# Posted 11:21 PM by David Adesnik  

A LENINIST AT THE NYT? In a subtle allusion to the writings of Lenin, Brad DeLong charges NYT debutante Barbara Ehrenreich with practicing a "brand of left-wing politics [that] is an infantile disorder".

Pray tell, what has Ms. Ehrenreich done to deserve this denunciation from a fellow traveler? According to Brad,

Left-wing politics is, for [Ehrenreich], primarily a means of self-expression. The point is not to actually do anything to make the United States or the world a better place..

The point, by contrast, is to assume an appropriate oppositional stance, and to feel good about oneself. Witness her argument that what upper and upper-middle class American women should do is to fire their nannies in order to avoid their children "growing up with the world's class and racial hierarchies stamped on their emerging little world views"--thus depriving relatively poor women of jobs and opportunities they found it worthwhile to grasp.

Hmmm. A female columnist who complains ad nauseam but never comes up with practical solutions? I can't believe the NYT would ever want one of those on its op-ed page!

But moving on, Brad also points to the irresponsibility of Ehrenreich's anti-Gore activism during the 2000 campaign. As she wrote in The Nation:

We are being summoned to save this inveterate bribe-taker [Gore --ed.] because "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." That in itself is a disturbingly Orwellian proposition, easily generalized to "Don't challenge the system, you'll only make it worse."

In spite of all this, Kevin Drum tries to rescue Ehrenreich by explaining that

In politics both policy and persuasion are necessary. Brad has policy in abundance, but Ehrenreich would probably think it bloodless and, in the long run, ineffective, because it does not change people's minds. Likewise, Ehrenreich has polemics and persuasion in abundance, but without good policy this simply produces a mess.

But does Ehrenreich, or Maureen Dowd or Michael Moore really change minds? I don't think so. Just like Rush Limbaugh, they mostly throw red meat to the faithful. There is something to be said for mobilizing the base, but these folks only cater to the extreme half of their partisan base.

As for the NYT, would hiring a Naderite really add much diversity to their op-ed page?

UPDATE: Matt Yglesias offers a non-apology on Ehrenreich's behalf which Brad declines to accept.

On a related note, Henry Farrell takes issue with Brad's allusion to Lenin. While "infantile" is a harsh word, I think that Brad gets the historical analogy just right. Lenin used that word to denounce left-wing Communists whose radicalism threatend to undermine mainstream Communism and ensure the triumph of its class enemies. Brad is using it to attack Naderites who delivered the 2000 election into the hands of George Bush.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:36 PM by Patrick Belton  

OXBLOG ON CNN: It's the same AP story, but nice to be popping up there nonetheless! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:11 PM by Patrick Belton  

THEY CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP: That is, the bishop's response in the second graf...

Cache of child porn found at seminary
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- A vast cache of child pornography and photos of young priests having sex has been discovered at a Roman Catholic seminary, officials said Monday, leading politicians and church leaders to demand a criminal probe and the resignation of the bishop in charge.

Bishop Kurt Krenn, who oversees the diocese, refused to step down, however, dismissing the images as a "childish prank."
...
As many as 40,000 photos and an undisclosed number of films, including child pornography, were found.

ed: Pretty massive prank, if you ask me. But it wasn't the child pornography that the bishops were concerned about...

The Austrian Bishops Conference issued a statement pledging a full and swift internal investigation. "Anything that has to do with the practice of homosexuality or pornography has no place at a seminary for priests," it said.

Krenn, a conservative churchman, told Austrian television he had seen photos of seminary leaders in sexual situations with students, but he described the images as part of an elaborate prank that "had nothing to do with homosexuality."

It was straight child porn, people, straight child porn....nothing to worry about here.... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:27 PM by Patrick Belton  

ANYONE WHO'S EXTRAORDINARILY BORED can read my encyclopedia of politics articles on Nietzsche and Hume, and let me know if you have any suggestions.... (This, incidentally, is for the same guy who read my thesis chapter.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:25 AM by Patrick Belton  

THIS CONVERSATION seems to me to be rather silly. The question is whether elections ought to be postponed in the event of a terrorist attack. Constitutionally, this is probably allowable, as long as it is done (or expressly delegated) by Congress, and with a key role being played by state legislatures: it falls under Congress's competency under Article II, Section 1 to set a single national date for the meeting of presidential electors for the electoral college's election of the president, currently codified at 3 U.S.C. 7. The method and timing of the electors' selection rests solidly in the hands of the state legislatures, under Article II, which gives them complete power to determine how the electors are to be selected (including whether even to hold a popular election at all, which is a matter for the state constitution to work out). But it falls under Congress's powers to determine when the electoral college must meet, and so it could theoretically postpone the meeting of the electoral college, giving states the ability, if they so chose, to move their elections back as well. (Compare this with the case of the timing of congressional elections, which under Article I, Section 5, Congress can move entirely under its own discretion - the Constitution grants Congress the power to set the dates of popular elections to the House, which the 17th Amendment extends to the Senate as well). Congress couldn't extend the term of the president past four years (article II), but it could, by moving the date of the convening of the electoral college, give the states the opportunity to postpone the election of their presidential electors - consonant with the 20th amendment fixing the term of the president as lapsing January 20, after which point under current legislation the Speaker succeeds to the empty presidency if a president-elect or vice president-elect has not been selected.

But the more pertinent question, it seems, is political - which in turn ought to be read against the context of American political history. The presidential election of 1864 was held at the ordinary time, in spite of the existence of a civil war threatening the very continued existence of the polity, at least in an unfractured form. By analogy, elections under the shadow of a terrorist attack probably ought to be held at the ordinary time as well.

This issue shouldn't be read together excessively with continuity of government and doomsday planning, but there are also useful analogies, I think, to be drawn from the very conservative principles which have guided government continuity planning. In this, the US is distinct from Britain in that the constitutional forms of the government - the cabinet, both chambers of Congress, the Supreme Court, the executive agencies- are all to be preserved intact, underground if need be, in the event of an utter armageddon. By contrast, the Commons, in its doomdsay scenario, has legislation ready for emergency use to dissolve itself and relegate all executive power to civil defence commissioners in eleven districts throughout Britain, who will be expected to relinquish emergency command to the national government as soon as possible after the catastrophe. Other measures are in place to ensure the survival of the Government - but not their families- and the Royal Family.

The only area where current US constitutional arrangements are silent, and possibly lacking, is how the Congress is to be reconvened should large numbers of its members be killed or incapacitated. Under the House's interpretation of its quorum rules, a majority of living members may meet to constitute the House. This interpretation is fine as long as the surviving members of Congress are ambulatory, but it doesn't permit the House to meet - even to amend its quorum rules - if, say, a majority of members are living but incapacitated - although there may possibly be room for exercise of speaker's discretion. Reconstitution of the Senate may be immediate, with governors being permitted under the seventeenth amendment to fill vacancies by temporary appointment, but the House, as the people's body, may only be constituted by direct election. Where constitutional ambuity might lie is, among other issues, the selection of the Speaker by an indeterminately constituted or unconvenable House, who might well be called upon to immediately succeed to the presidency. CRS has a report on this and related questions, as does Brookings.

But these latter issues involve catastrophic, nationwide devastation of an order principally contemplated during the darkest days of the Cold War, and the discussion of even these doomsday issues has been marked by careful, salutary regard for the continuity of the constitutional forms . It seems to me that the appropriate political response to a grave terrorist attack which did not challenge the territorial or economic viability of the United States should be guided by similar, principally conservative, concerns - to make as little change as possible due to the attacks in the political life of the republic. Josh? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:57 AM by David Adesnik  

IRAQ BODY COUNT: Bob Herbert mentions in passing, without reference to his source, that 10,000 civilians have died in Iraq since the US invasion began. To the best of my knowledge, the US military still refuses to investigate the issues, thus opening up the field of play to much less reputable institutions.

One of those less reputable institutions is Iraq Body Count, which currently reports that between eleven and thirteen thousand civlians have died in Iraq. That name may ring a bell, since Josh took a careful look at IBC's flawed methodology shortly after the fall of Baghdad. At the time, IBC had calculated that 1,800 civilians had been killed during the invasion.

According to Human Rights Watch, there is no reliable count of how many civilians have lost their lives during the invasion and the occupation. So, has IBC done anything to improve the situation?

Well, one interesting feature on its site is a list, by name, of 700 civlians killed in Iraq. Next to each name is the individual's age, sex, place of and time of death, cause of death, and source of information about their death.

The fourth entry in the IBC lists refers to the "family of Metaq Ali", 29 of whom died as a result of a US air force attack. Thanks to Google, I was able to track down the wire report that provided IBC with the information about their deaths. It lists none of the 29 names of Ms. Ali's family members. Moreover, there is no verification of their deaths other than Ms. Ali's testimony.

While I am inclined to believe that Ms. Ali is telling the truth, I don't see how a responsible civilian casualty monitoring organization can rely on a single account provided by a witness it never interviewed. Moreover, it takes a lot of chutzpah for IBC to pretend that it knows the names of the 29 individuals allegedy killed by the American attack.

Scrolling further down the list, one notices that it often lists the cause of death as simply 'gunfire'. At first, I assumed that 'gunfire' meant Coalition gunfire, since the title at the beginning of the list says "Named and Identified Persons Killed as Result of Military Intervention in Iraq". But scrolling down a little further, I noticed that it includes more than 90 entries for individuals killed by a massive suicide attack on the offices of two Kurdish political parties this past February.

In other words, IBC is counting Iraqis killed by terrorists attacks -- this one possibly committed by Al Qaeda -- as victims of American intervention. In some abtract sense, this is true. If there had been no American invasion, it is highly unlikely that terrorists would have killed those specific individuals. On the other hand, if there had been no American invasion, it is absolutely certain that Saddam would've killed thousands of other innocent men, women and children.

Even so, it still worth asking whether IBC's own guidelines recommend including the victims of terrorist attacks, or whether the inclusion of the February attack in Kurdistan was a mistake. Answer: I'm not sure. According to IBC's published guidelines,

The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization). We agree that deaths from any deliberate source are an equal outrage, but in this project we want to only record those deaths to which we can unambiguously hold our own leaders to account. In short, we record all civilians deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq.

The decision to include deaths resulting from "'collateral damage' by either side" (emphasis added) suggests that the victims of terrorist attacks should be included. On the other hand, 'collateral damage' usually refers to civilians accidentally killed during military operations, not civilians intentionally killed in order to provoke widespread fear. Moreover, IBC's desire to record only those deaths for which one can "unambiguously hold our own leaders to account" forces one to ask how the victims of terrorist bombings can possibly be included in this total.

Now let's turn to the main IBC database where the incidents responsible for the 10,000+ civilian casualties are included. At the top of the list, there is note which says

In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.

Even though I am not familiar with the Geneva and Hague regulations, I'm guessing that suicide bombings are not something that the Occupying Authority can be expected to prevent. Even so, that is the description that IBC itself gives to incidents 'k223' and 'k224'. I'm also pretty sure that incident 'x340', in which two kidnapped Iraqis had their throats slashed, was not the responsibility of occupation forces.

However, the prize for total absurdity goes to entry 'x344' which includes upwards of 1600 deaths described as "violent deaths recorded at the Baghdad city morgue". For details about the morgue reports, see this AP report, cited by IBC. To be fair, IBC notes (see above) the Occupying Authority is responsible for maintaining law and order. Still, what IBC is basically doing is holding the US responsible for street crime.

Before finishing this extra-long post, I think it's worth asking whether anyone takes IBC's numbers seriously. Well, one quick answer to that question comes from IBC's own news clippings site. The sad news is that Newsweek, the Christian Science Monitor, the Financial Times, Reuters, and the BBC. On a personal note, I am particularly concerned about Linda Colley, a very talented professor of mine at Yale, who took the IBC figures at face value in a column in The Guardian. (Although I guess it's possible that there are two British Linda Colleys.)

But, hey, who expected from better from our less-than-unbiased media? As Josh pointed out last year, major media outlets were already swallowing the IBC propaganda hook, line and sinker. Plus ca change... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:50 AM by David Adesnik  

YOU CAN'T HAVE DEMOCRACY IF IT ISN'T SAFE TO VOTE: There's trouble brewing in Afghanistan. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:27 AM by David Adesnik  

WaPo IMITATES BELTON: You be the judge of whether the Post is getting its editorial ideas from Patrick. On the bright side, Patrick did make a pretty important point, so I'm glad it's getting a wider audience. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:19 AM by Daniel  

So much fun, I watched it twice. Turn up the volume and enjoy. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:59 PM by Patrick Belton  

FAR BE IT FROM ME to provide a counterexample to my good friend Josh, but Rachel and I have actually been reading the online text of the Odyssey to each other each night lately as bedtime reading.... I treasure as much as anyone the aesthetic experience of a beautifully made book, particularly one obtained in a second-hand book shop and having the smell and craftsmanship of decades woven into its spine - but there's also an extraordinary convenience to being able to call on the contents of Project Gutenberg or the entire Harvard Six Foot Shelf for your bedtime or breakfast reading, without so much as a trip to the library... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:09 AM by Patrick Belton  

CAMPAIGN TRAIL QUOTE OF THE DAY: 'He has an accent and I don't,' Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards, when asked to identify differences between himself and nominee presumptive John Kerry (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:07 AM by Patrick Belton  

NATHAN HALER AND OXFRIEND GREG BEHRMAN has an important and timely piece on AIDS in this morning's International Herald Tribune:

AIDS threatens global security: A subversive plague
By Greg Behrman

On Sunday, epidemiologists, scientists, public health experts and leaders of nongovernmental organizations will convene in Bangkok for the 15th International AIDS Conference. They will debate the costs and the prevention strategies; they will report on progress in the science. Yet one of the most important dimensions of this pandemic will be almost entirely overlooked: that it is fast becoming one of the greatest threats to U.S. and global security.

In the past 20 years, approximately 60 million people have been infected with HIV; 20 million have died. Eight thousand people - nearly three times 9/11's death toll - die of AIDS every day. By 2010, experts predict 100 million infections worldwide and 25 million AIDS orphans.

AIDS has taken its greatest toll in sub-Saharan Africa, and it is there that the pandemic presents the most immediate threat to global security. AIDS is killing the most productive and needed people: doctors, government officials, teachers. The disease is not only devastating families and communities; it is eviscerating national economies.

All seven southern African countries have adult infection rates above 17 percent, and in two it is 35 percent. Some employers train two or three workers for every job, such are the chances that a worker will become infected and die. Some African armies are believed to have infection rates as high as 50 percent.

The implications for global security are profound. AIDS can reverse the strides many African countries have made toward democratization. Warlords, corrupt dictators and rogue leaders might seize power in weakened states. Lawlessness and disorder can breed violence and conflict.

By 2010, 25 percent of U.S. oil imports are expected to come from Africa, so the United States will be increasingly drawn in to participate in combat and peacekeeping missions there.

In 2002, the White House National Security Strategy declared that for the first time, weak states pose a greater danger to U.S. national security than strong states. What is making states weak today? In sub-Saharan Africa, it is AIDS.

Somalia, Sudan and Kenya have already provided harbor for terrorists. As the disease tears the sub-continent's states apart, terrorists will find more refuge in the rubble. Though there are more Muslims in Africa than in the entire Middle East, Islamic radicalism is still the exception rather than the rule. But the instability and suffering that AIDS is spreading through the continent might well feed radicalism.

Across Europe and Asia, the pandemic's next wave poses longer-term challenges to security. The peril is greatest in Russia, where AIDS is growing faster than anywhere in the world. There are roughly 1 million infections in Russia, and the number is expected to climb to 5 to 8 million by 2010 - a level at which AIDS could generate instability. To Russia's south, India will soon become the country with the highest absolute number of infections in the world. Its HIV-infection tally now stands at around 5 million, and by 2010 that number may reach 20-25 million.

In many ways, India is Africa five to 10 years ago. With large numbers of migrant laborers, widespread prostitution, a flimsy health infrastructure and a mind-boggling state of denial among government elites, AIDS is poised to leap to Africa-like proportions. This in the world's largest democracy, a nuclear power and a key U.S. strategic ally in a volatile region.

Secretary of State Colin Powell recently declared that HIV/AIDS is "the greatest weapon of mass destruction on the Earth." Yet the global community has not met AIDS with the resources, priority and urgency that the gravity of the threat requires. AIDS is the greatest moral crisis of our time, and it is a vital threat to U.S. and global security.

Greg's recent book, which really is a must-read, is The Invisible People: How the U.S. Has Slept Through the Global AIDS Pandemic, The Greatest Humanitarian Crisis of Our Time. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:29 AM by Patrick Belton  

A FEW FIRST THOUGHTS ON THE CONVENTION OF THE BLOG: I'm excited that we'll have a role in covering the convention as a representative of the new media, and blogs in particular. The 2004 conventions will be remembered as the conventions of the blog; just like the 1952 Republican convention was the convention of the television, and the 1924 conventions were the conventions of the radio. Each symbolised the rise of a new technology to mediate between the political space of the public square and the personal, domestic space in people's living rooms, bedrooms, and kitchen counters. (We started OxBlog in April 2002; Glenn Reynolds began InstaPundit in August 2001, and the rush of widely read politics blogs followed then in his wake.)

Each of those forms of communication represented, and recreated, political events differently. What's different about blogs is the restoration of the human voice behind them, more in line with the Victorian newspaper, or Bagehot in today's Economist, but quite different from both the 'we' of today's editorial page and the unindividuated speech on page one. Today's newspapers reflect a positivist philosophy of knowledge of the 1950s and Karl Popper, when they attained their present form - each draws one authoritative representation of each political event. The blogosphere reflects the epistemology of the moment, Jürgen Habermas's intersubjectivity, where many individuals speak with each other and compare their different representations of the political event. I think the blogosphere fits in the same social moment as the new economy - it's decentralised, younger, quickly adaptable, and better describable by chaos theories of spontaneous order, than Weber's models of bureaucracy, which correspond to the career foreign correspondent services of the print newspapers.

Blogs are personal - there's a human voice behind them; you write as an humble 'i,' not as the powerful editorial 'we'. You engage in running, for the most part respectful conversations with other bloggers to your right and left, which might well be our day's running conversation of the republic. As a technology for representing politics and mediating between public and domestic space, blogs don't share the passivity of television, or the unspoken biases of print journalism, and because of these running conversations with other blogs - which as a blogger keep you honest, and continually questioning and reframing your assumptions. Something about blogging also forces you to be humble, because you write as an 'i' instead of as 'we', and you relate to people you cover as individuals, which induces respect and humility.

More importantly, though, all this pretentious babbling about German philosophers aside, I'm looking forward awfully much to meeting the other bloggers who will be there. Wonkette writes in that 'if we're lucky' she'll even join us for bloggers drinks. And I think it'll be fascinating to use blogging the convention as a way of getting around the televised spectacle which conventions have become, and looking for the relics of real politics that still exist there - through talking with and interviewing representatives of different factions and groups within the party, to see what's new in their orbits, what trends they think are important, and how the world looks from where they sit, as well as getting to talk to delegates from different parts of the country where I don't get to travel all that often. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:11 AM by David Adesnik  

JUST IN CASE AL & TIPPER WEREN'T ENOUGH: The Dems are still the party of love in 2004. The Washington Times isn't happy about it, but OxBlog loves love! (Link via Pandagon)

UPDATE: And there's more love where that came from. (Hat tip: Bo Cowgill.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:41 AM by David Adesnik  

I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THEY HAD COWS: The North Korean state-run media recently reported that Dear Leader Kim Jong Il gave his personal seal of approval to the hamburger. The Dear Leader was also quoted as saying that

"I've made up my mind to feed quality bread and french fries to university students, professors and researchers even if we are in (economic) hardship."

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if Kim has his own personal McDonalds hidden away somewhere along with his DVD collection and Courvoisier. (Hat tip: TMV) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:00 AM by David Adesnik  

AMERICA HUMBLED, PART II: RECONSTRUCTION WITH A CAPITAL 'R'. Yesterday, I suggested that Hollywood's perceptions of Japan in the 1980s can teach us an important lesson about US-Iraqi relations. Today, I explore how that great fable of the Reconstruction, Gone With the Wind, can broaden our perspective on the reconstruction of Iraq.

But first, a confession: I am completely ignorant of the extensive literature, both popular and academic, generated by Gone With the Wind. I come to the film with fresh eyes, except for the fact that I am still in possession of a Gone With the Wind refrigerator magnet that once belonged to a very sweet and very pretty girl whom I dated for just a short time in college. Much like Scarlett O'Hara, she was a very smart girl who was much tougher than she looked.

Of course, one shouldn't romanticize the past. Accustomed to Hollywood's obsession with political correctness, I was shocked by Gone With the Wind's shameless apologia for the ante bellum South. It is a fairy-tale kingdom without class warfare, racial violence, or religious hypocrisy. It's only apparent flaw is the tragic enthusiasm of its chivalrous young men for confronting the Yankee aggressor on the battlefied.

Perhaps most shocking to modern audiences is the servility of Scarlett's (former slaves) after the surrender at Appomattox. The film doesn't provide even the slightest hint that they were dissatisfied with their old lives or that they now want something more from life than to wait hand and foot on their former masters.

Of course, this servility is an integral part of the fantasy that animates Gone With the Wind. At first, one might dismiss this fantasy as unremarkable given that Jim Crow was alive and well in 1939, when Gone With the Wind debuted. Yet given the prominence of Iraq in today's headlines, I found it impossible not to think of Gone With the Wind as a window into an alternative universe in which Americans are not only the occupiers but also the occupied.

In both the American South and in Iraq, the victory of Washington's armed forces secured the immediate objectives for which the war was fought. Yet in both cases, the victors also hoped to promote their democratic values by transforming the thought processes of the society against which they had just fought. Sadly, the political fantasy at the heart of Gone With the Wind demonstrates just how poorly the Union Army did as advocate of racial justice.

At first, one might hesitate to attribute this failure the cultural divide between North and South, since the culture of both was fundamentally American. Even the racism of the South was not much greater in intensity than that of the North, in spite of the latter's abolitionist impluse. While it had economic roots as well, Jim Crow was an expression of the idea that black Americans should not share the same fundamental rights as their white counterparts.

Given the similarity of Northern and Southern culture, why did the North fail to cultivate in the South even the minimal respect for racial equality that existed in the North? Given that the cultural divide between the United States and Iraq is far greater than that between North and South, is there any hope for a successful transmission of the democratic impulse?

That, of course, is a trick question. If the Iraqi people do not want democracy, there is nothing we can do to make them want it. In that sense, democracy cannot be exported. Yet if the people of Iraq want to embrace democracy as their own, then the United States can prevent opportunistic elites, violent insurgents, and social chaos from disrupting the transition. In that sense, democracy can be promoted.

One hundred years after the end of the Civil War, federal officials returned to the South to enforce Washington's expectations of racial justice. After a century of social and cultural change, their efforts had the chance to be more successful. Thus, I fear that in Iraq it may be another hundred years before women enjoy the basic rights that no American could live a dignified existence without.

However, within democratic nations, democratic values have a habit of burrowing into and taking over every social insitution with which they come into contact. They just need some time. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:14 PM by David Adesnik  

ONE STEP FORWARD? Saudi Arabia has announced that municipal elections will be held in early September. The municipal ballot will be the first elections in Saudi Arabia since the 1960s.

The big question is, will the elections be real? Will the campaigns be fair? Will organized parties be allowed to emerge on a regional and/or national basis? And if the United States doesn't watch the process closely, will the Saudi princes rig the vote? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:05 PM by David Adesnik  

RUSSIAN ROULETTE, PUTIN STYLE: Paul Klebnikov, a US citizen and senior editor of Forbes' Russian-language edition, was gunned down near his Moscow office yesterday. Klebnikov's aggressive reporting earned him numerous enemies in Russia's corporate underworld.

But the real point here is that journalists don't get murdered when governments care about human rights and the rule of law. While the Putin regime may not have been involved in Klebnikov's murder, it's pervasive corruption and assault on free speech are what makes this sort of violence possible. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:26 AM by Patrick Belton  

HEY LOOKEY, WE'RE IN USA TODAY, FORBES AND THE BOSTON HERALD TODAY!
(Note to self: stop making fun of USA Today, at least for a respectable period of time...) Here's what they're saying about us.

Belton, 28, a doctoral candidate in international relations at Oxford University, said he was "tickled pink" when he learned by phone Thursday he had been accepted. [ed: Belton, 28, swears he doesn't ordinarily use phrases like 'tickled pink'] (Notifications were sent by postal mail, but Belton said he hasn't checked his mailbox in days.) [ed: That's because work frequently appears there]

"It will be great fun to participate in the symbolic first convention of the blog," said Belton, who said he's now "trying to scrape the pennies together" for a flight from England.
...
[Convention spokeswoman Peggy Wilhide] pointed to the approval of at least one "right-leaning" blog, Oxblog, though the co-founder who applied, Patrick Belton, is a registered Democrat who considers himself centrist.

Hey, thanks, guys! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:20 AM by David Adesnik  

AMERICA HUMBLED: In the midst of an aggressive American effort to export its democratic ideals, I think it may prove beneficial to empathize with the people of Iraq and Afghanistan by trying to remember those moments in American history when the success of others led to a loss of confidence in our own way of life.

While the the people of Iraq (if not their leaders) have demonsrated an admirable thirst for democracy and human rights, it is never easy for a proud people to admit that foreigners know best, especially in the midst of a foreign occupation. This is not a trait peculiar to Iraqi culture but rather one that Americans share as well. Thus, it may be cultural similarities that are a greater barrier to cooperation in Iraq than cultural differences.

I have begun to appreciate this point more fully over the past ten days thanks to a pair of films that portray Americans in the midst of radical self-doubt. The first is an obscure comedy from the 1980s named Gung Ho. The second is Gone With the Wind, which I had never seen for myself despite its iconic status in the lore of American film.

Gung Ho takes place in a small Pennsylvania town where the close of a local auto factory has led to massive unemployment, the shuttering of countless stores, and a general loss of faith in American industry. In the opening scense of the film, Hunt Stevenson (played by Michael Keaton) travels to Japan in order to persuade the fictional Assan Motor Corporation to invest in the closed factory and bring the town back to life.

When the Assan executive jet arrives at the local airport, the town has assembled on the runaway to meet with hand-lettered signs saying "We Love Japan" and "We Love Assan". The crowd waves miniature Japanese and American flags, while a delegation of local women wear kimonos and the town's children demonstrate their minimal knowledge of karate.

Watching this scene, it was hard not to think of the first moments after the liberation of Iraq, when the celebration of freedom had not yet been marred by the burdens of occupation and reconstruction. The amazing thing, of course, is that the Americans in Gung Ho are not the liberators but the liberated. They welcome the Japanese with a certain reverence reserved for saviors and not for guests. The Japanese are inscrutable, but that only increases their allure because they possess the secret of prosperity.

Even though my memories of the 1980s are hazy at best, I do remember that powerful sense of foreboding that Americans had about the impending superiority of the Japanese. Their wealth seemed unlimited as they began to buy up America. Today we would welcome such investment as an antidote to outsourcing and an excessive dependence on imports. But that is only because we have regained our confidence in the American way of life.

Unsurprisingly, cultural differences lead the Americans in Gung Ho begin to lose patience with the Japanese executives in charge of their factory. In spite of Hollywood's usual passion for political correctness, Gung Ho perpetuates crude stereotypes about the Japanese as authoritarian, cold-hearted and even cruel. In contrast, the greivances of the American factory workers come across as mostly justified, even if their reactions to the Japanese are somewhat intolerant.

When the conflict becomes more than the Japanese can take, they threaten to pull out their investment and go home. Hoping to save the day, labor rep Stevenson (Keaton) persuades the Japanese factory boss to strike a deal: If the Americans can break the one-month production record set by Assan's Japanese workers, then Assan will stay in Pennsylvania. The outcome, of course, is predictable. But what never gets explained is how American workers who weren't productive enough to keep their factory open when it was managed by fellows Americans have suddenly become able to outperform their legendary Japanese counterparts.

In the meantime, the soft-hearted Japanese factory boss begins to embrace his workers' relaxed and individualistic style. Eventually, he stands up to his own boss and demands that the Japanese executive be able to take time off to spend with their pregnant wives and graduating children. Thus, what began as a film about American inferiority ends as a fairly tale about superior American values. Instead of being grappled with, reality disappears.

Now, if Americans in the relatively prosperous 1980s couldn't accept that they actually had what to learn from the Japanese, imagine how hard it must be for Iraqis to accept American tutorials in the midst of an occupation. Now, it would be wrong to suggest that the Ba'athist and Sadrite insurgencies in Iraq are a reflection of cultural differences. In truth, they are a reflection of violent totalitarian ideologies that most Iraqis reject.

Yet I wouldn't be surprised if the everyday business of fixing generators, laying sewage pipes and training security forces suffers from a clash of American and Iraqi egos. In Gung Ho, the cartoon-like rigidity of the Japanese executives prevents them from recognizing that they should compromise with their American workers rather than just demanding that they accept Japanese habits.

Of course, I'm hardly the first one to suggest that cultural differences will complicate our efforts to promote democracy in Iraq. All I hope to add to this debate is the suggestion that cultural similarities may, in fact, cause more trouble than differences. While Iraqis may share our thirst for democracy, they also share our incomparable pride, a trait which make them just as reluctant to learn from us as we were to learn from the Japanese.

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

# Posted 7:43 AM by Patrick Belton  

'DROUGHT-CRAZED KANGAROOS TURN DEADLY': Look, I know I shouldn't for some reason find this as funny as I do, but this just came up from the antipodes:

Drought-crazed kangaroos turn deadly
By Elizabeth Colman
July 09, 2004

IT'S an unusual sight - a kangaroo holding a struggling dog under water until it drowns.

But as Australia lies gripped by the big dry, the nation's proud mascot is turning deadly in the capital.

Killer kangaroos have claimed the lives of two dogs and injured at least one person in Canberra in the past week...

[Wildlife ecologist] Dr [Murray] Evans this week issued guidelines to locals living in the bush capital on how to steer clear of an attack by the cuddly looking marsupials. The danger signs are clear - don't approach a kangaroo "when it is standing up and looking straight at you, sometimes it also will growl and snort", Dr Evans said.

"Some people think the kangaroo is being friendly and it's not."

Would they perhaps be willing to part with a few of those, to send several to Iraq?

UPDATE: From our reader MH: 'If the 'Roos are drought crazed, where is this water coming from that they're drowning the dogs under? and why aren't they merely drinking the water instead of murdering dogs?' (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:14 AM by David Adesnik  

THE HEROES OF AL-JAZEERA: The subtitle of this film should have been "If Michael Moore Had a Brain". Control Room, a documentary by Jehane Noujaim, takes us inside Al Jazeera's Qatar headquarters during the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. With a subtlety not often found in the midst of a presidential election, Noujaim portrays the producers and correspondents of Al Jazeera as the last true heirs of Woodward & Bernstein -- unarmed men and women unafraid to speak truth to power.

The critics' praise for Control Room has been overwhelming. In the NYT, A.O. Scott writes that it is

An indispensable example of the inquisitive, self-questioning democratic spirit that is its deep and vexed subject.

Ann Hornaday of the WaPo writes that it is

The first movie of the year to qualify as urgently important...

This engrossing portrait of competing notions of truth is at once a thrilling real-time chronicle of the birth of a free press and a sophisticated philosophical treatise on the nature of objective reality.

In other words, liberal film critics love Control Room because it advances a firm leftist critique of American ignorance and ethnocentrism while presenting itself as an unbiased and self-aware observer of America at war.

One of the twin protagonists of the film is producer Sameer Khader, who describes Al Jazeera as an institution committed to advancing the ideals of freedom and democracy by providing an alternative to the state-run Arab media. I agree that Al Jazeera plays a critical role in challenging the information monopoly of the Arab dictatorships, but Noujaim drops this point right after Khader makes it.

Instead, Control Room focuses on how Al Jazeera challenges American military propaganda in a manner (supposedly) far more effective than than the (supposedly) co-opted and covertly patriotic journalists of the American media establishment. This is exactly the point that Michael Moore tried to make in Fahrenheit 9/11, but Noujaim does it with far greater panache.

Noujaim systematically builds up her subject's credibility by demonstrating that it has made all the right enemies. First, Donald Rumsfeld accuses Al Jazeera of broadcasting nothing more than Iraqi propaganda. Then an Iraqi spokesman accuses Al Jazeera of broadcasting nothing more than American propaganda.

Then comes Noujaim's coup de grace: After interviewing an American activist who denounces the war as part of an oil-driven imperial project, Khader (the producer mentioned above) berates his subordinate for booking an interview subject with such a one-sided perspective. The subordinate meekly protests that he assumed an American activist wouldn't voice such unfair criticism of his own country.

What better way to establish Al Jazeera's cross-cultural empathy and commitment to journalistic detachment than showing how its employees can recognize when American citizens are criticizing their own government too harshly? Well, I for one am not impressed. Any journalist not on an Arab government's payroll should be able to recognize that Chomsky's court jesters do not have much to contribute to a serious news program.

When not demonstrating Al Jazeera's supposed impartiality, Noujaim tries to demonstrate her own fairness by giving a young US Army spokeman the chance to defend his government's actions. According to the Boston Globe,

Noujaim's film is at its best in its sympathetic and complex portrayal of Lieutenant Josh Rushing, an earnest young US army press officer at CentCom whose naivete about war and news-gathering slowly crumbles before our eyes.

Whereas Michael Moore's bombast often results in the audience siding with his victims, Noujaim's kindness toward Rushing lets us forget that she has cast this one lieutenant as the living embodiment of American ignorance.

Rushing, however, is far from ignorant. What he is is overmatched. Facing off against the second protaganist of the film, veteran Al Jazeera correspondent Hassan Ibrahim (formerly of the BBC), Rushing doesn't stand a chance. To make matters worse, Noujaim devotes the rest of her narrative to undercutting almost all of the points that Rushing makes.

For example, Rushing asks at one point why Al Jazeera insists on portraying the invasion of Iraq as a threat to the Arab world when, in fact, Saddam Hussein has slaughtered far more Arabs than any other ruler alive today. Rushing also asks why Al Jazeera's standard cut-to-commerical montage interlaces footage of American soldiers and war planes with footage of wounded Iraqi civilians. Why not show what Saddam's soldiers have done to the Iraqi people?

In spite of this warning, Noujaim includes extensive and explicitly gory footage of wounded Iraqi civilians without ever pausing to ask whether the Iraqi people suffered more, day in and day out, under Saddam Hussein. Like Fahrenheit 9/11, Control Room doesn't even try to put a number on how many Iraqi civilians lost their lives during the invasion. Instead, Noujaim just replays and replays Al Jazeera footage in which Iraqis stand in front of their bombed out homes asking if this is what George Bush meant by freedom and demoracy.

According to Human Rights Watch, there are no reliable counts of how many civilians died during the invasion, although the number seems to be in the thousands. Saddam's own government announced during the final week of the war that there had been 1,254 civilian deaths. Whatever the true number, it pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands murdered by Saddam. It also pales in comparison to the one million deaths projected by leading humanitarian NGOs.

The saddest thing about Control Room is what it could have been. The rise of independent networks such as Al Jazeera is a revolutionary development in the Arab World. Instead of recycling standard leftist criticisms of the war, Noujaim might have asked whether the democratic aspirations of Al Jazeera's producers and correspondents have awoken similar aspirations in the network's 40 million Arab viewers. Whereas Saddam Hussein fell to American arms, the best hope for the liberation of Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia may be Al Jazeera.

CORRECTION: BH wisely points out that Iran does not speak Arabic, so Al Jazeera is somewhat irrelevant. Besides, Iran is a pretty dumb example given that it has such a strong indigenous democratic movement. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:31 PM by Patrick Belton  

STUPID, DUMB, AND SHORT SIGHTED: No, not one of the three OxBloggers. It's the House of Representatives voting today 281-137 to cut $10.5 million from the budget allocation of the National Endowment for Democracy in order to give it to a small-business-loan pork program. The National Endowment for Democracy's projects in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, and elsewhere represent the nation's principal diplomatic and aid-based ways for strengthening democratic institutions and countering terrorism, and should be the very last budget line to take money away from to go spend on buying pork. Democrats voted 193-2 for the short-sighted, and silly, amendment, while Republicans split. Both should be ashamed of themselves. Rep. Frank Wolf said 'The reality of this amendment is that this is a subsidy to put money in the bankers' pockets. If you were helping the poor or the hungry...I would support the amendment.'

Instead of spending $11 million to support democratic reformers in countries where U.S. interests are vitally engaged, what are our tax dollars going to? Funny you asked:

• $500,000 for Disneyland buses in the district of Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-California)

• $2.2 million in pork for North Pole, Alaska, population 1,570. (Which corresponds to $1,401 for every man, woman, and reindeer in town, courtesy of Senate Appropriations Chair Ted Stevens, R-Alaska).

• $50 million for an indoor rainforest in Coralville, Iowa, thanks to the efforts of Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)

• $200,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. A further $100,000 for the Kids Rock Free Educational Program. What would Rock and Roll do without government support?

• And the Congressional Pig Book 2004 has a more complete list, identifying $22.9 billion of pork in the appropriations bills - so much, they've been heard squealing on their way across the Capitol from the House to the Senate.

Now, I'm sure all of these are worthy projects. But I'm not yet nearly convinced that building, say, a "Blue-Gray Civil War Theme Pack" in Kentucky ($225,000) is more deserving of the tax dollars of the nation than helping democratic reformers in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. In fact, I think it's fairly silly and short-sighted. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:45 PM by Patrick Belton  

BOSTON BOUND: We've just received a very nice call from the DNC, saying very kind words about our blog and inviting us to cover the Boston convention as an accredited blogger. I have some thoughts on blogging and the convention, but England is currently beginning a neodiluvian period and so my more immediate thoughts are on the subject of drying off. In the more immediate term, though, I'd be very interested to hear which other bloggers will be at the convention - it would be nice to throw a blogger party and see everyone who will be there. Please drop us a line! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:02 AM by Patrick Belton  

COOL NEW SITE: If you're like me - or even if you're not really that much like me - you probably often run across monetary amounts from other decades and centuries, and are never quite sure how to convert, say, £500 from 1975 into 2002 money, to say nothing of the £63,176 it cost to construct the HMS Victory in 1765, or the two shillings which you may be fined at Yale for going 'to a Gunning, Fishing or Sailing ... any Court, Election, Town-Meeting, Wedding, or Meeting...which may Occasion Mispence of precious Time without Liberty first obtain'd from the President or his Tutor' (1745 rulebook). Well, a really delightful new site run by Economic History.Net now lets you convert the purchasing power of sterling for any years in between 1264 and 2002 - your 1975 five-hundred quid, for instance, equate to a whopping £2,577.60 in 2002; or £41, 6s, 2d in 1900; or £65, 3s, 9d in 1800 (yes, the pound actually rose in value over the nineteenth century); £7, 0s, 11d at the accession to the throne of Queen Elizabeth; or even £3, 8s, 10d in 1264, the year of the Battle of Lewes and eight years after Simon de Montfort called the first Parliament at Oxford.

Other sites on EH.Net let you do similar calculations for the U.S. dollar, compare the value of unskilled labour across centuries, and compare the UK consumer price index, and average nominal and real earnings, from 1264 to 2002. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:57 AM by David Adesnik  

DOES BUSH CARE ABOUT DEMOCRACY AT ALL? Josh Marshall says no, not at all. Rob Tagorda and Dan Drezner provide a pair of counter-examples. Kevin Drum says the marginal importance of those counter-examples just proves Josh's point.

I'll agree that those counter-examples, while important, are far less than heroic. But I am going to dispute Josh's point that Iraq doesn't count in Bush's favor because

at any time in recent history any American government would have attempted to put in place a government that is at least nominally democratic in any state it overthrew.

Liberals have been predicting for almost a year now that Bush would cut and run rather than face a tough re-election fight with 150,000 troops still on the ground in Iraq. Well, that hasn't come to pass.

And I think it's fair to ask whether John Kerry would have shown the same kind of resolve if he were President when the occupation appeared to be headed southward. In fact, just a few months ago, Kerry began to flirt with the self-destructive idea that there can be stability without democracy in Iraq. With Kerry in the White House, Iraq might suffer the same neglect that Bush has inflicted on Afghanistan.

Kerry's flaws aside, it is hard not to resent the hypocritical way in which this administraiton needlessly embraces dictators in Russia and Central Asia while the President recites paeans to the universal truth of democracy. Then again, Iraq is the big one. If we win there, if the Iraqi people win there, the future will be very different for the Middle East. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:28 AM by David Adesnik  

THE WaPo F***S UP: Ombudsman Michael Getler explains when the use of said expletive is permissible. While respecting the Post's decision to print said expletive, OxBlog's conservative inclinations ensure that it will continue to use asterisks liberally. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:58 AM by David Adesnik  

HOW CORRUPT IS THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY? So corrupt that its own terrorist brigades have begun to protest. Then again, the good folks in Al-Aqsa might never have raised the issue if Israel hadn't prevented them and their kind from carrying out a single suicide bombing over the past four months. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:46 AM by David Adesnik  

A BUCKET OF WARM SPIT? Josh Spivak argues that the rising influence of the vice-presidency is good for the United States. I agree 100%, but I'm not sure that Kerry has an influential role in mind for Edwards. Nor am I so sure that Edwards wants to take an active policymaking role, a role that might distract him from the onrushing presidential campaign in 2012.

For an opposing perspective on the vice-presidency, take a look at this comprehensive overview of all those vice-presidential candidates who later made a run for the Oval Office. (Hat tip: DS) Its author suggests that

The historical message is unambiguous: vice-presidential candidates tend to lose as presidential candiates. Or they become undistinguished presidents -- at best!

A somewhat strange conclusion, given that John Adams, both Roosevelts and Harry Truman were all vice-presidents. [Correction: RR points out that FDR was a VP candidate (1920), not an actual VP. My imprecise writing is to blame for the confusion, since the list I linked to above includes both nominees and sitting vice-presidents.]

If you still want to hear more about Edwards, check out the latest from TNR. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:59 PM by Patrick Belton  

AND SOME SO-CALLED 'REALISTS' STILL SAY WE OUGHT TO BE COUSINING UP TO THESE GUYS:

American and Iraqi joint patrols, along with U.S. Special Operations teams, captured two men with explosives in Baghdad on Monday who identified themselves as Iranian intelligence officers....

The arrest of  the two Iranians suspected of attempting to carry out a vehicle bombing has focused new attention on how Tehran is trying to protect its interests in the country it fought for eight years in a devastating war. (Fox)

These, please note, are the intelligence officers who aren't otherwise engaged photographing vulnerable spots in New York City to pass to their friends in Hizbullah...and also aren't the Iranian Revolutionary Guard uniformed officers who seized eight British servicemen inside Iraqi maritime boundaries, either.... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:42 AM by Patrick Belton  

QUOTE OF THE WEEK: 'Whenever they do this, we lose.' Martin Suarez, a bystander in Peru observing shamans' rituals ostensibly intended to help the national side in an upcoming Latin American football tournament. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:29 AM by David Adesnik  

MY MOM HAS A CRUSH ON JOHN EDWARDS: If middle-aged women with Ph.D.s are falling for the guy, who won't? It just goes to show that Joe Trippi was right when he said that

Throughout the primary campaign I was stunned at how fast Edwards's support grew among women once he got rolling and received some press attention...Seriously, I think Edwards opens up a bridge to women and young people that goes beyond Kerry's own reach and well beyond Cheney's.

Then again, it is usually male voters that the Democrats need to work for.

Moving on to more substantive issues, I'm surprised that no one seems to be talking about what a tremendous personal success this is for Edwards. Last fall he was a dead-in-the-water primary candidate who might not have been able to hold on to his own Senate post. It seemed that Edwards was all ambition and no substance, reaching for higher office long before he deserved it.

In hindsight, Edwards comes across as a savvy politician who understood how to achieve national prominence by leveraging his impressive charisma. In spite of Edwards' unflinching insistence that he was running for president and not VP, it is hard to believe that he didn't think of himself as ideal candidate for the second half of the Democratic ticket, regardless of who was on top.

Moreover, sitting vice-presidents have a remarkable record of becoming their party's next presidential candidate. So six months from now, a man who just recently was trial lawyer with no political experience may become heir apparent to the White House.

So that's my two cents about Edwards, but there's lots more to say. Check out Instapundit and Pejman for comprehensive round-ups, as well as the TNR debate Josh mentioned earlier. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:10 AM by Patrick Belton  

FROM OUR AFGHANISTAN CORRESPONDENT: This week, a look at warlords, in and out of Kabul....

Most Western news coverage of post-Taliban Afghanistan presumes something like the following narrative: The early failure of the American-led coalition to shore up the Kabul government of Hamid Karzai led to a renaissance of warlords throughout Afghanistan. The power of these regional military commanders and the weakness of the central government has led to all sorts of disasters: an increase in poppy cultivation, a rash of human rights abuses (especially against women), and a severe blow to the rule of law throughout the country. However, the U.S. is reluctant to antagonize the regional commanders, needing their cooperation in hunting down the remnants of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. So the U.S. continues to wink at the warlords, leaving Karzai impotent to rule the country of which he is nominally President.

Most of this story is of course true. But the main element of the proposed solution -- strengthening Hamid Karzai and the central government against the regional commanders -- I would argue is misguided. Instead, the U.S. and Afghan governments should demand disarmament and elections from all warlords, but (assuming the warlords win at least the first round of provincial elections) should also allow their regional governments to retain considerable powers. The U.N. and editorialists everywhere are right to propose expansion of ISAF, the international security force (now run by NATO) that has brought relative stability to Kabul. Its role, however, should not be to extend the authority of the central government, but rather to enforce the general disarmament program, to firmly moderate disputes between local commanders, and to defend journalists, political parties, and activists who lawfully challenge the interests of the dominant warlord. Western donors should encourage regional governors to respect human rights, follow the rule of law, and wean their farmers off poppy by rewarding those governors who do so with increased development assistance.

In an earlier dispatch, I briefly laid out my reasons for being wary of fostering a strong central government in Afghanistan. Here in more detail is my sense of current trends shaping Afghan politics, and the conclusions I draw from them. I'd welcome any comments from more knowledgeable souls who happen to be reading this.

First: the Taliban movement is a spent force in Afghan politics. This is not to discount the dangers from the continuing violence in southeast Afghanistan; there, the U.S. faces an insurgency that will likely fester for years to come. But the distinctive features of the Taliban regime -- the stifling theocracy supported by foreign funds and arms -- are unlikely to be successfully revived. What the Western coalition and the Karzai government face in the south is less a Taliban resurgence than a Pushtun insurgency, whose leaders include former Taliban but also fellow Pushtun Gulbuddin Hekmetyar (who was fighting the Taliban five years ago). Bereft of Saudi and Pakistani support, this movement stands little chance of sweeping Afghanistan like the mullahs in the late 1990s. Rather, the south-eastern resistance threatens a return to the ethnic civil war and chaos of the early 1990s. The Kabul government no longer face a movement capable of taking over the country; rather, it faces regional insurgencies, capable of making the country ungovernable.

The Taliban were initially welcomed in Kabul and the rest of Afghanistan for bringing stability after a long and devastating civil war. This welcome will never be repeated. Across the north, resentment of ordinary Afghans toward the Taliban remains intense. The mullahs are remembered chiefly for their hostility to music, sport, and many other small joys of life. My friend Mumtaz recalls being beaten with a leather-covered piece of steel rebar for refusing to give up his wedding ring (an "unIslamic" adornment, according to the Taliban border guards who wanted to take it from him). The Taliban demand that all men grow long beards is well known; but some mullahs also enforced a cleanliness code which included the shaving of men's armpits. These Taliban would check men for shaven armpits, and if they found an unshaven offender, they would wind his body hair around a pencil and yank it out. Add to these sorts of unpleasant abuses the fact that most of the Taliban were from Afghanistan's majority Pashtun ethnic group, and it's understandable that the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, and people of other ethnicities living in central and north Afghanistan would sooner see the country dismembered than see it ruled again by the Taliban.

Islamist bullying continues to afflict Afghans living under conservative warlords like Ismael Khan in Herat or Sayyaf in Paghman. But notwithstanding the efforts of its conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice (an ally of Sayyaf), Kabul is moving into a new era. Modestly clad women appear as newsreaders on TV, while sexually suggestive Hindi film posters adorn shopfronts about town. Even in areas where Sayyaf's militia have harassed shopkeepers for playing music in public, the shopkeepers' first response was, "Look, the Taliban are gone now -- we can play music if we want to." The stadium used as an execution ground by the Taliban was packed on May 14 by thousands of fans of the popular Afghan singer Farhad Darya (including several excited friends of mine -- who unfortunately only mentioned the concert to me after it had already taken place). On other days, the stadium is used to train the dozen or so athletes who will compete in the Athens Olympic games this summer, including two women.

General bitterness against the foreign sponsors of the Taliban is intense, especially among Afghans who have traveled enough to know that Pakistanis and Arabs do not live by similarly restrictive creeds. One of my Afghan friends lived in the Emirates for a while, and recalled attending a festival where a group of young Arab men changed into Western clothes and began enthusiastically to dance to a Michael Jackson pop tune. His response was incredulity: "They send us mullahs to teach us Qur'an, and they teach themselves break-dancing?" These days, both the Pakistani and Saudi governments have realized the folly of fostering Islamists in their backyard. Without their extensive support, no neo-Taliban movement is likely to win out on a national scale.

With the Taliban gone, what has replaced them? Unfortunately, control of the Kabul government is widely perceived as having passed from one ethnic group to another: from Pashtuns to Tajiks, and in particular, to the Tajik clans from the valley of Panjshir. Resentment over this fact runs deep. I'm reminded of a lamentable conversation I had with an Afghan colleague who, until that point, I had quite liked. We were on a long trip in a project vehicle, and I was being instructed about the general canniness of the Afghan people. "The Afghans are very clever people. They tricked Brezhnev. They tricked your president, too. There is a saying here: They killed the serpent but they hatched the dragon." My colleague fell silent, glancing around darkly. I assumed he was talking about how in driving out the Russians, America financed the Islamist elements that eventually gave birth to the Taliban. But later, when we were out of the vehicle, he clarified for me in a hushed voice, smiling nervously and without humor. "You must understand, the Panjshiris are in charge here. The drivers are almost all Panjshiri, and the guards. There are things I can not say when I am in the car. They watch us, and they plot, and they report back to their Centre. It is all underground." He named a number of my good friends at the office. "They have all connections, this is why they get jobs -- this is why they are the ones chosen for the overnight trips. The Americans are very foolish. They threw out the Taliban, but they put the Panjshiris in power, and they are very much worse."

The long valley of Panjshir begins two or three hours northeast of Kabul, and is legendarily defensible. Ahmad Shah Massoud held it against the Soviets for a decade; he emerged to fight over Kabul with his fellow mujahidin commanders in the early 1990s, then was driven back to Panjshir again by the Taliban. Massoud was the primary military commander of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance until his assassination by suicide bombers on September 9, 2001 -- two days before Osama bin Laden ensured that the Northern Alliance would receive enough American assistance to retake Kabul and expel the Taliban.

Massoud's successor was Mohammad Fahim, a fellow Panjshiri Tajik. While helping the Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum drive the Taliban out of northern Afghanistan, Fahim also pushed south, occupying Kabul despite American requests for restraint. He successfully angled for the three most powerful positions in the new interim government, claiming the post of Defense Minister for himself and the Foreign and Interior Ministries for his allies Dr. Abdullah and Yunus Qanuni. (Qanuni lost the Interior Ministry in negotiations at the loya jirga of 2002, and became Education Minister instead). All three men were Panjshiri, Tajik, and leaders of the Jamiat-e-Islami faction of the mujahidin. They ensured that other influential governorships and posts (police chief of Kabul, district heads around the Kabul area) went to Jamiat members and allies. Far more than Hamid Karzai and his fellow West-friendly technocrats, these men compose the central government of Afghanistan.

Fahim's control of the Defense Ministry gives him de facto control over the Afghan National Army (ANA). Given the circumstances in which America ousted the Taliban, it was probably inevitable that the new army would be dominated by the top military commander of the Northern Alliance. But as I discussed in an earlier post, the perception that the army is a tool of the Jamiat warlords greatly diminishes the effectiveness of the internationally-led disarmament program -- what warlord will agree to give the army a monopoly on force when that army is set to be controlled for the foreseeable future by an arch-rival? Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to work closely with Fahim in operations against Taliban remnants -- and against warlords who might otherwise get too uppity.

Here is where the narrative of a central government barely able to maintain control outside Kabul seems to me to be only partly true. Fahim is a highly canny man, and is playing an intricate power game against the other warlords. The last few months have seen violence or the threat of violence in provincial capitals throughout Afghanistan. This has largely been portrayed in Western media as a sign of the continuing failure and weakness of the central government. I believe that it is instead a sign of the Kabul government's ongoing attempts to extend its power to the major cities, in areas where it cannot hope to control the countryside -- and in some cases it is succeeding.

In April, just before I arrived in Afghanistan for this trip, the papers reported that warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum had driven out the Kabul-appointed governor of Faryab province and seized the capital, Maimuna. The headlines were dramatic, painting a picture of a violent coup d'etat, a gauntlet tossed in Karzai's face. CBS News described it as a "major burst of militia violence," like the outburst in Herat earlier in March. The local military commander, Hashimi Habibi, claimed that "fierce fighting" was underway. Maimuna is a long ways from Kabul, and it was nearly impossible for any news agency to actually get reporters on the ground to observe the ostensible coup. So they reported what the Interior Ministry told them.

I got a rather different story from a British friend who lives and works in Maimuna. He said there was no major militia fighting going on -- that for most of the people of Maimuna, the first they knew of the "coup" was when a whole lot of Afghan National Army soldiers appeared in the streets. There had been a demonstration the day before that ended in a charge on the governors' mansion, but it had not led to major militia fighting. I asked him who was in charge now in Maimuna. He shrugged. "The Army, I suppose," he said. The more I discussed the situation with him, the more it seemed that Dostum had been the dupe rather than the perpetrator of the seizure of Maimuna.

Abdul Rashid Dostum is one of the more infamous warlords in Afghanistan and the top ethnic Uzbek commander, dominating several northern provinces. During the Soviet occupation, he sided with the Russians until just before they were driven out, then switched sides and won lasting control of Mazar-e-Sharif, the main city of northern Afghanistan. His human rights records is appalling. While he ran Mazar, he held public executions at which criminals were crushed beneath tanks, and he was almost certainly responsible for ethnic cleansing in the wake of the Taliban defeat in the north. He is now a Deputy Defense Minister and special advisor to Hamid Karzai, with effective control over security affairs in the north (which allows him to maintain his militia and its political arm, the Junbesh party). As discussed earlier, this control is sharply contested in the area around Mazar by Atta Mohammad, the local commander of Fahim's Jamiat-e-Islami.

Faryab province is on the margins of Dostum's sphere of influence. Its former governor, Anayatullah, and its local military commander, General Hashimi Habibi, had been Dostum's clients. But in April Habibi went over to the Tajiks, declaring that his loyalty was to Marshal Fahim and the national government. Dostum seems to have decided that his initial response would be through street politics, not military confrontation. His Junbesh party organized a protest against Governor Anayatullah, accusing him (probably accurately) of using state funds to buy votes in the upcoming elections. At the height of the protest, four to six people were killed when Anayatullah's guards clumsily opened fire -- the only casualties, I believe, that were actually documented from the "fierce militia fighting" in Maimuna. This enraged the crowd and terrified the governor, who was smuggled out the back window of his mansion by British Army Gurkhas, managing to break his leg in the process.

I've found no evidence that Dostum was in any position to take advantage of this sudden power vacuum in Maimuna -- he seems to have been as surprised as anyone. But the central government moved immediately. Hence the sudden appearance of the Afghan National Army in the streets, and stern statements from the Defense and Interior Ministers (Fahim and Jalali) condemning Dostum's "aggression," and U.S. warplanes hovering ominously over the Uzbek warlord's home in Shiberghan. Dostum shrilly threatened to bring the government down if the Defense and Interior Ministers were not both sacked for this "outrage," and protested that this was aggression by the government, not his militia. The Ministers weren't sacked, of course, and the news coverage of Dostum's protests was dismissive -- everyone knows that Dostum's an expansionist (and a right bastard to boot). But in this case his outrage seems to have been genuine. The Maimuna kerfuffle was a sharp demonstration of the Kabul government's ability to project power – a pre-emptive slap on Dostum's wrist, and an expansion of control over one provincial capital.

According to the standard narrative, this would be cause for cheer: a point for Karzai against the warlords. But it's not. It's a point for one set of warlords against another set of warlords, for Fahim and his clients against Dostum and his clients. And the Panjshiri warlords are scarcely more pleasant than Dostum. A couple of government ministers are, like Karzai, technocrats returned from the West (Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani and Interior Minister Ali Ahmad Jalali); they are generally willing to accept criticism and dissent. The former mujahidin commanders are generally not. Anyone in doubt on that point should browse through the Human Rights Watch report of one year ago entitled "Killing You Is A Very Easy Thing For Us," which extensively chronicles the human rights abuses perpetrated by warlords in the Kabul government and those allied to them.

Sayyaf is probably the worst; his militia has been allowed to bully, rape, and murder with impunity right next door to Kabul. But even the less brutal mujahidin are scarcely West-friendly. As Education Minister, Qanuni has promoted thuggish conservatives who intimidate female teachers, accusing them of Westernization and Communism. The Jamiat has retained control of the intelligence services, Amniat-e-Melli ("National Security") and used them to intimidate and harass independent journalists and political opponents. A journalist described his interrogation by the Amniat and their transparent hostility to the democratic project in Afghanistan. "Their main argument was that democracy was doomed to defeat and will end in catastrophe. They were calm and polite at first and listened to my arguments. But then later, they said that what we do, our party, is in favor of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the United States." The Jamiat know who their potential enemies are.

The main threat to Afghanistan right now is disintegration in a tide of ethnic insurgency. Many extremely intelligent people see this, and argue that we need to counter it by strengthening the powers of a multi-ethnic central government in Kabul. But it is extremely hard to guarantee that a government stays multi-ethnic, especially if one sincerely tries to add democracy into the mix... witness the contorted and at times catastrophic attempts to balance between Sunnis, Shias, and Maronites in Lebanon. The current dominance of Panjshiri Tajiks is unbearable to many Afghans; a Pushtun dominance following free and fair elections would only reverse the problem. I suggest that the best solution is to devolve a great deal of economic and political power to the provincial level -- don't give the warlords a prize to fight over in Kabul! The Kabul government (with firm supervision from the US and other Western nations) should concentrate on developing and deploying a neutral army and police force to disarm the militias and provide security in the regions. That means biting two political bullets: shoehorning Fahim out of the Defence Ministry, and expanding NATO troops throughout the country (to put teeth in the disarmament program and help an initially weak Afghan security force keep the peace). These are important steps no matter what; but I fear that if they are carried out without also giving more power to the regions, they will only convince every warlord that they have to control Kabul in order to survive.

The new Afghan constitution is not, it must be admitted, particularly friendly to my devolution plan. It envisions elected provincial councils which "take part in securing the development targets of the state... and give advice on important issues falling within the domain of the province." These councils are to work "in cooperation with the provincial administration," the appointed governor and his administrators. In other words, the elected office serves a mainly advisory role, while the most powerful provincial office is appointed from Kabul. This leads to unfortunate attention-getting devices like the recent fighting in remote Ghor province, where commander Abdul Salaam demanded that Karzai appoint him to the local administration, and invaded the provincial capital when no appointment was forthcoming. (At least, that's the story... the Afghan National Army was promptly deployed to the provincial capital to eject Salaam back into the countryside, and I suppose it's possible that as with the Maimuna fighting, the government exaggerated Salaam's offences. But there have been credible casualty reports coming out of Ghor).

On the other hand, the constitution also states that "The government, while preserving the principle of centralism, shall in accordance with the law delegate certain authorities to local administration units for the purpose of expediting and promoting economic, social, and cultural affairs, and increasing the participation of people in the development of nations." It doesn't explicitly spell out the division of labor between the councils and the appointed administrators. Since all these institutions are a bit fluid, I propose that the governor should be elected -- preferably, even, that the Chairman of the elected council should be the governor -- and that the central government should delegate extensively to the elected governor. If the Kabul government then focuses on security issues and creating a safe space for local elections, hopefully the attention of the warlords will turn to vote-winning, and not to replaying last decade's fight for Kabul.

Incidentally, if you happened to find this an analysis that you haven't read in the print media, i.e., where print journalists -- especially those focusing on politics -- are far more mediocre, their authors mixing fact with opinion and under no obligation to be either fair or accurate, or even to leave their comfortable hotel bar and do their own reporting when they can just rely on the reportorial herd, then why don't you email the Washington Post's Brian Faler and let him know? Tell him we sent you! (1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:50 AM by David Adesnik  

YOUTH GONE WILD: Republican Voices describes itself as a website "committed to getting more talented Republican minds onto the internet, especially among the youth". Site editor "Emil Levitin" writes that he

prefers to stay anonymous as he, being 11 years old, is still a hostage to the American public school system. You might think: how silly it is to hide one's political views, as if we lived in a dictatorship.

Well, in a small liberal town in Massachusetts, this is exactly the case. Living in an era of political patronage in the job market and education this is the only wise way to hide all I have to say about politics from the oppressive majority.

No, that isn't a typo. "Emil" sent me an e-mail saying that he is an actual 11-year old. I guess I have no reason to doubt it, except for the fact that it is very hard to believe that an 11-year old can write so well.

Anyhow, Emil, cheer up! If things really get bad, you can apply for political asylum in Idaho or Montana. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:56 AM by Patrick Belton  

WAPO ON BLOGS: In a piece on bloggers and the Democratic and Republican conventions, the Washington Post's's Brian Faler sneers the following:

Independent blogs -- especially those focusing on politics -- are far more freewheeling, their authors mixing fact with opinion and under no obligation to be either fair or accurate.

Funny, the first time I read that sentence, I thought they were talking about print journalists. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:34 AM by David Adesnik  

PRE-EMPTION VS. PREVENTION: Matt Yglesias explains why one is very different from the other and why the Democrats need to understand the difference.

Two small points: First, "pre-emption" has become a Democratic code word for everything that is wrong with Bush's foreign policy, so it may make sense for the Democrats to use it even if their definition is ahistorical.

Second, Matt describes World War I as the best-known example of a preventive war. I strongly disagree. Germany attacked Russia because the German leadership wanted to divert the working class' attention away from domestic politics. The prevention hypothesis was once quite popular but now has much less support. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:48 AM by David Adesnik  

HOW TO DEFEND MICHAEL MOORE WITHOUT COMPROMISING YOUR OWN INTEGRITY: Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias have their basic strategy worked out: Accuse conservatives of hypocrisy for criticizing the same flaws in Moore that they refuse to recognize in Bush.

Now, I'm going to have to agree with Matt that George Bush is President and Michael Moore is just a filmmaker. But the outright ridiculousness of Moore's accusations trumps anything the White House ever came up with. Bush's public statements may have been irresponsible, but Moore is right up there with Pat Buchanan and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Even the most committed liberals should be ashamed of him.

UPDATE: DA points out that Krugman is making the same argument about Bush being President and Moore just a filmmaker. Yet in contrast to Matt and Kevin, Krugman makes the untenable statement that Fahrenheit "has yet to be caught in any major factual errors". (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:35 PM by David Adesnik  

A CLOCKWORK FIASCO: Once again, the NYT has provided its readers with an incompetent (and threfore misleading) interpretation of the latests polls. Let's start with the first sentence from this Adam Nagourney/Janet Elder report:

President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

According to the raw data the NYT provides, the President's approval rating is actually up one point compared to last month.

So what gives? As far as I can tell, the NYT is discounting last month's poll since it was conducted by CBS alone, rather than CBS in conjunction with the NYT. If that is the case, then Bush's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point ever. Later on in the article, however, the NYT refers to last month's CBS poll in order to support its contention that the presidential race is getting closer. But if that's the case, then the NYT headlines should've read: "Bush Closes Eight Point Gap, Pulls Even With Kerry."

Now let's move on to Sentence #2:

The poll found Americans stiffening their opposition to the Iraq war, worried that the invasion could invite domestic terrorist attacks and skeptical about whether the White House has been fully truthful about the war or about abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison.

That's just plain wrong. According to the NYT/CBS poll, 48% of Americans still think that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. That's down one point from last month but up one point from two months ago. The percentage opposed to the war has held constant at 46 for three straight months. On a similar note, 54% believe that Americans troops should stay in Iraq "as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy." 40% disagree.

Now, it might be fair to say that opposition to Bush's handling of Iraq has "stiffened". Only 36% of Americans approve of how he's handled the situation there, the same percentage as last month. 58% disapprove, up one point from last month. The WaPo, however, had Bush's Iraq approval rating at 44% just two weeks ago.

So where did the NYT's bad numbers come from? Well, Question 63 asks whether

"As a result of the United States' military action against Iraq, do you think the threat of terrorism against the United States has increased, decreased, or stayed about the same?"

The three-way split on this quesiton is 47-13-38. Last month it was 41-18-39. In other words, a majority still think the risk of terrorism has stayed the same or fallen, even if that majority has gotten slightly smaller since one month ago.

Finally, we come to the Times' observation that the public is "skeptical" about Bush's public statements. Question 60 asks whether

"In his statements about the war in Iraq, do you think George W. Bush is telling the entire truth, is mostly telling the truth but is hiding something, or mostly lying?"

That's a terrible question. Unless someone is extremely pro- or anti-Bush, they're going to say "mostly telling the truth but is hiding something". In fact, that's what 59% said, with the other 40% split evenly on the pro- and anti-Bush sides. Question 65 asks the same question with regard to Abu Ghraib and gets a similar answer, although the "mostly lying" percentage is higher.

So there you have it. A six paragraph explanation of the mistakes that the NYT made in just two sentences. If I corrected all the other mistakes in the Times' article, I'd be up until sunrise. However, there is one more passage I'd like to comment on. According to Nagourney and Elder,

There was compelling evidence [in the poll] that [Bush's] decision to take the nation to war against Iraq has left him in a precarious political position...the poll's findings left little doubt about the extent to which Mr. Bush's decision to go to war is proving to be perhaps the most fateful of his presidency.

Apparently, wish fulfillment is now an acceptable substitute for analysis at the New York Times. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:24 PM by David Adesnik  

A NYT PARDON FOR BUSH? Tomorrow's NYT has a major story on how the CIA failed to provide President Bush with significant information that suggested the absence of an Iraqi WMD program. While quoting a CIA spokesman's denial of the charges, the article clearly sides with the Senate report that levels the accusations.

If this story pans out, it is definitely good for Bush. I don't think it will make much of a difference in the polls, however, since most Americans seem to be believe that Bush told what he believed to be the truth about Saddam's WMD. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:07 PM by Patrick Belton  

JACKSON DIEHL ON NATO: It's worth reading. Some samplings:

• Yet, after months and months of haggling, European governments were only barely able to commit at Istanbul to staffing three new provincial centers, each with a couple of hundred troops. The cup-rattling forced on Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was humiliating: With 26 nations and 5 million men in arms to draw on, Scheffer struggled to obtain just three helicopters for the Afghan operation.

• Yet, even if the Europeans were more enthusiastic, they might have little to contribute. Germany, the largest country in the European Union, has 270,000 soldiers in its army -- yet (ed: that's the third yet yet, for those of you keeping score at home) its commanders maintain that no more than about 10,000 can be deployed at any one time. No matter the politics, the German Parliament is unlikely to authorize an increase in the current ceiling of 2,300 troops for Afghanistan. And Germany is the largest contributor to the NATO operation -- France, which has never liked the idea of NATO operations outside of Europe, has only 800 soldiers there.

• NATO: Keep the Myth Alive (an administration slogan from the Pentagon) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:13 PM by David Adesnik  

SAME OLD, SAME OLD?

"I'm no bomb-thrower," said Mr. Cheney. "But I think it's time to go to war."

--Rep. Richard Cheney (R-WY), quoted in the New York Times, April 24th, 1985, in reference to the worsening relationship between Republicans and Democrats.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:40 AM by David Adesnik  

QUICK, BEFORE IT'S TAKEN DOWN! Right now, the WaPo homepage is running a headline that says "Cheney Swings for Bush". Unsurprisingly, the actual headline on the front page of the WaPo print edition reads: "Cheney May Be a Mixed Blessing for Bush Team". I'm guessing the scatological online version will come down before lunchtime. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:07 PM by Patrick Belton  

HIGH POLITICS, AT A LOWER VOLUME - OR, WHY THE KERRY CAMPAIGN SHOULDN'T RUN AWAY FROM DEMOCRACY PROMOTION: Quietly, on a day when Saddam Hussein appeared in an Iraqi court to answer under law charges against him, Polish troops reported discovering warheads containing the deadly chemical nerve agent cyclosarin in their south-central zone of Iraq. The possible uncovery at last of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his lawful arraignment before the bar of an Iraqi court made for an understated contrast with the loud tones of Michael Moore’s latest disjointed film. At the moment, what we need are more such high politics, at low volume.

November's will be the sixth election to turn on a referendum for a foreign war - like 1812, 1844, 1896, 1954, and 1968 before it. And things in Iraq, surprisingly, are not going badly. Coalition fatalities have been lower each month – 140 in April, 84 in May, 50 in June. Early indications suggest that Iyad Allawi actually commands considerable respect from the Iraqi people. If he succeeds in institutionalizing political liberties while conducting counterinsurgency operations, Iraqi democracy may flourish after all.

This is not a result Democrats should be so quick to run against. The election will be fought not over American voters who are lining up to see Fahrenheit 9/11, but ones who want American troops kept in Iraq as long as necessary to make Iraq a stable democracy, and aren’t convinced by Bush’s record in handling Iraq. To win over these key centrist votes, Democrats should argue the Kerry administration would do the same thing Bush did, but better – with a real commitment to Afghanistan, a larger army which allows reservists to actually be the part-time soldiers they signed up as, and an ability to draw on the easy popularity overseas coming to an Atlanticist, francophone Democrat whom Europeans can feel is, somehow, one of them.

In particular, Democrats should be careful of running away from democracy promotion and toward, of all things, the realpolitik foreign policy of Bush I – an administration which never saw an oppressive government it didn’t like. Kerry staffers admit to doing as much, saying that an Iraq-wearied public won’t stand for Wilsonianism, and wants a return to cold national interests. The problem is, this will sell out most of what at its root the Democratic legacy stands for in foreign policy: from Wilson’s Fourteen Points to FDR’s Four Freedoms to the Clinton administration's intervention to halt genocide in Kosovo (also a war fought without UN sanction). Though you could be murdered in New York or Boston this summer for saying so, the Clinton and Bush records aren’t that far apart, really: both national security strategies gave pride of place to the promotion of democracy, and Albright’s brainchild the Community of Democracies has since 2000 been carefully nursed by Paula Dobriansky. There is a new bipartisan consensus raising its head in America, and at its heart is agreement over a resurgent terrorist threat, the national need to combat patiently the conjunction of illiberalism with instability abroad, and the necessity to build up an army of much more than one to be able to deal with a new worldwide footprint of deployments.

And it is in both candidates’ interest to reach out to swing voters on their ability to prosecute this consensus at the center, instead of running for the votes of core partisans who will not be staying home come November 2. Rather than hurrying to repudiate the Democratic legacy in promoting democracy and human rights, Kerry should instead court the support of the swing 20 percent of Americans who are (according to a New York Times poll from this week) committed to democracy in Iraq, but disapprove of Bush’s handling of Iraqi reconstruction. Instead of running for the vote of Richard Nixon’s ghost or Moore’s viewers, he needs to convince swing voters he can be more hawkish in the war on terror, in building up the nation’s pitifully overstretched army, and in acting to remedy the degenerating security situation in Afghanistan; he has a chance to show that not only is democracy promotion not merely the exclusive preserve of neocons, but multilateralist Democrats can with their broader international support do the same job, better. The same holds for the incumbent: Bush’s legacy is not bad, and he must only sell it to voters, though through a skeptical press.

More importantly, it now stands in the interests of both candidates—and not merely the nation and its citizens —to reach for a centrist politics in foreign affairs to displace the fiery populism whose flames were stoked over the last decade by Gingrich and Gore, and which led to the heated partisanship in witness since the 2000 result. And the rest of us – those not munching on our popcorn this week – can finally have some hope, for that reason. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:26 PM by David Adesnik  

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, AMERICA! Time for barbecue and fireworks. See ya tomorrow. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:22 PM by David Adesnik  

INTERVIEWING MYSELF, PART II: Part one is here.

Noting that most of the conservatives I know tend to read the conservative blogs and most of the liberals go to the liberal blogs, my question is whether you ever feel that blogging is some sense is simply just preaching to the choir?

I definitely get that feeling sometimes. But I also get a constant stream of e-mail from conservative readers defending the President and his advisers from OxBlog’s criticism. And most of these critics write back on a regular basis, which implies pretty strongly that they are reading OxBlog because it provides a perspective so different from their own.

Alongside such anecdotal evidence, there are surveys (conducted by Andrew Sullivan, Josh Marshall and Dan Drezner) which show that while the majority of a site’s readers tend to agree with its perspective, there is a significant minority that sees things very differently. Moreover, almost everyone seems to read Instapundit and The Daily Dish sometimes, if only to find out what the other guys are thinking.

Is the Blog a permanent fixture in our culture?

At first, I thought the answer was definitely ‘no’. After all the irrational exuberance that surrounded the internet bubble, what reason was their to believe that a minor HTML application would have a lasting impact on our culture? But what’s really persuaded me otherwise is seeing the way that top-flight professional journalists have come to embrace blogging as a means of expression. At the New York Times, Nick Kristof and Dan Okrent have their own blogs. At The New Republic, everyone seems to have their own blog.

While there may have been a lot of hype at the beginning about how bloggers are the vanguard of a grassroots revolution, I think that blogging is here to stay not because of its accessibility, but because it is a medium that works just as well for a professional as it does for a college student or a homemaker.

Do your experiences being Jewish influence your postings on your Blog? For instance, Daniel Drezner told me that he tends to avoid ever writing about the Israeli-Palestinian issue because it is both depressing and ultra-polarizing and he finds it easier to avoid it?

As I mentioned above, my religion plays an important role when I write about religion. But I don’t think it plays much of a role in my discussion of politics. A few years ago, I felt exactly the way Dan does about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You can’t get away from Israel when you go to yeshiva. But you can avoid it in college and graduate school.

That all changed after 9/11. I realized that my intentional ignorance left me totally unprepared for the day when the Middle East became a matter of life and death for Americans, and not just for Arabs and Israelis. With Iraq dominating the headlines, I don’t write about Israel as much as I want. But I am committed to learning more.

Do you ever find instances where you feel the need that you should note that you are Jewish in your blog? At least one blogger told me he feels the need when discussing issues like anti-semitism or policy on Israel.

There aren’t too many goyim with names like ‘David Adesnik’. I also mention my Judaism pretty often in contexts that don’t have to do with Israel or anti-Semitism. Since most of OxBlog’s readers are regulars rather than one-timers, they know to take my religion into account when writing about related subjects.

Overall, how has Blogging changed your life and how do you balance it with all the other demands on you?

I have a relatively hard and fast rule that I don’t start blogging until I’m done with my work for the day. That’s why so many of my posts go up after midnight. Being unmarried and under 30, my schedule is generally pretty flexible. I haven’t thought about this before, but I’m guessing that most serious bloggers tend to be younger and have fewer children. Then again, Glenn Reynolds doesn’t fit any of those profiles.


I was wondering if you could comment on how your blog has propelled you into the mainstream and more traditional press. Without Oxblog, would you have had the opportunity to write for a publication such as the Weekly Standard? A large part of my article will concentrate on how bloggers are shaking up traditional media and providing competition for the press "elites," if you will.

That’s a tough question. I think the fact that I work with Josh Chafetz is at least as important as the fact that I write for OxBlog. Josh was an intern at The New Republic before he founded OxBlog. He has always had his finger on the mainstream pulse.

As a result, there are a lot of editors out there who read OxBlog. But even if they read OxBlog because of Josh, they also wind up reading a lot of what Patrick and I have to say. When I pitched my article on Reagan to the Weekly Standard a couple of weeks ago, I got one of the editors’ e-mail address from Josh. I still needed to have a marketable idea, but connections gave me the chance to market it.

Of course, there are other ways to get into the Weekly Standard. Five years ago I published a book review in the Standard. I got the editors’ attention that time around because I was working for Bob Kagan. So merit alone wasn’t responsible.

But even if connections have helped me break into the the mainstream, the fact that I am blogger makes me want to shake up the media and challenge its elites. In that sense, blogging is more of an attitude than it is a profession.

(1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:02 AM by Patrick Belton  

OH, BBC: Showing your customary high regard for diplomatic detail and factual correctness, you keep referring to Japanese former Foreign Minister Makiko Tanaka as Wakiko Tanaka. It kind of reminds you of an M&M joke (i.e., You know why the BBC reporter got fired from his first job at an M&M factory? Because he kept on throwing away the W's and the E's...)

UPDATE: We get results - hiya to our readership at the Beeb! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:28 PM by David Adesnik  

NOT JUST BETTER: Richard Cohen does an excellent job of making a classic point: Israeli democracy is not just morally superior to the brutal dictatorships that surround it. It also sets a standard for tolerance and introspection that is a model for other democratic societies, especially those at war with terror. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:07 PM by David Adesnik  

THE GODFATHER PASSES ON: Marlon Brandon, age 80. In the WaPo, Stephen Hunter provides a tribute to Brando's tumultuous life and career. With regard to The Godfather, Hunter writes that

Opinions vary, but I think this has to be the single greatest American movie and his the single greatest film performance. But why quibble? It's enough to say that the rogue genius, coming off 10 years of failure, managed to tame his demons long enough to give himself up to the dark part of Don Corleone: father, husband, leader, visionary, diplomat, killer. Somehow he resolved these complexities into a single coherent being, and yet was secure enough to have no need to dominate; his willingness to fit into an ensemble of another new generation of actors was estimable.

I couldn't agree more that The Godfather is the greatest American film ever made. More than fitting into an ensemble, Brando transformed it. I don't think it is possible to say whether it was Brando, Pacino, or James Caan whose performance deserves to be known as the greatest ever. Because it is simply impossible to disentangle their greatness from one another.

Nor would such greatness have been possible without the vision of Francis Ford Coppola. If you share my obsession with The Godfather, I strongly recommend getting a hold of the DVD box set, which contains Coppola's voice-over commentary on all three films as well as extensive documentary and archival footage. (And if you're a real purist, you can bring the disc with Godfather III back to the store and insist that it is artistically deficient.)

Finally, a bit of Brando trivia. Hunter opens his profile of Brando by recounting a legendary scene from The Wild One:

In 1954, a babe had a question for Johnny Strabler, who leans next to his gleaming hog, in a pathetic small town in the middle of nowhere.

"Johnny, what are you rebelling against?"

Johnny doesn't even have to think. Every line in his body expresses the answer, as does the contemptuous power of the machine, the beautiful sullenness of his face, the slouch of his heavily muscled body as it contorts the leathers that drape him like knight's armor, the rakish tilt of his cyclist's cap pulled across his broad forehead.

He replies, "Whatta ya got?"

Having just watched the film on video last week, I'm pretty sure that Brando is indoors and without his motorcycle when asks his infamous question. Moreover, he is in a corner and the camera delivers a medium-long shot, so its pretty hard to see the "beautiful sullenness of his face" or "the slouch of heavily muscled body".

Even though Brando's "Whatta ya got?" is the one legendary moment that survives from an otherwise fourth-rate film, it seems the director had no idea that the line was particularly dramatic, and certainly not that it was destined for immortality. All of that came from Brando. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:28 PM by David Adesnik  

CLINTON RECONSIDERED: This is the best review of Clinton's memoir I've read so far. The review's author is erstwhile Clinton biographer David Maraniss, who approaches the memoir as a historical document rather than a publicity circus, which one can discard after it has been ridiculed. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:08 PM by David Adesnik  

A NEW HEARTHROB FOR THE GIRLS OUT THERE: Us guys are pretty happy with Maria Sharapova. But what you ladies have been waiting for is Colin Powell. No, really. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:57 PM by David Adesnik  

INTERVIEWING MYSELF: A journalist researching a story on Jewish bloggers recently asked me to do an interview. Since I decided to the interview by e-mail, I actually have a record of what I wanted to say. And since only one or two quotes will make it into the final article, I figured I'd post the rest of the interview here on OxBlog:

When did you start doing the blogger thing and why?

I was at Patrick’s wedding in August 2002 when I had my first real conversation with Josh. I had met him once or twice at Oxford, but didn’t really know him all that well. He told me about this website he’d started called OxBlog.

Later that week, I read OxBlog for the first time. I was so taken with Josh’s writing that I read all of his archived posts, going back to April of that year. Then I sent him a message asking if could join the site.

I think I became a part of OxBlog because I felt that I had something to say and wanted an audience to hear it. Not just a passive audience, but one that would react and criticize and challenge.

What's your main purpose with your blog? Is it to generate a discussion? Promote a viewpoint? If you had to describe the overriding purpose or point of the blog-- what would it be?

The overriding purpose of my blogging is to educate myself. You have to do a lot of reading before you have something coherent to say, and you have think a lot harder about what you’re going to say when you know that thousands of intelligent readers are watching every word you say.

Before I started graduate school, I worked for one year as a researcher at a Washington think tank. I had just graduated from college and had lots of academic knowledge that I was proud of. But I quickly realized that if I didn’t pay close attention to the issues of the day, my academic knowledge wouldn’t have much application.

When I started blogging in September 2002, I had just finished my second year of graduate school. I knew at the time that I wanted to do policy work rather than going in to academia. But this time around, I wanted to graduate with a strong handle on current events, so that my academic knowledge would do me some good.

Within a month or so of putting up my first post, I knew that blogging was the best way possible to prepare myself for leaving the ivory tower.

Are there are topics you specifically avoid talking about on the Blog or that you find uncomfortable?

The toughest judgment calls all have to do with how much personal information I decide to give out on the blog. One of the most attractive things about blogging is that when you read a blog, you feel like you are talking to a real human being. In contrast, professional journalists tend cultivate an air of authoritative objectivity, which I find to be both artificial and cold.

Blog readers tend to have warm feelings about their favorite authors, so you can count on them to be a sympathetic audience. Who wouldn’t be tempted to explain to a sympathetic audience of thousands why their ex-girlfriend is a heartless bitch? But from where I stand, telling strangers about your personal life is a way of running away from your problems while violating the privacy of those around you.

Still, that doesn’t mean you should impose a blackout on your personal life. For example, last year I did a running series on my impressive run of first-round losses in some amateur karate tournaments. I’ve never been a good athlete, so the stories were pretty amusing.

I also decided to post on OxBlog about my mother’s ordination as a rabbi in May 2003. I was extremely proud of her – as I’ve always been – and decided that I had the right to shep some nachas in the blogosphere.

Of everything you've written or debated on your Blog thus far, what do you perceive as having gotten the most attention or reaction from people? Is there any one thing that stands out?

What always surprise me are the passionate responses I get every time I write about religion. When I write about religion, I tend to get mail from readers who’ve never written in before, but who’ve suddenly decided to compose long and thoughtful essays on subjects that are very clearly close to their hearts.

The discussions that result from these letters – many of which I’ve posted on OxBlog – are extremely educational. Despite attending a yeshiva day school for 13 years – or perhaps because of it – I find that my knowledge of Christianity is almost negligible.

When Mel Gibson’s Passion came out a few months ago, I suggested in one post that the Gospels were inherently anti-Semitic, or at least anti-Judaic. In response, I received detailed theological arguments to the contrary from a half-dozen Christian perspectives. While I’m still not sure what I think about this issue, I know for a fact that Christians across the United States are putting a lot of thought and care into answering this kind of very hard question.

In contrast, 13 years of yeshiva education left me with the impression that Christians were instinctive anti-Semites who aren’t even open-minded enough to face up to their prejudices.

In your opinion, how have bloggers affected the nation's political dialogue and/or the political process?

In rare instances, for example the Trent Lott affair, bloggers have had a visible impact on events of national importance. But the real significance of our work as bloggers is that way that it has become a resource for professional journalists.

As armchair columnists, bloggers depend on the mainstream media for almost all of their news. As a result, bloggers are at least as critical of the journalists who provide us our information as we are of the elected officials who run our country. In contrast, the journalists themselves focus almost entirely on the politicians and rarely, in the midst of deadlines, to reflect on the quality of their work.

Of course, there is a big political divide on the issue of media bias. Almost every blogger to the right of center spends an extensive amount of time deconstructing the New York Times and other papers in order to show how journalists’ personal beliefs influence their coverage, in spite of their professed objectivity.

Almost every blogger to the left of center argues that conservatives’ complaints about media bias are nothing more than a diversion from the actual failures of elected officials, failures that show up in the paper because they are simply a matter of fact. The exception to this rule are those bloggers to the far left of center who insist that the media defends Republican interests from behind a veil of objectivity.

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

# Posted 2:12 PM by Patrick Belton  

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I think we have a new Russian heartthrob:




Maria Sharapova, 17, had this to say to Serena Williams, whom she played against in the finals on Centre Court:

'Serena actually I have to take this way from you for one year, I'm sorry,' she said, as she accepted the Venus Rosewater Dish on Centre Court at Wimbleton. 'I know there are going to be so many more moments when we're going to play. I'm sure we're going to be here another time and hopefully many more times in other grand slams, fighting for the trophy, so thank you for giving me a tough match but I'm sorry I had to win today.' She then called her mother.

And we had thought - prematurely, it turns out - that all class was gone from sports. What a dear. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:47 PM by David Adesnik  

PANTS ON FIRE: Spinsanity isn't letting Moore get away with a single, solitary lie. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:35 PM by David Adesnik  

OXBLOG "HUMOURLESS": That's the verdict from Ed Cone, who says my extended critique of The Onion is "thuddlingly self-serious" and that "The Onion could have a field day with this guy". Ed also gets in a good shot by noting Rhodes Scholars are short on credibility when it comes to accusing others of being elitist.

Actually, no. Rhodes Scholars may be part of an elite, but 'elitism' refers to those who look down on the mass public. When push comes to shove, I've got a lot of faith in the aggregate rationality of the American public.

Anyhow, here's something funny just in case my posts have been getting you down lately:

My dad was...not a very bright man. When I was 6, I asked him where babies came from, and he said, "The stork!" I replied incredulously, "You f***ed a stork?"

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:57 PM by Patrick Belton  

FRANCE: 'WHEN WE DO IT, IT'S MERELY EXPRESSING AN OPINION....'

'We are opposed to the application of the death penalty under any circumstances.' Deputy FM Pozzo di Borgo, commenting on whether the sovereign government of Iraq would choose to apply the death penalty to Saddam Hussein after a fair trial convicted him of genocide.

'But when they do it, it's meddling....'

'Not only did he go too far, but he went into territory that isn't his. It's a bit like if I told the United States how they should manage their relations with Mexico.' President Chirac, responding to President Bush's comment that Turkey was and should be part of Europe. (1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:46 AM by Patrick Belton  

GO AHEAD, CALL THEM COWBOYS: My in-laws, also frequently known as Judge Andrew and Professor Judy Kleinfeld, have a piece in this month's AEI Magazine. Congrats, mom and dad! (And the rest of you will have to read their article in print, although the table of contents are online.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:18 AM by Patrick Belton  

IRAN WATCH, II: Christian Science Monitor has a round up of the coverage. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:15 AM by David Adesnik  

A GUIDE TO POLITICAL NEUROSES: The following is an excerpt from an essay by Arthur Koestler, best known as the author of Darkness at Noon. It appeared in the inaugural issue of Encounter in 1958:

Eternal Adolescents

The young radical intellectual of Bloomsbury, St. Germain de Pres, or Greenwich village is a relatively harmless type. Often his radicalism is derived from adolescent revolt against the parents or some other stereotyped conflict which makes him temporarily despair of the world. But some of the young radicals never grow up; they remain the eternal adolescents of the Left.

One variety of this type is frequently found both in the United States and in France, though rarely in England. Young X. stars as an enthusiastic Communist, is soon disillusioned, found a Trotskyite opposition group o ten people, discovers that six of the ten form a secret "opposition bloc" within the group, is disillusioned, founds a little "mag" with a hundred per cent true anti-capitalist, anti-Stalinist, anti-pacifist programme, goes bankrupt, starts a new little mag, and so on. All his struggles, polemics, victories, and defeats are storms in a tea cup, confined to the same small circle of radical intellectuals -- a kind of family which thrives on quarrels and mutual denunciations, and yet coheres by virtue of some unique dialectical glue. A classic example is the group of Marxist-Existentialists around Sartre's Les Temps Modernes, with their perennial quarrels and schisms. The sectarian may be said to suffer from the incestuous type of political libido.

A different type is Y., the busybody, whose name is on every "progressive" committee, whose voice is raised in protest against every injustice, who has embraced every good cause under the sun, and has never achieved anything on earth. Y. is the political equivalent of the nymphomaniac; he suffers from an excess of political libido. This kind of neurosis, too, flourishes chiefly in the climate of the Left, -- for, generally speaking the Left is politically over-sexed.

Finally, there is Z., the political masochist. With him, the parable of the mote and the beam has been reversed. The slightest injustice in his own country wrings from him cries of anguish and despair, but he finds excuses for the most heinous crimes committed in the opposite camp. When a coloured tennis player is refused a room in a London luxury hotel, Z. quivers with spontaneous indignation; when millions spit out their lungs in Soviet Arctic mines and lumber-camps, Z.'s sensitive conscience is silent. Z. is an inverted patriot, whose self-hatred and craving for self-punishment has turned into hatred for his country or social class and yearning for the whip that will scourge.

Coming across Koestler's thoughts in the midst of the great Michael Moore publicity fest, it is hard to escape the thought that the radical left, down to the midst specific details of its personalities, has changed not at all over the past fifty years.

On the other hand, Koestler's polemic provides an important reminder that responding to such critics often brings out the worse in us. Read in context, it is far from apparent that Koestler intended his guide to political neuroses as a satire of the left, even though that is how it will strike the modern reader. Surely, it would not be hard to identify the political neuroses of conservatives as well.

The final lesson to be taken from Koestler's writing is that we have nothing to fear. Even at the height of the Cold War, when Communism presented an existential threat to Western civilization, the radical left was a source of amusement rather than a meance. Now, as we confront the dangerous but hardly overwhelming threat of Islamist terror, we would do well to remember that Michael Moore & Co. are nothing more than comedians, regardless of their intentions. (1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:41 AM by Patrick Belton  

WHO KNEW? ELECTIONS ACTUALLY CAN BE FUN! And that's mostly thanks to blogger Tom McMahon, who's created a 'guess the presidential election year by the electoral college map' quiz. Fun for hours! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:40 AM by Patrick Belton  

IRAN WATCH: Defence Minister Geoff Hoon told the House of Commons yesterday that the six Royal Marines and two Royal Navy sailors detained by Iran for four days had not strayed into Iranian waters, and were operating inside the Iraqi border when they were forcibly escorted into Iranian territorial waters and then detained. (AP, FT, BBC) Some analysts believe Tehran was retaliating for British support of a recent International Atomic Energy Agency resolution deploring its lack of cooperation with nuclear inspectors.

In other Iranian news, two security guards attached to Iran's UN mission have been expelled from the United States for espionage, after surveilling New York landmarks and infrastructure. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:42 AM by David Adesnik  

ONLY AT OXFORD: A friend of a friend got the following message when she requested a book from the stacks at the Bodleian:

Author : Crepaz, Markus M. L., 1959-
Title : Democracy and institutions : the life work of Arend Lijphart
Barcode : N13413942
Shelfmark : M00.E13957 [...]

Item located on unsafe bookcase - may not be fetched.
PC

We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:49 AM by David Adesnik  

GIVE HIM ENOUGH ROPE: David Brooks says absolutely nothing in one of his recent columns. But he really doesn't have to, since Michael Moore says it all himself.

Of course, just because Moore has his foot in his mouth doesn't that Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't full of lies: this Newsweek column (link via Sullivan) is particularly devastating.

Now, you might ask, why is the liberal media turning on Michael Moore? Because the media always goes after major public figures who accuse of it being biased. As Newsweek tells us,

Moore also this week contended that the media was pounding away at him “pretty hard” because “they’re embarrassed. They’ve been outed as people who did not do their job.” Among the media critiques prominently criticized was an article in Newsweek.

In my own discussions with journalists, I've found them to be at least as annoyed by leftists' accusations that they are conservative mouthpieces than by conservatives' accusations that they are inveterate liberals. So don't expected Moore's bumpy ride to end anytime soon. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:23 PM by David Adesnik  

PEELING THE ONION: How can you criticize a polemic for being one-sided? How can you criticize a satire for being unrealistic? This pair of rhetorical questions has come to serve as the first line of defense for Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11.

However, the answers to the these questions are, in fact, pretty straightforward. Even though argumentation is an inherent aspsect of polemics, taking a position does not entitle one to ignore the evidence and logic presentd by one's opponents.

Satire is subject to a similar, albeit more subtle standard. While it is hard to criticze an isolated bit of satire for being unfair or one-sided, a satirical work that employs the same caricatures and stereotypes over and over again may reinforce one's prejudices rather than opening one's mind.

Which brings us to The Onion. I love The Onion. I read it every week. But I laugh a lot less at The Onion's political humor than I do at its brilliant send-ups of America's social habits and popular culture.

The reason I laugh a lot less is that The Onion's political humor employs the same caricatures and stereotypes over and over again. Moreover, these satirical devices collectively form a coherent ideology that is both extremely elitist and extremely liberal.

To be frank, I have a lot more trouble with The Onion's elitism than I do with its liberalism. Liberalism is a good thing. Liberal ideals, both classical and modern, have contributed immeasurably to American political discourse. Yet The Onion's brand of elitism, when cloaked in humor, has the potential to breed a disturbing sort of cynicism.

This elitist cynicism is especially harmful when it interacts with The Onion's liberalism, because it results in a sort of embittered partisan politics that renders liberalism all but irrelevant to mainstream political debates.

On some occasions, it might be necessary to perform a comprehensive search of The Onion's archives in order to substantiate the accusations made above. Yet this week, the content of a single issue of The Onion provides more than enough evidence for the points I am trying to make.

The Onion presents Americans as ignorant, self-centered and conformist. Under "Latest Headlines", the first story The Onion presents is one entitled American People Ruled Unfit to Govern:

In a historic decision with major implications for the future of U.S. participatory democracy, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 Monday that the American people are unfit to govern...

As a result of the ruling, the American people will no longer retain the power to choose their own federal, state, and local officials or vote on matters of concern to the public.

The article proceeds to detail how Americans' apathetic ignorance of basic facts renders them incapable of making informed decisions. As it often does, The Onion puts its own editorial position in the mouth of a scholar/pundit:

In spite of the enormous impact the ruling would seem to have, many political experts are downplaying its significance.

"It doesn't really change anything, to be honest," Duke University political-science professor Benjamin St. James said. "The public hasn't made any real contributions to the governance of the country in decades, so I don't see how this ruling affects all that much."

The theme of public ignorance returns in the very next headline, which reads "Hero Citizen Can Name All 50 States". The content of the article is fairly predictable, so The Onion doesn't get too many points for creativity here.

The obedient and conformist nature of the American public finds expression in an opinion column entitled "I Should Not Be Allowed To Say The Following Things About America". The basic message here is that only the mindless faith that the American public has in its leaders can explain public support for George Bush's idiotic foreign policy:

As Americans, we have a right to question our government and its actions. However, while there is a time to criticize, there is also a time to follow in complacent silence. And that time is now.

It's one thing to question our leaders in the days leading up to a war. But it is another thing entirely to do it during the occupation of a country...

Why do we purport to be fighting in the name of liberating the Iraqi people when we have no interest in violations of human rights—as evidenced by our habit of looking the other way when they occur in China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Syria, Burma, Libya, and countless other countries? Why, of all the brutal regimes that regularly violate human rights, do we only intervene militarily in Iraq? Because the violation of human rights is not our true interest here. We just say it is as a convenient means of manipulating world opinion and making our cause seem more just.

That is exactly the sort of thing I should not say right now.

Well, so much for subtlety. The second opinion column in this week's Onion bears the optimistic title, "Hang In There! You Live In The Richest Nation In The World!" The author of the column asks

You know that old saying, "Life begins at 40"? Well, not in Sierra Leone! The life expectancy there is 38! I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto!

Did you know that the U.S. makes up only 4 percent of the world's population, yet we have a third of its automobiles and consume a quarter of its energy supply? Keep that in mind the next time you get passed over for that big promotion at work!

That first line about Sierra Leone is actually pretty funny, even if it is a knock-off the old Onion headline "Teenager in Burundi Has Mid-Life Crisis". Anyhow, the bottom line is that Americans just don't care about the tremendous suffering of the 5 billion men, women and children who live in the developing world. As long as they've got their Big Macs and their SUVs, they will believe Bush's lies and remain blissfully ignorant of the world around them.

If I were to defend The Onion at this point, I would argue on its behalf that its clever exaggerations identify and amplify serious defects in American civic life. But since I'm not defending The Onion, I am going to argue that reality in America is almost exactly the opposite of what The Onion describes.

As I've explained before, the American public actually has a very strong record of rational decision-making:

Before the 1980s, it was taken for granted that the American public had volatile and incoherent opinions about politics, both foreign and domestic. By extension, this volatility and incoherence rendered Americans vulnerable to manipulation by both the media and the government.

In the 1980s, scholars began to discover that the premise of volatility and incoherence had led public opinion researchers to rely on methods that created an impression of volatility and incoherence even when there was none. In contrast, the United States had a rational public that derived its opinions on current events from a fixed set of values and updated its opinions when new information became available to it.

This conclusion reflects the research of America's leading experts on public opinion, most importantly Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro.

On a related note, there is good evidence out there that instead of being passive conformists, Americans are extremely skeptical of anything their government says. Ever since Watergate and Vietnam, opinion polls have registered a sharp and continuing decline in the level of trust that Americans have in public institutions.

Interestingly, Americans have less faith in journalists than before, but still expect them to tell the truth far more often than politicians do. Perhaps that is why fewer and fewer Americans describe President Bush as honest and trustworthy.

In the final analysis, the skewered vision of American politics presented by The Onion may be clever, but instead of educating its audience, it reinforces misleading stereotypes that embittered elitist use to justify their pessimism about America's thriving democracy. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:14 PM by Patrick Belton  

POSSIBLE RESPONSES TO DISCOVERING, VIA FRIENDSTER*, THAT ONE'S EX-GIRLFRIEND HAS CHANGED HER SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE PERIOD SINCE YOU BROKE UP WITH HER:

The pessimistic response: (this courtesy me), that one must have put her off from one's half of the species entirely

The optimistic response: (this courtesy of OxFriend Josh Cherniss), that one must have made the remaining portion of one's half of the species seem unattractive by comparison. I rather like this one.

*And no, I'm not linking to her profile, as I still like her a great deal and am very fond of her. And for the record, I support this sort of thing, although I'm not entirely sure in this case precisely what sort of thing it is that I'm supporting. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:42 AM by David Adesnik  

HOW THE EVIL CONSERVATIVES TRICKED ME: Last week, The New Republic devoted itself to asking the fundamental question facing every liberal who supported the invasion of Iraq: "Was I wrong?" It's a damn good question.

At the moment, TNR has made about half of its "Was I Wrong?" essays available on its website. There is one excellent essay in the bunch. In their column, the editors of TNR write that "We feel regret--but no shame." Knowing now that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, one cannot be glad that America went to war. Yet given what we knew in April of last year, there is nothing to be ashamed of.

In contrast to the editors, Ken Pollack, Fareed Zakaria and Anne Applebaum all refuse to accept responsibility for their decisions. Instead, the accuse the Bush administration of putting on a moderate face and tricking them into believing that the President and his advisers would deal responsibly with the aftermath of an invasion.

Given the Bush administration's early opposition to nation-building and irresponsible neglect of Afghanistan after the occupation of Kabul, I don't see how anyone could have expected the Bush administration to do much better in Iraq. After all, the reason Josh and I founded OxDem was because we believed that conservatives and liberals would have to work together in order to ensure that the Bush administration didn't abandon Iraq the way it had Afghanistan.

Nonetheless, TNR's contributors invent some impressive rationales for explaining away their faith in the Administration. By the far the most elaborate and the most delusional belongs to Anne Applebaum, an author for whom I have great respect. Applebaum writes that

I had taken it for granted that the administration's big hitters--Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and, to some extent, even Powell--were united, if nothing else, by one common experience: All had been staunch opponents of the Soviet Union. That meant not only that they'd been right about the cold war, but that they knew that we had won it only partly thanks to U.S. military strength...

After September 11, I was certain that the Bush administration, packed with old cold warriors as it was, would also treat the war on terrorism as a moral and ideological battle, a struggle for hearts and minds, and not just an opportunity for the United States to show off its advanced weapons systems.

If Applebaum had been paying attention in the aftermath of Reagan's death, she would have noticed that conservatives eulogized the President by praising his unmitigated commitment to confronting Soviet aggression. That is how the Cold War was won. It had nothing to do with compromise. Only strength.

That is the same point that conservatives have been making for years. It is the same argument they made while Reagan was President. That goes for neo-conservatives like Wolfowitz as well as hawkish realists such as Cheney and Rumsfeld. Powell (and Rice?) may have been more moderate, but no one suspected them of being the dominant force within the Bush administration.

Zakaria's self-justification is similar to Applebaum's, except without the historical baggage. He writes that

The biggest mistake I made on Iraq was to believe that the Bush administration would want to get Iraq right more than it wanted to prove its own prejudices right. I knew the administration went into Iraq with some crackpot ideas, but I also believed that, above all else, it would want success on the ground. I reasoned that it would drop its pet theories once it was clear they were not working. I still don't understand why the Bush team proved so self-defeatingly stubborn. Perhaps its initial success in Afghanistan emboldened it to move forward unconstrained. Perhaps its prejudices about Iraq had developed over decades and were deeply held. Perhaps the administration was far more divided and dysfunctional than I had recognized, making rational policy impossible.

What on earth persuade Zakaria that the Bush administration was in the habit of changing course under fire? From tax cuts to the war on terror, the Bush administration has distinguished itself by sticking to its guns come hell or high water. If you like what the administration has done, you praise its Reagan-esque resolve. If you dislike what the administration has done, you criticize its stubborn intransigence. But you can't pretend that the administration is known for accepting compromise.

On a related note, I'm not sure how Zakaria can reasonably depict the occupation of Afghanistan as an example of responsible policy making. As Patrick's recent post illustrates, there was never much of a commitment to Afghanistan by either the Bush administration or any other NATO powers. This much has been self-evident since the first months after the fall of the Taliban.


In addition to Applebaum and Zakaria, Leon Wieseltier and Ken Pollack also try to present themselves as innocent victims of Bush's faux moderation. I won't go into examples, however, especially since I already commented on Pollack's essay in an earlier post.

What I will comment on is Kevin Drum's take on Applebaum. As Kevin reminds us, he was one of the very few liberals who supported the war almost until it began, but backed out specifically because he didn't believe Bush was serious about post-war reconstruction. Savoring Applebaum's conversion from hawk to dove, Kevin forgets to ask why she had faith in the Bush administration even when it was so obvious to him exactly what to expect.

Back when Kevin changed sides on the war, I thought he was behaving somewhat strangely since Bush, in his address at AEI, had just made his most explicit commitment to promoting democracy in Iraq. Since that time, Kevin has periodically insisted that the Bush administration was about to cut and run, abandoning Iraq to civil war rather than risking a backlash at the polls when Bush came up for re-election. Instead, the President -- true to form -- has only become more emphatic and intransigent in his insistence that Iraqi will be rebuilt and democratized, come hell or high water.

While there is ample room to criticize Bush's follow through on this sort of ambitious rhetoric, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Bush has shown far more dedication to the daunting task of nation-building than anyone (especially OxBlog) expected. Thus, it is doubly ironic that embarrassed liberal hawks now insist that they only supported the war because they were tricked.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:13 AM by David Adesnik  

A RISING TIDE: Kevin Drum points to an interesting column by Ron Brownstein, whose statistics show that economic growth in the 1990s benefited both ethnic minorities and the American poor even more than it did the white upper-class.

Both Kevin and Ron argue that these numbers were the direct result of Clinton administration policies such as welfare reform, minimum wage hikes, increased tax credits for the working poor and health care programs for working-class kids. While supporting all of those policies, I don't know enough to say one way or the other whether such limited programs can dramatically alter the distribution of our national income. My gut instinct says no.

