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?

THE POLITICS OF JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

I finally got around to the Jeffrey Rosen piece in the Sunday Times. I agree with him on the absurdity of reducing every appellate nomination to a debate over the merits of Roe v. Wade. However, there are two major points that I think he fails to bring out. First off, he implies that the legislature is the sole villian in the partisan gridlock that has emerged in recent decades. But just as much fault must lie with the executive branch stubbornly asserting its right to pack the court with ideological fellow travellers during periods of divided government. It's not 1936 - neither Clinton nor Bush have a mandate to radically change the makeup of the federal bench. If Bush really wanted to fill the empty judicial slots he could always compromise by nominating qualified candidates from both parties.

Second, Rosen fails to address the particular context of judicial appointments after Bush v. Gore. The great check on the judicial branch is the appointments process - judges have the power to interpret laws in counter-majoritarian fashion, but the political branches have the right to respond by appointing successors with more majoritarian views. However, in Bush v. Gore, the five-member conservative majority of the court in effect chose their sucessors, ensuring that if they retired in the next four years, they would be replaced by a judge of similar ideological bent. Sentate Democrats, therefore, would be justified in blocking any appointee to the High Court during this Bush Administration, in service of keeping this vital check on judicial power.

So there's a simple solution to Rosen's sad story of the two qualified appointees from different parties who were casulties of the partisan appointments process - they should be nominated and confirmed - together.

MEMRI AND BIAS

Alterman approvingly cites a piece in the Israel-hating Guardian that bashes MEMRI for cherry-picking outrageous items in its translation of the Arabic press. Apparently the Altered One, who is quite adroit himself in using slimy tactics to advance his anti-Israel views thinks that the Guardian and CAIR are reliable sources on which to evaluate an analysis of Middle East news. The Guardian's smear tactics however, fail to impugn MEMRI's integrity. The sad truth is that the rabid anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism are prevalent in the Islamic world - and the mere concept of an Arab equivalent to Ha'aretz is laughable. Quite simply, there is ample evidence of Israeli respect for the humanity of Arabs and Muslims, and little to no evidence of Arab and Muslim respect for the humanity of Jews. MEMRI's selections merely reflects this reality.

THE GREAT ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY EXPERIMENT CONTINUES

Put aside the images of melting icecaps and dystopic visions of a drowned Manhattan. The real threats from global climate destablization are far more mundane, but just as deadly. Rain that was supposed to provide much needed water for crops in one part of the world, has instead poured down in torrential flooding in another. Yesterday's headlines read like a capsule of a bad disaster movie - Asian Smog Cloud Threatens Millions. The time has long passed for studying these problems. It's time to pull the plug on this experiment - by moving agressively towards the development of cleaner energy sources. Its time for the U.S. to get behind a reduction of carbon emmissions and exporting of green technology to the developing world. And its time for the developing world to stop seeing global climate issues primarily a chance to shakedown the richer nations of the world and to accept emmission caps that can be met by taking a cleaner path to economic development.

HOW LIBERALS LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE MILITARY BRASS

Joshua Micah Marshall has a problem. He's a liberal pundit - which means that every natural instinct within him is screaming for him to oppose the war against Iraq. However, he happens to be an exceptionally intelligent and intellectually honest liberal pundit, which has led him to conclude that a military intervention to enact regime change in Iraq is a sound policy objective. Since reaching that conclusion, Marshall has suffered an ongoing internal struggle, pulled in opposite directions by his political insticts and policy analysis. His first attempt at a compromise, laid out at the end of his Washington Monthly piece was to argue for a division of labor - with the neocon ideologues (who were right about Afghanistan) in charge of setting the broad policy objectives, but entrusting the the more cautious, thorough defense and foreign policy establishments with designing and implementing the plans needed to reach these goals.

