Tuesday, September 16, 2003
# Posted 9:26 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 9:19 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Four other members of the Governing Council have joined Chalabi in his demands, but the WaPo unfortunately provides almost no detail about their perspectives on the issue or possible motivations. The WaPo article does strongly suggest however, that the Governing Council is functioning in an unhealthy and undemocratic manner thanks to its members selflishness. Bottom line: If the US turns over sovereignty to the Council within a month as per the French demand, all hell will break loose.
By the way, Michael Ledeen still has a high opinion of Ahmed Chalabi and writes that the media has been ignoring his achievements:
[Chalabi is] actually president of the Governing Council this month and has already two major accomplishments. First, he got an economic package approved that includes direct foreign investment, a flat tax and low tariffs. Second, he seems to have worked out an arrangement between the Kurds and Turks that will permit some Turkish military/security involvement.I guess we now have to add Villepin to that list of admirers. Strange bedfellows, no?
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:04 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
UPDATE: Dan Drezner compares Burns' honesty to the hypocrisy of Christiane Amanpour. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:47 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
But the NYT op-ed is also very frustrating because it briefly notes that no reliable crime statistics are available, then goes on to imply that the sort of brutal crimes it describes are pervasive -- and that under Saddam things were much better. Admittedly, that seems to be the trend in most big media articles on Iraq. Still not good.
The article also hurts itself by including such perverse comments such as "A formerly first-world capital [Baghdad] has become a city where the women have largely vanished." Well, at they're indoors instead of being beaten and raped by Saddam's henchmen.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:23 PM by Patrick Belton
UPDATE: Ruel Gerecht has something similar to say in this week's Weekly Standard. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:19 AM by Patrick Belton
Monday, September 15, 2003
# Posted 10:25 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Dr. Faiq Amin Bakr, director of the Baghdad Central Morgue for the past 13 years, reels off the grim statistics that confirm to Iraqis that they have entered what they see as a terrifyingly lawless twilight zone: 462 people dead under suspicious circumstances or in automobile accidents in May, some 70 percent from gunshot wounds; 626 in June; 751 in July; 872 in August. By comparison, last year there were 237 deaths in July, one of the highest months, with just 21 from gunfire.Yes, the New York Times is actually trusting Saddam's coroner to provide it with accurate statistics about the number of "suspicious" deaths in Iraq. No wonder the same article -- a straight news piece, mind you -- informs us that
Iraqis, in general thrilled to be freed from the long, sinister rule of Saddam Hussein, had high expectations that the arrival of the Americans would utterly transform their lives.Well, if you let Saddam's coroner tell you how good life was under the old regime, it's going to be pretty damn hard to figure out why life under the American occupation might be just slightly better. Frikkin' idiots. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:15 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 9:53 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 9:43 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
The U.S. military issued an apology for the shooting and said an investigation had begun. However, military spokesman Lt. Col. George Krivo said the Americans only fired after they were "attacked from a truck by unknown forces."Frankly, that doesn't sound like much of an explanation. How does one get into a three-hour-long battle with one's allies? Presumably, at some point the enemy would no longer be "unknown". For that matter, why did the Iraqis keep firing back for 3 hours? If they were on the US side, why not surrender and clarify matters afterward?
One other factor to consider is that the engagement happened at night. (Once again, thanks to CM for the link.) Yet as the article points out, the Americans had night vision equipment. And the Iraqis seemed to understand quite clearly that they were fighting their friends. It just doesn't add up. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:21 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
I appreciate that it's not nice to be told you're part of a generation whose members exist to pad their resumes, but becoming more purely meritocratic has at least some disadvantages. There's really nothing to aspire to anymore, culturally or socially. Kids at better schools aren't social climbers anymore; and however distasteful it might have been when that sort of thing existed, at least there was a vision of a class to climb toward. Much better now to get your MBA than try to be a gentleman...My response: At least since Tocqueville, American conservatives have insisted that mediocrity is the price of equality. But I don't buy it. Is it an accident that meritocratic America is both the most powerful nation on earth as well as the home of its most brilliant scientific and scholarly minds? I don't think so. As for having something to aspire to, I'm more interested in bringing democracy to the Middle East than getting an invitation to the local country club. Besides, I've heard that they don't accept applications from Jews and blacks.
UPDATE: Greg Djerejian has more. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:09 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
In this instance, PS writes that
...the second claim you make is that realists have become essentially pacifists who don't want the US to use its 'massive firepower'. I think realism has always been quite cautious about the use of force, going back to Morgenthau's opposition to Vietnam. Defensive realists look back at world history and see that the use of force often leads to self-encirclement, balancing, and eventually defeat. The Second and Third Reichs and Napoleon are their key examples.My response to PT ran as follows:
Thanks for the comments, almost all of which I agree with. You're very right to point out that caution is an integral aspect of realism, one that I did not mention in my post but am well aware of. Yet rather than undermine my point, examining this caution demands that I broaden it.Finis. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:40 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 1:28 PM by Patrick Belton
Sunday, September 14, 2003
# Posted 11:47 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 11:44 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
While I'd say that Matt is focusing on some details that are less than significant, it is interesting that the networks weren't explicitly critical of Administration efforts to link Iraq and Al Qaeda. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:35 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 11:29 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
But I assure you that it is. Scroll down if you don't believe me. Anyhow, Kevin thinks that Paul Wolfowitz's sudden change of heart about the connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda was prepared well in advance.
I have to admit, I shrugged off Wolfowitz's correction of his intial statement figuring that it was a sign of honesty. After all, it isn't everyday that a Bush official admits making a mistake that big, no matter how glaring it is.
But Kevin's right: it looks bad. Even if I still tend to believe that Wolfowitz's mistake was an honest one, it is a powerful indication that what he wants to believe sometimes gets the better of what he knows to be true. We're all guilty of that, but only one of us is Undersecretary of Defense.
UPDATE: Why do I trust Wolfowitz? Because Cheney is so much worse. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:18 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 11:16 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 11:10 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 11:07 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
that more progress was being made in securing and rebuilding Iraq than had been emphasized in news reports, mentioning for example new parent-teacher groups at local schools.If Cheney or Rumsfeld said that, I probably wouldn't have posted it. Yet thanks to his role as the opposition within, Colin Powell has developed a stunning sort of credibility on almost every issue on the foreign policy agenda.
That doesn't mean the rest of the Cabinet listens to him. Rather, it makes Powell a compelling spokesman for the government whenever he does happen to agree with its policies. That's why his February presentation at the UN won over fence-sitters on both sides of the Atlantic.
As such, I expect that Powell's current criticism of the French for trying to impose a premature end to the occupation of Iraq will ensure that the United States stands its ground. Mind you, the French aren't all that likely to change their position. But the Bush Administration can now count on domestic opinion agreeing that the French proposal is a bad idea.
One illustration of that point is the NY Times' description of the French proposal as "unrealistic". In an otherwise blistering editorial, that is just about the only point the NYT concedes to the administration.
Ironically, the US may still rush the democratization process even if it isn't as reckless as France wants it to be. According to Paul Bremer, sovereignty might be restored by the middle of next year, by which time Iraq would already have held national elections and approved a new constitution.
To my mind, that still sounds extremely unrealistic. We waited four years to give the West Germans a truly autonomous government and six more to return official sovereignty. The Japanese held national elections after a much shorter interval, but their postwar governments had severely limited powers in the first few years after the war.
Of course, when it comes to democratization the final word doesn't belong to history. It belong to Tom Carothers. Whereas it may not be surprising to hear an idealistic hawk like myself advocate a longer occupation, Carothers is a pessimistic dove in addition to being the foremost expert on democracy promotion in the United States and perhaps the world. As Carothers put it back in April,
Elections should not be rushed. In societies riven by ethnic or religious divisions, and where experience with democracy is absent, early elections are often perceived as a winner-take-all process and can aggravate rather than resolve political conflict. The administration should nurture a period of growing pluralism and participation in which the contending Iraqi groups have time to learn to work with each other in new institutions rooted in compromise and openness. In difficult political transitions, national elections are often best put off for at least several years.Back then, pessimists like Tom were worried that Bush & Co. would rush the occupation, declare victory, pull out, and leave a mess behind. Now Bush is in it for the long haul and the French being reckless. Oh, the irony. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:35 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
The number of American troops in Iraq fell to 127,000 last week, down roughly 10 percent from a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, the Pentagon and L. Paul Bremer, the American administrator, envision Iraqi security forces totaling 186,000 by 2005. They already count 46,000 Iraqi police now on the job, heading toward a goal of 65,000 or 75,000. They want a new Iraqi Army of 40,000 (right now 1,000 are being trained) and 15,000 members of a civilian defense corps, though they acknowledge it could take five or six years to get there. They also want 3,700 border guards, twice the current number. And for every one of those Iraqis who step into the street or the desert, some American is supposed to be going home.There's a big story here that very few correspondents or policymakers are focusing. Just how good are these tens of thousands of Iraqi security officials? Are they competent? Corrupt?
These questions are tremendously important for two reasons. First of all, it's become clear in recent weeks that the shortage of American manpower is the most important constraint on American occupation policy. If Iraqi security officers can actually do their job, then the whole "Should we go to the UN?" and "Should we expand the Army?" debates will be unnecessary.
Second of all, the (apalling) quality of our allies is perhaps the most overlooked factor in explaining American setbacks in Third World conflicts. For example, what is the lesson of Vietnam? One side says that America cannot win immoral wars. The other says that it cannot win wars with one hand tied behind its back. Others say America can't win Third World conflcits if it it doesn't understand foreign soldiers. Still others say America underestimated Vietnamese nationalism.
To be fair, almost everyone recognizes that South Vietnamese forces were less than motivated and less than competent. But almost no one lists that as the primary cause of American failure. Mostly, I think because American generals avoided acknowledging that fact by relying on more and more American soldiers and American firepower. For one account of just how devastating South Vietnamese failures were, take a look at Neil Sheehan's A Bright Shining Lie, specifically his account of the battle of Ap Bac.
[NB: My office mate, who's about to get his Ph.D. in the history of the Vietnam war, says that Sheehan's book, like most of those about Vietnam, suffers from an excessive reliance on American sources. I'm more than willing to acknowledge that point, but don't think it bears on my argument directly.]
The issue of allied forces is also very much on my mind because of my own dissertation on Reagan and Central America. In Reagan's time, arguments about El Salvador were very similar to those once had about Vietnam. The Administration kept insisting that it couldn't win with one hand tied behind its back. Its opponents kept insisting that America could never win an immoral war in which it backed brutal military officers against popular guerillas.
But as I see it, the real problem was the incompetence and corruption of the Salvadoran military. While it's brutality cost it heavily in terms of popular support, its incompetence and corruption cost it far more on the battlefield. When it comes down to it, you can't win a civil war when your officers are getting rich by selling American weapons to the guerrillas. The parallels to Vietnam are disturbing.
That said, one of my main concerns about Iraq is the quality of indigenous security forces. In Vietnam and El Salvador, it may not have been possible to come up with better allies, especially because the US was dealing with entrenched regimes. But Iraq is different. The past weighs heavily on the present, but little would stand in the way of an aggressive effort to ensure the honesty and competence of the new police and military forces. Thus, the real question is whether American policymakers will show enough of an interest in such issues to prevent another disaster. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Saturday, September 13, 2003
# Posted 8:30 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Unlike today's top schools, which are often factories for producing Résumé Gods, the WASP prep schools were built to take the sons of privilege and toughen them into paragons of manly virtue. Rich boys were sent away from their families and shoved into a harsh environment that put tremendous emphasis on athletic competition, social competition and character building...As a product of "today's top schools", let me just say that Brooks has no idea what the #@$%& he is talking about. At both Yale and Oxford, I met countless young Americans with a fierce and principled commitment to making America a better nation, both at home and in its behavior abroad. These students spanned the political spectrum, left, right and center.
Moreover, America's top schools produce so many potential leaders precisely because they abandoned the cruel and unusual methods that Brooks seems to cherish. While still athletic and sociable, abandoning excessive competition in those fields has given today's students more time to focus on A) their studies and B) happy, fulfilling friendships and relationships. As a result, we now have students whose better adjustment to academic and social life gives them a stronger foundation on which to build their civic commitments. So don't worry, Mr. Brooks. When your generations runs out of momentum, ours will be ready to take the reins.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:03 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 6:27 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
...a good part of the media are essentially part of the machine. If you work for any Murdoch publication or network, or if you work for the Rev. Moon's empire, you're really not a journalist in the way that we used to think. You're basically just part of a propaganda machine.Whereas if you work alongside Howell Raines and Jayson Blair... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 6:07 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 3:30 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Friday, September 12, 2003
# Posted 8:44 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Even though regime change is not an option, Musharraf is so hated by his own people that if the US publicly disavowed his government, it might fall within a matter of months. Mind you, that is not just the opinion of an outsider, but one voiced by many of the Pakistani students I met at Oxford. While theirs is not the final word on Pakistani politics, it is not one I would lightly dismiss. If only the Bush Administration would listen...
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:23 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 8:20 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Today's war on terrorism has much in common with the war on Soviet expansion. It will only end when our enemies cease to be who they are. While negotiations on specific points may be possible with certain of our enemies (Iran comes to mind), we can not negotiate an end to the war on terror. By the same token, we were able to negotiate specific arms-control pacts with the Soviet Union but never an end to the Cold War.And so we still are. In my next post, I set the tone for the coming year by declaring my disappointment with the NYT and WaPo. I also had some very harsh words for President Bush, who marked the first anniversary of Sept. 11th with a NYT op-ed that came close to advocating an amoral sort of realpolitik that was almost Kissingerian in nature. Thankfully, the President seems to have learned a thing or two since then.
And I myself have learned a lot more than that. It has been absolute pleasure to be a part of OxBlog and I don't hesitate to say that I have learned just as much from contributing to OxBlog as I have from my academic research. I am deeply grateful to Josh for the opportunity to join OxBlog, and I owe many thanks to all those other bloggers and audience members who have inspired and challenged me with their original thoughts.
Here's to another great year! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:58 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 7:37 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
My one criticism of the article regards from its implicit message that the destruction of soldiers' personal lives is a pervasive and almost inevitable byproduct of service abroad. To be fair, civilians often underestimate the stress that military service places on one's personal life. Yet the Times' article gives no sense that such challenges can be overcome, sometimes producing stronger families in the long run.
If I were to take my critique one step further, I would speculate that the Times' description of dysfunctional veterans is drawn directly from the stereotype of Vietnam veterans as disturbed and violent loaners, often with unacknowledged mental health problems. Still, such a conclusion would be premature since this is one of the few recent stories on the subject.
On a related note, Phil Carter recommends this WaPo article on those soldiers whose tragic job it is to inform the families of the fallen that one of their loved ones has died. It is a powerful reminder once again that it is not only soldiers', but also their families, who give up so much for the good of their country. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:02 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Thursday, September 11, 2003
# Posted 5:50 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Greg also has some very intelligent comments up about the President's recent speech, especially his misuse of the term 'responsibility'. Finally, Greg recommends this excellent WaPo article on the cabinet infighting that persuaded President Bush to go back to the UN. The article ends on a rather interesting note:
"Rumsfeld lost credibility with the White House because he screwed up the postwar planning," said William Kristol, a conservative publisher with close ties to the administration. "For five months they let Rumsfeld have his way, and for five months Rumsfeld said everything's fine. He wanted to do the postwar with fewer troops than a lot of people advised, and it turned out to be a mistake."Amen. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:31 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 1:52 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
Even though my parents live in Manhattan and I have visited them often during the past two years, I resisted visiting Ground Zero until just a few weeks ago. I am a proud New Yorker and I simply did not want to come face to face with the living evidence that my proud city had been brought low.
Was this response an irrational but harmless defense mechanism? Or was it somehow a fundamental avoidance of the issues at stake in post-Sept. 11 America? I don't know.
What difference does not visiting the Towers' site make if I know that they have fallen? Is that sort of avoidance a measure of comfort that I deserve given the emotional cost of watching them fall? Or is it a self-destructive sort of repression that will prevent me from dealing with the issues and emotions that I will one day have to face?
What if the purpose of not visiting Ground Zero was to enforce on myself a certain level of humility? I never want to be the kind of person that says "You don't understand because you weren't there." I believe that we can share our experiences. I believe that September 11th was an attack on universal principles of freedom and tolerance.
By avoiding Ground Zero, was I avoiding the obvious challenge to my belief in the universality of such principles? Is it completely absurd to speak of universal principles when there are thousands of bodies under the rubble? After all, September 11th didn't make New York different. It made it the same as Beirut and Kinshasa and a thousand other places.
Toward the end of August, I met a friend for lunch in the financial district. Walking home afterwards, I found myself just one block away from Ground Zero. How could I not go?
Enough time had passed that I didn't expect anything dramatic to happen. I wouldn't be overcome with emotion. In fact, I don't think I would've been overcome with emotion if I had visited the site much earlier on. Still, I avoided it.
By now, Ground Zero doesn't seem like a hole. It is more of an oasis. A wide open space in downtown, but one you can't go inside of. It is a construction site. As a New Yorker, I've always loved construction sites. They are the best expression of the vitality of urban life. Of renewal.
When I was six years old, all of the students in my first grade class submitted posters to an I Love NY poster contest. I drew a construction site, with "I [Heart] NY" printed on the mast of a crane.
I am almost wish that nothing would be built at the World Trade Center site, that it would remain a construction site forever. I don't want a memorial. I don't want anyone to walk on that ground again.
I just want there to be a quiet place in downtown. A reminder that this city I love could have its heart ripped out of chest but still march onwards, stronger than ever before. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:13 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
Josh may harbor an antagonism towards the neo-cons that borders on the pathological, but because he really is interested in them, he often notices important things that other people don't.
Right now, the important thing is that neo-cons seem are very unsure of how to constructively criticize the Administration's laissez-faire attitude toward rebuilding Iraq. As Marshall notes, these attacks are coming from
the branch of neoconservatives who really take democratic imperialism seriously.Marshall clearly understands something that almost no one else (especially not Maureen Dowd) does: that neo-cons are extremely principled and ideological and that few top officials in this administration are neo-cons. You may not like the neo-cons principles or ideas, but they do have them and other conservatives don't.
So what happens when neo-con paladin George W. Bush begins to act like either a paleo-con or a rubber-spined realist? For a good answer, take a look at Kristol & Kagan's comprehensive essay on Iraq in last week's Standard. (Also see Kagan's WaPo column.)
What you see is that Kristol & Kagan are doing their best to insist that the President and his top advisors are unsure of how to implement the neo-cons' agenda, rather than confronting the possibility that Bush & Co. may not share that agenda at all. This gambit, of course, is a variation on the classic Republican game of capture-the-President, which conservative pundits wind up playing almost every time the GOP captures the White House.
What I can't figure out about Kristol & Kagan is whether they really believe that the White House shares their ideals, or whether they think that the only hope of changing the Administration is through friendly criticism. On the one hand, Bush's recent speech makes it hard not to believe that he is a true believer in the cause of democracy promotion. On the other hand, there has never been any indication that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice or Powell share the President's enthusiasm.
I guess this is all just leading me back to what I already said once today: that there is room in the center of the American political spectrum for a principled foreign policy that unifies left and right through reference to traditional American principles. Ah, pipe dreams. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:13 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
On this one, I think Josh Marshall is right. Why the hell would any of the governments we antagonized decide to pony up? Does the Bush Administration really expect all that much help? At what price? So I'm still thinking what I was yesterday morning:
What I want to know is whether the Bush Administration has suggested approaching the UN because it knows that it can work out a good deal, or whether its own deficient planning has resulted in the sort of confused and ad hoc decisionmaking that the Bush campaign once identified as the cause of Clinton's foreign policy troubles.I guess the only silver lining here is that the US can cover the financial costs of the occupation if we so choose. After all, there are plenty of tax cuts just waiting to be rescinded...
ALSO: Marshall is right that Donald Rumsfeld is a schmuck.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
# Posted 11:44 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 11:38 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
"In the cold war you could argue that American unilateralism had no cost," [U. Chicago] Professor [John] Mearsheimer continued. "But as we're finding out with regard to Iraq, Iran and North Korea, we need the Europeans and we need institutions like the U.N. The fact is that the United States can't run the world by itself, and the problem is, we've done a lot of damage in our relations with allies, and people are not terribly enthusiastic about helping us now."For the uninitiated, Mearsheimer must come off as just another member of the liberal academic establishment. But he is actually the foremost advocate of "offensive neo-realism" whose reputation rests on anti-multilateralist works such as "The False Promise of International Insitutions".
Mearsheimer is also famous for predicting back in 1991 that the end of the Cold War would lead the EU to fall apart, thus returning Europe to the balance of power politics of the prewar era. Oops.
In short, this is a huge "I told you so" moment for neo-liberal and constructivist scholars. What's interesting about this for non-academics is that it is a powerful indication of how even the most tough-minded and cynical academics, i.e. neo-realists, have transformed their theoretical principles into an argument against the use of force.
The foundation of neo-realism is the belief that we live an anarchic world where armed might is the decisive force in world politics. Yet these same neo-realists expect the United States not to deploy the massive firepower that it has.
To be fair, a tough-minded realist can argue that the invasion of Iraq was a waste of valuable firepower that might be better employed elsewhere. But that isn't what Mearsheimer is saying. He's actually talking about the positive worth of international institutions. And we're hearing the same from other prominent realists such as Stephen Walt and Bill Wohlforth. (Fareed Zakaria pretty much belongs on the list as well.)
Journalists often confuse neo-realists and neo-conservatives. I've seen Kagan & Kristol referred to as both. And this sort of confusion makes some sense, because neo-realists were far more likely to support tough American foreign policies during the Cold War (although some were noticeably liberal).
But now a divide has emerged. Neo-conservatives believe in the use of force to promote American values. That position has almost no defenders in the academy today. It is considered primitive and naive. And that is why the reconstruction of Iraq is so important. If a stable and democratic Iraq emerges from the current occupation, the foundations of the academic study of international politics will have been shaken.
If the rebuilding of Iraq fails, the lesson drawn will be that idealistic rhetoric is nothing more than a cover for the short-sighted and self-destructive policies. While simplistic, that may be the right lesson to draw. I am hardly persuaded that Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. have any broader strategic vision for the use of American power.
It is sad that there is no American political party that would have both waged war on Iraq and taken reconstruction seriously. I believe that the absence of such a party is more of a historical accident than a reflection of deeper currents in American political life. With proper leadership, a party espousing such an approach could demonstrate that the center-ground in American politics is not the home of abject compromise, but rather a vital and principled foundation for a unifying foreign policy derived from traditional American values. Someday. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:57 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 10:58 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 8:52 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 12:18 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
Tuesday, September 09, 2003
# Posted 11:54 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 11:37 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Leaving aside the partisan invective, Krugman's column basically says that it is embarrassingly irresponsible for the Bush Administration to push for massive tax cuts, run up a massive deficit and then ask for an $87 billion supplmental appropriation for Iraq.
In spite of its insufficient planning, the Administration should have known that the costs of war and reconstruction often outstrip pre-war estimates. I can't imagine that legislators on either side of the aisle would have objected if the Administration deferred its tax cuts pending the outcome of the situation in Iraq.
But that wasn't going to happen. This Administration has an ideological commitment to tax cuts and wasn't going to waste a golden opportunity to have them written into law.
So what now? Both George W. Bush and Karl Rove most certainly remember the damaging price that Bush 41 paid for breaking his promise of "no new taxes". They aren't going to admit they were wrong, although they may well limit their requests for further cuts.
As far as the nation's finances go, what's going to happen now is what happened under Reagan: the United States took advantage of its perfect credit rating in order to finance both tax cuts and military spending through increased debt. Thanks to spectacular economic growth in the 1990s, we never had to face the terrifying prospect of heading into a serious recession with a massive debt on our shoulders.
But there was one victim of Reagan's largesse: George Bush the Father. He had to break his "no new taxes" promise because there was simply no way for the government to go into further debt. That is a danger that the Bush the Son may have to face because of his current policies...in his second term. Thus if Bush the Son does have to reverse on tax cuts, then the Republican candidate in 2008 may be seriously damaged. The result? President Hillary.
UPDATE: CalPundit is also hitting Bush hard on the costs of the war/occupation. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:05 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 12:48 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
First of all, no one seems to agree on why the United States is (or should) ask for UN help in Iraq. As best as I can tell, the fundamental issue is that we simply don't have enough troops to man the occupation forces past next march. While there has been a lot of talk about training Iraqi police and paramilitary forces, I'm guessing that the Administration: A) Doesn't know if they'll be ready in time and/or B) Doesn't have all that much confidence that they will be effective once deployed.
According to Joe Biden,
"The costs are staggering, the number of troops are staggering, we're seeing continuing escalation of American casualties, and we need to turn to the U.N. for help, for a U.N.-sanctioned military operation that is under U.S. command."Lest one think that Biden is making a partisan point, one should note that John Warner (R-VA) has said that
"These casualties are beginning to unnerve Americans, and it concerns me...As I traveled through my state last month, people in very respectful tones came up to me and said, `John, we have to do something.' "In other words, Biden and Warner want the Security Council to draw up a new resolution so that other nations' citizens can die instead of our own. While it's good to know that Biden and Warner are looking out for their constituents, the parochialism of their viewpoint is disturbing. After all, what good is it for a Frenchman or a Belgian to die instead of an American?
The problem here, as Phil Carter so ably pointed out, is that Americans often confuse success with a low casualty rate. While every effort should be made to minimize casualties, our purpose in Iraq is to build democracy and stop terror. Will bringing in the French and Belgians accomplish that task? If you believe that a multilateral occupation is more likely to succed, then yes. But Biden, Warner and others like them don't seem to be willing to say that. Perhaps they simply assume it. Or, as I suspect, they are unwilling to confront powerful arguments against the efficacy of a multilateral nation-building effort.
The next big question which no one has answered is what kind of quid pro quo the UN will demand for its consent. Before the Bush Administration approached the UN, Kofi Annan held out the prospect of the US maintaining a leadership role while sharing "decisions and responsibility with others". But now the NYT is reporting that
several Security Council members, like France and Russia, have said repeatedly that they would not support a measure that allowed the United States to maintain full military and political control.Which brings us to the real question: What is it, exactly, that France and Russia want to change about the occupation? According to Dominique de Villepin,
"It is time to move resolutely into a logic of sovereignty for Iraq. A true change of approach is needed. We must end the ambiguity, transfer responsibilities and allow the Iraqis to play the role they deserve as soon as possible."You can't disagree with that. It sounds exactly like what Donald Rumsfeld has been saying about giving the people Iraq more responsibility for their future.
While my spider-sense indicates that the French have some other agenda, the fact may be that they don't expect much of a quid for their pro-quo because they just aren't going to give that much to the occupation in terms of either time or money. While the French military has drawn up plans for the dispatch of up to 10,000 troops, other officials are insisting that France is already overcommitted to other peacekeeping projects. Thus, the French may be satisfied with the already impressive public relations victory they have scored by having Bush come back to the UN.
But if the French won't send troops, who will? I doubt that too many other European hold-outs would reverse course because of a new UN resolution. The real manpower will have to come from India, Pakistan and Turkey. Now, the prospect of having Indian troops is a good one -- after all, they are from a democratic country with a pretty good human rights record. Turkey is democratic as well, but less so. And its shared border with Iraq means that the Turks may turn a blind eye to smuggling, etc. Pakistan? I don't even want to go there. As thanks for its help in Afghanistan, we're already putting up with an incompetent dictator who is holding up peace talks with India and probably letting his subordinates indulge their taste for jihad by harboring all sorts of Islamic radicals. That is, when they aren't busy sending nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea.
The last big question for tonight is whether turning to the UN is a good thing. In a surprisingly judicious editorial, the WSJ argues that it may be worth the public relations cost of looking foolish if a new resolution lets Indian or Turkish forces focus on peacekeeping while mobile and heavily-armed Americans hunt down Ba'athist insurgents. Provided, of course, that France and Russia really want to help Iraq govern itself, rather than just forcing a US withdrawal or establishing their own fiefdoms in Baghdad.
What do I think? I'm not sure. What I want to know is whether the Bush Administration has suggested approaching the UN because it knows that it can work out a good deal, or whether its own deficient planning has resulted in the sort of confused and ad hoc decisionmaking that the Bush campaign once identified as the cause of Clinton's foreign policy troubles. I can imagine Rumsfeld wanting to go to the UN because he is desperate for troops, Cheney going along because he wants someone else to his nation-building for him and Powell agreeing because he cares more about rebuilding trans-Atlantic relations than rebuilding Iraq. And who would disagree if Powell, Rumsfeld and Cheney are all on the same side? Wolfowitz?
That's where Bush's speech comes in. He sounded much more like a Wolfowitz than a Powell, a Cheney or a Rumsfeld. He really seems to think we can get things right in Iraq. But how does the UN fit into the President's plans? I just don't know.
UPDATE: In an impressive debut column, David Brooks suggests some answers. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Monday, September 08, 2003
# Posted 11:27 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 12:07 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
Sunday, September 07, 2003
# Posted 11:38 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
The speech was Mr. Bush's first extended address about Iraq since he declared an end to major combat operations in a May 1 speech. He was more triumphal then, asserting that "the United States and our allies have prevailed."Despite sounding like something out of The Nation, the quotation above is actually from a straight news piece in the NYT written by Elisabeth Bumiller. While I'm still not enough of a Times-watcher to differentiate all that effectively between its correspondents' individual biases, I've long considered Bumiller one of the most biased.
Of course, when it comes to outright ridiculousness, no one can match Howard Dean. While I may have been defending the man just over a week ago (and still stand by what I said), the good Doctor isn't going to score any OxBlog points by saying that Bush's speech is
"beginning to remind me of what was happening with Lyndon Johnson and Dick Nixon during the Vietnam War."So it looks like Dean has bought into the quagmire myth hook, line and sinker. His first comment demonstrates that he has very little ability to distinguish between "nation-building" in Vietnam and nation-building in Iraq. However, his second comment shows that he isn't exactly ready to go public with that view. Instead of actually commenting on the supposed failure of the occupation, Dean's responded with a non sequitur about Presidential deception. Yes, yes, we've all heard about the uranium. But tonight's speech wasn't about uranium. From context, it seems clear that Dean's initial use of the Vietnam analogy concerned the President's decision to commit ever more resources to a failing cause. But he didn't have the guts to follow up that line of criticism.
Now, you might ask, why do I invest so much effort criticizing a candidate whose foreign policy I already know I don't like? Because I still haven't made up my mind what I would do if it were Dean vs. Bush in November '04. It's a question Josh keeps putting to me: What incentive does Dean have to be responsible about national security if even the most security-minded Democrats (e.g. me)will vote for him on domestic grounds?
With comments like the ones he made tonight, Dean has come that much closer to persuading me that I just can't trust him on national security. I may not like Bush's instincts or truly, truly trust him. But it seems that Dean's instincts are even worse. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:54 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 10:44 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
In Iraq, we are helping the long-suffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society at the center of the Middle East. Together we are transforming a place of torture chambers and mass graves into a nation of laws and free institutions. This undertaking is difficult and costly - yet worthy of our country, and critical to our security.Naive as I am, I recognize that many of the President's critics will write off the above as empty rhetoric. In response, I have two things to say. First, there are striking differences between tonight's speech and the President's February remarks on the rebuilding of Iraq. Whereas in February the President said that Iraq and its people are "fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom", he has now made it clear that the United States will ensure that the people of Iraq fulfill their democratic potential. This is a major commitment of presidential credibility. It is no different than a campaign promise. The President and advisers know that if he does not live up to his word, he will pay a heavy price.
My second point about the President's speech also concerns credibility. While almost every American president has spoken eloquently about fighting for the democratic cause, few have done as much for democracy as they have said. Yet George Bush is keeping 130,000 US troops on the ground in Iraq, where they are working extremely hard to build a democratic state amidst the ruins of the Ba'athist dictatorship. Not since Harry Truman and Douglas MacArthur has the United States taken such dramatic action on behalf of the democratic cause.
Also surprisingly, the President explicitly committed himself to promoting democracy in Afghanistan, a country whose name he did not even mention in his February speech. While the President's actions re: Afghanistan have not been all that impressive up to this point, this kind of public commitment may begin to change that.
The question I am left asking myself now is "When will the disappointment come?" Proud as I am of the President for saying what he has said, part of me still suspects that he does not truly understand either what he is saying or the magnitude of it. This was the selfsame President who ran against nation-building as a candidate.
To be fair, it is not in the nature of Presidential speechmaking for the President to engage in the sort of introspective and confessional discourse that might convince listeners such as myself that he has recognized his previous errors rather than just chosen to forget them. Nor can the Presidently openly disavow the anti-nation building position of advisers such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and (possibly) Powell. The best one can hope for is an explicit and unequivocal commitment to doing that right thing. And George Bush has given us that. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:54 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Speaking of ornery, things aren't going well in the Middle East, with Mahmoud Abbas resigning and the unknown Ahmed Qurei ("widely seen as the only internationally credible alternative to Mr. Abbas" -- NYT) emerging as the front-runner in the race to replace him.
Also, thumbs up to Israel for avoiding civilian casualties by using fewer explosives in their effort to kill Hamas "spiritual leader" Sheik Ahmed Yassin. Yassin survived the attack thanks to the small size of the Israeli bomb. But I'm guessing that he won't be able to run far enough or fast enough to avoid the next attack, given that he's a paraplegic.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Thursday, September 04, 2003
# Posted 12:40 PM by Patrick Belton
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
# Posted 10:48 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 10:17 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 10:16 AM by Patrick Belton
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:08 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 12:13 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 12:08 AM by Patrick Belton
Monday, September 01, 2003
# Posted 10:43 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 6:24 PM by Patrick Belton
Bad news from Nepal.(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Sunday, August 31, 2003
# Posted 8:48 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
Saturday, August 30, 2003
# Posted 1:16 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
I actually thought "Birkenstock liberal" was a perfect term. In two words it brought forth a whole slew of connotations and describes perfectly a certain kind of person. I knew exactly what she was talking about.Yet as RO points out, Dean himself has rejected the phrase "Birkenstock liberal" as an unfair cliche that the media relies on to marginalize him. RO writes that
Howard Dean used the phrase "Birkenstock liberals" during the PortlandResponding from the right, the ever-insouciant EP observes that
Please inform your readers, that the NYT not withstanding, there are many people who wear Birkenstocks who are not only not liberal, but rabidly conservative. I am one such myself. Not only that, but I lived in Vermont, yes Vermont, for many years before coming to my senses and moving to Florida...[D]uring those many years, I wore these extremely comfortable shoes (the sandal variety -- easily the most telltale politically and even occasionally with rag socks) knowing full well that I was taken for one of 'them' even though I knew I was just funning them.At risk of setting myself for a "yo-mama" joke, I'll add that my own mother wears Birkenstocks and is a centrist Democrat who voted for Giuliani and against Bloomberg.
On a more serious note, Rabbi MB -- a supporter of Howard Dean -- writes that
I think you identified an important factor in what drives media bias and why even institutions that are typed as liberal are often damaging to liberal and progressive causes. To the jaded NYT, any one who claims to speak for the people or involve them in Democracy is playing the political game. The more earnest they are, the more they must be knocked down.In contrast, Kevin Drum [same e-mail] asks
You completely lost me with the Julius Caesar stuff. How did you draw all those conclusions from a simple paragraph saying that Dean's crowds were remarkably high this early in the campaign? The "elitist liberal intelligentsia distrusts the common man"? Isn't that a bit of a stretch from a fairly unexceptionable paragraph?Kevin is right to ask that sort of question. Wilgoren's article alone is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate an anti-populist bias in the mainstream media. I reacted so strongly because, in the course of my research, I have come into contact with a significant body of scholarship that assaults the mainstream "liberal" media for its anti-populist/anti-radical bias.
Thus, I was not deriving a conceptual framework from a single NYT article. Rather, I was applying a pre-existing conceptual framework to it. In that light, I think Wilgoren's word choices are extremely significant.
(For those interested in further reading, the classic work on this subject is Todd Gitlin's The Whole Word is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left)
Last but not least, a factual correction: Both Kevin Drum and VC -- an editor at a major metropolitan daily -- point that correspondents do not write the headlines for their own articles. As VC incisively observes,
One should not attribute a headline, bad or good, to the reporter who writes the story under the headline, since she almost certainly had nothing to do withPoint taken. That's all for now, but if you're looking for more, surf on over to the Sarcastic Southerner for more on Dean.
UPDATE: Aziz over at Dean2004 (the unofficial Dean blog) is glad to have a "righty" on his side. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:19 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Also, Michael Ledeen writes in that
Sometimes I think that there is a real death wish in the West, which simply will not look at our greatest enemy in the Middle East, namely Iran. Anyone looking at the devastation in Najaf, as at the UN hotel/office building in Baghdad, has to think automatically of Imad Mughniyah, the Iranian-created operational chieftain of Hizbollah.I know this is extremely serious, but doesn't that sort of banquet remind you of the opening scene in The Naked Gun, where Leslie Nielsen bursts in on a meeting of Qaddafi, Khomeini, Arafat and then rubs the birthmark off of Gorbachev's head? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:43 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
The death of Ayatollah Hakim is a major setback for American efforts to cultivate and cooperate with a moderate Shi'ite leadership. Perhaps the best one can hope for is that Hakim's martyrdom will enshrine his non-violent and pro-democratic approach to reconstruction as the reigning standard for Iraqi Shi'ites.
The prime suspects in the Najaf bombing are renegade Ba'thist forces. After the bombing, Najaf police officers arrested four men in connection with the bombing, all of them former members of Saddam's intelligence services. According to scholar-blogger Juan Cole,
this bombing was the work of Saddam loyalists. Baqir al-Hakim had waged a long terrorist and guerrilla war against the Baath. He cooperated with the Americans. When Saddam called on Shiite clergy to declare jihad on the US a couple of weeks ago, Baqir and others rejected the call forcefully and attacked Saddam as a tyrant. No believing Shiite would blow up a huge bomb right in front of Imam Ali's shrine. The truck bomb has become a signature of the remnants of the Baath, as with the attack on the United Nations HQ. The Saddam loyalists may hope that Shiite factions will blame one another and fall to fighting an internal civil war, adding to the country's ungovernability for the Americans.I myself am wondering whether the Ba'athist were hoping to provoke a Shi'ite-Sunni conflict rather than a Shi'ite civil war. After all, it is hard to imagine that Iraq's Shi'ite wouldn't unite in the face of an external attack. And this afternoon, a Shi'ite protest march made its way into a prominent Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad after a Shi'ite imam called for vengeance. Fortunately, there was no violence.
It is hard to know how the bombing will affect the relationship between Coalition forces and the people of Iraq. Matt Yglesias writes that
One thing the hawks are right about, is that Iraq is not another Vietnam and it's not going to be one in the future, either. On the one hand, the US has gotten much better at avoiding things like the slaughter of innocent villagers. On the other hand, our military opponents do things like blow up mosques that will almost certainly not endear them to the broad mass of Iraqis. But as I said before, each unhappy intervention is unhappy in its own way. The risk in Iraq is not that things like blowing up mosques is going to drive us out of the country. Rather, the risk is that mosques (and oil pipelines, and police stations, and UN buildings, etc.) are just going to keep getting blown up because the occupation authority is understaffed, underfunded, and led by a group of men in Washington DC who've evinced an utter inability to manage public policy. Infrastructure may continue to degrade and central authority may become utterly ineffective. Just like in the last country we invaded.Kevin Drum shares Matt's concerns about security, writing that
I wish we had a better idea of just how strong these remnants of the Baathist movement are these days. For all the talk about how we're making progress, they sure seem like they're still able to cause an awful lot of damage.I suspect that this will not be the last attack on a Shi'i holy site. As the NYT noted about the shrine in Najaf,
There were no American forces in the vicinity, as senior Najaf clergymen had made it clear they did not want troops patrolling anywhere near the holy site. A compromise proposal to train a 300-member local police force has been awaiting financing, a Marine officer said.As was the case with the UN bombing, it seems that Ba'athist insurgents have become adept at locating high-profile targets that are not protected by American forces. Perhaps that is an indication that the Ba'athists no longer believe they can achieve significant success against Americans, with success defined as inflicting more than a handful of casualties at once.
Of course, the security of American forces will provide little comfort to vulnerable Shi'ites. In the aftermath of the bombing, it became apparent that some Shi'ites held the United States responsible for the lack of security. Thus, the challenge ahead is for the occupation government to forge an agreement with Shi'ite leaders that can ensure the security of their gathering places without relying on either an intrusive American presence or an independent Shi'ite military force.
Will that happen? According to an NYT news analysis, today's bombing exposed a disappointing lack of leadership ability on the part of both the occupation government and the Iraqi interim council. The article makes a strong case that a stalemate has resulted from both the Americans insisting that the Iraqis become more assertive while the Iraqis counter that the Americans haven't given them enough power.
Regardless, I think this bombing demonstrates the need for greater Presidential leadership on Iraq. It is time for President Bush to deliver a simple and powerful message to the people of Iraq: "We share your desire for an end to the occupation and the return of self-government. The faster that you demonstrate your commitment to democratic ideals and institutions, the sooner our day of departure will come. The harder you work to fulfill Ayatollah Hakim's vision of an Islamic democracy, the sooner you will be able to honor his memory through the establishment of a free Iraq. God bless and good night." (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Friday, August 29, 2003
# Posted 9:58 PM by Dan
One line with which I disagree: "It may well be that Israel's interests coincide with those of the United States for the moment, but this should not be a given, never to be examined or reassessed." America continually examines and reassesses its relationship with Israel, but in the broadest sense, there are certain parameters beyond which no President will go. AIPAC's reorganization and increased national power in the past 25 years as well as the cultural bond/value affinity argument helps explain these limits. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:36 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 3:37 AM by Patrick Belton
To wit: Thomas Donnelly has a very good piece on long-term strategies for Iraqi democratization being laid down in the UK MoD. Donnelly's praise for the MoD is effusive and, it seems, justified: while the Office of the Secretary's comparable report omits "not only broader strategic questions but operational and tactical issues that might raise awkward questions about the Bush administration's planned defense program," the UK effort "represents one of those rare occasions when a government grades itself with some rigor." The special relationship, it would seem, is alive and well.
Also worth reading is a piece by Michael Novak in which he points out the lengths the press has undertaken to exaggerate U.S. casualties in Iraq: "In the 118 days between May 1 and August 26, there were 63 American battlefield deaths in Iraq. About two weeks ago, the left-wing press recognized that this did not sound as dramatic as they wished. So they started totaling all military deaths in Iraq, including those from accidents, which happen in military life every day, everywhere. This brought the total up by another 78. They're more comfortable with that total number, 141. But the true battlefield number is 63. ... In the first stage of the war, from March 19 until April 30, 112 Americans died in combat, and 29 in various accidents. In those first 42 days, that meant almost 3 combat deaths per day. In the 118 days since then, there has been about one combat death every other day--63 in 118 days. (The accidental deaths have been fairly consistent: 29 in 42 days early on, and after May 1, 78 in 118 days.)" The challenge for responsible, national-security minded Democratic contenders is to offer helpful suggestions, and yes, criticisms about the U.S.'s commitment of time and money to making Iraq a pivotal functioning democracy for the region and validating America's status as a principled foreign policy actor - this, of course, instead of seizing on (even exaggerating) each suggested mis-step of U.S. policy simply to attack a President with every criticism with which the left would take pleasure in seeing him attacked. Responsibility, idealistic patriotism, and a commitment to seeing politics stop at the water's edge were a trademark of both parties for the vast majority of the Cold War...and they should be once again. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Thursday, August 28, 2003
# Posted 4:05 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
The correspondent in this instance is Jodi Wilgoren, the very same one who did her best some months back to whitewash the terrorist murders committed by David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin. So, one might ask, why would the same correspondent who defends the Weather Underground give Howard Dean a hard time?
As far as I can tell, Wilgoren is following one of the unwritten rules of the trade: romanticize Vietnam-era leftism as much as you want, but don't make nice with the aggressive leftists of today. After all, they might provoke a conservative reaction that threatens low-key mainstream leftists like the ones who work on 44th Street.
Up front, Wilgoren is pretty good to Dean, giving him a favorable headline that reads "In a Long Presidential Race, Dean Sprints". Positive as it is, the headline is accurate because Dean really is campaigning a lot harder than his opponents.
The first hint of of what's going comes in the second graf, where Wilgoren describes Dean's supporters as "rabid". As if being excited about Dean were some sort of violent pathology. While I think the Doctor's supporters are often misguided, such comments belong on the editorial page, or at least in a news analysis column.
Later on, Wilgoren informs us that "the feisty crowds were filled with Birkenstock liberals whose loudest ovations always followed Dr. Dean's anti-war riff -- there were few union members, African-Americans or immigrants." There is a lot of substance in that sentence, but it's hard not to notice a ridiculous phrase like "Birkenstock liberals" that belongs on the pages of the National Review.
While most of us are aware of the vague correlation between footwear and political preferences, invoking this sort of stereotype in the news is both counterproductive and misleading. As best as I can tell, "Birkenstock liberals" refers to those liberals who are not black, not union, and not immigrants. Does it refer, then, to middle-class white liberals? Young liberals?
Perhaps all this guesswork isn't worth the time, since the term "Birkenstock" might just have been thrown in to provide some color. Yet at the same time, it carries the sample sort of implication as the term "rabid" -- that Dean's supporters are outside the mainstream, so caught up in their idiosyncratic lifestyle that their views aren't worth taking seriously.
First of all, is that really the case? I doubt it. My sense is that Dean's campaign -- and especially his fund-raising -- isn't getting its momentum from granola-crunching Berkeley undergrads. As far as I can tell, there is a sizable portion of the American public that was firmly anti-war and is forcefully anti-Bush. They have to be taken seriously.
In another telling passage from the article, we hear that
"He's not running a campaign, he's running a movement," [according to] Natasha C., one of four people the Dean campaign invited to chronicle the trip on their Web logs. "These are protest-size crowds, these are not politics-size crowds, and that's the critical difference."Holy unwarranted editorializing Batman! I may not like what Dean is for, but you've got to pretty thick not to recognize that his supporters have a socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and Jimmy Carter-emulating agenda. But why the cheapshot if most NYT correspondents like that kind of agenda?
Because the elitist liberal intelligentsia distrusts the common man, even when he is on their side. Toward the beginning of the article, Wilgoren writes that
The staggering, seemingly spontaneous crowds turning up to meet [Dean] — about 10,000 in Seattle on Sunday and a similar number in Bryant Park in Manhattan last night — are unheard of in the days of the race when most candidates concentrate on the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire and would seem formidable even in October 2004.Not just unheard of, but unwelcome. Taking their cues from Julius Caesar, correspondents fear that the latest incarnation of Marc Antony will turn the mob to his own ends. Howard Dean one day, Rush Limbaugh the next.
Strangely, this is one issue on which the academicians are far ahead of the correspondents. Beginning in the late 1980s, a veritable flood of books and articles began to demonstrate that the American public is actually a moderating force, drawing politicians back from the ends of the ideological spectrum. Even on foreign policy, which scholars long considered the issue area in which the public makes the worst choices, it became clear that American voters recognized that they wanted something to the right of Jimmy Carter and the left of Ronald Reagan. (Click here to read more about the Rational Public.)
In short, it's time for the Times to get with the times. It may be true that
the people buying the "Doctor is in" buttons [at Dean's rallies] were mostly aging flower children and the tongue-studded next generation.But that sort of provocative details shouldn't pass for serious political reporting. In all fairness, there is a lot of interesting information in Jodi Wilgoren's article, much of it not reprinted here. But at just those moments when Wilgoren needs to provide more depth to her initial observations, she wanders off course and provides us instead with substandard cliches.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion