraq, have a look at the long-delayed Senate report that emerged
yesterday.)
At the same time, it might be worth
the time for someone with Page 1 access to call the bluff. Instead, we're stuck
with would-be President Barack Obama caving in spectacularly to electoral
considerations. The man who once called for engagement with Tehran told
AIPAC, with no apparent irony, on Wednesday, "“I
will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Everything.”
All
sound and fury signifying nothing, at least with respect to a military strike,
but ensuring that this President --- and probably the next one --- feels no need
to acknowledge realities: 1) Iran suspended its nuclear weapons programme in
2003 while 2) Iran expanded its political influence in Iraq and in the Middle
East. If no one in Washington wants to "engage" with that, to the
point where the Israeli Prime Minister goes unnoticed, then the next party game
--- which will last a lot longer --- will be "Where's the Exit from this
Cul-de-Sac?"
----------------------
June 5
Drawing the Curtains on the Presidential Primaries
Amidst a round of media interviews
yesterday after the conclusion of the Democratic primaries, the following
thoughts --- for better or worse --- crystallised:
FIRST AND FOREMOST: TAKE A
BREATHER, EVERYBODY
And that's not just advice for the
sake of retaining some sanity after the political and media frenzy of the last
six months.
The electoral slate now gets wiped
clean until August. Of course the newspapers and TV stations, to fill pages and
airtime, will have to keep the speculation running --- this week's flurry of
stories about will-Hillary-make-up-with-Barack will be followed by whipped-up
drama over the choice of Vice Presidential running mates and the easy depiction
of Old Man McCain v. Young Whippersnapper Obama. The reality, however, is that
the starting gun for November's race will only be fired with the acceptance
speeches of McCain and Obama at their party conventions in August. It's only
when the white shoes get put away after Labor Day, the first Monday in
September, that the campaign will be defined for most voters (or, to be
specific, those magical "floating voters" who have not already made
their decision).
I think there's an even bigger and
better reason to go into a cooling-off period, however. By the end of the 5th or
6th interview, I could predict that the lead question would be, "So what do
you think of Barack Obama becoming the first black Presidential
nominee?", and I could predict with equal certainty that my chest would
tighten as I heard it. By the time the BBC's evening news was intoning,
"What role will race play in this election?", my partner was scooping
up the remote before it went flying at the TV screen.
In the mouth of British
interviewers, I don't think the question is meant with any malice. It is
remarkable, in the context of US history, that a mixed-race candidate has
finally put himself (as it would have been if a woman had put herself) on the
steps of the White House. And, given that Britain is a long way off from having
a person "of colour" in 10 Downing Street, the media here are not only
excited but vicariously proud that American cousins could be so politically
progressive.
My problem is that I don't think
"race" has played out so positively in these primaries. It's notable
that the media weren't as focused in January on the "first woman/first
black" angle. In large part --- at least with respect to the racial
dimension --- that is because Obama was not playing the black card. To the
contrary, his campaign of change was one that consciously went beyond race. Yes,
it would be a great marker that voters would flock to a person with his
background --- not just the background of his ethnicity but the background of
location (a candidate with roots in Africa and Asia as well as the United
States) and the background of class (a candidate who had made his way up through
American society --- the classic American tale of mobility). Obama, however, was
going to be a candidate for all Americans, not just the "black"
ones.
Race's image was stamped on this
campaign not by Obama but by his would-be detractors --- Hillary Clinton with
her insidious claim that African-Americans won the vital South Carolina primary
for Barack, the whipped-up furour over Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the narrative
of "working-class whites" as America's bedrock voters. It is to
Obama's
