NON-PARTISAN PRE-ELECTION DAY GRIPES

The Daily Show was at its cynical best the other night with its Schoolhouse Rock parody on the Midterm Elections - nobody votes, because for most there is nothing to vote for. The costs of campaigning in the Age of the Attack Ad, combined with gerrymandering run amock has reduced the number of competitive House seats to a handfull. For the rest of the country (absent the "lucky" few with a competitive Senate race) there is little they can do to impact national politics. Of course, as clever as the Daily Show is - its dead wrong, midterm elections DO matter - its just there's very little you can do to influence them - unless of course you happen to be a multimillionaire. Then you get to "vote" in as many elections as you want.

OTP 2002-03 NBA PREVIEW

Will you be able to hear the phrase "4-peat" without throwing something at the TV? Will the Mavs score 200 points in a game? Will the Knicks drive Spike Lee away from his courtside seats? Will Alan Iverson go to practice? Will Grant Hill finally stay healthy? Will Jordan actually come off the bench? Will Yao Ming be the next Rik Smits - or the next Shawn Bradley? And finally, will anybody stop the Lakers....all this and more coming to an NBA court near you.

Western Contenders - can win it all if:
1) Kings: Adding Clark keeps Vlade fresh for the playoffs, and doesn’t lead to a shortage of playing time for Pollard, Turkoglu and the rest of the stellar bench.
2) Lakers: Shaq’s big toe heals, the supporting cast continues to raise their games in the post-season
3) Mavs: Najera, Griffin and Popeye Jones provide provide enough D to complement the awesome O.
4) Spurs: The global backcourt of Parker and Ginobili reaches its potential this year; The Admiral has one last great playoff run left in him.

Western Pack - could make the playoffs if:
5) Trail Blazers: Figure out a rotation and stick to it (in other words, get decent value for Stoudamire)
6) Clippers: Somebody other than Brand and Miller is looking to win, rather than just get paid next year.
7) Rockets: No more migraine for Stevie; Mobley and Griffin improve their shot selection
8) Supersonics: Payton’s grousing doesn’t impact his play; Lewis & Radmanovic combine for 30 a game.
9) Jazz: Kirilenko takes a major step forward; Harping finds his stroke
10) T-Wolves: The Nesterovic/Jackson combo provides them with quality pivot-play; Troy Hudson manages a Terrell Brandon impersonation.

Western Longshots - will be watchable if:
11) Grizzlies: Jason Williams figures out that he should stop gunning and simply feed Gasol, Gooden and Battier
12) Suns: Their young players (Johnson and Stoudemire) grow up quickly
13) Warriors: They put together a lineup that’s not less than the sum of its parts.
14) Nuggets: They’re playing your team, and you like to watch blow-outs.

Eastern "Contenders" - could lose in the finals if:
1) Hornets: Davis doesn’t become a gunner, Mashburn is healthy for the playoff run
2) Pacers: Tinsley cuts down on his turnovers, Isaiah gets them to play with passion
3) Nets: Martin and Jefferson rise faster than Mutumbo declines
4) Sixers: Iverson passes to Van Horn; the center-by-committee (Macculloch, Coleman, Dalembert) is healthy for the playoff run


Eastern Pack - can make the playoffs if:
5) Pistons: Their D-first approach rubs off on Hamilton; Robinson & Rebraca continue to provide points in the pivot.
6) Magic: Hill comes back, OR they get something out their big men
7) Bucks: They stop bickering and just play; Thomas fills the Big Dog’s shoes
8) Raptors: Wilkens cobbles a bench together, Carter plays with fire
9) Celtics: Walker and Pierce can cover for the lack of a point guard
10) Wizards: MJ plays the entire year; one the young big guys (Heyward, Brown, Thomas) develops.
11) Hawks: Ratliff stays on the floor, they find enough shots to share between Terry, Robinson and Abdur-Rahim


Eastern Longshots - will be watchable if:
12) Bulls: The kids (Curry,Chandler, and Williams) grow up fast
13) Heat: Discover a big man other than Grant who can play, Caron Butler really is the next Paul Pierce.
14) Knicks: If you are a masochistic Knicks fan, if you want to teach a lesson on how not to manage an NBA franchise
15) Cavaliers: If you like flashy, glitzy dunks by teams that are trailing by double digits.


Conference Finals: Kings over Lakers, Hornets over Sixers
Finals: Kings over Hornets

WILL IRAQIS EMBRACE DEFEAT

John Dower, author of Embracing Defeat, the excellent history of the American occupation of post-war Japan, warns in today's Times that that Japan model is a poor fit for a post-Hussein Iraq. In particular, Dower argues that the following factors are currently not in place: 1) international legitimacy of the occupation; 2) legitimacy of the occupation by the vanquished (which was very much aided in Japan by the cooperation of Emperor Hirohito; 3) ethnic & religious homogeneity; 4) the unique charisma of MacArthur; 5) long-term development of post-war policy; 6) commitment to progressive reforms (land, labor, and legal); 7) long-term commitment of significant civil and military manpower; 8) prewar democratic tradition; 9) cooperation of the pre-war local bureaucracy, 10) short-term regional stability; and 11) a lack of natural resources attracting carpetbaggers.

The situation may not be as dire as Dower projects to it be - a number of these factors say less about Iraq and more about Dower's skepticism in the current administration's ability to follow in the footsteps of Truman's visionary post-war planners (e.g. the complaints about the thoroughness of planning, or the logistical requirements, etc.). On the other hand, Dower raises some of the most important challenging facing any post-war Iraq policy - Iraq's artificial birth and lack of unifying figure, the inability to salvage anything useful out of the prior political structure, and the poisioned chalice of oil wealth.

While Dower wishes to emphasize the differences between Japan and Iraq, there is one similarity that can not be overlooked - that now and then the existence of naysayers who believed non-Western people to be culturally incapable of self-government. If the current group of naysayers is to be proved wrong, the challenges Dower identifies need to be at the heart of planning that is already seriously underway for the creation of a successful post-Hussein Iraq.

MOURNING WELLSTONE

A day of reflection has only somewhat eased the shock of the news of Senator Wellstone's death. My one brief encounter with the man left a lasting impression - of a public servant with an utter lack of artifice or pretension. Our nation has lost one of its most stirring voices for social justice. We are all poorer for that loss.

A COMMUNITARIAN MOMENT

This is worthy of a much longer piece, but for now I'll share this thought. With 1) the massive external challenge facing the United States due to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and the 2) massive internal challenge facing our country due to the absolute decay of civic responsibility among the uber-rich and corporate America, this country is facing its greatest need for a communitarian correction since the 1930s. I can only hope that a sufficiently strong enough leader can emerge who can move beyond the cultural left's failure to recognize the first challenge and the economic right's failure to admit the latter.

DAVID E. KELLEY STRIKES AGAIN

Sure it's easy to poke holes at the myriad of ways that Girls Club glamorizes the thankless existence of "high-powered" lawyers right out of law school. You know, how some female lawyers aren't drop-dead gorgeous, that prestigious big firms don't do exciting criminal defense and plaintiff litigation, but instead do defense work for faceless corporate clients and put together large corporate deals. Still, any show that accurately portrays associates scheming for work, partners referring to their underlings as "keepers," kvetching about being kept on the back, back benches and a conversation that includes the words "billables, lateral and headhunter" is about as real as TV is going to get. Well, as real until NBC picks up my idea for a "Scrubs-like" take on the Legal world.

WHY THE ROAD FROM 9/11 GOES THROUGH IRAQ

Earlier this month, Thomas Friedman wrote a column that cut to the heart of the Iraq debate, but has since continued to be ignored by all sides in the ongoing debate. His point was that the debate on Iraq, by framing curtailing proliferation as the essential goal and regime change as a debatable means had things upside down. Iraq skeptics are right to ask the question as to why the need to curtail Iraq's nonconvential arms production has radically changed in the past 13 months. One could easily argue that in the short term, terrorists are more likely to acquire nuclear capability from the decaying infrastructure of the former Soviet Union, or through Islamist elements in the Pakistani military. No, the more immediate lesson of 9/11 is that the status quo in the Arab-Islamic world - of corrupt, brutal dictatorships and Islamist counter-movements is unacceptable. The misery of millions is no longer containable - it has become globalized through Islamist terror. Radically changing this environment, therefore, is not just a moral obligation but the most crucial challenge for American and global security.

Iraq skeptics like to point out that the two fonts of Islamist terror, both theologically and financially, are Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saddam is at best a distant third player, with his offers to fund Palestinian terror and cheerleading of attacks on America. Neither Saudi Arabia nor Iran, however, are particularly good targets for an American policy of regime change. The Saudis have bought international prestige and influence with oil money. The diplomatic and economic hurdles towards removing the Saudi regime are formidable - and the absence of non-Islamist opposition palpable. Iran presents precisely the opposite problem - the existence of a grass-roots, democratic protest movement. Without a doubt, regime change in Iran should be an essential goal of American foreign policy. However, too much involvement on the side of the opposition could be counterproductive, allowing the mullahs to feed off a nationalist backlash. It is best for both America and Iran if the regime is toppled from within, giving a successor democratic government legitimacy. In contrast, Iraq is much better target - diplomatically isolated, economically marginalized, and relatively secular. The influence of a democratic, pro-Western Iraq would be enormous - an opportunity for cosmopolitan Islam to once more emanate from the historic seat of the caliphate.

The strategy of intializing a new order in the Arab-Islamic world through regime change in Iraq is not without its problems. Iraq is not an organic political entity, but a fractious collection of ethnic and religious groups fastened by British mapmakers and held together by despotic will. Nation-building is a long, arduous task that requires a long-term commitment. It is unclear whether the U.S. has the stamina or the world community the moral clarity required in this case. The problem with the Iraq skeptics is that they offer up these critiques without any constructive alternatives. The need to radically remake the political landscape of the Arab-Islamic world, making it hospital for democracy and inhospitable for Islamism, is no longer debatable aftermath of 9/11. Opposition to an invasion of Iraq can not rise beyond petty obstructionism unless it addresses this critical need, and presents a viable alternative.

SORTING OUT THE NEW GROUND RULES

The new job is wonderful, but it does come with a prohibition on partisan political activity. (I note the irony of my present level of partisanship being at its lowest point in years). Anyway, until I sort out the exact guidelines, blogging will be light. There are plenty of good sites to follow the daily drama of "rock and roll" politics, so my exit from that arena should not be missed. If I made any real contribution with this blog, it was most likely my discussions of principles as opposed to politics anyway.

ON THE PINE

Between holidays and the start of a new job, blogging will take a back seat in the next week. I think its a safe presumption that this won't put a crimp in anybody's plans.

DESPONDENT ON THE DEMS

I don't think this TNR editorial could match my own feelings on the matter closer if I penned it myself.

BUSH AT THE UN

This morning was one of W's finest moments. The gauntlet has been thrown down - take the threat of Hussein seriously or face irrelevance. The hope is that today's speech is more than simply a tactical compromise within the Bush Administration and part of a longer term vision of spearheading a radical reform of the U.N.

A MOVING TRIBUTE

This site brought it all back - the horror, the pain and the heroism.

WRIGHT THINKING IN THE WAR ON TERROR

I've been awful hard on Robert Wright in the past for his questionable grasp of the terrain of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but so far his multi-part series on fighting terror has been brilliant, especially his section on the need to promote democracy in the Islamic world.

THE LOW POINT OF A GREAT MAN'S CAREER

When someday we look back and remember the greatness that was Nelson Mandela, it would be wise to skip over anything he ever said about the Middle East.

For a refresher on the stupidity of the Israel as "White Colonialist Oppressor" argument, there's no better place to turn than Natalie Portman 's famous op-ed

A NEW WORLD ORDER (FOR REAL THIS TIME)

You don't have to be Collin Powell or Jacques Chirac to find American unilateralism problematic. The breakdown of the Atlantic alliance bodes well for neither Americans nor Europeans. But a frank reassessment of the international order shows that tremendous decay has set in over the past fifty years. The United Nations routinely makes a mockery of its self-proclaimed ideals, acting at best as amorally inefficiant and at worst as the conduit for the propaganda of the world's tyrannies. There is room however for a grand deal that can put the Atlantic alliance back together, and create a more just, more effective world order. America will agree to once more act as a good global citizen (using the proper international channels, increasing its investment in foreign aid, cooperating on international treaties) if the Europeans replace their formalist approach to international law with substantive commitment to expanding liberal, humanistic values. In other words, no more anti-American rallies masquerading as U.N. Conferences. No more Khadaffis chairing Human Rights Commission. No more hijacking of international fora to scapegoat Israel for the world's problems. As distateful as this multilateral idealism may be to European diplomats, its got to be preferable to an unrestrained global hegemon.

NOT PLAYING BY THEIR RULES ANYMORE

Martin Walker has an excellent column on the why 9/11 was the final straw that led to a resurgence of American unilateralism.

Here are the highlights:

Osama bin Laden's shock troops zeroed in on a haunting paradox of the modern world; that a strong and rich and self-confident America is good for a world that increasingly resents it....

This paradox may be seen in the jeering response to America's first black secretary of state at last week's global summit in Johannesburg. It was on display in last week's meeting at the Arab League of foreign ministers whose regimes often rely on American support, and can constantly be encountered in the opinion pages of liberal European newspapers that should know better. And all of them seem to assume that America will continue to sit back and take it, like the good global citizen that America has tried to be in the last 60 years of defeating Fascism, Nazism, Communism and helping spread more wealth and more freedom to more people in more places than ever in human history.

They are wrong. The real effect of Sept. 11 is that American patience and tolerance for its global critics, most of whom do rather well out of America's benign hegemony, seems just about exhausted. And however it was that Osama bin Laden expected what he has called "the American Empire" to react to his murderous assault, if indeed he thought that far ahead, he seems not to have calculated that America might react by tearing up the old rule book of international affairs.....

Note that this is not the case of an enraged and vengeful America telling the world "no more Mr. Nice Guy." It is America saying "Enough" to the European "internationalism" of compromise and appeasement, and holding true to its core principles -- that democracy is in itself a good thing for all states and all peoples. The most valuable export America can send out to the world is its values and its freedoms and its readiness to devote blood and treasure to the mission. That would be the real memorial to the victims of 9-11.

FOR A TAX-AND-SPEND LIBERAL HAWK, THIS ONE'S A NO-BRAINER

Hesiod challenges the Iraq hawks with the following:

Here's a rather simple challenge to all those who favor a war with Iraq: How about ponying up an extra 3% on your income taxes to
pay for it?

I accept - repeal the stupid tax give-away for the rich and use it to knock out Saddam and rebuild Iraq. As for a seperate 3% tax on all hawks, well sure, as long as I can get my share of the stupid farm bill back.

OH, KERRY, HOLD ON...

I've finally gotten around to rereading would-be president John Kerry's op-ed in the Times on Iraq. His multilateralist critique is legitimate - its important to give the international community, our allies (NATO, not our "allies" such as Saudi Arabia) and Congress the opportunity to get on board. The proper response to the disfunctional state of the U.N. is not to ignore it, but to make a major push to reform it. And multilateralism is most essential for post-war nation-building. However, the strong points of Kerry's argument are undercut by his distressing lack of a broader vision. The problem is that Kerry sees regime change not an intrinsically worthy goal, but as the "ultimate weapons-enforcement mechanism"? Does Kerry really believe that renewed inspections is a long-term solution? How does he intend to deal with Hussein's continued support for terror? And most importantly, how does he propose to reshape the region to disperse the current toxic environment of corrupt regimes and Islamist resistance? Alas, the search for a coherent Democratic alternative to the Bushies foreign policy continues.

RIGHT-WING PIPE DREAMS

Just One Minute is buying into the latest round of GOP hyping of a Black-Jewish rift leading to a Jewish exodus to the GOP, dooming the Dems. The latest version of the argument is particularly weak. It rests on the following premises.

1) Jews have voted for GOP candidates such as Pataki, Weld and Bloomberg.
2) The post Camp David violence in the Middle East and the rise of anti-Semitism in the Arab world and Europe have made solidarity with Israel the highest priority on the American Jewish agenda.
3) The left wing of the Democratic party, especially Black multiculturalists, want to tilt American foreign policy away from Israel.
4) The GOP has become reliably pro-Israel - which has firm support of the influential neocons and the Christian Right.

The most comprehensive study of Jewish voting patterns, published in Commentary a few years ago, revealed the following patterns - that American Jews were no longer radically left of the overall voting population on economic issues, but remained solidly liberal on cultural issues. The study concluded that educational background was the dominant factor in Jewish voting patterns. At this point in American Jewish history, assimilation is the dominant factor in American Jewish voting patterns - but the America Jews have assimilated into is socially liberal, fiscally moderate world of suburban professionals. And as the Emerging Democratic Majority accurately describes, this group of voters is behind the recent dominance of the Dems in the Northeast suburbs. In this context, the votes for Pataki, Bloomberg and Weld are meaningless. Sure - Jews will vote for GOP candidates - if they run as moderate Democrats.

What is more relevant is the reemergence of Israel solidarity among affilliated Jews in the past two years. The post-Camp David Palestinian terror offensive has healed the rift between the mainstream Oslo supporters and opponents, producing a united front solidly behind Israel's right to defend itself. Affiliated American Jews strongly support Bush's stance in the Middle East, as well as the Admnistration's hawkish position in the war on terror. However, at the present, the Democratic party remains staunchly pro-Israel, with the exception of its multiculturalist left-wing. There is no reason to suggest that the "People of Color" school of foreign policy (supporting the leadership of a nations "of color" regardless of their political makeup), espoused by left-wing Black leaders, is gaining strength among Black voters or the Democratic party at large.

The simple fact is that despite the affinity of many of American Jews for GOP foreign policy, on the overwhelming majority of domestic issues, from abortion to guns to the economy to the environment to education to health care, American Jews are at home in the Democratic party. And unless the Dems completely blunder on Israel and foreign policy, they are likely to remain there for the forseeable future.

JEWISH MONEY, BLACK CANDIDATES

Jake Tapper, in the Weekly Standard, destroys the arguments that lays the defeat of Hilliard and McKinney at the hands of "outside Jewish money." As Tapper reports, the Congressional Black Caucas spearheaded efforts to preserve the availability of out-of-district and out-of-state financing. The reason is that Black candidates on the whole, raise a higher proportion of their campaign funds from out-of-state than other candidates, and wanted to preserve access to liberal donors based in New York and L.A. And who might these liberal donors be? Many of them Jews of course, who donate in amounts staggeringly disproportionate to their numbers. The fact is that despite all the hype about a breakdown of black-Jewish relations, the non-Blacks most commited to electing Black representatives are Jews. The most reliable political allies for Black politicians remain Jews. Pragmatic Black leaders realize this - the Congressional Black Caucus certaintly realizes this. The only ones who don't are left-wing Jews, driven by guilt, who perversely consider only the most hostile Black leaders to be "authentic." What would they rather prefer - that Jews donate to Black candidates who are coalition-builders that will help move forward progressive policies or that Jews cease donating to Black candidates all together?

THE MOOSE IS LOOSE, THE PINE IS FINE?

The Bull Moose (McCain advisor Marshall Wittman), on why he bolted from the GOP (abandoning his quixotic efforts at reclaiming it from fundamentalists and lobbyists) but isn't jumping to the Dems.

It is truly odd that neither party can accommodate the market niche of voters who are hawks on foreign policy, moderate traditionalists on cultural issues and progressive on economics.

Wait a second, that pretty much describes me. Do I have to go looking for a new party now? Well, for now, count me in as a Joe Lieberman Democrat (who's up for grabs if McCain runs as an independent). Ah, things were so much simpler back when foreign policy was irrelevant.

STARTING ANEW

On the first morning of Rosh Hashanah, Rabbi Leonard Gordon of Germantown Jewish Centre gave an excellent D'var Torah addressing the unique problems facing the Jewish community at the beginning of this new year. Rabbi Gordon's starting point was the rabbinic tradition that not only is Rosh Hashanah the anniversary of the creation of the world, but that the world and each individual are created anew each Rosh Hashanah. One should therefore not be burdened down by the problems of the past year, but look forward optimistically to the potential of the coming year.

Rabbi Gordon noted the serious tension between the tradition's optimism and the experience and mood of the American Jewish community from the past year's events. The combination of 9/11, the collapse of any semblance of peace in Israel, and the rise of anti-Semitism in the Arab world and Europe has spooked American Jews. In particular, three anecdotes illustrated the collapse of confidence of American Jews - a denominational leader worrying about the specter of two Jews running against each other for mayor in New York, the decision of a youth group travelling cross-country to adopt a policy of keeping a "low profile" (unmarked bus, baseball caps in public, etc.) and the voicing of mainstream Jewish voices of the idea that an American Holocaust was realistic possibility.

Rabbi Gordon spoke forcefully against this instinct of defensiveness, panic and withdrawal. He cited Leon Wielseltier's essay "Hitler is Dead" which reflected on the folly of the current panic of American Jews. Nat Hentoff, who claimed that "if a loudspeaker went off ordering all Jews to gather in Times Square it would not be surprising" - was precisely wrong. America is still very much a wondrous nation in which such a comment is absurd. The proper response to even a year a difficult as 5762, is to choose life, ane embrace optimism. Of course there is much about other people and the outside world that we can not control and cannot change - but we are not given the option to despair. Rather, in following the commandment of teshuva (repentance), we must look inward, and change what we can about our own actions.

I wholeheartedly endorse Rabbi Gordon's admonition. There is no justification to project the hatred of our past experience onto the very different reality that is present day America. American Jews must remain open and trusting of our neighbors and fellow citizens. Nor can we abandon the dream of peace in Israel despite the savage violence. We must continue to respect the common humanity of our enemies, hoping that one day they will return our faith with a recognition of our humanity. Jews must withdrawl from public life, but redouble our efforts at Tikkun Olam. May we leave the world one year from now less broken than it is today.

SHANA TOVA

I'm off to celebrate the start of 5763. May you have a sweet and healthy new year.

IRAQ AND THE WAR ON TERROR: THE DEMS DILEMMA

By far the strongest argument that the Iraq doves have is the current status of the other fronts in the war on terror. After failing to commit to nation-building in Afghanistan, we've let most of the country lapse back into the same anarchy which produced the Taliban in the first place. Second, as the Instapundit sums up neatly in the Fox News column, progress on domestic security reform in the past year has been a disgrace. The endless, content-free debate over Iraq however overshadows both failures - and so far the Bushies have emerged politically unscathed from either front. All of which is leading liberal pundits to twist their mouths like Dana Carvey's Church Lady and exclaim "Well, isn't that convenient."

The first problem with this conspiracy theory, points out Andrew Sullivan in Salon, is that Bush Admnistration had set Saddam in their sights even before 9/11, and has been hinting about taking him on since immediately afterward. Say what you want about the Bushies, they genuinely believe that war with Iraq is essential for this nation's security. The second problem is the Bushies happen to be right on Iraq - pretty much the only successful response by the Bushies in the past year has been their deployment of military force. These leaves the Dem with a tough dilemma - how to deliver much deserved criticism to the Bush Administration when it happens to be right on the most important issue facing the nation. So far they've chosen to put their efforts behind blocking Bush on Iraq, while giving him a free pass everywhere else. I can't think of a worse choice for the Dems or our country.

BARAK ON IRAQ

Liberals are confused about Ehud Barak's hawkishness on Iraq. How, after all, could the man that put his political life on the line for peace at Camp David be pushing for an U.S. attack on Iraq? Isn't that just the position of Sharon, the Likud, the messianic settlers (you know, the Israeli bad guys). Does this mean that Barak has gone to the "dark side"? No, what this reflects instead is the shallow understanding of liberal pundits (even a light of Veritas like Matthew Yglesias) when it comes to war and peace in the Middle East.

The Israeli consensus on Iraq extends far past a core of hard-line Likudniks. It is embraced by the High Priest of Oslo himself, Shimon Peres. From its inception, the Labor-Likud debate on the merits of Olso was mirrored by a similar debate on Israel's strategic threats. Likud's security experts argued that Israel's main existential threat remained its vulnerability to a ground invasion, and thus it was essential to retain the defensive high ground of the Golan Heights and the West Bank ridge. Labor's security experts, on the other hand, felt that Israel's greatest existential threat came from weapons of mass destruction delivered by intermediate missiles. Thus, Labor believed that Oslo would enhance Israeli security by resolving the Palestinian conflict (and a Golan deal would settle the Syrian border), allowing Israel to focus on the greater threat - an Iraqi or Iranian drive towards regional hegemony powered by unconventional weapons. Likud, on the other hand, felt that the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank would make Israel's dense coastal plain a tempting target for terror or other military attacks.

Seen in this context, therefore, it is unsurprising that all of Labor's leaders from Peres to Barak are hawkish on Iraq. In their minds, if Hussein is not taken out, he will eventually launch a non-conventional attack against Israel. This is something that is inevitable, not provokable. Thus, it is better to remove Hussein now, when he is relatively weak, than to wait until he has a greater capacity to harm Israel. Finally, it is precisely because of Labor's commitment to a negotiated peace with the Palestinians that they support the removal of Hussein's regime. With Oslo in tatters, all but the most myopic of the Labor party realize that a major shake-up has to occur to get any peace process back on track. The overthrow of Hussein will send shockwaves throughout the Arab world, weakening radicals and strengthening pragmatists. And if its influence is strong enough for the Palestinians more sensible leaders to sack Arafat, institute reforms, crack down on terror and return to good-faith negotiations - it may accomplish the impossible task of bringing Labor back from the dead.

TU CREES EN MILAGROS?

I wouldn't believe it if hadn't seen the second half of the game myself. Argentina 87, USA 80. It was like watching a Spanish-language version of Hoosiers, with our All-Stars (yes, the very best weren't there, but Baron Davis, Paul Pierce and Jermaine O'Neal are hardly a bunch of stiffs) getting beat by backdoor screens, cuts, and excellent transition defense. If anyone ever doubted that basketball was a team sport, watch a tape of this game. It should be shown to every overconfident favorite that plans to slide by on talent, and let effort and execution slide. Pepe Sanchez, I salute you!!!

OTP 2002 NFL PREVIEW

That's right - it's time for a new season of bold prognostication followed by shameless backtracking and equivocation. Some things last season went as planned - the Rams were great, the Panthers were awful, etc. A lot didn't, which is becoming par for the course in the past couple of seasons. The Patriots 2001 season reads like a Disney movie - struggling team with checkered history loses two best offensive players, but led by veteran cast-offs and a no-name kid QB rallies behind its embattled coach to win it all against incredible odds. Has there ever been a more redundant - I'm going to Disneyland than Tom Brady's. So, fans expect the following wrenchs to be thrown in the works: 1) 1-2 contenders will be knocked out by injuries (2001 Titans & Broncos); 2) a contender will fizzle do to chemistry problems (see the 2001 Saints), and 3) a contender will emerge from nowhere behind a stingy defensive and a play-it-safe offensive (2001 Pats & Bears). Anyone who knows now who those teams are should be using their prophetic talents on something far more important than football.

NFC Contenders - can win it all if:
1) Rams: They find someone to step up for London Fletcher, don't choke
2) Eagles: The defensive line holds together and Freeman still has something left
3) 49ers: They figure out how to keep Owens happy and a young star emerges on the defense
4) Packers: Glenn spends more time on the field than in the locker room, and the secondary improves
5) Bucs: Gruden is as smart as he thinks he is, Brooks and Sapp regain 2000 form.

NFC Pack - can make the playoffs if:
6) Bears: Their fans can find the stadium, and someone pressures the other QB
7) Skins: Spurrier can turn one of his Gators into a decent NFL QB, Arrington is as good as the hype
8) Saints: Brooks' head is screwed on right, they have someone to fill those holes on D
9) Cowboys: They get something approaching average quarterbacking, they force more turnovers
10) Giants: Their young corners develop, Shockey becomes Collins' security blanket

NFC Longshots - will be watchable if:
11) Cards: Plummer decides to play in the first three quarters, you have a player on the other teams' offense on your fantasy team
12) Falcons: Vick isn't running for his life on every play (well that might be watchable), they uncover a pass rush
13) Seahawks: They change their uniforms back to the old colors, Dilfer has time to throw
14) Vikings: They throw the ball to Moss on every play, the other team decides not to run the ball
15) Lions: They let Joey Harrington play before the score is 31-0...wish I had more
16) Panthers: Deshaun Foster gets into the lineup, you're a fan of the team they're playing.

AFC Contenders - can win it all if:
1) Steelers: Kordell blocks out all memories of the AFC championship meltdown, they figure out a way to use three QBs on one play
2) Dolphins: The offensive line opens some holes for Ricky Williams, the defensive line closes some against opposing backs.
3) Patriots: Who wrote last year's fairy-tale penned a sequel, Jamal Anderson has a miraculous recovery, signs, and brings the "Dirty Militaman" to New England.
4) Colts: Tony Dungy gets the defense to play over their heads, Edgerran James is the old Edgerran James
5) Broncos: The offensive line adjusts to the new rules on run blocking, McCafferty's return cures Griese

AFC Pack - can make the playoffs if
6) Browns: Somebody blocks for Couch and Green, Warren and Brown dominate the line of scrimmage
7) Titans: Eddie George is back to normal, they plugged the leaks in the secondary
8) Jets: Vinnie has something left, the old Sam Cowart is playing MLB
9) Raiders: The old vets no longer need Gruden to master the offense, the free agent signings plug up the front seven
10) Chargers: Drew Brees is as good as he looked last year, Jammer catches up after his holdout
11) Chiefs: Green settles for being Trent Green instead of Kurt Warner, the defense rises to mediocrity

AFC Longshots - will be watchable if:
12) Bills: The line gives Bledsoe a little protection, they drafted well on the defensive side of the ball
13) Bengals: Frerrotte gives them Dilferesque mistake-free QBing, the defensive forces more turnovers
14) Ravens: Brian Billick really was the genius behind the '98 Vikings offense, Jamal Lewis fully recovers
15) Jaguars: Fred Taylor defies the odds, they don't have to play defense
16) Texans: Their offensive line heals in time to let Carr play this year, their overpaid cap casulties play with a chip on their shoulders.

Completely Biased Playoff Predictions
NFC: Eagles, Packers, Bucs, Rams, 49ers(wc), 'Skins(wc)
AFC: Dolphins, Steelers, Colts, Broncos, Patriots(wc), Browns(wc)
Championship games: Eagles over Rams, Steelers over Browns
Super Bowl Prediction: Eagles 20, Steelers 16

DEMS AND HOMELAND SECURITY: WHO'S GOT JOE'S BACK

In today's Post, Lieberman thrases the Bushies for slowing down the critical homeland security bill by taking a hard line on side issues such as civil service reform and legislative oversight. Joe's stand only begs the question as to where on earth is the rest of the Democratic Party on the issue of domestic security? In the past year, the Bushies progress on the domestic security reform can be described charitably as glacial, yet up to this point they've suffered no backlash for this critical failure. Doesn't anyone have anything to say - Chuck? Hillary? Kerry? Feinstein? Daschle? does anyone have Joe's back?

SEPTEMBER 11 WAS NOT A NATURAL DISASTER

The closer we approach to the one-year anniversary of September 11th, the more depressed I get thinking about the media's frenzied efforts at commemoration programming. The main theme that has emerged is one of grief - personalized grief. We will be told of the lives of those who were "taken away" from us that day, who were "struck down by a cruel fate", whose great potential was "tragically cut short." All of which is necessary, but woefully insufficient. The reason is that such a retelling makes the cause of the tragedy irrelevant - all of these poignant vignants, interviews and memorials would need nary a revision had the World Trade Center been felled by a tornado rather than hijacked passenger jets. The words we use to refer to 9/11, therefore matter. It was not merely a senseless tragedy, a horrifying reminder of our vulnerability and mortality - it was a massacre. The tragic deaths, the incredible anguish of those they left behind, the scars upon all of our psyches were the desired end of meticulous planning and cold-blooded execution. The culprit was not natural amorality but human immorality. Yes, grief is an important emotion on this one-year anniversary, but we must also tap into the other emotions that have also dulled in the past year - anger, resolve and pride. For as much as we need to look back to remember those our enemies murdered one year ago, we need to look forward to thwart the massacres they plan to commit in the years to come. Remembrance, yes - closure, no.

OTP SPORTS

I want to congratulate every fan and journalist who help to scare enough sense into labor and management to avoid a ridiculous baseball strike. Now we can all get back to watching the thrilling AL West race, Bonds' attempt at one more shot at postseason redemption and the Phillies valient struggle to stay above .500. (Aah, the lowered expectations of a Phillies fan).

I am as guilty of obsessively reading the NBA off-season moves as much as the next guy, but when it all comes down to it only two pieces of news will matter come next spring. 1) Shaq's injured toe; and 2) the Kings' acquisition of Keon Clark. Now if the Mavs can get a banger for Van Exel, that would be three. I happen to think that as entertaining as all the moves made in the Leastern Conference were, they're ultimately futile. The Nets are going to be sorely dissapointed when see just how slow Dikembe has gotten. Well, at least this year, he won't get abused by Rodney Rogers. It pretty much sums up the balance of power in the NBA that if you put the endothermic Trail Blazers in the East, they'd run away with the conference.

We are less than a week away from the start of yet another NFL season. This coming season the Eagles have their best shot to win the title since the Kennedy-Nixon debates. The only problem is that the last three teams to win the Super Bowl weren't even in the playoffs the year before. The streak's gotta end sometime, doesn't it? Otherwise, we might have the World Champion Bengals sometime this decade - which will just disturb the natural order of things.

HA'ARETZ SYNDROME

David Newman's op-ed in the Times is a classic demonstration of Ha'aretz Syndrome, the delusionary state suffered by the Israeli Left and its fellow travellers in the diaspora after the collapse of Oslo. Its central symptom is a description of the peace process in which the only relevant actors are Israelis. For a sufferer of Ha'aretz Syndrome, it was Israeli actions that led to the demise of Oslo, and Israeli actions that can repair the current breach. It is above all a syndrome borne out of deep denial, of the frightening reality of the powerlessness of Israelis to stop the Palestinians fateful choice for war, and the impotence of Israel's best and brightest visionaries to develop a viable plan for peace until the Palestinians repudiate that decision.

LIBERAL REALISM: NEITHER LIBERAL NOR REALISTIC

David Ignatieff's excellent column makes the best case for war in Iraq, and the best war to achieve what our long-term goals should be: the creation of a democratic, stable, prosperous Middle East.

Here is where the left and right should converge -- in supporting democracy and human rights across the Arab world. America doesn't need to go to war (beyond Iraq) or topple governments willy-nilly. It just needs to be true to its values, and never deviate from its long-term strategy for the sake of preserving the status quo. How the Arab world and Iran will respond to U.S. moves against Hussein is hard to predict. There will be some big risks, and also some big opportunities, but we won't really know in advance. That's why it's crucial that U.S. strategy be rooted in fundamental values, rather than short-term interests. A democratic Arab world, almost by definition, should pose less of a threat to Israel. For that reason, Israel should be willing to pay a price to achieve this more stable environment, by helping the Palestinians create a democratic state of their own. The necessary compromises -- on settlements and other issues -- will be hard for the Israelis, but the potential benefits are worth it.

U.S. policymakers should adapt one of Warren Buffet's investment tips. Foreign policy (along with investing) is like a baseball game, where the batter can wait as long as he wants for the pitch that's just right and then hit it out of the park. That approach takes patience and steady nerves, but it pays off. Changing the Arab world doesn't have to be as crazy a process as it sometimes sounds. It may be a Wilsonian ideal, but it's rooted in a fact of realpolitik: What exists now isn't working well for anyone. A careful, sensible plan for democratic change in the Middle East deserves support from liberals and conservatives, from dreamers and realists, from Americans and Europeans -- and especially from Arabs and Israelis

The Middle East is exhibit A on the failure of realist doctrine. The realist path, of supporting "friendly" corrupt, thuggish regimes can not be judged a success even in terms of the realist core values of stability and security. While there's at least an argument for sacrificing human rights for stability (e.g. China), its lunacy to sacrifice human rights for nothing.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PUNT, YOU GOTTA CALL A PLAY

Tom Maguire thinks I'm being unfair to the enviro-skeptics by actually expecting them to present a viable alternative to Kyoto that addresses the problems of global climate change. Excuse me for doubting the good faith of the Kyoto critics but did I miss the Bush Proposal on Climate Change? Nope - there wasn't one. So here's the rough outline of an alternative to Kyoto that might make sense:

1) major investments in clean energy
2) a phased in tax on carbon emissions, and
3) a radical increase in foreign aid that's linked to forest preservation, women's education (the best form of family planning) and purchase of American-made green technology.

Waiting for the U.N. to come up with a workable policy is a foolish as waiting for the ice-caps to melt. It's way past time for America to lead, as oppose to merely kvetch, on this issue.

THE ARAB IVORY TOWER

It is depressing that a culture that produced such great scholars as Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd and is now reduced to passing off ignorance and hate as scholarship.

Exhibit A is the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up, funded by the Arab League. Here is their summary of their keynote speech in a conference responding to charges of Arab Anti-Semitism.

In his opening speech Mr. Mohammed Khalifa Al Murar, the Executive Director of the Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up repudiated Israelis claim of being the real Semites. “Paradoxically, they accuse Arabs who are Semites themselves, of anti-Semitism. After having usurped the land of Palestine, they claim to be the sons of soil.

They have exploited all possible tactics and their military and political clout to change world opinion in their favor. They know the hollowness of their claims. They know it very well that the descendants of Japheth have nothing to do with Semitism or Palestine. Yet, they churn out lies after lies till they make people believe that they are Semites and are being persecuted by others. They resort to this in order to cover their heinous crimes perpetrated against the Palestinian people.

Any discourse about Jew’s history will remain incomplete if it doesn’t shed light on that aspect of Jews that they always try to hide i.e. their non-Semite origin.

The Khizr Kingdom of the 9th century AD is a historical proof of their mendacity. The subjects of this kingdom who were descendants of Japheth Son of Prophet Noah embraced Judaism in the 9th century A.D. when the invading Mongols destroyed their kingdom, they were forced to flee across the Carpathian Mountains and subsequently settled in Eastern Europe and in particular Poland. Later they migrated to Palestine after claiming that it was their promised land.” Said Mr. Mohammed Khalifa Al Murar.

Expressing their true face, Mr. Al Murrar said, “Jews claim to be God’s most preferred people but the truth is they are the enemies of all nations. Most philosophers like Zimmer, consider Jews as cheaters whose greed knows no bounds. Today, after having controlled print and electronic media, they distort facts to suit their objectives”, added Mr. Al Murar.

That's right - according to the leading thinkers in the Arab world, Ashkenazi Jews are all decended from the Khazars. Rashi, the Crusades, the Germanic roots of Yiddish, apparently are all myths. Curiously, no effort is made to pinpoint the origins of the Jews of the Islamic world - and how they got to Spain, North Africa and Iraq before the Arabs ever arrived. Having completely rewritten the past 3000 years of history, it is no wonder that the seminar placed Holocaust revisionism as its centerpiece.

The Arab League Secretariat has affirmed its participation in the symposium on “Semitism” to be organized by ZCCF Wednesday, August 28, 2002.

The ZCCF is holding this symposium to counter the historical and political fallacies propagated by Israel that has used a variety of means during the past few decades and in particular after world War II. Israel has indulged in spreading lies and exaggerations about holocaust in order to squeeze out huge sums of money from European countries through worst forms of blackmail and to create false legends in support of the concept of Semitism and establishing a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.

Dr. Ahmad Saleem Jarad, will represent the Arab League Secretary General in the symposium. Besides, a number of eminent researchers, analysts and experts in Israeli propaganda methods will also take part in the deliberations

Yet somehow, Israel is expected to take the Arab League's "peace proposal" seriously. The question that all of those demanding Israeli concessions and overtures have yet to answer is - what evidence do you have that the Arabs are serious about peace with Israel? The projection of the American and Israeli's left own good intentions and rational calculus on to the Arabs doesn't count.

TAP-DANCING ON THE KRUGMAN BASHERS

Here are the highlights of Tapped's typology of Krugman bashers:

Pro-Bush Partisans. This group includes Sullivan, as well as a variety of conservatives (many of whom were left without a target for their anger when Anthony Lewis retired). Their motive: To take a bite out of the one pundit who is probably the single most effective Bush critic in the country. (Leveling Krugman is all the more important because Krugman's special skill is to unpack the Bush administration's chief brand of dishonesty; that is, budget and tax policy.) Their method: Gin up bogus charges of mendacity or conflict of interest, bounce them around the blogosphere, Lucianne.com, and FreeRepublic.com, and get the Wall Street Journal and the National Review to pick them up....


Offended Neoliberals. Among top Washington political writers of the center-left, the most cherished journalistic value is "counterintuitivity." This value is best honored by the periodical writing of articles explaining why one's own side is completely and utterly wrong about everything (and also stupid or "idiotic.") The greatest sin, on the other hand, is to be a consistent partisan -- someone who prefers to focus on attacking the other side. By these standards, Krugman is something of an abomination: A credentialed smart guy who shares the neoliberal pedigree but now has the bad taste to bash only Bush. Their motive: Cut Krugman down to size.Their method: niggling catalogues of minor errors, blown up to fantastic proportions, and repeated ad nauseum.

I oppose partisan consistency for its own sake as much as the next wanna-be-pundit but having something nice to say about Bush's tax, budget and economic policies makes about as much sense as praising the Texas Rangers pitching staff.

KYOTO OR PUNT?

Brad DeLong has an insightful response to the Skeptical Environmentalist's attack on the Kyoto treaty.

He [Lomborg] may well still be right that inaction on control of greenhouse gas emissions over the next twenty years is the best policy--but that claim needs a footnote warning that we need now to build the institutions necessary to take swift action if it turns out that things are worse than expected. He may well be right that the resources that Kyoto would suck up would do more for human welfare if spent creating a more human world by boosting public health and economic infrastructure--but that claim needs to be accompanied by a plan to make sure that these resources are devoted to their best alternative use in the global south. "Would" cuts no ice here. "Will" does.

And, most disappointing of all, is Lomborg's failure to even mention the importance of technological development. If it is the best policy to wait for a technological fix to the problem of global warming, then we need first to fix our technology so that it will be able to do what we ask of it when we need it.

It's not my field of expertise, but as a card-carrying economist I can't help but think that Lomborg is probably right when he condemns Kyoto as a worthless waste of the world's wealth--as something that will be ineffective at fighting global warming and so expensive as to foreclose options to do other things that would be more useful. Lomborg's flaw, however, is that he doesn't spell out what the "other things" we should be doing are. And that's what he needs to do if he wants to advance the ball.

This may come as news to the environmental ostriches, but the best alternative to flawed global warming policy might be an alternative policy, rather than none at all. Anyone ever thought of tying those IMF loans to investments in clean technology rather than failed austerity programs? Are you ready to explain to your grandchild why driving an SUV to Target was worth sinking half of Bangladesh under the ocean? Please forgive me if I remain skeptical of environmental skepticism.

ALTERMAN: NOT EVIL, JUST WRONG

It's heartening to see Alterman take time out of his Israel-bashing to attack the hard-core anti-Semites on the Left. It's one thing to blame the current war on Sharon, its another to attribute 9/11 to the Mossad. Can we get a short round of golf-claps for Mr. Alterman?

To be fair, it is important to distinguish anti-Israel views that are a mere extension of Jew hatred from anti-Israel views that originate from a complex mixture of Jewish guilt, membership in the cult of the victim and a shallow understanding of the conflict's history. I wouldn't want anyone to think of me as unfair, dude.

REUTERS SPIN WATCH

Tucked into a news article about the Arab response to Cheney's speech (Iraq is defiant, our "allies" are worried) is this gem of Palestinian propaganda.

Anti-American feeling is high in the region because of U.S. support for Israel as it tries to crush the Palestinian uprising against Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip

The problem is that the Palestinian war against Israel makes absolutely no sense if its intent is the end of Israeli occupation.

1) Israel wasn't occupying the populated parts of the West Bank and Gaza when the Palestinians began their campaign
2) Israel had put a deal on the table to turn the overwhelming majority of the unpopulated parts of the West Bank and Gaza over to a Palestinian state; and
3) The Palestinians have concentrated their attacks on Israeli civilians inside the 1967 borders.

As Thomas Friedman succintly put it, there is only one bumper-sticker phrase to explain Palestinian violence in this context: "Death to Israel." What's really at the root of "anti-American anger" is not our nation's support for Israel's counter-terrorist offensive, but its support for Israel's existence.

TAPPED'S FAUSTIAN BARGAIN

Tapped was kind enough to reply to my post criticizing their embrace of the "military men know best" line of anti-war rhetoric.

Not sure why you describe our crush as "new-found," unless you assume that we're generally anti-military, which a quick scan of our archives will tell you isn't the case. As for your broader point. This has nothing to do with a "broader alliance" or some long-term strategy on our part to subvert the Pentagon. It's just common sense. War is a massive, risky, bloody endeavor, even when it is in the service of a just cause. Military men know that; Dwight Eisenhower knew it, which is why he once said that he hates war more than any peace activist. We respect their opinion because they know much about war that civilians, chickenhawk ideologues, pundits, bloggers, and others do not.

While I appreciate Tapped's responsiveness, somewhere along the way they mistakenly filed my critique under "conservative hawk" and missed the whole point.

First off, I would never endorse the concept that any criticism of military leaders makes one "anti-military." I take the position that skepticism of the brass' consensus views is valuable - and Tapped's recent position shows an abandonment of that admirable skepticism. During the Clinton years, progressives were unafraid to challenge military leaders on such issues as the status of homosexuals in the military and the use of force to halt ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo. Why does the replacement of Clinton with Bush all of the sudden make our generals infallible?

Second, I'm not in the least worried about progressives "subverting" the Pentagon. What I do worry about is the impact of such an alliance with the anti-war realists on progressives and liberals. Brent Scowcraft and company do not care one whit about democracy or human rights. They do however, care a lot about maintaining a steady flow of oil coming out of Saudi Arabia.

I agree that war is a "massive, risky, bloody endeavor" - and military men know the costs in an intimate way that civilians never can. However, I believe that this intimate knowledge led British and French veterans of WWI to come to the wrong conclusions in the 1930s and our veterans of the Vietnam horror to come to the wrong conclusions about Bosnia, Kosovo and now Iraq. Taking the position that the professional soldier is always right about when to use force is an abdication of the moral responsibility of citizens in a democracy. And by placing their weight behind the realist arguments against the war as opposed to conditioning their support on a firm, irrevocable commitment to nation-building in its aftermath, progressives are sacrificing their core principles for short-term political gain. Hopefully, Tapped and other liberals will abandon this Faustian bargain before it is too late.

INTELLIGENT INTELLIGENCE SAFEGUARDS

The Justice Department has appealed the recent decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Court, resulting in the first ever review by the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillience Court of Review. That ruling slammed the FBI for filing 75 misleading applications to the secret court. It turns out that the major fibbing being done by the FBI was not in the alleged conduct of the suspect, but instead the degree to which the intelligence information was being shared with criminal prosecutors. In other words, the FBI violated the terms of the 1978 compromise - lower burdens for intelligence gathering in return for a guarentee that information obtained through those warrants not be used in ordinary criminal procedings. The insurance of this compromise was a strict ban on intelligence specialists sharing information gained through such warrants with prosecutors. In the context of a counter-terror prosecution, however, the neat distinction between "intelligence investigation" and "criminal investigation" breaks down. The mishaps of 9/11 show us that it is essential for any and all information to be shared. On the other hand, safeguards have to be in place to make sure that FISA is not abused as an end-run around the Fourth Amendment. One place to start would be with a revision of the Patriot Act that delineates what is and what is not a counter-terror prosecution.

SIXTH CIRCUIT TO ASHCROFT: SECRECY CAN'T BE A FIRST RESORT

In a panel decision, the Sixth Circuit held that the Justice Department can not close deportation hearings to the press solely on the basis of a blanket assertion that the defendant may be connected to terror. Instead, the Justice Department would have to show on a case by case basis why a closed hearing is necessary for national security.

Democracies die behind closed doors," wrote Judge Damon J. Keith for the unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Bush administration has sought, the panel said, to place its actions "beyond public scrutiny."

"When the government begins closing doors," the panel continued, "it selectively controls information rightfully belonging to the people. Selective information is misinformation."

Its a bedrock principle of our democracy that secrecy can not be a first resort. There are plenty of steps that the Justice Department can take and should take to effectively enforce our immigration laws - radically improved visa screening and tracking, and aggressive pursuit of visa violaters. Our commitment to due process is worth the risk of accidentally expelling a potential terrorist as a mere illegal alien. And premature expulsion sure beats not finding them at all.

IT DEPENDS WHAT YOUR DEFINITION OF "APPROVAL" IS

As a "war hawk who is not against the Constitution" (tortured phraseology and inciteful questioning courtesy of Jeff Hauser), I find the Bushies on dangerous ground with their pronouncement that they already have Congressional approval for an invasion of Iraq. Granted, Saddam has violated the terms of the cease-fire of the Gulf War, but the authorization given by the 1991 bill is framed explicitly in terms of U.N. Security Counsel resolutions. I don't see how it can be reasonably interpreted as grounds for a unilateral full-scale invasion. And the post 9/11 bill can not reasonably be extended to an action not directly connected with the 9/11 attacks. Its time for the Bushies to make their case, put a bill before Congress and have a public vote - and let the American people decide if they approve their representatives decisions in November.

REALIST ECHO CHAMBER CONTINUES TO FILL

TAPPED thinks it's a big deal that Jim Baker has joined the chorus of "prudent" GOPpers warning W. against attacking Iraq. Right, because Scowcraft and Baker agree about as much as the ACLU and PFAW or Hannity and O'Reilly or Exxon and Mobil or...

HITCHENS AGAINST THE STATUS QUO LEFT

Christopher Hitchens on the left's embrace of the Realist critique of war in Iraq:

What the Iraqi and Kurdish democrats would like is American aid for and endorsement of their own efforts to replace the regime. And what they fear is what I also fear - a heavy-handed US attack which results in an Iraqi puppet government that is designed to placate the Saudis and the Turks. That, it seems to me, is where a principled critique of the war-planning might begin. But it's depressing to see the status quo Left preferring to parrot the arguments of pacifist realpolitik.

I am baffled, however, by Hitchens assertion that "General Sharon" appears to be against a war to liberate Iraq in his "public pronouncements". Believe me, if there is anything that unites all Israelis from Yossi Sarid to Effi Eitam - its support for replacing Saddam Hussein with a democratic, pro-Western government. Which leads me to wonder if the source of this prevarication is Hitchens inability to be on the same side as Israel, or his awareness that anti-semitism has reached such a fever pitch among the Euroleft that the best argument one can make for a position is that Israel opposes it.

THE GREAT ZIONIST MIDDLE

It's become more and more common parlance among the left to assert that anyone who defends Israel's retaliation against Palestinian terror must be a hard-line opponent of a compromise peace. This ignorance (willful or not) obscures the more nuanced views of the great Zionist middle who embraced the Oslo process, but now understand it as a debacle, brought down by both its inherent weaknesses and short-sighted implementation. Professor Shlomo Avineri's latest op-ed speaks from our persective.

So that there should be no mistake: I am against Jewish settlements in the territories; I strongly feel that setting them up was a major mistake; and I am ready for dismantling settlements as part of a real peace package. But anyone who compares settlement activities to suicide bombings targeting civilians is a moral cripple.

Rather than throwing out "Likud" as a pejorative (I'd like to see Alterman write a coherent paragraph that cites Jabotinksy) and impugning the Zionist's center's clear commitment to a negotiated peace, the Left should take some time to reflect on why their morality is so crippled when it comes to Israel.

PROGRESSIVES AGAINST EFFECTIVE PROGRESSIVE LEADERHSIP

Here's a question to which I haven't seen an answer at from the band of lefties mourning the defeats of Hilliard and McKinney.

If you support active governmental steps to reduce racial inequality in America (equalization of educational funding, subsidization of job growth in the inner city, welfare reform that takes job training as seriously as paring the numbers of the rolls); and in order for any of these steps to be taken, black politicians have to build coalitions that reach beyond their own constiuency:


How on earth can it be a bad thing for alienating radicals to be replaced with leaders who are far better at building these essential coalitions?

SOMETHING JEB SHOULD HAVE VETOED

Nicholas Kristof is the latest to report on Florida's misogynistic adoption laws which requires women to disclose the name and address of the father of baby offered for adoption, or else to publish an ad listing her full name, physical description, and recent sexual history. The purported reason behind this law was to reduce the risk of a father emerging years after an adoption and seeking custody. There's a much simpler way to deal with this - stop granting custody to these losers. If a man wants to be sure that he knows all of his biological offspring there's a simple solution - stop having casual sex.

PSST, W. I HATE TO INTERRUPT YOUR GOLF GAME....

But remember that guy whose name you couldn't pronounce, you know started with an M, became our big ally in the war on terror. Well, he's trying to squelch democracy in Pakistan. We might want to do something about that.

KVETCHING IN THE SWAMP

Gator-State Dems are kvetching about Ariel Sharon's visit to Miami, where he will be headlining a pro-Israel rally in Miami, which will also be attended by the current governor, Jeb Bush. The implication is that the trip is simply Ariel's way of saying thanks to W. for his support of Israel's counter-terror measures. Well, I suppose you could spin it that way although I'm not sure how doing so gains the Dems any votes. But, that story fails to factor in that 1) Miami is the 3rd largest Jewish community in the U.S., 2) Sharon's also going to a rally to the 2nd largest community - L.A., and 3) he's already been to New York. Instead of whining about this non-issue, maybe Florida Dems can get back to what they should be doing - reminding the electorate of the state GOP's dirty tricks in 2000 and hammering away at the weak points in Jeb's record. Maybe we should send Hauser down there.

Update
Sharon isn't coming to Miami and L.A. in September after all, saving the Swamp Dems from their own stupidity.

TAPPED'S CRUSH ON THE MILITARY BRASS

Tapped is yet the latest to be smitten in the recent liberal love-in of the military brass, and bizarre opposition to democratizing the Middle East. What makes this depressing is that there is plenty of room to criticize the Bushies WITHOUT abandoning core progressive principles. In the past couple of weeks, Thomas Friedman seems to be doing an excellent job in this department.

Translating This Last Paragraph Into Jargon: Liberals who criticize Pax America positions using Realist arguments are advancing an agenda that it is in the long-run hostile to their values. It would be far more productive to criticize Pax Americana positions from a Neo-Wilsoninan perspective. There, I have now rendered my argument completely indecipherable to anyone who has not read my previous post!

SNIFF, SNIFF

Eric Alterman is kvetching about all the nasty emails he's gotten in response to the incessant anti-Israel ranting he attempts to pass off as objective and informed commentary. Sure, a few of them crossed the line, but dude, what do you expect when you're an apologist for murder?

MANY JERUSALEMS, DIVISIBLE AND DEADLY

Israel has captured the Hamas cell responsible for the Hebrew University massacre and a number of other grisly terror attacks. The truly frightening news is that the cell was located within Jerusalem itself. As much as their capture is a stunning success for Israeli intelligence, it demonstrates the utter failure of its Jerusalem policy - in which the Israeli government has deluded itself into believing that there exists one Jerusalem, indivisible. In fact there are many Jerusalems - but most significantly there is the Ancient Jerusalem of the Old City, a Jewish Jerusalem (neo-schtetl and modern) and a completely unassimilated Arab Jerusalem. It is painfully obvious that putting a wall around Jerusalem's borders with the West Bank will accomplish little with Hamas lurking just down the hill from the university, or across the road from City Hall. Israel needs to choose between two unpalatable alternatives - to seperate Arab Jerusalem from the rest of the city - or to seperate Arabs from Jerusalem. It can no longer afford to craft its policy around a fantasy of a Jerusalem that dovetails more with messianic dreams than actual reality.

FOREIGN POLICY: SOME LABELS THAT MIGHT HELP

Aziz Poonwalla has concluded that the various labels people keep throwing out to describe various schools of foreign policy are unhelpful. To the extent that people are trying to fit various opinions into the boxes "liberal", "conservative", "moderate" and "ideologue" he's right - those labels are pretty worthless. However, the following doctrinal positions serve to clarify the muddled foreign policy debate. In brief, the three main issues that divide the various approaches are the following:

1) How involved should America be in international affairs?

Isolationists oppose American involvement

Internationalists support American involvement


2) What is the proper role of international institutions in American foreign policy?

Unilateralists believe American foreign policy should be conducted independent of international institutions

Multilateralists belive American foreign policy should be coordinated with international institutions


3) To what extent should American foreign policy goals be linked with the promotion of American values:

Idealists believe that a central objective of American foreign policy should be to promote liberal democracy

Realists believe American foreign policy should be unencumbered by ideological constraints



Different answers to these questions have produced the following schools of thought that are most dominant in American political discourse. The nuances on other questions are irrelevant for the various Isolationists who all agree that America should scale back its international commitments and focus more on domestic problems. The Internationalists break down into the following four groups.


1) Classical Realists: Unilateralist & Realist. The relevant international actors are states - and the principle of sovreignity is essential to international order. The balance of power and the access to essential resources, not ideology should drive policy objectives. This ideology is best represented by "conservative" foreign policy establishment such as Henry Kissenger, Brent Scowcraft and Bush the Elder.


2) Global Realists: Multilateralist & Realist. In the wake of globalization, trans-national and sub-national institutions are more relevant than nation states. International institutions, such as the U.N. and IMF need to be strengthed to maintain order. The United States needs to coordinate its policy actions in accordance to international law and institutions. This ideology is best represented by the "liberal" foreign policy establishment (Sandy Berger and much of the Clinton team), and dominates European thought on the issue.


3) Pax Americanas: Unilateralist & Idealist. International institutions are not only insufficient to the task of managing global order, but they are hostile (or indifferent at best) to the values of liberal democracy. The United States, therefore, needs to use its position as global hegemon to promote a liberal democratic order worldwide through proactive diplomatic and military intervention.
The clearest supporters of this view are the "neocons" such as Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan and William Kristol.


4) Neo-Wilsonians: Multilateral & Idealist: This is the least developed position, but if you define it opposition to the other three it effectively advocates the promotion of liberal democracy through international institutions. American foreign policy should be based on partnerships with these institutions to engage in nation-building, democracy promotion and environmental cooperation. This is a position that the progressives outside the anti-American camp (e.g. Josh Marshall, American Prospect) are groping towards in a more or less defined manner.


Thus, summing up the current debate on Iraq:

1) The Pax Americanas are the war's strongest advocates for obvious reasons.

2) The Classical Realists are worried that the war aims are too ambitious, would mire the U.S. in a long-term nation-building project and would destablize the region. They advocate a more cautious approach, such as replacing Hussein through a coup with a more amenable despot.

3) The Globalists are opposed to the war because of its unilateralist nature. There is no international sanction for such an action, and the precedent of preemption sets a dangerous precedent. They are also opposed to the concept of America "imposing" its values on another nation.

4) There hasn't really been a coherent Neo-Wilsonian argument, but the closest to one would be as follows A war to replace Hussein is only justifiable in terms of a serious commitment to build a democratic Middle East. They are skeptical about the war because the international community is not on board, and they do not trust the Bush Administration to successfully manage the war's aftermath. These two issues link in the idea that international cooperation is essential to effective nation-building.

TRYING TO MANAGE THE UNMANAGEABLE: THE LIMITS OF REALIST DOCTRINE

John Derbyshire does an excellent job of explaining why Brent Scowcraft, despite his decades of expertise, is giving seriously flawed advice on Iraq. In the process, he explains why realism, with its ethos of managing foreign policy is incapable of responding to the challenges of determined ideologues who do not accept the ground rules of the international order.

The Scowcroft problem is not one of timidity or over-accommodation: It is one of commitment to managerialism. To Scowcroft, international relations are to be managed. The Soviets were to be managed; the Chinese are to be managed; Saddam Hussein is to be managed. This business of managing the world requires high skill and deep experience; and there is no place in it for emotion, sentiment, rhetoric, moral judgment, dramatic initiatives or leaps of the imagination....

Now of course, this Kissingerian-Scowcroftian view of things is correct most of the time in all places, and all the time in most places. International relations are to be managed; and it is a good thing we have skilled diplomats and seasoned advisers to manage them for us. These managerial methods fail, though, when a serious and ruthless threat to the international order, or some important part of it, arises. The British Foreign Office of the 1930s was not short of policy wonks, international-relations PhDs and seasoned advisers. Unfortunately, they were all wrong. The man who was right was a self-educated romantic with a reputation for political unreliability and personal eccentricity, yet who knew that Hitler could not be managed but had to be confronted — as, of course, though unfortunately later rather than sooner, he eventually was....

Yes: when management has failed, confrontation becomes necessary: and a self-educated romantic like Winston Churchill or Ronald Reagan, with clear moral vision and unshakeable faith in his own powers of judgment, is just the person you want in charge at such a time, however much the Kissingerians may cringe at rhetoric about "gangster cliques" or "evil empires."

The issue we currently face with Saddam Hussein is, of course: Is this actually such a time? Have managerial principles actually failed? It seems clear to me that they have — not only in respect of Iraq, but all over the Middle East...

REPARATIONS: PUT THE MESSENGER ASIDE

It's easy to look at the bigots and fools who paraded on the Mall this past weekend and dismiss the argument for reparations for slavery as nonsense. But there are cold, hard stats that support the movement's more rational adherents. All you have to do is look at the average dollar per pupil spent in schools - and percentage of African-Americans at those schools. When we've erased that massive gap, we can start to talk about nearing racial equality in the country. We're a long ways off.

TOM FRIEDMAN GETS IT

Thomas Friedman is not a big fan of Ariel Sharon. He has been a long-time harsh critic of Israel's settlement policy. But Friedman gets what the rest of the "pox on both houses" liberal pundits commenting on the Middle East do not - that the Palestinians' summary rejection of Camp David and deliberate turn to violence in the fall of 2000 changed everything.

A remarkable news article from Gaza appeared in The Washington Post last week, and it deserved more attention than it got. The article reported that for the past month, the 12 main Palestinian factions had been holding secret talks to determine the "ground rules for their uprising against Israel, trying to agree on such fundamental issues as why they are fighting, what they need to end the conflict and whether suicide bombings are a legitimate weapon."

Let me repeat that in case you missed it: two years into the Palestinian uprising, Palestinian factions were meeting to determine why they are fighting and whether their means are legitimate.

I can't say I'm surprised. From the moment this uprising began, I, and others, argued that it was a reckless, pointless, foolish adventure. Why? Because at the time the Palestinians had before them on the table, from the U.S. and Israel, a credible diplomatic alternative to war — a peace offer that would have satisfied the vast majority of their aspirations for statehood.

From the moment this intifada got rolling, Palestinians have never been able to explain why they were adopting armed struggle, killing Israeli civilians with suicide bombs and exposing their own people and institutions to utter devastation — when they had a credible opening diplomatic offer to end the occupation.

Oh, yes, Palestinian spokesmen, and their chorus in the Western diplomatic corps and media, would tell you things like this: The U.S. offer wasn't for 96 percent of the West Bank, it was for only 90 percent (not true), or the U.S. and Israeli proposals did not offer the Palestinians a contiguous state in the West Bank, but just a collection of "Bantustans" (not true). But even if the opening U.S. and Israeli offers were as insufficient as the Palestinians claim, they never justified this ruinous war. A Palestinian peace overture to improve those offers would have gotten them so much more and spared them so much pain.

But the Arab and European "friends" of the Palestinians, instead of confronting them on this issue, became their apologists and enablers, telling us why the Palestinians' "desperation" had led them to suicide bombing. It was their enabling that helped produce this situation where the Palestinians, two years into a disastrous war, are meeting to decide what it is about.

And where was Yasir Arafat's leadership? Resting as usual on his motto: "It doesn't matter where my people want to go, even if it's into a ditch. All that matters is that I get to drive."

But there is a message in this bottle for America, too. It's the first rule of warfare: never launch a war that you can't explain to your people and the world on a bumper sticker. If it requires an explanation from a Middle East expert on CNN, you're on the wrong track. The Palestinians could never explain why they were killing Jews to end an occupation that the U.S. and Israel were offering to end through diplomacy. There is only one bumper-sticker phrase that can explain such behavior: "Death to Israel." And if that is their real strategy, then a war to the death it will be. If it's not, then what have they been up to?

The collapse of a middle ground on the issue is quite simple. When it looked like the Palestinians truly sought a compromise through negotiation - moderate Zionists like myself supported Labor's efforts to reach that agreement and opposed Likud's efforts to thwart it. When the Palestinians responded to Israeli diplomacy with war, however, and with the Israeli Left entangled in a web of post-Oslo denial, there is no where else to turn but to Sharon, Bibi and the Likud. The only ones who can make the Israeli Left relevant again are the same ones who rendered them irrelevant - the Palestinians. I for one, am not holding my breath.

THE TIMES OP-ED PAGE v. BUSH: A DRAW

Frank Rich Shoots - and Scores!

Frank Rich hammers the Bush Administration's style-over-substance governance style - which has produced the Waco "summit" in lieu of economic policy and and Ashcroft's hype-conferences over systematic domestic security reform. In this context, he asks the following pointed question:

What's been most remarkable about the Iraq project so far is how an administration as effectively secretive as this one could spring so many leaks of invasion scenarios to the press. It strains credulity to assert that this is all an ingenious conspiracy to fake out Saddam. The leaks fake us out instead, inuring us to the new war to come.

Up until this point, I had been going with the disgruntled establishment theory - that the realists in the State Department and career b-crats in the Pentagon were leaking to sabotage the neocons push for action. On the other hand, Rich has a good point - Rove & Co. may prefer for these leaks to keep coming. That way, the debate on Iraq dominating the news cycle, and pushes other fronts in the war on terror to the background. Which of course, leads one to question - what do when the war on Iraq is necessary AND the Bushies are trying to milk it for all the political returns it can bring?


Dowd Swings -- and Misses !!

According to Maureen, the realist/neocon debate on Iraq is really no more than Bush the Younger having "daddy issues."

The Bush I moderates worry that the Bush II ideologues will use terrorism as an alibi for imperialism. Bush II thinks Bush I is trapped in self-justification.

Note to Maureen: Your so-called "moderates" happen to be quite dogmatic adherents of Realism. Scowcraft, Poppy and Baker all page obeisance before the twin altars of Sovreignity and Stability. What goes on inside an international border, on the other hand, is none of our business. It was this unswerving commitment to realism that led Bush I to appease the Saudis, abandon democratic reform in liberating Kuwait, and permit an unvanquished Saddam to massacre Kurdish and Shi'ite rebels. A decade later, with the clear decline of the nation-state ongoing, and in the aftermath of a devastating terror attack from a non-state actor, labeling the desperate clinging to an outdated theory "moderate" is a mistake only a foreign policy amateur could make. It's really too bad that Comedy Central cancelled "That's My Bush!", depriving Dowd of her true calling - political sitcom writer.

ACTUALLY, THEY SHOULD BE CALLED "PADILLA" RIGHTS

I think Charles Krauthammer gets it just about right on the issue of rights for U.S. citizens deemed "enemy combatants."

The Hamdi case suggests a benchmark: as much as is necessary to successfully operate in the field. Hamdi, after all, was not picked up in a midnight raid in Louisiana for no discernible reason. He was captured in Afghanistan carrying a rifle for the Taliban. His designation is tautological. What do you call an armed enemy in a combat zone if not "enemy combatant"?

In such a case, no more judicial review should be required than what the government has already provided in the Hamdi case: a short statement setting out the circumstances of his capture. You should get labeled an enemy combatant and forfeit the normal legal protections depending on the circumstances of your apprehension. Fighting with the enemy in a combat zone is a pretty good threshold.

On the other hand, those who support the government's tough treatment of Hamdi should acknowledge a different standard for a citizen apprehended unarmed in the United States. In that case, legal protections should apply and the burden of proof should be on the military to prove combatant status. That means granting the defendant the right to a lawyer and requiring evidence justifying the detention, presented to a court.

With this sensible distinction in mind, the troubling case is not that of Lindh or Hamzi, put Padilla the alleged "dirty bomber" picked up a Chicago airport. In a case like that, the burden has to be on the government to prove combatant status. The way to effectively fight a war without sacrificing civil liberties is to put up sensible, effective firewalls to ensure that the unique circumstances of war can not be abused in other contexts. The one Krauthammer proposes is an essential one.

ALTER(KOCKER)MAN TAKES A CONSISTENT PRO MASSACRE STANCE

Eric Alterman, who claims to be anti-Hamas, thinks that Marwan Barghouti, who spearheaded Fatah's violent response to Camp David is a freedom fighter. He also has kind words to say about Brent Scowcraft, the man most responsible for Bush I's tepid response to Tianemman Square. Well at least he's being consistent.

JUST ONE MORE REASON WHY I SHOULD BECOME A D.A.

Bob Herbert's latest column is on an Alabama travesty of justice in which a retarded man was thrown in jail for killing his ex-wife's infant. The evidence for: allegations of the woman who had an incentive to lie about pregnancy to get release from jail, her felon boyfriend, and the "confession" of the husband after days of being interrogated without counsel. Otherwise there is no evidence that she was ever pregnant baby even existed. The evidence against: HER TUBES WERE TIED. The local D.A.'s response to Mr. Herbert's question of if there was a chance he would consider dropping the charges in light of this evidence - "Not in this lifetime." I'm sure I'll never be able to use the position as a springboard to politics, but someone has to be in the room to say "wait a minute, isn't our job to convict only the guilty people?"

PUTTING OUR MONEY WHERE OUR MOUTH IS IN THE MIDDLE EAST (SOMEWHAT)

The Bush Administration has decided that we shouldn't give Egypt an extra $130 million dollars a year when it locks someone up for monitoring elections and registering voters. Hmm, I wonder where that idea came from Colin Powell and the Foggy Bottom Bunch or one of those neocon ex-think tankers? Oh well, Foggy Bottom can at least take solace in the fact that the $2 billion annual package to Mubarak's thugocracy is still untouchable - for now.

A FOR CLARITY, F FOR CONTENT

The American Prospect's Harold Meyerson says that while ambiguity on Iraq is good politics for the Dems, who hope to cash in on the GOP's woefull domestic legacy, principle requires them to come out against the war now to avert a disaster on the scale of Vietnam.

WHEN DID THE DEMS GO SOFT?

Just One Minute fills in the truck-wide gap in the latest installment of the Democratic saga to get a clue about foreign policy: Vietnam might have had something to do with the decline of Dems reputation on defense issues. They over-learned their lessons from the war - moving past skepticism over the use of American force to dogmatic opposition to it. They went past recognizing that many of our Cold-War "allies" were thugs to apologizing for our Cold War foes. The dominant storyline of the left was that international enemies were constructed to distract the American people from pressing issues at home. (For a good example - rent Bob Roberts, which every so often inserts footage of the run-up to the Gulf War into is mocumentary about a folk-singing, right-wing candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania implying the war was somehow connected to Roberts' crypto-facist domestic agenda.) Well, after 9/11 we know the enemies are very much real - and its time for a Democratic narrative that echoes John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman, not George McGovern and Walter Mondale.

NEGOTIATING PARTNERS

As if one needed any more convincing that the PA is an illegimate negotiating partner, there is this week's failed effort (the latest of many) to reach a binding agreement with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Palestinians truly interested in peace with Israel wouldn't try to ally with Hamas, they'd try to crush it. If you're waiting for a condemnation of PA actions from the Israel-bashing left, don't hold your breath.

THE ONGOING MYSTERY OF DEMOCRATIC FOREIGN POLICY

Peter Beinart sums up the unreality of the current debate on Iraq in the latest TNR

There's nothing wrong with all these calls for dialogue. But it's hard to have a useful discussion when only one side knows what it thinks. And right now only one side does. Bush and most Republicans are arguing that the United States should go to war against Iraq; most Democrats are arguing that we should argue about it......

The Democrats don't need more information about war with Iraq. What they need is a theory about how post-September 11 international relations work Bush has a theory: preemption. His idea is that containment--the first hallmark of cold war U.S. foreign policy--won't work against terrorists and mad dictators who want to wreak havoc at least as much as they want to capture territory. And that deterrence--the second hallmark--won't work against fanatics who aren't fazed by the prospect of massive retaliation. So the United States must destroy them before they destroy us.

So far Democrats have quibbled with the details of Bush's Iraq strategy, but, because they haven't addressed the preemption theory that underlies it, those quibbles haven't been very compelling

TNR has a theory (which I share), which is that preemption needs to be supplemented with multilateralist projects such as nation-building. What exactly is the Dems theory? Has anyone heard from Joseph Nye recently? I know he thinks the answer lies somewhere in the middle - but where exactly does he think the middle is these days?