My Blog is Your Blog

What would happen?

2005-11-07T19:04:00.000-08:00

Note- this is in response to my project/challenge at The Daily Demarche to envision what would happen if the coalition forces left Iraq immediately, submitted by Gollios. Please leave you comments at The Daily Demarche under the post entitled Bring the Troops Home Now!
Cheers,
Dr. Demarche.

In the first few days after the announcement of a withdrawal the news would be positive ranging on the ecstatic from the media. After all, the central cities...especially Baghdad, where most of the media services are, wouldn't see much of a change--at first. Long held but historically uninformed ideas by a range of pundits would seem to be validated. However, once the logistics of withdrawal were put in place we would see a huge upsurge in attacks by insurgents. After all, to win their version of the public relations game they would need to be seen as expelling the occupiers, and large scale attacks would have to be attempted. The coalition would weather it well by historical standards but not near well enough for today's interconnected world. Border controls on foreign-fighter entry by Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia would become relaxed, and many more jihadis would enter the country. From the standpoint of the hostile border states, this would be a 'last chance' to thin their excess trouble prone male youth against the US & coalition troops where they could be assured most of them would die. One of the reason said countries have been so complicit in allowing jihadis into Iraq is because if they die by American hands, they won't be destabilizing our own 'corpse in armor' regimes. At this time, things would take a distinctly darker turn. Despite good-faith efforts by elements of the coalition-trained Iraqi army & central government, the regions would start to unravel. The Kurds, knowing that they can neither count on our support or respect restraints imposed by the US, would accelerate ethnic cleansing efforts aimed at eventual secession. Iran would be emboldened to act in the South, which possibly could lead to a Shia-Shia schism, making that area of the country progressively less governable. Some like to think of the Shia as monolithic--however the Arab/Persian divide would once again be thrust to the forefront, as would divisions between Sadrist and Al-Sistani backed militias. The big losers in some ways would be the Sunni. Without engagement by the U.S., Shia and Kurdish forces would not have to act with restraint...and quickly the Sunni-nationalists would find themselves overrun--and often slaughtered by their erstwhile Jihadist 'allies.'

In the countryside things would be worse still. All of us have heard of the mass reeducation camps that followed the fall of Saigon, of Stalin's purges, and of the Khmer Rouge. Those occurred far away from western eyes. Jihadis, on the other hand, don't believe in the reeducation of infidels. Murder and torture are their prescribed remedy. They also happen to be media savvy. We would see the torture and murder of entire towns, of educated classes, of the Shia, and of anyone that participated in the post-Saddam government as a nightly horror show. And by the time the media noticed, and put forth a collective 'make it stop' outcry, we would no longer have the credibility or the leverage to do anything about it. After all, why should anyone respond to an American outcry when they left Iraq when they were winning?

The central government would increasingly be pulled by their regional interests, and as a result the most partisan and extreme politicians would rise. Rhetoric would replace the attempt at good governance. Meanwhile, the Iraqi army--elements of which are already the finest trained Arab forces, because of the American-introduced development of strong N.C.O.s--would be more and more likely to stage a coup. This is especially likely because our midwifery of the Iraqi forces in not complete. We need to make them accountable to civil control, build strong N.C.O.s, and develop transitions for those leaving the service to assume a life in the citizenry. We've just started the middle task--but without completing the other two we'd leave a strong army without checks upon it. Such a coup would initially be seen as a good thing in the West. However, due to actions by foreign nations and a radicalized population they would quickly loose control unless they instigated the most draconian--that is, Saddam-llike, measures. However, there is one question that needs answering, and is never asked by most of the mainstream media: Why would the rest of the middle east meddle in Iraq's affairs?

Fear and Opportunity
I used the phrase 'corpse in armor regimes' earlier. This isn't my idea...it comes from Robert Kaplan. It does, however, accurately describe Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser degree Iran. These regimes have not adapted well to the post cold war. Their militaries are large, but do not have effective methods of reintegrating former soldiers and officers--they end up as disaffected youths, corrupt government officials, or underused elites eyeing political power for themselves. The regimes have more freedom of action but are held more accountable by the people and posses large youth bulges they run the risk of destabilization by males aged 16-25 who have not 'bought in' to society through employment and marriage. That's one reason they are complicit about the exportation of Jihad. If these violence-prone youth die in Afghanistan, or the Balkans, or Chechnia, or Iraq, it's no longer the problem of their ruling elites. The fact that these governments have long been in power makes their ideas ossified...as does the lack of criticism from a 'loyal opposition.' A democratic Iraq that is stable and (especially) prosperous would hold up a mirror these regimes, and they would not like the reflection they see. Their current actions are based on the fear of loss of face, and loss of control. Due to the lack of strategic thinking they are ignoring the long term effects of current actions, to their grave peril. They do not see what they should truly fear.

An unstable Iraq along the lines or Somalia or Afghanistan, or even (hopefully) the former Yugoslavia in the nineties would be a true nightmare for the walking dead regimes. Their militaries cannot control their borders, and increased globalization would allow for populist movements to flourish...and without a mature opposition demagogues would compete in the fiery rhetoric department, without comprehension of what would realistically happen should their demands be implemented. The downtrodden in the middle east want a better life, not jihad--but the jihadis are the only one expousing an alternative that the government doesn't shut down (part our of fear, partly out of lack of vision). When extremism doesn't provide something better it will lead to more instability and disillusionment, making the ordinary citizen's life more dire and risky. Think of the latter stages of the French revolution...One ideology would replace another without affecting the well being of anyone, leading to a downward cycle that would be fueled continually by oil wealth. Would a Napoleon or Hitler arise? Perhaps. Or worse--the region could be isolated (except for heavily armed oil conveys dealing with the regimes du jour) and left to fester and burn itself out.

The rest of the gulf would also suffer. Destabilization would put an end to the rise of Qatar, the U.A.E., and the other modernizing sheikdoms. Security the global financial markets require would be impossible. Jordan, which has made the most honest effort to improve the lives of its people, would face increasing pressure from Saudi Arabia and Syria as those central governments lost control of their people. It might lead, however, to even closer ties with Israel. The Palestinian attempt at self-government would end badly, due to radicalization of societal elements and Iranian influence (more on the later).

I mentioned opportunity as well. Many of the regimes see an opportunity to gain influence and power in the rubble of Iraq--this also influences their actions. This is especially true for Iran. The current government is trying to regain the support of its people by promoting war with 'the other.' It is not the west that needs Iran as an enemy...the Mullahs need something to set up in opposition. They would seize the opportunity provided by American withdrawal to step up activity with the Iraq shia. In my opinion, this would end badly, but the Iranian leadership doesn't care...they just want their country mobilized. They think they can blame all on the West. Likewise with their efforts in Palestine and Lebanon, as well as their effort to acquire nukes. Their priority is cementing their own power, and they see an endless jihad, AKA 'The Clash of Civilizations', AKA a new cold war, as a perfect opportunity.

An Israel, on the other hand, sees American withdrawal from the Middle East as abandonment. Without our influence to limit the actions of Arab regimes Israel would likely see no option but to act unilaterally. Israel would strike Iran's nuclear facilities, and would start acting far harsher to its neighbors. This in turn, would lead to even more instability and the life of the ordinary citizen would become increasingly anarchic. What next? Eventually another power would enter the game to stabilize the region--probably with a wink and a nod from Israel, the surviving middle east regimes, and the European Community. The US is out...the UN is ineffective, and the EU lacks the drive or military power. That leaves Russia, which most likely would partner with Iran--which would stabilize the Caucuses (snuffing out democratic dreams in the process) but not the rest of the region, due to long-standing resentment between Arabs and Persians. There is one other player, however...

Enter the Dragon
China would enter the breach left by the departure of the Anglophone coalition. India would most likely be a junior partner. They have many in the region who could influence the course of events due to the large migrant worker populace in the M.E. Up to now India's ties with America have been getting stronger, but were we to show such fickle foreign policy they would turn their attentions to China immediately. If we withdrew from the middle east, why would we side with India--which has no oil--against China? The effect of Chinese hegemony in the region is beyond the scope of this essay, or the writer's knowledge. However, three questions should be posed:

1. Would China attach as much priority to the economic and societal development as the region as we (the anglophone sphere) would?
2. Would they be encouraged or discouraged from taking bolder action vis-a-vis Japan & Taiwan?
3. If through their influence they had more control over the 'oil weapon' what would they do with it on the international scene?

The War at Home
Many have claimed that Iraq is 'another Vietnam.' In my opinion the only way it will be is if we withdraw unilaterally without building durable institutions, and supporting the nacant government economically, politically, and militarily for a decade or so. For example, our withdrawal from Vietnam certainly emboldened the U.S.S.R. and its proxies to step up actions in the third world. This led to their fueling of instability in central America, the Khmer Rouge regime, and the Ethiopian collectivization.

Things would be worse than post-Vietnam in the middle east and Africa, however. The U.S.S.R. was a much more rational actor than the jihadis. As horrid as the communist governments were, they provided a kind of regional stability. The Jihadis can only export anarchy--Anarchy that endangers us and wrecks the lives of others--and anarchy we would witness on a daily basis because of increasing interconnectivity. Immediate withdrawal would leave a power vacuum that other countries far less liberal than the U.S. would fill. As Niall Ferguson has said "There is often a view than if only the U.S. would stop intervening abroad the rest of the world would join hands and enact the lyrics from John Lennon's 'Imagine.' History suggests otherwise."

On a more micro level, these are some things we could expect stateside:

1. Reenlistment and recruiting among the military to drop dramatically.
2. Acceleration of the realignment of political parties to the benefit of the neo-isolationists from the left and the right. Disillusionment in the electorate, leading to societal navel-gazing. This would lead to a greater risk of ignoring the next threats to our security and way of life.
3. Increased estrangement of 1st & 2nd generation Immigrants from the Muslim world.
4. Less credibility in Europe, leading to less influence. Expect to see Eastern Europe being bullied more by the German/French Axis and Russian to reassert it's Soviet era sphere of influence.
5. Speaking of Europe...the French riots that are in their 9th day? You ain't seen nothin' yet.

These predictions are rather dire--in some ways their a worst case scenario. However, isn't it the job of our State and DOD representatives to worst-case every potential point of conflict? I think one thing that is apparent is that even if we were to withdraw troops we would need enough of a force to remain to be a credibly interlocutor in the region. An immediate withdrawal would be disastrous, and I doubt it would occur anywhere but in uber-lefty-pundit-fantasyland.

Unfortunately, stranger things have happened...

Gollios

On Terri Schiavo

2005-03-23T01:14:00.000-08:00

This is a response to New Sisyphus

In Computer Science, we used to say: "Garbage In, Garbage Out. That is, no matter how correct the procedures followed, if the input data is incorrect, then the results are wrong.

Likewise, if the facts are ambiguous or contested, then the results are invalid.

I find it disconcerting to say the least that, despite the repeated efforts of the Schindlers to have the facts reappraised, for over ten years the courts have contented themselves with procedural verification.

My understanding is that the medical examination that led to the diagnosis of persistent vegetative state was done over ten years ago (and may have been cursory).

Let's see: Do doctors ever make mistakes in diagnosis? Do judges ever make mistakes in determination of fact? And, have medical technology and diagnostic methods improved over the past ten years, so that diagnosis of brain function would be both more precise and less prone to error?

First two questions: Yes. Third question: I believe Yes, grounded in my lay impressions and my knowledge of computer technologies.

We are supposedly in a science-based society. Well, in science, if there is doubt or contention as to the facts (for example, in order to decide between two theories), the interested parties go out and observe, experiment, examine, and while doing so thrash out the significance of the findings, returning to observe, experiment, and examine some more, until what the facts are and their significance are accepted. (The process is different when scientists attempt to build a new theory, rather than choosing between existing ones.)

The two theories here are (from a quick search for the definition of PVS):

the part of Terri's brain providing cognitive neurological function (e.g. speech, movement, thought) is fully dead;

versus

the part of Terri's brain providing cognitive neurological function has not died.

From the information at (for example) this site, PET scans seem to be able to distinguish these two theories clearly and unambiguously.

A major advantage of carrying out a full examination including such a test, is the closure it brings to all parties, including the attentive public and the professionals who signed the affidavits. As things stand now, there are no widely accepted facts, and therefore no closure.

So why wasn't a PET scan (or some other diagnostic procedure, if more accurate) carried out before Terri's food tube was yanked?

I'm wondering if one of the reasons is that we are not (or no longer) a science-based society. It seems to me that far too often, once an assertion of fact is accepted, even tentatively, it seems that very few people attempt to challenge its validity, examine its truth content, or even care whether it is true or not. Besides the Schiavo case, I'm thinking here of Kyoto, and the assertion that the human brain/mind is a computer (it's a metaphor, not a statement of fact), among others. (This isn't the right place to elaborate, alas.)

As other commenters have pointed out, there are also several disturbing inconsistencies and apparent conflicts of interest, particularly regarding Michael Schiavo. What really gets me though: We women have emancipated ourselves, we can own property, we make our own decisions, all without permission from a husband (or father or brother). It is also well established that husbands do occasionally abuse wives, sometimes even murdering them. There are laws against that, and abusive husbands are normally caught and punished. So why has Michael Schiavo been treated by the courts as if he could not possibly be nasty or conflicted?

Lots of questions from many sources. I hope some at least will be answered in the months and years ahead.

Simone
simone_r0@yahoo.com

UPDATE:

CodeBlueBlogMD discusses a CT scan (claimed to be Terri's from 1996) and a bone scan report from 1991. Read the comments too. (Hat-tip: NRO/Corner)
Correction: The scan, if it is Terri's, was done nine years ago (so I was wrong about the "more than ten years" above).

NYT finds missing WMDs?

2005-03-15T11:31:00.000-08:00

Christopher Hitchens in Slate regarding NYT article:

Thus, if the story is factually correct—which we have no reason at all to doubt—then Saddam's Iraq was a fairly highly-evolved WMD state, with a contingency plan for further concealment and distribution of the weaponry in case of attack or discovery.

So, according to the NYT:

- In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting.

As Hitchens points out, calling it looting is fairly ridiculous. It was an organized effeort to remove large quantities of hardware. Things useful in making WMDs. And the WMDs themselves? It isn't too much of a leap is it? Hitchens makes that leap, but the times apparently can't. Perhaps we will get a chance to look at some of that stuff in Syria when the Assad regime falls. Or maybe we can dig it up in Lebanon.

MSD

2005-03-12T17:54:00.000-08:00

An amazingly obtuse article in the Nation. The central thesis is that the crazy democracy cowboy Bush is destroying democracy by cunningly pushing... um, democracy.

The only idea that has ever stood up to kings, tyrants and mullahs in the Middle East is the promise of economic justice, brought about through nationalist and socialist policies of agrarian reform and state control over oil.

Um, sure. That would explain all the flourishing socialist utopias dotting the region. Correct me if I am wrong but all the worst mass murding despots of the twentieth century rose to power on "the promise of economic justice, brought about through nationalist and socialist policies..."

Freedom and democracy need to be liberated from Bush's deadly embrace and returned to the movements of the Middle East that have been struggling for these goals for decades. They have a story of their own to finish.

Returned? Did the US come in and rip democracy from some liberal regime to whom it legitamately belongs? I think not. There was no democracy in Iraq. There is none in Saudi Arabia or Iran. Now there is a fledgeling democracy in Iraq, under attack by ruthless zealots who hack the heads off children. They are struggling to form a government and write a constitution. I suggest now is not the perfect moment to leave them in the lurch. They do have a story to finish. And now that a certain Texan cowboy has made it possible they can get on with it.

MSD

Courthouse shooting.

2005-03-11T18:28:00.000-08:00

One thing that bothers me is that I heard the name of the judge constantly. Repeatedly. Continuously. Over and Over... But I don't recall hearing the names of any other victims. If they were mentioned, it was with nothing like the frequency of the Judge's name. In fact I think I heard more about the unlucky Atlanta Journal & Constitution reporter who got car-jacked than about the other victims, other than the Judge of course. I suppose it is only natural, but I would have hoped for better from the press, you know the champion of the little guy. And if names werent released for some other reason, notification of kin perhaps, then why not apply the same courtesy to the Judge. Any way I look at this, the press' behavior seems deplorable. It just sounded like "he shot Judge Barnes, a well liked judge, who was kind and fair and wonderful, and some other people." Repeated as nauseum for 5 hours (and more). Maybe I am overly sensitive.

This is all in addition to the larger point, larger to the general public at least. How in god's name does a gun toting maniac murder 3 people in a county court house and GET AWAY?

Is there some sort of gross negligence underlying this? Do they not have a procedure for locking down the building? Don't the doors lock? Where were the sherriffs in charge of exit security? How does an armed maniac not only get out of the building, but evade police entirely for the entire day? In a time of heightened security, it seems inconcievable. I hope the enthusiasm for this story lasts long enough past the 24 hour news cycle for the press to raise important security questions.

Let us all pray for the families of these fallen public servants and demand of the officials involved a true accounting of this hideous lapse. Maybe its time to look up our own sherrifs and ask what measures are in place to prevent similar tragedies in our local courthouse.

MSD

Pure Genius

2005-03-02T17:47:00.000-08:00

Now this is pure genius.

Heck, I think maybe someone ought to go try this game with congress!

hat tip to Trent Mcbride at Catallarchy

MSD

Still failing on Public Diplomacy

2005-02-28T12:10:00.000-08:00

From The Economist. The article is about the growing choices in arab media. Overall, a positive development. I was struck by this part however.

Captain Josh Rushing, who was a military spokesman during the invasion of Iraq, says now that his commanders should have realised that the best way to reach Arab audiences was via al-Jazeera. “They should have identified this as mission critical,” he told an interviewer from America's partly state-funded PBS network last year. Amazingly, the American government still has no permanent, camera-trained spokesman capable of delivering its views in polished Arabic.

That seems unbelievable. Is it really possible that the US can't get its collective act together enough to put out a consistent, polished message in arabic, the language of our enemy in the War on Terror? Sadly, it appears to be so.

MSD

Is the Libertarian Party party good for libertarians?

2005-02-23T18:23:00.000-08:00

I myself have wondered over the past couple election cycles if the Libertarian Party is actually promoting libertarian ideals in the country at large. I voted Libertarian in '88, '90, and '92, but became disillusioned. Now I read this by Randy Barnett:

Whatever one thinks of the initial creation of the Libertarian Party, its continued existence seems to be a mistake for libertarians.

Definately read the whole post. His point is that the LP dilutes the amount of libertarian activists in the two major parties. I hope he expands on this theme in the future. I agree with all that he says, but my own path away from the LP came in from meeting other Libertarians. Almost every one I met was so far from me on social issues that it became almost embarrassing to me. They were all about legalizing pot, open borders, non-conformity (apparently for its own sake), legalizing pot, earth day, and legalizing pot.

You could eventually get them pinned down to being for smaller government, less taxes and personal freedoms (that didn't involve pot) but they were way more vocal and passionate about causes that seemed, to me at least, liberal. I guess I am just a conservative at heart, or maybe I just had too narrow a circle of libertarian acquaintences.

See also Jonah Goldbergs thoughts about conservative vs libertarian. Definately follow the link to Ramesh Ponnuru's posts too. All interesting stuff.

MSD

Um, ya right...

2005-02-19T19:19:00.000-08:00

A Slate article about hot lesbian sex in The L Word :

All that sex isn't there just for fun. For the very first show on television about lesbians to depict lesbian sexuality as hot isn't pornographic; it's corrective.

...our more pervasive cultural fantasy about lesbian sexuality is that it is not all that sexual.

I guess at Slate they don't get out much. Its pure softcore porn, and its on Showtime because it sells. Anyone who has ever been in an adult bookstore or video store knows that the "pervasive cultural fantasy" about lesbians doesnt have much to do with the liberal wierdness that Slate thinks it does.

MSD

Pyrrhic victory?

2005-02-19T17:20:00.000-08:00

In an article (non-copyable pdf) in the February Foreign Service Journal David D. Newsom sets out the idea that the Cold War was perhaps a pyrrhic victory. He suggests that actions taken to thwart global communism were in fact seen as pro-colonial by many third world countries and thus resulted in many lost opportunities and an unnecessary loss of good will.

I suppose it is inevitable that people will wonder whether we might have taken a better course in Africa, Asia, and especially the Middle East. It is healthy to examine past performance in hopes of enhanceing future outcomes. It begs the question, however, what should we have done instead? There seem to be only two possible courses of action. We could let the communist backed movements have free reign or we could support their opposition, be it the incumbant regime or efforts to overthrow the incumbant.

Mr. Newsom seems to be saying that it would have been better to let all those Marxist, soviet funded and trained "independence" movements succeed. Of course, some did succeed. Cuba comes to mind. Not exactly a paradise by any measure I would employ, and certainly not an advertisement for how relations with the US could have been improved. But then again leftists are often touting Cuba as utopia light, so perhaps that is indeed what Mr. Newsom means.

The US had a comprehensive strategy to push back against Communism wherever possible. Of course it would have been nice to have the luxury of installing nice western democracies the world over, but doing so would not have won the US any additional love. In many places where the US did indeed install or preserve democracy it is less popular than it is many of the same post colonial countries Mr. Newsom names. I am no expert on colonial or post colonial policies and politics, and Mr. Newsom certainly is an expert. But, it seems like Monday morning quarterbacking of the worst kind to say the cold war was a pyrrhic victory without at least laying out a plausible alternate outcome. It is all the more annoying since he was actually there and involved. If the victory is pyrrhic he should come out and say what outcome he would like to have seen instead, and how it could have been produced.

MSD

Dr. D's objections to Mowbray

2005-02-19T11:23:00.000-08:00

This is an attempt to continue the discussion of Dr. Demarche's Feb. 16 post, Enough, Joel. Can you help, or not? I'll try to summarize my comments on that post (I signed them 'e-hadj' which is a screen name of mine) , and then respond to points raised since then.

And keep in mind I'm a big fan of Dr. D, Smiley, and, I hope, a constructive critic of the State Department.

In the comments, others have adequately defended Joel Mobray's scathing criticism of the Visa problems pre 9-11, and his judgment that State was slow to fix them. I think State has made significant reforms and progress since then, and I think Mowbray's continued harping on the Visa issue is, IMO, his perhaps unproductive way of highlighting not the process problem (bad Visa procedures, or good procedures not followed), and not the policy problem (for which Dr. D correctly points out, Congress has a large part of the blame), but (dare I suggest) an attitude problem. I don't think it's sunk in at State how alienated ordinary Americans feel from this institution, and not just on the Visa issues. And I think blogs like Dr. D's are a huge help in addressing this problem.

On to specifics, then more speculation, brainstorming and tangents on my part.

OK, Mowbray hasn't given State enough credit for Visa reforms. I agree the reforms have been significant, and agree that for the remaining problems, Congress is largely to blame. Maybe Mowbray isn't treating State fairly on other fronts, too, I haven't read enough of him to have an opinion. Nevertheless, based on what I've read here and in his columns, he was right to criticize the ill-timed (or perfectly timed, depending...) leak of the classified No Dominos report.

I can't help wondering why we don't see State playing the same level of hardball (embarrassing Congress, the White House, or whoever else is part of the problem) on other issues, such immigration reform, or the disgraceful state of U.S. public diplomacy in the world today.

Yes, leaking is commonplace. I'm not pretending to be shocked. I'm simply citing it as evidence as to where State's passions lie as an institution. On opposing the war, they were passionate, and willing to go to the mat. On fixing the Visa, etc. problems mentioned, they clearly care about these, but less so. State's passion on this is to be admired if one opposes the Iraq war; but for those who support the war, State's passion (and it's illicit behavior) is grating.

re General Shinseki, he is a class act. I know he wasn't forced to retire, just that his retirement was prematurely announced in an intentionally irregular and embarrassing way. I'm not sure extra troops alone would have changed everything, but in retrospect, they would certainly have helped. I'd glossed over these points to save space.

My point was that there was presumably a great deal of internal debate at both State and Defense on the Iraq war. IMO, Shinseki came to symbolize, not just the immediate question (do we need c. 100K troops, or substantially more), but also all the other questions (like, should we be going at all). Embarrassing him publicly was correctly interpreted both inside and outside Defense that, not only were we going to go with the Rumsfeld plan for c. 100K troops, but that it was time to set aside any other reservations Defense might have as an institution, for the good of the troops and the country.

I think there was a substantial, but minority community at State who disagreed with the war, but who did get behind the President's plan, that did offer some great ideas and institutional resources that could have made a difference in the post-invasion phase. These resources and ideas, as far as I can tell, weren't deployed until months later, if at all. For example: State could have had a prepared, sophisticated, regionally savvy, massive public diplomacy campaign that kicked off the day after the statue fell. Instead, al-Jazeera and it's ilk filled the information vacuum, with disastrous results.

In part, that's because Defense, the White House, etc. didn't have a post-war plan (or IMO, had a plan that turned out to be too laissez-faire...but that's not the debate I want to have right now). Frankly, in part it's also because State either doesn't have, or failed to employ, or failed to employ soon enough, a Shinseki-like mechanism for telling itself, it's colleagues at Defense, the White House, the world, etc, that it was unequivocally on board. Frankly, I'm not sure State as an institution *ever* got on board, or at least, not as unreservedly as Defense did.

I'm open to being persuaded otherwise in a way that Mowbray probably isn't. Anyone care to try?

If not, meaning: if one thinks that State *shouldn't* have ever gotten on board, my advice is simple: That's wrong. It assumes a prerogative for State to define the national interest independently of the other branches of government. State is incredibly important, it is the first (and therefore senior) cabinet department mentioned in the Constitution, Fifth (I think) in the line of succession to the Presidency, etc., but it is not a separate branch of government.

Constructive criticism welcome.

- e-Hadj

Condi's appropriations statement

2005-02-16T19:51:00.000-08:00

An excerpt: "We must strengthen the recruitment of new personnel. We are seeking $57 million for 221 new positions to meet core staffing and training requirements. And as we seek out new talent, we also seek to further diversify our workforce in the process. We send an important signal to the rest of the world about our values and what they mean in practice when we are represented abroad by people of all cultures, races, and religions. Of course, we also must cultivate the people we already have in place – by rewarding achievement, encouraging initiative, and offering a full range of training opportunities. That includes the training and support needed to make full use of new technologies and tools, and we are asking for $249 million for investment in information technology." My comments, 1) Its not clear to me if the 221 number is for additional personel above normal attrition, or a total planned hiring. I suspect its the latter though of course I would be happy to be wrong about that since I dearly wish to be one of those hires. 2) I hope that doesnt mean racial or religious quotas. It seems like an unlikely thing from a republican administration, but who knows. I am against quotas as I think they make for lots of bad feelings among staff and unfairly stigmatize those they are menat to help, but thats just my opinion. 3) I am encoursaged by the apparent continuation of Sec. Powel's drive to update the information technology of the State Department. My understanding is that the state of IT at DoS was absolutely shameful. Ridiculous that that should be so. Anyway, just my random thoughts on exciting congressional testimony... I think I need to get out more... MSD

Some people finally appear to be getting a clue!

2005-02-16T09:34:00.000-08:00

From USA Today
The article reaches the conclusion that fake praise is damaging rather than beneficial. Apparently all that fake esteem building junk makes really confident wusses:

She also has noticed that the undergraduates she teaches tend to have an inflated sense of self.

"When you correct writing, they'll say, 'It's just your opinion,' which is infuriating. Bad grammar and spelling and sentences being wrong is not my opinion, it's just bad writing," she says.

So when the criticism flows, some college students are increasingly seeking counseling.

Of course anyone with an ounce of sense has known this since the education establishment morons started pushing this crud in the 80s. Glad it only took trashing one generation for them to finally catch on.

MSD

State needs better PR?

2005-02-14T08:58:00.000-08:00

Joel Mowbray has a column today that seems pretty damning to State, not surprising really given his past writings. I wonder if DoS has responded to these attacks? I don't find (in an admittedly cursory search) any rebutal of his continuing charges on the DoS site, nor by anyone else (googling around). If we hold to the debate theory that un-countered points are won, Mr. Mowbray seems to definately have the upper hand here.
In his latest column he makes two specific charges.

Sometimes the undermining comes in the form of withholding valuable information. Two State Department officials learned in March 2003 that North Korea was reprocessing plutonium. The timing could not have been worse, however, because it was on the eve of talks State desperately wanted. If the Pentagon or the White House found out, the talks would be canceled. So State stayed silent. The White House and Pentagon were blindsided with the news at the talks.

and

Sometimes, though, State battles Bush more directly. On February 26, 2003, the State Department released a report—which was leaked to the LA Times—called “Democracy Domino Theory: Not Credible.” On the same day, Bush laid out his vision for, well, a democracy domino theory in the Arab world.

Both of these would seem to be easily substantiated or debunked. If true, certainly we could look forward to disciplinary measures at State. If false I would like to see someone on a big microphone taking Mr. Mowbray to task. This doesnt seem to have happened in the past though so I don't hold out much real hope. And in either case I think that State needs to be more active in communicating to the US public, whom it ultimately serves, just what the heck is going on.

In the end I would like to believe that Mr. Mobray, who doesnt name any names in this column, is merely an overzealous reporter with an axe to grind and a book to sell. But if his accusations are not credibly countered, I am afraid I might start believing him.

I would welcome any pointers to sources rebutting Mr. Mowbray.

MSD

2005-02-05T19:16:00.000-08:00

Wow. How can you not love Condi?

"There cannot be an absence of moral content in American foreign policy," she says. "Europeans giggle at this, but we are not European, we are American, and we have different principles."

(found via Jonah Goldberg)
Anyone know the origin of this quote?

MSD

Pictures From Syria

2005-02-05T10:54:00.000-08:00

I read the post below about Syrian elections, and I thought I'd send out the link for some pictures I took while I was there.

One is a bit dark, but it's when I crossed the border. I quietly sang the Star-Spangled Banner under the watchful eye of Assad the tyrant's picture everywhere. I'm working on putting up some "art" from the Syrian Military Museum. I convinced the curator that I was a Palestinian sympathizer (at least the Leftist kind), so he let me take pictures.

Check them out at Terrorism Unveiled.

Ha Ha Ha

2005-02-05T09:16:00.000-08:00

Those Syrians...

Results from Monday’s Syrian elections were announced today, with a clear mandate handed to Bashar Assad, with his ruling Ba'ath party sweeping the elections with a staggering 95% of the votes. However, opposition parties such as the Communist Party and the Liberal Syrian Nationalist Party voiced complaints that their election results of negative 5 and 3 percent respectively were products of an unfair and rigged election process. The head of the Ba'ath party regional politburo promised to immediately look into allegations of fraud and “resolutely and mercilessly deal with complaints so that they never ever happen again...ever.”!

Be sure to read the whole thing, and read ITM regularly if you don't already!

MSD

2005-02-04T10:29:00.000-08:00

Another nice take from Slate:

If "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il of North Korea and George W. Bush ever meet, I suspect the two will bond like long-lost brothers. Both men are first-born sons of powerful fathers who partied like adolescents well into their adult lives, after which they submitted to their dynastic fates as heads of state. Both avoid critical thought, preferring to surround themselves with yes men and apply propagandistic slogans to the onrushing complexities of justice, culture, economics, and foreign policy.

Yep, and it's getting harder and harder to ignore the hundreds of thousands of americans languishing in concentration camps, and the millions who are starving to death. I myself won't even listen to the radio for fear my family will be sent to a re-education camp. Most of my family is subsisting on grass these days and it is death to criticise Bush...

Even when he goes out and inexplicably frees millions from tyrrany under false pretexts of grabbing their oil, dissent is not allowed! Oh, what a state...

MSD

Nice neutral article from the Economist

2005-02-03T13:43:00.000-08:00

The Economist starts an article about GWB's reading Natan Sharansky with:

George Bush is having an intellectual love affair

“INTELLECTUAL” is hardly the first word that springs to mind when you contemplate George Bush. Mr Bush glided through the best education that money can buy without acquiring much in the way of “book learning”. At school, he formed a stick-ball team called the Nads (providing him and his pals with a chance to shout “Go Nads”); at Yale, he was famous for doing the alligator, a dance that involved falling on the floor and rolling around; at Harvard Business School, he wore cowboy boots and chewed tobacco, a strutting provocation to the lefty penseurs who dominated Harvard Yard.

and ends it with:

The second is that you cannot spread goodness around the world unless you hold yourself to the same standards. Mr Sharansky has lost some of his moral authority because of his relative silence on the sufferings of the Palestinians—and not just among pampered Europeans but also among fellow Israelis, who know what it means to live in a tough neighbourhood. When Mr Bush talks about freeing captives, the rest of the world looks at Guantánamo Bay.

The trouble with Mr Bush's new doctrine is not that he has naively embraced freedom and democracy, but that he hasn't embraced them tightly enough.

I'd say read the whole thing, but I don't really think you need too.
It just drips with liberal elitist gobbledy-gook. Heh, he ain't got no fancy book-lernin' eh? It must just really frost those lefty elite school snobs that GWB has the same acedemic pedigree that they do. But, well, he didn't dress right, so it doesnt really count...

I typically love the Economist, but articles like this make me wish there were another, less lefty loving, international weekly.

MSD

A Vote to Persevere

2005-01-31T11:39:00.000-08:00

Cori Dauber's comment on today's WaPo editorial was "I wish I could write like this"

This is the closing paragraph, RTWT:

Yesterday, however, Americans finally got a good look at who they are fighting for: millions of average people who have suffered for years under dictatorship and who now desperately want to live in a free and peaceful country. Their votes were an act of courage and faith -- and an answer to the question of whether the mission in Iraq remains a just cause.

Post by Steve

Rush the plagarist?

2005-01-31T10:39:00.000-08:00

Well, perhaps plagarist isnt the right word. To start the day Rush Limbaugh mentioned that he was out reading blogs as prep work. I am not surprised of course, but it just drove home a point that I have been noticing over the past year of intermitently listening to him. His show topics, and to a large degree the content of the show, appear to be not much more than a recap of whats floating that day in on Instapundit, Drudge, Powerline, LGF, etc. In many cases I find listening to Rush to be a boring repeat of what I have already seen on the web in the first few hours of the day.

ANyone else notice that? I guess his show has always been current events driven. Maybe now we all just have access to where he gets his show prep. Or maybe he is just getting lazy. Or maybe, my prefered (wishful thinking?) theory, conservative ideas are so much in the air now-a-days that Rush just seems like more of the same, instead of a lone voice.

MSD

Arabic press conspiracy theories for the Tsunami

2005-01-30T16:43:00.000-08:00

MEMRI has a roundup of Arabic press conspiracy theories for the Tsunami. Here's the featured items from Special Dispatch Series - No 842.

1. Palestinian Friday Sermon by Sheik Mudeiris: The Tsunami is Allah's Revenge at Bangkok Corruption

2. Advisor to Saudi Arabia's Justice Minister: The Nations were Destroyed for Lying, Sinning, and being Infidels

3. Saudi Professor Sheikh Fawzan Al-Fawzan: Allah Punishes for Homosexuality and Fornication at Christmas

4. Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-Munajjid: Allah Finished Off the Richter Scale in Revenge of Infidel Criminals

And my personal favorite scientific explanation:

5. Egyptian Nationalist Weekly- U.S.-Israel-India Nuclear Testing May have Caused Asian Tsunami; The Goal- Testing how to Liquidate Humanity

"But the scientific reports stated that there had been nuclear activity in this region- particularly after America's recent decision to rely largely on the Australian desert- part of which is inside the 'Ring of Fire'- for its secret nuclear testing.

"Similarly, many international reports spoke of joint Indian-Israeli nuclear activity. Moreover, only this year Arab and Islamic countries intervened more than three times in the U.S. to stop this joint nuclear activity.

Posted by Steve

Friends of Democracy C-SPAN Panel

2005-01-30T13:38:00.000-08:00

The C-SPAN live panel discussion has just finished. It was an emotional experience. Kudos to Jim Hake, Spirit of America, and the donor/supporters of Spirit of America for funding and organizing this event.

It is the first case of an historic event, that I'm aware of, where the public was able to receive direct, unfiltered reportage and commentary. This "truly free channel" bypassed the "legacy media" completely. So we were able to hear directly from Iraqis all over Iraq, from expats in the US, with objective studio commentary by serious people. Not in view were any network $6M-anchors spinning the story.

If you missed the live cable coverage, or the webcast, I believe you'll be able to order the broadcast from the C-SPAN archives here [it takes a couple of weeks for the content to become available].

As I mentioned earlier Michael J. Totten was asked to serve as the "editor" of questions submitted from the web to the panelists. A description of the process and some snippets from the panel discussion are here on Michael's site.

If you're wondering from where Michael was receiving the online questions, that Friends of Democracy comments page is here. . Be warned that the comments are also un-filtered, there are some pro-Saddam comments in the mix.

There are also comments at Michael's site.

I won't close with a lot of "yes, but" qualifiers - there will be a quite ample supply of that reportage to be read/heard in the legacy media. For now I'm happy to celebrate with the Iraqis their success in today's battle, just one battle of a long war against tyranny.

Posted by Steve

Iraqi Elections: PBS Roundtable with real experts

2005-01-29T13:01:00.000-08:00

"A Democracy is Born": This panel discussion is an excellent overview by some knowledgeable scholars. Panelists include:

Paul Gigot, moderator.

Michael Rubin - a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former official of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad.

Fouad Ajami - director of the Middle East Studies Program at Johns Hopkins University.

Daniel Henniger - deputy editor WSJ editorial board.

You can jump directly to the Full transcript:

Posted by Steve

Iraqi Election: Friends of Democracy has arranged C-SPAN coverage

2005-01-29T13:00:00.000-08:00

From the Spirit of America website, Friends of Democracy has arranged C-SPAN coverage at a conference in Washington, DC. The 2 hour event will begin at 2pm (Eastern).

The event will provide a complete picture of Iraq’s elections from the point of view of the Iraqi people and expert commentators. The event will be based on reports, video and photos received from Friends of Democracy correspondents and staff in Iraq. News and information will also come into Friends of Democracy from Iraqi bloggers, from the Iraqi people via email and from other local Iraq media.

And this announcement note from Jim Hake to Powerline:

Great news! We've just received confirmation that C-SPAN is planning to cover Spirit of America's Iraq election event this Sunday from 2pm to 4pm Eastern (11am to 1pm Pacific). Please watch. Your support has made this possible. Please forward this message far and wide and encourage people to tune in.

Iraq's elections are an historic event. This broadcast will provide a unique, more complete picture of the elections with ground-level news and views from the Iraqi people. You will get much more than the typical focus on violence and terrorism. We'll have reports, photos and video from all corners of Iraq. The broadcast event is described here

Posted by Steve

What protections?

2005-01-26T17:20:00.000-08:00

Just listening to O'Reilly on Fox News.

Approximate quote talking to Maggie Gallagher about accepting money from the DHHS for materials she produced for them without disclosing the deal, "just remember, we're journalists. We have protections other people don't have..."

What is he talking about? I don't follow legal issues too closely, but, umm, don't all americans pretty much have that whole freedom of speech thing?

MSD

Immigration

2005-01-24T22:44:00.000-08:00

Regarding the immigration pieces at the Daily Demarche: The New Third Rail and El otro lado:

I thought the CA and AZ anti-immigration laws were widely assailed as racist. How are these laws passing and why would we, a nation of immigrants, allow this? Aren't we denying our own history and simply slamming the door on the world behind us?

Countries that money is sent back to benefit from these funds and at least we get something for it in the form of labor. How much do we get back just from giving money away?

SLM

Buried Treasure!

2005-01-23T18:56:00.000-08:00

If the best hopes in THIS were to pan out...
Well I can't find the words to describe it. The value to civilization woud be incalculable. Is it really possible that there is a library under the slopes of Vesuvius that might contain hitherto lost writings from the era of Aristotle?

...what is at stake here: nothing less than the lost intellectual inheritance of western civilisation. We have, for example, a mere seven plays by Sophocles, yet we know that he wrote 120; Euripides wrote 90 plays, of which only 19 survive; Aeschylus wrote between 70 and 90, of which we have just seven.

We also know that at the time when Philodemus was teaching Virgil on the Bay of Naples, the lost dialogues of Aristotle were circulating in Rome (Cicero called them “a golden river”: the essence of ancient Greek philosophy); they, too, have vanished

Might be worth joing the society to help find out!
Membership of the Herculaneum Society costs £50 per year. Contact: Friends of the Herculaneum Society, Classics Centre, Old Boys’ School, George Street, Oxford 0X1 2RL.
Website: www.herculaneum.ox.ac.uk;
Email

MSD

Jeff Jarvis @ Harvard: Blogging, Journalism & Credibility

2005-01-22T17:51:00.000-08:00

Jeff Jarvis is live-blogging at Harvard conference Blogging, Journalism & Credibility. I'm finding this exchange quite interesting. Together you have some of the blog-lords [Jeff Jarvis, Jay Rosen, Dave Winer, John Hinderaker, Dan Gillmor, to mention only a few], together with MSM senior folk [Jill Abramson, editor NY Times, Jim Kennedy, AP], and too many academic & law luminaries to list:

I'll be blogging the confab as long as my sanity holds out.

: Alex Jones says that one (unfortunate) lesson that mainstream journalism can teach blogging is that credibility is fragile and mainstream journalism has lost too much of it in recent years.

: Jay Rosen is presenting his paper. He said the "war should be over between bloggers and journalists, the cartoon dialogue... Even though it makes for good feature stories and great blog posts, bloggers vs. journalists doesn't help us much." He said the tension between them will go on and its necessary and inevitable. But the tsunami story makes it "obvious that blogs have a role in journalism."

Dave Winer said this morning that I was Jay's Frankenstein. Jay said it's the opposite. Jay's right. He has made me think about media (read: my life) in new ways.

After summarizing his paper, he quotes Rebecca Blood saying that part of the reason for conflict is that blogging and journalism are in a "shared media space." That is the reason the war is over because no one is leaving that space.

Jay is making a point he made on Brian Lehrer's show a few weeks ago: that this not about the "media" but about the "press" and the press is now owned by the people. That is the real shift of power. "They have to share the press with the public."

Isn't that precisely the problem with CBS? Dan et al could not bear to share the press with the public. But the public demanded it. The public won that battle.

Jay says that journalists have been slow to recognize the debt they owe blogging and that is because this new medium -- this new press -- was not developed by them. The people who understand this new press -- the ethic of the link, the art of conversation -- are bloggers.

Jay recalls his first Bloggercon when Len Apcar, editor of NY Times digital, said that in 2002 a majority of NY Times readers are online yet even today a majority of the journalists at The Times think they work for the print product. "Actually, they're working for an online newspaper that has a print edition." Great line.

Posted by Steve

What the heck is a "progressive" anyway?

2005-01-22T17:21:00.000-08:00

It seems to me that every discussion I have with a liberal (lefty, progressive, whatever) is just a jumping off point for them to start a diatribe against the evil Bush.

The main argument against the Iraq war seems to be that there must be some nefarious undisclosed motive behind it, because Bush did it. You would almost think that the left is unhappy that Iraqis are freer than they have ever been in history. Its as if anything beneficial or "progressive" that a republican says or does must be an act, lipservice or a token gesture, because they are, you know, BAD. Examples would be freeing millions from oppression, appointing minorities to positions of power, saying that the US should be leading the world toward democracy and freedom.

I really don't know what it is that Progressives are intent on progressing toward. If "progressive" means something other than utopian socialist or communist, someone needs to get their collective act together and define it. Today's conservatism is PRO-human rights, PRO-democracy, PRO-freedom, and PRO-opportunity. And not just in word, in deed. What is it that the progressives are PRO?

MSD

Wanted: Human Shields

2005-01-22T17:04:00.000-08:00

Hat tip to Cori Dauber for this one!
Lance Fizzell posted this Jan 15th tongue in cheek bit at Lance in Iraq:

Back in January '03, you may remember a group of Western liberals who volunteered to go to Iraq as human shields in case the US enforced UN resolutions that Saddam violated. Key graf:

"...they are willing to put themselves in the firing line should US and British forces bomb Iraq. They plan to identify potential bombing targets such as power stations and bridges and act as human shields to protect them."

Well, I think I have just the job for these globe-travelers: Iraq Election Poll Worker. They are familiar with the terrain and people, they have a self-professed desire to help and they seem very articulate.

However, their biggest asset is bravery. If they are willing to hunker down between Coalition Forces and a bridge, standing between a foreign terrorist and a polling precinct should be no big deal. Any takers?

Posted by Steve

The Speech Misheard Round the World

2005-01-22T11:48:00.000-08:00

This is a followup to the MDS post One take on the Inaugural Address. Cori Dauber posts a sharp critique at Ranting Profs. Dauber is a specialist in the analysis of rhetoric - she takes apart the Orlando Patterson oped paragraph by paragraph, an excellent rebuttal I thought - see what you think:

An oped in the Times today by a Harvard sociologist who is quite unimpressed with the inaugural. He sees it as the natural culmination of an argument trajectory that is deeply flawed.

His argument:

The stratagem began immediately after 9/11 with the president's claims that the terrorist attacks were a deliberate assault on America's freedom. The next stage of the argument came after no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, thus eliminating the reason for the war, and it took the form of a bogus syllogism: all terrorists are tyrants who hate freedom. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who hates freedom. Therefore Saddam Hussein is a terrorist whose downfall was a victory in the war against terrorism.

Wow. That is a bad syllogism. It's also such a complete caricature of anything the adminstration actually argued it's hard to know where to begin.

Posted by Steve

No Teacher Left Behind

2005-01-22T10:20:00.000-08:00

This is the op-ed "A teachers union spams The Wall Street Journal":
This is the piece that enraged the union "No Teacher Left Behind", by Terry M. Moe, winner of this year's Thomas B. Fordham Prize for distinguished scholarship in education:

The teachers unions have more influence over the public schools than any other group in American society. They influence schools from the bottom up, through collective bargaining activities that shape virtually every aspect of school organization. And they influence schools from the top down, through political activities that shape government policy. They are the 800-pound gorillas of public education. Yet the American public is largely unaware of how influential they are--and how much they impede efforts to improve public schools.

... These contracts make the schools costly to run, heavily bureaucratic, and extremely difficult for administrators to manage. They also ensure that even the most incompetent teachers are virtually impossible to remove from the classroom. The organization of schools, as a result, is not even remotely the kind of organization one would design if the best interests of children were the guiding criterion.

The unions are opposed to No Child Left Behind, for example, and indeed to all serious forms of school accountability, because they do not want teachers' jobs or pay to depend on their performance

Posted by Steve

One take on the Inaugural Address

2005-01-21T16:23:00.000-08:00

Having read some criticisms of the Inaugural speech, read it, it strikes me that a lot of people can't seem to comprehend the difference between an idealized goal and a plan of action. Clearly the president laid out an ideal in his Inaugural Adress. More akin to describing a philosophy than declaring war, the president seemed to me to be laying out guidelines for others to predict future US action.

I was a bit surprised that even some conservatives didn't seem to get it. Peggy Noonan seemed surprised that the president has lofty ideals and believes in american exceptionalism. Too much God, she says! Its not like he's been hiding this world view or his faith for the last 5 years.

Personally I don't really know what the naysayers were expecting. A timid Bush who comes out and says "OK, y'all were right. I messed up on that Iraq thing. But don't worry! We won't be going after all those terrorists like I said in that silly old Bush Doctrine!"

I suppose they want a message of weakness and visible reluctance to act against those who want us dead. Bush gave the perfect speach. It warns our enemies, emboldens our allies, and shows that his leadership rests on a firm philosophical base.

MSD

Did anyone notice?

2005-01-20T14:40:00.000-08:00

For some reason, the crowd was really muted during the inauguration, and faces were sullen or even angry-looking -- and that goes for servicepersons -- during the president's inaugural speech. :(

Politically incorrect opinions

2005-01-20T13:56:00.000-08:00

Warning: the following ideas are politically incorrect. So if you don't want to read something of that nature, do no proceed.

If you live in an American city, you've probably noticed the large amounts of gangs, which have ruined neighborhoods and normal people's lives. I propose that if the gang members who are committing crimes are caught, then their entire families should be deported, especially if the gang members and/or their parents and/or siblings are illegal.

This would not apply to any African-American gangs, since they are American and have been here for generations, and are the descendents of people who've had to endure slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination, in addition to other societal problems. They should get help through counseling and mentoring and whatever else is necessary.

I'm only talking about gangs who have either not been born here or who are first-generation Americans. If their parents have chosen to come here, especially illegally, then everybody should be kicked out of the country if their kids are going to destroy society.

Another politically incorrect idea: If you live in an American city, then you've seen homeless people everywhere. Since Mexico is very happy to dump their unwanted, poor, uneducated citizens in the U.S. and enthusiastically supports illegal immigration to prop up their dysfunctional country, then the U.S. should be allowed to export homeless people to Mexico.

"...best teachers read beyond red and blue."

2005-01-18T17:46:00.000-08:00

As a graduate of Rutgers and right-leaning libertarian I was in turn astounded, not-really surprised and finally saddened by an article which refers to a piece from Historians Against the War by H. Bruce Franklin:

Rutgers' Tenured Stalinist- to quote from the article:

Opposed as a matter of principle to incarceration, Franklin holds that criminalization of criminals is a crime: "Imprisonment itself, even when relatively benign, is arguably a form of torture," Franklin writes in his article for Historians Against the War. Mindful of the possibility that this view has its skeptics outside the peripheries of the Left, Franklin proceeds to tick off a damning rap sheet of charges against the American penal system: "Beatings, electric shock, prolonged exposure to heat and even immersion in scalding water, sodomy with riot batons, nightsticks, flashlights, and broom handles, shackled prisoners forced to lie in their own excrement for hours or even days, months of solitary confinement, rape and murder by guards or prisoners instructed by guards-all are everyday occurrences in the American prison system," he insists.

Where is the peer review for articles such as this? How is it that the ivory tower crowd can simply state anything they want and not be called on the details?

While I can't say that I am a full supporter of the Bob Jones University crowd, at least when they do something outrageous like ban inter-racial dating on campus, (which has long since been rescinded) the main stream media jumps all over it. How is it that the reverse is not true?

Taxpayer dollars support schools like Rutgers, and many parents' hard earned dollars go into other schools across the country. Outside of the classrooms, who really is informed of what the professors are passing off as education? At least some students are fighting back, and at least one professor is brave enough to publish an opinion that we need better communication on our campuses.

If we are not educating the next generation in the liberal arts, as opposed to Liberal arts, I fear for the political future of the United States.

-an FSO from NJ

Unfinished Business at Abu Ghraib

2005-01-18T13:11:00.000-08:00

Here at Ft Hood, we have watched closely the recently concluded trial of SPC Graner. Last week, he was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to 10 years in prison. More trials are to follow. Eventually, all the identified characters will be tried or will plead out and receive their punishments. Then, I hope, we will start the real trials for the people ultimately responsible for this mess. They need to start with the NCOs who failed their responsibilities for the day-to-day managing of their people. Then, we need to move on to the officers who failed to require their NCOs to do their jobs and who, then, failed to be responsible themselves. All the way up to the BG brigade commander, this was a classic case of the abdication of responsibility and refusal to use authority. Those in the leadership who claim that they didn't know are thereby convicted out of their own mouths of that abdication. The stupidly, foolishly damaging incidents at Abu Ghraib represent behaviour that cannot be tolerated, not least because it was so stupid and foolish. Graner and the rest deserve jail time just for having those pictures taken and posted to their buddies back home. How could they have thought that they would not make it onto the wider web for everyone to see?
Perhaps the worst outcome of this is the crimp it has put into interrogation of prisoners. By there actions, Graner and crew have shafted every interrogator and thus placed further in harms way every troop in the field. We have now all heard how fectless interrogations have become, how useless they now are, now that the interrogators have to get Washington's approval just to ask for name, rank, and serial number! I have absolutely no sympathy for Graner and the others: their little game may well kill people, perhaps even some of their friends and neighbors. Was it worth it?
In fact, I couldn't care less how much the "insurgents" were intimidated, harassed, or embarrassed. Standing a man up on a stool and attaching wires to him and telling him he will get shocked for every lie sounds like fair treatment to me for someone who has been setting IEDs. I really don't care how intimidated they may feel. If saving lives is the priority it should be, then intimidating prisoners should also be a priority. But making sport of them, to no good purpose, merely hardens their resistance, especially when it is done amongst a group, because then they can lean on each other for support and to build resistance to an actual interrogation. I hope they are satisfied with what they have done. I also hope that their leadership is held to full account as well; otherwise, these people might as well have walked and we might as well forget discipline and leadership.

JayTex

State department by MBTI type

2005-01-17T09:33:00.000-08:00

A very interesting paper on how the predominant MBTI type among Foreign Service Officers impacts the effectiveness of the Department of State and its relationship with the administration. Any administration.

Even though this was written in 1985, it conforms fairly well to my limited knowledge of the inner workings of State. I am curious to know how people with more intimate knowledge of the culture and workings at state think this is/was, and how the situation has changed in the intervening years. At the minimum though, its interesting to analyse an organisation by what MBTI types predominate.

MSD

Iran: CFR Seminar on US policy options

2005-01-16T17:14:00.000-08:00

The Council on Foreign Relations has just published the seminar transcript for Transition 2005: U.S. Policy Toward Iran, held in DC on Jan 12, 2005. The panel is comprised of some serious thinkers who take on the hard questions, resulting in very useful and informed debate on the policy options.

Speaker: Kenneth M. Pollack, senior fellow and director of research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, The Brookings Institution; author, "The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America"
Speaker: Mark Palmer, president and chief executive officer, Capital Development Company; member, Committee on the Present Danger
Speaker: David Kay, senior research fellow, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies

Presider: Ray Takeyh, senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies, Council on Foreign Relations

E.g., in a discussion on support for the Iranian opposition, David Kay tackles the nuclear clock outpacing the regime-change clock:

KAY: Yeah, just a quick point, Ray. I think, Ray, when you talk about opposition groups, you have to realize--Ken said one thing that I strongly agree to and think you ought to keep in the forefront of your mind. There really are two clocks. There is a clock of regime change and there is a nuclear weapons program clock. The regime change, under any condition I can imagine, is a very slow-ticking clock. The nuclear weapons program clock is a very rapidly evolving clock. The focus of attention needs to be on: are there steps we can take that will defer the success of a nuclear weapons program in Iran? And the goal of success for the administration ought not to be the elimination of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. That's not going to happen at this stage. It is that deferral, delay so that the regime change clock has a chance to catch up...

Later, in the realistic context of revived growth in nuclear power worldwide, David Kay comments on a proposal to offer to Iran a supply of enriched uranium:

KAY: Well, let me answer the question, but let me first say I think it would be a huge mistake to take the military option off the table. I think one of the difficulties in negotiating with the Europeans in getting a common framework is they will never agree to the military option--and yet we have to maintain it if we are to have any hope. Look, I think there is a potential of a yes-able deal with the Iranians in the nuclear issue. As much as some people in this room may not like it, there's going to be a renaissance of nuclear energy, or we're going to be floating--like California. The nuclear industry is coming back. This is the point: instead of telling the Iranians, "You shouldn't have nuclear power, you've got gas, and you should just use that for your energy," we should say to the Iranians, and I think we should say it to some other countries as well, "There is going to be a renaissance, we realize there's a role for nuclear energy. The dangerous part of this for all of us is the enrichment area, and we're proposing the creation of regional enrichment centers, in which you participate in the management." I think the one for Iran ought to be in Russia...

Posted by Steve

Welcome to YOUR Blog.

2005-01-16T16:42:00.000-08:00

Welcome to "My Blog is Your Blog". In the past Smiley and I at The Daily Demarche have invited readers and fellow bloggers to participate in various themes- the most popular was the "What If We Hadn't Invaded Iraq" series (links below). A number of readers sent me contributions to post on our blog, invariably stating something along the lines of "I don't have a blog of my own...". Well, now you do.

Feel free to add just about whatever you want here. I don't plan to edit, modify or manage this blog in any meaningful way. My hope is that this site will be used to continue threads started elsewhere, or to provide a place of their own for folks who aren't otherwise inclined to set up and run a blog. Got something to say in a comment field on another blog that is just too long to fit? Post it here and leave a link in the comments at the referenced blog. Found a news article or other item online that you want to share? Post it here! Got your own blog and want to promote it? Here is your place!

Ideally I'd like to see some debate, blue staters and red staters, right, left and center, all contributing. Will it work? Who knows. Will anyone post here? Beats me.

To paraphrase the greatest college movie ever made, Animal House, "Grab a blog, don't cost nothing!"

How to:
To log in go to the Blogger home page.
Username is: ibloghere
password: openup

Only two requests- please don't use this space to sell anyhting, and try to keep the profanity under control. Of course I reserve the right to change the rules at any point. Don't like that? Get yer own blog, then!

The idea that started it all for me:
What if- Part One
What if? Another take on Iraq (Part two)
Iraq "What If"- UPDATED AGAIN! (Part three)

2005-01-16T07:15:00.000-08:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.