Anyhow, I'm still pretty surprised to learn that things turned out so well for middle- and working-class Americans in the 1990s. After being inundated for three years by British denunciations of our merciless capitalist system, I began to take it for granted that there was an inherent trade off between equality and opportunity. So, for once, I'm glad to know that my opinions were ignorant and wrong. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:17 AM by David Adesnik  

DON'T SMILE: Here's the latest NYT compilation of bad news about reconstruction in Iraq. The less newsworthy good news can be found here. It's also worth noting that Coalition fatalities were down yet again: 50 in June vs. 84 in May vs. 140 during April, the bloodiest month of the occupation. As always, the numbers are courtesty of Lunaville. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:49 PM by David Adesnik  

THOSE POOR, INNOCENT SAUDIS: Dan Drezner's recent TCS column points to an important finding by the 9/11 that has been completely: there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda.

I have to admit, I took it for granted that such a relationship existed. By extension, I partially bought into the common belief that the Bush administration hasn't done enough to bring the Saudi government into line. But the egg on my face is nothing compared to what this says about Michael Moore, who spends the first half-hour of Fahrenheit 9/11 constructing highly speculative conspiracy theories about the Saudi responsibility for international terror.

Moving on, Dan has also put up some good posts on Iraq which point to informative articles in the WaPo, Time and elsewhere. Most surprising of all are early indications that Iyad Allawi actually commands considerable respect from everday Iraqis, something that the NYT and Spencer Ackerman thought impossible. The question now is how long his popularity will last, especially if Allawi demonstrates more concern about crushing insurgents than he does about institutionalizing political freedoms.

Finally, don't miss Dan's latest TNR column on outsourcing, which shows how deeply the American public believes in scapegoating foreign workers for domestic job losses. So I guess I shouldn't let anyone know that OxBlog has been farming out its work to some grad students on the far side of the Atlantic... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:42 AM by Patrick Belton  

AND NOW FOR A LOOK INSIDE AFGHANISTAN: OxFriend Michael Bhatia and two other American and British security analysts have just published an exhaustive indictment of the appallingly insufficient extent of Nato and international security assistance to Afghanistan, in a report with the title 'Minimal Investments, Minimal Results: The Failure of Security Policy in Afghanistan'. (The pdf file is lengthy but well worth the download.)

Several excerpts:

• 'Are the principal factional commanders less powerful, less abusive of their fellow citizens, or less brazen in their dealings with the central government now than they were in 2002? Has the opium crop been eliminated, reduced, or even held constant since 2002? Is the physical security of Afghan citizens, government officials, NGO workers, or national and international troops better now than in January 2002? Tellingly, and regrettably, the answer to all three questions is 'no'.'

• 'ISAF (the International Security Assistance Force) however, was never resourced to move outside of Kabul in a more than symbolic way, and when it finally did, has focused more on its own security than that of Afghans. Despite Afghanistan being widely proclaimed as Nato's highest priority, the unwillingness of Nato member states to adequately resource ISAF with troops and equipment has seriously undermined the ability of ISAF commanders to do their job effectively.'

• 'Prime Minister Tony Blair's 2003 declaration that the international community 'will not walk away from' Afghanistan missed the real question: When will the international community really walk into Afghanistan, and make the necessary commitments and investments that will give the Afghan people a reasonable chance at building a peaceful and stable country?'

• 'In addressing one of the key sources of insecurity in Afghanistan - factional commanders - the Government of Afghanistan, the international community, and even the international military forces appear plagued by timidity. The Government often shrinks from confrontation and instead engages in short-term deal-making that often undermines long-term policy objectives. International military commanders assert they can only stay in Afghnistan 'with the consent' of the factional commanders, and thus cannot afford to be confrontational or assertive in their dealings with them. This attitude sells short the moral authority of the government and the military power of the Coalition and ISAF, and it sells out the people of Afghanistan for whom this may be the most pressing of all security issues'.

The whole report is worth reading - its summary of the current situation in Afghanistan is succint and detail-rich, and the writing and analysis are compelling and convey a much needed sense of urgency. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:17 AM by David Adesnik  

OUR FIRST LOOK INSIDE FALLUJA: Back in junior high, Nir Rosen was a scrawny kid who could draw just about anything if you have him a pen and paper. He bought overpriced designer jeans and paid for them by installment.

Nir never had much respect for authority and once got suspended for a having a haircut that was more cut than hair. Girls liked him. He left our school after 9th grade and I didn't see him more than once or twice in the next seven years.

In the fall of 1999, I was crossing N Street near Dupont Circle when a heavily-muscled man with short hair and a very attractive woman on his arm called out my name. It was Nir. As we caught up over the next few months I found out that he wanted to be an investigative journalist.

Like the kids who made their by driving down to Central America in the 1980s, Nir figured the best way to get things done was to go where the action was and write about it. When I saw first saw him, he was saving up for a trip to Bosnia and Yugoslavia.

In the meantime, he was trying to get through college and making ends meet by working assorted jobs. He had been a bouncer in Georgetown bar for a while, but discovered that it wasn't an enjoyable job unless you really liked hurting people. Most of his colleagues did.

After the invasion of Iraq, Nir shipped out for Baghdad without hesitating. Early on, he got an article published in Time Magazine. Since then, he has freelanced for newspapers including the Pittsburght Post-Gazette and the Asia Times.

But now Nir has hit the big time. He has the lead essay in this week's New Yorker, entitled "Home Rule". Congratulations are in order, since writing about Falluja from the inside takes a lot of courage, in addition to the literary talent expected of all contributors to the New Yorker. A lot of older correspondents won't risk going into the heart of the Sunni Triangle, but I'm guessing that only made it more attractive for Nir.

The story Nir has found is a fascinating one. In the absence of American soldiers, Falluja has reverted to a sort of clerical rule embodied in the person of Sheikh Dhafer al-Obeidi. In spite of having his authority granted by Falluja's most senior Sunni cleric, Dhafer struggles to reign in the foreign jihadis in town while also collaborating with the nominal mayor and the former general appointed by the United States to maintain local security.

The individuals and events that Nir describes demonsrate just how accomplished he has become at integrating himself into foreign cultures. Still, there are important questions that Nir seems to have left unasked. While consulting an impressive cross-section of local authority figures, Nir doesn't give us much sense of what the broader mass of Falluja residents wants for themselves. Does their resistance to the American occupation stem from an ideological commitment to Ba'athism, a religious commitment to Islam or an attachment to the extensive material benefits that Saddam once bestowed on his favorite subjects?

Nir hints at an answer to this quesiton when he writes that

In the first few months after Saddam’s government fell, the city had been fairly stable internally. Religious and tribal leaders had appointed their own civil management council before the Americans arrived. Falluja did not suffer from looting, and government buildings were protected. Tight tribal bonds helped maintain order. Early in the occupation, however, a demonstration protesting the Americans’ takeover of a school building had turned bloody, and a cycle of attacks and retaliation began, with the resistance increasing in sophistication. Local fighters were joined by rogue mujahideen and jihadis from other Arab countries, and, as in the rest of Iraq, the violence and disorder spiralled out of control.

I must admit that I am quite suspicious of the implicit suggestion that it is all the Americans' fault. First of all, American soldiers began to clash with Sunni gunmen in Falluja less than three weeks after the fall of Baghdad. The march that first led to violence was actually a celebration of Saddam's birthday. (I'm not sure if this is the same march that Nir refers to above.)

In other words, the residents of Falluja are not simply anti-American but are (or at least were) actively pro-Saddam. This pro-Saddam sentiment explains why there was no looting: the residents of Falluja didn't hate Saddam and suffer under his rule the way the rest of Iraq. Moreover, how much stability was there in Falluja if protest marches turned violent during the first weeks of the occupation?

All in all, it is somewhat misleading for Nir to describe the intense conflict in Falluja as a product of minor disturbances that "spiralled out of control". A spiral implies a lack of responsibility and a lack of awareness on the parts of its participants. In Falluja, the violence was not part of a spiral, but of the rabid anti-Americanism of the Ba'athist dictatorships most fervent supporters.

After describing Falljua's hybrid political order as "a controversial experiment in Iraqi autonomy", Nir concludes his article by writing that

As the handover to sovereignty began [in late June], the experiment with self-rule in Falluja looked more and more like a desperate measure that had been taken too late.

In other words, the handover itself is simply Falluja writ large: "a desperate measure...taken too late." While there is much to criticize about the handover, Nir's comparison of Falluja with Iraq as a whole is profoundly misguided, if not atypical of American journalists in Iraq.

After all, how can one predict the attitudes and behavior of Shi'ites and Kurds -- let alone most Sunnis -- from the attitudes and behavior of Saddam's most loyal supporters? Journalists' refusal to acknowledge such religious and tribal differences led to their prediction in early April that Moqtada Sadr's Shi'ite insurgents would join with their Sunni counterparts in a national revolt against the American occupation. For most correspondents, Sadr's defeat and Sistani's support for the Americans discredited such predictions. Yet Nir still holds to them quite fast. He writes that

Falluja is one of the most religiously conservative towns in the “Sunni triangle,” but the recent confluence of the Shiite uprising led by Moqtada al-Sadr and the siege of Falluja by the marines had created a curious alliance that transcended religious differences.

In our arguments about the occupation, Nir has insited without reservation that there is an anti-American consensus lurking just below the surface of Iraq's intensely factionalized politics. In his essay in the New Yorker, this article of faith makes itself manifest.

Nonetheless, I think Nir deserves tremendous credit for risking his life -- literally -- to educate the American public about critical events in one of the most important but least well-known parts of Iraq. Regardless of any reservations I have, there is no question that I have learned a lot from Nir's impressive work. (1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:15 PM by David Adesnik  

MOORE IS LESS: Over at TNR, Richard Just deliciously deconstructs one of the most disingeuous aspects of Fahrenheit 9/11.

And while we're on the subject, let me just say that Paul Wolfowitz desperately needs a makeover from the boys at Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Even though I have a lot of respect for Wolfowitz, it was almost impossible not to cringe during Fahrenheit 9/11 when Wolfowitz pulls a comb from his pocket, puts it in his mouth and then slurps on it as if it were a greasy popsicle.

After fixing his hair with the spit-waddled comb, Wolfowitz then slurps on his fingers and runs them through his hair. All the while, the Deputy Secretary of Defense has an impish grin on his face, the kind you see on children who know that they can get away with picking their noses in public because their parents are too tired to stop them.

Even though it's sort of mean and unfair for Moore to include this kind of gross-out footage, it's not as if Wolfowitz didn't know he was looking into a television camera. Like it or not, images are political.

On the other hand, it's good to know that the mainstream media didn't make a big deal out of the Wolfowitz gross-out footage, even though they clearly could've done so. After all, making fun of someone's poor grooming habits doesn't isn't all that mature.

Then again, Moore seems to have a sense of humor about his own appearance, so I guess it's okay if he sometimes calls the kettle black. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:07 AM by Patrick Belton  

IRAQ A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY, AS OF THIS MORNING: In a surprise move aimed at disrupting terrorist attacks timed around the formal handover of sovereignty to the Iraqi government, the United States and United Kingdom transferred sovereignty this morning to the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Allawi. Joe Gandelman takes an exhaustive look:

The U.S.-led coalition transferred sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government Monday, speeding up the move by two days in an apparent bid to surprise insurgents who may have tried to sabotage the step toward self rule.

Legal documents handing over sovereignty were handed over by U.S. governor L. Paul Bremer to interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi in a ceremony in the heavily guarded Green Zone. (from AP)

And from an announcement this morning by FM Zebari:

Mr Zebari said the deteriorating security situation in the country was one of the reasons why the date had been brought forward.

"We will challenge these elements in Iraq, the anti-democratic elements, by even bringing the handover of sovereignty before June 30 as a sign we are ready for it," he said.

He added: "We have made some very good progress in terms of the new security council (in Iraq) and the return of sovereignty to the Iraqi people to take away the level of occupation we have suffered a great deal from.

"There are many Iraqis who are standing up to the challenge. We are here to seek more help and assistance, training and equipment."

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:43 AM by David Adesnik  

GOING TO THE CHAPEL: One of my best friends from high school is getting married today. Back tomorrow night. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:31 AM by Patrick Belton  

NATO AT 55: Over the next two days, the elected leaders of the twenty-six nations which comprise Nato will be assembling in Istanbul to decide together which directions they will take the 55-year old alliance. (More formally, and to use the quaint language peculiar to the venerable transatlantic alliance, Nato’s governing North Atlantic Council will be convening at the level of heads of state and government.)

What will happen in Istanbul? Here’s one set of predictions:

• Afghanistan: Secretary Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has called Nato’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan the central issue for this summit. Unfortunately, Nato’s limited capabilities at the moment make it unlikely the alliance will do much to expand ISAF’s reach from Kabul and Kunduz, which it controls at present. Look though for about five nationally-run Provincial Reconstruction Teams (provincially based nation-building units of 80-200 troops each scattered around the country) to be reflagged as part of ISAF.

• Iraq: The Bush administration would like to see Nato assume responsibility for the southern central sector of Iraq, currently controlled by a 6,200-strong multinational brigade led by Poland. Military planners at SHAPE dispute whether there are enough troops available to undertake both an expanded mission in Afghanistan and a new one in Iraq, and President Chirac famously told a Hungarian newspaper in February he did not see ‘in what conditions a Nato commitment in Iraq would be possible.’ On the other hand, the German government has indicated it could support a Nato mission, if the sovereign Iraqi government requests it. Iraqi Prime Minister Ilyad Allawi duly wrote to Nato’s Secretary General the week before the summit, to request Nato’s assistance in developing the Iraqi security forces after the transfer of sovereignty. Prediction: We've already seen an abstract commitment to agreeing to PM Allawi's request by Nato ambassadors in the run-up to the summit, though with no word about actual troop commitments. At the actual summit, it takes back seat to Afghanistan.

• Bosnia: Look for Nato to announce the successful completion of its decade-long SFOR mission in Bosnia. France will be happy to see the EU pick up Bosnia as an important new mission, and troop-strapped Nato leaders will be happy to see it go.

• Counterterror: Nothing will happen here, unfortunately. Though adopting terrorism as a Nato mission is a principal U.S. aim, France, Germany, and Belgium are too firmly committed toward steering the counterterrorism enterprise into the EU rather than Nato headquarters. A cosmetic package of measures will be rolled out, though, and look for the U.S. to receive increased measures toward intelligence sharing, a Rumsfeld favorite, as a consolation prize.

• Middle East Initiative: Another principal American aim for this summit, it has little European support, apart from a surprisingly sympathetic Germany. Nato staffers are indicating the Mediterranean Initiative—Nato’s outreach program to the Arab world—will be relaunched under a new name as a Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. Look for talk of ‘supporting indigenous reform’ and ‘joint understanding over security issues.’ (Further hint: don’t look too hard for talk of ‘democracy’ or ‘women's rights’.)

• Working with the EU: The European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) is France’s baby, which it sees as the EU’s alternative to Nato (without the pesky Americans). Other countries, after the rather paltry European contribution during Kosovo, see it more as a program to build up European defence capacities, and get more ‘bang for their Euro’. The December 2002 ‘Berlin Plus’ deal provided the EU with access to Nato operational planning and shared assets for operations in which Nato as a whole is not engaged. The British government deftly hijacked in December France’s ambitions to lead the ESDP as a breakaway military province from Nato, by ensuring that the EU planning cell would be located at SHAPE—the alliance’s military headquarters. ESDP undertook a fairly successful several-month long maiden mission in Macedonia last year, but as regards capabilities, European leaders still have to demonstrate, even under the ESDP, that they will be capable of getting more ‘bang for the Euro’.

So Nato will finally get out of Bosnia; the Middle East Initiative—which Germany, at least, supports—will go nowhere; the U.S. wants improved counterterror, but won’t get it. France wants EU-Nato relations worked out, and they will be, partially. Meaningful alliance participation in Afghanistan and Iraq will be hindered by the capabilities gap. And so on.

If this catalog of predictions leaves you feeling somewhat underwhelmed, it’s because of the basic problem of the alliance—which is cash. While the US contributes 3.3% of its GDP to national defence, 12 of the 19 pre-2004 Nato allies contribute less than 2% of theirs. To look at it another way, the US picks up the tab for 64% of Nato military expenditures ($348.5 million, 2002), while all other allies together contribute only 36% ($196.0 million). For their part, European governments are facing budget shortfalls and budget pressure from ballooning pension costs.

What comes out of this is a capabilities gap. Of 1.4 million soldiers under Nato arms in October 2003, allies other than the US contributed all of 55,000. Nearly all allies lack forces which can be projected away from the European theatre. SACEUR General James Jones testified before Congress in March 2004 that only 3-4% of European forces were deployable for expeditions. Then there are the problems of interoperability: there is a recurring problem of coalition-wide secure communications which can be drawn on in operations. Allies other than the U.S. have next to no precision strike capabilities, although these are slowly improving. The US is generally the sole provider of electronic warfare (jamming and electronic intelligence) aircraft, as well as aircraft for surveillance and C3 (command, control, and communications). The US is also capable of much greater sortie rates than its allies.

The other problem is political will, which is most in evidence on the issue of terrorism. There's been progress (beginning with the 2002 Prague Summit) toward the creation of a Nato Response Force capable of sophisticated counterterror missions. There's also been progress toward the drafting (which has been done) and implementation (which hasn't) of a military concept for counterterrorism. But allies still strongly disagree about whether counterterrorism should even be one of Nato's primary missions - so the principal task of the US at the moment lies in the area of creating political will among allies to adopt counterterrorism as a Nato responsibility. That we have not done so is at least in part our fault - Allies felt rebuffed after they gave the US unprecedented political support through invoking Article 5, and then were not consulted in the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan. For their part, the civilian leadership of the Pentagon believed Kosovo had been an unacceptable example of 'war by committee', and political interference from allies would prevent a quick and decisive Afghanistan campaign. Perhaps it might have, but now at Nato the United States is facing the consequences in the form of less enthusiasm for counterterror missions.

The result of this impecunity and general want of resolve is, something like a Horatio Alger novel adapted by a rather perverse naturalist, a litany of unfulfilled promises. Addressing the operational inadequacies of Nato was to be the subject of the Defence Capabilities Initiative launched at the April 1999 Washington Summit—but the DCI was widely regarded as too broad and unfocused. To remedy this shortfall, the Prague Capabilities Commitment (PCC) then grew out of the November 2002 Prague Summit and in an act of military humility instead suggested individual allies tailor their contributions by focusing on specific capabilities they might actually be able to handle (strategic lift for Germany, aerial tankers for Spain, unmanned aerial vehicles for a group of six other allies). As far as how well the PCC has performed—well, don’t expect too many presidents and prime ministers to be slapping each other on their backs in self-congratulation in Istanbul.

And then there’s counterterrorism. The US had encouraged adoption of counterterror as a core alliance task since the Clinton administration, and particularly during the runup to the Washington Summit in April 1999. With some assistance from Germany and Belgium, France led opposition to its adoption even then, preferring to see the EU built up as a pillar of European security and Nato reduced in importance. (This opposition overlaps with France's hostility to out-of-area missions, which counterterror operations would largely be, and which would also expand Nato's role in the world). On the other hand, under the leadership of recently retired Secretary General Lord Robertson, Nato’s staff established an internal terrorism task force to coordinate the work of different staff offices touching on the issue, and made some staff-level progress on civil-military emergency planning and consequence management. The military concept for counter-terrorism received approval at the November 2002 Prague summit - it includes proposals for a standard threat-warning system, establishing standing forces dedicated to post-attack consequence management, creating standing joint and combined forces for counterterror operations, and creating civil assistance capabilities which could be used after a WMD attack. The Nato Response Force (NRF) was adopted by the Prague Summit, which called for initial operating capacity by October 2004 and full operational capacity by October 2006.

These would indeed be useful tools in countering terrorist threats around the world, but there are reports these capabilities will not be fielded until before the end of the decade, if at all. Another unfulfilled promise of the Prague Summit was the launching of a Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical analytical lab and event response team, which remain unimplemented - among other things, Nato's Weapons of Mass Destruction Centre has a current staff of only 12 people. Also, France has successfully hindered efforts to give Nato’s Civil-Military Planning Directorate operational capabilities for post-terrorist attack consequence management, preferring to see the EU take up the policy area.

These are dire situations, indeed, to greet President Bush and his aides when they arrive in Istanbul, but the luxury is not generally permitted to presidents to give up and run home from Nato summits. In general, the task facing the US - and President Bush - at Istanbul is twofold: to try to build political will, while playing mostly against the French, to actually implement these paper counterterror programs; and to show domestic voters his administration can indeed play well with others, while bringing home tangible results for American national security from multilateral fora. Note to Bush staff— points to strike from the administration’s lexicon: Talk of ‘Old Europe’ offends the Poles and other Central European countries, who object to any division of the European continent. The idea of a divided Europe understandably has different historical resonances for them. Likewise for Secretary Rumsfeld’s talk of ‘coalitions of the willing’. Have any dissenting aides read the North Atlantic Treaty (1949), which grounds allied decisionmaking on a principle of consensus. It worked for us during the Cold War, and it can be made to work again. It’s not as though France's presence in Nato is a particularly new invention, after all. Also, talk of removing the legitimating presence of North Atlantic Council unanimity from the implementation of Nato military might scares the bejesus out of European allies, whose history makes them particularly touchy about violations of borders and national sovereignty, even when absolutely morally warranted.

For the Kerry campaign, their task will instead be to stay clear of the easy temptation to claim France would be an enthusiastic Nato ally today if it weren't for the Bush administration. It wouldn't, and claims it would (example: mantra-like invocations of Le Monde’s September 12th 'Nous sommes tous Américains'), are likely to come across as partisan. The Kerry camp will also have a two-fold task. First, without retreating into tired talking points about ‘unilateralism’, it needs to sell voters the message that US presidents can't command Nato allies to do anything, they can only convince - and then make the case that this administration hasn't succeeded terribly well to date in that task. Second, it will have as well to show voters that Kerry and his aides can grapple creatively—and in a prose style more elevated than the sound bite—with complex alliance issues of national security, in an election which promises to be decided on precisely national security.

It's a crucial moment, really, for both the president and the senator from Massachusetts – who in his basic foreign policy outlook resembles no one among recent presidents so much as Bush I, who was at least good at alliances. For the Kerry camp, Istanbul represents an opportunity to make the case to voters that its vaunted multilateral approaches can contribute meaningfully to national security. And for the Bush administration, the Istanbul Summit represents a chance to show its critics that it can indeed work creatively in multilateral fora, and more importantly and even against expectations, produce results there. And at the North Atlantic Council and on the summit’s margins, its task will be to work to create a consensus for orienting Nato to the war on terror, which is where its efforts badly need to be. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:48 AM by David Adesnik  

THE UNEXPECTED MICHAEL MOORE: I descended this night into the belly of the beast. I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 on its opening night in Harvard Square. Just minutes into the film, someone in the audience yelled out "F*** Bush!" Driven by an unknown compulsion, I responded aloud "How much are you paying?" No one else interrupted the film with comments, although applause came at regular intervals.

One of the things that made this film enjoyable was that I didn't have to be on guard. Christopher Hitchens has already provided ample evidence of how misleading and dishonest Fahrenheit 9/11 is, so I didn't have to take notes. Instead, I could just focus on the gut level questions of whether this is good filmmaking or good propaganda.

The best way to describe this film is as an extended free association. The tone is prosecutorial, but even the harshest critics of George W. Bush might not be able to figure out how one part of the film relates to the next.

For example, why does the first half-hour of the film focus on the relationship between the Bush family and Saudi Arabia? The apparent point of the segment is to demonstrate divided loyalties. Unbelievably enough, Moore asks whether Bush wakes up and thinks about Saudi national interests before he thinks about America's.

Then suddenly, the Saudis disappear. I was sure that they were going to reappear at some critical moment in the closing minutes of the film. After all, what Hollywood screenwriter would spend half an hour foreshadowing an event that never arrives?

Instead, Moore moves on to an extended discussion of how the Bush administration has moved the terror alert level from yellow to orange to yellow and back again. There is also a long excerpt from a network interview with Richard Clarke, whose criticism is far more plausible and coherent than anything Moore comes up with on his own. I've never bought in to Clarke's accusations, but Clarke does come across as an intelligent and public-minded, not to mention having the inherent credibility of having been Bush's counterrorism czar.

I thought the film had reached its turning point. The Saudis were out of the way and we could now focus on how the CIA and the Pentagon managed to persuade themselves that Iraq had massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that are still unaccounted for. Instead, Moore wanders on to the next episode in his crusade.

Iraq. It is a happy place where citizens where children fly kites and loving families spend quality time together. It is a "sovereign nation". Perhaps Moore will say that he was being sarcastic or humorous when he decided to make no mention at all of the horrific atrocities that Saddam Hussein committed. The rape, the murder, and the torture chambers. Perhaps Moore will say that he just wanted to present a picture as outrageous as the one George W. Bush presented to the American public.

Frankly, Moore could use that defense to explain just about any inaccuracy in the film. Misleading? No, just mocking the Bush administration's own propaganda. Except, of course, that life under Saddam really was hell, even if Iraqi mothers still loved their children, some of whom were allowed to fly kites.

To my surprise, Fahrenheit 9/11 spends only a minute or two criticizing Bush and Cheney for conflating the threats presented by Saddam and Al Qaeda. Instead, Moore provides us with gruesome footage of mangled Iraqi limbs and splintered Iraqi children. (Don't expect him to let you know that Saddam murdered more Iraqis almost every month than the Americans killed during their invasion.)

Next up are the mangled and splintered bodies of the American soldiers in Iraq. The final half hour of Fahrenheit 9/11 tries to drive home one point again and again: that young Americans are suffering and dying for a worthless cause.

Without question, this is the strongest part of the film. In essence, it is the story of one mother -- Lila Lipscomb --in Moore's hometown of Flint, Michigan who lost her son in Iraq. Her raw emotions are far more powerful than any of the bizarre conspiracy theories or humorous cheapshots the fill out the rest of the film. This one mother has an authenticity that the rest of the film is desperately in search of.

Lipscomb describes herself as a conservative Democrat. Each morning she unfurls her American flag and attaches it to the stand on the outside wall of her home. She hates the anti-war protesters at first, but learns to respect their ideas. In his final letter home from Iraq, her son writes that Bush is a fool who is wasting the lives of American soldiers.

While Moore bashes the American media for ignoring the stories of individual stories, the fact is that they have become a standard feature of American war coverage. After all, it was just two days ago that OxBlog praised the WaPo for its in-depth account of the life and death of Pfc. Jason N. Lynch.

While I am often suspicious of the motives of those who write such stories, their work coincides with my principles. They want to demonstrate that war causes unjustified suffering. I want to honor the sacrifice of those men and women who lay down their lives for their country and for its ideals. We should know as much as possible about each of these men and women.

From a political perspective, however, Moore may not get very far. Contrary to what the journalists have to say, concern over mounting casualties doesn't seem to disturb the American public or diminish its support for nation-building in Iraq.

Walking out of theatre, I didn't have the sense that Fahrenheit 9/11 represented any sort of threat to the Bush candidacy. There were even surprising moments when the film made Bush look far wiser and more patient than I ever would have expected. During the Saudi phase of his film, Moore places great emphasis on the seven minutes Bush spent reading to elementary school children in Florida even after the second plane hit the World Trade Center. According to the NYT,

For the White House, the most devastating segment of "Fahrenheit 9/11" may be the video of a befuddled-looking President Bush staying put for nearly seven minutes at a Florida elementary school on the morning of Sept. 11, continuing to read a copy of "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren even after an aide has told him that a second plane has struck the twin towers. Mr. Bush's slow, hesitant reaction to the disastrous news has never been a secret. But seeing the actual footage, with the minutes ticking by, may prove more damaging to the White House than all the statistics in the world.

I couldn't disagree more. Whereas Bush often looks foolish and befuddled during interviews with the press, the expressions on his face during those seven minutes in the classroom are those of a proud leader confronting his own fear and anguish while struggling to protect the children around him from the panic of a brutal and horrific attack on their homeland.

The lesson to take away from Fahrenheit 9/11 is that propaganda doesn't work, regardless of whether it is Dick Cheney's or Michael Moore's.
(2) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:51 AM by Patrick Belton  

TO WRITE CRICKET BATS, SO THAT WHEN WE THROW UP AN IDEA AND GIVE IT A LITTLE KNOCK, IT MIGHT...TRAVEL: Blogger Mark Pilgrim excerpts one of my favourite passages from Tom Stoppard.

(Speaking of writing, I hope whoever was looking for a free eulogy for a motorcycle death found what you were looking for....) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:42 AM by Patrick Belton  

ENGLAND: OUR CONDOLENCES. (Though I'm not sure why 'BBC Persian' comes up as a related link for the photo gallery of England's 6-5 loss to Portugal yesterday, which knocked England out of the Euro Cup. Conspiracy theorists are warmly welcomed to contribute suggestions.) (1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:35 AM by David Adesnik  

POLLING UPDATE: The most recent Annenberg Survey shows some significant gains for Bush compared with one month ago. Bush's overall approval rating rose 52%, up from 48%.

Bush also made significant gains in terms of the numbers who consider him "trustworthy", a fact which goes against the trend picked up by the WaPo's most recent poll. It is hard to compare the results, however, since Annenberg asks voters to rate the President on a 1-to-10 scale rather than giving a Yes-or-No answer. Moreover, the Anneberg survey was taken over the course of almost two whole weeks, which makes it very hard to gauge the impact of the 9/11 Commission's recent report.

On a related note, Ruy Teixeira reports that Kerry has opened up some pretty strong leads in the battleground states of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. It looks like we're headed for an exciting summer...
(1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:23 AM by David Adesnik  

GEPHARDT ATTACK: I agree with Ruy, John and Matt; George Bush is the only one who will benefit from having Gephardt as Kerry's running mate. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:07 AM by David Adesnik  

FINANCE AND ECONOMY IN IRAQ: The Economist describes the surprising success of American efforts to refrom the Iraqi banking sector. There is also some good news about the Iraqi economy -- as well as a considerable amount of useful infomation -- in this CFR background brief. Both links are courtesty of Dan Drezner, who felt obliged to balance out all of the criticism he's been directing at the CPA for ideologically-motivated intransigence. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:53 AM by David Adesnik  

CONDOLENCES: To Matt Yglesias, on the loss of his mother, a young and vibrant woman. Grief is not a common emotion on political websites, but I think that Matt's own post and the kind words of his readers are a good reminder that we here in the blogosphere are still very human. In a good way. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:29 AM by David Adesnik  

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS IVY FIG LEAF: This NYT article confirms a disturbing trend that I personally experienced as an undergraduate at Yale. Instead of benefiting the victims of historic prejudice in the United States, Ivy League affirmative action programs result in the admission of disproportionate numbers of Caribbean and African immigrants, and/or their children. Apparently, it isn't only at Yale where black students tend to have French surnames.

While Caribbean and African blacks deserve their places at Harvard and Yale, they shouldn't benefit from preferential admission standards designed to encourage the admission of African-Americans. Of course, Ivy League admissions officers are quite resistant to talking about this trend. They are so desperate to cement their employers' progressive image that they are not concerned about how they come up with enough black students to fill their unofficial quotas.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that this sort of criticism lacks a certain credibility, coming as it does from an author who generally opposes affirmative action. Yet as the chair of the Harvard sociology department points out,

"You need a philosophical discussion about what are the aims of affirmative action...

"If it's about getting black faces at Harvard, then you're doing fine. If it's about making up for 200 to 500 years of slavery in this country and its aftermath, then you're not doing well. And if it's about having diversity that includes African-Americans from the South or from inner-city high schools, then you're not doing well, either."

Even Henry Louis Gates and Lani Guinier think the system is deeply flawed. I'd go further and say that Ivy League political correctness has become a palliative for liberal white consciences rather than a commitment to real social justice. (1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:49 PM by David Adesnik  

ALONE AND AFRAID:

In the later years of Saddam Hussein's rule, getting caught trying to solicit meant life in prison or even death. In a public ceremony in 2000, Hussein had 200 women beheaded after accusing them of prostitution.

So in some respects, the American invasion has represented an advance in terms of women's rights. Still, selling yourself in Baghdad is dangerous proposition. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:55 AM by Patrick Belton  

DEMOCRATS ABROAD OF THE UK are for some reason showing - multiple - screenings of Michael Moore's latest film. And offering 'a complimentary glass of wine upon arrival' to anyone who comes by.* Someone should have these folks read Christopher Hitchens or Michelle Cottle, and consider picking a new Democratic role model.

_________________
* Of course, the wine might prove an inspired touch. Not only might it make it easier for the audience to sit through one of Moore's films, but it would also open up the possibility of creating some interesting Michael Moore drinking games.... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:42 AM by Patrick Belton  

NATO AT 55: Next week, on 28 and 29 June, the North Atlantic Council governing the NATO alliance will meet in Istanbul at the heads of state and government level. (As a bit of Nato trivia, Nato's supreme body - which represents the equality and consensus that characterised the U.S.'s Cold War relations with its allies, and treats equally the votes of Luxembourg and the United States - can meet at the level of permanent representative, defence or foreign ministers, or heads of government. It's the same committee, the NAC, which meets in all three instances - only the bodies seated behind the names of countries change.)

I'm quite fond of Nato, having served in the American mission at its headquarters several years ago, and I'll be looking forward to taking the opportunity afforded by the Istanbul Summit to examine where Nato is, where it's going, and where it could stand to do things differently or take a different tack. Here's my first take.

There's been progress (beginning with the 2002 Prague Summit) toward the creation of a Nato Response Force capable of sophisticated counterterror missions. There's also been progress toward the drafting (which has been done) and implementation (which hasn't) of a military concept for counterterrorism. But allies still strongly disagree about whether counterterrorism should even be one of Nato's primary missions - so the principal task of the US at the moment lies in the area of creating political will among allies to adopt counterterrorism as a Nato responsibility. That we have not done so is at least in part our fault - Allies felt rebuffed after they gave the US unconditional political support through invoking Article 5, and then were not consulted in the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan. For their part, the civilian leadership of the Pentagon believed Kosovo had been an unacceptable example of 'war by committee', and political interference from allies would prevent a quick and decisive Afghanistan campaign. Perhaps it might have, but now at Nato we're facing the consequences in the form of less enthusiasm for counterterror missions.

At the moment, the alliance is very strongly split between New and Old Europe (with France, Germany, and Belgium being most opposed to adopting counterterror as a Nato mission). The US had encouraged adoption of counterterror as a core alliance task since the Clinton administration, and particularly during the runup to the Washington Summit in April 1999. France led opposition to its adoption even then, preferring to see the EU built up as a pillar of European security and Nato reduced in importance (it also overlaps with France's opposition to out-of-area missions, which counterterror operations would largely be, and which would also expand Nato's role). On the other hand, under the leadership of recently retired (and admirable) SecGen Lord Robertson, Nato at the staff level established an internal terrorism task force to coordinate the work of different Nato staff offices touching on the issue, launched a new capabilities initiative, and made some staff-level progress on civil-military emergency planning and consequence management. The military concept (Military Concept for Combating Terrorism) began with the December 2001 defence ministerial as a tasking to the SACEUR and SACLANT and was approved at the November 2002 Prague summit - it includes proposals for a standard threat-warning system, establishing standing forces dedicated to post-attack consequence management, creating standing joint and combined forces for counterterror operations, and creating civil assistance capabilities which could be used after a WMD attack. On a separate front, the operational inadequacies of Nato (which in turn create an incentive for the US to act outside it, and reinforcing transatlantic drift...) were the subject of the Defence Capabilities Initiative (DCI) launched at the April 1999 Washington Summit, but the DCI is widely regarded as having been too broad and unfocused. The Prague Capabilities Commitment (PCC) grew out of the November 2002 Prague Summit and suggests individual allies tailor their contributions by focusing on specific capabilities (i.e., Germany and strategic lift, Canada/France/Italy/Spain/Turkey/Holland and unmanned aerial vehicles, Spain and aerial tankers, Polish special forces, etc.) The Nato Response Force (NRF) was adopted by the Prague Summit, which called for initial operating capacity by October 2004 and full operational capacity by October 2006.

This would indeed be a useful tool in countering terrorist threats around the world, but political support is currently inadequate among allies, and these capabilities will not be fielded until before the end of the decade, if at all. Another unfulfilled promise of the Prague Summit was the launching of a Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical analytical lab and event response team, which remain unimplemented - among other things, Nato's Weapons of Mass Destruction Centre has a current staff of only 12 people. Also, France has successfully hindered efforts to give the Civil-Military Planning Directorate operational capabilities for post-terrorist attack consequence management, preferring to see the EU take up the policy area.

In general, the task facing the US - and the Bush administration - at Istanbul is twofold: to try to build political will (playing mostly against the French) to actually implement these paper programs, which would do a great deal to improve both US and allied security; and to show domestic voters that it can play well with others, and bring home tangible results for American national security from multilateral fora. For the Kerry campaign, its task will be to stay clear of the easy temptation to claim France would be an enthusiastic Nato ally today if it weren't for the Bush administration. It wouldn't (repeated invocations of 'nous sommes tous Américains' to the contrary), and claims it would are likely to come across as partisan. The Kerry camp, like the Bush administration, will also have a two-fold task: first, to recognise US presidents can't command Nato allies to do anything, they can only convince - and then try to sell to voters the more nuanced, correct claim the present administration hasn't succeeded terribly well to date in that task; second, it will have as well to show voters that Kerry and his aides can grapple creatively with complex political and strategic issues of national security, in an election which promises to be decided on precisely national security. It's a crucial moment for both the president and the senator from Massachusetts. To the extent the Kerry camp deals in a creative and nuanced way with complex questions facing the alliance, rather than falling back on the temptation to use Istanbul as just one more occasion to lob easy criticisms at the administration for its unilateralism, then it can contribute to a constructive national security debate where partisan competition helps overcome bureaucratic inertia and produce better ideas about how to promote national interests. And for the Bush administration, the Istanbul Summit represents a chance to show its critics that it can indeed work creatively in multilateral fora, and more importantly, produce results there. And at the NAC and on the margins, its task will be to work against Francophone and German opponents of Nato to win the vote of sensible Old European countries (Netherlands, Portugal, Italy) and create a consensus for orienting Nato to the war on terror, which its efforts are badly needed.

Oddly, the website of the US Committee on Nato, www.expandNATO.org, in which there was substantial bipartisan participation (PPI president Will Marshall, for instance), now points to 'discount vitamins'. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:07 AM by David Adesnik  

SEVEN-OF-NINE EIGHTY-SIXES ILLINOIS GOP: Democratic prodigy Barack Obama now has a lock on Illinois' vacant Senate post thanks to the court-ordered opening of his opponent's divorce records. Compared to Jack Ryan's escapades, President Clinton's indiscretions are PG-13 at best.

Of course, what really matters here is that Ryan's ex-wife is none other than Jeri Ryan, the super-sexy extra-terrestrial known as "Seven of Nine" on Star Trek: Voyager. While there may be a handful of super-wonks now speculating about whether Obama's election will let the Democrats will take back the Senate -- or even whether Obama will be Hillary's running-mate in 2008 -- I can personally guarantee that there are millions of Star Trek fans (men, for the most part) salivating over every detail of the court records while knowing in their hearts that they would have given Seven of Nine the respect she deserved.

UPDATE: TNR has an interesting column about Chicago area pundits' hypocritical reaction to the Ryan affair. The column makes the valuable point that however unusual Ryan's tastes are, there was nothing inherently immoral about what he did -- a description that doesn't apply at all to Bill Clinton's indiscretions.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:47 AM by David Adesnik  

OUR BIPOLAR MEDIA: Brad DeLong has put up a persuasive post documenting certain journalists' contempt for policy expertise. However, I think Brad goes too far when he condemns the entire media establishment for its arrogant anti-intellectualism. After all, how can the same journalists who savage George W. Bush -- and once savaged Ronald Reagan -- for failing to master the intricate details of national policy be considered anti-intellectual?

I think it might be better to say that the media is opportunistic and narrative-driven. Instead of simply criticizing individuals, it tries to brand them as stock characters: Bush and Reagan the cowboys, Clinton the womanizer, etc. Even when they play against type, they get forced back into their pre-assigned roles. What Reagan taught us is that there is only one way to transcend this imposition: by dying at an opportune moment. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:37 AM by David Adesnik  

JOSH'S HERO SPEAKS: Vaclav Havel reminds us that we need democracy everywhere, even Zimbabwe -- and especially Zimbabwe. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:20 AM by David Adesnik  

EACH SOLDIER LOST IS AN INDIVIDUAL TRAGEDY: It is a point that cannot be emphasized enough. Pfc. Jason N. Lynch laid down his life for his country. His fellow soldiers in the 6th Field Artillery are still there in Iraq, fighting hours-long gun battles in the blistering desert heat. For all of us at home, it is a humbling thought. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:33 PM by Patrick Belton  

A SAD DAY FOR ALL FRIENDS OF MEXICO: Crusading journalist Francisco Ortiz Franco, was slain yesterday by the very drug cartels he spent his life combating, as he left a Tijuana clinic with his children.

Ortiz Franco's Tijuana-based weekly newspaper, Zeta, was founded in 1980 by a group of journalists - Jesús Blancornelas, Héctor Félix Miranda, and several like-minded friends - who made it their work to write explicitly about who was selling drugs, who was accepting bribes, and which government officials were turning their heads. Héctor 'El Gato' Félix Miranda was murdered in a Tijuana alley on 20 April, 1988. The narcobusinessman whose bodyguard was convicted in Félix Miranda's shooting, Jorge Hank Rhon, is now running for mayor of Tijuana. Blancornelas survived an assasination attempt and a hail of 400 bullets on 27 November, 1997, with his driver and friend Luis Valero Elizaldi not being so lucky. In a country where it is common practice for reporters to sell their coverage, or simply print government press releases verbatim, these people are showing that journalists can be heroes.

Francisco, que descanses en paz, y tus compadres, que Dios les bendiga. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:05 PM by Patrick Belton  

IF YOU GET ON THE L TRAIN, THE L TRAIN WILL GET YOU WHERE YOU'RE GOIN'. Without a human conductor, that is. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:36 PM by Patrick Belton  

THIS HAS ALREADY led to rumours of French villagers attempting to surrender to it:

MARSEILLE, France (Reuters) -- The southern French city of Marseille called off a three-week hunt for a black panther on Tuesday after the animal sighted by several residents turned out to be a large house cat.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:27 AM by Patrick Belton  

WILL BAUDE MAKES what I believe is his TNR online debut, with a piece on the Court's slippery slope on police prerogatives - congratulations, Will! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:28 AM by Patrick Belton  

OUR FRIEND Molly Richardson pointed out, in response to our Ron Paul privateers post, that there was currently sadly no effort in Congress to give official public recognition to International Talk Like a Pirate Day - a proud holiday which has the support of, among others, Dave Barry and the Rev. Moon. This made us realise that we had failed in our duty to you, our readers, by neglecting to cover* the '25th Annual Mooning of Amtrak Day' which took place just this last 10 July, just as it has every year for a quarter century in the city of Laguna Niguel, California. (As one official website notes, 'To the people of countries outside the U.S.A. visiting our web site: Less than one-hundreth (1/100) of a per-cent of our population does this.')

______________________________
* possibly not the right word (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:07 AM by David Adesnik  

DARFUR: Both liberals and conservatives are outraged. After all, that is the only acceptable response to genocide. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:45 AM by David Adesnik  

A LITTLE CLINTON-BASHING FOR OLD TIMES' SAKE: The WaPo says Clinton's memoirs are dishonest. Anne Applebaum writes that "the book itself can only be described as disappointing, even bizarre." The merciless Fred Barnes goes for Clinton's jugular by declaring the President's record in office to be both mediocre and conservative.

Of course, America still loves Clinton. Polls show that 62% of Americans think Clinton did a good job as President, up from 55% a year ago but down from 65% when Clinton left office. Perhaps more importantly, 50% have a favorable impression of Clinton as a person, up from 44% when he left office and 32% percent at the depths of Monica-gate. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:26 AM by David Adesnik  

OXBLOG IN THE WEEKLY STANDARD: I've just published an article in the Weekly Standard on Reagan's legacy of promoting democracy worldwide. It begins as follows:

A ROMANTIC. A DREAMER. An optimist. A man of conviction. In the few short days since President Reagan left this world, both his admirers and his critics have settled on a short-list of character traits that are supposed to capture his essence. Yet neither Reagan's admirers nor his critics have begun to grapple with the most romantic and optimistic of the convictions that animated his foreign policy--one that still exerts an unparalleled influence on the conduct of American foreign relations. Whenever President Bush describes democracy as a universal aspiration, capable of flourishing even in the desert wastelands of the Middle East, it is Ronald Reagan's voice that he echoes.

In his historic address to the British Parliament at Westminster in the summer of 1982, Reagan foresaw the downfall of the Soviet empire. Much less noticed was his declaration that democracy promotion must serve as the moral and strategic foundation of American foreign policy. Reporters at the time portrayed Reagan's address as an anti-Communist broadside, all but ignoring its positive agenda of promoting human freedom and self-government.

The discussion of Reagan's legacy as an American statesman has focused almost exclusively on the degree to which his diplomacy was responsible for the end of the Cold War. Without intending to do so, participants on both sides of the debate have reinforced the notion that Reagan's legacy is one of tearing down, not one of building up. If so, then Reagan has nothing to teach us about the post-Cold War era.

Yet at Westminster, Reagan was careful...

The rest of the article is for subscribers only. But life will go on. Really, it will. In the meantine, why not take a look at Reagan's historic address at Westminster? Or perhaps at the 1986 State of the Union Address, in which Reagan memorably and controversially declared that

To those imprisoned in regimes held captive, to those beaten for daring to fight for freedom and democracy -- for their right to worship, to speak, to live, and to prosper in the family of free nations -- we say to you tonight: You are not alone, freedom fighters. America will support with moral and material assistance your right not just to fight and die for freedom but to fight and win freedom -- to win freedom in Afghanistan, in Angola, in Cambodia, and in Nicaragua. This is a great moral challenge for the entire free world.

If you still want more, you can find a list of Reagan's most important speeches right here. And if it's a speech from Reagan's first six years as President, you can find the full text here. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:25 AM by David Adesnik  

THE QUAGMIRE DEEPENS: In Chechnya. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:29 PM by David Adesnik  

AMERICA SAYS BUSH IS A LIAR: The WaPo continues to amaze with its abominable coverage of US public opinion. On yesterday's front page, it reported that

Public anxiety over mounting casualties in Iraq and doubts about long-term consequences of the war continue to rise and have helped to erase President Bush's once-formidable advantage over Sen. John F. Kerry.

At least the Post got one fact right: Kerry is surging in the polls, especially on issue of whom voters prefer to conduct the war on terror. But Kerry's surge has absolutely nothing to do with public anxiety about casualties in Iraq or the long term consequences of the war.

Unsurprisingly, the Post compiles all the available evidence of public disenchantment with the occupation, but ignores all of the evidence that point's to Bush's success. One month ago, 38% of Americans thought that we are making "significant progress" toward the establish of a democratic government in Iraq. 57% disagreed. But the now the split is 50-48 in Bush's favor.

An increasing number of Americans think that Bush has a "clear plan" for handling the situation in Iraq, although the split is still 50-48 against the President. Surprisingly, 51% think that the United States is making "significant progress toward restoring civil order" in Iraq, with 48% disagreeing. Thus, it isn't suprising that 44% now approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, up 4% from last month. (55% disapprove, down from 58.)

Now, one can make a pretty strong argument that all of these good feelings about Iraq reflect the American public's overvaluation of the approaching transfer of sovereignty on June 30. After all what kind of sovereignty can Iraq have with 150,000 American soldiers on its soil?

As it turns out, the American public seems to understand this dynamic pretty well. 53% say that the United States, and not Iraq, will hold real power after the handover. Moreover, an overwhelming 77% disapprove, saying that the Iraqis themselves should be in charge.

So what is going on here? If things are looking up for the President in Iraq, why do more Americans now trust John Kerry to wage the war on terror? It turns out that there is a very simple answer to this question and the WaPo completely missed it: The American public has come to believe that Bush is a liar.

According to the WaPo/Poll, 39% of Americans believe that Bush is "honest and trustworthy" while 52% say the same about Kerry. Strangely, the Post provides no trend data on this question, so it's hard to know what the numbers mean...unless you invest the effort necessary to dig up poll results from two months ago and compare.

On April 18th, 55% said Bush was honest and trustworthy. Previously, that number had never dropped below 52% and went as high as 71% in mid-2002. Now, can one make a strong case that this dramatic change in Bush's honesty ratings is responsible for the nosedive in public opinion about the War on Terror?

Absolutely. Judging by the size of the headlines alone, the 9/11 Commission's finding that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam and Al Qaeda has been the biggest story so far this year -- and it played out in the days immediately preceding the WaPo's most recent poll.

Technically speaking, I think it's fair to say that Bush never lied about the relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. (I'm not sure I would be so kind to Cheney.) Regardless, Bush's statements have been confusing, disingenuous and utterly unbecoming of a president.

The big question now is whether the damage done to Bush's reputation for honesty is permanent. If the good news of Saddam's capture provided a temporary spike in public assessments of the situation in Iraq, perhaps the impact of the intensive coverage of the Commission's finding will slowly fade during a long, hot summer.

Or perhaps not. My gut feeling says that American voters pay far more attention to a President' personal characteristics than they do to what's happening on the ground half a world away. Bush may recover some of his lost ground, but I suspect that a significant amount of the damage will be permanent.

UDPATE: I just noticed an EJ Dionne column that explains why the Commission's report is so damning:

The battle over the al Qaeda-Hussein connection is ground zero in the fight over the administration's credibility.

On the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the administration has alibis. It may have ignored contrary evidence on the existence of those weapons and it may have pressured intelligence agencies to reach conclusions that would justify war. But the administration can point to many Democrats, and even Europeans, who thought those weapons existed.

But when it comes to Saddam and Al Qaeda, Bush and Cheney are all alone. I don't agree with much else Dionne says, but he got that much right. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:41 PM by Patrick Belton  

PRIVATEERS!!!!! One of the odder constitutional moments to arise out of the aftermath of September 11th transpired when Representative Ron Paul (R-Tx), rereading Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, realised that Congress had the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal. Letters of marque and reprisal, for those of you with lives who aren't congressional foreign policy or constitutional scholars, were a means of sanctioning privateers to travel abroad - hence past the nation's frontier, or 'marque' - and search, seize, or destroy assets or personnel of a hostile country - yes, the 'reprisal bit' - in private response to a public wrong. It was considered a retaliatory measure short of a declaration of war, and as such was meant to be governed by a rough proportionality between the original delict and the state-sanctioned privateer's reprisal. Pirates with letters of marque and reprisal were operating within the colour of law, and were hence privateers. For instance, the famous pirate Captain Kidd's letter of marque from the Admiralty is here. These went out of fashion with the Declaration of Paris in 1856, of which the US was not a signatory, though at several points - during the US civil war and the Spanish-American war, in particular - the US government indicated it would at least for present purposes abide by the principles of the declaration.

Where, indeed, all of this rested - until October 10, 2001, when Representative Paul reread the Constitution and realised that Congress still retained the power to grant letters of marque, and, heroically deciding that the President could not possibly be expected to win a war on terror without such an important tool (i.e., as pirates), he decided thenceforth to devote himself to a holy personal mission of granting President Bush the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal in the war on terror. To this end, he introduced HR 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. Helpfully, the bill's section 2(a) notes that the September 11 terrorists were, indeed, pirates (air pirates), and of course, who could be expected to fight pirates except with pirates? (Actually, wasn't it the Royal Navy that put down most piracy in the Caribbean and Atlantic sea lanes? hey, we're having fun here, don't spoil it.) And indeed, in short order letters of marque became Rep. Paul's best answer to everything: on the House floor, with parliamentary eloquence not heard since Cicero, Rep. Paul praised them as the obvious result of proceeding with caution and deliberation, taking into account unintended consequences, and avoiding hasty responses - 'We should be careful not to do something just to do something- even something harmful. Mr. Speaker, I fear that some big mistakes could be made in the pursuit of our enemies if we do not proceed with great caution, wisdom, and deliberation. Action is necessary; inaction is unacceptable. No doubt others recognize the difficulty in targeting such an elusive enemy. This is why the principle behind "marque and reprisal" must be given serious consideration.' (yes, he really did praise bringing back pirates as a 'cautious, deliberate' solution to September 11. And that's just a glimpse, ladies and gentlemen, of the keen intelellect and leadership skill it takes to be a member of Congress.) Sadly, the bill has not moved anywhere visible to the naked eye in committee - but something tells me we haven't heard the last of the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act. Crusades are made of flinty stuff.

Frankly, I'm comforted by the notion that members of the House of Representatives are, like Ron Paul, even as we speak reading the Constitution to scan for powers that can be reinvigorated and placed in the president's hands to prosecute the war on terror. This is principally because I'm comforted by the fact that at least some members of the House can read. Although if we were to commission pirates to act in our interests, I'd like to nominate patriot Hans Sprungfeld. And this isn't even to speak of the constitutional fun and games that can be had, say, in establishing standards of weights and measures, or even in establishing post roads (woo-hoo!). (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:54 AM by Patrick Belton  

BUT WHERE DOES SPACE BEGIN? As Josh and many other blogosphere commentators have noted, SpaceDev technology's SpaceShipOne vessel yesterday became the first private craft to cross into space. More interesting, though, is the question of when precisely it did so.

Common usage in the United States accords the title of 'astronaut' to any person travelling above an altitude of 50 miles, or 80 km. By comparison, a Boeing 747-400 most typically cruises at an altitude 10 kilometers, or 32,900 feet (6.23 miles). More officially, the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, based in Lausanne, describes the boundary of space as being at 62 miles, or 100 km. SpaceShipOne's trajectory yesterday peaked at 100.12 kilometers (62.214 miles, or 328,491 feet) - meaning Michael Melvill had only 124 meters each way in which to enjoy officially stamping his passport in space.

The atmosphere thins gradually through its upper reaches, making it difficult to identify a clear delineation between it and space, but re-entering orbital craft begin to encounter noticeable atmospheric effects at 75 miles, or 120 km. (For terminology buffs, the portion of the earth's atmosphere from 50 to 85 km above the equator generally is referred to as the mesosphere, whereas the segment above 80-85 km is referred to as the thermosphere. The less exhilerating - though nonetheless stratospheric - heights lying immediately below the mesosphere are the familiar stratosphere, which ranges from 17-50 km above the equator.) Or, if you don't want to go that far, you can just go to the Stratosphere casino in Las Vegas. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:51 AM by David Adesnik  

BUSH HAS MORE IN COMMON WITH EUROPEAN LEADERS THAN YOU THINK: Guido Calabresi is a federal judge and a former dean of Yale Law School. He is not known for the subtlety of his political opinions. But yesterday he outdid even himself by comparing Bush to Mussolini and Hitler:

In a way that occurred before but is rare in the United States...somebody came to power as a result of the illegitimate acts of a legitimate institution that had the right to put somebody in power. That is what the Supreme Court did in Bush versus Gore. It put somebody in power...

The reason I emphasize that is because that is exactly what happened when Mussolini was put in by the king of Italy...The king of Italy had the right to put Mussolini in, though he had not won an election, and make him prime minister. That is what happened when Hindenburg put Hitler in. I am not suggesting for a moment that Bush is Hitler. I want to be clear on that, but it is a situation which is extremely unusual..

When somebody has come in that way, they sometimes have tried not to exercise much power. In this case, like Mussolini, he has exercised extraordinary power. He has exercised power, claimed power for himself; that has not occurred since Franklin Roosevelt who, after all, was elected big and who did some of the same things with respect to assertions of power in times of crisis that this president is doing...

Of course Bush isn't Hitler, says Calabresi. So why mention old Adolf? The analogy is actually a terrible one. Yes, Hindenburg had a right to appoint Hitler. Shortly thereafter, Hitler held rigged elections and then 'persuaded' his pet Reichstag to let him rule by decree. (I guess Calabresi would say that even as a dictator, Bush is a total failure.)

I don't know enough about Italian history to debunk the analogy to Mussolini, but I'm guessing it's pretty worthless as well. And hey, what the f*** is up with comparing FDR to Mussolini?

(Special thanks to SH for the link. For more on Calabresi see Eugene's posts here and here.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:37 PM by Patrick Belton  

INCIDENTALLY, a rather unattractive male English teenager is currently attempting to auction off his virginity on Ebay. (The link is to the auction.) He's starting bidding at £1,500.00. Oddly, no one has yet bid.

UPDATE: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle at work - unfortunately, Ebay has withdrawn the ad. And David Vardy, 19, is sadly stuck with his virginity. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:47 AM by Patrick Belton  

MAJOR DIPLOMATIC INCIDENT UNFOLDING: Iran has seized three vessels of the Royal Navy which were patrolling the Shatt al-Arab, and have seized eight British sailors. The Ministry of Defence has stated that the ships were involved in helping the Iraqi police patrol the area.

UPDATE: The NYT has more - the MOD has described the three boats as 'inflatable' and indicated their crew were in the process of delivering them to Iraq. Separately, the British Embassy in Tehran released a statement that three training patrol boats had lost radio contact with their base.

UPDATE: The BBC is quoting Iranian Al Alam TV that the Iranian government is intending to prosecute the eight sailors, for illegally entering its (disputed) territorial waters. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw held a telephone conversation this morning with Iranian FM Kamal Kharazzi to discuss the matter, but there is no report on how the conversation proceeded. The matter is also receiving suprisingly little press attention. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:49 AM by Patrick Belton  

THIS MORNING IS THE SUMMER SOLSTICE: And here is how it looked as summer broke over Stonehenge:


(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:51 PM by David Adesnik  

IS POLLACK OFF THE RESERVTION? Greg D. points out that Ken Pollack's criticism of George Bush has gotten to the point where the centrist and moderate scholar has begun to sound like Fisk or Chomsky.

Even so, Pollack's column in TNR is well worth reading. Fortunately, there is only one point at which he waxes idiotarian. While reading the column, I think it's important to remember just how much Pollack's professional reputation has suffered because of Bush's handling of the occupation.

Of course, there are flaws in Pollack's argument beyond his intemperate criticism. Greg points out some to them. I would just add that Pollack seems completely oblivious to the fact that the intense controversy surrounding Bush's decision to invade Iraq consumed the White House's attention in the months before the war. Already averse to nation-building, there was little reason to think the Bush administration would prepare seriously for the occupation even if the President committed himself in principle to building democracy. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:16 PM by David Adesnik  

THE WAR LETTER: Along with Kos and Dan Froomkin, Tim Noah over at Slate is trumpeting this letter as definitive evidence that Bush stated unambiguously that there was a working realtionship between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

I was pretty suspicious of this spin on Bush's letter, but didn't have the legal expertise to show why Noah et al. were wrong. However, Eric Soskin does quite a job of it here and here. Tom Maguire and Gene Volokh have more. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:14 PM by David Adesnik  

CIRCLING THE WAGONS: The Weekly Standard has joined NRO in its all-out assault on the 9/11 Commission's finding that there was no active relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Following NRO's Andrew McCarthy, the Standard's Stephen Hayes has thrown a spotlight on the equivocations and oversights of the Commission's recent report, not to mention press coverage thereof.

While I agree with a good number of the individual points that Hayes and McCarthy make, I disagree with their apparent premise that the 9/11 Commission could (and should) have resolved certain questions left unanswered by their report. In contrast to the independent counsels responsible for both the collection and interpretation of evidence during Iran-Contra and Monica-gate, the 9/11 Commission seems to be wholly dependent on the intelligence community for providing it with material to evaluate.

Perhaps more importantly, this administration has a powerful incentive to provide the Commission with all relevant material that might have established an active relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam. In contrast, the Reagan and Clinton administrations had every incentive to cooperate with investigators as little as possible.

Thus, the real question here is not why there are certain oversights in the Commission's report, but rather why the administration, after investing so much time and effort in the search for compelling evidence of an active Saddam-Al Qaeda relationship, hasn't been able to come up with anything more definitive.

That said, Hayes and McCarthy do a good job of identifying three potential points of contact between Al Qaeda and Saddam that I expect to become the staple references for all those who take issue with the Commission's report. Those points of contact are:

1. The undefined relationship between Iraqi agent Ahmed Hikmat Shakir and 9/11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar.
2. The unverified but undisproven claim that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague in June 2000.
3. The connection of both Bin Ladin and the Iraqi government to the Sudanese chemical plant levelled by an American attack in June 1998.

With regard to each, Hayes and McCarthy make a good case that there is more to know than the Commission lets on. But if the Bush administration couldn't demonstrate that these points of contact were part of a collaborative relationship, why should one expect the 9/11 Commission to support that allegation? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:05 PM by David Adesnik  

A PERFECT SUMMER DAY: The solstice isn't until tomorrow, but yesterday belonged to summer. I swam and lay on the beach at Thoreau's Walden Pond. I picked fresh strawberries and ate them right then and there at a small farm in Lincoln, Massachusetts. At night, we barbecued outdoors and had dinner on my friend's porch as the sun set and the fireflies lit up the garden.

If this brief description of paradise has made you jealous, just remember that I will spend tomorrow two stories underground, sitting at a small table surrounded by dusty old books, with nothing but a harsh fluorescent light to read by. But that's not for another 18 hours! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:43 PM by Patrick Belton  

AND FOR NEWS OF THE WEIRD: Thousands of bunnies, nibbling in concert, prevent historic Warwickshire radio towers (the origin of the BBC time 'pip' before the hour) from being demolished. Well, who's to say they shouldn't have liked them? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:00 PM by Patrick Belton  

ROYAL ASCOT WATCH: Hey, it's a Britain-themed day...

More than two-and-a-half tons of smoked salmon, nearly five tons of strawberries and one hundred twenty thousand bottles of champagne were devoured at Royal Ascot, which ended on Saturday. Also consumed at the races were an estimated 12,000 bottles of Pimms. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:51 PM by Patrick Belton  

AFTER A HALF-DECADE as a proud resident of Great Britain, I can note that I've finally learned how to tell, within a second of looking at someone, whether they're a foreigner.

They're the ones who smile back. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:49 PM by Patrick Belton  

RISING POWER: Per Sunday Telegraph (today's print edition, p.3), the government of China hopes to reach the top tier of the world's cricket nations within 20 years. (1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:04 AM by David Adesnik  

BLOGS VS. DEAD-TREES: Right now, Time Magazine has a big and breathless story about blogs right on the top of its website. My response? To ignore it. I mean, what can you say to a million-selling news-weekly that lists Glenn Reynolds as one of its "Five Bloggers to Watch"? Maybe next week Time will announce that Barry Bonds has a pretty good shot at making the Hall of Fame.

Now here's something interesting: This week, Spencer Ackerman of TNR has been guest-blogging for Josh Marshall. Huh? An established journalist at a top-flight publication filling in for a blogger on vacation? What next? Will Kos write editorials for the NYT? Will Jayson Blair fill in for Drudge?

It's probably worth noting that Spencer has his own blog, Iraq'd, over at TNR. At least in terms of influnce, Iraq'd certainly isn't TPM. So Spencer is sort of moving up by filling in for Josh. Still, it's hard to get away from the notion that Spencer's decision reflects the rising prestige and credibility and that blogs have developed in the recent past.

Or perhaps I'm getting this all wrong. Maybe Josh and Spencer are friends, and Spencer is just doing this for Josh as a favor. But even if that were the case, it says a lot about the approaching parity of first-tier blogs with first-tier opinion journals. Two years ago, would any blogger have dared to ask a professional journalist -- even a friend or especially a friend -- to fill in for them? Of course not. It would've been an insult, sort of like asking Luciano Pavarotti to sing karaoke.

But somewhere along the lines, things changed. Now I'm not trying to say that blogs are taking over Big Media. But there is a growing interface between the two that results in talent in one sphere being equated with talent in the other.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:50 AM by David Adesnik  

THE BRUTALITY OF AL QAEDA: I have nothing to say. The beheading of Paul M. Johnson speaks for itself. But just imagine: imagine if instead of celebrating the brutal murder of an innocent, instead of posting photograhps of his severed head on their website, the Saudi militants responsible for Johnson's death announced that they were letting Mr. Johnson go in order to demonstrate their moral superiority to the infidels who abused and humiliated Muslim prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

No, I don't think that could happen. These terrorists seem incapable of recognizing that kindness is often a far more dangerous weapon than violence. If they understood that, then I would truly be afraid. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:56 AM by David Adesnik  

ARE BUSH'S CRITICS IRRESPONSIBLE? According to NRO, they're just plain wrong. Andrew McCarthy says that if you take a close look at what the 9/11 Commission says about the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection it's far from definitive.

I don't buy it. While I'll be the first to admit that there's a helluva lot we don't know about both Saddam and Al Qaeda, I'm not sure that there's much more evidence out there to find right now. If the Bush administration has invested so much time and effort in investigating the relationship between Saddam and Osama, why hasn't it found evidence of a connection? And if it found such evidence, why doesn't the 9/11 Commission believe that Public Enemies #1 and #2 had a "collaborative relationship"?

But what about the actual criticism directed toward the administration? With regard to the "Bush lied" chorus, the WaPo says that

The accusation is nearly as irresponsible as the Bush administration's rhetoric has been.

That's pushing it. The NYT may be ineffably pretentious when it writes that "Now President Bush should apologize to the American people" -- as if the absence of a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection was news -- but irresponsible and disingenuous rhetoric from the White House is far more dangerous than pretentiousness in the paper of record.

It is worth pointing out, however, that the NYT editorial board can be just as careless with its language as Messrs. Bush and Cheney. For example, it writes that

The Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11.

That is misleading at best or simply not true. While the Bush administration hardly sought to resolve public confusion about this point, the President never asserted that Saddam played a role in 9/11. Over at CBS, John Roberts isn't much better. He reported that

It is one of President Bush's last surviving justifications for war in Iraq, and today, it took a devastating hit when the 9-11 Commission declared there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. ... Those repeated associations left the majority of Americans believing Saddam was involved in 9/11.

While Roberts' accusation is less explicit than the NYT's, his comments are supposed to be straight news, not an editorial. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney is launching a pretty fierce counter-attack against the NYT. While I agree with Andrew that Cheney is right about the NYT headline being pretty unfair, Cheney's case seems to revolve primarily around the existence of a Saddam-Zarqawi relationship. If that's all the Vice President has to go on, he's not in good shape. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:43 AM by David Adesnik  

HEADLINE POLITICS: In response to my post on the NYT-WaPo headline duel, LS -- a professional journalists at a major daily paper -- puts it far better than I did:

I don't have any inside scoop on the NYTimes, but from where I sit, as an editorial writer for a page that is a lot more conservative than the newsroom, I can say with some assurance that what looks like "spillage" only happens when the newsroom and the editorial page are staffed by people who already agree. That is, the news pages would be exactly the way they
are if the editorial page weren't there at all.

The same has been true at the three papers I worked for before I came here, and other edit writers I know who are in the same situation say it has been their experience as well, so I think what you see is not the result of any influence by edit pages on the news coverage but simply the fact that the edit pages of big newspapers are more likely to be liberal than to be conservative, and so are the newsroom staff.

Interesting. One has to respect all those papers that put up a firewall between politics and opinion, but that wall may not be effective until the journalistic professional begins to represent a broader array of political opinions. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:06 AM by Patrick Belton  

18 JUNE: Today in 1873, Susan B Anthony was issued a fine of $100 for having cast a vote in the presidential election held on 5 November of the previous year. She was, incidentally, earning an annual salary of $100 from her work as a schoolteacher. My student Jon Silver points out that, like Frederick Douglass, Ms Anthony was a resident of Rochester. The fine would go unpaid.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:44 AM by Patrick Belton  

INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE TO AIDS BOOK TOUR: OxBlog's good friend (and, lest we point out, Nathan Haler) Greg Behrman will be on the west coast this coming week for his book tour. His book is The Invisible People: How the U.S. Has Slept Through the Global AIDS Pandemic - think Woodward does the government's response to AIDS, just better. Here's where he'll be speaking, if you'd like to drop by!

SAN FRANCISCO and Bay Area

TUESDAY, JUNE 22

Stacey's Booksellers
12:30PM
581 Market Street

Cody's Books
7:30PM
2454 Telegraph Avenue
Berkeley, CA

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23

Commonwealth Club of Silicon Valley
7:00PM
First Unitarian Church of San Jose
160 North Third Street
San Jose, CA

LOS ANGELES

THURSDAY, JUNE 24

Borders Books & Music
7:30PM
330 S. La Cienega Blvd. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:24 PM by David Adesnik  

DID BUSH REALLY SAY THERE WAS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL QAEDA? I think the best description of his comments is "maddeningly vague". In March 2002, Bush said that

Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.

Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.

The reliably partisan Center for American Progress pares down Bush's quote to the absurd statement that "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam." Obviously, that isn't what Bush was saying. But what matters most is that the President was being much less than honest about the critical issue of the day.

The actual question Bush got asked was "Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than al Qaeda?" All Bush had to say was that they are both extremely serious threats and that he would deal with both of them. Or he could've said that Osama and Saddam may work together in the future because they both hate America so much. Instead, he implied that they were already collaborating.

According to Kos, the definitive evidence that Bush lied is the letter he sent to Congress just before the invasion of Iraq. In it, Bush said that invading Iraq

is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

That sound pretty cagey, but I'm wondering if "consistent" has a precise legal meaning in the context Bush used it. Earlier on in the letter, Bush refers separately to "the continuing threat posed by Iraq". All he really seems to be saying about 9/11 is that going after Saddam doesn't preclude going after Osama as well. Besides, Bush has been very careful about denying any sort of relationship between Saddam and 9/11, even to the point where he publicly criticized Cheney for saying that one existed.

For another set of maddeningly vague quotes, you can head over to this compilation by the AP. In his 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush said that

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida.

That seems like a reference to Abu Musab Zarqawi, whose relationship with Saddam still isn't clear.

Now, for the sake of being comprehensive, it's also worth pointing that in his infamous aircraft carrier speech, Bush said that

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

"Ally", huh? That sounds like a collaborative relationship. Or is it just a figurative description of the relationship between two of America's greatest enemies?

All in all, I'm inclined to support Matt Yglesias' observation that Bush's remakrs are all part of this administration's

longstanding practice of making technically accurate, but misleading and tendentious, statements in order to try and trick people into believing things that aren't true.

If you want to be a little nicer to Bush, you can say that he didn't have a malicious desire to trick people. But it doesn't really matter. The bottom line is that Bush contributed to public confusion about one of the most critical aspects of American national security instead of just telling the simple truth. If you want to bring honor back to the White House, that is certainly not the way to do it. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:49 PM by David Adesnik  

DOES ANYONE UNDERSTAND WHAT BUSH IS SAYING ABOUT AL-QAEDA AND IRAQ?

The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda.

We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two.

Was the President trying to say that "numerous contacts" constitute a "relationship"? Or did he begin by asserting that there was a "relationship" and then back-track to the concession that there were only "numerous contacts"?

While Bush doesn't seem to choose his words all that carefully when speaking off the cuff, his use of the word 'relationship' seems very, very calculated. The 9/11 commission said there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam and Al Qaeda. So is Bush suggesting that there was a relationship but that it wasn't collaborative?

With regard to a recent comment by Dick Cheney, Matt Yglesias writes that it wasn't technically a lie:

Rather, it was part of the administration's longstanding practice of making technically accurate, but misleading and tendentious, statements in order to try and trick people into believing things that aren't true, while protecting themselves from criticism in the elite media.

That certainly seems like a good description of Bush's remarks. Except for the fact that he utterly failed to protect himself from criticism in the elite media. This morning, the WaPo led off its Saddam-Al Qaeda article with the statement that

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

According to tomorrow's paper,

President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

So the news yesterday was that Bush is a liar and the news today is that Bush is a liar. Perhaps Bush thinks that his quasi-denial of the charges will be enough to keep the faith of some undecided voters. But frankly, responding to a highly-respected bipartisan commission with an evasive semi-denial is probably not going to persuade anyone except the Republican faithful.

My best guess is that Bush himself (along with Cheney) is deeply in denial. It's the same phenomenon we saw with Reagan. When you believe in something with all your heart and then stake your reputation on it, letting go is the hardest thing to do.

So is that an excuse for Bush's misleading comments? Hell no. His remarks were embarrassing and unpresidential. Period. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:35 PM by Patrick Belton  

ENGLAND FENDS OFF SWITZERLAND 3-0, for those of you who are interested in that sort of thing....

Also, per capita GDP seems a fair predictor for country's performances so far. For each matchup which has been held to date, here is the corresponding matchup between the two countries' per capita (purchasing-power parity) GDP as well as their net PPP GDP: (I've placed the larger number in each comparison in bold, for presentational convenience)

Greece 2, Portugal 1 ($19,900 vs $18,000; $212.2 bn vs $182.3 bn)
Switzerland 0, Croatia 0 ($32,800 v $10,700; $239.8 bn vs $47.14 bn)
Denmark 0, Italy 0 ($31,200 v $26,800;167.7 bn vs $1.552 tn)
Czcech 2, Latvia 1 ($15,700 v $10,100; $160.5 bn v $23.77 bn)
Spain 1, Russia 0 ($22,000 v $8,900; $885.5 bn v 1.287 tn)
France 2, England 1 ($27,500 v $27,700*; $1.654 tn v $1.664 tn)
Sweden 5, Bulgaria 0 ($26,800 v $7,600; $238.1 bn v $57.13 bn)
Germany 1, Holland 1 ($19,900 v $28,600; $212.2 bn vs $461.4 bn)
England 3, Switzerland 0 ($27,700* v $32,800; $1.664 tn v $239.8 bn)
Portugal 2, Russia 0 ($18,000 v $8,900; $182.3 bn v $1.287 tn)

So, as you can see, per capita GDP is a rather better predictor than net GDP. Disregarding matches which ended in ties (i.e., in indeterminate results), per capita GDP predicts the winner in five out of seven pairings, whereas net GDP predicts accurately in four cases.

Corollary to Belton's Law: Belton's Law does not apply to England. England ought to have beaten France by both per capita and net GDP predictors; similarly, Switzerland should have beaten England by per capita GDP (though not by net GDP). Granted, both economic figures are for the UK rather than England, as I haven't come across economic data for England alone. But I assume the result would have been conserved by using English rather than UK data, which, given the location of the City and its financial centre in England, would have raised per capita GDP over France still more, though not necessarily up to the Swiss level - i.e., no change in that result - though on the other hand, it would have made net GDP a correct predictor of the France-England matchup. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:07 AM by Patrick Belton  

ADVERTISING MISMATCH - PAGING THE CROOKED TIMBER IRONY-WATCHERS: I love the Weekly Standard. I also happen heartily to enjoy the French language, the French literary and intellectual tradition, all flesh-and-blood French people I have the pleasure to know, and most things, actually, about the French nation, apart from the various political institutions it seems to generate from time to time. But just out of curiosity, is the Standard necessarily the optimum place for Champs Élysée Audiotapes to urge readers to 'Become fluent in French!'? (That said, I heartily endorse, applaud, and support any advertisers who seek to provide monetary assistance to the Weekly Standard, New Republic, Slate, or any of my other daily reads...)

UPDATE: A reader emails in: 'Back here in the States, you might be interested to know that The Longest Day, broadcast on D-Day this year, was sponsored by Mercedes-Benz! (Maybe they thought that the Germans' staff cars were some kind of product placement...)' (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:01 AM by Patrick Belton  

JOSH CHERNISS is posting up a storm on Stuart Hampshire. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:15 AM by Patrick Belton  

BLOOM: LAST CALL... Sheila O'Malley, lovely girl that she is*, has been posting loads on Bloomsday. Also, OxFriend Phil C. poses a question to our readers:

I was trying to explain to a colleague—over beers @ Mackey’s Pub on L St—last night why Joyce is worth reading (she was forced to read “Portrait” for a lit class in college, couldn’t figure out what was going on, and has disliked JJ ever since).

Eventually I got on to the topic of 1922 as the annus mirabilis of 20th-century literature and began to gas on a bit about how JJ’s technique of bringing the sound and soul of the modern city into his writing very closely resembles TS Eliot’s method of “bricolage” (think of all the snatches of conversation, pop music, etc. from the London scene in The Waste Land—kind of TSE’s nightmare version of JJ’s Dublin, w/ its pompous schoolmasters, blowhard editors, mellifluous Italian music teachers, crippled coquettes on beaches, sirenical barmaids, debating literary intellectuals etc replaced by the typist and her small house-agent’s clerk, the tense married couple, the ladies in the pub, one-eyed Smyrna merchants, and so on).

But for the life of me I couldn’t explain who influenced whom, or if indeed there are filiations of influence from one to another of these giants. I know that Waste Land came out in ’22, and that JJ mailed portions of Ulysses to TSE, Ezra Pound, et al. while JJ was working on it (which must have been before ’22—chunks of U were indeed written during WWI, if I recall correctly). Yet on the other hand, TSE had published works such as “Prufrock,” which use some of this “found-objects-or-experiences-transmuted-into-art” method as early as 1914.

So are JJ & TSE just parallel—like Newton & Leibniz, geniuses who had similar brilliant insights independently but almost simultaneously—or did one affect the other more than vice versa?

Any thoughts?

_____
* In fact, sufficiently avid readers of OxBlog will recall that Sheila is - along with my lovely wife, Sasha Castel, and the NHS's cross-dressing crouton doctor - one of a very exclusive number of female blogosphere friends to have attained the highly coveted status of 'OxBlog OxBabes of the Week'. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:41 AM by David Adesnik  

QUICK! BEFORE THEY'RE GONE! Take a look at today's front-page images from the NYT and WaPo. The WaPo has a five-column headline that reads: "Al Qaeda Scaled Back 10-Plane Plot". In contrast, the NYT has a four-column headline that reads: "Panel Finds No Iraq-Qaeda Tie; Describes A Wider Plot for 9/11".

There no question that politics played a big role in all of this. After all, you only have to look as far as the editorial page to see what the editors were thinking. For the NYT, the Commission's report is conclusive evidence that Bush lied. Anticipating the "Bush lied" chorus, the editors of the WaPo write that "The accusation is nearly as irresponsible as the Bush administration's rhetoric has been."

From where I stand, the clearest thing of all is that editorial page politics spill over onto page one and that those responsible for this spillage are either unaware of it or unable to admit it.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:29 AM by David Adesnik  

BEWARE OF EVIL BLOGS: Hugh Hewitt warns that the and Karl Rove and assorted Islamic fundamentalists may soon be up to no good in the blogosphere. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:26 AM by David Adesnik  

TORTURE AND SHAME:

Slowly, and in spite of systematic stonewalling by the Bush administration, it is becoming clearer why a group of military guards at Abu Ghraib prison tortured Iraqis in the ways depicted in those infamous photographs. President Bush and his spokesmen shamefully cling to the myth that the guards were rogues acting on their own. Yet over the past month we have learned that much of what the guards did -- from threatening prisoners with dogs, to stripping them naked, to forcing them to wear women's underwear -- had been practiced at U.S. military prisons elsewhere in the world. Moreover, most of these techniques were sanctioned by senior U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the Iraqi theater command under Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez. Many were imported to Iraq by another senior officer, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller.

From a masthead editorial in the WaPo. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:17 AM by David Adesnik  

THREATS FROM IRAN: The inspections stand-off takes another step closer to becoming a nuclear showdown. Jim Hoagland has more. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:02 AM by Patrick Belton  

THOSE GODLESS COMMUNISTS, have they got no shame? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:47 AM by David Adesnik  

YOUNGEST BLOGGER EVER: Little Edward was born on June 10th and already has his own blog. For the moment, his parents are doing most of the posting and taking care of the technical side of things, but I'm sure Edward will get the hang of it soon.

In their most recent post, Mom & Dad write about Edward that

He's little. He has deep black pools for eyes -- when he opens them, which he's hesitant to do. He turns red when he's excited. He likes to eat, doesn't particularly care for baths. He's wonderful.

Which is why we're starting this blog. To watch him grow, to share our thoughts and reflections as he gets bigger, to offer up fun anecdotes from his babyhood. Maybe also to hear ourselves think -- something that, often now, it doesn't feel like there's much time for.

NB: I'm not including any links to Edward's blog because it really just intended for family and friends. Of course, if Edward posts anything political, I may decide to fisk it. :p (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:17 PM by Patrick Belton  

BLOOMSDAY REDUX: The Emigrant, an Irish print and online newspaper serving an audience principally of Irish expatriate communities around the globe, was kind enough to pick up my Bloomsday article. Thanks, lads! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:21 PM by Patrick Belton  

HOPEFULLY, HE DOESN'T LIVE IN VIRGINIA: Otherwise, Slate, you might want to call your lawyer. David Amsden's story carries the title (on their main page) 'Prom Night Undercover: Our reporter sneaks back into high school with a 17-year-old date.' Obviously this advertising campaign isn't reaching someone... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:30 AM by Patrick Belton  

BLOOMSDAY: A CENTURY. In some sense, modern literature began a hundred years ago today.

Stately, plump Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed. A yellow dressinggown, ungirdled, was sustained gently behind him by the mild morning air. He held the bowl aloft and intoned:

-- Introibo ad altare Dei.

In the world of text, of Molly Bloom's sensuous, doubting, ultimately affirming soliloquy (I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used), of Stephen Daedalus's monologue walking along the beach which stretches in Sandycove from Martello tower to Dun Laoghaire (Ineluctable modality of the visible: at least that if no more, thought through my eyes), this was the day Stephen and Leopold wandered throughout the city Joyce himself had fled (using for my defence the only arms I allow myself to use - silence, exile, and cunning), enacting a modern Odyssey, and eventually finding one another briefly (and in Bella Cohen's brothel) as father-seeking son meeting son-seeking father. In the other, non-textual world, the world of breakfasts made of 'the inner organs of beasts and fowls' and 'grilled mutton kidneys which gave to his palate a fine tang of faintly scented urine', 16 June 1904 was the day when the artist, as a young man, fell in love with rustic Galway girl Nora Barnacle. And he would immortalise the day for her.

Halted, he peered down the dark winding stairs and called up coarsely:

-- Come up, Kinch! Come up, you fearful jesuit!

Joyce is not quite Stephen - the worlds of language and sausages don't correspond quite that neatly - but both come together in places. Daedalus was, after all, Joyce's early pen name as a student at Clongowes, and in a more real sense, Joyce was the real Daedalus, the architect who created the Labyrinth for the minotaur at Crete, and then showed his son Icarus to fly to escape it. After observing painfully his son's death, Daedalus is exiled to Sicily - undoubtedly, one supposes, to be the crafter of novels. And as far as how well the artificer of the century's most intricate, Labyrnthine text did succeed when he went to 'encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race'- well, go this morning to O'Connell Street to see how Joyce's myth of Dublin has been received by that city's people, and si monumentum requiris, circumspice.

In the Celtic calendar, there is day called Samhain when, after one agricultural cycle has ended in harvest and before the next one has begun, two years are joined together - but imperfectly, and in the crack between them, it was possible to pass between the world of men and the world of the Sidhe, the faeries. Bloomsday is such a day, when the world of sausages and the world of Joyce and Daedalus come together - imperfectly, but for a moment it's somehow more possible to pass between them. And benefit from the reconciliation, in the world of faeries, myth, and divine jesuitical artificers, between Stephen's intellect, Bloom's corporeality, and Molly's sensuality, and between the father who forever sought a son and the son who forever sought his father.

I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes.

Is the book really as grand as all that to-do happening in O'Connell Street this morning suggests? Oh Yes yes yes it is, yes.


(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:48 PM by David Adesnik  

HOW REAGAN WON THE COLD WAR: In response to my recent post, RG makes a very well-informed argument about Reagan's impact on the Soviets:

Your posting on the Gorbachev factor contains one serious error of fact and a couple of analytical deficiencies.

The factual is:

"Kaplan's point about Andropov is misleading, since the Politburo appointed him as General Secretary in the expectation that he would die. However, few of us now remember that Chernenko was born in the same year as Ronald Reagan. He was a hardliner and he wasn't supposed to die."

In point of fact, Andropov's demise was the one that was unexpected. Chernenko was known to be sick when he was elevated to the post of general secretary, as can be verified by reviewing newspaper and magazine articles of the time. His appointment was widely considered a surprise for the fact of his being sick, and came about only because the even sicker older men in the Politburo weren't quite ready for the coming generational shift in power.

The analytical deficiencies are:

1). The failure to reckon with the effects of the Pershing II deployment. I haven't read Kaplan's piece but would suspect this failing is present in his analysis too. Pershing II, not SDI, was Reagan's decisive contribution to the resolution of the Cold War. The deployment came despite massive protests in Western Europe (this is the time of "The Fate of the Earth" and the rise of the Green Party in Germany) and negated the Kremlin's hopes of driving a wedge between the US and the European allies. It took skilled diplomacy to keep Germany and the Benelux countries in the fold, and under a different president the confrontation very likely would have had a different outcome.

2). The failure to reckon with the inspirational effort of Reagan's rhetoric behind the Curtain. I think the testimony of folks like Walesa and Havel to this point is quite irrefutable. And I don't see either Carter or Mondale either saying the things Reagan did, or inspiring the same reaction among the captive peoples if they had tried.

Bottom line: I read Brown's book several years ago and fully agree that without Gorbachev, the end of the Cold War doesn't play out as it does. But I also think Reagan's presence in the White House and conduct of policy narrowed Gorbachev's options and forced him onto a path it wasn't his intention to take. I say this as someone who voted for Anderson in 1980 and Mondale in 1984. My academic specialty at the time was US-Soviet relations and I remember full well that no one in the field, not Hough, Stoessinger, Bialer, Ulam, Gaddis, etc., saw the demise of the Soviet Union coming. That it did come forced me to reassess Reagan, and I had to conclude he got quite a few more things right than he was generally given credit for.

RG makes some good points. With regard to Andropov & Chernenko, I'm to guess that my bad memory is responsible for the error. I'll also go back to Brown and see what he says.

With regard to the Pershing deployment, I disagree with SG's suggestion that it was a sort of final gambit on the Kremlin's part, after which they gave up on opposing the West. I'm not sure what the state of the evidence is on this point, but I was under the impression that the Pershing deployment was one more step in the arms control dance, rather than a historic watershed.

Finally, regard to the inspirational effect of Reagan's rhetoric, the testimony of Walesa, Havel and others is all but irrefutable. Yet it was Carter who first energized Soviet dissidents with his unprecedented support for international human rights. To be sure, Carter's rhetoric on Soviet human rights violations became much less confrontational after his first year in office. Even so, it did make a difference.

The more important point, however, is that the inspirational value of Reagan's rhetoric had a negligible impact on Gorbachev's decision to let the the Eastern European satellites break out of the Soviet orbit. I think the best book on this subject is Jacques Levesque's The Engima of 1989: The USSR and the Liberation of Eastern Europe. It's basic argument is that the primary determinant of Gorbachev's Eastern European policy was his absolute refusal to use force to keep the satellites in line. Nor did he actively encourage reforms in Eastern Europe. Rather, Gorbachev simply decided to let the Soviet Union's puppet goverments fend for themselves.

While fending for oneself may have been harder in the face of an inspired opposition, Reagan's rhetoric was hardly the decisive factor that motivated widespread opposition to Soviet rule. Moreover, the satellite governments' unwillingness to use force was an extension of Gorbachev's refusal to back up their security services with Soviet armed forces.

In the final analysis, I don't believe that either Pershing episode or the impact of Reagan's rhetoric provides the sort of evidence one would need to say that Reagan 'won' the Cold War rather than that he accepted Gorbachev's surrender. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:47 PM by David Adesnik  

THE OTHER KIND OF OUTSOURCING: Not high-tech jobs to India, but national security in Iraq. If the accusations in this column are correct, then the Pentagon has been complicit in a process that is very, very disturbing. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:33 PM by David Adesnik  

THE VIOLENCE CONTINUES: Car bombings in Iraq, today and yesterday. I have to admit, I'm amazed at how many of their fellow Iraqis the insurgents are willing to kill. Or in the case of jihadis, how many of their fellow Muslims.

UPDATE: The electrical power grid is also a mess.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:24 PM by David Adesnik  

HAPPY FLAG DAY!

Justice Antonin Scalia, who voted to strike down the statutory ban on flag burning some years ago, has described in speeches how doing so irritated him. He would have loved to put the defendant -- a "bearded, scruffy, sandal-wearing guy burning the American flag" -- in jail, he said. It made him "furious" not to be able to. But "I was handcuffed -- I couldn't help it, that's my understanding of the First Amendment. I can't do the nasty things I'd like to do."

As a frequent sandal-wearer, especially in the summer months, I am quite relieved. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:42 PM by David Adesnik  

DID REAGAN WIN THE COLD WAR? Perhaps Kevin and I have lost our ideological bearings, but he's convinced that Reagan won the Cold War while I think that all Reagan did was graciously accept Gorbachev's surrender. According to Kevin, Reagan

Really did win the Cold War. Maybe it didn't happen in quite the way his fans would like to believe, and maybe it wouldn't have happened at all without Mikhail Gorbachev, but still: Reagan's defense buildup and his quixotic insistence on pursuing an unworkable missile defense shield really did help to bring down the Soviet Union. When I say this, it's not because I especially want to believe it, but because the historical record seems to show that it really happened.

Kevin's argument rests on a recent Fred Kaplan column in Slate which develops an argument based on declassified transcripts of Politburo meetings. My counterargument rests on the work of Oxford prof Archie Brown, as presented in his excellent book, The Gorbachev Factor.

Hardly a Reagan cheerleader, Kaplan begins by pointing out that

The Gorbachev factor — too often overlooked in this week of Reagan-hagiography — was crucial. If Yuri Andropov's kidneys hadn't given out, or if Konstantin Chernenko had lived a few years longer, Reagan's bluster and passion would have come to naught; the Cold War would probably have raged on for years; indeed, Reagan's rhetoric and actions might have aggravated tensions.

Kaplan point about Andropov is misleading, since the Politburo appointed him as General Secretary in the expectation that he would die. However, few of us now remember that Chernenko was born in the same year as Ronald Reagan. He was a hardliner and he wasn't supposed to die.

In the past, I've heard conservatives argue that Reagan's military buildup, and especially Star Wars, led the Politburo to appoint Gorbachev in the expectation that he would enact reforms and reduce tensions with the United States. However, Brown makes a solid case that after Chernenko's death there was no one left in the Politburo with Gorbachev's influence, so his elevation reflected power politics rather than a sense of impending crisis. The fact that the rest of the Politburo showed little enthusiasm for Gorbachev's reforms isn't all that surprising given their initial preference for Chernenko.

When it comes to Star Wars, Kaplan's supposed ace in the hole is the transcript of a March 1986 Politburo meeting at which Gorbachev said

"Maybe we should just stop being afraid of the SDI! Of course, we cannot be indifferent to this dangerous program. But [the Americans] are betting precisely on the fact that the USSR is afraid of the SDI. … That is why they are putting pressure on us—to exhaust us."

If somebody says, "Maybe we should stop being afraid of the bogeyman," it usually means he is afraid of the bogeyman. It's pretty clear that in the spring of 1986 Gorbachev and all those around with him were at least a little afraid of the SDI bogeyman.

From where I stand, being "a little afraid" doesn't count for much. The real question is, why did Gorbachev respond to an economic crisis not just with market-based reforms, but with radical democratic reforms that dismantled the Communist Party's total domination of Soviet politics? After all, why not follow the nascent Chinese example of liberalizing the economy without giving up political control?

According to Minxin Pei, Gorbachev's political reforms were a desperate attempt to kickstart an economic reform package that wasn't going anywhere. While Pei makes some excellent points -- especially his explanation of why economic reforms worked in China but not the Soviet Union -- he makes the same mistake as Kaplan by not asking why Gorbachev found political reforms acceptable at all.

It on this point that Brown presents his strongest evidence. As part of younger generation, Gorbachev grew up in a family that suffered horrendously under Stalin. By the same token, Gorbachev was young enough at 25 to have been profoundly influenced by Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin's inhumanity in 1956.

As a rising but open-minded star in the Communist Party, Gorbachev took advantage of his contacts with Western European politicians to learn more about the democratic and capitalist way of life. From men like Willy Brandt, Gorbachev learned that democracy and human rights were not slogans of American imperialism, but humane answers to the tragic deficiencies of the authoritarian Communist model.

Neither Chernenko nor any of the lesser lights on the Politburo shared this sort of background. The idea that any of them would have negotiated the INF treaty, held elections or let go of Eastern Europe is simply beyond the pale. While they might have spent less on weapons and initiated some economic reforms, the most they would have given Reagan was a second era of detene, not an end to the Cold War.

Kaplan concludes his article by writing that

If Reagan hadn't been president—if Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale had defeated him or if Reagan had died and George H.W. Bush taken his place—Gorbachev almost certainly would not have received the push or reinforcement that he needed.

I don't buy that for a second. Gorbachev's political and military reforms had nothing to do with Reagan's push. Instead, they were the result of an intensely personal vision of ethics and society that Gorbachev had developed on his own. With Carter or Mondale in office, the US-Soviet rapprochment would have advanced just as rapidly -- with Democrats proclaiming all the way that their President had won the Cold War by abandoning the Republicans' alarmist and alarmingly expensive military build-up.

While Reagan deserves all the credit in the world for working with Gorbachev to end the Cold War, the bottom line is that he got very, very lucky. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:33 PM by David Adesnik  

OLSEN TWINS TURN 18: It was inevitable, I guess. Personally, I'm much more excited about Lindsay Lohan crossing the threshhold of legality on July 2.

UPDATE: Perhaps in honor of the occasion, the State of Virginia is launching an aggressive campaign against statutory rape. The campaign's slogan will be: "Isn't she a little young? Sex with a minor -- don't go there." (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:59 PM by Patrick Belton  

MORE FROM OXBLOG'S INTREPID AFGHANISTAN CORRESPONDENT:

In this episode, our dashing Afghan adventurer meets Poppies and Pesticides

After lunch, we drove back into town with the local farmer's association to check out their almonds. Like Kunduz and most of the rural Afghan towns I've visited, Tashqurgan offers a forbidding face to any stranger in its streets. High mud-brick walls enclose every home, with windowless, domed clay roofs appearing over the wall. Once you leave the bazaar, the only buildings open to view are ruins or mosques, all usually empty. The outhouses and sewers drain directly into the dusty streets. To a Western eye, the residential areas have a stifling lack of public space -- no parks, few open areas. But the private spaces are elaborate, comfortable, and beautiful; as soon as a gate opens, you can see whitewashed houses, grape trellises, canals, and gardens just inside. From the street, you would hardly realize there was a tree in town. Inside the compounds, you realize that the whole city is an orchard. It's a disconcerting mix of external squalor and internal beauty.

We drove through the streets in our convoy of SUVs, with the shooters keeping a sharp eye out for trouble. For some reason, we were turned away from several gates. When we were finally admitted to one of the farmers' compounds, our suspicions were confirmed: under the almond and pomegranate trees, the whole place was one big opium poppy field. The flowers were tall and gangly, not the deep red carpet from Oz some of you might be envisioning. It was the beginning of harvest season; the bulbs had been scratched to extract opium gum, and most of the poppies had bloomed a pale pink. The farmer chuckled with mild embarrassment, then took us around to diagnose the pest problems he was having with his almonds. In the next compound we visited, the farmer had diversified his crop, growing a broad row of cannabis around the poppies.

Needless to say, anyone working in Afghan agriculture has to deal with the question of poppy cultivation. Afghanistan produces a ridiculously high proportion of world opium -- somewhere between 70 and 79 percent, these days. Poppies can be grown profitably even under drought conditions (though irrigation greatly increases their value), and are on average four times more profitable than wheat. They're also labor-intensive around harvest time, requiring eight or nine times as much labor as wheat -- but there's no shortage of labor in Afghanistan, especially as this is a job rural women can perform. The poppy price dropped more than expected at this year's harvest, but because farmers can hang on to the dry opium for months, they'll probably still cut a significant profit.

Opium isn't just valuable as a cash crop, but as cash... and credit, too. The Afghan banking system collapsed over the decades of war and Communism, with the final blow delivered when the Taliban enforced a clumsy interest-free "Islamic" banking mandate and dismissed all female bank employees. Inflation soared, credit dried up. Only the central bank, Da Afghanistan Bank (Pashto for "Bank of Afghanistan", not ebonics for "The Afghanistan Bank") survived. Throughout rural Afghanistan, opium became the de facto currency, and opium traders paid local farmers a lump-sum in advance for their yearly crop -- in effect, a loan on highly advantageous terms for the traffickers. Even now that Afghanistan has a few banks and a stable currency, "narco-lenders" are still an important source of credit for many farmers.

Does this make opium a good thing for Afghan farmers? No, not really. Interest rates are high on narco-loans, often trapping the farmer into future opium production; and the money has played a part in funding all those guns and landmines floating around rural Afghanistan. The opium trade has had a terrible effect on neighboring countries, too, enriching powerful mafias and contributing to appalling rates of heroin and opium abuse. Despite its draconian anti-drug policies, Iran has nearly as many junkies as all of Western Europe -- in absolute numbers, not as a percentage of population! And of course, Afghan opium also helps fund the Taliban and al-Qaeda, which is no good for anybody.

The Taliban famously banned poppy cultivation in July 2000, which led to a slight thaw in international condemnation of their regime, a plunge in world opium supply, and a dramatic spike in prices. However, they didn't ban the opium _trade_, and their ban came immediately after the 2000 poppy harvest. They had apparently stockpiled a great deal of opium, and made money hand over fist from the ban. (Our friends in the Northern Alliance also cleaned up, incidentally, planting tremendous amounts of opium poppy in their stronghold province of Badakhshan). The Taliban didn't provide any alternative crops for the farmers, and so their ban impoverished innumerable Afghans already hard-hit by drought. We'll never know whether the Taliban would have maintained the ban had they remained in power past 2001, but I rather suspect they would have retracted it long enough to rebuild their stockpiles, then tried to trade a new ban for international favors (something like what North Korea's doing with its plutonium). The remnants fighting along the border have now declared that it's religiously okay to cultivate opium for its "medicinal properties." Right.

President Karzai's declared ban in January 2002 doesn't seem to have had much effect; he isn't beating up farmers on the same scale as the Taliban. Cultivation spread to a number of previously poppy-free provinces last year. Some local governors implemented eradication measures along the highways, but moved their own poppy fields up to remote mountain areas. In Balkh province, the "eradication" usually takes place just after the opium has been harvested. All in all, it's not a terribly impressive performance.

My friend Mumtaz reports that a local commander near Kandahar recently told him: "If Karzai says, 'Don’t grow poppy,' I will still grow poppy. But if Khalilzad says 'Don't grow poppy,' well, then I will be poor." (Zalmay Khalilzad is the American ambassador to Afghanistan). The Americans have hit a number of heroin laboratories and drug markets belonging to warlords, and could presumably knock out a lot more if they chose. It's a dangerous game -- there are some very rich folks out there (including some in the Kabul government) who could start stirring up trouble for the U.S. occupation if it cuts into their opium profits. But I think at this stage, we're better off taking the risk and hitting the traffickers than burdening the farmers with a major eradication program. Give the big donor-funded agricultural projects another couple years to demonstrate alternative cash crops (almonds, raisins, cumin, etc.), set up rural credit and finance institutions, and fix up irrigation structures, so the farmers have genuine alternatives to poppy. Then the government can start enforcing a ban at the farmer level. The U.N. has also suggested scheduling big public works projects to coincide with that labor-intensive opium harvest season, to draw labor away from poppy farmers. It's an interesting idea, which to my knowledge hasn't been tried, but deserves to be.

In practice, I doubt we'll have a couple years to set up alternatives. I suspect that if the Afghan presidential election goes ahead as scheduled, and Hamid Karzai wins as scheduled, we'll see a strict ban reiterated this fall. The elections are supposed to fall in September, and poppy planting generally starts in October; Karzai won't have to antagonize rural Afghans by declaring an eradication policy during his campaign, but there'll be plenty of time for tough talk and interdictions before that other presidential election scheduled for November... And by spring, when the poppy crop comes up, we'll see an eradication program. There's too much pressure from Washington, where a number of "eradicators" with Latin American experience stand to profit from a push to clear fields in Afghanistan.

Anyway, that day in Tashqurgan we told the farmers that we couldn't fund them unless they signed a paper promising to cease poppy cultivation. They told us they understood, and would take that into consideration when deciding whether they wanted our funding. Our California experts examined their almonds and pomegranates. We then all sat down on a big red carpet under a shade tree, and the farmers passed around refreshments -- a tray of white mulberries, and six glasses of shorombe, "the Afghan beer," as Mohibi called it. Shorombe, known as "dogh" in Dari, is sour yogurt blended with salt, pepper, and sometimes cucumber. It's held to make you drowsy, and was a favorite beverage of the Taliban. (My colleague Rahimi, who worked in Kabul during the late 1990s, once commented to the Taliban Minister of Rural Development that the Northern Alliance could take Kabul without firing a shot, if they only knew to attack during the hour from 2:00 to 3:00 every day when everybody in every ministry was in a shorombe-induced stupor. Fortunately, the Taleb was amused by this observation).

We drained our glasses and got down to business. The California agriculturalists noted that a number of the almonds had been infested by bugs, and asked what pesticides the farmers here were using. The farmers broke out a couple of bottles covered in cheery pictures of worms, beetles, flies, tomatoes, corn, wheat, and other pests/crops. Our expert read the bottle: "Methyl parathion. Huh. You know, they took that away from us in the States a few years ago. Highly, highly toxic. Are you guys wearing any sort of protective covering when you spray this?" No, they hadn't ever been told that was necessary. The expert put down the bottle gingerly and looked for someplace to wipe his fingers. "Yeah, in California after we sprayed this stuff, we had to post a sign telling everyone to keep out of the field for a week or so. Don't suppose you do that here?" No, they definitely didn't do that. The expert looked around a little anxiously. "You use it on the almonds. Anything else?" Well, yes. Pretty much everything else. Including the produce, like the cucumbers that had probably gone into our shorombe. We stopped eating the mulberries.

After a couple more questions about how many people had dropped dead with poisoning symptoms in Tashqurgan in recent months -- thankfully few -- we decided to our relief that the bottle was most likely full of a diluted or totally different solution. Mohibi called up the pesticide vendor and chewed him out for his misleading bottle illustrations that had suggested that methyl parathion went well with tomatoes. Yeesh. We chatted for a little longer with the farmers, and suggested other pest control means. Then, as it got on toward late afternoon, we decided it was time to head to Mazar.

[next time: why the helpless Kabul government/powerful warlords story ain't necessarily so] (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:20 AM by David Adesnik  

DREZNER! Guest blogging for Glenn at MSNBC, on World News Tonight over at ABC, and still watch-dogging those journalists who ignore the evidence and confuse outsourcing with Armageddon.

And somehow, he still finds time to over-intellectualize the dating history of Jennifer Lopez. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:36 AM by David Adesnik  

EULOGY: For President Reagan, courtesy of President Bush:

He believed that people were basically good, and had the right to be free. He believed that bigotry and prejudice were the worst things a person could be guilty of. He believed in the Golden Rule and in the power of prayer. He believed that America was not just a place in the world, but the hope of the world...

When he saw evil camped across the horizon, he called that evil by its name. There were no doubters in the prisons and gulags, where dissidents spread the news, tapping to each other in code what the American President had dared to say. There were no doubters in the shipyards and churches and secret labor meetings, where brave men and women began to hear the creaking and rumbling of a collapsing empire. And there were no doubters among those who swung hammers at the hated wall as the first and hardest blow had been struck by President Ronald Reagan...

As he showed what a President should be, he also showed us what a man should be. Ronald Reagan carried himself, even in the most powerful office, with a decency and attention to small kindnesses that also defined a good life. He was a courtly, gentle and considerate man, never known to slight or embarrass others.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:20 AM by David Adesnik  

THE POLLS, CONT'D: In response to the semi-recent surveys of Iraqi public opinion, SD observes that

I don't know much about Kurdish history, but I doubt they have been a united, secualr, democratic oriented people for a very long time. If I remember correctly, they had been plagued for years by tribal power struggles. They were the epitome of the violent, factional Middle Eastern political culture. Now they appear to be the model Moslem ethnic group.

What did we do right? I would expect that they would appreciate our protection. But I would not expect them to embrace our values as they have. Is there anything we can learn from this?

The Kurds' attitudes are especially surprising given their past relationship with the United States. In the 1970s, Kissinger cut a deal with Iran and Iraq that allowed thousands of Kurds to be slaughtered. Then we let Saddam kill tens or even hundreds of thousands. And even after the first Gulf War we let thousands die in a failed uprising before establishing a protectorate in northern Iraq.

So what did we do right? Well, my best guess is that the Kurds had a unique opportunity during the 1991-2003 interregnum to slowly develop capitalist and democratic norms while being reminded on a daily basis of how horrific life under Saddam had been -- because he was still living right next door.

While the neighboring republics and kingdoms may provide Iraqis with some reminder of what their options are, a foreign country's flaws simply don't have the same cultural significance. Instead, Iraqis today are free to focus on their material deprivation and the failings of the American occupation. In contrast, the Kurds experienced American protection without an American occupation.

So is there lesson here? Perhaps. I think it is that attitudes toward the United States won't improve while our troops are on the ground. But what matters more than whether or not they like us is whether or not they believe in democracy. And if they polls are right, they do. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion