Monday, June 30, 2003
# Posted 10:19 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
NB: Greg's permalinks aren't working, so scroll down to "Constabulatory Duties and the Warrior Ethos". Also, in yesterday's post on the occupation of Iraq, I exaggerated Greg's support for a greater UN role. He'd like to see more cooperation, but agrees that the US should be firmly in charge. (2) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:10 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
So does that mean we're appointing Saddam's henchmen to high office, or that we're able to recognize and correct our mistakes with reasonable speed and accuracy? I tend to favor the second explanation, given that we haven't heard much about Ba'athists being appointed to high office.
Paul Bremer seems to be rather fixated on de-Ba'athification, so I imagine that lower-level officials are mindful of its importance as well. In Najaf, for example, the mayor's arrest apparently came in respone to public dismay with his Ba'athist past.
It also wouldn't surprise me if the WaPo's recent article on reinstated Ba'athists had something to do with the arrest in Najaf. In fact, the WaPo explicitly identified the mayor of Najaf as a former Ba'athist whose reinstatment had led to popular resentment.
While it would be better if occupation forces acted even before the media let them know what was wrong, it is still quite remarkable that a single article (probably) led to immediate action. Often, the government does nothing until it is avalanched with negative press coverage. Thus, the occupation forces's apparent responsiveness demonstrates a real commitment to promoting democracy Iraq. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:50 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
As a candidate, the President criticized his predecessor for his excessive personalization of US diplomacy, i.e. depending on single figures such as Yeltsin rather than building a strong overall relationship with Russia. Yet in Russia, Pakistan and Afghanistan, Bush has fallen prey to Clinton's old habit.
When it comes to more peripheral regions such as Africa, Latin America and (for the moment) East Asia, the Administration seems to have no strategy at all. But that much is to be expected.
Few American presidents have ever developed a truly global strategy. Nixon and Kissinger did, but theirs was worse than none at all. So let's just hope that our ambassadors and assistant secretaries of state are ready to face regional challenges without much guidance from above. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:06 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
As JAT points out,
It's not surprising that small donors are heavily favoring Republicans. They always do. This has been true since at least the 1910s. I remember my US History books specifically pointing out this fact.JVL adds
Not to quibble, but the only aspect of this story that resembles a yoga asana is the failure of the WaPo to notice the phenomenon [of GOP predominance] until now. Ever since the Reagan landslide of 1984, the GOP has scored the bulk of its hard money from small donors. Ron gave the RNC a mailing list that Terry McAu[liffe] would kill for. No fault of yours that this may be news. In 1984, you were creating in Legos, not blogs.Ah, Silent Cal. If only modern Presidents had the good sense to keep their thoughts to themselves more often.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Sunday, June 29, 2003
# Posted 8:12 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 8:01 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 7:56 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
The editors of both the Washington Post and The New Republic fall into the latter category. Even though I am committed to hearing out both the constructive and the destructive critics, I have found it harder and harder and to take the latter seriously as a result of their Vietnam mindset. However, when the WaPo and TNR criticize the occupation I take their observations very seriously.
Recent criticism from the WaPo and TNR is all the more surprising because my own interpretation of the public record suggests that the occupation is going better than expected. Moreover, Josh is at least as optimistic as I am, if not moreso.
So what's going on? First and foremost, the rising casualty toll and persistence of guerrilla warfare has persuaded even supporters of the occupation that something is going seriously wrong. Second, the Pentagon's decision to have combat troops serve as peacekeepers suggests that one can trace much of the chaos in Iraq to the occupation forces' lack of appropriate training.
On the first point, I think that the WaPo and TNR may have fallen prey to media spin. The headlines coming out of Iraq are almost entirely negative. For example:
As you might have guessed, I think the guerrilla threat is not all that serious. I tend to agree with this former Marine officer who argues that the Ba'athist insurgents have already demonstrated their incompetence as military strategists. In short, he argues that the Ba'athist offensive is extremely premature, given the overwhelming American forces still on the ground in central Iraq.
Without sounding like a kneejerk reactionary, I would like to suggest that the American media -- including moderate, mainstream, responsible publications such as the WaPo -- are still imprisoned in a Vietnam mindset. In contrast to those conservatives who constantly attack the mainstream media, I do not believe that this Vietnam mindset is part and parcel of a pervasive but unacknowledged left-liberal agenda.
Rather, much of this mindset reflects an honest but misguided effort to learn the lessons of history. If Vietnam were the only guerrilla war ever fought (in addition, perhaps, to those in El Salvador and Nicaragua) one might fairly conclude that American generals consistently underestimate the popular support and tactical sophistication of their opponents. Yet quite often, government forces destroy overconfident and unprepared insurgents.
Recently, I have been giving a lot of thought to the Vietnam-Iraq analogy thanks to Neil Sheehan's masterful work on the Vietnam War, A Bright Shining Lie. After confronting the depths of ignorance and incompetence that led to the fall of Saigon, it is ridiculous to suggest that the Ba'athist any surgents can mount any sort of challenge to American occupation forces.
In Vietnam, the United States was supporting a brutal regime that showed total disregard for its citizens' lives, economic welfare, and political rights. In contrast, the Viet Cong demonstrated an impressive concern for the people of Vietnam despite committing some appalling atrocities.
In Iraq, the United States has brought down a regime that strongly resembles the one its supported in Saigon. The occupation forces are also doing far more for the people of Iraq than even the Viet Cong did for the people of Vietnam. Even so, the unexpectedly swift fall of the Ba'athist government ensured that thousands of its supporters would fade into the woodwork, along with considerable amounts of military equipment.
Sad to say, even a flawless assault on the Ba'athist remnants will cost the lives of scores of American soldiers, even hundreds. No question, some of those lives might have been saved had Coalition forces launched their counterinsurgency campaign immediately after the fall of Baghdad. But in the long-run, a month-and-a-half delay is insignificant. With the postwar casualty toll standing at 23, it's hard to say that the US could be doing much better.
Which brings us to the second trend that has disturbed the democracy promotion advocates at TNR and the WaPo: the decision to employ combat troops as peacekeeping forces. Unsurprisingly, this decision has opened the Pentagon to ample criticism of its unpreparedness to face the realities of postwar Iraq. And such criticism is well-deserved. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with Greg Djerejian's suggestion that the military should equip and train several divisions for the explicit purpose of peacekeeping and reconstruction.
Along with the WaPo and TNR, Greg think that our troops unpreparedness is an ex post facto vindication of those who insisted that the UN play a greater role in the occupation of Iraq. I wouldn't go that far. Yet while I stand by my argument that a strong UN voice would derail the occupation, I do recognize that peacekeeping damages soldiers' morale and that it wouldn't hurt to bring in UN or NGO officials with experience in Bosnia and Kosovo.
That said, I think that Coaltion forces have been doing an impressive job regardless of their insufficient training. Why? Because American soldiers instinctively put their democratic values into practive. Would further training improve these soldiers' efficiency and morale? Absolutely. Yet I suspect that chaos would still abound even with the best-trained forces in Baghdad.
What matters now is patience. If the President ensures that rebuilding Iraq stays at the top of the American agenda, we can overcome those errors that have already been made. While TNR and the WaPo are right to be concerned about the state of affairs in Iraq, the progress we have already made suggests that a long-term commitment to promoting democracy in Iraq will be well worth the effort.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:41 PM by Daniel
# Posted 12:17 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 10:58 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
1) "overshadowing the military achievement [in Iraq] is the failure -- so far -- to find, or explain the absence of, weapons of mass destruction that were the necessary and sufficient justification for preemptive war. The doctrine of preemption -- the core of the president's foreign policy -- is in jeopardy."Turns out the first quote is from George Will, the second from Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the erstwhile JFK advisor and inveterate Democratic mouthpiece.
The surprising resemblance of Will and Schlesinger's views underlines an important aspect of the WMD debate that has often been ignored. While there is little substance to accusations that Bush & Co. invented the Iraqi threat, the President will have to overcome much greater skepticism if he ever asks either the American people or foreign governments to trust his judgment on a matter of fact.
Even if no WMD is found, Bush will be safe at the polls. But America may have its hands tied abroad. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:19 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 10:06 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
UPDATE: Greg Djerejian thinks that Americans fail to appreciate just how much Musharraf did for us right after Sept. 11th. Fair enough. Still, I think Greg substantially exaggerates the degree to which Musharraf risked his own political well-being in the process of aiding the United States. The people of Pakistan may resent "Busharraf" for his ties to the United States, but they resent him much more for being an incompetent and corrupt dictator. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:02 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
Countless news cycles have spun by in my time away from the web. And yet life goes on. To my surprise, it is possible to live -- and live well -- without being constantly plugged in to the information superhighway.
The pinnacle of the past six days has been the Magdalen Commemoration Ball, an all-night celebration of indulgent excess that takes place only once every three years. Its atmosphere ranges from the elegant to the ridiculous, from white tie and tails to barbecue and bumper cars. Admission comes at the price of One Hundred English Pounds.
While I might have been tempted to skulk away from the cocktail bar and fireworks show to post my latest thoughts on the reconstruction of Iraq or peace in the Middle East, I did not have that option. Given the intense demands for electricity generated by three sound stages and all sorts of other entertainment paraphrenalia, the college authorities shut down the computer center in order to save power.
But now I am back and raring to go, ready to take on the world like a blog out of hell. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 2:42 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 2:42 AM by Patrick Belton
Saturday, June 28, 2003
# Posted 10:00 AM by Daniel
The column introduced a quote from Stanley Fish which I thoroughly enjoyed. Referring to the problem of stigmas (something Josh and Clarence Thomas disdain about affirmative action), Fish stated: "the low self-esteem that comes from wondering if your success was based on merit is probably preferable to the low self-esteem that comes from never getting a chance to succeed in the first place." In this sense affirmative action, despite its flaws, is the least worst option. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 2:14 AM by Patrick Belton
From: "Andrew Wilkie" firstname.lastname@example.org
To: "Amit Duvshani"
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: PhD application
Dear Amit Duvshani,
Thank you for contacting me, but I don't think this would work. I have a huge problem with the way that the Israelis take the moral high ground from their appalling treatment in the Holocaust, and then inflict gross human rights abuses on the Palestinians because they (the Palestinians) wish to live in their own country.
I am sure that you are perfectly nice at a personal level, but no way would I take on somebody who had served in the Israeli army. As you may be aware, I am not the only UK scientist with these views but I'm sure you will find another suitable lab if you look around.
Nuffield Professor of Pathology,
Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine,
The John Radcliffe,
Oxford OX3 9DS,
A FINAL UPDATE: Ha'aretz picks up the story, and Oxford's formal apology to Mr. Duvshani (though, somewhat inexplicably, they refer to him as seeking an internship). (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:59 AM by Patrick Belton
Responses: Israel (skeptical), US (positive), France (supportive of Hamas no matter what), EU (pissy). (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Friday, June 27, 2003
# Posted 11:35 PM by Patrick Belton
These are all worthy of further comment, but for the moment I need to post quietly, because my happily-frequent roommate Josh is grabbing some shuteye in the other room. On the other hand, sunrise over the half-completed annex going up outside the window of his room in Merton is dazzling and beautiful. (Perhaps all the dust being kicked up into the atmosphere by the construction...) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:22 PM by Patrick Belton
Q: "Why is Saudi Arabia often criticized in the media for violating human rights?"I'm convinced. Dunno about you. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:57 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 12:44 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 12:49 AM by Patrick Belton
His politics were not my politics, but I had the pleasure of meeting him several times when I worked in Senator Chuck Robb's legislative office. He was a quintessential Southern gentleman who would always generously spare moments for a skinny 22-year old, a flirt who could often be seen walking to Union Station with female interns under each arm, and who once whisked two female colleagues away from a friend of mine with the promise to demonstrate how a gentlemen charmed the opposite sex. Such behavior would have been unthinkable from a younger man, but for Senator Thurmond, well, everyone understood he was being Ol' Strom, and played along. He was a segregationist, but his views changed, and people must be allowed the chance to change for the better - as he did.
An age dies with him. We are better without its worst aspects, and have fortunately learned to treat each other more fully as humans, and as brothers and sisters. But we would do well to recall, and perhaps to imitate, its charm, honor, and graciousness, as they were instantiated so well by the senior senator from South Carolina. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:31 AM by Patrick Belton
After all, how am I supposed to write or blog when I'm on the road, travelling...okay, in Oxford. As a personal note, it's incredibly nice to be back here, seeing many of my closest friends, and being reminded that this place really exists, and isn't merely a fiction of my delirium. At the very least, Oxford is a fiction which manypeople share.....
My first anecdote, however, isn't very amusing at all. It's about an incredibly disturbing incident that took place in Oxford, and was covered in the non-OxBlog Oxford student publication, Cherwell. Cherwell reports that Maxwell's bar in Oxford (37 Queen Street) served ground glass, mixed in a cocktail, to Oxford student Emma Phillips. She subsequently spent the night in John Radcliffe Infirmary, and in x-rays the bottom of her stomach was shown to be lined with glass. The only immediate action taken by the bar? To offer her two free jugs of cocktails. (Yeah, like she's going to drink those....) The manager on duty insisted there was nothing more he could do. However, after time passed, he relented and generously agreed to pay for a taxi to take Ms. Phillips to hospital. (For those of you who have lived in the UK, this will be instantly recognizable as an instance of Anglo-institutional rationality.)
Finall, the excruciatingly painful quote to carry around with you the rest of the day: "Philips had all but finished the drink before she realised that the crunching sensation in her mouth could not be ice."
Anyone in Oxford who reads this who doesn't immediately boycott Maxwell's, well, should. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Thursday, June 26, 2003
# Posted 3:04 PM by Daniel
My knowledge of history goes back to the late 1980s/early 1990s, so your antebellum reference did not register too well with me. Was there a program in place in the 1850s which looked at qualified black and white candidates and then chose white candidates based in part on the discrimination against them in the past and present? As far as I am concerned, the moral and political distinctions between slavery and affirmative action clouds any analogies.
I am not calling Thomas or our friend from the 1850s "barking mad." Of course black people can criticize affirmative action. When did I argue that they could not?
I do disagree with you over affirmative action--I think that right now, the benefits of affirmative action outweigh the costs but do hope that we can reach the point where it is no longer necessary. We just aren't there yet, as far as I am concerned. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:45 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 10:55 AM by Patrick Belton
On a completely different note, upwards of 90 percent of banknotes in circulation in Europe betray traces of cocaine, from users having rolled up the notes at some point in the notes' history to form a tube for snorting. (Any readers who want to correct my technical description, please feel free.) The Spanish peseta and Irish pound, followed by the German deutschmark, had the most widespread levels of cocaine contamination in a test run by the EU shortly before the introduction of the euro. Now that the euro has been released, the concentration of cocaine on euro notes from Spain was found in a test to be one hundred times that on euro notes from Germany. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
# Posted 10:15 PM by Daniel
Sure, the shot against Gonzales was unneccesary, since Gonzales might just be the most qualified man for the job, but I don't have a problem with her legitimate lambasting of Thomas. Why not look at Thomas as an example of the benefits of affirmative action--he was a qualified candidate for law school and later jobs who, because of affirmative action, was given an opportunity that he otherwise might not have had? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:14 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
The time is now.
United as one, we have performed the sacred Oxford ritual of purchasing chips & cheese at 1:30am from Hassan, the Lord High Commissioner of Kebab.
As we should have pointed out long ago, the British stopped referring to them as "French Fries" long before any Americans did. Moreover, they refer to it as "snogging" rather than "French kissing"
Contrary to the predictions of organizational theory, the presence of all three OxBlog contributors in one place has not led to any increase whatsoever in our collective efficiency.
(This may have something to do with the fact that Josh insists on watching over my shoulder as I write this post. You'd think Josh would know that Communism doesn't work.)
Anyhow, instead of blogging, we have done many productive things, such as eating in Kurdish restaurant and watching Harlem Nights, a Richard Pryor/Eddie Murphy flick from a few years back. (4 stars out of 5!)
So there. Don't our lives sound fun? Damn right they are. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 3:31 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
# Posted 12:10 PM by Patrick Belton
Monday, June 23, 2003
# Posted 8:12 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 7:56 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 7:45 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
While my knowledge of the law consists of nothing more than common sense, I think that Robert's essay provides a compelling illustration of why the Supreme Court chose to strike down all affirmative action programs that treat human beings as numbers rather than complex individuals. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:18 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 12:15 PM by Patrick Belton
On a somewhat related note, there's a new free monthly bulletin Carnegie has just begun, to track and analyze reform and democratization developments in the Arab world. You can subscribe to the on-line version here. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:33 AM by Patrick Belton
On not cooperating with the US about Iraqi ex-officials from the Saddam regime presently in Syria: "One official entered Syria under a false name, but not from Iraq - from another country. We learned about him from the Americans, who asked that we extradite him, but we refused. I think he was captured later in Iraq. We did not turn over, and will not turn over, anyone to the Americans. There may be [Iraqi officials in Syria that we are unaware of]. Anything is possible. It's impossible to stop the movement of goods and people between the countries. [If we capture any of them], we'll send them back to Iraq. We won't do anything to them. We won't turn them over to anyone."
On Syria's non-cooperation with the peace process: "They (the U.S.) did not require Syria's presence, because Syria is irrelevant to the issue and because we do not agree to the proposals..."
On Syria's supposed benevolence toward the Palestinian people: "When we adopt the [Palestinian] problem, we do it in accordance with the desire of the Palestinian citizen, whose problem it is. We cannot agree to anything that contradicts it, even if we believe in it, and we cannot oppose anything the Palestinian citizen believes in."
Incidentally, the last point belies one of the unstated cruelties of the Arab world: Arab governments' treatment of their Palestinian refugees. Of the 3.5 million UNRWA-registered refugees in Arab countries, only the 1.5 million in Jordan are granted the basic rights of citizenship of the nation in which they reside. This act of humanity is particularly striking for Jordan, a country which is beset by a simmering question of competing Jordanian and Palestinian identities given the fact that Palestinians have come to constitute 60 percent of the Jordanian population. The 373,000 stateless Palestinians living in Lebanon are not allowed to attend public school, own property, or even improve their housing stock. The Lebanese government is even planning to revoke citizenship rights to Palestinians who were granted Lebanese citizenship in 1994. Marginalization of Palestinian refugees in the Arab world does nothing to diminish radicalism or improve the lot of a people whose human suffering has been great. Arab countries are quite happy to treat them as pawns, to clothe themselves in the symbolic legitimacy of their cause while acting in quite atrocious ways to the actual Palestinians, who often live (as in Lebanon) in refugee camps where they face horrific public health, minimal prospects of education or employment, and are instead maintained in as much of a marginalized status as possible to augment their stateless status and maintain pressure on Israel. If Arab governments were only as good as their people, they might remember with the Palestinians the meaning of the phrase "Ahlan wa Sahlan" - "When you cross our threshold you are one of our family, and you have stepped on even ground."
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Sunday, June 22, 2003
# Posted 11:23 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
has engaged in a pattern of deception concerning the most fundamental decisions a government must make. The United States may have been justified in going to war in Iraq--there were, after all, other rationales for doing so--but it was not justified in doing so on the national security grounds that President Bush put forth throughout last fall and winter. He deceived Americans about what was known of the threat from Iraq and deprived Congress of its ability to make an informed decision about whether or not to take the country to war.But compare TNR's allegations to the more precise criticism offered by Josh Marshall:
It's suddenly become acceptable to discuss what everyone knew for the last year or so: that is, that the administration was willfully misrepresenting the evidence both on WMD and a purported link to al Qaida.At first, Marshall's criticism comes across as a repetition of the TNR allegations. But it isn't. Marshall is accusing the administration of engaging in deceptive salesmanship, not wholesale fabrication of an Iraqi threat. As Marshall observes in The Hill:
There were really two WMD debates. One was about chemical and low-end biological weapons. The other was about smallpox, nukes, al Qaeda and pretty much everything else under the sun.If there still is solid evidence that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons, then Saddam was in material breach of Resolution 1441. Do those words sound strange to you? "Material breach"? "Resolution 1441"?
They should. Because the question everyone is now asking is "Did Bush lie?" rather than "Did the United States have good cause to invade Iraq without the express written consent of the Security Council?"
While I suspect that Bush himself did not lie, there is considerable evidence that high-ranking officials, possibly including the Vice President, knew in advance of the State of the Union address that Iraq had not purchased uranium from Niger. If so, all of the officials involved in that process of deception should be severly disciplined.
Nonetheless, this sort of deception has minimal bearing on the justice of the American cause. Just days ago, Hans Blix
said he remains deeply puzzled by the former Iraqi government's efforts to deceive and mislead U.N. inspectors for 12 years after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.For the moment, there are no answers to those questions. But if Saddam was refusing to submit to the will of the Security Council, then France and China and Russia had an obligation to ensure that Saddam would face the "serious consequences" mentioned in 1441.
Still, it is fair to ask whether the American people would have supported the President's decision to invade if it had been more fully aware of the salesmanship involved in the presentation of the Iraqi threat. TNR argues that
Had the administration accurately depicted the consensus within the intelligence community in 2002--that Iraq's ties with Al Qaeda were inconsequential; that its nuclear weapons program was minimal at best; and that its chemical and biological weapons programs, which had yielded significant stocks of dangerous weapons in the past, may or may not have been ongoing--it would have had a very difficult time convincing Congress and the American public to support a war to disarm Saddam.While still within the realm of the possible, TNR's speculations directly contradict the results of multiple opinion polls: that if Saddam was hiding chemical and biological weapons, then the United States should go to war.
In the final analysis, there is nothing new under the sun. The case for war then is the case for war now. While front-page stories continue to hint at startling revelations of presidential lies, even those of us who supported the war knew that the President's rhetoric went too far.
What we are waiting for now is the truth in Iraq. Until we know for sure what happened to the WMD, we will not know whether the invasion of Iraq headed off a major threat to international security, or simply removed a megalomaniacal dictator who conned his opponents into believing that he was much more dangerous than he actually was. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:41 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Southeast Asian foreign ministers, meeting last week in Cambodia with Mr. Powell, agreed to send a delegation to Burma no later than October. October? While one of the world's most courageous political leaders languishes in one of its most infamous jails? Where are Kofi Annan and the U.N. Security Council? Where are the executive orders that President Bush could issue today?Your answer is as good as mine. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:17 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 7:34 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
NB: If you are interested in the history of slavery and emancipation, head straight for Patterson's brilliant work on Slavery and Social Death. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 6:58 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
For more on the role of foreign broadcasts in supporting the protests, click here. And click here to read about flagrant Iranian violations of the profoundly flawed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 6:22 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
If there were any hope of destorying Hamas, Fatah and Jihad by purely military means, I might well support it.Yet as Greg Djerejian points out [via e-mail], Fatah is not an explicitly terrorist organization, even though it has spawned such offshoots such the Tanzim and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.
In fact, Mahmoud Abbas himself is a member of Fatah. So it is pretty much here to stay. But Greg's real point is that we pundits need to be more precise when talking about different terrorist organizations, lest we say something we don't mean. To that end, Greg recommends consulting the "Terrorism: Questions & Answers" website, a project suppored by the Council on Foreign Relations. I, for one, have every intention of doing so. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:13 PM by Patrick Belton
Small world, indeed. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:29 AM by Patrick Belton
Saturday, June 21, 2003
# Posted 11:14 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
While denouncing Hamas in no uncertain terms, Powell also indicated that the United States and Israel had come to an agreement that targeted killings are out of bounds unless there are indications of an impending terrorist attack.
While this sort of minor advance is encouraging, serious questions about the viability of the Road Map still abound. Without sounding all that optimistic, Reason of Voice observes that the Road Map has forced both Israeli and Palestinian factions to clarify their positions on the prospects of peace.
While the first half of Dan's post amounts to a revisionist history of the Oslo process which declares that it never came close to achieving a lasting peace, I found the second half quite interesting, especially given's Dan's firm support for Likud. He writes that
Mahmoud Abbas' rise and Yasser Arafat's marginalization have forced Palestinian policy 'out of the closet'. The complaints of previous Israeli governments dealing with Arafat was that he would give one speech in English and another in Arabic. It is astoundingly clear how true that statement was in light of the last 3 months of 'roadmap' negotiation. Abbas's statement in Aqaba forced Palestinian terrorist groups to speak for themselves. We've seen Sheik Yassin and al-Rantissi of Hamas, previously unknown publicly, emerge with a firm voice of continued terrorist commitment. These men had previously hid comfortably in the shadows of Arafat's cloaks.Without intending to do so, Dan seems to have admitted that the (temporary and uncertain) rise of Mahmoud Abbas represents a historic opportunity to negotiate with a Palestinian leadership actually committed to peace. From where I stand, that sounds like a very strong argument in favor of Israeli restraint when it comes to targeting Hamas officials for assassination.
Presumably, friend-of-Volokh Jonathan Zasloff disagrees. He writes [via e-mail]:
My sense is that it would actually ENHANCE Abu Mazen's credibility at this point to tell Hamas: "look, this guy Sharon--you know who he is. I can't control him. Like the Israelis says, he eats Arabs for breakfast. I can get the Americans to lean on him to stop the killings--but only if you commit to an unconditional cease-fire. And you'd better do so--because if you don't, you're all dead men. You know as well as I do that the Shabak is crawling all over Gaza City. They know where you guys are and will find you out eventually. And like I said, this Sharon won't care if he kills a bunch of civilians. He never has."Given Jonathan's argument, I would counter that Hamas actually wants Sharon to kill as many Palestinian civilians as possible. Each innocent bystander that dies reinforces the Hamas message that Israel is too brutal to negotiate with.
While the killing off of its top leadership may intimidate Hamas, that seems to be a price its top cadres are willing to pay in order to discredit moderates such as Abbas. If that price were too high, Hamas would've declared a ceasefire after the Rantisi attack rather than launching even more destructive suicide attacks.
All in all, the critical question in the targeted killings debate seems to be "Why now?" Why risk destroying Abbas's credibility if he is the best negotiating partner Israel has had? If there were any hope of destorying Hamas, Fatah and Jihad by purely military means, I might well support it. But for as long as one believes that peace can only be had at the negotiating table, there will be no choice for Israel -- at certain critical points -- but to shoulder the risks associated with self-restraint. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:22 AM by Patrick Belton
"You and me baby ain't nuthin' but mammals/So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel." Is it true, as The Bloodhound Gang sings, that we are "nuthin' but mammals?" What does it mean to be a mammal, human to otherwise? And, just how do we "do it?"
Makes you kind of want to show up, just to throw rotten fruit.... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:08 AM by Patrick Belton
Friday, June 20, 2003
# Posted 11:19 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 11:13 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 11:01 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 10:52 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 10:42 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 10:36 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Unsurprisingly, Paul Bremer is proud of what he has accomplished. More interesting, however, is Bremer's stated intention of opening Iraq to international trade and investment. The directness of Bremer's announcement suggests that he isn't concerned about potential critics who will immediately denounce the opening of the Iraqi economy as a reflection of American self-interest.
The most disturbing criticism of the occupation comes from even-tempered WaPo columnist David Ignatius, who charges that Bremer "is turning what was a war of liberation into a war of occupation." Ignatius' case in point is the planned election in Najaf that Bremer cancelled at the last minute.
While Ignatius' concern about elections is well-meant, his demand for national -- as opposed to local -- self-government seems dangerously misguided given the intensity of fighting in central Iraq. I am much more confident in the United States' ability to lead the charge against the Ba'ath than I am in the ability of an interim Iraqi government.
"Leading the charge", however, is not the same as doing all the work. Perhaps to complement the NYT's insistence that our soldiers' morale is dangerously low, the WaPo now has a front-page report making exactly the same point. While I am often suspicious of the way in which the most critical soldiers get the most attention in such stories, it does seem fair to say that we are asking our troops to do a job they weren't exactly trained for.
On the combat front, things seem to be going rather well despite reckless descriptions of anti-Ba'athist operations as a quagmire. If you read the WaPo's latest report on the capture of the Ace of Diamonds, you begin to get a sense of how desperate the top leadership of the deposed government has become.
Abid Hamid Mahmoud spent his last hours as a fugitive in the house of a couple who didn't even want him there. Mahmoud had no significant weapons, cash resources, nor means of transportation. (The WaPo article clarifies earlier reports which suggested that Mahmoud was found along with $8.5 million in cash. In fact, the cash was found during a different raid.)
Mahmoud's desperate condition suggests that the Ba'ath has not been effective in organizing resistance and that it's support among the population is rather shallow. With any luck, such conditions will result in the ultimate capture of Saddam Hussein, who has been pronounced alive (if not well) according to US experts. [UPDATE: Mahmoud himself has claimed that Saddam is alive.]
Finally, we come to the greatest mystery of all: The WMD. While no new evidence has turned up, uber-expert Ken Pollack (and former Clinton NSC staffer) has published a long essay in the NYT which argues that the President was fundamentally right about Saddam's WMD presenting a very serious threat, even if certain administration officials exaggerated at times in order to make a compelling case for an immediate invasion.
So, how is the occupation going? It could be a lot worse. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:47 PM by Patrick Belton
Furthermore, while the previously mentioned book is number 67,697 on Amazon.com's sales chart, this important book is ranked 79,954 on Amazon.com, this important book is 90,283, and this damned important book is number 174,157. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:09 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Given the importance of secrecy for conspiracies such as ours, I though I might learn a little more about World-Information.Org, the organization that "outed" us. What I found out was that,
Under the patronage of the UNESCO, World-Information.Org serves to meet the needs and expectations of citizens for high quality and accessible services of cultural information and content.Would it be more disturbing if that were true or if that were an outright lie? The UN funding third-rate propaganda outlets?
While I haven't tried to confirm whether UNESCO actually gave WIO any money, I think I just might. Why bother, you might ask? Well, I was looking at the names listed as part of the WIO Advisory Council, and I actually recognized two of them as scholars whose work I've come across while doing my doctoral research. With any luck, they'll let me know what's going on.
As Dan might say, "Developing..."
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:50 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 7:55 PM by Patrick Belton
(P.S. Some people, of course, go for magazines....) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:50 PM by Patrick Belton
The London Review is looking for an editorial intern. The job, which would suit a recent graduate, will last for a year from September, and will involve proof-reading, fact-checking and other even less glamorous jobs. You will be paid.Want a job? Apply! Hey, you might even get a date while you're there.... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:06 PM by Patrick Belton
So for those of you who, like me, find yourselves alone on a Friday night, might find in Lowell a suitable pillow-companion. Start here, for starters... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:34 AM by Patrick Belton
AND, to step gingerly into this vat of acid, I agree with David's arguments here. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:20 AM by Patrick Belton
Thursday, June 19, 2003
# Posted 9:05 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
While the definition of "imminent" is not a simple matter, Sharon's apparent willingness to forgo vengeance strikes and limit himself to pre-emptive ones suggests that he is amenable to compromise. I hope that this is what Sharon has in mind, since pre-emptive strikes are far more justifiable than punitive ones. No one (outside the Occupied Territories) can object to Israel saving the lives of its own citizens when they are in immediate danger. In contrast, punitive strikes raise the prospect of a Hamas, Fatah or Jihad counterstrike, forcing Israeli retaliation, necessitating a Palestinian response...(cf. "cycle of violence").
Now, I recognize that the "cycle of violence" argument does not have many friends in the blogosphere. While Matt Yglesias and the Armed Liberal have gotten my back on this one, Gene Volokh (posting on behalf of JZ), Martin Kimel (scroll down to June 14th), Dan Simon and others certainly don't.
While all of those arrayed against me make good arguments, they one question they always seem to avoid is "Why now?" In other words, why launch punitive strikes at the one moment when they could do the most possible damage to the peace talks?
The closest Sharon's defenders come to addressing this point is when they insist that killing off the Hamas leadership will benefit Abu Mazen by weakening his most prominent opponents on the Palestinian side. When I point out that such targeted attacks hurt Abu Mazen's credibility, they point out that Israel cannot afford "credibility" if that entails an acceptance of endless terror.
That point had me for a while, but I have figured out what's wrong with it. Targeted killings almost inevitably inflict civilian casualties regardless of whether they are successful in eliminating their intended target. If such deaths could be avoided, Palestinians might accept Abbas in spite of such attacks. Yet most Palestinians seem to feel that Israel must not be allowed to strike down innocent bystanders in the process of eliminating Hamas.
Of course, there is a significant minority that supports Hamas outright. Yet as Zvi Bar'el observes in Ha'aretz,
"Today the ambition of the Palestinian public is to go to work, to make a living, and therefore, to see the peace process advance...If Bar'el is right, then Abu Mazen has a very strong base of potential support. But regardless of how much Palestinians want work, they won't stand for innocent bystanders being slaughtered.
Is that a one-sided perspective, given constant attacks on Israeli civilians? Of course. At the same time, insisting on the sanctity of civilian life is hardly unreasonable.
In the final analysis, I stand by the "credibility" argument because I believe that the targeted assassination of Hamas officials alienates a constituency that is potentially pro-Abbas and pro-peace. And if Abbas can bring peace and prosperity, this same constituency will fall silent when he finally crushes Hamas.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:11 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Ariel Sharon has upset both Israeli doves and the New York Times by telling the Knesset that his government would crush Hamas if its attacks on Israeli citizens continued. Then Sharon ordered the armed forces to dismantle, for the first time, an inhabited Israeli settlement in the West Bank.
Given that actions speak louder than words, it would seem that Sharon wants to show Powell that he is serious about implementing the Road Map. At the same time, he is covering his right-wing with conditional threats to destory Hamas.
In the meantime, the Palestinian Authority has rejected an Israeli plan for withdrawal from Northern Gaza, arguing that the plan does not grant it either sufficient control or enough territory. At the same time, the PA is talking up the prospects of a ceasefire with Hamas and other militants.
In tandem, these two moves suggest that the PA wants Powell to believe that it can deliver a ceasefire provided that he forces the Israelis to make further concessions related to the Gaza withdrawal. The question, of course, is whether there is any hope of a Hamas ceasefire.
According to Zvi Bar'el, Arab affairs commentator for Ha'aretz, Hamas can invoke the concept of hudna, or truce, to justify a ceasefire that might otherwise seem to contradict its doctrine of unflagging resistance to Israel.
Under hudna, Hamas is permitted to cooperate with more moderate Palestinians in order to make tactical gains such as the establishment of a Palestinian. Once that happens, it can begin its resistance again. While that sort of Trojan Horse strategy is exactly what Israelis fear, there is no way to persuade Hamas to stop its attacks now unless it can be persuaded that a ceasefire is in its own best interests. The crux of the matter is to ensure that the PA government turns on Hamas once it relaunches its resistance.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:06 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 6:53 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Remember that New York Times sob story we noted yesterday about the illegal enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay? Here's the last sentence in the Times article: "Hospital officials said that about 5 percent of the inmates were suffering from depression and that they were being treated with antidepressants, typically Zoloft."James' math may be somewhat off, but I have to admit I laughed. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 2:31 PM by Daniel
# Posted 12:42 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 11:48 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 7:49 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 12:54 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 12:27 AM by Patrick Belton
Want to read more? Good for you. See: BBC, testimony of Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Lorne Craner, Sen. Feinstein press release, and CFR report with recommended US actions. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Wednesday, June 18, 2003
# Posted 9:23 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
In short, Rattner argues that the poor are getting screwed and that the Bush tax cut will screw them even worse.
After reading Rattner's op-ed, I came across the following column in the NYT by poverty-fighter and Harvard sociologist William Julius Wilson. Based on the NYT summary of Wilson's column, I expected it to be identical Rattner's. According to the summary,
If the president's tax cuts cause huge budget deficits and further weaken the economy, we may again see the high levels of concentrated poverty recorded in 1990.After reading Wilson's column, I began to wonder if Jayson Blair had written the summary.
Consider the following facts Wilson presents:
The number of people residing in high-poverty neighborhoods decreased by 24 percent, or 2.5 million people, from 1990 to 2000. Moreover, the number of such neighborhoods — the study defined them as census tracts with at least 40 percent of residents below the poverty level — around the country declined by more than a quarter...While Wilson does get around to saying that the Bush tax cut may reverse the gains of the past decade if it results in massive defecits and slower economic growth, his final message is rather different:
The lesson for those committed to fighting inequality, especially those involved in multiracial coalition politics, is to pay more scrutiny to fiscal, monetary and trade policies that may have long-term consequences for the national and regional economies, as seen in future earnings, jobs and concentrated poverty. We must remember that high-poverty neighborhoods reflect America, all of America.As they used to say, a rising tide lifts all boats. Or is that just a pleasantly-worded justification for trickle-down economics?
While Wilson's arguments hardly justify the Bush tax cut -- to which I am still adamantly opposed -- they do suggest that poverty and inequality may have an inverse relationship to one another rather than a direct one. If economic growth (easier said than done) is the answer to poverty but also results in growing inequality, then what's wrong with inequality? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:46 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Thus, it is heartening to see that all of ASEAN's member states (Myanmar excepted) have chosen to make a public demand for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi.
But why act now? Given all the inhumane actions taken by the junta before, why speak out now? As Daniel Drezner shrewdly observes, the Western media tend to portray ASEAN's response as a reflection of American and EU pressure, whereas the Southeast Asian media are reporting that ASEAN's criticism reflects a principled commitment to the rule of law and quiet diplomacy. Moreover, the Southeast Asian's argue that vocal Western criticism will only provoke an even more militant response from the Myanmar junta.
While Dan isn't sure which of these versions is a better reflection of reality, my experience with ASEAN suggests that its members are, in fact, responding to Western criticism, but denying their susceptibility to pressure in order to avoid both setting a precedent or exposing their vulnerability.
Yet as is always the case with ASEAN, actions speak louder than words. The question is, how far will ASEAN go? Will it only do enough to placate the West? Or will it go as far as to threaten Myanmar with expulsion from ASEAN if it continues to embarrass the other member states?
The initial reluctance of even the Philippines and Thailand -- ASEAN's most democratic states -- to speak out suggests that their is no real interest in confronting Burma.
However, united front presented by the United States, the EU and (lately) Japan, may have persuaded ASEAN that it cannot have credibility as an international actor if it doesn't confront those issues that are of concern to the world's leading states.
In practice, that means that ASEAN's member states will have to start monitoring each other's internal affairs. Before ASEAN expanded in the mid-90s to include Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar, this sort of monitoring would not have been much of a problem. But now ASEAN will have to ask itself "What matters more? Quantity or quality?"
Whereas quality enhances ASEAN's presence on the international stage, quantity helps protect the ASEAN states from Chinese aggression. For the moment, the Chinese threat is dormant because of the war on terror. But if the Middle East calms down and the Taiwan Strait heats up, there will be a real test of ASEAN's commitment to human rights and the rule of law. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 2:33 PM by Patrick Belton
UPDATE: And we're off! Archidamus has a lengthy response to Rachel's Thucidydes-and-counterrorism post from Nathan Hale (Rachel's post incidentally merited an Instalink). And many more interesting foreign policy discussions out of the DC Yale community no doubt to come. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 2:05 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 12:29 PM by Patrick Belton
As Eliana points out, however, sleuthful, conspiracy-minded Professor Qumsiyeh sadly wasn't exactly as brilliant as he'd imagined,
Professor Qumsiyeh?s research was not quite as brilliant as he believed it to be; he had mistakenly copied the Yale Friends of Israel member list for comparison purposes rather than the member list of the Yale College Students for Democracy. He was therefore comparing two identical lists of members of the Yale Friends of Israel; not surprisingly, he found "significant overlap" between the two lists. And not surprisingly, Professor Qumsiyeh mistakenly named many students who were staunch opponents of the war in Iraq, and who were horrified at being identified as members of a pro-war cabal by dint of their affiliation with the Yale Friends of Israel.Putting aside, though, the mistaken empirical basis of his epistle, Eliana notes "The message bears an ugly subtext consistent with Professor Qumsiyeh?s fevered "Jews on the brain" mania." Such behavior has no place whatsoever at a largely principled, humane, idealistic center of learning, and Eliana is right to bring it to widespread attention.
UPDATE: Incidentally, I just discovered Eliana also runs a very nice blog, which just moved to a new Movable Type site. Well done! OxBlog is sending over a bottle of blogwarming champagne.
UPDATE^2: Egads, I just realized Eliana was one of the two freshmen students we mentioned way back here. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion