# Posted 10:09 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

BUT DON'T YOU KNOW THAT McCAIN WANTS TO OUTLAW ABORTION? That is often the first response I get when I tell my left-of-center friends and acquaintances that I am a proud McCain supporter. But I can accept a candidate with a different position than my own because the issues that matter most for my vote are personal integrity and national security.

Yet I am to the left of most Republicans on social issues, so it is important to ask whether there is any common ground or whether we simply must agree to disagree. That is why I've been taking such an interest in the recent Supreme Court ruling on partial birth abortion.

So where do I stand on abortion? I don't know much about the subject, so what I mostly have are instincts. I'm not sure there is a real answer to the question of when life begins. But there is enough life in an unborn child for us to take very seriously the question of whether anyone has the right to take that life away. I don't know if there is a constitutional right to have an abortion. But my sense is that neither federal nor state governments should be making decisions about the outcome of a pregnancy in its earliest stages.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that the contents of the previous paragraph don't add up to a coherent and logical position on this issue. So you are more than welcome to dismantle my inconsistency in the comments section below. In fact, that would be a good thing to do since it might help me learn.

Now getting back to partial-birth abortion, have my instincts brought me any closer to a clear position on this specific issue? Not really. It is a gruesome procedure, but so are many types of abortion that are fully legal.

For the moment, what I'm still trying to figure out is whether this whole controversy is a just a sideshow, or whether it has real implications for the future of abortion rights in America. To that end, I appreciated a recent discussion of the Court's ruling on PBS Newshour. Writing for the majority on the court, Justice Kennedy observed that:

"Congress determined that the abortion method it proscribed [i.e. partial-brith abortion] had a disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant."

With that in mind, I can understand why opponents of the procedure passionately believe that it must be outlawed. But one procedure can be outlawed, why not a second and a third?

With that in mind, I paid special attention to Justice Kennedy's unusual assertion that since there is no clear evidence regarding whether or not partial-birth abortions are ever medically necessary, the procedure can be outlawed. In other words, the court recognized yet again that it cannot ban a medically necessary abortion procedure -- which suggests that abortion rights as a whole have not been threatened. Or is that the wrong interpretation of Justice Kennedy's words?

Labels: Abortion, John McCain, Supreme Court

(18) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:39 AM by Patrick Porter  

INSURGENCIES, BODYCOUNTS AND WINNING FORMULAS: Seth Jones has an interesting piece in the Spring edition of Survival that might be a healthy corrective to current squabbles over failure in Iraq. At least in the popular political arena, the debate has focussed often on troop numbers and the role of hard power in killing insurgents.

But Jones reminds us of the RAND research that correlates insurgent success not simply with bodycounts or force ratios, but with external support. Looking at 91 insurgencies since 1945, suggests

... insurgencies that have gained and maintained state support have won more than half the time. Those with support from non-state actors and diaspora groups (but not state support) won a third of the time, and those with no external support at all won only 17% of the time.

Moreover,

what makes decisive victory possible is the provision or withdrawal of support from a foreign power to the government or rebel side. In Malaya and the Philipines, for example, insurgents received no external military support and ultimately lost.

Support includes training, money, personnel weapons, logistics, moral/political/diplomatic backing, intelligence, and expertise.

Interdicting this source of support has often been spoken of as an important step. It might even be the decisive one. (7) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:31 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

HOW DO YOU SAY 'ISRAEL' IN ARABIC? In case you missed it, that the title of a short piece I wrote for the Weekly Standard.

Labels: Israel, Palestinians

(16) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:22 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

OPEN THREAD: PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION. I have a few gut instincts about abortion, but very little knowledge. So here's my question: What is the significance of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion without an exception for the health of the mother?

In today's WaPo, Ruth Marcus observes that partial birth abortion is a rather gruesome procedure. But so are the other methods of performing a second-trimester abortion. If a law can ban the former, why can't it ban the latter? Is there any legal doctrine to explain why one is allowed but not the other?

Labels: Abortion, Supreme Court

(14) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:49 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

I'VE BEEN BORKED! How often do you get mail from a would-be Supreme Court justice? OK, so maybe it was a generic fundraising letter, but it was damn entertaining.

Judge Bork was writing to request support for the Collegiate Network (CN), which promotes conservative thought and journalism on American campuses. Here's why you should give CN your money:

Today, while a new generation of citizen-soldiers hunts terrorists around the globe, another war is being fought on America's college campuses and in our national media.

Success on this "Second Front" is every bit as crucial to the survival of our national character and freedoms as winning the War on Terror...

One of the biggest differences between the aftermathof December 7th and September 11th, is that in 1941, the vast majority of college professors and members of the press were proud to be Americans.

Today the academy and media situation is vastly different.

I have been an educator and public servant for much of my life and I can confirm for you that percehd in their ivory towers are career academics, revisionist liberals, apologists, and socialists who -- like their liberal media allies -- have made it their life's work to erodes the values of Western Civilization in favor of promoting various forms of "Feel Good" socialism...or worse.

I think Judge Bork must be smoking some of that "Feel Good" socialism. I spent three years living in Oxford, and everything Bork said would still be a ridiculous exaggeration if you applied it to the British academy.

Then again, after three years at Oxford and an additional six on American campuses, perhaps my mind has been poisoned by the:

...moral relativism of the politically correct, anti-freedom, anti-family, anti-American fanatics who control so much of academic and the media.

Well, if you read this far then I think you owe the Collegiate Network a bit of a donation for bringing you a smile. After all,

We can no longer afford to let our rising young stars -- and, eventually, our nation -- be intellectually "disarmed" by brainwashing college professors who prefer Karl Marx to Thomas Jefferson.

Labels: Collegiate Network, fundraising, Robert Bork

(2) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:40 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

OXBLOG DEFENDS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA! On the cover of the Outlook section in yesterday's WaPo, there was an article blaming the media for the massacre at Virginia Tech. Its author writes that:

...the bloated photographs on front pages, the repeating loops of interviews on cable news, the postings of warped creative writing assignments on the Web, and perhaps above all the airing of Cho's self-pitying, quasi-messianic video clips on every network all help ensure that similar incidents will indeed recur -- and soon...

Despite all the searching-for-an-answer hand-wringing we have been subjected to this last week, the most obvious ounce of prevention would be to stop allowing the likes of Cho to play the media like a piano. As it is, we gave him everything he would have wished for. In so doing, journalists who claim only to be helping us to "understand," the better to prevent future rampages, are hypocritical. Ask any Skinnerian psychologist: Reward behavior, and it rises.

The strangest thing about these accusation is that they come from a man who published a novel that "which climaxes in a grisly school killing with a crossbow."

Then, after blaming the media for Virginia Tech, the author goes on to talk about how unfair and personally hurtful it is for his work to be labelled as an incitement to violence:

The finger of blame is already circling wildly -- at the campus's police, administrators and teachers. For the first time, it has even pointed at me. Because Cho, like my own fictional character Kevin, bought locks and chains to trap his victims in their school rooms, numerous blogs and even the London Paper have speculated that he may have been imitating "We Need to Talk About Kevin." Take it from me: Even such a glancing accusation that the death of 32 people is all your fault is not an enjoyable experience.

When you live in a glass house...

Labels: Virginia Tech

(3) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:29 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

THE POST DEFENDS WOLFOWITZ: It's certainly a bit surprising to see the WaPo being more charitable on this point than OxBlog. Here's the argument from the Post:

The allegations against Mr. Wolfowitz, which have angered many bank employees, are by now familiar. After arriving at the bank in the summer of 2005, he arranged a generous employment package for his companion, Shaha Riza, then a senior communications officer at the bank with expertise in Middle East affairs. These terms mandated a salary increase from $132,660 to $193,590, assigned her to a job outside the bank and laid out a path to further promotion and raises. This has been characterized as an underhanded deal that undermines Mr. Wolfowitz's campaign against corruption in poor countries applying for World Bank aid.

Unfortunately, that thumbnail sketch omits some highly relevant facts. It was Mr. Wolfowitz who, before taking over at the bank, called the potential conflict of interest to the attention of the bank's ethics committee. He asked to be recused from any personnel decisions involving Ms. Riza. The committee agreed that a conflict existed, but it said that could probably be solved only by Ms. Riza leaving the bank, either permanently or on loan to another agency. The committee also told Mr. Wolfowitz that, if she chose to go elsewhere, Ms. Riza should be given a raise because she already had been short-listed for a promotion. So when Mr. Wolfowitz dictated her new terms of employment he was responding in part to the committee's instructions. Further raises were intended to be equal to what she might have earned had she stayed at the bank, responding to the committee's advice that she receive "compensation to offset negative career impact" from her reassignment.

Was the package nonetheless too generous, even by cushy World Bank standards? The executive directors should answer that question. But there's a relevant fact here, too. The ethics panel reviewed the situation again a half-year later, in February 2006, after receiving an anonymous complaint from a bank employee precisely on the issue of excessive pay. Once again it found, "on the basis of a careful review," that the allegations "do not appear to pose ethical issues appropriate for further consideration by the Committee."

That's a pretty solid argument. The Post goes on to say that Wolfowitz exhibited "poor judgment", but the weight of their argument is on his side.

For my part, I'm still a bit puzzled as to why Wolfowitz made such misleading statements about his role in deciding on Reza's compensation package. But given that the Bank's own ethics panel conducted an internal review in February 2006 and gave Wolfowtiz a clean bill of health, it's hard to say that his actions are grounds for dismissial.

Labels: Paul Wolfowitz, World Bank

(10) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:33 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

OPEN THREAD: GLOBAL POVERTY. Poverty is an issue with critical implications for both our values and our national security. In recognition of one Committed Reader ('CR' for short) whose constant focus is on global poverty, I thought we should have a broad discussion of the issue. Enjoy!

Labels: Poverty

(23) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:44 AM by Taylor Owen  

GREAT WALL OF CHINA, OR 'GATED COMMUNITY' DREAM? I'd be curious what others think about this. Seems to me like a temporary measure. But maybe that is what is needed, a 'temporary' wall until the tempers subside. The problem with walls though is that once they are up, they usually end up sticking around for a while...

Here are some detail from the LA Times piece.

A U.S. military brigade is constructing a 3-mile-long concrete wall to cut off one of the capital's most restive Sunni Arab districts from the Shiite Muslim neighborhoods that surround it, raising concern about the further Balkanization of Iraq's most populous and violent city...

The ambitious project is a sign of how far the U.S. military will go to end the bloodshed in Iraq. But U.S. officials denied that it was a central tactic of the U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown launched Feb. 13.

It's good to know that this is not considered part of the counterinsurgency 'surge'. I am no expert, but I would put some money on 'dividing communities with walls' not being in Patraeus', Counterinsurgency Doctrine. But if this isn't part of the surge, then what is it?

On the extent of it:

"We defer to commanders on the ground, but dividing up the entire city with barriers is not part of the plan," U.S. military spokesman Army Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said Thursday.

Some reaction:

"Are they trying to divide us into different sectarian cantons?" said a Sunni drugstore owner in Adhamiya, who would identify himself only as Abu Ahmed, 44. "This will deepen the sectarian strife and only serve to abort efforts aimed at reconciliation."

"Are we in the West Bank?" asked Abu Qusay, 48, a pharmacist who said that he wouldn't be able to get to his favorite kebab restaurant in Adhamiya....

Some predicted the new wall would become a target of militants on both sides. Last week, construction crews came under small-arms fire, military officials said.

"I feel this is the beginning of a pattern of what the whole of Iraq is going to look like, divided by sectarian and racial criteria," Abu Marwan, 50, a Shiite pharmacist, said.

While It may indeed have a positive impact, who the hell knows?, my sense is that this might be a tad too much spin:

The wall is "on a fault line of Sunni and Shia, and the idea is to curb some of the self-sustaining violence by controlling who has access to the neighborhoods," Army Capt. Marc Sanborn, brigade engineer for the project, said in the release. He said the concept was closer to an exclusive gated community in the United States than to China's Great Wall.

A related anecdote. A couple of months ago in Oxford I saw a talk by a US counterinsurgency expert who had spent the better part of the past few years working with the military in Anbar. A point that stuck with me was that even if Patraeus wanted to fully implement his idea of a counterinsurgency, it is incredibly difficult to get commanders on the ground to follow suit. Particularly when many aspects of the strategy would put their soldiers at greater risk. You therefore often get a disconnect between the best strategic policy to defeat an insurgency, and what commanders feel is required to minimize casualties. This person felt that Patraeus' biggest challenge was going to be to overcome this. I wonder where the wall fits in with this challenge?


UPDATE: While we are on counterinsurgency, it seems to me that this, via Drum, is a relatively big deal? Again, without judgment, I would be curious where this fits in with Patraeus' doctrine.

Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.

Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.

(6) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:17 AM by Taylor Owen  

LIVE BLOGGING GONZALES: He is in pretty big trouble. Specter and Leahy are both going at him VERY hard. Specter on his inconsistent statements, and Leahy on wider influences on his decision making. It seem to me that the Republicans are going after him, and the Dems have already written him off and are using the hearings to go after bigger fish. It's going to be interesting. Amazing the degree to which they are talking down to him, and he sure isn't coming across as sure footed.

Brownback asked for the reasons for each firing. One by one. Gonzales was clearly prepped for this. He is far better when he has a prepped answer, but gets awkwardly flustered when he doesn't.

Gonzales fought back to Kohl. A good prepped answer. Kohl went on about perceptions, not a useful line of questioning. Fit in with the model of Dems going after the big picture, Reps going after inconsistent testimonies.

Hatch is the first to really defend Gonzales. Softballs that Gonzales handled decently.

oh oh, here comes Feinstein...
She gets a point for her Lam questions.

Missed a couple, am back though, Schumer is on...
Hitting very hard, again on Lam. Then on Senate bypass law using Patriot act provision, and on Gonzales competency. I think he will have specters support on this one. "defies credulity". Think he gets a point on the later, not on the former.

Gonzales is conceding a lot. His fate is going to come down to whether what he concedes are fireable offenses.

Graham continuing on Senate by pass and on Sampson plan, whether Gonzales supported it etc. He is very skeptical on competence. Why did he delegate process and why did it take so long to sort things out? Repubs are basically taking the National Review incompetence argument. Wow. Graham just said that they just didn't like some judges and made up reasons to fire them.

Ed Note: This is shockingly like watching someone fight for their reality show lives in front of Trump on the Apprentice... ps. I secretly like the Apprentice

Durbin going after Sampson recommendation that Fitzgerald be fired. Gonzales doesn't think he knew about this. More on conversations with Rove... lots of 'not recalling'. Durbin ends with big line responding to Gonzales claim that they are indirectly attacking the prosecutors by going after him. Says this is like criticizing war=criticizing troops.

Session, breaks for lunch, Senate room erupts in protest. "Fire Gonzales Now!" in background...

Who knew CSPAN could be so entertaining...

We're back!

Will be more entertaining when it cycles back through to the heavy hitters.

In the interim, is there any legal reason he uses the term "I don't recall" is every second sentence? Just asking.

Gonzales is now begging for his job. Its not pretty. Coburn is hitting him hard on incompetence and his answers aren't getting very far. He says he should suffer the same consequences that the fired judges should improperly faced. He has no further questions, he believes he should offer his resignation.

Kyl is up, and asking about internet gambling, maybe he doesn't like the odds on Gonzales' fate...

Leahy is going after White House involvement again.

Hatch is coming in for a defense. It is likely too like too late though...

I think Specter might have just put the nail in Gonzales' coffin. Leahy's closing was a lot more aggressive, going after much more than just incompetence, but Specter's was more damning as it came from a Republican. My bet, for what it's worth, is that Gonzales will offer his resignation and Bush won't accept it. Overall, his performance was pretty underwhelming. Stay tunned...

Scorecard
Leahy 1, Gonzales 0
Specter 2, Gonzales 0
Kennedy 0, Gonzales 0
Brownback 0, Gonzales 1
Kohl 0, Gonzales 1
Hatch 0, Gonzales 1
Feinstein 1, Gonzales 0
...
Schumer 1, Gonzales 0
Graham 2, Gonzales 0 (very damaging)
Durbin 2, Gonzales 1 (a good spar)
Grassley 0, Gonzales 0
Cardin 1, Gonzales 0
Coburn 0, Gonzales 0
Whitehouse 0, Gonzales 0
Leahy 0, Gonzales -1
Feinstein 1, Gonzales 0
This is getting silly...the result is pretty clear though (4) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:53 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

COURAGE: The example set by Prof. Liviu Librescu of Virginia Tech:

Liviu Librescu, a professor of engineering and a Holocaust survivor, is being called a hero after students reported that the 76-year-old man barricaded the door to his classroom long enough for them to jump to safety from the upper-story windows of Norris Hall.

Librescu was killed by the gunman, who eventually forced his way into the classroom, according to his son, Joe Librescu, who was interviewed by CNN and the Associated Press. Joe Librescu said his father's students have e-mailed him their accounts of his last minutes.

A Romanian who survived the Holocaust, Librescu became an opponent of communism and moved to Israel. He later immigrated to the United States. Librescu taught at Virginia Tech for 20 years and had an international reputation for his work in aeronautical engineering...

"My father blocked the doorway with his body and asked the students to flee," Joe Librescu told the AP in a telephone interview from his home outside Tel Aviv. "Students started opening windows and jumping out."

Labels: Virginia Tech

(7) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:42 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WHY CAN'T THE PRESS BE FAIR TO HILLARY? I may like what they're saying, but I still know the difference between facts and spin. Here are the most flagrant parts of a front-page story about Mrs. Clinton from Wednesday's WaPo:

In the 6 1/2 years since she was elected to the Senate, Clinton has paid close attention to the constituent services and pork-barrel politics that earned one of her predecessors, Republican Alfonse M. D'Amato, the nickname "Senator Pothole."...

[Clinton's] emphasis on small-scale initiatives rather than ambitious ones was famously championed by Mark Penn, her campaign pollster and chief strategist, when he worked for President Bill Clinton nearly a decade ago...

Over time, she has evolved into a hybrid legislator, a figure of outsize influence but limited scope, offering no big initiatives...

Her tenure speaks more to her work habits than to the ambitious vision many voters tend to look for in a presidential hopeful...

Clinton has carved out an unusual niche in her six years on Capitol Hill: Senator Pothole with a celebrity twist. Too new to sit on the Appropriations Committee, the traditional pipeline to pork, Clinton compensates by taking advantage of her high profile and a deep Rolodex to dole out favors like a ward boss -- even as she launches a White House campaign.

Maybe some of you are still expecting a punchline like "Haha. Those are actually quotes from a nasty editorial in the National Review." But no, they're not.

Naturally, all of this raises the question of whether the media has a liberal bias or is really just an equal-opportunity pol basher. Of course, it isn't that simple. Yes, journalists are negative by training. But that negativism appears in many interesting and unpredictable ways.

The most interesting contrast right now is in the red-carpet coverage being given to Obama and the cynical interpretations of absolutely everything done by Hillary. Personally, I think it comes down to perceptions of authenticity. He creates them, she doesn't.

Labels: Hillary, Media

(7) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:13 PM by Taylor Owen  

A POST-VETO SHOWDOWN: Reid/Pelosi vs. Bush/Cheney. TPM has the background from the oval office meeting where the line in the sand was drawn. I think my beliefs and the Vegas odds may be on the opposite sides of this one... (2) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:34 AM by Taylor Owen  

LOOK PORTER, I MENTIONED VIMY!: David Eaves and I have an op-ed, here and below, in today's Globe and Mail.

Beyond Vimy Ridge: Canada's other foreign-policy pillar

This is a hallmark year for Canadian foreign policy. 2007 marks the anniversaries of two events through which Canada contributed significantly on the international stage: the Battle of Vimy Ridge and Lester Pearson's Nobel Peace Prize. This is a wonderful coincidence. These two moments, and the values they imbue, are defining pillars that have guided our foreign policy.

Sadly, these events and the principles they represent are frequently held up as opposing ideological doctrines between which an absolute policy choice must be made. In reality, the very opposite is true. Not only are Vimy Ridge and the Nobel Prize both real and important achievements, but the policies and values they embody function far better in collaboration than in isolation.

The first pillar, Vimy Ridge, is a defining moment in Canadian foreign policy. It compels us to remember, and give thanks to, Canadians whose sense of duty and sacrifice contributed to a greater cause.

Equally important, Vimy personifies a Canada that stood by its allies and contributed more than its share. It created a lasting legacy of values that continue to serve us well: courage, allegiance to allies, steadfastness, valour, bravery.

However, we must also remember that the First World War reflects an enormous breakdown in political leadership. It is an example of what happens when great powers allow their rivalries to run unchecked.

Wonderfully, Canadian foreign policy responded to this deficiency, and evolved to include a second foundational principle: Pearsonian diplomacy.

By providing an innovative solution to the Suez Crisis and preventing its allies from stumbling into a global conflict, Mr. Pearson's prize reflected a different set of values than those of the First World War: honesty, integrity, leadership, principle and a willingness to question and check our allies. The Peace Prize honours a tradition of diplomacy that prevents us from having to commemorate another Vimy.

While both pillars are critical to an effective Canadian foreign policy, many on both the left and right would prefer to celebrate only one of these great events. Each claims that either Vimy or the Peace Prize imbue "true Canadian values." Both are mistaken. It is the interplay between them that makes Canada a credible and recognized actor in global politics. Notably, this is accomplished by being neither militaristic hawk, nor unwavering peacenik.

There is no doubt that diplomacy was ultimately what prevailed in the Suez crisis, yet it shouldn't be forgotten that it was backed up by a credible military presence. An idealistic dependency on diplomacy has limits, as Roméo Dallaire is quick to point out. Sometimes, it is the threat of force that is required to keep or build the peace.

Likewise, the use of military force also has its limits. Washington's predisposition to rely on force often taints the legitimacy of U.S. military interventions. In contrast, countries respect Canadian interventions because they know our diplomatic history and leadership in avoiding unnecessary conflicts. Recent achievements continue to demonstrate the value of carefully weaving together these two pillars. For example, Canada did not participate in Iraq because we rightfully believed diplomacy had not run its course. Ambassador Paul Heinbecker's Pearsonian resolution at the United Nations, proposed on the eve of war, assuaged legitimate international concerns by balancing credible weapons inspections with the threat of force. Had it been adopted, and no weapons found, a disastrous war might have been avoided. Countless lives might have been saved and Canada might have been in the running for another peace prize.

Contrast this to the first Persian Gulf war, where diplomacy was allowed to take its course. An important norm of the international system — the unsanctioned use of force — was defended. Canadians fought valiantly alongside our Anglo-U.S. allies and with the legitimacy of a broad 30-member coalition.

In both of these cases, the Vimy and Pearson pillars worked in tandem and resulted in principled international action.

Sadly, we may be drifting toward an overemphasis on the Vimy pillar of Canadian foreign policy. Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government appears overly romanced by our military tradition and negligent of our diplomatic history. The UN Peace University in Toronto has recently been closed down and funding for the Canadian International Model UN has been cut. More telling — and in sharp contrast to the months of time, energy and money that were appropriately dedicated to the Vimy celebrations — the government's plan for the Pearson anniversary are unclear.

The Prime Minister's treatment of the peace prize milestone will be telling. If he believes that the second pillar of Canadian foreign policy is indeed symbiotic with the first, the same priority will surely be placed on celebrating its 50th anniversary this fall.

Labels: Canadian Foreign Policy

(12) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:14 PM by Taylor Owen  

...AND ANGER: at repulsive arguments such as this and this. a sick state of affairs. (19) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:55 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

OUR HEARTS GO OUT TO VIRGINIA TECH: A tragedy so senselss it takes away rational thought. All that is left is a feeling of shock and sadness and loss. (1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:32 AM by Patrick Porter  

AN IMPERIALIST FORCE ALIENATING IRAQI OPINION: is what Al Qaeda are in danger of becoming. A story in Monday's Washington Post provides more evidence of this.

As Taylor would say, here's the money quote:

"We do not want to kill the Sunni people nor displace the innocent Shia, and what the al-Qaeda organization is doing is contradictory to Islam," said Abu Marwan, a religious leader of the Mujaheddin Army in Baqubah, northeast of Baghdad. "We will strike whoever violates the boundaries of God, whether al-Qaeda or the Americans."

Plenty of the Sunni insurgent activities probably also violate Islam. But the point is, Al Qaeda like many other extremist movements seems to be ultimately self-destructive. Its campaigns of beheadings, indiscriminate murder and its death cult repel opinion.

This was also suggested by widespread demonstrations against Al Qaeda's attack on a Palestinian wedding in Jordan last year, and in an international opinion poll in which Bin Ladenism was increasingly unpopular amongst Muslims.

Furthermore, because AQ is both zealous ideologically and very loose and decentralised in its operations as a network, it may well implode as its members start fighting each other. To coin a phrase, it will fall victim to its own internal contradictions.

The war against AQ has been marked by strategic errors and incompetence. Nevertheless, I am still quietly confident that it is unviable as a movement and as a set of ideas, and it will ultimately isolate and destroy itself. (14) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:49 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WOLFOWITZ UPDATE: I last posted about Paul Wolfowitz exactly one week ago. I ended that post with a vote of confidence in the World Bank president and former Deputy Secretary of Defense. I wrote that:

Looking at the big picture, I'm glad that Wolfowitz had made corruption a priority and is challenging the Bank to live up to his standards. I think that leadership from the top is the only way to get the Bank to take the issue seriously. Wolfowitz's predecessor took some critical first steps in that direction, but the fight against corruption has only just begun.

Since last week, further details have emerged that make Wolfowitz look quite bad. "Challenging the Bank to live up to his standards" now doesn't seem like a very effective call to arms.

Three questions come to mind. First, should Wolfowitz's actions be described as an instance of corruption? Second, should Wolfowitz resign? Third, should one connect the dots between this controversy and Wolfowitz's role in our early failures in Iraq?

With regard to the first question (and by extension, the second) the editors of the Financial Times write:

The answer is: an apparent violation of Bank rules; favouritism that borders on nepotism; and a possible cover-up. It is true Mr Wolfowitz and Ms Riza were put in a difficult position. Even so, what has come out would be bad in any institution. In an institution that spear-heads the cause of good governance in the developing world, it is lethal. (Hat tip: Anon)

Interestingly, the FT didn't use the word corruption. Or should one consider favoritism a form of corruption? I don't have a good answer to that question.

What may be most telling is that Wolfowitz chose to tell a series of half-truths about how the decision was made to give his significant other a promotion and and an unusual raise. If everything was on the level, why not be candid?

So, do I think Wolfowitz should resign? I could see a good case being made both ways. I guess I'll say this: if there were a strong candidate waiting in the wings who would make the fight against corruption his or her priority, then a new president may be the best thing.

On the other hand, I don't exactly buy the FT's argument that:

The president of the World Bank has one asset: his credibility...

In a world where curtailing corruption and improving governance have become central to the practice of development, the world’s premier development institution must, like Caesar’s wife, stand above suspicion.

Given how many notoriously corrupt governments have received major loans from the Bank over the years, I'm not sure that Caesar's wife was ever that pure. And the corruption of those governments involves the systematic theft of billions, not a questionable raise and promotion of the kind Mr. Wolfowitz gave out.

And finally, to my third question. Some might suggest that Wolfowitz's behavior reflects a disturbing sort of arrogance, poor judgment and inability to consider the opinions of others. Those same critics might then say those things are exactly what one should expect from Wolfowitz, because those are the same traits that he exhibited at the Pentagon and that contributed to our early (and perhaps ultimate) failure in Iraq.

More broadly speaking, when romantic attachments at the office result in a serious lack of professionalism, should one say that the culpable party is unfit to lead? Or should one say that the culpable party deserves a measure of forgiveness because we all make mistakes when romance is involved?

These seem to be the exact same questions we were all asking in the Clinton years, except that liberals and conservatives now have an incentive to contradict the answers they gave last time around.

Labels: Paul Wolfowitz, World Bank

(16) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:20 AM by Taylor Owen  

WHY PRINT NEWS IS (NEARLY) DEAD TO ME: A couple of weeks ago I attended a panel at the Columbia School of Journalism on the future of newspapers. The panel was held in order to debate a recent piece by The American Prospect Editor Robert Kuttner. I have been writing a long response/rebuttal essay, which I will post a bit about in the coming week, but wanted to just throw out the following anecdote which exemplifies some of the arguments the essay makes.

This week, for some mysterious reason, I have begun to receive the Toronto Star newspaper, delivered daily, in hard copy, to my doorstep. Now for a news junkie, one would think this would be a gift from the gods. What could be better than beginning the day with a perusal of a large market daily? Well, a lot it would seem.

First, is the pure size of the thing. What a waste. Everyday it comes with half a dozen insert adds, some sort of quasi 'magazine' I won't read, and five or six sections that are of absolutely no interest to me. After I have laboriously looked through the first section A, what do I do with the massive amount of paper? Well, straight to the recycle bin has been the trend. Unless you forget to do this for a couple of days, then the kitchen table disappears under an unwieldy mess of paper. I feel guilty just looking at the thing - talk about offending my 'large market' urban environmental sensibilities.

But by partaking in this 'experience' aren't I strengthening our democracy by being civically engaged? Media types argue that there is something called 'incidental reading', that one can only get from print news. The theory goes that by flipping through the paper, one is exposed to stories they otherwise would not have sought out, thereby making them more knowledgeable citizens, and obviously strengthening the democracy in which they are now more actively participating. I won't go into this in great length, as the essay goes into far greater, and slightly less sarcastic, detail, but suffice it to say, the theory is crap.

First, it would take an hour to go through the entire paper, all sections. Even if I do so, I am getting the news that the Toronto Star thinks is important. One source. Some democracy. This is not to say I don't value the perspective or content of the Star, far from it, only that my relationship with them is not monogamous. Second, the internet is FAR better at providing incidental value added than a messy pile of paper. What do you think 'surfing' is? Even if I might want to know what the Star's editorial board deems 'news worthy', I can look at their webpage (nicely redesigned I might add) and with the scroll of my mouse wheel, scan dozens of articles. How is this not exposing me to a wide range of content?

OK, I'll save the other ten reasons why I don't fully agree with Kuttner for the article. But how do others feel about this? Are there print news hold-outs among Oxblog readers? If so what do you like about it? (...and nostalgia doesn't count, or proves my point, as the essay will explain)

Labels: newspapers, online news

(8) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:41 AM by Patrick Belton  

SINCE IT'S FRIDAY*, go to Google maps, click on 'get directions', enter 'London' and 'New York' as respectively points A and B, then scroll down to step 37.

(*and since it annoys my ex-girlfriend when I post jokes) (3) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:55 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

OXBLOG ASKS JOHN McCAIN A QUESTION. (LITERALLY.) After his address Wednesday at the Virginia Military Institute, John McCain did a second conference call for bloggers. I got to ask a question and I tried to make it reasonably tough.

For a detailed and precise summary of the bloggers' questions and the Senator's answers, visit Bull Dog Pundit. For additional commentary, check out Glenn Reynolds' compilation of posts about the call.

Here's how Bull Dog Pundit summarized my question:

Next was Dave Adesnick [sic] from Oxblog[.] Asks about Washington Post headline about McCain’s “staking candidacy” on Iraq. If things are grim in Iraq at the end of 2007, does that mean things are “Grim” for a McCain presidency[?]

McCain makes fun of those quoted anonymously [who] are “close to him”. Doesn’t care what effect Iraq stance has on his political ambitions. To do otherwise is a “great betrayal” of the troops there, and who have been there.

That captures the basics, although I think the details are worth recounting. First off, I began by telling the Senator that I am a very strong supporter of his. I said it because it's true, and because I wanted to establish pre-emptively that my implied criticism should be taken as constructive.

I told Sen. McCain I wanted to ask him about a front-page story in Saturday's Post entitled "McCain to Stake Bid on Need to Win in Iraq". Then I read the following sentence from the story:

It is a gamble at a critical time for the former front-runner for the Republican nomination, the political equivalent of a "double-down" in blackjack, as one person close to the campaign put it.

It certainly is a gamble, since the surge may fail, as McCain himself has observed. Thus, if the situation in Iraq is grim in late 2007, will the situation also be grim for McCain's candidacy?

What I probably should have stated more clearly was that I wanted to know if McCain had made a strategic decision to focus his campaign more on Iraq in a way that he hadn't before. That was what the article in Saturday's Post clearly implied. Furthermore, the article suggested that McCain's spech at VMI would provide of evidence of this shift. But it didn't. It was primarily a restatement of his principles along with commentary on the latest developments in Iraq and on the Hill.

I was hoping the article was wrong because I don't see how it makes sense to double down on the success of something as uncertain as the surge. I would argue that McCain is the strongest candidate on every aspect of national security and US foreign policy. Thus, I don't want him knocked out of the race just because things go worse in Iraq.

Strategically, I think McCain needs to lay out how he would approach the situation in Iraq if the surge does fail. Right now he is on the horns of a dilemma. He says that we cannot afford to lose in Iraq. But if the surge goes poorly and 85% of Americans want to withdraw, will McCain still be committed to an increasingly hopeless quest for victory? At what point must a sincere commitment to principle give way to the demands of an overwhelming majority of the electorate?

McCain's answer to my question was honest, perhaps recklessly so. First, he said we shouldn't pay attention to anything attributed to anonymous individuals "close to his campaign". The bottom line is that he is going to do what he believes is right, regardless of whether it is the best thing for his candidacy.

Coming from most other politicians, I would probably dismiss that kind of statement out of hand. Ryan Sager suggests that even McCain could not have been entirely sincere. But my concern is actually that McCain was being entirely sincere.

If the surge fails, demands for a full and immediate withdrawal will intensify dramatically. But if victory is impossible and the costs of defeat are unbearable, then the best course for the United States will be to keep a smaller force in Iraq to protect its most vital interests, such as preventing the establishment of an Al Qaeda safe haven.

If I were one of McCain's advisers, I'd be telling him to think about that problem now, even if he focuses his public statements on the surge. If McCain doesn't develop a clear position now and the surge does fail, he will be forced to take an ad hoc position on the most important issue of the day. That is dangerous. It will provide the critics with a chance to label him as an opportunist or even a flip-flopper.

McCain's greatest strength is his reputation for being principled and honest. But being principled and honest does not demand a total rejection of political strategizing. You just have to be honest about that, too.

Labels: John McCain

(3) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:49 AM by Patrick Belton  

SIX months, today, mum; I thought I'd miss you less. (2) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:21 PM by Patrick Porter  

MY OBSESSION WITH RALPH PETERS will end with this post, promise.

Normally I find his writing very stimulating.

But his recent polemic about the British hostages is sad to read.

I can't comment much about the relative calibre of British Royal Marines and American Marines under capture or interrogation.

But there are constructive ways to make his criticisms of British rules of engagement and training. Other than calling into question the Britons' national character.

And Peters might be reminded that the country he derides as cowardly and unmanly has not simply begun a withdrawal from Iraq. It is redeploying a large chunk of its forces to Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, a war far from over, British, Canadian and other forces are facing some of the hardest fighting since Korea.

There's actually an argument that with its limited forces, its more valuable for Britain to focus its military efforts in a more winnable struggle, than in an Iraqi civil war. This point might at least have been entertained, instead of accusing the British of simply turning tail and fleeing.

He also might consider that at this critical time in American foreign policy, a little magnanimity and credit might be offered to its closest ally. Instead of the unreflective spite that his article offers.

(Especially since many Americans, and those of us who admire the US, and I suspect Peters himself, rightly bristle when simplistic things are said about its national culture).

Its disappointing that a commentator normally so thought-provoking and insightful can indulge in such tabloid hackery. (20) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:59 AM by Patrick Porter  

THIS IS SPARTA: So I went and saw the film '300' last week. Oh man. It was other than something else.

To begin at the end: thousands of Greek hoplites charge into the battle of Plataea, lit up by their Corinthian helmets, wrapped in scarlet cloaks and bellowing war cries.

They are inspired by the heroism of a small detachment of Spartans, who battled and died at the 'Hot Gates' against a Persian invading force so big 'it shakes the ground.'

I have always had a thing for ancient history, both the raw reality and the wierd myths surrounding it. But as I'm an amateur, any classicists out here should feel free to come storming in.

There seems to be two dimensions of the film that have generated discussion: the stunning visual/iconographic/cinematic effects, and the politics.

Many film critics have already described the effects much more eloquently than I can here.

But when it comes to politics, some critics of the film accuse it of being an untimely celebration of reactionary militarism, or a crude allegory on the Iraq war, or an insult to Persian heritage, or even a form of 'fascist art.'

Less excitable critics also note that the film overlooks one of the big ironies of the story. The Spartans who were immortalised for defending Greek liberty were themselves elites from a slave society, an apartheid order, which was later invaded and uprooted by other Greek city-states, who freed the helots and proclaimed that Sparta was an aberration against Hellenic freedom, not the embodiment of it.

Tom Holland's recent book, Persian Fire, even argues that a Persian victory in 480/79 BC would have seemed like the sweetest liberation to the helots.

Yes yes yes. History is full of ironies and contradictions and its worth remembering that etc etc. Sparta's involvement means that it can't just be summarised as a slave society against a free society, etc. And as I've posted before, I don't particularly enjoy the preachiness of some blockbuster films.

But many people, I suspect, went along to '300' to enjoy a great story, delivered with eye-popping power. I loved most the Spartan laconic sense of humour, the Homeric-sounding rhetoric (eg. 'it is not fear that grips him. only a heightened sense of things'), the exotic charisma of Xerxes, the intensity of the combat, the very fact that it didn't try to stick too closely to historical details, the role of Persian money in Greek politics, stuff like that.

Nevertheless, the politics can't be ignored because so much has been made of it.

Its worth remembering that the film is based on a Graphic novel by Frank Miller in the 90's, which chronologically disproves the suggestion that its about contemporary events. It doesn't seem intentionally to be a statement about Persian culture across time.

If it has any political message, it is that the autonomy and liberty of a cluster of squabbling city-states might have been snuffed out forever by a massive invasion by an autocrat. Along with the 5th century renaissance that was to come in philosophy, art, architecture, political thought etc.

This wasn't the main appeal of the film for me, but the fact that the film is about a very small force resisting a very large imperialist force should not be overlooked.

if anything, I found Oliver Stone's 'Alexander' more distorting, as at several points it recycled the myth from WW Tarn and others that the Macedonian warrior-king was some kind of enlightened multiculturalist, instead of the butchering and enslaving conqueror that he actually was.

It was arguably Alexander's offensives that raped and burnt Persian culture (at least initially), rather than Thermopyle. which might have seemed to many Persians an irritating skirmish on the periphery of empire, unlike the Greco-Macedonian onslaught that was to come over 150 years later.

anyway, go and see it. even if you dislike it, there'll be plenty to talk about. (7) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:58 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WHERE ARE THEY NOW? (PAUL WOLFOWITZ EDITION): Just yesterday I was thinking to myself that we haven't heard much from the former Deputy Secretary of Defense since he became president of the World Bank. Well, ask and ye shall shalt receive; the current issue of the New Yorker has a profile of Wolfowitz entitled "The Next Crusade".

No surprise, Wolfowitz is a bit controversial at the Bank. But is it because he is shaking up an lethargic bureaucracy or because he is a unilateralist and ideologue by nature? The New Yorker profile lets the advocates of both arguments have their say. It is also worth considering whether controversy is the natural baseline for a new president with new ideas. According to one Wolfowitz ally,

“If you had interviewed people at this stage in Jim Wolfensohn’s tenure, you would have concluded he was the Devil incarnate.”

Wolfensohn was the previous president of the bank. (Maybe the next two presidents will have surnames with the syllable "lamb".)

Wolfowitz's signature issue at the bank has been fighting corruption by governments who borrow from the bank. According to many Bank-watchers, its employees have a long history of measuring success in terms of how much funding goes out the door. Thus, there tends to be minimal concern about how much of that funding winds up in the pockets of corrupt officials, rather than the hands of the poor.

At times, Wolfowitz's approach to fighting corruption and other abuses has come across as heavy-handed. In May 2005,

The government of Uzbekistan had violently suppressed an uprising in the city of Andijan, in which as many as seven hundred people, including women and children, were killed. In July, Islam A. Karimov, Uzbekistan’s dictatorial ruler, ordered the United States to remove its troops and aircraft from the Uzbek base it had been using to support the military campaign in Afghanistan. Around the same time, the Uzbek government expelled a number of Western nongovernmental organizations.

Since joining the World Bank, in 1992, Uzbekistan had received more than five hundred million dollars in loans, mostly for rural water and health projects. In September, 2005, Wolfowitz withdrew an assistance package for Uzbekistan that was about to be presented to the bank’s board for approval. “It came out of the blue,” Dennis de Tray, who was country director for central Asia at the time, told me. “I got a call while I was on vacation and was told that he just did it. He didn’t even talk to the regional vice-president. We were all pretty shell-shocked.”

Wolfowitz told me that his action had nothing to do with military bases or the U.S. government. “Nobody was instructing me to get out of Uzbekistan,” he said. “My one concern, pure and simple, was that, given the human-rights violations, we couldn’t have any confidence in what was happening to our money.”

Now, cooperating with subordinates is never a bad thing in and of itself. But isn't a bit disturbing that an assistance package made it so far through the approval process right after such a horrific massacre? Although the Bank's employees may have been "shell-shocked" about Wolfowitz's sudden intervention from above, doesn't their surprise also say something about strong expectations that the massacre could be safely ignored?

Now, there are some fairly influential voices in the development community who believe that the Banks should focus on fighting poverty, without getting entangled in the issues of corruption and governance:

On September 13th [2006], six days before the Singapore meeting, Hilary Benn, the British Secretary of State for International Development, announced that the United Kingdom was withholding from the World Bank a fifty-million-pound payment, to protest the conditions the bank attached to aid. In a speech in London, Benn objected to Wolfowitz’s actions on corruption: “Where problems arise, some people argue that we should suspend our aid or withdraw it completely. I don’t agree. Why should a child be denied education? Why should a mother be denied healthcare? Or an H.I.V.-positive person AIDS treatment, just because someone or something in their government is corrupt?”

The answer to such questions, of course, is that the best way to provide a child with education or her mother with healthcare is not to wink at the corrupt officials who pocket a percentage of the health and education finds. The more you wink, the more the corrupt officials are willing to steal from the poor.

But if you confront the corrupt officials, you may (emphasis on may) be able to ensure that World Bank funds benefits their intended recipients. And worse comes to worst, you shift that funding to some other country that is willing to channel more of it to the needy. Ultimately, the bank has limited funds, which should be spent (or lent) where they can do the most good.

Now, it is worth pointing out that corruption, even widespread corruption, doesn't necessarily prevent economic development:

A number of economists criticize Wolfowitz for exaggerating the role that corruption plays in retarding economic growth. “There are a lot of countries that we know perfectly well are corrupt but which have done very well economically,” John Williamson, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said. “Suharto’s Indonesia is an example.” (Wolfowitz was Ambassador to Indonesia from 1986 to 1989.) Joseph Stiglitz, who served as the World Bank’s chief economist from 1997 to 2000, and later won a Nobel Prize, said, “China has had an impressive record of growth and poverty reduction, and yet by many measures it does not score well on corruption.”

It is true that both China and Indonesia have grown considerably in spite of pervasive corruption. What I'd be curious about, however, is whether World Bank projects damaged by lender states' corruption actually contribute to national development. Apparently, this point is at the heart of a compromise between Wolfowitz and the rest of the Bank when it comes to corruption:

Last month, Wolfowitz presented to the board a revised version of his anti-corruption paper, in which he made several concessions. While reserving for the bank’s management the right to suspend projects where graft was suspected, the paper asserted that the bank should remain engaged in countries with serious corruption problems and should consider suspending lending to a particular country only in “exceptional” circumstances. “Don’t make the poor pay twice,” the paper said. Wolfowitz also agreed to consult more closely with the board, which unanimously approved the paper, and to seek its support before trying to suspend lending to individual countries.

That seems about right to me. Priority number one should be cleaning up corruption that directly affects World Bank programs. That is tough enough, given the Bank's traditional resistance to addressing the issue. If Wolfowitz can get that much done, his tenure might be considered a success.

Of course, there is also the issue of corruption within the Bank itself. Some employees have insisted that Wolfowitz is a hypocrite in this regard:

The board of directors’ ethics committee took the view that [Wolfowitz's long-time girlfriend and Bank employee Shaha ALi] Riza should be transferred to a position outside his supervision. Wolfowitz asked that she be allowed to maintain her job at [with the Middle East & North Africa bureau] and to work with him as necessary, offering to recuse himself from any decisions concerning her pay and work conditions. “It really gave a bad impression, especially for somebody who was making a big issue of good governance,” a former senior official at the bank said. “The president is supposed to set an example to everybody, and yet here he wanted to have his girlfriend working with him, which is flatly prohibited under bank rules.”

Ultimately, Riza was seconded to the State Department. To compensate her for the disruption of her career at the bank, she was promoted to the managerial level, and she has received two pay raises, bringing her salary to a hundred and ninety-three thousand dollars—more than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice makes. “The staff are very upset,” Alison Cave, the chairman of the World Bank Staff Group Association, said, explaining that the raises amounted to special treatment that violated established bank guidelines. Kevin Kellems told me that Wolfowitz had no involvement in Riza’s promotion or pay raises. “All arrangements concerning Shaha Ali Riza were made at the direction of the board of directors,” he said.

It seems like Wolfowitz could've handled that one better, although it would be a major stretch to call it corruption unless Wolfowitz actually pushed for Riza to get an unmerited raise.

Looking at the big picture, I'm glad that Wolfowitz had made corruption a priority and is challenging the Bank to live up to his standards. I think that leadership from the top is the only way to get the Bank to take the issue seriously. Wolfowitz's predecessor took some critical first steps in that direction, but the fight against corruption has only just begun.

Labels: Paul Wolfowitz, World Bank

(13) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:09 PM by Patrick Porter  

QUOTE OF THE DAY: One of the things we've discussed recently is the right formula(s) for counterinsurgency, and the relationship between military force and civil reconstruction.

An Afghan interpreter has been debating the same point with Dutch soldiers:

'The Dutch, if the fight starts, they run inside their vehicles every time...They say, ‘We came for peace, not to fight.’ And I say, ‘If you don’t fight, you cannot have peace in Afghanistan.’

You don't have to be Ralph Peters to see his point. (11) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:58 PM by Patrick Porter  

INTERPRETING THE HOSTAGE CRISIS: It seems that pundits are vying to use the hostage crisis to vindicate their pre-existing world view.

Depending on your stance, it illustrates the need to apply pressure after failed diplomatic gestures; that diplomacy is all we have; that pragmatic conciliatory engagement (UK style) is the only effective way to deal with Iran; even that it reveals the weakness of toothless multilateralist dialogue.

Personally, I can see the case for two conflicting approaches:

on one hand. the need to apply sanctions, deny materials and deter the Iranian regime from 'going nuclear' while hoping for internal change;

on the other, the potential benefits of a bold new policy: detente, Bush goes to Tehran, offers aid and economic assistance in return for strategic partnership against Al Qaeda and restraint on nuclear proliferation. Most of all, we divide our enemies.

Maybe its time to drop the rock in the pond, so to speak, and change the whole configuration in the Gulf. Or is this just naive speculation? (2) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:39 PM by Patrick Porter  

THE OXBLOG LANDSCAPE: Reading through the 'comments' box, I am increasingly curious about our readership.

Actually, I'm keen to hear more about our regular readers. What are your backgrounds and interests? Why do you like reading Oxblog?

There are quite a few 'usual suspects' I can think of who drop in with their views (davod, bgates, Randy, mike(s), the Anonymous person who is very interested in world poverty).

go on, tell us a bit about yourselves. (32) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:01 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

MY MONEY IS ON OBAMA: He's going to pull off an upset and win the Democratic nomination. That's my prediction. I've been thinking about it for a while. There's probably more than a 50% chance I'm wrong, but I'm so impressed by Obama's raw political talent that I'll take it. And if Obama doesn't win, I'll be even happier, since he is the Democrats' best hope for taking the White House.

Today, of course, is an easy day to predict an upset for Obama as a result of the junior senator from Illinois' stunning success as a fundraiser. He raised $25 million in the first quarter, just $1 million less than Hillary. In a front page story, the WaPo argues that:

The Illinois Democrat's unexpectedly strong fundraising performance undercuts a principal argument of Clinton's candidacy: that her ability to raise vastly more than her opponents makes her nomination inevitable...

Obama surpassed Clinton in several areas that could be critical to their competition: He reported donations from 100,000 individuals, double the 50,000 people who gave to the former first lady. More than half of those donors, largely giving in small increments, sent money over the Internet. He raised $6.9 million online, compared with Clinton's $4.2 million.

What I'm surprised the Post didn't say, at least not explicitly, is that Hillary's fundraising efforts was able to draw on her husband's vast network of connections as well the network she developed herself during eight years as first lady and six as a senator.

"Yet Obama has essentially built his campaign operation from scratch over the past few months," the Post observes. If a few months from Obama can match a decade and a half of Bill and Hillary's efforts, that is quite revealing. But what it really goes back to, in my opinion, is Obama's charisma, candor and willingness to listen.

Labels: fundraising, Hillary, Obama

(11) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:27 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

McCAIN VS. DUKAKIS : Occasionally, my day job gets in the way of blogging. For example, this morning I had to miss a blogger conference call with Mark Salter, Randy Scheuneman and Dan McKivergan from McCain '08. Dan, of course, was the founding father of the Worldwide Standard blog at TWS.

According to Liz Mair, McCain's staff wanted to drive home two points about the surge. First, it has dispersed the insurgents to areas outside of Baghdad, where they will be easier to handle. Second, 16 of 24 Sunnis tribes in Anbar are now on our side. I hope those are the right points to emphasize.

According to one McCain supporter who commented on Liz's post,

I wonder if [McCain had] made the above points initially[,] rather than the bald, "there are places in Bagdad where it is safe to go for a stroll" statement, he might have been treated more gently. The sad thing is, I think he could have even stepped back and said that he spoke to hastily but there are still some real signs of improvement and received some sort of pass. I am not real[l]y sure why he didn't. I think the media is too eager to jump on the defeat train, yet there is not a lot of credibity left among the war's supporters, and McCain's initial statement and reluctance to step back from it doesn't help.

On the other side of the spectrum, Josh Marshall is trying his best to turn McCain's hasty remarks into a pretext for full-scale character assassination. Josh hopes that photos of McCain in a bulletproof vest in Baghdad will become the next "Dukakis-in-a-tank moment":

It's an iconic moment, like but much more than the Dukakis image, since its ridiculousness can be come at again and again. And from so many angles.

And to top it all off, Josh throws in a photo of Saddam's spokesman, "Baghdad Bob", to suggest McCain has sunk to that level.

In other words, another typical day for Josh Marshall. Begin with defensible criticism of a Republican, then start in with the ridiculous hyperbole. I guess Josh deserves to indulge in his fantasy of war-hero John McCain turned into a Dukakis-like laughing stock. Josh can hope, but I don't think Americans are going to judge the Senator harshly for visiting a warzone they would never want to visit, even with the extraordinary security measures taken to protect his life.

Labels: Iraq, John McCain, Josh Marshall

(14) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:20 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

JOSH MARSHALL ON THE US ATTORNEYS: Taking my own excellent advice (which was seconded by an insightful reader), I decided to go ahead and see what Josh Marshall and the TPM gang have to say about the US Attorneys scandal. What do we do know for sure? What do we suspect? Why does it matter?

As I mentioned earlier, what I'm trying to figure out is whether there is reason to believe, as Dianne Feinstein suggested, that DoJ got rid of some of the US Attorneys in question in order to cover up corruption by GOP supporters. Josh Marshall thinks the answer to this question is pretty obvious:

Let's not be fooled on this one. The White House and the politicals at the DOJ were and are doing everything it can to spring [Brent] Wilkes and [Dusty] Foggo [the target of US Attorney Carol Lam's investigation].

Remember, Mitchell Wade really only gets you to Duke Cunningham, the little-lamented hapless federal inmate. Wilkes was tied in with DeLay, Cheney, Doolittle, the whole rotten crew.

The evidence Josh cites is that DoJ delayed the indictments of Wilkes and Foggo until after Lam was dismissed, which strikes me as inconclusive. In addition, one should note that Wilkes and Foggo are now on trial.

A few days ago, Marshall was less confident about why Lam lost her job. He wrote:

There's a lot of speculation now about what might have spooked the White House about Carol Lam's expanded Cunningham investigation, if indeed that is why she was sacked.

One point on which Marshall seems to have a reasonably good case is that Lam was not lax on enforcing immigration laws, which might have justified her departure (as one OxBlog reader noted). But that only gives us one more reason why Lam wasn't fired, not why she was.

In another post, Josh observes that Gonzales aide Kyle Sampson, while testifying before Congress, couldn't provide any clear indication of what criteria were used to select the eight US Attorneys who were let go.

In addition Lam, this lack of clarity extends to the departure of David Iglesias of New Mexico, described by Sampson as insufficiently vigilant in the prosecution of voter fraud. According to Josh, that may be the real reason Iglesias was fired, but it is a terrible reason, since bogus allegations of voter fraud are just something that the GOP cooks up to disenfranchise minority voters. (On several occasions, Josh links to this WaPo op-ed to justiy his assertion that voter fraud is a bogus issue.)

Iglesias' departure may also have been related to his refusal to rush the indictment of a Democratic pol in New Mexico so that it could be announced before election day. At present, Josh seems to think that the New Mexico Democrats in question actually were corrupt. But he is equally harsh on the two New Mexico Republicans, Rep. Heather Wilson and Sen. Pete Domenici, who pressured Iglesias to indict early. According to Josh,

In the old rule of law days, this would be seen as the definition of corrupt use of the justice system to interfere with the integrity of elections and advance narrowly partisan aims.

So, what should one make of this incredible welter of details? My sense is that there are some tantalizing hints, but no solid evidence of a corruption cover-up. But if there's nothing to cover up, why couldn't Judge Gonzales & Co. tell a straight story about the US Attorneys?

Unfortunately, there's no answer to that question that can make Gonzales look even half-way good. Maybe that's why the National Review wants him fired and the Weekly Standard wouldn't object to letting him go.

Labels: Josh Marshall, US Attorneys

(1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:55 PM by Taylor Owen  

GENEVA AND IRAN: Andy McCarthy cites Geneva, Sullivan rebuts:

Unlike prisoners detained by the U.S. in Iraq - some of whom were tortured so badly they died? Memo to Andy: your beloved administration has derided the Geneva Conventions as "quaint". They have sanctioned not gentle questioning, but waterboarding, sleep deprivation and stress positions for prisoners captured in a war, Iraq, where Geneva was allegedly never in doubt. Where were you then? And now Iran is in the dock for giving British prisoners treatment that those in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib can only dream of?

Don't people realize that this is what this episode is partly about? Iran, that disgusting regime, is showing much of the world that it treats prisoners more humanely than the U.S. That's the propaganda coup they are achieving. And you know who set them up to score this huge victory in the propaganda war? Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, who authorized all the abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere throughout the war. And McCarthy, who defended and enabled them. Tehran never had a better friend than George W. Bush. He has given Islamist thugs the moral highground.

John Cole takes it another step:

Sure, the hypocrisy about the Geneva conventions is breathtaking and worth noticing, but what is truly frightening is how quickly McCarthy and others are ramping up the rhetoric. This is little more than the widely ridiculed “We have been at war with Iran since 1979” nonsense that was peddled just a few weeks back, and now this meme is so widespread that McCarthy doesn’t even break rhetorical stride when mentioning it.

This is the difference between the US and UK debates on this. There is a strong voice in the US advocating for war with Iran. The UK thinks it's nuts.

Porter, while I agree with you that past immoral action should not discredit current moral, or less immoral, acts, surely this then applies to everyone?

As I said in a comment stream below, the real cost of neglecting, mocking, and in many ways disregarding the convention is that the administration has weakened the norm. It doesn't matter whether the Iranian government would abide by it or not, but it sure matters in the wider struggle for the hearts and minds of the middle east. A war which Iran is winning. (14) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:09 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WHO WILL GET THE BLAME? Congress and the President seem headed for a showdown. I think it's safe to say that Bush will veto any Iraq funding bill that includes a mandatory timeline. But then what?

There isn't much room for compromise on this subject. Either there will be a timeline or there will be an indefinite commitment. Either the President or the Democratic majority will have to knuckle under.

Or will some exotic compromise emerge that allows both sides to claim victory without resolving the issue? It wouldn't be unheard of.

But let's assume for a moment that there is no compromise. The result will be a massive blame game, with both sides accusing the either of cutting off funding for the troops. Who will win the war for public opinion?

A strong majority of Americans seems to loathe the idea of ever cutting off funding for troops already on the battlefield. Until now, most Democrats have insisted that taking away funding is something that they would never do. On the other hand, a strong majority of Americans loathes the war in Iraq.

If it comes to a showdown, I think the Democrats will be taking a much bigger risk. If they lose the showdown, they will have dramatically reinforced their reputation for being soft on defense. As bad as things are in Iraq, being soft on defense will still be a major liability for as long as there is a war on terror.

In contrast, if the President loses the showdown, it will just be one more drop in the bucket of his reputation for stubbornness.

So what do you think? If the funding is cut off, who will get the blame?

Labels: Iraq

(14) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:34 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

US ATTORNEYS: WILL THE SCANDAL LAST? I've been surprised by the ability of the US Attorneys story to stay on top of the headlines, often ahead of Iraq. For the third week running, the Attorneys have been the headline issue on both Face the Nation and Meet the Press.

How many other domestic issues have been given that honor either this year or last? Maybe the Alito nomination. Going back to 2005, there's Katrina and Abramoff.

But thinking long-term, does the Attorneys scandal have any sort of lasting importance? I think the story's gotten this far because the Attorney General and his staff told some fibs about why they fired eight US Attorneys. It wasn't incompetence. It was politics.

Yet ultimately, the sitting administration has every right to get rid of US Attorneys for political reasons. It goes against custom, but it isn't wrong. For this story to really matter, I think there has to be some solid indication that the firings were part of a cover-up.

Now, it is part of the standard narrative that the eight Attorneys were fired, in part, because they were going after corrupt Republicans too aggressively and corrupt Democrats not aggressively enough. Yet this point never seems to get much follow-up on the Sunday talk shows, in spite of its importance.

Here's how Bob Schieffer started out his interview with Dianne Feinstein a couple of weeks ago:

SCHIEFFER: ...[S]enator, I would start by saying, one of the prosecutors who was fired is from your state of California, Prosecutor Lam, who put Duke Cunningham, the
Republican congressman who was caught on bribery charges, put him in jail. She was in the midst of another investigation along that same line. Do you think that that's what's going on here, that these people were fired because they were getting too tough with some people in the Republican Party?

[FEINSTEIN]: Well, let me speak about Carol Lam and then the fact that five out of the seven
called on December 7th told they'd have to be out by the middle of January.
Five out of the seven of them had public corruption cases...I think it was May 10th, [Lam] sent a notice to the Justice Department saying that there would be two search warrants sent in the case of "Dusty" Foggo and a defense contractor. That--the next day, an e-mail went from the
Justice Department to the White House saying, `We have a real problem with Carol Lam.'

Yet strangely, after raising the prospect of a cover-up within the White House, Feinstein pretty much let the issue go. If there's more than coincidence to back up those kinds of allegations, why aren't Democrats going after the ccrruption issue more aggressively? Or is Feinstein just spinning unrelated strands into a web of conspiracy?

I honestly don't know and I'd appreciate your input. I've mostly been following this case via Sunday morning talk show, which is hardly the best way to master the details. Maybe I should go read Josh Marshall's blog instead. What say you?

Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Dianne Feinstein, US Attorneys

(8) opinions -- Add your opinion