# Posted 10:51 PM by David Adesnik  

THE (JOSH) MARSHALL PLAN: In a careful and measured way, Josh Marshall comes to a provocative conclusion: That George W. Bush's aggressive unilateralism is provoking a major anti-American backlash in democratic nations around the world.

"Schroeder in Germany, Lula in Brazil, now Roh's victory in S. Korea…[this is the] latest 'wake-up call' to [the] U.S., but [it's] not clear what's being heard." Marshall notes that each of these election outcomes had "deep local determinants" and was fundamentally "multi-causal." Fair enough. But, Marshall concludes,

...add these and other election results up and you start to see that hostile reactions to America's newly strident and confrontational stance in the world are becoming an important force in world politics and an important force in the domestic politics of many of our allies.

Not so fast. First of all, Lula's victory in Brazil is an indication of the strength of American values, not a backlash against them. Lula was once a true working-class radical who campaigned in denim and spoke of socialism. As a result, he lost three consecutive presidential elections. This year, Lula decided to wear a suit, accept a binding commitment to IMF economic policies, and pledge to fight inflation and budget deficits.

Just a couple of weeks ago, the WaPo ran the following headline : "Brazil's Leader Seeks to Ease U.S. Concerns About Policies". After appointing a moderate cabinet and shutting out pro-Cuban radicals, Lula met with W. to assure him that Brazil is going to be a good citizen.

Now I admit that what happened in Germany and South Korea was disturbing. But in contrast to Lula, who won in a massive landslide, both Schroeder and Roh won by razor-thin margins. Fearing for their political lives, they took the low road and sought to increase leftist turnout by bashing the US. But does that mean that anti-Americanism is becoming "an important force in world politics"?

Not by a long shot. What Marshall doesn't ask is whether anti-American rhetoric results in anti-American actions, or whether it is just a diversion from fundamentally pro-American foreign policies. Take Schroeder's latest speech for example. While he talks about searching for alternatives to war, he also refuses to rule out German support for a UN-authorized invasion of Iran. And Schroeder adds that: "We Germans know from our own experience that dictators sometimes can only be stopped with force."

Now what about Roh? Marshall writes that

Roh is the first Korean head of state since the partition to be elected on a platform which called into question key aspects of the US-ROK security alliance

And yet Roh is already showing signs of moderation.

Leaving all this aside, it's still worth considering what Marshall asserts is the answer to America's problem. Carefully dissociating himself from the Blame-America-First chorus, Marshall says that there is a "thoughtful middle ground" for the US to stand on. If you click on the words "thoughtful middle ground", you will be taken to Fareed Zakaria's essay in the New Yorker on the subject of multilateralism.

This essay was, of course, the recent subject of a four-part OxBlog fisk-a-thon. Now, I don't hold Josh responsible for not reading my posts. He has better things to do with his time, like taking down Senate majority leaders.

But if Josh were to read my posts, I think he might agree that the best way to address concerns about American greed and belligerence is to pursue an ethical foreign policy rather than searching for a consensus that will only come at the price of accommodating the greed and belligerence of Russia, China and (sometimes) France.

Now Josh is of course right that the Bush administration has needlessly antagonized a lot of people as a result of its ham-fisted diplomacy. Hell, I've spent almost all of my time on OxBlog criticizing every detail of the Bush administration's foreign policy. But all in all, I've come to recognize that things are going more than just alright.

In the end, I don't think Josh and I are all that far apart on the issues. As he points out, he thinks we should use force against Iraq. If I've been a little harsh, it's because I'm worried that a lot of very intelligent and well-intentioned individuals have begun to see multilateralism as an end in itself rather than a means of promoting democracy and human rights across the globe.

UPDATE: More on German backtracking. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:17 PM by David Adesnik  

ARM YOURSELF WITH FACTS: If you are against invading Iraq, you should memorize today's WaPo article on US-Iraq relations in the 1980s. If you are for invading Iraq, you should memorize it as well. We did very bad things in the 1980s and, for that matter, throughout the Cold War.

There isn't all that much new in the article, though it does report on the contents of recently declassified documents from the Reagan administration. While there is no mention of who filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the documents' release, I'd have to imagine it was the National Security Archive, which is the national leader in FOIA requests related to foreign policy. I spent six weeks there doing research on Reagan's El Salvador policy for my master's thesis.

FYI, the Bush administration has been doing all that it can to delay the release of documents whose publication would have no adverse effect on national security, but might prove to be quite embarrassing to both members of the current administration as well as the President's father.

Anyway, the real issue here is how supporters of American foreign policy can address the perennial argument that America's record of immoral actions in the Cold War invalidates any aggressive initiatives the United States plans today. The argument becomes especially complicated when one considers that current members of the cabinet were responsible for those actions. The WaPo, for instance, reports on Rumsfeld's intimate relations with Saddam at a time when the State Department knew that Saddam was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis.

I think the proper response is to admit what the US did wrong and shift the discussion to the merits of its current policy. As Ken Pollack tells the WaPo, what we did in the 1980s "was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now." The worst thing to do is come up with defensive justifications of immoral acts. For example, David Newsom, a former ambassador to Baghdad, told the WaPo that

"Fundamentally, [our] policy was justified...we were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible."

Talk about low standards. All Iraq had to do to become less repressive was massacre thousands of innocent men and women instead of tens of thousands.

The reason such arguments backfire is that they imply a continuity between the moral standards of the past and of the present. But the fact is, the US has learned from its mistakes. For all Bush Sr. and Clinton did wrong when it came to foreign affairs, they did uphold a moral standard higher than any of their predecessors since Harry Truman. (Yes, including Jimmy Carter.)

That is no small accomplishment considering that Bush and Clinton were the first presidents of the first lone superpower since Roman times. Lord Acton observed that "Power corrupts...and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That may have been true once. But the United States took advantage of its unprecedented power to raise its moral standards and those of other nations as well. That is what makes America exceptional. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:29 PM by David Adesnik  

EVIL SOUTH KOREAN CAPITALISTS: The NYT headline reads "U.S. Plan for Trade Penalties for North Korea Worries South Korean Investors". You read it and you think "Oh no! I thought Anti-Americanism was bad enough, but now South Koreans have a real, material interest in preventing the US and UN from imposing sanctions on Kim Jong Il."

But then you read the article and you realize that the headline should've been: "Economic Ties Between North and South Korea Minimal, Irrelevant." What is the annual value of inter-Korean trade? $600 million. Now, it might've been helpful if the Times put that figure in context by giving figures for South Korean trade with other nations. But they don't, so I will. The statistics are available here, from South Korea's National Statistics Office.

Exports to the US: $26.8 billion; To Japan: $12.4 billlion. Germany, the UK, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong all clock in at over $3 billion as well.

Oh, and one more fact buried near the end of the NYT article: North Korea's dysfunctional political system has screwed up almost every foreign investment project in North Korea.

Bottom line: Economic interests are not going to get in the way of imposing sanctions on North Korea. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:50 PM by David Adesnik  

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY: LEBANON. A top-notch post from Matt Scofield, who is interested in a lot of the same issues that I am. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:13 AM by David Adesnik  

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY: EGYPT. While guest blogging over at The Volokh Conspiracy a few weeks ago, I promised to provide in-depth, country-by-country accounts of the prospects for demcratization in the Middle East. I started out with Algeria, but didn't follow up on it. Until now. This week I'm going to be writing about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Morocco (in that order).

But first, a brief recap. As I said before I want to present a comprehensive, empirical case for the viability of democratization in the Middle East. The previous round of this debate focused on the cultural incompatibility of democracy and Islam. This time I want to focus on the situation on the ground in the Middle East. As I see it, a strong case for democratization must respond to what I called the "Iranian paradigm", or the belief that reform promotes both terrorism and fundamentalism.

So what about Egypt? It made headlines last month when the government broadcast a vicious anti-Semitic television program based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Going back somewhat further, Egypt is best known for the brutal attacks by Muslim fundamentalists that resulted in the murder dozens of Pyramid-bound tourists. Thus, at first glance, the Mubarak dictatorship seems to be the only thing standing in the way of an Islamic revolution. Even so, leading analysts such as Fareed Zakaria have asserted that

If we could choose one place to press hardest to reform, it should be Egypt. Jordan has a more progressive ruler; Saudi Arabia is more critical because of its oil. But Egypt is the intellectual soul of the Arab world. If it were to progress economically and politically, it would demonstrate more powerfully than any essay or speech that Islam is compatible with modernity, and that Arabs can thrive in today's world. (Newsweek, 24 Dec 01 [permalink expired])

Perhaps. But Colin Powell isn't listening. Just after September 11th, he described Mubarak's brutality as a model for the war on terror. Or, as Powell put it,

Egypt, as all of us know, is really ahead of us on this issue. They have had to deal with acts of terrorism in recent years in the course of their history. And we have much to learn from them and there is much we can do together.

Recognizing the significance of what Powell said, Mubarak later responded that "There is no doubt that the events of September 11 created a new concept of democracy."

But suppose for a moment that Powell & co. wanted to get serious about Egyptian democracy. Would they just be opening the floodgates of fundamentalism? I think not. In an article in the most recent issue of the Journal of Democracy, Princeton doctoral candidate Jason Brownlee reviews the prospects for democracy in Egypt. Put mildly, Brownlee is not optimistic. But the problem isn't fundamentalism. It's Mubarak.

While consolidating his power in the years after Sadat's assassination, Mubarak spoke of administering "democracy in doses". Thousands of NGOs sprang into existence, as well as professional organizations for lawyers, doctors, etc. The opposition even began to gain ground in the Assembly. Once Mubarak consolidated his position, however, he shut down all avenues of dissent. Newspapers were closed, human rights activists jailed and political opponents given military trials.

To be sure, Egypt has faced a threat of Islamist violence. The annual death toll from its guerrilla conflict reached 1,000 in 1993. But by 1998, the government had crushed the armed opposition. While the memory of slaughtered tourists lives on, it does not reflect the realities of Egypt today. Now Mubarak is focused on crushing non-violent Islamic dissent as well. And he has no intention of letting other dissenters organize either. The regime has rejected the application of every political party that sought to organize over the past decade, including an explicitly pro-democratic party made up of both Muslims and Christians. Clearly, Mubarak's main interest is in preserving his own absolute power, not defending Egypt from fundamentalist Islam.

In a surprising announcement in November 1999, Mubarak informed the public that the next year's elections to the Assembly would be "subject at all stages to supervision by the judiciary." The legislation implementing this announcement made clear, however, that the President's announcement was nothing more than a publicity stunt. Nonetheless, the Egyptian judiciary seized on the President's announcement as justification for its decision to launch an ambitious election monitoring program, which included placing monitors at each of the country's 15,000+ polling stations.

While the monitor did ensure that no fraud occurred at the polling stations, the government's control of the ballot counting process enabled it to produce results that it found amenable. Still, the results were surprising. Less than 40% of the government's official candidates won their races. Another 40% went to candidates from the ruling party who failed to gain official backing and ran as independents. The secular opposition disgraced itself by winning only 3.5% of the races. The Muslim Brotherhood, which operated without official party status also won 3.5% even though it put up candidates in only 10% of the races. The remainder of seats went to independents.

The significance of the 2000 is hard to place. Angered at the results, Mubarak immediately moved to crush the judiciary's autonomy so that it would never pull a similar stunt again. While it is hard to know how much the regime managed to influence the final results, it seems clear that the Islamist opposition would not dominate at the polls if given the chance. On the other hand, there is no true democratic force that has the potential to prevail either.

Brownlee concludes that American influence is the best hope for Egyptian democracy. In addition to $2 billion in annual aid, the US has played a critical role in securing multilateral loans for Egypt as well as granting it an extra $2 billion to compensate for tourism revenue lost after September 11th. As Powell's words indicate, however, the US is not interested in taking advantage of the influence it has to promote democratization, even though there is no danger of an Islamic revolution.

So far, the most that the Bush administration has done is announce that it will limit aid to $2 billion per year if Egypt's human rights record does not improve. As I see it, that doesn't exactly seem like much of a threat. The administration must recognize that there can be no final victory in the war on terror until the governments of the Middle East rests on the consent of the governed, rather than the same brute force which gives terrorists their influence.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:30 PM by David Adesnik  

DRIPPING SARCASM: This is just too funny. And when you get to the last line, you'll see that it makes a profound point as well. (Thanks to Instapundit for this link as well as one to the same author's delightful review of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:16 PM by David Adesnik  

GEE WHIZ HIGH TECH: Imagine being able to see through walls or beneath the ground. Imagine tracking devices the size of a quarter which can be located anywhere on earth. Imagine a two-way radio communicator that cannot be intercepted or jammed and runs on so little power that it could be mounted on wristwatch. Dick Tracy, eat your heart out.

All these things will be made possible thanks to a single technology known as UWB, or UltraWideBand. I only came across it because I live with an electrical engineer who is going to be presenting on UWB at a conference in a few weeks. Since the focus of his presentation is military applications, he wanted a politics person to give him a hand. So here I am.

The battlefield potential of UWB is stunning. Right now, urban settings enables less sophisticated forces to match their superiors by taking advantage of the complex and confusing battlefield environment. Within a decade, individual soldiers will all have portable radar devices that let them locate opposing forces in urban environments without ever having to confront them face to face. The US Army is poised to test prototypes of the individual radar should it have to conduct operations in Baghdad this winter. Other applications include searching below the ground for hidden tunnels and bunker complexes (as well as land mines). Tracking devices based on UWB would faciliate communication and tactical planning on the battlefield.

For a whole set of downloadable articles explaining how UWB works, click here. The basic idea is that instead of using continuous radio waves to communicate, UWB relies on short pulses of radio energy. Released at intervals so precise that they can be measured in trillionths of a second, one can only detect such pulses if one knows in advance the schedule of their release. Whereas as high-frequency radar waves bounce off walls or other solid objects, UWB pulses can be emitted on much longer wavelengths which go right through solid objects.

The peacetime applications of UWB are no less important. Its main commercial application will be the creation of wireless local area networks (LANs) which can handle 10 megs or more per second. UWB may also enable significant improvements of cellphone networks, which are now limited by the scarcity of available bandwidth. Moreover, UWB should finally let cellphones work indoors. From a humanitarian perspective, UWB would be critical in locating victims of earthquakes or other disasters, who may have been buried under mountains of rubble. Alternately, parents could easily locate children who have become lost in public places or even kidnapped. The possibilities are endless. But first we need peace. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:55 PM by David Adesnik  

CHECHEN TERRORISTS: While the Russian military is hardly a credible source, the NYT and WaPo seem convinced that the suicide bombing which left 46 dead in Checnya are the result of close collaboration between Chechen insurgents and Arab terrorists.

Josh and I have debated this issue before, and even though there is no clear evidence yet, I think the Chechens tactics speak for themselves. Even if Russian brutality is the moral equivalent of Chechen bombings, the United States cannot defend anyone who embraces terrorism. Sadly, we will have to wash our hands and let fate decide who lives and who dies. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:44 PM by David Adesnik  

DEMOCRACY IN KENYA (YES, KENYA). For the first time since gaining independence from the British Empire in 1963, Kenya has held free and fair elections. The opposition won a landslide, crushing the hand picked candidate of Pres. Daniel Arap Moi, who has ruled Kenya for the past 24 years.

It's hard to know exactly why the President chose to let the people have their way, but it is a significant step forward. According to an article in the April 2002 issue of the Journal of Democracy, the only reliable indicator that a country is on the road to reform is that the opposition has triumphed in democratic elections. In those states where former dictators won elections, no real reform has taken place. Let that be a lesson for those who will decide the fate of the Middle East. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:29 PM by David Adesnik  

WHAT, ME WORRY? Remarkably, the Bush administration is insisting that the situation on the Korean peninsula has not yet become a "crisis". If you ask me, that kind of spin is downright Clintonian. The North has a million men under arms, close to four thousand tanks and 600 to 750 missilesthat can hit both Japan and South Korea with conventional, chemical or biological warheads. When an enemy with that kind of firepower tries to blackmail you, it's a crisis.

So what do we do? The NYT reports that the US has a plan designed to raise pressure on Pyongyang to give up its nuclear program. What is the plan? Who knows. The Agonist observes that any serious plan ought to recognize that "China fought us in the fifties to keep Korea divided...a divided Korea is one of China's vital national security interests."

But do the Chinese believe that possessing nuclear weapons will strengthen Kim's regime, or just raise the risk that the United States will launch a preemptive war to unify the peninsula? According to a former State Dept. official, "While China is opposed to North Korea having nuclear weapons, they are also opposed to chaos in North Korea. They are reluctant to apply any kind of sanctions unless they have to." Which means it won't be easy to get China on board if we actually have to try and punish North Korea for its illegal weapons program.

And what about the South? Will it go along? OxBlog reader JK points to an LA Times article which says that most South Koreans hold American belligerence responsible for both the current crisis as well as the Northern retaliation it may provoke. While I can't vouch for the accuracy of that report, it is interesting to note the inconsistency in this alleged majority view. If Kim Jong Il bears no grudge against the South, why are South Koreans so afraid that his artillery will slaughter them by the tens of thousands if the United States bombs the reacor at Yongbyon?

The only good news on the North Korean front is that the NYT has finally run an intelligent column on the subject. According to Georgetown prof Victor Cha (who had a column on the same subject in last week's WaPo),

The engagement policy the United States followed in 1994 would be ineffective and unfeasible today. Indeed, if the North does not come clean, the true "moderate" position for both Washington and Seoul is isolation and containment.

Cha is no hawk, so this is a serious statement coming from him. Nonetheless, Cha is an optimist, arguing that North Korea will cooperate because "it now has much more to lose than it did in 1994." I wouldn't go that far. Kim could care less about new ties to the EU. If he comes around, it will be because he knows that cannot last any longer without Western aid. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:12 PM by David Adesnik  

SLOW NEWS DAY: Time on your hands? Read Pejman's hilarious Star Wars posts. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:53 PM by David Adesnik  

GOTTA HAVE HART: Gary is getting people more excited than I thought. Bill Peschel says he thinks Hart is the only Democrat with a credible record on national security, and that he'd cross party lines to vote for Bush if the Dems put up Lieberman or Kerry. Glenn Reynolds also linked to Bill, and says that voters like him are the reason that Bush and the GOP are in such a dominant position right now.

Both Bill and Glenn think the Donna Rice issue is irrelevant in the post-Clinton era. I disagree. Rather than lowering the bar, Clinton raised it. America is resolved never to have another president like him again. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:34 PM by David Adesnik  

SACHS AND VIOLENCE: Steve Sachs says that Robert Kagan's attack on Michael Walzer's hypocritical pacifism is wrong and almost downright dishonest. Sachs' analysis is solid and well worth reading. It seems that my admiration for Bobby K may have become a blindfold. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:44 PM by David Adesnik  

HAWK IN DOVE'S CLOTHING: Conservatives are supposed to have patience. But since Bill Safire thinks that South Koreans aren't giving the US the respect is deserves, he wants us to bring back home the 37,000 troops we have protecting the South from its evil twin in the North. As Safire puts it, "because the U.S. is not an imperialist power, it does not belong where a democratic nation decides America is unwanted."

Ooh, how clever. Ooh, how ironic. Using anti-imperialism and democratic principle to justify a thinly disguised threat to abandon the South if it doesn't give in to American demands. But as a former Nixon speechwriter and veteran of the Cold War, Safire should be the first to know that democratic allies will always have to weather the rhetorical storms set off by electoral politics. He complains that President-elect Roh wants "a repeat of Clinton's fruitless 1994 cave-in." Well, nothing would force the South to cave in faster than an American retreat that leaves it exposed to Northern blackmail.

The South did not vote to expel the United States. Rather, it lashed out at what it perceived as American high-handedness. While we may not be imperialists, we should be smart enough to recognize that South Korea's dependence on the United States makes it highly sensitive to all perceived sleights. Given time, it will recognize the danger of compromising with the North.

Having patience, however, is not the same as giving up with out as fight, as the editors of the NYT recommend. They say Bush should sit down to negotiate before the North pledges to give up its weapons. But that accomplishes nothing.

What Safire gets right is that we have to put pressure on China to confront Kim Jong Il. But how do we influence China? One way, is to have Japan do what it can. Well aware that North Korean missiles can devastate its cities, the Japanese are desperate for both a peaceful solution and American support. It also seems that the US has the support of the UN, since IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei has strongly condemned North Korean behavior.

Now, I admit that this all beginning to sound like the sort of mulitlateral strategy that was so controversial when applied to Iraq. But the President knows we can't risk the lives of tens of thousands of South Korean and Japanese citizens unless a North Korean attack is imminent. So for the moment, we'll have to swallow our pride and send in the diplomats.

UPDATE: The diplomats are being been sent. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:49 PM by David Adesnik  

REAL POSTWAR PLANNING: In the WaPo, a former senior official at USAID argues that the reconstruction of Iraq will depend on the establihsment of a clear, national property law. I'm not exactly equipped to evaluate that specific an argument, but it sounds reasonable enough. More importantly, it is the kind of argument that should be getting a lot more play in both the media and the government than it is. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:54 AM by David Adesnik  

AMERICAN HYPOCRISY: As a passionate advocate of promoting democracy in the Middle East, I am often told to get real. Don't I know that Muslims can't handle democracy? Don't I know that Bush talks a good game but that he really couldn't care less?

On the first point, I'm not giving in. The desire for freedom is universal. On the second point, I myself have asked whether the President really cares about promoting democracy in the Middle East. I want to keep an open mind on the issue, but isn't easy when even the Weekly Standard is blasting Bush for his hypocrisy. Damn it, what happened to Wolfowitz? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:46 AM by David Adesnik  

THE BLOGS INVADE: The ever-humble Glenn Reynolds links to this article in the Boston Globe about bloggers' role in bringing down Trent Lott. Glenn doesn't mention that the Globe interviewed him and that what he told the Globewas pretty insightful. So check it out. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:38 AM by David Adesnik  

WASH-POST WHITEWASH: This is an embarassment. Was it ignorance or prejudice that led the Post to print such a praise-laden article about a vicious, anti-Semitic, anti-American Islamic fundamentalist? For those of you who are fans of Michiel Vissier, you may recognize the name Dyab Abou Jahjah. Earlier this month, Mike profiled the young leader of the Arab European League (AEL). When I read the Post's article on Jahjah, I immediately e-mailed Mike and told him it was time for a fisking. 'No', said Mike, 'I am on vacation. You do it.' So here goes:

ANTWERP, Belgium -- In the dim fourth-floor walk-up, past the wrestler-turned-bodyguard, the leader of the Arab European League sat in silence. Before him were a batch of newspapers bearing his image and a flier informing Belgian police that his group was "watching" them.

Last month, Dyab Abou Jahjah's group fielded unarmed patrols to follow this northern Belgian city's police officers in what the group called an attempt to prevent abuse of Arab youth.

If you trust the Post's account, Jahjah sounds like Gandhi. Visser observes: One of the more notorious activities of the AEL is sending surveillance teams, clad in black uniform, onto the streets of Antwerp to "monitor" the police, who are accused of discriminating against Muslims. The Belgian prime minister, in turn, has accused the AEL of aiming to create "police-free zones", where criminal activity can then take place unchecked.

Later in the month, he was arrested and held for five days for allegedly inciting two days of riots in Antwerp that followed the fatal shooting of a young Moroccan teacher by an elderly white neighbor whom the police called deranged.

The face of Abou Jahjah, 31, has flashed across Belgian television screens often in recent months. Dressed in sharply cut suits, he gives a fresh voice to the rage felt by many Arabs in this country and across Europe. He is also forcing Belgium into a deeper conversation about whether the country welcomes immigrants and, more broadly, just who is a Belgian.

To ask those questions is to incite a fiery, complex response from the Lebanese-born Abou Jahjah, who in the days after his release remained holed up in his spartan apartment in a largely immigrant section of this port city.

"My family in the U.S. are Arab American, and they feel [American]. I'm Belgian, and I don't feel it," he said in an interview. "Belgians are unable to be multicultural, because to them, to be Belgian is to be white. So we say we're 'Arab European,' because Europe itself is multicultural and Arabs aren't new in Europe; we helped make Europe what it is today."

That's a lovely quote. Here's what Jahjah says when he isn't talking to the Western press: "We are opposed to the war of Bush and Sharon. We are opposed to the sanctions [against Iraq] and the inspections. This is not the last time we will be on the streets. If war breaks out, we will demonstrate everywhere in the world: in Brussels, Paris, and Baghdad. We have to arm ourselves to continue our struggle. We need to arm all those who want to resist the United States. Because everywhere in the world there is one fight: against the United States. Today and in the future. We support the resistance in Palestine and in Iraq. We support everyone who battles today against zionism and imperialism." (Translated by Mike)

The 1,000 or so core members of his movement are mostly young Arab men disillusioned with Belgian society and high unemployment in their communities. White Belgians, he said in an interview, "can't look at us as equals because, in their minds, we're guests. We have to shut up and obey."

Rhetoric like this has made the country sit up and listen. There has long been anti-immigrant sentiment among many Belgians, said Badra Djait, a professor of cultural anthropology at the University of Leuven whose father emigrated to Belgium from Algeria in the 1960s. "Now, there's a real face, a real target, and it's Abou Jahjah."

One of Abou Jahjah's biggest critics is Belgium's third-largest political party, Vlaams Blok. Like maverick parties elsewhere in Europe, it is tapping sentiment that newcomers are overpowering local society and bringing a rise in street crime, and perhaps terrorism. Across the continent, these feelings appear to have grown since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

"Our cities have changed into, well, Islamic neighborhoods, with mosques instead of churches, like it's some kind of Islamic state," said a spokesman for Vlaams Blok, Philippe Vander Sande. He denied the party was racist. Its point, he said, is that immigrants can "choose to assimilate with the Belgians, and if they do, they're welcome. If they don't, and say Islamic law and Islamic religion are above our Belgian law, our Western lifestyle, then we say, that's not possible. They must go."

Vlaams Blok wants Abou Jahjah to be stripped of his Belgian citizenship.

Which, as Mike points out, he came by dishonestly. A one-time member of Hezbollah (yes, that Hezbollah), Jahjah emigrated to Belgium in 1992 and claimed that he sought asylum from his former comrades-in-arms. When the Belgians sought to expel Jahjah, he arranged a bogus marriage to a Belgian woman which lasted just long enough for him to get his citizenship.

In the middle is the coalition government of Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt. He once avoided discussing immigration, but following the Antwerp riots, he declared on Belgian television that the Arab European League is a "threat to our society" and thrives "on confrontation and provocation."

In the last two months, the group has staged two large street protests in the capital, Brussels, against U.S. aggression toward Iraq and Israeli policies toward Palestinians. In the next year, it plans to open chapters in the Netherlands and in France, which is home to about 4 million Arabs, the largest such population in Europe.

Because people of Middle Eastern descent comprise about 5 percent of Belgium's 10 million people, he has suggested that Arabic be made the country's fourth official language (Flemish, French and German are the first three) and said he might field candidates in next year's national elections.

In Antwerp, which has a sizable immigrant population, police are sent in force to break up groups of young men of Arab descent who gather on the streets; government leaders view the Muslims who shadow police patrols as illegal vigilante groups and say they frequently curse and spit on officers carrying out routine duties. Many political analysts say the national government's tough new policies are motivated at least in part by hopes of reducing support for Vlaams Blok, which controls about a third of the seats on the Antwerp city council.

Abou Jahjan was born in Beirut and said he joined the Lebanese resistance as a teenager to fight Israel's occupation of Lebanon, and dreamed of studying at the University of Michigan, close to where his relatives live.

Hmmm...What might the name of that Lebanese resistance group be?

The 1991 Persian Gulf War, he said, led him to cancel those plans, and at 19, he moved to Belgium, obtained citizenship through marriage, divorced, mastered the Flemish language and earned degrees in international politics. He is now working on a doctorate, focusing on post-Cold War security.

Funny how the Post ignores the relationship between citizenshiip and marriage.

He observed what he considered to be Arabs being marginalized in Belgian society, and the muted response from established, government-subsidized Arab groups led by first-generation immigrants who came in the 1960s and 1970s as guest workers. "It was obvious the real problems weren't being addressed," he said of these groups, whose leaders have widely dismissed him a radical.

Antwerp remains tense. It is common to see young Arabs with hands raised leaning against storefronts, being frisked vigorously by police. Arabs say the officers often call them makukah, or "white ape"; the phrase is so familiar to youngsters , they've begun calling each other "makukah."

Abou Jahjah said that his Nov. 26 arrest, along with 160 youths allegedly involved in rioting, sent the wrong message to the Muslim community. "Some people in this organization are, shall we say, less patient than I am. So if they eliminate me, what will you have?"

Wait, I recognize that argument! It's usually made by Arafat in reference to Hamas...

A few last notes: One topic which Mike addresses but the Post doesn't is where the AEL's money comes from. AEL refuses Belgian government subsidies, which suggest that it's money comes from abraod. The organization admitted that its lawsuit against Ariel Sharon in Belgian courts was financed from abroad. And parents of young Arab rioters reported that they were offered mobile phones and other gifts in exchange for their participation. That way, perhaps, they can call the Saudi government directly...

UPDATE: Steve Sachs has been kind enough to point out that Time Magazine also ran a profile of Abou Jahjah recently. It's much more balanced than the WaPo piece, but still has some flaws.

For example, Time writes that Abou Jahjah "is not anti-American; in fact, he admires anti-discrimination laws in the U.S." Presumably such laws would help Abou Jahjah carry out the armed struggle against against American imperialism he is in the midst of planning.

In Time, Abou Jahjah also asserts that he "is not a fundamentalist." Perhaps he is right about that. His fondness for European life suggests that he isn't exactly ready to be bound by state-enforced Islamic law.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:36 PM by David Adesnik  

ONLY IN CALIFORNIA, ONLY ON CHRISTMAS: In a striking repudiation of the stereotype that bloggers are misfit shut-ins, four eminent citizens of the blogosphere celebrated Christmas together at the house of the Armed Liberal. One of the four was our friend and occasional correspondent, CalPundit. The four of them talked about politics. Take that, Robert Putnam. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:21 PM by David Adesnik  

LORD OF THE YAWNS: Pejman loved The Two Towers. He said that we should "go see this movie. Again, and again, and again, and again." Ruffini loved The Two Towers. He agrees with Pejman that it was "far better" than The Fellowship of the Ring. Both Pej and Patrick commented on the inspirational value of Tolkien's work in a time when we are ourselves must face Evil. (In contrast, Salman Rushdie argues that Tolkien's view of evil is as naive and dangerous as George Bush's).

But I ask you this Pej and Patrick: Could we not be inspired by a movie that was considerably shorter? Yes, the battle for Helm's Deep was first rate, or as the WashPost put it, "the last hour of 'The Two Towers' is pure combat and it's mind-blowing." Give me a DVD and I will watch the last hour of TTT again and again. In contrast, Fellowship opened with a stunning battle scene and kept things moving after that. Some have said that an improvement in the acting and script balances the lack of action. But from where I'm standing, it's hard to produce more one-dimensional characters than Tolkien has. Of course, that isn't Peter Jackson's fault. And The Two Towers is inherently more resistant to being filmed. Still, it's my eight bucks and I can think of better ways to spend it.

The good news for Jackson and the folks at New Line Cinema is that everyone in America disagrees with me. Exit polls (yes, really) show that 9 out of 10 viewers thought TTT was very good or excellent. It's box office take was a third better than Fellowship's. As they say, vox populi, vox dei.

UPDATE: CalPundit found TTT less than exciting. He argues, though, that the films are far better than the books. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:35 PM by David Adesnik  

COUNTERFISKED! The Agonist has put up an in-depth critique of my response to Fareed Zakaria. The tone is respectful, the arguments thoughtful. In general, The Agonist's point is that my ideological commitment to promoting democracy has prevented me from producing a realistic analysis of the situation in Iraq. Or, put more emphatically, Mr. A warns that I am unaware of the "dangers of unchecked messianism."

On factual matters, the main point of tension between my arguments and that of Mr. A is his contention that "Bush has given no indication that we will 'democratize' Iraq. Especially if you take Afghanistan as an example. I might go so far as agree with Adesnik that Bush's words are Wilsonian but his actions are not." While one might question Bush's commitment to his stated objective, I think his UN speech as well as Condi's remarkson the matter have made clear what our policy on Iraq is.

Unsurprisingly, I share Mr. A's belief that the Bush administration has shown little indication that it is serious about democracy in Afghanistan. Still, Bush has done more than any Republican president ever to promote the cause of democracy abroad. As such, it is premature to draw firm conclusions about his intentions. More importantly, one should recognize that Bush's rhetorical commitment to promoting democracy makes him vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy should he fail to do so. Significant pressure from Congress and the American public will ensure that he does not back away from his pledge. So speak up!

UPDATE: Afghans look back on Karzai's first year.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:54 PM by David Adesnik  

JUST WAR OR 'JUST DO IT'? Bob Kagan exposes the hypocrisy of just war theorist Michael Walzer. While Clinton was president, Walzer argued for preemptives strikes against Iraq on explicit moral grounds. After Bush became president, he did a 180. Hmmm... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:47 PM by David Adesnik  

WHAT THIS DAY MEANS TO SADDAM: The great one observes that US airstrikes are not in keeping with the meaning of the holiday. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:41 PM by David Adesnik  

THAT'S NOT MEDIA BIAS: Hezbollah runs Al Manar TV. "Hassan Fadlallah, the station's young, clean-cut news director, explained simply, 'All Arab states consider Israel our enemy, so we go ahead and call it that.'" (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:38 PM by David Adesnik  

WHAT THIS DAY MEANS TO ME, courtesy of Kyle Braflovski:

It's hard to be a Jew on Christmas.
My friends wont let me join in any games.
And I can't sing Christmas songs
Or decorate a Christmas tree
Or leave water out for Rudolph
`Cause there's something wrong with me.
My people don't believe in Jesus Christ's divinity.
I'm a Jew,
A lonely Jew
On Christmas.

God bless all of you who spent Christmas eve at the movies after eating at Chinese restaurant. Tradition...TRADITION!
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:16 PM by David Adesnik  

LAST MINUTE GIFTS: Can't afford a subscription to OxBlog? Well, here are some free e-cards you can send to everyone you've been meaning to get a gift but just haven't found the time.

My favorite one is from Dilbert, with Peanuts a close second.

If you want'em en espanol, then click here. Auf deutsch, click here. B'ivrit? Lama lo!

Happy Holidays, y'all! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:19 PM by David Adesnik  

WOLFOWITZ BLOGS! The Deputy Secretary of Defense recommends that we all visit www.defenselink.mil in order to learn more about the prospective performance of Iraqi forces in a second Gulf War. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:08 PM by David Adesnik  

LET'S PLAY SPOT THE RACIST! In addition to their field day criticizing Trent Lott, America's punditocracy (especially its Democratic punditocracy) has had quite a ball going after other senators, mostly Republicans, with terrible records on race. Here are some highlights:

1) Bob Herbert on George Allen (R-VA) and Conrad Burns (R-MT).

2) TNR's Sarah Wildman on Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

3) Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-NC) on himself. (With a parting blow by Josh Marshall.)

While it makes for good copy, one has to ask whether this has all gone too far. One could argue that this trend has led to unfair attacks on Bill Frist by the NY Times and Josh Marshall. But the unfair attacks on Frist were shot down very quickly. It's not as if you can get away with anything just because Trent Lott is in hot water.

Even from a Repubican perspective -- and especially from a Republican perspective -- it's all for the best if this trend keeps on going strong. First of all, it has laid to rest false accusations that might have damaged Frist later on. It will also let the Republicans know whether potential candidates for Senate leadership positions have a past they are trying to hide. And if the trend goes too far, it can be used as evidence of liberal media bias. With two full years to go before the next election, the separation of the wheat from the chaff can only make the GOP stronger. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:31 PM by David Adesnik  

RHODES SCHOLARS BACK HART IN '04: As if Bill Clinton didn't do enough to ensure that the phrases "Rhodes Scholar" and "illicit sex" became stuck together with super glue in America's imagination... It turns out that a pair of Rhodes Scholars who've just come back from Oxford have launched Gary Hart's 2004 presidential campaign. Hart himself hasn't said yes or no, but that sort of thing shouldn't trouble a committed over-achiever. In fact, the only reason George Stephanopolous brought up a potential Hart candidacy on ABC's This Week was that one of the Scholars suggested it to him.

The Scholars behind the campaign are Antwaun Smith and Will Polkinghorn, both of whom are now in graduate school at Harvard. One thing I know about Antwaun and Will is that they are always looking for things to do besides their homework. That is one of the reasons they spent so much time with Hart when he was at Oxford a couple of years back. For those who don't know Antwaun or Will (or Gary), their enthusiasm for Hart might seem to be utterly ridiculous. Even if we are living in the "post-Clinon" era, it is hard to believe that America would forgive Hart for his involvement with Donna Rice. But because I've spent time talking to Hart one-on-one, I know why Antwaun and Will are so enthusiastic.

Gary Hart cares about America and cares about ideas. Rather than spending his time at posh dinners, he tried to learn as much as he could from other students. He was even nice enough to read my 30-page memo on US grand strategy and give me substantial feedback. (If you need a cure for insomnia, I'd be happy to send you a copy.) When you talk to Hart, you get the sense of talking to someone who has been out of politics for a long time and reflected thoughtfully on the lessons of his time in Washington. He thinks outside the box. When you talk to him, you understand how he and Warren Rudman could've realizedbefore September 11th that terrorism is the single greatest threat to American security and that we need a Department of Homeland Security to plan our defense.

Does this mean that Hart has a shot? I am pessimistic. His strength is his expertise on national security affairs. But as of now Bush is untouchable on that front. With good reason, most Democratic voters would probably be afraid that a Bush-Hart campaign would become a referendum on Clinton's sexual ethics. Which is why Joe Lieberman is now the leader of the pack, albeit not in a commanding position.

UPDATE: Amygdalapoints out that Hart was known for being an innovative, outside-the-box thinker even while he was in office. So I might be wrong that he has learned to think more creatively about politics by being away from it. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:32 PM by David Adesnik  

BLAME CANADA! TNR reports on Canada's embarrassing permissiveness toward Hezbollah.

UPDATE: Canada arrests Al Qaeda pizza boy.

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh observes: Canadians are generally indistinguishable from Americans. The surest way of telling the two apart is to say that to a Canadian. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:39 AM by David Adesnik  

BRITNEY VS. THE AYATOLLAHS, PART DEUX: So is the Voice of America committed to hard-hitting coverage of Iranian politics or not? On Saturday, the NY Times ran a story on President Bush's radio address to the Iranian people, in which he pledged that VOA would commit itself to the cause of democracy in Iran.

The Times described Bush's speech as a response to criticism of VOA's decision to replace political coverage with teeny pop. Strangely, the Times reported that this criticism was coming from VOA staffers and dissidents in Iran. It avoided any mention of the op-eds by Jackson Diehl and Jesse Helms which focused public attention on VOA. Which forces one to ask: Is the Times going soft on VOA because it got scooped, because it doesn't know what's going on, or because it has good reasons to believe that VOA will take the Presdient's advice seriously?

I'd say either 'A' or 'B' is right. As a Reuters report makes clear, the switch-over from politics to pop is going ahead right on schedule. In other words, it seems that Bush is covering for VOA rather than committing it to the cause of democracy in Iran.

UPDATE: Occam's Toothbrush observes that VOA's Arab language broadcasts have a solid track record precisely because of their emphasis on Britney, Christina, et al. Occam also links to Fouad Ajami's excellent article in the new issue of Foreign Affairs. In fact, a quick look over the table of contents suggests that FA may have put together one of it's best issues in years, which is saying a lot.

DOUBLE UPDATE: Both this post and Occam's have been picked up by Instapundit! I guess that calls for a response. Here's what I wrote to Moe Freedman (Mr. Occam) in an e-mail earlier today :

My brother's name is Moe, too! (Though he spells it "Mo") Turning to more substantive matters, thank you for the link to the NRO article. I recognize that my posts haven't mentioned the acheivements of Radio Sawa, which deserve to be mentioned. Still, I think Diehl makes a pretty compelling case for VOA's stupidity vis-a-vis Iran. Yet unlike me, he acknowledges the value of Radio Sawa in countries which don't have a pro-Western anti-Fundamentalist student movement. So it's a situational matter, more than a blanket comdemnation of Britney...

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:44 PM by David Adesnik  

PLAYA-HATING AT THE NYT: Lacking real criticism of Bill Frist, the NYT is recycling myths and slanting the truth. Pejman provides the links.

UPDATE: Innocents Abroad exposes even more bad NYT reporting. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:58 PM by David Adesnik  

THE IMMUTABLE LAWS RETURN: While Maureen Dowd hasn't come up with a better nickname for the prospective Senate majority leader than "Dr. Frist", she nonetheless manages to spend more time discussing the check-ups he gives monkeys at the National Zoo than the policies he is for or against. As such, it is fair to say that the "People Magazine principle".

But the real purpose of Dowd's column is to expose the Machiavellian calculations behind the President's subtle support for the Tennessee senator. Apparently, Bush still hasn't gotten over Lott's support for Jack Kemp in the '88 primaries. And, as Dowd bizarrely asserts, the President wants to set Frist up for a successful primary run against Jeb in '08. Why? Sibling rivarly.

Not once in Dowd's column does she even consider the possibility that Bush meant what he said about segregation being an embarassment to everything America stands. Nor does she consider that Bush may have recognized the threat that Lott represents to Republican chances in coming elections. No, it's all about personal vendettas. But don't forget the Second Law, that it's easier to whine than take a stand or offer solutons. What pray tell, should Bush have done with regard to Trent Lott? Unsurprisingly, Dowd never comes out and says Bush should've either supported Lott or even just said nothing. Better to whine.

All there is to say in Dowd's defense is that, contra Law Three, she does make a coherent point. But if you compare this column to her last one, the illusion of coherence disappears. At least she doesn't bother us with details of her personal life...

UPDATE: Instapundit isn't happy either. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:35 PM by David Adesnik  

BLUFF OR STRATEGEM? North Korea has dismantled UN-installed monitoring equipment at the Yongbyon nuclear plant, thus raising the stakes in its conflict with the US. No doubt Kim Jong Il has taken notice of South Korean president-elect Roh Moo Hyun statement that he (Roh) is "the only person who can resolve the nuclear issue through dialogue." In other words, it seems Roh is willing to negotiate even though the US has said that it will not talk until the North agrees to shut down its nuclear weapons programs.

If one believes that Kim Jong Il is a competent diplomat, than his raising the stakes represents an assumption that the US will not be able to coordinate its efforts with the new South Korean government, thus enabling him to secure additional aid without disarming. If one believes that Kim Jong Il is a semi-educated shut-in, then his raising the stakes represents nothing more than traditional North Korean belligerence. Yet either way, the road from Washington to Pyongyang leads through Seoul. President-elect Roh has to vindicate his anti-American rhetoric by showing that he can be tough with the US. The Bush administration should take this into account, and accept that there is no point in a war of words. It may even be necessary to let Roh talk to Kim. What really matters is whether Roh is willing to offer Kim aid before he disarms. If Bush or Powell can win a commitment from Roh to withhold aid, then the US can continue to take a hardline against Northern violations of the 1994 pact.

Unfortunately, there is no pleasant way to deal with North Korea. Withholding aid may mean abetting the North's efforts to starve its own desperate population. But Kim alone bears the moral responsibility for that. If the North will not disarm, the US must ensure that no nation -- not China, not Russia and not South Korea -- sends aid to the North. Raising the stakes always benefits the gambler with the deepest pockets. Kim will recognize that he can disarm or watch his government crumble from within.

PS The Times has put up another embarrasingly bad op-ed on the Korean situation which asserts that "North Korea's behavior is not unpredictable" and that the real cause of tension on the peninsula is "an erratic United States policy that veers between neglect and overattention". I guess that's a reasonable conclusion if you just ignore the fact that North Korea was caught red-handed secretly violating an international treaty that its current government signed just eight years ago.

UPDATE: Rumsfeld is talking tough but holding out the prospect of a diplomatic solution.

UPDATE: In the WashPost, Maddie Albright's North Korea policy coordinator argues that we can't let the North divide us from the South. The tone of the argument is weepy and (liberal) guilt-ridden, but the basic argument is sound. On a related note, the Post's editors defend Bush for playing hardball with Kim Jong Il. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:49 PM by David Adesnik  

THE MATING HABITS OF INTELLECTUALS: This past week's issue of the Weekly Standard ran a cover story on life, love and achievement in the Ivy League. Not a topic I would put on the cover if I wanted to increase sales, but we can leave that aside. While the article was interesting, I think it's important to correct one major misconception and a few associated details that it embraces.

The major misconception is that the ethos of achievement has led Ivy Leaguers, especially a new generation of confident young women, to reject traditional, romantic dating practices and instead resort to "hook-ups" that satisfy their momentary lust. The alleged logic behind the decision is that dating takes too much time away from work, so it isn't worth it unless marriage is in the offing (which it isn't for upwardly mobile student types).

The best I can say about this strange observation is that it is half right. Traditional dating practices are almost dead. But love and romance are not. Both in my own experience and that of my friends at other $30,000-a-year colleges, there are two behavioral patterns that have replaced traditional dating. One is, in fact, the hook-up. The other is the total commitment. After one or two dates, Ivy Leaguers who really get along well seem to establish an almost unbreakable bond and begin to spend hours and hours together almost everyday. Exhibit A: Josh Chafetz and the lovely Jenn.

These relationships are intense and romantic. Many of them end in devastating heartbreak. Mine did. Contra Brooks, Ivy Leaguers and their kin are not afraid to put their emotions on the line. There isn't always a clear rationale behind the decision to have such intense relationships. To a degree, it reflects the fact that at small colleges, total commitment is facilitated by being close by one's significiant other. If there is any social or political meaning behind such decisions, I think it is this: that our generation believes that one cannot expect a first relationship to go right. One cannot afford to get married and have children without first knowing what it is to love, be loved and have one's heart broken. We get hurt, but we hope to learn.

In David Brooks' world, extreme pressure to achieve great things threatens the traditional values on which social stability and personal fulfillment rest. But what I saw in my four years at Yale was a community devoted to strengthening traditional values in untraditional but still romantic and successful ways. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:25 PM by David Adesnik  

APOLOGY COMING SOON: North Carolina rep Cass Ballenger defends Lott and segregation. This should be fun.

UPDATE: And it gets worse... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:18 PM by David Adesnik  

GIVING BLIX A HAND: In response to a request from Inspections Chief Hans Blix, the US is preparing to share with him its own intelligence concerning Iraqi weapons programs. As an unnamed official told the NYT, "We are going to give them one piece of information at a time," another official said, "given strategically at the right moment."

That's well and good, but why didn't the Bush administration try to figure out before inspections started whether or not it was safe to share intelligence? Answer: Because it simply doesn't think one step ahead when it comes with cooperating with the UN. While it is fair to differ on whether the US should be cooperating with the UN at all, I don't see how anyone could defend the decision to cooperate, but in an ad hoc and ineffective manner. It's not as if the administration is incapable of thinking ahead. It's military buildup is being accomplished with impressive speed and subtlety. Which demonstrates that the administration's dovish multilateralist critics are right when they assert that sometimes, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld just don't get it. So, while I don't have much good to say about Colin Powell in general, I am glad that that he plays a balancing a role.

Such criticism aside, one has to recognize that the administration's overall plans are moving ahead on schedule, with a decision for or against an invasion expected in January. As I see it, the challenge for the administration will be to avoid antagonizing potential allies for no good reason. If our intelligence about Iraqi weapons is as good as Rumsfeld keeps insisting it is, we should have no problems convincing others to go along or at least not hamper our efforts. There should be no need for another fight on the Security Council over whether Iraq is in material breach. While I don't favor a second resolution, the combination of Saddam's absurd denials and our comprehensive evidence should make it easy to secure one if it comes to that. Even better, the US should persuade the Council to issue a finding on the issue of material breach that provides a legal justification for the invasion without requiring another vote. This is a good compromise, and should help secure allied participation in postwar efforts to rebuild and democratize Iraq.

UPDATE: Reader PG has generously provided a link to this NYT article on early problems in the intelligence sharing relationship between Blix and the Security Council member states. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:06 PM by David Adesnik  

SILENCE EQUALS CONSENT: Scroll down to the end of this article about Iraq's material breach and read the comments made by the French and Russian diplomats. If they can't even think of something negative to say about America declaring Saddam in material breach, it means they know that he is. In the meantime, another 50,000 troops are on their way to the Gulf. The French and Russians don't seem to object to that either. This is the payoff for establishing consensus within the administration before going to the UN. Saddam has nowhere to run.

UPDATE: The NYT now (Sun.) has a news analysis piece which argues that the US has, in fact, antagonized the rest of the Security Council and that on the issue of material breach it is "far out ahead of the other Council nations, including Britain, its closest ally." But if you look carefully at the statements made by French, British and Russian ambassadors to the UN, you'll notice that none of them take issue with the American characterization of Saddam's report as an apalling lie. Instead, they are just working to ensure that the US doesn't invade without UN permission.

Interestingly, IAEA chief Mohammed El Baradei told the Times that "I do not see the Security Council exonerating Iraq" if it doesn't provide a serious report. I think it is pretty interesting that a UN official thinks of Iraq not as innocent-until-proven-guilty, but as a criminal in need of exoneration. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:00 PM by David Adesnik  

SEND HIM BACK TO CHINA: Here's what Nick Kristof has to say about North Korea: "Washington's failure to engage North Korea has in a few months turned a minor problem (a uranium program that would take years to produce weapons) into a major crisis (the restarting of a reactor with enough plutonium to produce five additional warheads)."

Huh? By "engagement" does Kristof mean that the US should have said nothing about North Korea's secret and illegal nuclear program? Or that it should have rewarded it with additional aid? As I see, it there was no better moment to confront the North Koreans. In the face of a UN resolution that condemns Iraq for its secret weapons programs, the North Koreans will have no choice but to concede that their actions violate all existing notions of acceptable state behavior. That puts them on the defensive when negotiations begin. For the moment, things are worse than they were before the US exposed North Korea's deception. But the only alternative was to wait for North Korea's secret nuclear program to succeed, at which point it would have been able to blackmail the West for better terms than it got in 1994.

The thing about Kristof is that he's a good reporter but a terrible columnist. His previous column was so bad I didn't even have the patience to fisk it. But if he's willing to do another stint abroad, the Times should send him back to the hunting grounds where he earned his Pulitzer.

For good advice on the Korean situation, the President should turn to an op-ed in the Post by Georgetown prof Victor Cha, who advises that the United States should not antagonize Roh Moo Hyun, the South Korean candidate who won by capitalizing on anti-American resentment. Kim Dae Jung, the current president, built his reputation the same way, but developed into a staunch ally of the United States.

With the South so dependent on the United States for security, periodic hostility is unavoidable. More importantly, no approach to the North can succeed without strong backing from the South, whose interests are immediately threatened by the North in a way that ours are not. Necessary as it is, getting tough with North Korea means raising tensions on the peninsula. If we have to threaten the North with force, such threats will only be credible if they have the unconditional support of the South, whose civilians will pay a heavy price if war breaks out. It is these same citizens who have made South Korea the strong democracy that it now is, and their opinion must be respected. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:35 PM by David Adesnik  

'NEO-'S VS. TECHIES: Who took down Trent Lott? The neo-cons, as Charlie K. and Josh C. argue? Or the techno-cons, as Jonah Goldberg argues? You might be asking, of course, what exactly a techno-con is. Well, as Goldberg observes:

...the self-defined neocons weren't the first conservatives to denounce Lott. Andrew Sullivan, Robert George, David Frum, Glenn Reynolds, Virginia Postrel, yours truly, etc., were much more prompt than the usual neocon suspects, like Krauthammer, Bennett, Kristol, et al. when it came to breaking with Lott...the more telling split among conservatives is a generational one. The bloggers claim it's a technological thing; the "blogosphere" is less beholden to the establishment and more rebellious. Well, that's true of younger conservatives generally, who actually believe that a colorblind society is the moral position. The fact that these conservatives (and libertarians) work disproportionately on the web speaks less to the uniqueness of the web than to the fact young people rarely have perches at the Washington Post or the New York Times.

Goldberg has a point, but he takes it too far. Yes, the techno-cons were the first to demand that Lott resign. But after that, which conservatives put their reputations on the line after that? The neo-cons. (See Kristol's op-ed yesterday.) As for the mainliners, can anyone name one conservative senator who came out strongly for Lott's resignation? The President got tough, but refused to call for Lott's resignation.

Now what about Golberg's own National Review? Krauthammer says that NR's editoral on Lott is a clear indication that NR does not oppose racism on principle. Goldberg says that Krauthammer is badly misreading what NR wrote. But he isn't. The harshest condemnation NR can come up with for Lott is that he "misspoke." Even better, read the whole paragraph that quote was taken from.

Minority leader Tom Daschle's initial reaction (prior to his mauling by the Congressional Black Caucus) to Lott's remarks was essentially sound — Lott misspoke. But Lott misspoke in a particular way, one freighted with symbolic significance. Many southern whites of a certain generation have a shameful past on civil-rights issues. This doesn't necessarily make them reprehensible people, or mean that they are racists today. But, when they are public figures, it is reasonable to expect from them an honest reckoning with their past, and, of course, an awareness that a reckoning is necessary.

It sort of makes Lott's absurd apologies seem noble by comparison, doesn't it?

But hold on a second. Let's step away from the immediate controversy and address the larger issue that Goldberg raises: Are Krauthammer and other neo-cons sowing division among Republicans by separating the principled neo-conservatives from the pragmatic mainliners? To dispel suspicions, let me state up fron that I am an uncommitted independent. My past is Democratic, but I can't decide if that should be a mark of pride or one of shame. But getting back to the question, one good answer is the one proposed by E.J. Dionne, that the real division is between advocates of "states' rights" and those with no attachment to them. In general, that division mirrors Krauthammers' division between mainliners and neo-cons. Still, it exposes the ideological underpinnings of that divide better than descriptions of one side as old and the other as new.

Now, I happen to agree with Dionne that the principle of states' rights has generally been invoked in order to defend inexcusable local privileges, whether based on race or other factors. In that sense, it is not much of a principle. In contrast, the neo-cons oppose big government because of what it is, not because of an illusory belief in states' rights. More broadly speaking, neo-cons embrace a true ideology rather than a set of precedents. That has its pro and cons. But it is honest, and I respect if for that. If the Lott affair has taught us one thing, it is that the GOP will suffer if it pretends to be one things but then inadvertently exposes itself as another.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan weighs in.

UPDATE: Ranting Screeds comments on my take on states' rights.

UPDATE: Innocents Abroad strongly backs the neo-con line while TNRbashes the NR editorial.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:09 AM by Daniel  

SETTLEMENTS. I do agree with some of Saeb Erekat's points in his NY Times op-ed--settlements undermine Palestinian trust in Israel's intentions, and they make an equitable division of the land all but impossible. But here is where he drifts from a sound argument:

"Without a dramatic change in Israeli policy, the possibility of a two-state solution will be relegated to the history books. Yet despite international laws that prohibit the construction of settlements, despite a call to "freeze all settlement activity" by an international panel led by former United States Senator George Mitchell in 2001, despite Palestinian pleas to address the underlying causes of violence — occupation and settlement construction — the international community has done nothing to stop Israel. President Bush reiterates support for two states, yet he continues to support an Israeli government that makes the two-state solution an increasing impossibility."

Wrong. Did Erekat read the entire Mitchell Report? If he did, he would have sees that it calls for the PA to take "immediate steps to apprehend and incarcerate terrorists operating within the PA's jurisdiction" before calling for a freeze on all settlement activity The PA has done no such thing. Trust is a two way street, and I am glad that Erekat points out the destructive role settlements play. But solely focusing on the Israeli side will get us nowhere.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:35 PM by David Adesnik  

REBUILDING AFTER 9/11. I strongly encourage everyone to visit the website of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which has slideshow presentations on each of the seven plans submitted for the reconstruction of Lower Manhattan. The public must demand not just a memorial, but a creation that will give us the confidence and pride to stand up for America's ideals (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:30 PM by David Adesnik  

THE PARADOX OF CONFIDENCE: In addition to Bill Krisol's challenge to Senate Republicans, Bill Safire has thrown down the gauntlet and demanded that the Bush administration make amends for its embarrassing decision to let North Korea ship missiles to Yemen. As a Times lead story makes clear, Yemen is as much against us as it as with in the war on terror. And it is a firm dictatorship.

While some might regard these internal conflicts within the GOP as signs of political drift, I think that they are exactly the opposite. A willingness to publicly admit and confront one's own mistakes is a sign of mature confidence. If this is the face of the new GOP, it will find itself in a strong position to win a second term in the White House in 2004.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:21 PM by David Adesnik  

POWELL PLAYS HARDBALL: I give credit where credit is due. The administration sent Colin Powell out to declare that Iraq is in material breach of 1441. Instead of a public conflict, the administration has put forward a unified front. If Powell is willing to risk the reputation for moderation that he was has worked so hard to cultivate, that means he is convinced that Saddam's violations of 1441 are so flagrant that the US will not have a hard time convincing potential allies to join the war effort. However, as Powell explained, this declaration of material breach is not an indication that the time for war has come. The decision for or against an invasion is expected in late January. Thus, Powell's declaration is his way of telling Saddam that the games are over, that he can either cooperate now or be forced to deal with Tommy Franks. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:07 PM by David Adesnik  

KRISTOL CHALLENGES SENATE: The Weekly Standard has never been afraid to speak up for what it believes is right, even if that means hacking away at fellow conservatives. That is why the Weekly Standard commands respect. Today, the founder of that proud tradition, editor-in-chief Bill Kristol, challenges Senate Republicans to stop hiding from the media and say whether they are for Lott or against him. If we're lucky, even old Strom will come out and say something! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:57 PM by David Adesnik  

RESPECT FOR PRECEDENT: When Katherine Mangu-Ward publishes an article, Josh links to it. Now that Josh is on vacation, that responsibility has fallen on me. Enjoy! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:35 PM by David Adesnik  

FAREED BETWEEN THE LINES, PART IV: Here is the final insallment of my commentary. Click for parts one, two and three.

…But while [Bush] adopts some of Wilson's loftiest ideals, [he] is also following some of his most fatal practices. Wilson's means were often highly unilateral. When he took the United States into the war, in 1917, he insisted that although it fought alongside France and England, it was not an ally but an "associated power." His entire approach to the war and its aftermath was to dissociate the United States from the sordid desires of its allies.

A surprisingly effective strategy!

Impatient with other countries' cultures and uninterested in their views, Wilson tended to issue declarations for the whole world. He believed strongly in the righteousness of his cause, and that was enough to allay any concerns he might have had about the reaction of foreign countries. In fact, he thought, their hostility was often proof of the revolutionary nature of his ideas. Some of this may have been true—just as some of Bush's frustration with European and United Nations diplomacy is understandable—but it insured that Wilson was a practical failure. Bush's high-handedness also promises to make his policies ineffective. Yet there is a way to conduct a robust and visionary foreign policy without triggering an avalanche of anti-Americanism around the world. It's called diplomacy.

This is where Zakaria's analytical relativism becomes most apparent. He presumes that other nations – including other democracies – will become fiercely anti-American if the United States disrespects multilateral norms regardless of whether it does so in order to realize Wilsonian ideals that both Americans and Europeans share. Yet if past behavior is an accurate guide, Europe will hem and haw if the US does an end run around the UN, but then forget all about it once Iraq is disarmed and democratic. On the other hand, if Iraq becomes what Iran was under the Shah – a brutal pro-American puppet state – Europe will become truly antagonized. No amount of diplomacy, i.e. spin, will change that.

…Roosevelt and Truman knew that to transform the world one had to engage in it. Roosevelt thought poorly of many of his wartime allies and their goals—he despised French and British colonialism, for example—but he understood that those countries had to be accommodated. Truman understood that the United States could best combat Soviet Communism by creating permanent, entangling alliances with other countries. As a result, these two Presidents and their successors created the conditions for the triumph of a world quite different from any that existed in the past. Today, there is an international consensus in favor of democracy, some version of open markets and capitalism, and some international norms, rules, and restraints. This has happened because of the inherent strength of these ideas but also because they have been hitched to American power.

Perhaps most important, Roosevelt and Truman, having lived through the nineteen-thirties, knew how fragile the international system was and believed that it needed support. Having reaped the fruits of this system—upheld by all successive Presidents of both parties—we have come to believe that stability is natural. But the world order put into place by the United States in the past half century—an order based on alliances, organizations, and norms—functions largely because of the respect paid to it by its superpower creator. Without that support, it will crumble into chaos.

Here, Zakaria clearly elevates the importance of means, i.e. “alliances, organizations, and [presumably multilateral] norms”, over ends such as the defense of capitalism and democracy. But did the US win the Cold War because of its “respect” for the system or because it dedicated its unmatched power to the pursuit of its ideals? If one recalls such unpleasant events such as France’s effective withdrawal from NATO in the 1960s or Reagan’s insistence on funding the Contras despite widespread European resentment, it becomes clear that what kept anti-Communist alliance together was not a respect for multilateralism, but a commitment to the ideals threatened by Soviet power.

…The Bush Administration is right to recognize that consensus is not an end in itself. And some American concerns about international organizations are valid. Within these organizations, America faces a special challenge: the United States has only one vote in most international organizations, and when other countries want to gang up on it they use these organizations to do so. But these are the kinds of problems that skillful diplomacy can resolve.

As my posts have indicated, I share Zakaria’s view that the Bush administration fails to recognize that it can often accomplish via diplomacy as much as or more than it can without it. Still, Zakaria overestimates the dangers of unilateralism.

…[via cooperation] American hegemony would gain the legitimacy that comes from operating through an international consensus.

Without this cloak of respectability, America will face a growing hostility around the world. During the Cold War, many nations disliked or disagreed with America—over Vietnam, for example—but they despised the Soviet Union. The enemy of their enemy was, in the end, their friend. But today, with no alternative ideology and no competitors, America stands alone in the world. Everyone else sits in its shadow. This doesn't mean that other countries will form military alliances against America; that would be pointless. But countries will obstruct American purposes whenever and in whatever way they can, and the pursuit of American interests will have to be undertaken through coercion rather than consensus. Anti-Americanism will become the global language of political protest—the default ideology of opposition—unifying the world's discontents and malcontents, some of whom, as we have discovered, can be very dangerous.

It is interesting that Zakaria refers to respectability as a “cloak”, as if it were hiding something more sinister. I think this reflects his refusal – much like that of Joe Nye – to recognize that America’s allies accept it for what it is, not for what it seems to be.

Also, note the contradiction between asserting that other nations supported the US against the Soviet Union because the “enemy of their enemy was…their friend” but that other nations will not support the US war on Al Qaeda. Yet even if no Europeans had died on September 11th, I think Europe would recognize that Al Qaeda is its enemy. Even in the case of Iraq, I have a sense that Europeans know which side they want to win. They just want that victory on their terms, not America’s.

"It is better to be feared than loved," Machiavelli wrote. But he was wrong. The Soviet Union was feared by its allies; the United States was loved, or, at least, liked. Look who's still around. America has transformed the world with its power but also with its ideals. When China's pro-democracy protesters gathered in Tiananmen Square, they built a makeshift figure that suggested the Statue of Liberty, not an F-16. America remains the universal nation, the country people across the world believe should speak for universal values. Its image may not be as benign as Americans think, but it is, in the end, better than the alternatives. That is what has made America's awesome power tolerable to the world for so long. The belief that America is different is its ultimate source of strength. If we mobilize all our awesome powers and lose this one, we will have hegemony—but will it be worth having?

No, Zakaria is not a moral relativist. I owe him an apology for once calling him that. But I believe I have made it clear that his idealism is strongly attenuated by his belief that only a fragile multilateral bond stands in the way of a chasm opening between the United States and its democratic allies.

The end!
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:54 AM by Daniel  

FREE SPEECH TO THE FULLEST. Ted Gup offers a powerful (if anecdotal) case for it. This is definitely worth reading, if you haven't done so already. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:40 PM by David Adesnik  

AMERICAN EXPERTS BETRAY IRAQI DEMOCRACY: Yesterday, the Council on Foreign Relations issued what it describes as an "integrated, coherent post-conflict strategy" for Iraq. I'd simply call it an embarrassment. I admit that I have been talking about the importance of postwar planning for a long time now. But this report remains stunningly silent on the political future of Iraq while focusing extensively on the reconstruction of its oil industry.

Let me sum up the problem this way: If you search the text of the CFR report for the word "democracy", you won't find it. All you will find is a vague reference to a "government based on democratic principles." If you search for the word elections, you will find it once, in the following context: "The United States should also encourage Iraqi-led efforts toward a new constitution, census-taking, local elections, and convocation of a new parliament." Encourage? Encourage?

Perhaps someone should have told CFR that democratizing Iraq is not just an option, but rather the heart of President Bush's vision for the reform of the Middle East. A true "integrated, coherent post-conflict strategy" for Iraq would provide considerable detail about how exactly one might go about introducing democracy to a nation that has no experience with it. When will elections be held? Who will supervise them? What sort of party system can be expected to emerge? What sort of judicial and police institutions will be able to defend a democratic order? What can be done to ensure that the Iraqi army stays out of politics? A list of questions like this could go on and on. None of them are answered in the CFR report.

In addition to ignoring such questions, the report explicitly denies the relevance of America's experience in democratizing Germany and Japan. As it observes,

The continued public discussion of a U.S. military government along the lines of post-war Japan or Germany is unhelpful. After conflict, Iraqis will be a liberated, not a defeated, people. While considerable U.S. involvement will be necessary in the post-conflict environment, such comparisons suggest a long-term U.S. occupation of Iraq that will neither advance U.S. interest nor garner outside support.

Why won't an extended occupation advance US interests? In light of the fact that the CFR report says nothing about how to ensure that Iraqi democracy survives its infancy, there is every reason to believe that a long-term American presence will be critical. And why wouldn't an American presence garner outside support? Admittedly, the Saudi and Syrian governments would not appreciate the presence of an American occupation force committed to creating an actual Arab democracy. After all, that might convince ordinary Saudis and Syrians that democracy in the Middle East is possible now.

While France and Russia tend to object to whatever the US proposes, there is good reason to believe that they would support an extended occupation as well, provided that their oil interests are taken care of. No one in Europe objects to the extended occupation in Bosnia or Kosovo, whose purpose is to prevent ethnic violence and restore democracy. That would be the purpose of an occupation force in Iraq as well.

Finally, the distinction between a liberated Iraq and the defeated Axis powers is misleading. While there it is probable -- but by no means definite -- that Iraqis resent Saddam more than the Japanese and Germans did their rulers, simplistic distinctions ibetween defeat and liberation ignore the fact that liberation does not just come from the fall of a hated dictatorship, but rather from its replacement with a functioning democracy. Like most Arabs today, the Japanese and (to a lesser extent) the Germans simply did not see democratization as a viable option. When the Americans imposed it on them, they realized that only then had they been truly liberated.

Another embarrassing aspect of the CFR report is the following passage:

It is possible that Saddam will be overthrown prior to the end of hostilities, with a new Iraqi strongman or a national salvation committee taking power in Baghdad. Assuming that such a government makes a clean break with Saddam's reign of terror and pursuit of WMD, the United States should be prepared to work with it and to help it establish the broadest, most favorable terms for post-conflict international involvement on disarmament and reconstruction.

Prepared to work with a "strongman"? Strongman? What could be more glaringly hypocritical than getting rid of one dictator but working with his successor? While it might be possible to persuade a strongman or "national salvation committee" to commit itself publically to democratization, experience shows that unelected governments tend to focus on preserving their own power while doing almost nothing to advance the democratization process. Besides, would there be any reason to believe than an unelected government would actually give up all of its weapons of mass destruction?

While I could go on for quite a while about the report, I'm going to end with one last criticism: the report's failure to mention even once that the most critical determinant of Iraq's future will be a personal commitment by the President to ensuring that Iraq becomes stable and democratic. Nowhere does the report suggest that the absence of presidential interest in Afghanistan has resulted in a return of warlordism and chaos. Instead, the report endorses Donald Rumsfeld's assertion that Iraq's future government "is not for the United States, indeed not even for the United Nations to prescribe. It will be something that's distinctively Iraqi". In other words, Rumsfeld will work with a dictatorship if he has to.

Perhaps the only thing worse than the CFR report was the NY Times article about it. The Times reports that

The study, sponsored by the Baker Institute and the Council on Foreign Relations, warned that "a heavy American hand" would only convince the Iraqis, as well as "the rest of the world, that the operation against Iraq was undertaken for imperialist, rather than disarmament, reasons."

Actually, the CFR report said that a "heavy American hand" specifically in the oil sector would validate speculations that this was another war for oil. To CFR's credit, the report does not say that a strong American presence in postwar Iraq would undermine the justification for war in the first place. It seems the NY Times paranoid fear of criticism from the left has been influencing its reporting. I'd call that liberal media bias if it weren't so touchingly naive.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:20 PM by David Adesnik  

FAREED BETWEEN THE LINES, PART THREE: Click to read parts one and two. If you already have, here's part three:

...but this view misinterprets history and misunderstands the unique place that America occupied in twentieth-century diplomacy. America was the most powerful country in the world when it proposed the creation of an international organization, the League of Nations, to manage international relations after the First World War. It was the dominant power at the end of the Second World War, when it founded the United Nations, created the Bretton Woods system of international economic coöperation, and launched most of the world's key international organizations. For much of the twentieth century, America embraced international coöperation not out of fear and vulnerability but from a position of confidence and strength. If the Bush Administration rejects this approach, it is indeed, as Richard Holbrooke has charged, making "a radical break with fifty-five years of a bipartisan tradition that sought international agreements and regimes of benefit to us."

Zakaria is right that Kagan’s approach can not explain the coincidence of American power and American multilateralism. But Zakaria cannot explain why America has now turned toward a more unilateral approach. The answer is that America prioritizes its ideals over the means of putting them into practice. Always Wilsonian (even before Wilson), America has pragmatically alternated between unilateral and multilateral methods to achieve Wilsonian ends.

…The fundamental questions about America's approach to the world are about ends. The Bush Administration has often used America's extraordinary power effectively, getting its way on a host of specific issues, from the A.B.M. treaty to Iraq's weapons production. But what do these issues add up to more broadly? What are the purposes of American hegemony?

The historical answer to that question is to be found in the British missionary movement of the nineteenth century, whose stated aims—to civilize developing countries, abolish the slave trade, act against human-rights abuses, and ostracize despotic governments—were adopted by the liberals, most prominently William Gladstone. In modern times, this Anglo-American vision of an idealistic foreign policy is most closely associated with President Woodrow Wilson.
Wilson was, in many ways, a failure as a politician. A stern man with few skills at negotiation or mediation, he was unable to get his own country to accept his most important project, the League of Nations. The Senate killed it, unwilling to commit America to the defense of something as vast and as vague as world order.

Zakaria shrewdly argues that Wilson’s unilateralism (vis-à-vis the Senate) was what prevented his ideals from becoming reality, thus implying that if Bush resorts to similar methods to achieve his ideals he will fail as well. Yet this argument reflects an outdated and inaccurate account of Wilson’s diplomacy. As historian Thomas Knock has demonstrated, the Senate did not resist Wilson because it would not “commit America to the defense of something as vast and vague as world order.” Rather, the Senate believed that the League charter imposed too many restraints on America’s freedom of action. Ironically, Wilson was too stubborn to recognize that his multilateralism would not prove acceptable to a more unilateralists Senate and public. Bush seems to have learned this lesson well. He has compromised at home but not abroad.

…Of course, like every powerful nation, the United States has pursued its own interests, often harshly—for instance, in Central America. And when the Cold War seemed most threatening—during the Vietnam War and amid rising Soviet expansion in the Third World—Americans turned to calculation and Realpolitik, carried out most intensively by Henry Kissinger. This raison d'état is still evident in our support of dictatorships from Saudi Arabia to Turkmenistan. But when the United States' position in the world has felt secure its goals have been the broad, idealistic ones that Wilson embodied. "We have it in our power," Ronald Reagan often used to say, quoting Thomas Paine, "to begin the world over again."

Rather than commenting on this paragraph, I will simply note that my master’s thesis is, in essence, a hundred page-long refutation of it. (You can look it up in Oxford's online library catalogue here.) If you happen to have a lot of free time on your hands, I will be happy to send you a copy via e-mail. But for the moment I will move on, since this point doesn’t bear all that directly on my analysis of Zakaria.

George H. W. Bush is often seen as a narrow-minded realist, and he would certainly not accept the label "Wilsonian." Yet, when searching for a way to describe his hopes for the world after the Cold War and the Gulf War, he grasped for one of Wilson's most famous ideas. "What is at stake," Bush said, "is a big idea—a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law." A few weeks later, in a speech to a joint session of Congress, Bush evoked "a world where the United Nations, freed from Cold War stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations."

Bush is considered a realist precisely by those who confuse realism with unilateralism. Bush and other presidents have rejected the label “Wilsonian” because it carries connotations of a multilateralism so extreme that it led to the appeasement of Hitler. But Bush’s ends are consummately Wilsonian.

…in what was billed as an important speech, delivered in June at the West Point commencement, Bush began to outline a world view. He described the dangers of the new era and then asserted that "America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace." It is a breathtaking statement, promising that American power will transform international politics itself, making the millennia-old struggle over national security obsolete. In some ways, it is the most Wilsonian statement any President has made since Wilson himself, echoing his pledge to use American power to create a "universal dominion of right." This claim is at the center of Bush's new National Security Strategy document, which says on its first page, "Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage. We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom."

Note the that Bush believes “American power will transform international politics”. That is the essence of Wilsonianism, not the multilateralism of the League of Nations.

To be continued...
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:57 PM by David Adesnik  

SOUTH KOREA'S TRENT LOTT: Apparently, stupid remarks are a global phenomenon. South Korean presidential contender Roh Moo Hyun let slip that he might keep South Korea neutral in a US-North Korea war. His running mate promptly bolted, offering a tremendous advantage to hawkish conservative candidate Lee Hoi Chang. The election will be held today.

UPDATE: Exit polls give victory to Roh. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:51 PM by David Adesnik  

COW INJURED: Al Qaeda has had no success in destabilizing the Afghan city of Khost with random missile attacks. However, a cow was injured. This cow, however, represents Khost's past rather than its future. In contrast to those cities controlled by warlords, Khost is embracing the freedom it won after the fall of the Taliban. It's main achievement has been the establishment of a university whose students had been studying in exile in Pakistan. I like good news! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:37 PM by David Adesnik  

SILENT STROM: Last week I asked whether Strom himself has said anything to indicate disapproval of Trent Lott's remarks. Howard Kurtz has done the research and says the answer is no. Big surprise there. At least Strom can't vote for the next session's majority leader. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:32 PM by David Adesnik  

SHE'S DONE IT AGAIN: WIth the aid of the Adesnik Corollary, Ms. Maureen has once again defied the Immutable Laws of Dowd. She has even come up with a bit of concrete (though slightly self-evident) advice for the President: let Lott go quietly so you don't alienate Southern voters.

On the other hand, Dowd spends her entire column implying that Republicans actively court the Southern racist vote without ever coming out and saying it. In other words, she's coming close to obeying the Second Law of Dowd, which dictates that "It's easier to whine than to take a stand or offer solutions." Admittedly, Geroge Bush's tactics in the South Carolina primaries were disturbing. Still, Dowd conveniently ignores the fact that Trent Lott has fallen from power because his comments outraged Republicans and Conservatives. And, of course, that Democrats court the anti-white racist vote. Perhaps if she spent more time thinking about the issues and less time writing about her personal life, Dowd could defy not just the Immutable Laws, but her own political prejudices. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:48 PM by David Adesnik  

ANOTHER BLOG-CHILD! OxBlog proudly announces the arrival of Ben Cannon's BeaverBlog. Despite the name, there is absolutely no pornographic material on Ben's site. Rather, the title refers to Oregon, the Beaver State. I guess Bob Packwood chose the name. That said, make sure to visit Ben and the BeaverBlog for up to date information and links about Oregon news and politics. You'll be glad you did. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:42 PM by David Adesnik  

SAUDIS DIVERSFY: Who says you can only fund one terrorist organization at once? Looks like the Saudis have been backing Hamas as well as Al Qaeda. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:21 PM by David Adesnik  

DOUBLE ENTENDRE? The NYT writes that "Al Gore deserves the gratitude of the nation...for his unquestionably painful decision not to run in 2004 for the presidency." Yes. Because he has spared us all the prospect of a Gore presidency. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:56 PM by David Adesnik  

THE BAD OLD DAYS: Women are still oppressed in Afghanistan. Why? Warlords. And it seems that Al Qaeda is reopening its Afghan bases as well. Wait a second. To do that, it would need the protection of a local warlord! Nahhh... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:47 PM by David Adesnik  

AYY, MATEY: Nelson Mandela has accused the United States of 'piracy'. Why? Because we insisted on seeing Iraq's weapons report before the rest of the Security Council. Predictable. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:36 PM by David Adesnik  

IT ONLY HURTS WHEN YOU LAUGH: Compare this NYT headline: "Israelis kill 3 Men in Gaza" with the story that follows:

JERUSALEM, Dec. 16 — Israeli soldiers in the Gaza Strip shot and killed three Palestinians early today. Two of the dead men were later found to have been carrying a large bomb and other weapons, the Israeli military said.

An Israeli military spokesman said the latter two were killed as they tried to infiltrate into Israel from the northern Gaza Strip. The spokesman said the men were carrying grenades, rifles, bulletproof vests, night-vision goggles and a large bomb. The militant group Hamas said the men were part of their organization...

This one is just so silly I can't even call it media bias. This may be naive, but I sense that the Times is bending over backwards to show that it isn't a kneejerk pro-Israeli paper. While I find that laughable, I also grew up in Jewish New York and know first-hand just how obsessed influential liberal Jews are with showing that they are not reflexive supporters of Israel.

At least the Post seems to have its head on straight. It asks: "So why is Mr. Sharon winning? One simple reason is that the Palestinians have utterly failed to control the terrorists in their ranks or put forward a leadership that could be a credible negotiating partner for Israel." (Of course, the Post isn't perfect.)

Sometimes it even seems like Arafat is a step ahead of the NYT. As he said, "Why is bin Laden talking about Palestine now? Bin Laden never, not ever, stressed this issue, he never helped us, he was working in another completely different area and against our interests...I'm telling him directly not to hide behind the Palestinian cause." Then again, that strategy has worked for Arafat for thirty years, so bin Laden may as well give it a try. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:04 PM by David Adesnik  

FAREED BETWEEN THE LINES, PART DEUX: Continued from yesterday...

…[In the 1990s] foreign problems, no matter how distant, seemed to end up in Washington's lap. When the crisis in the Balkans began, in 1991, the President of the European Council, Jacques Poos, of Luxembourg, declared, "This is the hour of Europe. If one problem can be solved by the Europeans it is the Yugoslav problem. This is a European country and it is not up to the Americans." It was not an unusual or an anti-American view. Most European leaders, including Thatcher and Helmut Kohl, shared it. But several bloody years later it was left to America to stop the fighting. By the time Kosovo erupted, Europe let Washington take the lead. During the East Asian economic crisis, East Timor's struggle for independence, successive Middle East conflicts, and Latin-American defaults, the same pattern emerged. In many cases, other countries were part of the solution, but unless America intervened the crisis persisted. During the nineteen-nineties, American action, with all its flaws, proved a better course than inaction...

American Presidents, however, were slow to embrace their imperial destiny. Bill Clinton came into office promising to stop worrying about foreign policy and to focus "like a laser beam" on the economy. But the pull of unipolarity is strong. By his second term, he had become a foreign-policy President. George W. Bush, in his campaign, reacting to what he saw as a pattern of overinvolvement in international affairs—from economic bailouts to nation-building—promised to scale back America's commitments. Today, the President who urged that America be "a humble nation" issues diktats to the world community, supports nation-building and bailouts, and is increasing America's foreign-aid budget by fifty per cent. The shift was made complete last month, with the publication of the White House's "National Security Strategy," an unapologetic acceptance of American hegemony.

In stating that “the pull of unipolarity is strong”, Zakaria implies that American power rather than American idealism led it to assume an active international role in the 1990s. Why then, did the United States pursue an active role in the 1940s? The pull of “bipolarity” perhaps. Still, this sort of power-based explanation cannot account for American activism in the 1890s or 1790s. Regardless of its weakness or strength relative to others, America has pursued an active role in the world because of it idealism. While often tempted to be no more than a model for others, the United States has always ended up using force to compel others to do right (and sometimes wrong).

As America's power became more apparent, foreign governments voiced their growing distaste for it. Clinton's chief economic advisers, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, and their de-facto subordinates at the International Monetary Fund were frequently accused of arrogance as they travelled in developing nations. Diplomats like Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke were disparaged in Europe for acting as if America were, in Albright's phrase, the "indispensable nation." The French foreign minister, Hubert Vedrine, devised the term "hyperpower" to describe Bill Clinton's America.

Once again, Zakaria assumes that power determines behavior and that growing power produces an automatic backlash. Developing nations may accuse the US Treasury and the IMF or arrogance, but they continue to grant them ever broader rights to interfere in their domestic politics. As for Europe, Robert Kagan has compellingly showed how Europeans protest the 'excess' of American power when it feels secure, but becomes deeply concerned that America is not strong enough when Europe is threatened. (Kagan, "The Benevolent Empire", Foreign Policy, Summer 1998 [no permalink]) On a related note, how can Zakaria account for the Europeans’ interest in having America solve European problems such as Bosnia and Kosovo? The answer is that Europe trusts America’s ideals much more than it resents America’s power.

…Even when the [Bush] Administration has ended up pursuing policies multilaterally it has done so muttering and grumbling—as it has in taking its case against Iraq to the United Nations—so that much of the good will it might have generated has been lost. Some neoconservative writers assert that such rancor is an unavoidable by-product of hegemony. In an influential article published this summer in the journal Policy Review, Robert Kagan argues that European and American differences over multilateral coöperation are a result of their relative strengths. When Europe's big countries were the world's great powers, they cared little for international coöperation, and celebrated Realpolitik. Europe is now weak, he writes, so it favors rules and restraints. America, for its part, wants complete freedom of action: "Now that the United States is powerful, it behaves as powerful nations do."

This passage is critical to Zakaria’s argument. He is right to criticize Kagan (as I have) for justifying American behavior in terms of American power. But note that Zakaria uncritically adopts a vital but implicit assumption in Kagan’s work: that cooperation is the antithesis of Realpolitik. This, however, is a comparison of apples and oranges. Realpolitik entails the ruthless pursuit of one’s objectives by whatever means necessary. Multilaterialism prescribes cooperation as a preferable means regardless of one’s objectives. Interestingly, what Realpolitik and Multilateralism share is an agnostic approach toward one’s ends. In contrast, Wilson idealism believes one’s ends are paramount. Thus, the Wilsonian United States often rejects Multilateralism as a restraint on its ability to achieve its ethically defined ends. As such, the critical question for both Zakaria and myself is this: What is more important to Europe? Multilaterial means or Wilsonian ends? If the former, America’s soft power will turn out to be fragile. If the latter, America’s soft power will prove to be durable.

To be continued... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:29 PM by David Adesnik  

FAREED BETWEEN THE LINES. Just a few days back, OxBlog had the honor of receiving fan mail from Newsweek editor and foreign affairs superpundit Fareed Zakaria. While Dr. Z said that OxBlog is “a great read”, he took exception to the charge of moral relativism that I laid at his door sometime back, in reference to an essay he published in The New Yorker. In particular, Dr. Z pointed to the last paragraph of his article, which read as follows:

America remains the universal nation, the country people across the world believe should speak for universal values. Its image may not be as benign as Americans think, but it is, in the end, better than the alternatives. That is what has made America's awesome power tolerable to the world for so long. The belief that America is different is its ultimate source of strength. If we mobilize all our awesome powers and lose this one, we will have hegemony—but will it be worth having?

I have to admit, that’s damn good evidence. I owe Dr. Zakaria an apology. The charge of moral relativism is a serious one and should not be made without careful consideration of one’s subject. As such, I would like to extend my apology to the three other authors whom I labelled as relativists along with Dr. Zakaria.

That said, I do believe that there are significant flaws in the four essays I cited. Without question, each one deserved more than the cursory treatment I gave it. Since the issues that each of the authors raised are still relevant, I will take time now to comment on their work in depth. I will begin with Zakaria's essay, covering it over the next four days.

Rather than moral relativists, it might be better to describe these authors as 'analytical relativists', since they come close to seeing international politics as an arena in which nations are judged according to their power, not their ideals. While some would no doubt resist that characterization, I believe that I can show it to be a meaningful one, even for Zakaria.

Before responding to Zakaria's essay directly, I think it is important to place these four authors in their proper intellectual context, as scholars rooted in the political science tradition known 'realism'. Historically speaking, realists have often been explicit advocates of moral relativism, both as an analytical as well as a prescriptive paradigm for the conduct of international relations. Prominent realists such as Henry Kissinger have often dismissed ethical restrictions on the conduct of foreign affairs, e.g. the consideration of human rights, as nothing more than impediments to the pursuit of a favorable balance of power.

In contrast, other realists have argued that the United States must respect human rights even though doing so might complicate efforts to safeguard our national security. Some realists take this position because they believe that the ethical significance of human rights demands that sacrifices be made in order to respect them. Others argue that since no foreign policy can succeed in the absence of domestic support, statesmen must take into consideration the ethical norms of their constituents.

What unites these kinder, gentler realists with the old guard is that none of them believe that strict adherence to ethical norms benefits the United States by convincing others of its good intentions. Believing international politics to be a domain in which power alone determines the welfare of nations, these realists see good intentions as nothing more than paving stones on the road to hell.

Against this background, it becomes apparent that Zakaria has departed significantly from mainline realism with his assertion that American idealism “has made America's awesome power tolerable to the world for so long…[thus] the belief that America is different is its ultimate source of strength.” Still I believe that there are significant elements of the old way of thinking still present in Zakaria’s work, especially his definition of what it means for America to be “different.” Through a detailed analysis of Zakaria’s essay in The New Yorker, I think I can show that his definition of difference has firm roots in the realist tradition.

Our Way: The Trouble With Being the World’s Only Superpower
By Fareed Zakaria

…a world with just one major power is unprecedented. For several centuries before 1945, European states of roughly equivalent standing dominated global affairs in a multipolar system. Many powers jockeying for advantage meant shifting alliances and almost constant war. It fixed in people's minds the image of international politics as Realpolitik, a ruthless, ever-changing game of might…

Most nations—including the United States—are still unsure of the character and the consequences of the unipolar world. The confusion has increased dramatically since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which for many Americans revealed the country's vulnerability: America's overwhelming military power cannot keep it safe. The attacks underscored the point that Harvard's Joseph S. Nye, Jr., made in his recent book, The Paradox of American Power, which argues that while American power is unmatched, it has its limits in a modern, globalized age.

I had the pleasure of meeting Joe Nye when he visited Oxford in the spring of 2001. Nye is an all-around nice guy and still thoroghly modest despite his towering achievements as both a scholar and a policymaker. Within the academy, Nye is best known for his introduction (along with Robert Keohane) of the phrase “complex interdependence”. In doing so, Nye became a co-founder of the school of thought known as neo-liberalism, which distinguished itself from realism by virtue of its insistence that nations’ growing interdependence could provide them with a purely rational, self-interested motive for avoiding conflict. This was a striking departure from the realists’ insistence that self-interested behavior makes conflict inevitable in international relations.

Outside of the academy, Nye is best known for coining the phrase “soft power” to describe the attractive force that the United States’ economic and cultural success has on other nations. In pre-publication lectures on “The Paradox of American Power”, Nye restated his earlier insistence that soft power is a fragile resource, since even limited unilateralist behavior can erase the goodwill that cultural and economic attraction creates. During the Q&A after the lecture, I unsuccessfully tried to persuade Prof. Nye that soft power is actually rather durable, since it rests not on goodwill, but rather on other democratic nations’ recognition that the United States shares their fundamental ideals, regardless of whether it occasionally misbehaves.

As becomes apparent later in Zakaria’s essay, he agrees with Nye that soft power is a fragile resource. As I see it, this view has reflects the strong influence of realism on neo-liberals such as Nye, despite their conscious rejection of it. In arguing that nations’ interdependence provides them with a rational, self-interested motive for cooperation, neo-liberals effectively adopt realism’s belief that the primary determinants of a state’s behavior are its interests, rather than its ideals. An implicit corollary to this assertion is the idea that nations judge their rivals primarily according to their interests rather than their ideals. If one adopts such a position, a logical extension of it is the belief that soft power is fragile, since its rests on goodwill rather than self-interest. While I was wrong to describe such beliefs as an example of moral relativism, I think it is clear to what degree such beliefs approach analytical relativism.

Much of the Western world has lived for some decades with the knowledge that terrorism can plague an open society. But the September attacks were more nihilistic, more deadly than any that had come before. And they were, in a sense, a consequence of the new unipolar world. Americans like to think that this country was attacked because it is free. But so are Italy and Denmark, whose cities stand undisturbed. America was attacked because it is the master of the modern world, deploying its economic, political, and military powers across the globe. Because America is "No. 1," it is also target No. 1.

In this provocative passage, Zakaria makes it clear that September 11th was a response to America’s power, not to its ideals. Absent in this passage is any hint of the leftist relativism that declares America’s ideals to be no more legitimate than those of Osama bin Laden. Nonetheless, Zakaria rules out the possibility that America was attacked because it has used its power in order to advance its ideals. Yes, Italy and Denmark are free. But it was the United States who defended the freedom of Kuwait and in doing so introduced degenerate infidel practices into the holy land of Islam.

Continued tomorrow...
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:03 PM by David Adesnik  

OXBLOG RULES NORTH KOREA: As OxBlog has said many times before, North Korea is addicted to a predictable strategy of good cop/bad cop when it comes to dealing with the United States. It's almost as if Kim Jong-Il reads OxBlog. Last week it played bad cop by threatening to reactivate it nuclear plant at Yongbyon. Today it says it wants a non-aggression pact with the US. Not a chance. Before we talk, the nukes have got to go. And if the North wants a non-aggression pact, it will have to finally give in and sign a real peace treaty with the South, formally ending the Korean War (and promising a thorough demilitarization of the North so that the US can focus its military efforts elsewhere).

UPDATE: Japan is behind us. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:49 PM by David Adesnik  

BRITNEY VS. THE AYATOLLAHS: In a scathingly brilliant column, Jackson Diehl lashes out at the Voice of America's Persian-language radio service for replacing its hard-edged coverage of Iran's student protests with a heavy rotation of teen pop idols. Diehl's objection isn't just a matter of principle. The fact is that VOA's Radio Azadi had become the pre-eminent forum for the student protesters. As Diehl explains:

Every day, student leaders would call by cell phone from the roiling campuses to the radio's headquarters in Prague and narrate the latest developments live. Each night the radio would broadcast a roundtable discussion, patching together students and journalists in Tehran with exiled opposition leaders to discuss where the reform movement was going. So instrumental to the rebellion-in-the-making did the radio become that pro-regime counter-demonstrators recently held up a placard reading "Who does Radio Azadi talk to?" -- a taunt taken by the station's staff as a badge of honor.

Two weeks ago, Radio Azadi went off the air. The mullahs had nothing to do with it. The man responsible for Azadi's disappearance was Norman Pattiz, a major Democratic donor rewarded by President Clinton with a position on the VOA's Board of Governors. A devout advocate of Clinton-style engagement, Pattiz insisted that Azadi's "old-style propaganda" was alienating the Persian masses. The protesters have learned to survive without Azadi. The cost to the United States is unknowable.

One question Diehl does not address is how the hell the Bush administration let a Clinton holdover make such a stupid, stupid decision. I see three causes. First, the administration has never gone beyond lip service in its efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East. W. and Condi say the right things when asked, but they just aren't making sure that officals at State, Defense or elsewhere in the administration incorporate democracy promotion into their frame of mind. If the VOA had cut off a good service in Qatar or Sudan, I wouldn't be so incensed. But Iran is a pillar in the axis of evil. A spontaneous, democratic and pro-American revolution in Teheran would demonstrate to the world just how powerful our ideals are.

The Azadi affair also implicates the Bush administration's inability to think in grand strategic terms. This isn't just about promoting democracy, but about the war on terror. There is no better way to end Iranian support for Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations than by supporting a democratic revolution. But the administration is so focused on the military aspects of the war on terror that it has forgotten the importance of public diplomacy. This, in essence, is my third point. The Bush administration does not know how to reach out to anyone except during campaign season. Karl Rove deserves credit for his success, but the war and terror would be going a lot more smoothly if the administration had avoided antagonizing the UN before demanding a new resolution on Iraq. Would Hans Blix really hesitate to interview Iraqi scientists if he thought the Security Council was really behind US demands that he do so? By the same token, the administration just didn't think about the impact of appointing Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 investigative commission. (As Glenn Reynolds points out from personal experience, the administration's insistence that it wasn't aware of Kissinger's conflicts of interests is patently absurd.) Or to pull an example from today's headlines, take a look at the Pentagon's absurd plans to covertly spread pro-American propaganda in countries friendly to the US. Perhaps DoD should worry about Iran before it worries about France.

One final reason that Jackson Diehl deserves credit for his column is that just two weeks ago the NY Times ran a puff piece praising the VOA's work in the Middle East, including its decision to send Britney off to do battle with the ayatollahs. In it, the ever-brilliant Norman Pattiz declares that "We can reap terrific dividends by talking to these young people directly in a way they understand." May I pause to savor the irony? To be fair, I have to admit that OxBlog was taken in by the Times. We praised the Times for praising Pattiz. I guess the moral of the story is that even the most dedicated critics of NYT bias aren't immune to its charm.

UPDATE: Fareed Zakaria provides the context in which to assess the prospects of the student protesters.

UPDATE: Ari Fleischer is already spin controlling the Pentagon's propaganda plans. According to Fleischer, ""The president has the expectation that any program that is created in his administration will be based on facts." I guess Fleischer forgot about the budget. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:04 AM by David Adesnik  

IMMUTABLE LAWS MUTED? There is ample room for criticism of Maureen Dowd's latest column. First of all, it's late. She is just about the last person to weigh in on Trent Lott's offensive comments at Strom's 100th. Second of all, she adds nothing new to the flood of commentary that's already out there.

But as I drew closer to the end of Dowd's column, I realize that just might have achieved something she never has before: breaking out of the constraints of the Immutable Laws. According to the First Law, "all political phenomena can be reduced to caricatures of the personalities involved." But in contrast to Dowd's casting of W. as the Boy Emperor, all we get about Lott are facts. Facts!

The Second Law commands that "It's easier to whine than to take a stand or offer solutions." Admittedly, Dowd never explicitly calls for Lott to forgo election as Majority Leader. In fact, she even observes that "Democrats were publicly screaming for less of Lott, while privately wanting more, gleefully exulting that he could be a potent symbol." If we just replace the words "Democrats were" with "Maureen Dowd is", we realize that Dowd herself may be ambivalent about Lott's resignation since it would complicate her search for pre-fab column topics. Still, I'm going to go ahead and say that since everyone knows Lott should resign, Dowd can't be criticized for not saying it again.

Law the Third: "It is better to be cute than coherent." This one's easy. Dowd makes a simple case that Lott's apology was not sincere. Yes, we knew that. But it is a coherent point, supported by actual evidence.

Law the Fourth: "The particulars of my consumer-driven, self-involved life are of universal interest and reveal universal truths." True, Dowd does begin the column with a story about how she was at a Broadway show. But there's a real point to the anecdote. In the show, which takes place in the late 40s, the characters argue about Communism. Then, Dowd heads back to work to find that other 1940's issues are still on the table: segregation, cross-burnings and all-male golf clubs. Hard as it is, I think I have to admit she has a point.

Law the Fifth: "Europeans are always right." The only Europeans mentioned in Dowd's column are Trotsky, Stalin and Kissinger. They most certainly are not right.

So what are we left with? Clear exceptions to Laws One, Three and Five along with possible exceptions to Laws Two and Four. In order to resolve this apparent contradiction, I proudly announce Adesnik's Corollary to the Immutable Laws of Dowd. It states that: "When the correct stance on a social or political issue is so painfully obvious that Josh Chafetz finds himself in agreement with Al Sharpton, then the Immutable Laws of Dowd may be temporarily suspended." Wonder if it'll ever happen again. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:20 AM by David Adesnik  

CALLING SHERLOCK HOLMES: America needs a new 9/11 commission head now that Henry K. is gone. Seconding Mr. Urman, I backed Gary Hart and Warren Rudman. The WashPost has weighed in and they want Rudman or former Dem congressman Lee Hamilton as chair. The only problem with Rudman is that a powerful senator has been resisting his appointment. Who might that be? Yes, you know who. Trent Lott! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:43 PM by David Adesnik  

GIVE US YOUR NERDS OR ELSE: The US is putting more weight behind its demands that Iraq let its weapons scientists be interviewed abroad. But does the administration really believe Saddam will turn them over, or does it want to force his back to the wall? Either way, it's good for the US. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:26 PM by David Adesnik  

LEARNING ITS LESSONS: The administration is taking a solidy pro-democratic line with regard to Venezuela's current crisis, a welcome change from April 2001, when it rushed to endorse a coup d'etat that brought down elected (but anti-American) Pres. Hugo Chavez. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:21 PM by David Adesnik  

MISTAKING THE TREES FOR THE WOODWARD: The NY Times has published a second review of Bob Woodward's Bush at War. Despite its length, it doesn't add much to the previous reviews which were published when the book came out a few weeks ago. In contrast to the Times' first review, this one is surprisingly uncritical, both of the book's contents as well as its authors methods. In fact, in the course of my dissertation research, I've recently come across indications that the flaws in Woodward's methods date back to his seminal works on Watergate and that he has not changed them despite extensive criticism both journalists and academics.
If you want details, see The Power of News, an impressive collection of essays by Michael Schudson, a sociologist/historian of the American news media and winner of the MacArthur Foundation "genius" award. (Not that every word he says is the gospel truth. In fact, the introductory chapter to his book is all over the place. But keep reading. It's worth it.)

Anyway, there was one passage from today's review which stuck out in my mind. It read:

Over the last several months, as the administration talked first of attacking Iraq without further delay, but then with much foot-dragging agreed to consult with the United Nations and finally to give Saddam Hussein a chance to submit to the Security Council's tough new resolution, I sometimes imagined that it was all an elaborate charade following a well-constructed script. Woodward's account of the internal argument over attacking Iraq, a kind of coda to his book, persuades me it wasn't so. Far from being deeply hidden, what these men believed and wanted was so close to the surface that even the newspaper-reading public knew roughly how the argument was unfolding. Rumsfeld wanted somebody to hold his coat so he could start throwing punches, Cheney growled that inspections were a waste of time, Powell was distressed by his colleagues' apparent willingness to toss 50 years of American commitment to collective security out the window, while Bush, listening to the inner voice he has grown increasingly to trust, gradually tipped in the direction of regime change, and once he got there, said so loud and clear.

While I don't know if this is a good reading of the book, since I still haven't found time to read it myself, it does suggest that I may have an edge on Josh in our long-running debate about whether or not the unpredictable behavior of the administration reflects a lack of firm leadership or coordinated strategy to throw America's opponents off-balance. Well, maybe since Josh is on vacation now, he can find some time to read the book and tell us. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:25 PM by David Adesnik  

LOOSE ENDS TIED UP? In response to my posts about Chesa Boudin, I have received a considerable number of harshly critical e-mails. Roughly speaking, the criticisms break down into three categories: challenges to facts I have presented, challenges to interpretations I have made, and ad hominem attacks. One critic went as far as to refer to my posts as 'slander'. Ironically, the most civil response came from Chesa Boudin himself. That did not surprise me, however, since I made clear in my original post on the subject that I had no reason to believe that he was not a very nice person, only that I strongly disagreed with his political views. Chesa did, however, suggest that I had described his parents' actions inaccurately. I do want to respond to that point. I think it might be fair to say that there were inclarities in what I have written, but no fundamental inaccuracies.

In my second post on the subject, I wrote that David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin "took up arms against their own government and murdered three men in cold blood." Yet as Chesa points out, "Neither of my parents was armed or even at the scene of the robbery. Their role was peripheral." While my research into these matters is not yet complete, I would like to present my provisional conclusions. The are based on information found in the Crime Library, a website maintained by Court TV.

Chesa is correct that neither of his parents was armed or even at the scene of the robbery. However, the reason they were not at the scene of the robbery was that they were supposed to drive getaway cars which could not later be traced to the crime scene. After attacking the Brinks truck, Gilbert and Boudin's associates drove to a prearranged rendezvous point where they abandoned their vehicle and entered the back of U-Haul truck driven by Boudin. Thus, the absence of Gilbert and Boudin from the scene of the robbery indicates not they were somehow less responsible for what happened, but rather that they were part of a careful planning process desgined to maximize the chances of their committing a successful crime. If anything, this adds to their responsibility rather than taking away from it.

While driving the U-Haul, Kathy Boudin was not armed. Yet interestingly enough, when she was pulled over by the police, she maintained her innocence and asked them to put away their guns. As a result, when the police opened the back doors of the U-Haul, they had little chance of defending themselves from the heavily armed men inside. During the shootout, Gilbert arrived in a second vehicle, a Honda, and drove away with a number of the gunmen. When the police gave chase, Gilbert crashed. When Gilbert emerged from the wreck, he asked the police officer present to help his injured associate. It later emerged that this was part of an effort to distract the officer so that Gilbert's associate could retrieve a gun from the wreck and kill the officer. In light of these facts, I understand why someone might characterize my assertion that Gilbert and Boudin "murdered three men in cold blood" as inaccurate. Nonetheless, in legal terms both were fully responsible what happened. Gilbert was convicted of murder. Boudin pleaded guilty to it. Thus, while I regret that my words might have indicated that Boudin and Gilbert were armed and/or the individuals who fired the guns that killed the victims of their crime, I have no regrets about the general characterization of them as outright murderers. Nor can I understand how one can assert that "their role was peripheral".

As for the assertion that Boudin and Gilbert "took up arms against their own government", I see no need to revise it. My post did not indicate that they took up arms on the same day as they committed the bank robbery that resulted in three murders. Rather, it was an indication that both belonged to terrorist organizations which sought, through the force of arms, to destroy the American government.

Should I find any new information that contradicts what I have written above, I will revise it. As for the suggestion made by Chesa and others that I should "do [my] research better next time", I disagree. The inclarities in my second post reflected unclear writing, not a lack of sufficient factual knowledge.

With luck, this will be my last post on this subject. Chesa, I look forward to meeting you. I do not and never have doubted that you are an exceptional individual who fully deserves the scholarship you have been given. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:25 AM by David Adesnik  

BACK ISSUES: Just thought I'd post some links to Josh's and my posts on The Volokh Conspiracy, so you don't have to jump back and forth too much if you're trying to catch up with the latest from OxBlog. Here goes:

1) Josh on Trent Lott:

-- A fisking of William Saletan's Slate column. Picked up by Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan!

-- The announcement of Lott's press conference. Josh cites an inside GOP sources predicting Lott will resign. Plus, Instapundit links to Josh.

-- Josh posts what he claims are his final remarks on the Lott fiasco.

-- Josh picks up where he left off on OxBlog.

-- Plus David's brief comments on Strom.

-- And your bonus for reading it all: Josh on Trent Lott and the LSAT.

2) David on democracy and Islam:

-- Relauncing the classic debate.

-- Comparing the Algerian civil war and the Iranian Revolution.

-- A link to Stephen Schwartz's thoughts in the Weekly Standard.

3) David on Henry Kissinger's resignation. (Plus Josh's initial link.)

4) David on the Iraqi opposition conferencein London.

5) David on Turkey's rejection by the EU.

6) David on chopped liver. Really!

7) David on political science and the coming war in Iraq.

8) Josh on anti-Semitism and the nature of objective reality

9) David on media bias toward Israel. Big surprise there.

10) David and Josh on reports that Al Qaeda has taken possession of Iraqi chemical weapons.

Happy catch-up!
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:33 PM by David Adesnik  

LITTLE WHITE LIES. Last week, I noted that Elliott Abrams, in spite of his merits as a policymaker, "is a divisive partisan figure who played a significant role in the Reagan administration's efforts to cover up the Iran-Contra scandal. Off hand, I can't remember if he was convicted or just indicted for lying to Congress. I guess you might say Abrams needs to work on promoting democracy at home as well as abroad."

For those of you who want the details (with some humor thrown in) see Richard Cohen's column in today's Post. I wonder what Mr. Cohen would have to say about liberal media bias...
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:29 PM by David Adesnik  

LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS, PART IV: Michael Kelly mocks liberal journalists for calling liberal media bias a myth. His column is good, but ends with a questionable assertion: that the personal i.e. liberal politics of the press corps determine how they cover political events. While the private liberalism of most journalists is beyond doubt, Kelly severely underestimates the influence of the professional code which governs news reportage. If personal politics were all that mattered, there would be open warfare in the newsroom between liberal, centrist and conservative journalists. Yet strangely enough, such newsroom fights are not all that common. While the news may not be as "objective" as it wishes it were, it still is surprisingly non-partisan.

For those of you interested in academic perspectives on the media's influence on politics, I recommend Timothy Cook's Governing with the News, which is a comprehensive, brief and fair-minded survey of the most recent research. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:02 PM by David Adesnik  

PISSING OFF BRUSSELS: "A NATO rapid reaction force? Oh, please. A NATO expanded to 26 countries is not going to be reacting rapidly anywhere. NATO already has a rapid reaction force, the only one it needs. It's called the U.S. Army Special Forces." Ah, Tom Friedman. Always making new friends. His pot shot at NATO is just the warm up for the real subject of his column: the idea that both Israelis and Palestinians are warming to the idea of having Western peacekeeping force in the West Bank and Gaza. While I'm sure Friedman's sources said what he said they said (got that?), I still find if hard to believe NATO would ever risk its credibility on a no-win situation like the one in the occupied territories. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:54 PM by David Adesnik  

(MIS)TAKING A LEAK: The Post reports that it is now official US policy to launch preemptive strikes against all those who seek to deploy illegal weapons of mass destruction. While a public version of the administration's statement declared that it would launch strikes against those who seek to use weapons of mass destruction, "a classified version of the strategy" indicated that the US would also launch strikes against those who simply possess illegal weapons. Moreover, the US may use its own weapons of mass destruction to accomplish its objectives.

Without taking anything away from the investigative skills of the Post's reporters, I think it is clear that the "classified version" of the administration's strategy was never meant to be classified. It is really just a veiled threat to the four states listed in a "top-secret appendix" to the "classified version": Iran, Syria, Iraq and North Korea. The Post suggests that this warning is directed principally at Iraq. I find that hard to believe. Saddam knows that the US will oust his government in the event of war. He probably assumes that he will die in the process. Why, then, should he care if the US launches a nuclear strike? If anything, such an attack would establish him as a martyr, which is what he no doubt wants to be.

Possibly, the warning was directed more at North Korea. Caught shipping missiles to the Gulf, it clearly needs to be warned about the consequences of its behavior. Yet a threat directed at Pyongyang is not 100% credible either. For as long as North Korean conventional weapons -- primarily artillery -- have the capacity to devastate Seoul, the US will be hesitant to strike the North. On the other hand, even Clinton approached the brink of ordering attacks on the North Korean nuclear plant at Yongbyon back in 1994. There may simply be no choice.

Regardless of what the White House intended to accomplish with its leak, we can be sure that it will make Jimmy Carter very unhappy. In the speech he delivered after accepting the Nobel Prize, he denounced the doctrine of preemptive warfare. In light of how hawkish Carter became when limited Soviet aggression embarrassed his administration, I think it is rather unfair of him to criticize Bush for responding strongly to a clear and present danger. Moreover, the Nobel committee is doubly hypocritical for describing Carter as an advocate of peace in era "marked by threats of the use of power", since Carter had no qualms about resorting to threats when his own credibility was on the line. Don't get me wrong -- I think Carter was right to take a hard line after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Now he has to take responsibility for that decision.

On the bright side, Carter endorsed the current effort to disarm Iraq. Still, his endorsement of 1441 seems less than wholehearted in light of his description of Resolution 242 -- calling on Israel to trade land for peace -- as "the mandate whose implementation could...improve international relations" more than any other. Jimmy, you're making it hard for me to keep defending your record. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:47 PM by David Adesnik  

TIME TO TALK TURKEY: On Thursday, the EU will decide whether to open negotiations with Ankara for the purpose of someday admitting it as a member. Shutting Turkey out means turning Europe's back on an aspiring Muslim democracy. If Europeans wants to show the US that peaceful means are best in the war on terror, the time has come for them to put selfish concerns aside and put their money where their mouth is. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:03 PM by David Adesnik  

ALL FISKED OUT: Nicholas Krisof's column in today's Times contains almost as many misguided and disturbing statements as yesterday's profile of Chesa Boudin. Lucky for Nick, I'm all fisked out. But here are responses to a a few of the most serious factual and interpretive errors:

The title of Kristof's column is "The Next Africa?" While columnist have the right to be provocative, nowhere in the column does Kristof acknowledge that there is not a single military government in all of Central America. Poverty there is. But the people's commitment to democracy has saved them from the brutal fate of the Congo or Sierra Leone or even the lesser brutality of Zimbabwe.

"South America and Central America now risk becoming another Africa, in the sense of institutionalized Western neglect and indigenous despair, of tumbling living standards, of coups and civil war and failed states. If we allow this to happen, we Yanquis will pay the price — in terms of economics, drugs and immigration — for years to come."

Institutionalized neglect? Has Kristof heard of the OAS or the Interamerican Development Bank? And what about regional programs funded by the IMF and World Bank? And, of course, the National Endowment for Democracy. While there are ample grounds for criticizing these institutions' work, neglect is not one of their vices. In fact, the instiution that most neglects Latin America is Mr. Kristof's own: the media. Headlines are reserved for conflict and violence. Even before September 11th shifted the media's focus to the Middle East, Latin America did not get much coverage. Let's see how often Mr. Kristof writes about Latin America after returning from his current foray south of the border.

As for "coups and civil war and failed states", this is an irresponsible generalization based on the current situation in Colombia, Venezuela and (to a lesser degree) Ecuador. Still, there have been no successful coups in Central or South America for more than twenty years now. Apart from Colombia's civil war, the entire region is at peace. Again apart from Colombia, nothing in Latin America resembles a failed state. And even in Colombia, there have been free elections since the late 1950s. This is not failure in the African sense of the word.

"Almost everywhere, the 'Washington Consensus' free-market policies of the 1990's are regarded as failed and discredited, partly because we did not fight corruption as aggressively as we should have, and in countries as diverse as Brazil, Venezuela, Peru and Ecuador, recent elections have gone to leftists or populists who tend to make Americans deeply nervous."

For more than two years now, Times correspondents and columnists have talked about the discrediting of the Washington Consensus. Apart from the fact that their accounts of the consensus are wildly inaccurate, they always seem to ignore the fact that no Latin American nations has initiated a return to the statist, closed market policies of the 1990s. Next, when Kristof says that "we did not fight corruption", who is we? While America should provide advice and funding to help fight corruption, the failure of Latin America's governments to fight corruption is their own. It is a matter of lacking political, not outside help. Finally, Kristof seems to buy into the myth of Latin America's populist backlash. But Brazil's "populist" president cuts deals with the IMF and talks about balancing the budget. Venezuela's populist president is on the brink of impeachment because of his policies' failure. Peru has a president with a degree in economics from Stanford, so Kristof is way off base there. Ecuador? Well, one out of four ain't bad.

Nick, go back to writing about China. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:25 PM by David Adesnik  

IN MEMORY OF THE FALLEN: Their names were Edward O'Grady, Waverly Brown and Peter Paige. They were murdered on October 20, 1981. They fell in the line of duty.

As a columnist for Slate has pointed out, the NY Times did not have the common decency to mention these men's sacrifice -- or even their names -- in its profile of Chesa Boudin, the son of the murderers. In my response to the Times' profile, I did not mention their names either, even though I expressed regret for their death. That is why I have dedicated this post to them.

For more information about the heroism of Mr. O'Grady, Mr. Brown and Mr. Paige, please visit the website dedicated to their memory. On it, you can find information about donating to the scholarship fund established in their names.

As for Mr. Boudin and his scholarship, the list of unanswered questions continues to grow. In January 2001, Chesa published a column in Salon lamenting the humiliation of his parents and their visitors. Yes, I sympathize with the fact that Mr. Boudin's elderly grandmother had to undergo an intimate search before being permitted to visit her son. Yes, it is unfortunate that Mr. Boudin's father must be subjected to similar searches after each visit he receives. However, Mr. Boudin does not mention in his article that his family is subject to such treatment because his parents took up arms against their own government and murdered three men in cold blood. While I want to believe that Mr. Boudin has only the best intentions, the disingenousness of his Salon column suggests that his disturbing statements in the NY Times were not taken out of context.

Chesa, if I am wrong, please let me know. I have not done exhaustive research on this matter. I am simply reporting and commenting on what I have read in national news sources. I want to believe that I am wrong.

Special thanks to Linda Cooke for brining multiple articles on the Boudin case to my attention. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:03 PM by David Adesnik  

FISKING THE NEW KID: I have to admit I feel bad about what I’m going to do. A hard-working idealist wins a Rhodes Scholarship. His name is Chesa Boudin. Instead of welcoming him to Oxford, the previous years’ scholars subject him to a humiliating fisking. Could it be jealousy? Do Josh and David wish that the NY Times had chosen to profile them instead?

Chesa, if you are reading this, I want you to know that I have nothing against you. We went to the same college. We ate in the same dining hall. This fisking isn’t about you. It’s about the NY Times. It needs to be taught a lesson.

From Radical Background, a Rhodes Scholar Emerges
By Jodi Wilgoren

CHICAGO, Dec. 8 — As with the other triumphs of his young life, Chesa Boudin was unable to celebrate with his parents on Saturday afternoon when he was named a Rhodes scholar. He could not even share the good news.

As maximum-security inmates in the New York State prison system, Katherine Boudin and David Gilbert are barred from receiving telephone calls or e-mail messages. Though Mr. Boudin has rigged his dorm room at Yale University to override the block on collect calls, neither parent was able to connect with him today. They will read of their son's accomplishment in the newspaper, instead, and it may be days before they can congratulate him.

Mr. Boudin, 22, is used to it. His parents, members of the 1970's radical group the Weathermen, have been in prison since he was 14 months old, for roles in a 1981 Brink's robbery in Rockland County in which two police officers and a guard were killed. They missed his Phi Beta Kappa award, high school graduation, Little League games.

"Roles?" This description of Boudin and Gilbert's crimes is pretty much a whitewash. (Thanks to YalePundits for the link.)

"When I was younger, I was angry," Mr. Boudin, a tall, clean-cut young man said in an interview here Saturday evening, looking comfortable in the navy pinstriped suit he had worn for the Rhodes interview, though the tie was long gone.

"Now I'm not angry," he said, "I'm sad that my parents have to suffer what they have to suffer on a daily basis, that millions of other people have to suffer as well."

Yes, that’s very sad. But isn’t the death of three innocent men – because of your parents criminal brutality – a lot more sad? Yes, every child deserves parents. But what about the children of the police offers and bank guard your parents murdered? And what exactly do your parents have in common with the “millions of other people” who suffer every day? Are you implying that your parents are innocent victims of a repressive government?

Chesa, I believe that your words were taken out of context. I cannot believe that you are as heartless and self-centered as this quotation suggests you are. Perhaps your wiser words were cut by an editor interested in saving space. Perhaps the Times reporter took for granted that you sympathize with the victims of your parents’ crimes. But as things stand, there is no way of knowing that.

Raised by two other Weathermen leaders, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, in Chicago's Hyde Park, he is one of 32 American winners of this year's Rhodes scholarships. It is a remarkable achievement for a boy with epilepsy and dyslexia who did not learn to read until third grade and spent much of his childhood in temper tantrums. His selection also reflects the changes in the nation's premier academic award in its 100th year: once an exclusive club of Ivy League athletes, the Rhodes in recent years has rewarded an array of students who have overcome striking challenges.

This is just bad reporting. The Rhodes was never an “exclusive club of Ivy League athletes.” First of all, the myth that Rhodes Scholars are all athletically gifted and physically fit is just that, a myth. I am living proof of that. Perhaps more significantly, the scholarship stopped demanding evidence of athletic prowess more than three decades ago. But it’s hard to dispel illusions perpetuated by the paper of record. As for being an Ivy League club, how exactly does the selection of a Yale graduate such as Mr. Boudin discount that notion? Anyway, the Rhodes Trust has sought throughout its existence to search for talented individuals outside the Ivy League who “have overcome striking challenges”. For details, see Cowboys Into Gentleman, a history of America’s Rhodes Scholarships.

Among the other winners announced today are Kamyar Cyrus Habib, a Columbia University student from Kirkland, Wash., who is a black belt in karate, a downhill skier and a published photographer — as well as blind; Marianna Ofusu, who attends Howard University in Washington and is a Latin American dance champion; and Devi Shridhar of the University of Miami, who at 18 has mastered five languages, published a book on Indian myths and been admitted to medical school.

Thirteen of the winners are from Ivy League schools, four from Harvard, but the class also includes the first Rhodes scholar from the University of Central Florida, and students at state universities in Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota and Utah.

Established by the will of the British colonialist Cecil Rhodes in 1902, the scholarship offers a bachelor's, master's or doctoral degree at Oxford University, a value estimated at about $30,000 a year. Bill Clinton, Bill Bradley, Byron White and Dean Rusk are among the 2,982 Americans from 305 colleges and universities who have won the award.

Mr. Boudin is not the first child of convicts to be chosen; Adam Ake, the son of a gynecologist convicted of raping patients, was in the Rhodes class of 1997. But the political pedigrees of Mr. Boudin's parents, biological and adoptive, present a contrast with that of the British imperialist who established the prestigious scholarship in his will.

I think Mr. Ake deserves an apology from the Times. What purpose does it serve to embarrass him publically?

"Cecil Rhodes, I don't know what would he think if he were alive today; he'd probably be horrified," Ms. Dohrn, a professor at Northwestern law school, said, laughing, in her office, where snapshots of her children at play are interspersed with the memorabilia of a radical life.

First of all, Rhodes made a point of judging individuals on their own merit, not that of their parents. What would truly horrify him is the idea that the scholarship had been awarded to a pair of inferior Jews such as Mr. Chafetz and myself.

Dennis Hutchinson, a law professor at the University of Chicago who headed the Midwest selection committee, said Mr. Boudin's family did not come up at the Friday night cocktail party or the 20-minute interview Saturday morning, as the winners were whittled from 98 finalists. Those finalists had been selected from 981 university nominees.

"That's one of the wonderful things about institutions, they adapt to the times," Professor Hutchinson, a Rhodes scholar in 1970, said. "This is a guy who talks not only with passion but with mature, thoughtful information about the things he cares about. Those are the sorts of qualities that separate good résumés from the people who are willing to fight the world's fight, as the will says."

Mr. Boudin, who has spoken widely about being the child of inmates and has led antiwar efforts at Yale, plans to study international development at Oxford, expanding on his experiences in Guatemala and Chile. Last week he won the Marshall scholarship, a similar award financing study in Britain, but he plans to accept the Rhodes instead. "As a child, I relished my personal freedom and tried to compensate for my parents' imprisonment," he wrote in his application. "Now, I see prisons around the world: urban misery in Bolivia, homelessness in Santiago and illiteracy in Guatemala."

While the metaphor is charming, I am somewhat disturbed by Mr. Boudin’s failure to mention any of the actual prisons that exist in the world. Naturally, the dungeons of Baghdad are the ones that first come mind. I suspect that illiteracy is much less painful that what inmates in Baghdad must endure. Yet even if Mr. Boudin wanted to avoid tarnishing his antiwar credentials, the least he could’ve done is described the brutality of prison life in China. Hell, even prisons in the US and UK can be brutal. And come to think of it, a savvy antiwar activist should’ve at least come up with something to say about the mistreatment of Palestinians in Israeli jails.

Chesa, once again I have to believe that the Times is presenting you as someone you are not. Was the quotation from your application essay taken out of context? Something has gone wrong.

Mr. Boudin's mother was denied parole in 2001. His father is serving 75 years. Each writes to him nearly every day. His adoptive parents were engulfed by controversy when Sept. 11 coincided with the publication of Mr. Ayers's memoir, "Fugitive Days," which celebrated attempted bombings on the Pentagon.

"We have a different name for the war we're fighting now — now we call it the war on terrorism, then they called it the war on communism," Mr. Boudin said. "My parents were all dedicated to fighting U.S. imperialism around the world. I'm dedicated to the same thing."

I’m confused. Wasn’t the Soviet Union the aggressive imperialist of the Cold War? Mr. Boudin’s comments are especially strange coming from an indvidual who majored in history at Yale. Back when I majored in history at Yale, I had the privilege of being taught by John Lewis Gaddis, the foremost historian of the Cold War. Without evading American failures -- both moral and strategic -- Prof. Gaddis made it very clear that there is no place for Mr. Boudin’s moral relativism in assessments of the era.

As for the so-called war on terror, I have to wonder whether it is Osama Bin Laden’s vision of a totalitarian Islamic world-state rather than the American vision of a democratic Middle East that counts as imperialism.

Oh, and as for Mr. Boudin’s parents dedication to fighting imperialism, would someone care to explain how robbing banks in New York is relevant to that objective?

"I don't know that much about my parents' tactics; I'll talk about my tactics," he added. "The historical moment we find ourselves in determines what is most appropriate for social change."

Chesa, I’m losing faith in you. Are you trying to excuse what your parents did? Are you suggesting that the ethical imperatives which guide your activism today were not relevant in your parents’ time? While I can understand that you might not want to investigate painful episodes from the past, if you are going to make such statements you should know a lot more about your parents’ tactics. In case you do want to know what your parents and step-parents were involved in, click here for a summary. For a longer account, read the book your step-father wrote.

Mr. Boudin said that with four loving parents, he was always surrounded by high expectations, unlike many other children of convicts. He sees his name — Swahili for "dancing feet," chosen because he was born breech — as a metaphor for his approach to life (though actual dancing is among his few weaknesses).

For a career, Mr. Boudin plans to focus on international problems because criminal justice is "too close to home." He plans to finish his own memoir this summer. "It's about growing up with parents in prison; it's about growing up in America," he said. "It's about two very different worlds, one of extreme privilege and opportunity, and the other of degradation and humiliation."

Mr. Boudin shunned questions about his parents' prospects for parole, and Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn repeatedly tried to steer the conversation onto the next generation. A red-star revolutionary pin on his jacket, his Weatherman tattoo (and 17 others) hidden from sight, Mr. Ayers smiled as he watched his adopted son, fresh from his Rhodes interview, in the suit that Ms. Dohrn had helped pick.

"You know what I love about listening to Chesa?" Mr. Ayers said. "He confirms the natural cycle that your kids are always so much smarter and better than you."

When your parents are terrorists, being better and smarter isn’t all that much of an achievment…

Chesa, I’m sorry. (1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:59 PM by David Adesnik  

BILLION DOLLAR CHEAP SHOT: American prejudice damage US relations with the UN as much as UN intransigence does. Josh asks what good the UN is if it shamelessly asks for American cash while its inspectors withhold critical information from the US government. Then, when the inspectors back down and share that information, Josh frames it as a surrender to tough but justified American demands.

Well, that's not the real story. Two days ago, Hans Blix asked the US government to provide him with intelligence about Iraqi weapons programs in order to facilitate UN inspections. It's no secret that the Bush administration has done virtually nothing to ensure the inspections' success. As I see it, Blix threatened to withhold his own inside information in order to let the US know that it should treat him fairly. When Blix "backed down" today it wasn't because of American demands. It's because all he ever intended to do was send a message.

Now consider this: Blix let the US have the only existing copy of Iraq's declaration. While the permanent members of the Security Council will get to see full copies, the rest of the Security Council won't. Expect to see the usual complaints in the European media about American domination of the UN. Of course, such accusations are no more valid than trite American dismissals of the UN's merit as an institution. But such constant accusations from both sides do considerable damage to the UN and its ability to be a functional mediator in international disputes. Remember, this is not the perspective of the left. Rather, it is America's president who declared himself committed to working with the United Nations despite his full awareness of all its drawbacks. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:32 PM by David Adesnik  

IRAQ ALREADY DEMOCRATIC: In the Kurdish north, that is. Or to be more exact, the north is moving in the right direction. But compared to the rest of Iraq, it is a veritable utopia. Today's WashPost column by the Kurdish prime minister lists the impressive achievements made over the course of the past decade, despite the enforcement of UN sanctions. While the identity of the author detracts from the column's credibility, almost all of the details match a similar piece on the north which TNR ran a while back. Why not read'em both? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:11 PM by David Adesnik  

BLEEDING HEART CONSERVATIVES?: Christina Lamb, a correspondent for Britain's Daily Telegraph, has a column on Afghanistan in the NYT. The combination of the Telegraph's right-of-center perspective with Lamb's personal experience in Afghanistan results in a unique point of view that might be described as bleeding heart conservatism. While Lamb indignantly describes how, "in the general ward of Kabul's main children's hospital sick children lie three to a bed...[and] have died on the operating table because the oxygen failed when the power went out," she doesn't hold the tight-fisted Bush administration responsible. Rather, it's the UN officials and aid workers whose illogical spending habits direct foreign cash away from those that need it most.

For a brief moment, Lamb sounds like a correspondent for the Guardian (for those unfamiliar with the British press, imagine a daily edition of the Nation) when she declares that "after the overthrow of the Taliban and imposition of a Western-backed government, there has been little improvement in the lives of most Afghans...[who] spend their days struggling to feed their children on an average annual income of $75." But she also recognizes how desperate most Afghans are to strenghten the Western presence in their nation. As one man said to her, "Throughout history we Afghans have always fought outsiders. Now we are frightened they will leave us."

If there is one point Lamb drives home, it's that warlord domination of Afghanistan is the single greatest barrier to its recovery, both politically and economically. What the Karzai government needs isn't more butter, but more guns. Now did somebody say that NATO was looking for a job?
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:57 PM by David Adesnik  

IF A RADIOACTIVE SPIDER could transform mild-mannered over-achiever Peter Parker into the Amazing Spider-Man why shouldn't a black widow spider be able to transform mild-mannered over-achiever Josh Chafetz from an independent conservative into a pawn of the liberal media? "What?", you're probably asking right now. "That sounds about as plausible as the fact that Gary Condit planned 9/11 to distract everyone from Chandragate." But consider the facts: Josh reports that he has been shopping at a supermarket infested with black widow spiders. Suddenly, his posts take a strikingly liberal turn. He calls for "Stupid Trent Lott" to step down as majority leader. Then he praises a Tom Friedman column that bashes the President for using "his mandate to drive a hard-right agenda and indulge in more feel-good politics" even though this will cause "the world will become an increasingly dangerous place for every American."

But what I really want to talk about is Josh's take on Iran. I generally agree with his support for a "hearts and minds" approach to Iranian reform. But the NYT article Josh quoted also made a subtle but dangerous point: that America must choose between including Iran in the Axis of Evil and winning the support of Iranian dissidents. According to one expert the Times cited, "The people of Iran have seen that fundamentalism doesn't work. Appealing to them with cooperation and reasoning, rather than `axis of evil' talk, is a virtually risk-free proposition for the U.S." No alternative point of view is given.

Now consider this: What if Iran's dissident students have drawn strength from Bush's attack on the Iranian government as a repressive terrorist regime? While I am not a fan of the phrase "Axis of Evil", I do believe that there are few benefits to engagement with Iran. We need to win hearts and minds in Iran not just by showcasing the American lifestyle, but by showing that America stands up to dictators and terrorists. Period. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:30 PM by David Adesnik  

OXBLOG DOUBLE-SCOOPS NYT: Four days ago, OxBlog declared that Elliot Abrams' appointment as NSC director for the Middle East would have a big impact on US policy. Today's the NY Times follows up with a long profile of Abrams. The profile focused on Abrams' attitudes toward Israel while ignoring the critical fact OxBlog pointed out, which is that Abrams is one of the strongest supporters of promoting democracy across the globe. The Times more concerned with Palestinians than democracy? Surprise!

Three weeks ago, OxBlog took Nicholas Kristof to task for his naive views of Chinese education. He said Chinese students' work ethic will result in China overtaking the US someday as a superpower. OxBlog said that China's authoritarian educational system prevents students from developing the independent thinking skills that have made American students great. Today, the Timespublished an op-ed by a Chinese professor (now in the US) who recounted just how the Chinese system crushes independent thought. OxBlog 2, NYT 0. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:11 PM by David Adesnik  

ALONG CAME A SPIDER: Josh announced today that he is switching supermarkets. Perhaps the lack of inherent newsworthiness in such an announcement kept you from following the link in Josh's post. But it shouldn't have. As Josh found out from a British tabloid, his supermarket had been using black widow spiders instead of insecticides to control insect populations at their fruit farms. No one noticed until the black widows started showing up in supermarkets.

While the shock value of the story alone was worth it, you really have to ask who the hell came up with the idea of using poisonous spiders -- and why. The answer: "The spiders, which have red markings on their backs, were introduced to Tesco vineyards in California as an alternative to pesticide, following customer demand for 'natural' food." While one might be satisfied that organic food enthusiasts are getting what they deserve for their naive and dangerous attitudes, there is a point of global significance here: one aspect of the European crusade for natural foods is a continent wide protest against any products that have genetically modified (GM) compoenents.

While the lack of scientific knowledge responsible for such views is a problem in and of itself, there are serious policy implications. For example, the Zambian government has rejected American aid despite a devastating famine because the aid consisted of GM food. Are the Zambians insane? Not by a longshot. They know that if GM seeds and grains get into the country, farmers will start using them. This will destory Zambian exports to the EU, because Europe won't buy Zambian products.

As is so often the case with the anti-globalization crusade, its successes have only hurt the selfsame impoverished Third World nations it claims to want to protect. (Oh, and in case you were curious, the anti-GM crusaders argue that GM food aid is nothing more than an American corporate conspiracy. Oh those corporations. Nefariously advancing their purposes by saving starving Africans.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:36 PM by David Adesnik  

UNDERSTANDING PAKISTAN: Sumit Ganguly reviews three new books on Pakistani history and politics. The lessons of the past seem clear: the military's incompetence has continually provoked violence and strengthened extremists. Musharraf has already shown that he is no different from his predecessors. The good news is that the United States underestimates its influence with Pakistan's generals and can help guide the country in the right direction. Now all we need is for the Bush administration to pay attention. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:40 PM by David Adesnik  

CONFESS AND BE FORGIVEN: The NY Times is incapable of self-criticism. What its readers deserve is an ombudsman. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:14 PM by David Adesnik  

COSERVATIVE MEDIA BIAS, PART DEUX: E.J. Dionne has a column on it. But Spinsanity's is much, much better. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:06 PM by David Adesnik  

KRAUTHAMMER NOT STUPID: Regular readers know that I'm no fan of Charlie K. But today's column is right on the money. Its main point is that the debate over whether Islam is or is not an inherently peaceful religion is futile. No religion is inherently anything. Scripture can serve any political agenda. Thus, what matters is how religious individuals act. And Islam has given its answer. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:54 PM by David Adesnik  

RAMADAN MOONLIGHTING: Of the ten dead in last night's fighting in Gaza, one was a Palestinian teacher employed by the UN. Hamas claims that the woman was a member of that organization. While the Hamas statement has not been verified, I wouldn't be surprised if the woman worked for both the UN and Hamas. The UN employs 10,000 Palestinians in the occupied terrotiries. I wonder if the UN runs background checks in the territories that are as thorough as the ones they run on the staff at headquarters in New York.

By the way, note the Times and Post headlines: "Israeli Forces Kill 10 Palestinians in Gaza" and "Israeli Army Kills 10 in Gaza Refugee Camp". It makes it sound as if the IDF went looking for people to kill, not that it was in the process of hunting down suspected terrorists when its troops came under fire and sought to defend themselves.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:39 PM by David Adesnik  

PLAYING HARDBALL: The Bush administration now wants Hans Blix to take full advantage of his right to interview Iraqi scientists outside Iraq. As the Times observes, Saddam would expect his scientists to leave their families behind as a show of good faith. But if the US demands that the families go as well, Saddam would have his back to the wall. Thus, if the US can get Blix to go along, it may finally have its chance to expose Saddam's deception. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:14 PM by David Adesnik  

RECYCLING WASTES PAPER: Recycling arguments, that is. Kissinger biographer Walter Isaacson tells us that old Henry might decide to be honest now that his historical reputation is on the line. OxBlog exposed that argument as patently false a while back.

On a side note, Isaacson describes the intense conflict between Kissinger and the Cheney-Rumsfeld axis during the Ford administration. This lends quite a bit of credibility to OxBlog's early speculation that Condi was behind Kissinger's appointment. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:28 PM by David Adesnik  

ANOTHER SAUDI EMBARASSMENT: The cash still flows to terrorists, even as government spokesmen deny it. Now you might ask, why don't the Saudis hire American lobbyists to make their case for them instead of telling the lies themselves? Because their lobbyists have gone into hiding to avoid congressional subpoenas. Well, you never could trust lawyers. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:54 PM by David Adesnik  

MA-MA-MA-MY SHARON: The hawk of hawks has now declared that there will be a Palestinian state. As Sharon's predecessors insisted, it will be a demilitarized state. But the real question is whether it will be a democracy. On that point, Sharon was silent. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:49 PM by David Adesnik  

I AGREE WITH SADDAM that the UN's inspectors demanded access to one of his palaces for the sheer purpose of showing that they could. Good for them. After all, the purpose of the pre-Dec. 8 inspections is to establish ground rules, not to find weapons. Perhaps Charlie K. should have held back before condeming Hans Blix as an incompetent coward. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:42 PM by David Adesnik  

AND CONSERVATIVE MEDIA BIAS: Spinsanity tells it much better than I can. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:36 PM by David Adesnik  

CONFIRMING THE WORST: I was in the library today and ran across on article on post-9/11 political cartoons in Middle Eastern newspapers. They ranged from standard anti-war criticism to outright anti-Semitic propaganda. No surprises there. But what I found interesting was they ways in which mindless conspiratorial thinking produces dilemmas which may have serious policy implications for Arab states. Rather than having a coherent view of Western policy, the cartoonists found themselves totally unable to decide whether America is run by the Jews or whether America uses Israel to advance its imperialist interests. Since there is considerable evidence that Arab policymakers are confounded by the same "dilemmas", we should not be surprised that their policies seem absurd from our perpsective.

(Apologies for not providing a link to the full text of the article. I myself had to submit to the shameful practice of reading a paper-and-ink version of it.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:15 PM by David Adesnik  

IMITATING KRUGMAN: David Broder attacks the President for hypocrisy on the budget. We're used to hearing it from Krugman, whose repetitions have damaged his credibility. But it's hard to disagree with Broder. Bush said that he was cutting back on raises he'd offered to federal employees because the raises "interfere with . . . the war on terrorism". The raises have a total cost of $1 billion. The administration's new farm bill has a price tag over six years of $248 billion. The Bush tax cut will have a total cost of over $1 trillion and benefit those with high incomes. Now, if federal salaries were cut back in order to fund special forces operations or cruise missiles, I'd shut up. But if you live on Park Avenue, you should be the first to recognize that America has given you the opportunity to succeed and that you must sacrifice in order to provide for the common defense. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:02 PM by David Adesnik  

AMERICA THE STUPID: Bill Clinton has informed his colleagues on the Democratic Leadership Council that "When people are feeling insecure, they'd rather have someone who is strong and wrong rather than somebody who is weak and right." Translation: George Bush is a moron, but since most Americans are morons as well, they don't mind; that being the case, the Democrats should improve their political standing by lying to the public. Perhaps those are the lessons that Mr. Clinton took away from an impeachment scandal which wrecked his image but left him with 60% approval ratings. Nonetheless, it shows that Clinton has no appreciation of the role which trust plays in political life. Even if Mr. Bush and the GOP leadership are often "wrong", they believe in what they say. That sincerity inspires trust, which leads people to give the president and his colleagues the benefit of the doubt. That is leadership.

PS I must admit that I cannibalized the Clinton quote from Maureen Dowd. Strangely, she ignores its implications. Is it because she takes it for granted that Clinton is cynical, or because she shares his cynicism as well? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:53 PM by David Adesnik  

LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS, PART TROIS: Howell Raines, executive editor of the NYT has been busy confirming conservative biases with his heavy-handed coverage of segregation at the Augusta golf club. While interesting, I can't say I really care about golf or how it's reported when we're on the brink of war.

As usual, real evidence of media bias comes from NYT coverage of the Middle East. Today's headline reads: "Israeli Troops Shoot at Taxi, Killing Arab Woman, 95." At the beginning of the article we find out that an innocent woman died. Ten paragraphs later we find out that another woman injured in the attack has provided contradictory statements about what exactly happened while Israeli sources insist that the taxi's driver sped toward IDF soldiers even after instructed to stop. Maybe the Times' reporter should have actually tried to verify some of the facts reported. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:41 PM by David Adesnik  

ME FIRST! ME FIRST! If I wait, Josh or Dan will post a link to this Tom Friedman column. It is a profile of Hashem Aghajari, the bold Iranian reformist scholar at the center of the current wave of protests in Teheran. Read what he has said, and you'll know why he was sentenced to death. Friedman hopes that Aghajari can become an Islamic Martin Luther, starting the revolution from within that is the only hope for the salvation of Islam. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:30 PM by David Adesnik  

DOVES, HAWKS & VULTURES: Conventional wisdom tells us that doves like Powell are fighting against hawks like Cheney to control US foreign policy. But does this simple division leave out the most important figure in the policy process? No, not George Bush. Karl Rove. This column argues that Bush is letting Saddam twist in the wind, only to take him out just before the 2004 election. The purpose of this strategy is to ensure that W. does not repeat H.W.'s mistake of winning a war so early on that his momentum is lost before election day.

Disclaimer: I think that this argument is a lot of hooey, poppycock, balderdash and, to get to the point, bullshit. It present no actual evidence that Rove is behind US foreign policy decisions. It's author is credible however -- a fellow at a British insitute for defence studies. And, of course, the column was published in The Guardian. Still, thinking outside the box isn't such a bad thing. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:23 PM by David Adesnik  

ELBOW IN THE RIBS: Josh blasted me for arguing that the Chechens are nationalists and not fundamentalists. But TNR has my back. There's some consolation for Josh, though: TNR agrees that John Kerry is a total yutz. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:12 PM by David Adesnik  

EVER HEARD OF SPARTA? Studies now show that nations who accept gays in the military do not suffer from reduced effectiveness. If only Thucydides had a blog... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:05 PM by David Adesnik  

OK, THIS IS BIAS. The WashPost headline reads: "Merchant's Son Slain As Israelis Open Fire At Busy Jenin Market." You think: "Opening fire at a busy market? That's what Serb forces used to do in Bosnia." Then you read the article and find out that the victim's family claims he was an innocent bystander while Israeli forces say that the victim tried to climb on an Israeli armored personnel carrier. There are a few quotes from "witnesses" to back up the family's account, but no verification that these witnesses have any reliable information. Come on WP, do a better job. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:54 PM by David Adesnik  

I LAUGHED, I CRIED...It was better than "Cats". Yes, there is really nothing as entertaining as listening to the imaginative lies that issue forth from the mouth of Adel al-Jubeir, de facto spokesman for the Saudi embassy. Al-Jubeir has announced that the Saudi government has now taken a dramatic step to stop Saudi charities from financing terrorists: it will create a government agency. Well, in light of the sterling reputation that the rest of the Saudi government's agencies have, I guess we can expect the financing to stop sometime before Osama bin Laden marries Jenna Bush.

While you're waiting, take a look at this article on Saudi charities by Stephen Schwartz. Even though it's a litlle short on evidence, the article makes the critical point that focusing on a single possible indiscretion made by one Saudi princess is irrelevant. The real issue is the existence of an entire system of indirect financing which actively encourages princesses to distribute tens of thousands of dollars to individuals who may well have connections to terrorists.

This is also an opportune moment to thank Adam Bellow at Doubleday for sending me a complimentary copy of Schwartz's new book, "The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror." I will report back ASAP. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:26 PM by David Adesnik  

KISS(inger) OF DEATH: Now that Kissinger-critic Bill Safire has proclaimed his support for the old man's appointment as head of the 9/11 commission, I don't think there will be much more debate on the point. As Safire points out, he has impeccable credentials as an anti-Kissingerian. But Safire's arguments for applauding Kissinger's appointment are misguided. Safire's basic point is that Kissinger has matured and is "working for his historic reputation now, not his clients." The same point was also made (earlier) by Innocents Abroad, which posted that Kissinger "is a man to whom reputation and prestige is everything, so he has everything to lose by not doing [his job] right."

The fundamental problem with this argument is that it equates a desire to improve one's reputation with a repentant drive to do right instead of wrong. But that is not how Kissinger has gone about working for his reputation. As Robert Kagan's careful reading of Years of Renewal -- the third volume of Kissinger's memoirs -- shows that Kissinger has resorted to active distortions of his own record as a diplomat in order to mitigate his reputation as an amoral realist while also creating the illusion that he was somehow responsible for the end of the Cold War. (Kagan's review was published in TNR in June 1999, but is not available on their website.) But if you're interested in a review of Kagan's review, click here.)

So if we know that Kissinger is willing to lie in public in order to polish his reputation, why should we trust him to head an investigative commission charged with finding out the truth the intelligence failures that faciliated 9/11? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:55 PM by David Adesnik  

PISSED OFF AT KRISTOF: After telling us last week that millions of Chinese will die from AIDS because their government is apathetic and incompetent Nicholas Kristof announced today that the United States is "not doing much to prepare for perhaps the most important long-term trend in the world — the rise of China." There is only one possible explanation for the utter inconsistency of his columns: every Monday morning he flips a coin. If it's heads, he writes about the inevitable rise of China to world power. If it's tails, he tells about the tragic crisis that is wrecking millions of Chinese lives. Perhaps Kristof should learn from Maureen Dowd and adopt some Immutable Laws. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:45 PM by David Adesnik  

AMBASSADOR TO UTOPIA: NSC official Zalmay Khalilzad is now the United States' "ambassador at large for free Iraqis". Elliot Abrams, until now the NSC's director for democracy and human rights, will take Khalilzad's place as NSC director for the Middle East. This is very good news because Abrams was one of the few Reagan administration officials who demonstrated an uncompromising commitment to promoting democracy abroad. Having him as director for the Middle East means democracy will have a voice. If you want evidence of Abrams' views, think of it this way: Robert Kagan keeps an autographed photo of Abrams in his office. (Kagan worked for Abrams at the Reagan State Department.)

One should note, however, that Abrams is a divisive partisan figure who played a significant role in the Reagan administration's efforts to cover up the Iran-Contra scandal. Off hand, I can't remember if he was convicted or just indicted for lying to Congress. I guess you might say Abrams needs to work on promoting democracy at home as well as abroad.

UPDATE: Israpundit provides a slightly different perspective, focused on -- you guessed it -- Israel. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:35 PM by David Adesnik  

LONE WOLFOWITZ: Stopping in London on his way to Ankara, Paul Wolfowitz made a strong case for admitting Turkey into the EU, while also recognizing that such a decision is Europe's to make. As Wolfowitz observed, "Turkey offers a valuable model for Muslim-majority countries striving to realize the goals of freedom, secularism and democracy...those who would criticize Turkey for its problems confuse what is challenging with what is fundamental. They focus too much on the problems Turkey is struggling today and ignore where it is heading." The British agree. The French don't. No other administration official has made a strong case for promoting democracy in Turkey. Will the surprises never end?

PS Looks like the Turks will participate in a war against Iraq. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:23 PM by David Adesnik  

REDUNDANT BUT NECESSARY. After its exposure of the Pakistani and North Korean governments fsecret collaboration for the purpose of producing nuclear weapons, there wasn't much need for the NY Times' editorial board to point out that such collaboration is a very bad thing. Still, it's good that they now have. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:05 PM by David Adesnik  

THAT'S NOT A KNIFE. Australian PM John Howard has announced that the UN Charter should be amended to recognize the legitimacy of preemptive attacks against terrorists. Unsurprisingly, Australia's neighbors have begun to accuse Howard of being a unilateralist. While Crocodile Dundee may not be the ideal representative of Australian political culture, I think that no one should be surprised by the "cowboy side" of Australian foreign policy. When Dundee pulled that massive knife and scared off a NY mugger, that was preemption. Britian has a similar side to it's personality as well. While commentators have often fallen into the habit of describing America vs. its allies on issues of war and peace, the fact is that the real divide is between the English-speaking democracies and the rest. The language divide does not correlate exactly with the current political divide, but it does reflect a cultural difference that has significant political implications. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:06 AM by Daniel  

DEMOCRATS, LOOK DOWN. John J. Pitney Jr says only Gore and Edwards have a chance. I agree that Americans are again focusing on military issues, but my hunch says that the next election will be decided by domestic issues--even in last month's midterms, the economy ranked above terrorism as a voter concern. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:13 PM by Daniel  

NOT IN MY BED. William Safire parts ways with Maureen Dowd, Oxblog, and Christopher Hitchens over the Kissinger appointment. Why will Kissinger avoid conflicts of interest? He is "working for his historic reputation." Rudman and Hart should have been chosen to head the commission. Maybe Gary doesn't want to get bogged down as he plans his run for 2004. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:46 PM by David Adesnik  

PEACEFUL DEMOCRATIC AFGHANISTAN: Yeah right. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:41 PM by David Adesnik  

CAPTAIN AMERICA RETURNS: It's not everyday a comic book character is featured on the NYT editorial page. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:37 PM by David Adesnik  

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: Maureen Dowd has joined OxBlog and Christopher Hitchens in bashing the President's decision to appoint Henry Kissinger as head of the 9/11 investigation commission. While being on the same side as Dowd has tempted me to renounce my original position, I'm just too plain stubborn to do that. Instead, I will disavow Dowd's arguments as a cliche byproduct of the Immutable Laws.

The NYT and WashPost have offered subtle but still unequivocal criticism of the President's choice. One might even say that such criticism is more effective, since Dr. K has already taken the Times'advice and promised to sever ties with any clients whose interests might be affected by the outcome of the investigation. Still, such a promise is irrelevant. There is no reason to thnk that financial interests will affect Kissinger's judgments. The real problem is his total lack of respect for the public's right to know what their government does, a right he disrespected time again while serving as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:28 PM by David Adesnik  

TURKS GIVE KURDS THEIR WAY: Demonstrating once again that it is not your average Islamic political organization, Turkey's ruling Justice and Development party lifted a 15-year state of emergency the Turkish military had exploited to brutally suppress the Turkish Kurds. Muslim democracy: One. Cultural relativists: Zero. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:24 PM by David Adesnik  

GUESS WHAT I SAUD: Here are some highlights from the NYT report on Saudi "charities":

"More than a year into the war against terrorism, Saudi officials continue to actively support organizations that finance international terrorism," -- Matthew Levitt, fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and former terrorism analyst for the Federal Bureau of Investigation

"Federal prosecutors said a charity was used to provide cover for plotting the bombings of the American embassies in East Africa in August 1998..."

"Evidence linking Saudi money to Al Qaeda has continued to mount. Last month, federal prosecutors in Chicago charged the head of Benevolence International Foundation, an Islamic charity with financial roots in Saudi Arabia, with running a criminal enterprise that supported Al Qaeda."

Yet as Josh might add, there is no reason to disbelieve the Bush administration's assertion that it has the situation under control. After all, "when a Congressional committee asked Kenneth Dam, the deputy secretary of the Treasury, whether the Saudis had taken the steps they had promised, he replied: "That's a sensitive question, and my answer would be sensitive. All I can say is that we are pleased with Saudi cooperation."

Hmmmm... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion