In this Manchester Union-Leader article Ron Paul argues that a non-interventionist foreign policy is not isolationism at all and explains why fairly well. Money quotes:
“A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.”
“It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.
“I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote “historical reality,” which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.
“A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.”
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Monday, October 08, 2007
Waiting . . . then Blackwater
I don't know whether it's the Register Web site or something with my connection, but I can't get it to display a few more things I want to link to. We'll wait a while.
Meanwhile, the fact that the Iraqi government is still insisting on kicking Blackwater out of the country and having the Blackwater contractors (all right, mercenaries, but there's not necessarily anything wrong with that) be turned over to the Iraqi government for prosecution suggests that hatred of Blackwater is perhaps the only thing that can unite Iraqis. Maybe that's not so bad. I don't know if this is a major turning-point in the war, presaging an Iraqi government ann0ouncement that it wants U.S. troops out by a date certain and the U.S., not really respecting "sovereignty" because it really wants to attack Iran, as Justin Raimondo has suggested. But it's a sign that the widespread Iraqi discontent with the U.S. occupation, of which Blackwater is only the most recent symbol, is starting to find expression in the Iraqi government. Let's hope the U.S.government can recognize it as a good development, but I fear it won't.
Meanwhile, the fact that the Iraqi government is still insisting on kicking Blackwater out of the country and having the Blackwater contractors (all right, mercenaries, but there's not necessarily anything wrong with that) be turned over to the Iraqi government for prosecution suggests that hatred of Blackwater is perhaps the only thing that can unite Iraqis. Maybe that's not so bad. I don't know if this is a major turning-point in the war, presaging an Iraqi government ann0ouncement that it wants U.S. troops out by a date certain and the U.S., not really respecting "sovereignty" because it really wants to attack Iran, as Justin Raimondo has suggested. But it's a sign that the widespread Iraqi discontent with the U.S. occupation, of which Blackwater is only the most recent symbol, is starting to find expression in the Iraqi government. Let's hope the U.S.government can recognize it as a good development, but I fear it won't.
Sadness in Burma
Here's a link to the piece I did last week for Antiwar.com on the sad situation in Burma/Myanmar. Unfortunately my hunch that things might turn out badly was correct. I guess I didn't reckon with just how happy the Burmese military is to have the country so isolated from the rest of the world in terms of economic and political relations, so it doesn't have to care a whit what the rest of the world thinks -- including China, which seems to have much less influence on Myanmar than most commentators thought or hoped.
The Ron Paul Phenomenon
Here's a link to the piece I did for the Register's Sunday Commentary section, on the surprisingly (to conventional political thinkers) successful campaign Ron Paul is running, especially in terms of money raised -- $5.08 million the third quarter, about the same as McCain except McCain has millions in debt, and $4 million more than Huckabee -- and enthusiastic grassroots support.
I don't know if the campaign linked to it, but Lew at lewrockwell.com did, and I got nice e-mails from all over the country. Here's a place to acknowledge something I didn't have room for and that a couple of e-mailers reminded me of -- that Ron Paul has possibly surprising appeal to life-long Democrats.
The main criticism I got from Paul supporters was for the subhead, with the "not likely to be president" phrase. I know I promised on this blog not to make such prognostications, and in fact it was a headline writer rather than I who did that. Ah, well.
Anyway, more nice e-mails and phone calls than I've had in response to a Register piece in a long time. Thanks, Ron Paul supporters and friends!
I don't know if the campaign linked to it, but Lew at lewrockwell.com did, and I got nice e-mails from all over the country. Here's a place to acknowledge something I didn't have room for and that a couple of e-mailers reminded me of -- that Ron Paul has possibly surprising appeal to life-long Democrats.
The main criticism I got from Paul supporters was for the subhead, with the "not likely to be president" phrase. I know I promised on this blog not to make such prognostications, and in fact it was a headline writer rather than I who did that. Ah, well.
Anyway, more nice e-mails and phone calls than I've had in response to a Register piece in a long time. Thanks, Ron Paul supporters and friends!
Sad sports weekend
Well, at least the Chargers won. But for Southern California sports fans it was a pretty dismal weekend -- probably more so for me than for many. I know it's absurd and atavistic, but I went to UCLA and played, w-a-a-a-y back when they had Freshman football, so I have an unnatural attachment. I was afraid things might be bad when Olson, our quarterback went down in the 1st quarter, second-string was already injured, so we had to go with a walk-on Freshman who had played maybe three snaps all year. Still, we shouldn't have lost to Notre Dame, and I was depressed (not clinically) all weekend.
The real shocker was USC losing to .... Stanford?????
And of course the Angels got swept in the first round of the playoffs by Boston. Of course.
No wonder I didn't have the heart to blog. That and the fact that we had something of a pool crisis that required a fair amount of attention and a trip to the pool supply store, plus other get-ready-for-autumn chores in the yard. And we still have to paint the shed next weekend.
The real shocker was USC losing to .... Stanford?????
And of course the Angels got swept in the first round of the playoffs by Boston. Of course.
No wonder I didn't have the heart to blog. That and the fact that we had something of a pool crisis that required a fair amount of attention and a trip to the pool supply store, plus other get-ready-for-autumn chores in the yard. And we still have to paint the shed next weekend.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Cubs Nation Dreams
Nice to see David Broder, WaPo's venerable dispenser of the informed version of the conventional wisdom, writing about something other than politics. Turns out he grew up in Chicago and is a Cubs fan and considers it something of a miracle that they made it into the playoffs. He says he doesn't expect another miracle. And it doesn't look as if he's going to get one.
As for me, I'm just hoping that my beloved, beleaguered Angels, who have a history of not doing that well in Fenway, find a way to regroup after the 4-0 drubbing they took, courtesy of Josh Beckett and Papi, on Wednesday, come tomorrow.
And that the Bruins whomp the tar out of Notre Dame on Saturday, of course.
As for me, I'm just hoping that my beloved, beleaguered Angels, who have a history of not doing that well in Fenway, find a way to regroup after the 4-0 drubbing they took, courtesy of Josh Beckett and Papi, on Wednesday, come tomorrow.
And that the Bruins whomp the tar out of Notre Dame on Saturday, of course.
Iraq buying Chinese arms
The most interesting news in this article is that the Iraqi government is buying $100 million worth of small-scale military equipment from China. U.S. officials are expressing alarm, but the stated reason -- that due to the apparent disappearance of 190,000 weapons given to the Iraqis by the U.S. it's questionable whether the government can keep such materiel secure rather than having it fall into the hands of militias or Kurds harrassing Turkey -- while it has some validity, can't be the most fundamental reason. The real shock is that the Iraqis are turning to China. Don't they know it's our geopolitical rival of the future? And who are these uppity Iraqis to be making such decisions anyway? It's easier to say you want the Iraqis to be independent and sovereign than to stand back and watch them act like an independent sovereign.
There's also stuff about the latest casualties and Blackwater developments.
There's also stuff about the latest casualties and Blackwater developments.
Military leaders questioning Iraq war?
This analysis from the McClatchy Washington bureau, suggests that with the turnover in top military leaders -- including SecDef, Joint Chiefs chairman and most of the other top brass -- the Pentagon is led by people who see the Iraq war more as a problem to be worked through than a crusade. Perhaps the chief phenomenon encouraging such previously heretical thoughts is concern about military readiness. There's little question that the Iraq war is stretching the military thin and a draft doesn't seem to be in the cards. Could resources tied down in Iraq be put to better use in Afghanistan? Etc., etc.
Doesn't necessarily mean Bush will listen to his new top leaders and avoid the impulse to do something aggressive to Iran. But if he finds this group uncongenial, he doesn't really have a lot of time left to put others in their places -- and he might not be able to find qualified people who have been able to keep the Kool-Aid down.
Doesn't necessarily mean Bush will listen to his new top leaders and avoid the impulse to do something aggressive to Iran. But if he finds this group uncongenial, he doesn't really have a lot of time left to put others in their places -- and he might not be able to find qualified people who have been able to keep the Kool-Aid down.
Secretary of State speculation
I want to recommend a post from Daniel Drezner, whose blog I've been meaning to add to the blogroll for some time. Informed stuff mostly on foreign policy. Dan teaches at Tufts, the Fletcher School, formerly taught political science at Chicago. He was moderator at the seminar I attended last month, under Institute for Humane Studies and Liberty Fund auspices, on globalization and Free Trade, and struck me as bright, fair, and exceptionally well-informed. He's also written a book for the CFR that assesses the arguments for free trade and fair trade remarkably even-handedly, which I plan to review for the Register in a few weeks. Since book reviewing is not my main racket, I tend to review only books I can recommend, though sometimes with reservations.
The other kind of reviewing -- cleverly eviscerating a book by some writer with whom you disagree profoundly and don't respect to boot -- is usually more fun, and I've occasionally indulged in it. But since my schedule and other obligations allow me to review perhaps 20 books a year for the Register, it seems like a waste of the opportunity to use those occasions just to diss a book I don't like, and there must be 20 books a year published that are worth reading. Might do the other if I retire and do freelancing.
Anyway, Dan speculates, based on no inside information he says, as to whom the various candidates might nominate as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser. Don't know if he's right, but the thought process is interesting.
The other kind of reviewing -- cleverly eviscerating a book by some writer with whom you disagree profoundly and don't respect to boot -- is usually more fun, and I've occasionally indulged in it. But since my schedule and other obligations allow me to review perhaps 20 books a year for the Register, it seems like a waste of the opportunity to use those occasions just to diss a book I don't like, and there must be 20 books a year published that are worth reading. Might do the other if I retire and do freelancing.
Anyway, Dan speculates, based on no inside information he says, as to whom the various candidates might nominate as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser. Don't know if he's right, but the thought process is interesting.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Iran war rumblings
Here's a link to Seymour Hersh's latest piece in the New Yorker, chronicling what he and his sources see as a shift in what are still ongoing plans to have some sort of military engagement with Iran before Bush leaves office. Cheney seems to be the main instigator.
Hersh thinks the possible mission has been scaled down, from a broad bombing attack on known nuclear and military facilities, to a "surgical strike" on Revolutionary Guards facilities in Tehran and elsewhere. Administration and military spokespeople have been laying the groundwork by claiming that Iranian forces are training insurgents in Iraq, so the attacks can be spun as defensive. The Senate went along with the idea of designating the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, and even with authorizing possible action against them (Hillary, what were you thinking?).
Hersh has been hyping the possibility of an attack on Iran for a long time. Thank goodness it hasn't happened yet. Hersh thinks the administration understands it hasn't sold the idea of Iran as an imminent nuclear danger, so it's shifting to a different rationale.
I still think the military is likely to talk the administration out of it. I'd like to think there's a high-ranking general with the intestinal fortitude to resign and go public over this issue if necessary, but most high-ranking generals got there through political and bureaucratic skills more than through being known to cherish fundamental American principles.
Hersh thinks the possible mission has been scaled down, from a broad bombing attack on known nuclear and military facilities, to a "surgical strike" on Revolutionary Guards facilities in Tehran and elsewhere. Administration and military spokespeople have been laying the groundwork by claiming that Iranian forces are training insurgents in Iraq, so the attacks can be spun as defensive. The Senate went along with the idea of designating the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, and even with authorizing possible action against them (Hillary, what were you thinking?).
Hersh has been hyping the possibility of an attack on Iran for a long time. Thank goodness it hasn't happened yet. Hersh thinks the administration understands it hasn't sold the idea of Iran as an imminent nuclear danger, so it's shifting to a different rationale.
I still think the military is likely to talk the administration out of it. I'd like to think there's a high-ranking general with the intestinal fortitude to resign and go public over this issue if necessary, but most high-ranking generals got there through political and bureaucratic skills more than through being known to cherish fundamental American principles.
Tracking Ron Paul
I talked with Kent Snyder, Ron Paul's campaign manager, yesterday, for an article I'm doing for the Register's Sunday Commentary section (I'll link when it goes up there). Just today, the campaign announced that during the third quarter the Paul campaign had raised $5.08 million, which just might be enough for him to start getting some attention from the "mainstream" media. However, MSNBC managed to do a whole story on its latest poll (with the WSJ), which shows that Republican voters want somebody "different" from President Bush rather than "pretty much the same" by a 48-38 margin (previously it was 51-41 the other way) without so much as mentioning Ron Paul's name.
The money was bolstered by a last-week-of-the-quarter challenge from the campaign to supporters: please donate $500,000 in the next week so we can end the quarter with a money cushion. Supporters did that in three days, so the challenge was increased to $1 million. No problem. By September 30 supporters had sent in more than $1.2 million.
Here are some interesting statistics Kent Snyder gave me (as of Tuesday, probably higher today). RonPaul has 49,928 MeetUp group members in 771 cities and 22 countries (including one in the Green Zone in Baghdad). So far they've held 7,671 events.
As for YouTube, which wasn't a factor in previous campaigns but is this year, Ron has 29,489 subscribers and 4,339,507 views of videos in which he is featured. Barack has more views (11,197,523) but only 11,264 subscribers. Every other candidate has fewer, by pretty substantial margins. Giuliani, for example, has 2,467 subscribers and 655,000 views, Romney has 3,076 and 926,547, McCain has 1,631 and 483,174, while Hillary has 6,089 and 926,547.
Whatever happens electorally, the Paul campaign has become the largest pro-freedom mass movement in recent history, and it can't help but have a lasting impact.
The money was bolstered by a last-week-of-the-quarter challenge from the campaign to supporters: please donate $500,000 in the next week so we can end the quarter with a money cushion. Supporters did that in three days, so the challenge was increased to $1 million. No problem. By September 30 supporters had sent in more than $1.2 million.
Here are some interesting statistics Kent Snyder gave me (as of Tuesday, probably higher today). RonPaul has 49,928 MeetUp group members in 771 cities and 22 countries (including one in the Green Zone in Baghdad). So far they've held 7,671 events.
As for YouTube, which wasn't a factor in previous campaigns but is this year, Ron has 29,489 subscribers and 4,339,507 views of videos in which he is featured. Barack has more views (11,197,523) but only 11,264 subscribers. Every other candidate has fewer, by pretty substantial margins. Giuliani, for example, has 2,467 subscribers and 655,000 views, Romney has 3,076 and 926,547, McCain has 1,631 and 483,174, while Hillary has 6,089 and 926,547.
Whatever happens electorally, the Paul campaign has become the largest pro-freedom mass movement in recent history, and it can't help but have a lasting impact.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Putin goes for the gusto
Is anybody surprised that Vladimir Putin is suggesting that maybe he'll become prime minister when his term runs out (he can't run for president again). The man is hardly anything other than a born authoritarian, but he would probably win in a reasonably fair election (though his minions will make sure it doesn't give serious opposition a chance if there's any question) and he thinks he's destined to return Russia to its rightful status as a Great Power. Speculation has been rife that whoever he designates as his successor will be his puppet anyway.
Burmese disappointment
London's Daily Mail, may be doing the most extensive reporting, with lots of photos, I've seen on Burma. Its reports also suggest the ways even newspaper reporting is changing. In a country closed by the government to most reporters, there's reliance on Web sites, bloggers, text messages, e-mails from participants and the like -- with an open invitation to anybody who has reports, photos or video to send them along.
Anyway, UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari met Myanmar's head general, Than Shwe, today. There's talk that the regime might meet with house-arrested democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyii, but who knows? The bottom line is that for now the government is still in charge and has maintained its power in a pretty decisive and brutal way. I can't help but thinking there's hope for the future -- Than Shwe is sickly and 74 and when he goes there may be a window of opportunity, or one might come along sooner. We've been reminded of reality; a country cut off from the rest of the world economically is not going to be hurt by economic sanctions, and the West really had almost no leverage beyond news coverage.
Anyway, UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari met Myanmar's head general, Than Shwe, today. There's talk that the regime might meet with house-arrested democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyii, but who knows? The bottom line is that for now the government is still in charge and has maintained its power in a pretty decisive and brutal way. I can't help but thinking there's hope for the future -- Than Shwe is sickly and 74 and when he goes there may be a window of opportunity, or one might come along sooner. We've been reminded of reality; a country cut off from the rest of the world economically is not going to be hurt by economic sanctions, and the West really had almost no leverage beyond news coverage.
Blackwater: murky waters
Erik Prince, chairman of Blackwater, the private security firm accused of killing some innocent Iraqis and being responsible for more shootings and killings than the other two security firms operating in Iraq put together, defended his company before Rep. Henry Waxman's committee today. I'm not ready to pass judgment yet, although it does appear that there's a lot of cronyism in the contracting game, whichhas always been the case and is endemic to government contracting-out in al most all areas.
I'm reading the book, "Blackwater," by Jeremy Scahill, but not far enough into it yet to form a solid judgment. It's published by the Nation and its jargon can be annoying -- every conservative intiative or outfit is "far right" or "extreme" -- but the reporting appears to be solid. I didn't know just how political Prince's family has been for generations, all on behalf of Republicans and the religious right (though the author defines it too broadly). They're close, and tied by marriage, to the DeVos family (Amway) in Michigan. I'll report more when I know more.
I'm not philosophically opposed to contracting-out services, even military services, to private companies, but it's more than possible that the process has been handled poorly. First, there's the fact that politics always plays a role in government contracting, so bang-for-the-buck sometimes takes a back seat. Second, these operations have been ramped up so quickly -- Blackwater was formed in 1997 and got its financial/operational adrenaline shot after 9/11 -- that there are bound to have been mistakes and miscalculations along the way.
The very concept of contracting-out -- begun in a big way with behind-the-lines services like mess halls, barracks management, supplies and the like when the military downsized modestly after the end of the Cold War -- is pretty new. I don't know if the inevitable pitfalls (and the fact that most private companies can outsmart a government procurement officer in a heartbeat) have been properly assessed, let alone corrected. Contracting-out should cost less than having government personnel perform the task in question, and I don't think that's been the case in Iraq. Perhaps hearings like these will help if they're not too partisan. But it would be better to mend it not end it. I think.
It would be even better, of course, not to get into misbegotten wars without thinking through the possible consequences and reverberations, and with fewer troops than needed to accomplish undefined but always growing and increasingly complicated tasks.
I'm reading the book, "Blackwater," by Jeremy Scahill, but not far enough into it yet to form a solid judgment. It's published by the Nation and its jargon can be annoying -- every conservative intiative or outfit is "far right" or "extreme" -- but the reporting appears to be solid. I didn't know just how political Prince's family has been for generations, all on behalf of Republicans and the religious right (though the author defines it too broadly). They're close, and tied by marriage, to the DeVos family (Amway) in Michigan. I'll report more when I know more.
I'm not philosophically opposed to contracting-out services, even military services, to private companies, but it's more than possible that the process has been handled poorly. First, there's the fact that politics always plays a role in government contracting, so bang-for-the-buck sometimes takes a back seat. Second, these operations have been ramped up so quickly -- Blackwater was formed in 1997 and got its financial/operational adrenaline shot after 9/11 -- that there are bound to have been mistakes and miscalculations along the way.
The very concept of contracting-out -- begun in a big way with behind-the-lines services like mess halls, barracks management, supplies and the like when the military downsized modestly after the end of the Cold War -- is pretty new. I don't know if the inevitable pitfalls (and the fact that most private companies can outsmart a government procurement officer in a heartbeat) have been properly assessed, let alone corrected. Contracting-out should cost less than having government personnel perform the task in question, and I don't think that's been the case in Iraq. Perhaps hearings like these will help if they're not too partisan. But it would be better to mend it not end it. I think.
It would be even better, of course, not to get into misbegotten wars without thinking through the possible consequences and reverberations, and with fewer troops than needed to accomplish undefined but always growing and increasingly complicated tasks.
Sad Burmese Days
I was obviously too optimistic in my Sunday night post about Burma. I can't independently verify this report from the Daily Mail, but if it's close to true things are really dispiriting. Some people claim to have seen hundreds of bodies of dead monks thrown into the jungle, and perhaps thousands of civilians have been killed, according to this report. If so, it's on a scale with 1988. Perhaps the only bow to the "whole world is watching" syndrome might be the fact that the regime felt a need to conceal the bodies rtather than leave them on the street as a terrorist object lesson. Whether the carnage was on this scale or not -- other reports mention the possibility of hundreds dead -- it has obviously been severe.
The regime has given the cold shoulder to the UN envoy -- there's supposed to be a meeting today with the top general, presumably if his astrologer tells him it's OK. Perhaps the only hope is that the old scoundrel is 74 and said to be sickly.
The regime has given the cold shoulder to the UN envoy -- there's supposed to be a meeting today with the top general, presumably if his astrologer tells him it's OK. Perhaps the only hope is that the old scoundrel is 74 and said to be sickly.
Marin Alsop leads Baltimore Symphony
Here's a link to an obviously enthusiastic review of the opening concert of music director Marin Alsop's tenure as music director of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra. What I found inspiring was not so much that she's the first woman conductor of a major U.S. symphony, but what she is doing to reinvigorate the orchestra and the musical life of the city. She did Mahler and John Adams' "Fearful Symmetries," signaling that Baltimore orchestras will be hearing more pieces by living composers. I'm not all that big a fan of Adams generally, but I haven't heard this particular piece and the review made me interested in doing so.
Here's the neat stuff. When Ms. Alsop was appointed two years ago the orechestra was in debt and its concerts drew about 60 percent of capacity. She's won the confidence of the musicians and attracted money; a $1 million grant allows the orchestra to offer all tickets to subscribers at $25 (like Anthony Tommasini, "I am continually amazed at the impact a sum like $1 million, pocket change in popular culture, can have in classical music."). And the orchestra is recording again; a Sony Classical release of John Corigliano's "Red Violin" concerto with violinist Joshua Bell, "took the top spot on the Billboard classical chart in September."
Sounds like she's a good musician and a good leader.
Here's the neat stuff. When Ms. Alsop was appointed two years ago the orechestra was in debt and its concerts drew about 60 percent of capacity. She's won the confidence of the musicians and attracted money; a $1 million grant allows the orchestra to offer all tickets to subscribers at $25 (like Anthony Tommasini, "I am continually amazed at the impact a sum like $1 million, pocket change in popular culture, can have in classical music."). And the orchestra is recording again; a Sony Classical release of John Corigliano's "Red Violin" concerto with violinist Joshua Bell, "took the top spot on the Billboard classical chart in September."
Sounds like she's a good musician and a good leader.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Costs of prohibition
The Marijuana Policy Project is touting a study by social-science researcher Jon Gettman that estimates the total cost of marijuana prohibition at about $41.8 billion a year. The estimate includes not only the money spent directly on the drug war -- law enforcement, courts, incarceration, etc., but an estimated $31.1 billion in revenues the gvernment gives up by not taxing the marijuana business normally.
I've talked to Gettman on the phone, when I was researching my book, and he's certainly been trained (PhD in public policy and all that) for this kind of analysis and is plenty smart. I hope the study gets wide publicity. But if most people did rational cost/benefit analysis in their thinking about public policy, we would have ended the war on drugs decades ago. Not only is it expensive, almost all of its results are costs to society rather than benefits. I don't know if that's why it has to be propped up with lies and manufactured fears or if that's just the sloppy way some people approach policy and the kind of irrational politics the people are accustomed to and are willing to tolerate.
I've talked to Gettman on the phone, when I was researching my book, and he's certainly been trained (PhD in public policy and all that) for this kind of analysis and is plenty smart. I hope the study gets wide publicity. But if most people did rational cost/benefit analysis in their thinking about public policy, we would have ended the war on drugs decades ago. Not only is it expensive, almost all of its results are costs to society rather than benefits. I don't know if that's why it has to be propped up with lies and manufactured fears or if that's just the sloppy way some people approach policy and the kind of irrational politics the people are accustomed to and are willing to tolerate.
Focus on stopping Iran war
Have you ever noticed that the people who were utterly wrong about the war in Iraq during the build-up have not been drummed out of the pundit corps or even confronted from time to time on how they managed to get things so tragically wrong, but are still treated with respect and taken seriously? How Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes and Tom Friedman and a bunch of others can look at themselves in the mirror is beyond me.
Meanwhile, whose who got it right are still relegated to the margins of "respectability." One of those was Scott Ritter, the former Marine and former UN weapons inspector who kept warning against the war and predicting weapons of mass destruction would not be found. He may have other problems, but he was more right than almost anybody. Scott is worried about Iran now, convinced the Bushies really want to start a war, and he counsels the antiwar mopvement to focus there, especially since there's little chance of affecting the course of the war in Iraq until after the 2008 election.
Meanwhile, whose who got it right are still relegated to the margins of "respectability." One of those was Scott Ritter, the former Marine and former UN weapons inspector who kept warning against the war and predicting weapons of mass destruction would not be found. He may have other problems, but he was more right than almost anybody. Scott is worried about Iran now, convinced the Bushies really want to start a war, and he counsels the antiwar mopvement to focus there, especially since there's little chance of affecting the course of the war in Iraq until after the 2008 election.
Iranian/Israeli/US convoluted history
Just to put something behind the comments in my previous post about Iran, here's a link to Doug Bandow's excellent review of the new book, "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the U.S., by Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council and a professor at Johns Hopkins. Relations between Iran and the U.S. and Iran abd Israel look pretty grim and confrontational right now, but that hasn't always been the case, Israel and Iran, as non-Arab countries in the Middle East, have more in common than one might think, and they have done all kinds of deals, not just during the time of the shah but after the coming of the ayatollahs. The U.S. has also established back channels to Iran in the recent past (think Iran-Contra, but there has been more) and there are reasons to work together.
Here's a paragraph from Mr. Parsi's book that will surprise many Americans. After the death of Saddam:
"The Iranians offered to end their support to Hamas and Islamic Jihad – Iran's ideological brethren in the struggle against the Jewish State – and pressure them to cease attacks on Israel. On Hezbollah, Iran's own brainchild and its most reliable partner in the Arab world, the clerics offered to support the disarmament of the Lebanese militia and transform it into a purely political party. On the nuclear issue, intrusive international inspections in order to alleviate any fears of Iranian weaponization. The Iranians would sign the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and they also offered extensive American involvement in the program as a further guarantee and goodwill gesture. On terrorism, Tehran offered full cooperation against all terrorist organizations – above all, al-Qaeda. On Iraq, Iran would work actively with the United states to support political stabilization and establishment of democratic institutions and – most importantly – a nonreligious government."
But the Bush administration, flush in the moment of apparent victory, seemed to think it could get costless regime change in Iran and rebuffed the offer. Never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Here's a paragraph from Mr. Parsi's book that will surprise many Americans. After the death of Saddam:
"The Iranians offered to end their support to Hamas and Islamic Jihad – Iran's ideological brethren in the struggle against the Jewish State – and pressure them to cease attacks on Israel. On Hezbollah, Iran's own brainchild and its most reliable partner in the Arab world, the clerics offered to support the disarmament of the Lebanese militia and transform it into a purely political party. On the nuclear issue, intrusive international inspections in order to alleviate any fears of Iranian weaponization. The Iranians would sign the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and they also offered extensive American involvement in the program as a further guarantee and goodwill gesture. On terrorism, Tehran offered full cooperation against all terrorist organizations – above all, al-Qaeda. On Iraq, Iran would work actively with the United states to support political stabilization and establishment of democratic institutions and – most importantly – a nonreligious government."
But the Bush administration, flush in the moment of apparent victory, seemed to think it could get costless regime change in Iran and rebuffed the offer. Never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Korean rapprochement
With the North Korean and South Korean leaders getting together, after an agreement for the North to give up its nuclear program by the end of the year -- a few details remain, but it seems as if all parties, including the U.S., are convinced it will hold -- it's difficult to see this as anything other than a success. I wonder if the Bush administration will stress it as such. I am sure John Bolton is disappointed that it got done without a war, and any number of neocon and conservative commentators will argue that the crafty North Koreans still can't be trusted and are sure to cheat. And it's worth keeping an eye on them, because besides being repressive it is a regime with not much of a record of honesty.
I suspect this agreement will hold, however, beacuse it seems to coincide with what most of the parties want. When I attended a conference three or four years ago in South Korea on the future of the peninsula, it was obvious to me that the South Koreans couldn't wait to get the process of reunification started; the main thing holding them back was the U.S.'s reluctance to give up the passions of the Cold War. They have studied the reunification of Germany assiduously, figuring to learn from what the West Germans did right and wrong. Most of the South Koreans I met were still strongly anti-communist, but saw the North not as a danger (at least not an imminent one) but as a catastrophe which they think they knew some ways to try to fix. But they couldn't start fixing until they established closer relations -- and even then most South Koreans were realistic enough to understand that there would be no changing the North overnight.
Meanwhile, North Korea, however its leaders may bluster, knows deep down that it's a failed experiment and has been trying almost pathetically hard to rejoin the rest of the world. The atomic flirtation was an attention-getting device, though a crude and risky one, as well as an understandable step in the wake of the U.S. having invaded the one member of Bush's bogus "axis of evil" that everyone who knew much of anything knew didn't have atomic weapons.
The key potentially embarrassing aspect to all this for the Bush administration, as I pointed out in a post almost a month ago, is that there's little reason not to apply similar tactics to Iran. Iran is a long way from acquiring nuclear weapons if it even has a serious intention of doing so. It has neighbors who would rather it didn't go nuclear and who have a certain amount of countervailing power -- nothing like the stranglehold China had on North Korea, but enough. Iran has made gestures suggesting a desire to be taken from the pariah-state status, but the U.S. has rejected every one. There's a basis for negotiation there. It could take years, as the North Korea situation did. But it's worth a try.
The problem is that the Bushies and neocons are reluctant to abandon the psychological comfort of having a pariah-state "new Hitler" in the world to justify their desire to start yet another war. Wouldn't it be nice if they would grow up and start thinking seriously -- if that's possible?
I suspect this agreement will hold, however, beacuse it seems to coincide with what most of the parties want. When I attended a conference three or four years ago in South Korea on the future of the peninsula, it was obvious to me that the South Koreans couldn't wait to get the process of reunification started; the main thing holding them back was the U.S.'s reluctance to give up the passions of the Cold War. They have studied the reunification of Germany assiduously, figuring to learn from what the West Germans did right and wrong. Most of the South Koreans I met were still strongly anti-communist, but saw the North not as a danger (at least not an imminent one) but as a catastrophe which they think they knew some ways to try to fix. But they couldn't start fixing until they established closer relations -- and even then most South Koreans were realistic enough to understand that there would be no changing the North overnight.
Meanwhile, North Korea, however its leaders may bluster, knows deep down that it's a failed experiment and has been trying almost pathetically hard to rejoin the rest of the world. The atomic flirtation was an attention-getting device, though a crude and risky one, as well as an understandable step in the wake of the U.S. having invaded the one member of Bush's bogus "axis of evil" that everyone who knew much of anything knew didn't have atomic weapons.
The key potentially embarrassing aspect to all this for the Bush administration, as I pointed out in a post almost a month ago, is that there's little reason not to apply similar tactics to Iran. Iran is a long way from acquiring nuclear weapons if it even has a serious intention of doing so. It has neighbors who would rather it didn't go nuclear and who have a certain amount of countervailing power -- nothing like the stranglehold China had on North Korea, but enough. Iran has made gestures suggesting a desire to be taken from the pariah-state status, but the U.S. has rejected every one. There's a basis for negotiation there. It could take years, as the North Korea situation did. But it's worth a try.
The problem is that the Bushies and neocons are reluctant to abandon the psychological comfort of having a pariah-state "new Hitler" in the world to justify their desire to start yet another war. Wouldn't it be nice if they would grow up and start thinking seriously -- if that's possible?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