Marshall's political side, however, chafed at the thought of being aligned with his neocon foes. On second thought, he wondered aloud, perhaps regime change isn't the such a great policy after all, if the Bushies were to the ones to do it. Thus, Marshall, like much of the liberal punditocracy, got behind the arguments of the neocons' internal opponents, the military brass and career diplomats who have fought a furious rear-guard action to thwart an invasion of Iraq. Here's Marshall, writing in Salon, in a piece on the civillian-military dispute over defense policy, discussing the neocon vision and the brass' (reasonable according to Marshall) response.

In the minds of these second-tier appointees, taking out Saddam Hussein is only part of a larger puzzle. Their grand vision of the Middle East goes something like this: Stage 1: Iraq becomes democratic. Stage 2: Reformers take over in Iran. That would leave the three powerhouses of the Middle East -- Turkey, Iraq and Iran -- democratic and pro-Western. Suddenly the Saudis wouldn't be just one more corrupt, authoritarian Arab regime slouching toward bin Ladenism. They'd be surrounded by democratic states that would undermine Saudi rule both militarily and ideologically.

As a plan to pursue in the real world, most of the career military and the civilian employees at the Pentagon -- indeed most establishment foreign policy experts -- see this vision as little short of insane. But to Bush's hawkish Pentagon appointees the real prize isn't Baghdad, it's Riyadh. And the Saudis know it.

Marshall accepts the "experts" opinion that the neocons are insane uncritically. Marshall is smart enought to realize that the military often defines the "possible" in light of their own agenda. However, he does not bring that insight to bear in this case. Sure, building a democratic Iraq will require a much greater commitment than simply ousting Saddam, but barring the racist notion that Arabs are incable of democratic rule how can it be considered impossible? Similarly, Marshall gives no reason why pessimism about Iranian reform is justified. Finally, and most disturbingly, Marshall seems to believe that the neocon strategic goal of limiting Saudi power and infuence, which is inextricably linked with radical Islamism, is misguided.

All of these critiques of the neocon program are understandable from a realist point of view. Realists believe that American power should be expended only to deter and destroy imminent security threats, not to be squandered on idealistic crusades such as spreading democracy to the Middle East. What is confusing, however, is hearing these arguments reflexed back from risk-adverse generals and diplomats by self-proclaimed liberals.

Marshall himself admits that the belief that military matters should just be left to the professionals is a flawed one. Still, he can not take the final step towards endorsing the neocons against the establishment.

But if the civilians themselves are hidebound ideologues, then much of the benefit of strong civilian control is lost. It's just the blind leading the blind. And in Iraq that could get us into a heap of trouble.

Of course, as Marshall himself has written, if we don't follow these ideologues into Iraq, we will be in far greater trouble. For that to happen, however, liberals must allow principle to trump politics. The legitimate liberal critique is the one Marshall presented in May - not whether to pursue the agenda of transforming the Middle East, but how to pursue it in a way that gives it the best chance of long-term success. Josh Marshall and other liberals who choose instead to back the realist establishment will find themselves in the end satisfying neither their hearts nor their heads.

MORE ON THE SPARKS EXTINGUISHED

My friend, Sam Shapiro, in this exceptional piece in the Forward, writes of deaths and more importantly the lives of the friends she lost and the world lost in the Hebrew University massacre.

I lost two friends in the Hebrew University bombing last Wednesday.

You lost them too; they were studying to be day-school teachers, and they would have been amazing — warm, passionate, intellectually charged. I don't blame you for not mourning them or for not remembering their names, Marla Bennett, 24, and Ben Blutstein, 25. Two people were murdered in terrorist attacks the day before, nine were murdered the day after, then two, then 14.

We are getting used to the images of a mangled restaurant, bus or street corner; the blood-spattered flesh, the chaotic spray of shoes and bookbags, the neon yellow of the volunteers' vests. We hold our breath during the body count and feel very sorry, but what can we do? It is not possible to remember and mourn even a fraction of the 605 victims. The media knows this. It's hard to imagine that a terrorist attack that killed five Americans anywhere but Israel would be off the TV screen by Friday, but how many times can the same story be reported?

The story of the deaths — innocent young people senselessly killed — are all the same, but the story of each life is unique, containing its own irreplaceable particular magic. My friends wanted to teach. If we take time to remember their lives and learn from them, we can give them a chance to do that

The article is very much worth reading in its entirety.

HUMANE HAWKISHNESS

I want to clear up the misunderstanding that I excluded Iraqi civilian casulties in my analysis of whether in retrospect the Gulf War was justified, and whether an upcoming war with Iraq is justified if it contains a similarly botched endgame. I have to confess that I'm not completely comfortable reducing something as precious as human life as part of a cold cost-benefit analysis, but since I reject the morality of absolute pacifism, its something I have to put aside. Considering Saddam's predilection for killing his own people, its unclear exactly how much higher the loss of Iraqi civilian life was due to U.S. military action. However, whatever those losses are, they can only be justified under limited circumstances. Clearly there is a point B that is so close to point A that the lives lost reaching it aren't worth it.

That however was not the case in the Gulf War. As dissapointing as the actual results of the war were, they were a dramatic improvement over the likely results of allowing Saddam to remain in Kuwait. Similarly, even if Bush II's reluctance to invest in long-term nation-building prevents the creation of a stable, democratic Iraq, the end result is a major improvement over what would happen if we don't remove Saddam from power. However, it is a far better outcome, both strategically and morally if the destruction of Saddam's regime is followed by the construction of a true Arab democracy centered in the greatest capital in Arab history.

DOVEBLOGGERS: DON'T TOUCH THE THE HOLY OIL FIELDS

Hauser cites to this semi-coherent screed against the neocons, who have led the admirable effort to reexamine our so-called alliance with Saudi Arabia - the financial and ideological fount of radical Islamist terror.

Now the warbloggers are all happy that the Defense Policy Board, headed by Richard Perle, is considering their crazy ideas to humiliate Islam by occupying the country with the Islamic holy places.

This sentence, of course, gives the misleading impression that the hawks are in some sense advocating for American troops to march into Mecca and plunk the Stars and Stripes in the center of the Qaba. The Washington Post article cited by the doveblogger however said something radically different.

Murawiec said in his briefing that the United States should demand that Riyadh stop funding fundamentalist Islamic outlets around the world, stop all anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli statements in the country, and "prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including in the Saudi intelligence services."

If the Saudis refused to comply, the briefing continued, Saudi oil fields and overseas financial assets should be "targeted," although exactly how was not specified.

The report concludes by linking regime change in Iraq to altering Saudi behavior. This view, popular among some neoconservative thinkers, is that once a U.S. invasion has removed Hussein from power, a friendly successor regime would become a major exporter of oil to the West. That oil would diminish U.S. dependence on Saudi energy exports, and so -- in this view -- permit the U.S. government finally to confront the House of Saud for supporting terrorism.

First, its pretty clear that the motivation behind seizing the Saudi oilfields has nothing to do with "humiliating Islam," and everything to do with starving terrorist organizations of funds. It's quite simple - the U.S. wants to be able to purchase oil without enriching the people who are trying to kill Americans. Second, the oil fields and the Hejaz (the province that contains Mecca & Medina) are on opposite sides of the Arabian peninsula - the Arabian Gulf Coast is no more "holy" than Kuwait or Oman. Third, the dovebloggers give way too much credence to the Saudi claim to being the "guardian" of the Holy Places. They achieved this position by conquering Mecca in the 1920s. There are millions of non-Wahhabi Muslims who would be happy to have a more tolerant Islamic regime in charge of supervising the Hajj.

After 9/11, the truly crazy idea would be NOT to reevaluate our relationship with Saudi Arabia, and continue allow the toxic combination of oil and radical Islam spread flames of terror throughout the world.

UPDATE:
Having read the infamous anti-Saudi slide presentation thanks to Slate, it is clear that at least the most radical anti-Saudis want to threaten them with losing their "custodianship" of the Holy Places as well as their oil fields. However, while backing a plan to reestablish Hashemite rule over Hejaz would clearly be aimed at humialating the Saudis, and humiliating Wahhabis, it in no way, shape, or form is an attempt to humiliate Islam. Dovebloggers are making a critical mistake, equal to those of the most bigoted hawks if they equate "Islam" with the perverted Wahhabist strain that the Saudis promote.

DEVOTION AND DADS

National Review Online cites to a survey showing evangelicals and Catholic fathers spend more time with their children than mainline Protestant and secular dads. This finding surprised sociologist Bradley Wilcox, who came up with the study, because of evangelicals embrace "traditional gender roles." I'm not an evangelical by any means, but I firmly believe that my religious commitments will improve me as a father in the future. At the very least, my kids will never have to wonder if their father is going to make it home for dinner on Friday night. Anyway, the more foolish assumption made by Wilcox was believing child-rearing to be a zero-sum game among gender lines - the more Mom is at home, the less Dad should be. That however, is a correllary from the over-optimstic notion that the more Mom went to work, the more Dad would chip in at home - it hasn't happened, and it needs to.

The only conclusion one can draw from this survey, however, is the woefull state of sociological research. The survey failed to account for among the following the "educational backgrounds, incomes, professions or work schedules of the fathers." Well, at least this way they didn't have to worry about doing a regression.

A LESSON FROM SRI LANKA

Tom Friedman, writing about the Sri Lanka conflict, notes that one of the key factors in halting the Tamil suicide bombings was the Tamil diaspora's rejection of the tactic, ceasing their funding of the terrorist Tigers, and instead supporting moderates representatives of the Tamil community. In contrast, supporters of the Palestinians are still acting as forces of radicalization, not moderation.

Unfortunately, in the Middle East Arabs and Muslims continue to indulge, justify, praise or provide religious legitimation for Palestinian suicide bombers, even after 9/11. The Palestinians have convinced themselves, with the help of many Arabs and Europeans, that their grievance is so special, so enormous that it isn't bound by any limits of civilized behavior, and therefore they are entitled to do whatever they want to Israelis.

The problem, therefore, is not left-wing support for the Palestinians, it is unconditional left-wing support for the Palestinians. If instead, they sent a different message - that international support for Palestinian statehood is very much dependent upon a rejection of violence - that Hamas is a enemy of mankind, not just Israel - the Palestinians might choose to follow the path of Sari Nusseibeh rather than Sheik Yassin.

WHY AL GORE SHOULD LEAVE HIS POPULISM AT THE DOOR

The most intelligent comment from the recent Al v. Joe tiff comes from the L.A. Times Ron Brownstein, saying more in two paragraphs than Howard Kurtz says in the rest of his article citing him.

"While the two men are arguing over whether Gore's 'people versus the powerful' populism is the right economic message for the party, much evidence indicates that cultural attitudes had a larger effect on the 2000 election – and could present a more formidable hurdle for Democrats in 2002 as well.

"Indeed, exit polling from the 2000 campaign suggests that Gore's populist appeal neither attracted the working-class voters it targeted nor repelled the more affluent voters that critics believe it alienated. More dramatic was the party's decline in 2000 among culturally conservative rural voters, who will likely prove a decisive group again in many of the most competitive Senate and House races this fall. . . .

Two thoughts come to mind. First, in the effort to win over rural voters, Dems are effectively swimming upstream. No amount of economic populist rhetoric is going to put the Humpty Dumpty New Deal coalition back together again. Instead, as Judis & Teixeira 's brilliant article in the New Republic explains, the emerging Democratic majority is metropolitan and cosmopolitan. Middle-class Latinos, working women and professionals are the Dems major growth demographics. Nor does the recent wave of corporate fraud change this dynamic one bit. The investor class that has been hammered by neo-laissez-faire policies is concentrated in the blue/Gore states. Those who are clinging to the Shrummian dream of stoking the populist fires should read David Brooks blithe, but incisive Atlantic piece exploring the differences between the Blue and the Red states. The denizens of Red America don't feel poor, because they live in an environment that is far more homogeneous in what people earn and consume. On the other hand, residents of Blue America see first-hand the yawning gaps between the luxurious life of uber-rich and even gainfully employed middle class.

The second thought is that after 9/11 foreign policy has re-emerged as a central issue in American politics - and with some exception, it tends to act more like a cultural issue than a economic one. Reagan's hawkish stance was a major draw among working class Reagan Democrats. With the Republican embrace of the religious right drawing increasingly marginal returns, one should expect to see the GOP go back to old playbook. Which means, to the extent that the Dems are going to be able to hold their ground in Red America - they can not afford to be portrayed as McGovernite doves.

Which brings us back to the Monday Morning Quarterbacking of Gore's campaign. The Dems need to understand that the failure was not one of policy, but rhetoric. Al Gore's op-ed is correct - the past two years have vindicated his campaign positions on socioeconomic issues. The problem was that Al Gore was campaigning for the 21st century version of Teddy Roosevelt's agenda with William Jenning Bryan's campaign script. There is a significant difference between Bryan-style populism and TR-style progressivism. The Populists wanted to reverse the damage done by the emerging industrial economic order. The Progressives, on the other hand wanted to bring people and institutions up to speed so that they could become full members of the new order. Al Gore made a rather awful Populist, because he has always been a Progressive. If he runs again, he should run as himself next time.

TERROR BOMBING, BUT NO DEAD JEWS

The international community was horrified Sunday by a barbaric act of terror, when a car bomb exploded in a Mediterranean resort town, killing one man and six-year old girl. World leaders condemned the act but called for restraint so as not to continue "the cycle of violence." In addition, they called for an immediate redoubling of efforts to establish a timetable for statehood....

Actually, they did nothing of the sort, because the bombing was in Spain, and the terrorists were Basque. Hmm, the left is surprisingly quiet when "those who have no choice" kill non Jews.

Aznar called supporters of ETA "human trash." I wonder what he calls the supporters of Hamas and Fatah?

HAUSER v. SULLY

Hauser claims that Sully is off his rocker for suggesting that Saddam and Al Qaeda could ever be in cohoots together, because Al Qaeda is a bunch of religious fanatics and Saddam is a secular meglomaniac. My friend has a short memory. Hussein's "secularism" didn't keep him from calling for a jihad during the Gulf War - and its not cramping his funding of Hamas either. In fact, if Hauser would study his modern Middle East history, he would see a recurring theme - that secular and religious fanatics are more than willing to put aside their differences in the face of a common enemy - the West. What was true in Damascus in 1920 is true in Baghdad in 2002.

IS A BUSH-LEAGUE WAR WORSE THAN NONE AT ALL?

Josh Marshall asks a very important question in the debate over Iraq:

Is it possible that regime change by force is the right thing to do, but that this administration is inclined to do it in such a reckless, ill-conceived and possibly disastrous manner that, under these circumstances, it is better not to do it at all?

Marshall is right to worry about the Bushies botching the aftermath of a successful campaign to oust Saddam. As he points out, you need look no further than Afghanistan to see the Bush administration's distate with "nation-building" threatening to reverse much of the good that came out of our overthrow of the Taliban regime. Its also unclear whether the Bush team learned the right lessons from his father's botched Gulf War endgame. Poppy's "New World Order" was pretty much a return to the status quo ante - with the Kurds and Shi'ites brutally repressed, the Saudis calling the shots, and Kuwait remaining a corrupt emirate. Never before had so crushing a military victory translated into to so little political change. So, in a way Marshall's question echoes the same one Jeff Hauser asks about the first Gulf War. Without the benefits of a fundamental change in the political order, was military action against Saddam worth it and will it be worth it again this time? The answer is yes and yes.

Clipping Saddam's wings, as we did in the Gulf War, or replacing Saddam with a Mubarak type as the Bushies might wind up doing - is akin to performing a minor surgical procedure that temporarily improves the problem. It is insufficient and will inevitably result in a return of the problem, but it still worth it because of the temporary relief it provides the patient. Sure its best to destroy the cancer - but's that doesn't mean that its better to let it grow than send it into remission. Not responding to Saddam's thrust into Kuwait would have left him the dominant power in the region, free to obtain weapons of mass destruction and serve as the pursestrings for thug regimes around the globe. Allowing Saddam to stay in power greatly increases the chances of a non-conventional attack on American interests. The realist policy rationales for war against Iraq - the need to contain anti-American capabilities and preserve regional stability - are justified even if they are depressingly short of vision and temporal scope.

W., however, is not pre-destined to repeat the mistakes of his father. What we need now, however, is a serious discussion of how the Iraq campaign fits into the broader war on terror, and public engagement on the issue of nation-building. Liberals need to tap into the missionary instincts of the American public. The stakes and expectations of this war must be raised - thrusting Democracy to the foreground of our war aims. W. needs to be sent a clear message - that if he follows his father's cynical, risk-adverse path, it will carry him to the same place - out of office at the end of one term.

RELEASE THE NAMES

I fully support an agressive law enforcement approach in the war on terror - which will inevitably require some compromises on civil liberties. Similarly, the underenforcement of our immigration laws is insanity - we've currently constructed our system to make it nearly impossible to tell when a visa has been overstayed. That being said, I applaud Judge Kessler's ruling ordering the Justice Deparment to release the names of the post 9/11 detainees. Its one thing for the government to act in secrecy when it is following a legitimate lead in a terror inquiry. It's completely different, however, when its clear that there is no connection between the detainee and terror and the only purpose secrecy serves is to cover up that very fact. Civil liberties are precious, and should be compromised only in the service of saving lives, not saving face.

REALISTS RESURGENT ?: BUSH'S COMMITMENT TO DEMOCRACY PUT TO THE TEST

In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, liberal idealism re-emerged as the leading strain in American foreign policy. The Realist commitment to corrupt, tyrannical regimes was correctly identified as fostering a ripe environment for the spread of virulent anti-American Islamism. The multilateralists were similarly on the defensive, as international institutions were exposed as inadequate to the task of combatting terror, and with the exception of England, most of our allies were more worried about American responses to terror than terror itself. If one went by the rhetoric of the Bush Administration, it was a full-fledged convert to the idealist path. Democratic values were to become a centerpiece of American foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. In one burst of American idealism, we would make the world more like us, rather than face the consequence of having the evils of the world visit America.

Almost from the outset, the Realists launched a counter-offensive. The black and white terms of the idealists "lacked nuance," and did not sufficiently compromise to the real world. Bush, in embracing idealism, was demonstrating his famous lack of depth, acting the "cowboy." The constant undertone of the Realists was to slow down, scale back, blend in to international consensus and avoid upsetting the status quo. They've had a mixed record so far - failing to impose a policy of "evenhandedness" in the wake of the Palestinian terror campaign, but suceeding at thwarting a reevaluation of U.S. - Saudi relations. The jury is still out, therefore, on whether the Bush commitment to democracy is substantive, or merely rhetorical. Three issues that surfaced in the past week will be particularly telling barometers of how far Bush is willing to break with the realist precedent of the State Department.

The first is continuing imprisonment of Said Ibrahim, Egypt's leading democracy advocate. Thomas Friedman, in his latest column, rightly raked the Administration over the coals for its indifference to Ibrahim's detention. What exactly are we getting for the billions of dollars we spend on Muburak's regime? The Realists claim that it well worth it to have Egypt nominally "pro-American", at "peace" with Israel and cracking down on Islamic militants. From a idealist perspective, this policy is madness. We are funding a regime that is creating an environment destined to breed anti-American Islamist terrorism. Mubarak's thugs might be able to imprison the next Mohammed Atta, but only a man such a Ibrahim can create an environment in which there are no more Mohammed Attas.

The second is the long-simmering feud between China and Taiwan, where the Taiwaneese have once more begun making noise about independence, and the Chinese regime has responded with violent threats. For the realists, preference needs to be given to the Chinese regime, which is a major power who's assitance we need in securing global order. For the idealists, we must remain steadfast behind a democratic, free Taiwan - and prevent millions from falling under Beijing's tyrannical rule.

The third issue is the future of the Kurds in a post-Saddam Iraq. For the first time in modern history, the Kurds have enjoyed self-rule in the no-fly zone in the north. For realists, however, Kurdish autonomy in a federated Iraq is to be avoided at all costs in order to preserve stability in the Kurdish sections of Turkey. In addition realists fear that this will set a dangerous precedent in a region with colonialist-imposed artificial borders. For idealists, however, the principle of self-determination, and the past sufferings of the Kurds at the hands of centralized Iraqi rule demands the creation of a safe haven. Kurdish rights trump "state" inviolability. This is an issue that has been raised by realists to show the "unworkability" of an idealist foreign policy. But idealist foreign policy need not reject pragmatic solutions. It is a hard, but not impossible task to reconcile Kurdish and Turkish interests. The broad outlines would be the creation of a Kurdish homeland in northern Iraq in return for an abandonment of any claims to the remainder of Kurdistan.

These are the challenges - will the Bush Administration have a grand legacy of democratic advancement, or empty rhetoric? And if Bush fails, will the Dems take up the cause, or simply offer up a multilateralist varient of same realist path?

TOUCHY QUESTION LEFT UNANSWERED

Jonah Goldberg asks the question no one wants to touch - why the lack of outrage in this murder of 5 Americans.

I can't shake the feeling that the murdered Americans at Hebrew University are being treated differently because they're Jewish. Or perhaps, it's more appropriate to say it's because they're Jewish Americans in Israel. If five Americans -- Jewish or otherwise -- were killed at a French or German or Indian university, I can't help but think that the media and political class would make a much bigger deal. Yes, I know there are some sticky issues involved here, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Why is retaliation against Hamas off the table? Why is Israel a special exempt zone for terrorists to kill Americans with impunity? And if so, does that explain why the attack at LAX was greeted with a yawn as well - it may have been American soil, but heck they were just Israelis - its part of a "cycle of violence," you know. Hey W. - if you're really so mad - get even.

DEM CONTENDERS ON IRAQ - WIGGLE, WIGGLE

Here's a summary of the current positions of the leading Democratic contenders/pretenders in 2004 on the critical issue of military action to topple Saddam Hussein.

Gore: On the one hand, he has a reliable interventionist record - he split with his party and voted in favor of the Gulf War and was one of the strongest advocates for agressive action in Bosnia and Kosovo. You have to believe he knows all there is to know about the risks of proliferation. On the other hand, his foreign policy team in 2000 contained many of the same Clintonites that were responsible for the staggering failings of the past administration. Will the "real" Al Gore take on Sandy Berger or not?

Gephardt: Strongly Pro-War. Whether this is out of deep convinction or political calculations I'm not sure. What I do know is that the man has no eyebrows.

Kerry: No one has taken a firmer position on the right of Congress to criticize the Administration's foreign policy during the War on Terror. It's not exactly clear what he wants to do with that right, however and he's not said anything coherent on Iraq so far. Kerry's admirers loves that he has that military background. Of course, so does Colin Powell and the grousing leakers who oppose action in the Pentagon. The most telling fact is still that he voted against the Gulf War, which he hasn't exactly apologized for. He's also a big fan of U.S. engagement (appeasement of the Arabs) in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The great DovDem hope.

Edwards: His major criticism of the Bushies has been on insufficient commitment to nation-building in Afghanistan. If he stays consistent on Iraq, that would mean favoring an attack, but coupling it with more serious follow-through. Hard to get a read on his foreign policy in general.

Lieberman: Strongly in favor of an attack - but you knew that already.

Dean: He's a economic liberal who's against gun control - not sure however how that plays out on Iraq.

Daschle: In favor of "talking about doing something." To be honest, the Dems would be much better off if Tom stuck to keeping the Dem majority in the Senate, and stopped trying to appear "presidential." The best guess is that he'll wait until the last minute to decide what stand to take on Iraq.


For liberal hawks, this is not exactly an encouraging picture. Who's up for a draft McCain campaign?

SPARKS EXTINGUISHED

These portraits provide only a glimpse of the light that was taken from this world in Wednesday's massacre:

:
Ben Blutstein was a graduate of Dickinson College with a BA in Judaic Studies. He was a serious scholar, but also knew how to explore the lighter side of life. Unlike most Orthodox Jews, Blutstein was found in the hottest clubs around the country, first as DJ Ultrasound, and later as DJ Benny-B.

His friends remember him as a warm, funny individual with a gruff exterior but a heart of gold. "In a learning situation he could be really rough and tough, always striving for truth. He would get mad when he thought people weren't being true to the text. But in the spring, when his father and little sister came to visit, he was so gentle with her; it was amazing to see this person who could be so passionate be so gentle," said Yisrael Campbell-Hochstein, also a master's student and a study-partner of Blutstein's.

"He had a real sense of fun," said Saskia Swenson, now entering her third year at Pardes. Blutstein and Swenson headed up the house band, Women, Children, and Minors. "He was such an alive person."

Marla Bennett was a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, with a BA in Political Science and an English minor. Friends spoke about her as a beautiful young woman with quiet grace, a calming presence.
"She was a real jewel, very beloved. You couldn't be in her presence and not smile with her," said Landes.

Friends called her a true listener, quietly offering needed support. All spoke about her magical smile which would crinkle her nose.

Responding to the concern of friends and family abroad, Bennett wrote in a column for her hometown paper, the San Diego Jewish Press-Heritage: "I have a front-row seat for the history of the Jewish people. I am a part of the struggle for Israel's survival."

"She brought light into a room; something about her just glowed so warmly. She drew you into her warmth," said Hershman.

SELF-HATING JEWISH PUNDIT WATCH

What does Eric Alterman, who never passes up an opportunity for vitriol aimed at settlers and cynicism towards the Israeli dream of acceptance and normal life, have to say about the Hebrew University massacre? Absolutely nothing. And yet he has the chutzpah to label himself a supporter of Israel's right to exist. Care to put that in writing, dude?

ABDULLAH IN DC

King Abdullah of Jordan (you know, the nicer one) is in Washington to meet with President Bush, looking to steer his rickety regime through the Scylla of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the west and the Charybdis of the impending U.S. attack on Iraq. Not surprinsingly, his public words are aimed at calming his own restive Palestinian-majority population - advocating against an attack on Iraq, and for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. What he actually believes is a completely different story. He is a Hashemite after all, and his family's diplomatic legacy is one of almost unparallelled slipperiness (or do we forget his father's embrace of Saddam in the run-up to the Gulf War). For all of Abdullah's flaws, however, he presides over the most enlightened and least despotic regime in the Arab world. The best thing we can do to improve the condition of the Arab world is maximize Abdullah's influence. To do so, we need to ignore the advice he is giving us in public - by toppling Saddam, and giving Israel free reign to defeat the Palestinian military offensive. And in private, we should tell him that America will be happy to see an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank - as soon as Abdullah is ready to put in his own forces in their place. For us not to pay whatever price Abdullah will ask in return (foreign investment, proceeds from Iraqi oil) would be penny wise and pound foolish.