The Arrogance (and Anxiety?) of Power Posted by Michael Signer

God knows why, but I woke up at 3:50 a.m. this morning and found only C-SPAN to watch on TV.  Apropos of the Karl Rove debacle, Senator Byrd was cross-examining Secretary Rumsfeld, on the rough topic of the arrogance of power.  I am going to paraphrase here, since there's no transcript available on-line, and I can't find Byrd's comments anywhere (please post below if you find them, and I'll incorporate).

Byrd, very delicately and diplomatically, said that he couldn't recall the Senate being lectured quite as much before by a Secretary of Defense.  He said that he feared that this Administration had forgotten the basic constitutional design of the American system, with three co-equal branches of government.  And he said that it was the unique job of the legislative branch to respond to the people -- and that because the people are anxious about Iraq, the Senate is doing its job to question the Administration aggressively about its answers to the situation there.

The look on Rumsfeld's face was amazing.  I missed his exchange with Ted Kennedy, which from the WaPo account sounds like it was more confrontational and fiery.  What was different about Byrd's monologue (and, believe me, I'm no fall-down fan of his; I think his perspective and career are unique, but his KKK past and grandiose self-conception as a Roman historian muddy the waters for me) was the tone of melancholy -- of a sort of historical sadness.  His reprimand was not angry; it was regretful. 

We truly see the outlines of an Imperial Presidency here.  I have a friend who's a professor of political theory who tells me that in his class on ancient theory, Thucydides has become more relevant every semester over the last couple of years.  Thucydides taught that Athens' empire waned as it became more arrogant with its power, and less interested in earning its authority as a leader from the world community of which it was a part.  Arrogation and demand are the tools of a weakening power; confidence and leadership are the instruments of a strong one.

All of which made me reflect further on what was underlying Rove's disastrous comments before the New York Conservative Party.  I understand our media habits of late of being fascinated by the retrospective derring-do of our political Svengalis, our Rasputins, ranging all the way back to McKinley's Mark Hanna to Reagan's Mike Deaver to Bush I's Lee Atwater to Clinton's James Carville to, today, Bush II's Karl Rove.  Fine. 

But to put my pop-psych hat on:  it's one thing for Rove to coolly diagnose how he tore his opponents apart.  It's another thing entirely for his diagnosis to be inflected (or infected) by his own partisan anxiety and rage.

I agree with Garance Franke-Ruta at the American Prospect that this was outrageous, and that he should apologize.  But what's going on underneath his remarks may be more interesting, and important.  How anxious are these conservatives now about this war they started but did not plan well, this insurgency whose raison d'etre is being supplied every day by their arrogance, and an American people whose patience is running thin?

Anxious enough to smear (as Kevin Drum acutely notes) the entire left as intentionally unpatriotic? 

(I agree wholeheartedly, by the way, with Heather's robust, forward-looking analysis of how to move forward and away from Rove's remarks).

'06 & '08: No Illusions Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Just in case you weren't absolutely sure how the GOP will campaign when its president and its Congress are collapsing in public opinon, Karl Rove clears it up for you:

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.

Now, before you want to spend the next three years yelling "no we didn't," we need a two-pronged response:

1)  a strong, substantive answer on what we did and what we will do to keep America safe;

2) a strong, substantive and convincing page-turn to broad national security, Iraq, proliferation and other policy areas, foreign and domestic, where conservatives are responding to current challenges with "timidity."

Why?  Because we weren't in office in '01, we aren't in office now, and no matter how many terrorists we promise to hunt down and kill, we still lose as long as the conversation stays on the response to 9-11. 

Being strong on terrorism also has to mean being strong enough to set the national-security agenda, not just respond to demagogues setting it in this cynical way.  This is a trap for us to get caught in.

Letting Down Veterans Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Apropos of our discussion earlier this week on the importance of supporting our troops and veterans . . .

See full details here.

The Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) announces a severe budget shortfall. Today, the VA informed members of Congress that its mid-year budget review revealed a $1 billion shortfall in meeting critical health care needs during the current fiscal year. As a result, VA officials say that they are forced to take $600 million away from funds to improve VA hospitals and other infrastructure and to borrow $400 million from funds already committed to provide health care during the next fiscal year. The end result is that the quality of veterans' health care will suffer and essential services and programs are now at risk.

When President Bush issued his Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, veterans' leaders called it "deplorable" and "inexcusable." (Veterans of Foreign Wars, 2/2/04) Earlier this year, Senators Murray and Akaka revealed that regional VA health care networks were experiencing a shortfall of over $800 million. Today's revelation by the VA validates these claims and demonstrates the inadequacy of President Bush's Fiscal Year 2005 budget.

So not only are we putting people's lives at risk for a war that we don't have a plan to win, we're also shortchanging them when they need help most.   Regardless of what we think ought to be the plan for Iraq, we should all agree that this is unacceptable.

America's Image Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Today the Pew Center on Global Attitudes published its 2005 poll, which is basically an international popularity contest.   The good news is that the U.S.'s favorability ratings are up just a tad.  But there's plenty of bad news too.  The full report is available at Pew's website, but a few highlights are:

• The U.S.'s image is recovering in Indonesia, Lebanon and Jordan.  It is up slightly in most of Western Europe , but down sharply in Turkey.  Pew logically attributes the Indonesia numbers (a jump from 15-38% favorable) to the tsunami relief effort, which demonstrates the impact compassion and generosity can have even in places where we're deeply unpopular.


• China's image is a helluva lot better than ours – of 16 countries surveyed, only Canada, India and Poland rated the U.S. higher than China.   All of Western Europe prefers China to the U.S. by a margin of 10% or more.  The same is true in Arab and most Asian countries surveyed.  This supports the theme of China's mounting influence and the success of their diplomatic offensive.  While Europeans do not want to see China becoming a rival to U.S. military might, people in Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey and Jordan do.


• Americans are coming to grips with how unpopular we are.  Sixty-nine percent of Americans believe our country is generally disliked around the world, a higher percentage than in any other nation.  But Pew apparently did not ask how concerned Americans were about this ill-feeling.  Is the concern strong enough to influence policy?


• As for the reasons why America is disliked, President Bush himself tops the list, followed by the perception that we act unilaterally.  Of note, though, we've gained some ground in terms of international views on how likely we are to take others' interests into account in determining our foreign policy. Again, Pew says this may be in part the tsunami affect.   


• One interesting finding is that America is waning in terms of being perceived as the world's leading "land of opportunity" with Australia, Britain, and Canada edging us out.   It's hard not to link this to negative perceptions of the U.S. and our crackdown on immigrants.   One question is what long-term economic implications this may have.


• One surprising finding is that in several places like Indonesia and Pakistan, while America's image has improved, American people are held in lower regard than in previous surveys.  We've always held to the notion that people around the world separate their views of the U.S. government and policies from their attitudes toward Americans; is this no longer true?  is U.S. public support for policies that are unpopular around the world narrowing the gap?  Will that make anti-U.S. feelings more durable?


• Most of the world continues to view the Iraq war as a disaster, though views are mixed on the U.S.'s role in promoting democracy in the Middle East, with credit going to Bush in some places. 


• Support for the war on terror is stronger, but slipping almost everywhere except for Indonesia.  So the tsunami affect carries over to the GWOT.  This suggests to me that the sort of grand bargain that Kofi Annan's been trying to push (we support the developing world on their priorities, and they us on ours) may have some potential. 

Lots more interesting stuff, so check it out.

Bolton Twisting Slowly... Posted by Heather Hurlburt

You've gotta love Charles Babington's lede in today's Post update on Bolton:

The White House renewed its insistence yesterday that the Senate confirm John R. Bolton to be U.N. ambassador, but key senators said they see no evidence of a plan to make it happen.

Key senators seem surprisingly confident that they won't be getting visits from persuaders late next week...

Steve Clemons says Bolton will not accept a recess appointment.  I don't recall ever hearing that one before from any potential appointee.  Remember learning in high school English that Greek tragedy was the result of cosmic forces, while Roman tragedy flowed from the flaws of the individual?  (I know, I know, oversimplification.  My mother was an English major.)  Bolton has brought this upon himself.  Ask yourself how the Senate could vote to confirm a judge who thinks affirmative action is "a form of slavery" and not Bolton. 

Two things strike me.  First, is this evidence that Cheney's power is on the decline?  Whether the White House has decided to go for the recess appointment, or just concluded that it has no arms left to twist on this one, it looks like a loss for the VP -- and he doesn't take many of those.  What does he do next?

Second, bear with me while I wander beyond foreign affairs and note that you could remove "confirm John R. Bolton" from that Post quote and replace it with "reform Social Security," "cut spending," or any of several other hot topics.  The papers are full of speculation about whether Bush is or isn't a lame duck yet, is or isn't going into "Clinton mode."  Interesting that what was once the most focused of White Houses is having so much trouble figuring out how to focus in a second-term environment.

Senator Durbin and Conservative Shame Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Last week I had the chance to talk to an Army officer who had recently returned from Afghanistan where he had led efforts to establish rule-of-law throughout different regions of the country.  He told stories of ad-hoc justice successfully applied, about American ingenuity, and about how his colleagues (both civilian and military) had found ways to put forward human rights values even in villages dominated by  severe Sharia (religious) law.  He related how victories were often small but symbolic: a family that accepted cash compensation instead of two virgins, for example. He also described the good-cop/bad-cop tension the Army faces with its dual responsibility as war fighters and as peacebuilders. He told of how--in order to assuage damaged village relationships--the Army would send in teams of Civil Affairs officers right after door-kicking home searches. These soldiers would have tea, explain the situation, and present the family with a door lock.

Such stories make me proud of our military.  I only wish these American soldiers' dedication to rule-of-law by example was shared by our country's conservative leadership. Their contemptible behavior over Senator Dick Durbin's recitation of an FBI report detailing prisoner abuse is an affront to all those who serve. The conservatives' telegenic indignation treats soldiers as if they are stupid. 

Every American soldier knows how important it is to uphold international humanitarian standards. This belief is founded in noble American aspirations to be sure, but also because soldiers know that setting the humanitarian example could one day save American lives. Over the past few days,  right wing bloggers--hyperventilating over their keyboards. and the conservative demonization of Senator Durbin as an anti-military insurgent sympathizer at every media opportunity has been disgusting.  Mentioning Nazis in a floor speech is stupid, but creating a political atmosphere where serious human rights violations carried out by Americans are a third rail, is downright dangerous.  It gives the impression that conservatives really aren't interested in supporting our military when the tradeoff is a few cheap political chits.  Military professionals know that the most important weapon in our arsenal is setting a rule-of-law example.  The conservatives are obviously far more interested in winning the next Illinois Senate race than winning the war on terror.

I asked the recently returned Army officer whether or not issues like Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo prisoner abuse ever came up in his day to day dealings with Afghans. He seemed happy that I asked and told me that he used such instances as opportunities for exploration and  learning. He would acknowledge what the questioner had seen or heard, but also point out how justice would be achieved when those illegal actions were punished through the American legal system.  Afghanistan--and other fragile countries--may well hold the balance of future American security in their hands.  They sit at a crossroads between violent anarchy and cautious pluralism. For our own self-interest this is where politics needs to stop at the water's edge.  We must align both our policies and political rhetoric to support the latter. 

Judging from the behavior of conservatives lately, they would have us fighting impunity with impunity. This is shameful leadership.

Priorities Report: Even with one party rule, Congress remains stingily inadequate with international affairs which is a statement about how much we value funding for prevention. Yesterday, the full House Appropriations Committee approved the Fiscal Year 2006 Foreign Operations Bill by voice vote.  Full committee consideration of the bill did not alter the overall amount of $20.3 billion that emerged from subcommittee.  That figure for Foreign Operations stands $2.55 billion below the Administration’s request for FY2006. This is approximately one-tenth the amount we've spent on supplementals for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bill is expected to head to the House Floor for the full body’s consideration next Tuesday or Wednesday.

China in the Boardroom Posted by Suzanne Nossel

China's influence on the U.S. economy and the corporate sector is becoming more powerful by the day.  I was thinking about this trend this morning, and just happened on more evidence that its here to stay:

A Chinese state-controlled energy corporation just made an unsolicited $18.5 billion bid for Unocal, which was slated to be acquired by Chevron for $1.7 billion less.  The deal is driven by China's unquenchable thirst for the energy resources needed to continue to fuel its economy.   Regulatory concerns may well hobble the deal, but the fact that they're in the game in a transaction this big is unprecedented.

This comes on the heels of the acquisition of IBM's PC business (think ThinkPad) by another Chinese company, Lenovo (now the world's 3d largest PC-maker after Dell and HP) and a bid this week by yet another Chinese conglomerate to buy washing-machine giant Maytag.

Meanwhile trade tensions between the U.S. and China are continuing to escalate. Our trade deficit with China is $161 billion, up 30% since 2003.

It's all more than a bit remeniscent of the Japanese takeover of Rockefeller Center and doomsday predictions of NYC-turned-Tokyo that melted into an endless Japanese recession.  But still, a few thoughts:

- It will be fascinating to learn what its like for American employees of Chinese conglomerates -  as anyone whose worked for a foreign-owned company culture plays a big role;

- For a long time people have said that China would remain relatively "inward-looking" for the foreseeable future as their economy grew steadily from a relatively miniscule base.  My sense is that the outward turn is happening faster than expected and will only continue;

- As has been true since they entered office, the Bush Administration doesn't seem to have a clear handle on how to deal with the Chinese - they waver between claiming partnership over North Korea and making empty threats based on China's unwillingness to devalue their currency;

- If these trends continue, then globalization Chinese style will be something we see more and more of.

The Long Arm of Beijing - Felt in Harare Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Things in Zimbabwe have gone from very bad to a lot worse, and almost no one is talking about what's happening or one of the forces behind the Mugabe regime's endurance:  China.   Our last check-in on events in Harare was around April Fool's Day.  But Mugabe's success in shutting down the opposition and winning himself another term was no joke.

Since then his appalling policies have gotten much worse.  The despot has borrowed a page from South Africa's apartheid government and started razing squatter camps and digging up urban gardens as a way to punish and disperse his opponents, many of whom lived in city shantytowns.  Meanwhile the country is facing massive shortages of food and fuel, its economy is in ruins, its fields are fallow, and its currency nearly worthless.

Here, on a site maintained by Mugabe opponents, is an interesting analysis of China's role in propping up the Harare regime:

A couple of excerpts:

Quietly, without fanfare, China has been moving into Africa. Africa is the one continent which still has relatively untapped reserves, particularly of fossil fuels and minerals. Her main targets have been Sudan, Nigeria, and Angola . . .What could China want in Zimbabwe? We do not have oil, our population is small compared to those of larger African countries. Our location is not particularly strategic for an outsider. What the Chinese want is raw materials and opportunities for investment.

ZANU PF has doubtless observed how China has been able to supply the Sudanese government with military equipment used against their own people and at the same time frustrate any United Nations action against Sudan for the atrocities in Darfur . . . The Chinese government also has an interest in political alliances that will promote China's policies world-wide. They want supporting votes in international bodies that will protect them from scrutiny over their human rights abuses, their non-observance of international labour standards, not to mention violations of democratic principles and civil rights. A state such as Zimbabwe can provide that support.

Recently we have seen the use of the Chinese jets, the army trucks and riot gear in the war on the urban poor. The use of slogans for campaigns such as "Driving out the Rubbish" are reminiscent of Chinese campaigns during the Cultural Revolution.

The analysis confirms the theme of Joshua Kurlantzick's piece in this week's New Republic, picked up by Brad Plumer at Mojo.  Kurlantzick tracks China's arrogation of "soft power" - economic, political and diplomatic influence throughout the world, particularly in Latin America and Africa.

On the quick, a bunch of implications relating to some of the debates ongoing here:

- Going back to our Truman debates, though I agree that the notion of hegemony is distasteful, this kind of thing underscores for me the importance of ensuring that U.S. influence around the world doesn't wane - China's choice of friends, based on self-interested criteria, may help keep tyrants in power; 

- In weighing U.S. influence at the UN and the potential for reform of the organization, China is a major counterweight, and almost always enjoys the allegiance of the world body's controlling bloc of developing world countries.   Our single-minded focus on the war on terror to the exclusion of priorities uppermost in the developing world has only heightened this problem.

- All this ties in to the idea that, while its at a slow boil, we are in a battle of ideas not just with extremists, but also with China's version of globalization - a concept built on economic interests only, with no concern for democracy or human rights.  One of the gravest weaknesses of the Bush Administration's foreign policy is that it has allowed China to build popularity and influence while our own ties and stature around the world have atrophied.  This is doubly egregious in light of that fact that our appeal - the promise of freedom, our culture - should inherently be much more powerful than China's.  But our messenger's approach and tactics have badly undercut the message, and right now China's delivering where we aren't.

Iraqi Democracy is No Pottery Barn Posted by Heather Hurlburt

This doesn't happen often, but Laura Rozen's review of the NY Times' review of Larry Diamond's Squandered Victory sent me running to the bookstore on a Sunday morning.   I am only 40 pages in -- so far it's a beautifully-written retelling of what we knew about how the Pentagon pushed pre-war planning aside, how General Garner was put in place and then removed for Ambassador Bremer, judiciously lit with anecdotes about what kind of place Iraq was, is and hopes to be.

I start out admiring Diamond for his willingness to go try to help Iraqis despite having opposed the war.  That represents both real patriotism and real devotion to one's chosen work -- in his case, the study of democratization.  He's a Stanford professor and former FOC (friend of Condoleezza Rice).  She asked him to go, but never, he says, responded to the long memo he sent upon his return.

For purposes of this post, I flipped through the end in hopes of a convenient Democracy Arsenal-style Top 10 list.  I think the better of Diamond that he doesn't have one.

He's not wholly pessimistic about Iraq's future as a democracy:

Perhaps the likeliest scenario in Iraq (at least over the medium term) is the perpetuation of some uneasy, periodically rejiggered, continually crisis-ridden form of the Governing Council coalition.  This could well produce an elite political pact to generate peace and stability, but with only very limited democracy and with quite a bit of corruption and bad government.

OK, that doesn't sound worse than Bosnia or Kosovo -- or, for that matter, IRaq's neighbors.  Then, he summons up post-authoritarian Nigeria as a hopeful example of how an oil-rich state can move toward genuine power-sharing and make some effort to fight corruption.  That's less encouraging.

Finally:

If they [Iraqi political leaders] choose pragmatism and accommodation, the political system they craft may be something less than true democracy but much more than dictatorship and civil war.  From the soggy soil of that political pluralism and power sharing, and with continued international support, a genuine democracy could gradually emerge.

So there's your optimistic scenario.  He seems to presume that, given the chance, Iraq could follow the path of countries that, a few years or decades after conflict ended, moved successfully toward democracy -- South Korea and some Latin American countries come to mind.  The question that an aid expert can't answer:  can US and then Iraqi forces get enough of a handle on security to allow something "more than civil war" to develop.

I was asked in our comments section to define a little better what I meant by US security interests that can only be protected by military means.  Perhaps I was imprecise, so let me state my redline in more moralistic terms:

As long as people we put there are struggling with some promise to make Iraq a peaceful, functioning, democratic state, just like we promised them, and our withdrawal would increase, not decrease, the violence, we need to stay.  I'm a firm believer in what Colin Powell supposedly called the 'Pottery Barn' rule:  you break it, you own it.  [Pottery Barn itself is more forgiving than the global arena...]

Which is why this fit of democratization by invasion was such a lousy idea in the first place.

On Jesus and Jump Suits Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Congratulations to Congressman David Obey (D, WI) who yesterday offered a Sense of Congress amendment to the Defense bill concerning inappropriate proselytizing of US Air Force Academy Cadets.

This action comes in the wake of numerous complaints about Academy officials granting preferential treatment to cadets who hold the “right” religious views and turning a blind eye toward harassment of those who hold minority beliefs or aren’t religious at all. Here it is:

(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS. - It is the sense of Congress that -

(1) the expression of personal religious faith is welcome in the United States military, but coercive and abusive religious proselytizing at the United States Air Force Academy by officers assigned to duty at the Academy and others in the chain-of-command at the Academy, as has been reported, is inconsistent with the professionalism and standards required of those who serve at the Academy;

(2) the military must be a place of tolerance for all faiths and backgrounds; and

(3) the Secretary of the Air Force and other appropriate civilian authorities, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and other appropriate military authorities, must continue to undertake corrective action, as appropriate, to address and remedy the inappropriate proselytizing of cadets at the Air Force Academy.

See details here.  It was voted down, but not before Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) accused colleagues of continuing their “Long war on Christinianty … ” and, “demonizing Christians.”

Mr. Hostettler,  just quit it. There are few things as unhealthy for the military institution in American democracy as a culture of religious intolerance--extremism interferes with the kind of pragmatic, cautionary values that we need in military professionals.  I went to Sunday school.  Jesus definately did NOT say "Follow me"  ("and force everyone else to follow me too") .

One hopeful development on the religious left is a group called Christian Alliance for Progress--these are religious folks who are tired of seeing their faith used to promote a political agenda they don’t agree with, and don’t think is consistent with their Christian values. Their "Jacksonville Declaration" has been a long time coming. Many good wishes to this crowd.

Bolton to the Finish Line Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I wrote back on April 23 that I thought Bolton's candidacy for UN Ambassador was doomed.  The fat lady still hasn't sung, but Bush seems to be faced with several unpalatable choices:  a recess appointment which - given public attitudes about the filibuster debate - will likely be highly unpopular; giving up the documents he has withheld for so long and promised he won't turn over; or throwing Bolton overboard.

My guess?  He turns over the documents and another fray erupts over what they mean and signify, dragging this thing out still more.  Faced with the choice of no ambassador during the crucial run up to this fall's UN reform debate or having John Bolton in office, I know my pick.

IRO Head-Patting in Iran Posted by Michael Signer

On Iran's deteriorating elections, a very interesting analysis today by washingtonpost.com's Dan Froomkin suggests President Bush's weirdly defiant attitude on Social Security can also be applied to the situation in Iran. 

To recap:  last week, the clergy-based Guardians Council, who has the power to decide who may run for President in Iran, decided that several reformist candidates were no longer eligible to run.  Demonstrating the same deft touch he employed marketing the war in Iraq to America and the world, President Bush immediately struck out on the warpath, virtually shouting in a statement:

Today, the Iranian regime . . . shuts down independent newspapers and websites and jails those who dare to challenge the corrupt system. It brutalizes its people and denies them their liberty.

America believes in the independence and territorial integrity of Iran. America believes in the right of the Iranian people to make their own decisions and determine their own future. America believes that freedom is the birthright and deep desire of every human soul. And to the Iranian people, I say: As you stand for your own liberty, the people of America stand with you.

So.  Was President Bush really trying to trigger a wave of America-loving popular reformist revolt in Iran?  Or was he just trying to bolster flagging public confidence here at home in the clumsy democratization experiment currently underway in Iraq?

Well, whatever his intentions were (not trying to be too mysterious here), the President was rewarded with large increases in the turn-out among Iran's conservative base.  As Brian Murphy of the AP reports,

The sharp barbs from President Bush were widely seen in Iran as damaging to pro-reform groups because the comments appeared to have boosted turnout among hard-liners in Friday's election -- with the result being that an ultraconservative now is in a two-way showdown for the presidency.  "I say to Bush: `Thank you,'" quipped Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi. "He motivated people to vote in retaliation."

The first-round elections on Friday yielded two candidates:  the mild reformer and former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and the hard-line conservative Mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  The populist Ahmadinejad -- running on a platform of reducing poverty -- finished a surprising second.  Reformists cried foul, saying that many of his votes had been bought and paid for.

Today, a partial recount was ordered by the Guardians Council, allegedly to allay reformist fears that the vote on Friday had been rigged.  The action, in combination with President Bush's blunderbuss insertion of the "American issue" into the election, will hardly serve to strengthen the reformists' hand.

As I've discussed here, progressives should be supporting democratization, abundantly and generously, and we could even be running to the left of the President on the issue, especially in places like Russia. 

But there's an utter imbalance between the Administration's rhetoric and its practice.  When it comes to foreign policy (as opposed to domestic policy, where the tin ear is turned inward, rather than outward), the Administration isn't interested in persuasion -- it just wants praise.  Just as the State of the Union address was dominated by grandiose rhetoric the Administration never had any intention of memorializing with actual actions.  As Marisa Katz wrote in TNR not too long ago:

Many longtime players in the democratization industry report a dangerous mismatch between the ambitious--and, at times, selfcongratulatory--language coming from the White House and the financial and diplomatic investment the Bush administration is making to back up its promises. Beyond Iraq, the professional democracy promoters say, not much has changed. Money pledged has not come through. Claims about the U.S. commitment to supporting democracy movements worldwide are not reflected in budget numbers or in meetings with authoritarian leaders. Meanwhile, activists say, all the public grandstanding in Washington is actually making democracy promotion harder.

The President's remarks last Friday sought noisily to take credit where a little hidden-hand diplomacy (subtle advocacy on behalf of Rafsanjani, say) would have helped American interests more. 

Foreign Policy has a great (if pollyana-ish) article by the scholar Hadi Semati suggesting that, no matter their result, the Iranian elections signify an opening of the electoral system there, by virtue of the increased dialogue and public attention to the issues.  Semati writes:

Hardliners are fighting among themselves, a veteran conservative is reshaping himself to new realities, and a reformist candidate is breaking new political ground. The unprecedented openness and competition allows reform-oriented Iranians to claim at least a moral victory in this election, even if their candidates end up losing at the polls.

I'm intrigued -- if not totally convinced -- by this argument.  But if there's a even a small chance that Iran will progress through process rather than result, America needs to sensibly cultivate the process through diplomacy as well as demand.  This Administration always tries to convince us that their defiant decisions will make history.  But it's failing in the essentially nuanced and subtle exercise of tending the flower of democracy in the weed-filled wasteland of post-revolutionary Iran. 

I'm all for making history.  But if it's a history that features a newly emboldened Iran, where the 1979 revolutionaries feel it's time yet again for another revolt against the West and the U.S. -- well, sometimes it's better not to make news.

Iraq: The Conversation We Need Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Suzanne and Juan Cole weigh in today on the "whither progressives/whither Iraq" debate that's been going on among progressives on the Hill, in the journals, and just about everywhere else for several months now.  The debate itself is important and will be even better the more we hear the voices of people who actually know something about Iraq, reconstruction, democratization, and pacification.  Suzanne rightly points out that there are some questions of fact (what the intelligence community calls "checkables") that should influence our decision-making. 

Meanwhile, though, this debate among progressives needs some ground rules.  We are getting near a fever pitch where we train our biggest guns on each other (see the comments sections for any of the posts referenced above) and not on the knaves/fools who got us into this mess.  At the end of the day, our "out now" wing is going to have to work with our "stay the course" wing to elect progressives and, ideally, to manage our foreign relations in the Middle East and elsewhere.

My first five ground rules:

1.  Don't impugn the military. I haven't seen this happen much yet, but blaming the military for what the policy-makers sent them to do is one aspect of Vietnam that we should not repeat.

2.  Don't use terminology that makes everybody look bad.  "Cut and run," for example, imputes cowardice to people who genuinely believe that getting out now is the smartest thing to do.  Besides, it helpfully reminds observers that progressives are "supposed" to be weaklings when it comes to the military -- thus harming progressives on both sides of the issue.

3.  Sometimes it's wise to criticize.  While progressives get our policy house in order, we shouldn't let the debate drown out our critique.  If I read the papers right, more foreign fighters are now flowing into Iraq, which suggests we don't control the borders; and commanders are playing a shell game with insurgents, "clearing" a town but then evacuating it only to see insurgents move back in.  Some big corrupt practices cases are underway, I believe, and meanwhile the Pentagon is getting ready to promote the military officials who oversaqw Abu Ghraib?  This is incompetence in strategy, incompetence in staffing, incompetence in managing our global public image -- incompetence that risks the lives of our servicepeople.  Polls say the public is starting to get it.  This is no time to let our critique get drowned out by our own arguing. 

4.  First principles.  I believe that we all agree that the US should not have permanent bases in Iraq, and should say so; that Iraqis, and no one else, should control Iraq's oil; that US activities in Iraq should promote the dignity of Iraqis, not debase them; and that large numbers of American troops should be in Iraq as long as the US has vital concerns there that cannot be protected through non-military means, and not one second longer.

5.  Unity, unity, unity.  At the end of the day, Americans are going to want a competent team who can get our soldiers home safely AND preserve our national pride and interests.  The country needs to see that progressive arguments come from a base of agreement (see no. 4) and that we are capable of working together as impressively as we slice each other's arguments up.

Are we?

Top 10 Things To Do and Not To Do in Iraq Posted by Suzanne Nossel

There's a lot of great discussion underway at theWashington Monthly, IntelDump and Matthew Yglesias on what to do next in  Iraq. It's too soon to talk of cutting and running and offering public timetables for withdrawal. The minute that's out, we may as well fold the tent since we've declared defeat and our opponents know its simply a matter of waiting it out.

Given the importance of the Middle East to America's security and what we have put at stake in Iraq, there are at least a few more tacks to try before walking away.  Phil Carter and Richard Clarke talk about the permanent damage to our military if we stay in, but there's also harm in pulling out: the almighty American military bested by a ragtag insurgency in its most important ambitious and important mission in decades . . . again (see this post at Operation Truth about how vital it will be for the military of the future to be able to deal credibly with guerilla forces).

As preposterous as it was for Bush to declare that we're fighting terrorists in Iraq so they won't make it here, that message enlarges the meaning of defeat. That's not to say the time to seriously consider a swift pull-out won't come, but there are enough sound measures we haven't yet exhausted to make that call just yet.  Here are 10 things we should and shouldn't do in the next 3-6 months (dealing with military situation – not reconstruction, constitution-making etc. though there are plenty of to-do's on that front too). If we fail at them or they don't work, let's reconsider.

1. Launch a full-court press to get other countries involved in any capacity feasible. See full post here.  Ideally foreign troops would do things like policing towns where    U.S. forces have already cleared out the insurgents.

2. Re-start talks on expanded UN participation. A UN umbrella may be one of the only ways to attract foreign troops back into Iraq. If the U.S., for example, topped up the regular reimbursement rates for troop contributors, its not impossible to envision some developing countries with peacekeeping experience coming forward, particularly for tasks away from the front lines.

3. Make a long-term investment in the training of Iraqi military leadership. There has been so much pressure to quickly get Iraqi forces to a point where they can take over for us that the emphasis of the training effort has been on immediate, short-term results.  But keeping Iraq stable is a long-term proposition, and to achieve it Iraq's military leaders will need years of training.  We should make that investment starting now.

4. Rethink the risk-reward calculus for American soldiers. Our military personnel, reservists and National Guard members are getting much more by way of danger, disruption to their lives and long-term disabilities than they bargained for. We should ensure that every American service-member feels well taken-care of in terms of armor and equipment (still serious issues) and that military benefits aren't stingy (see this piece about homeless veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars).  In addition to being the right thing to do, this will further motivate our forces in Iraq and help ensure that the damage Iraq has wrought to military recruitment efforts doesn't wind up being fatal.

5. Invest heavily in better understanding the insurgency.  Confusion about the nature of the insurgency is clouding military and political decision-making.   Has the insurgency gotten stronger or weaker in the last year?  What is its precise connection to the constitution-making process?   To what degree is the U.S. presence fueling the insurgents – what role do other factors play?   How are insurgents likely to react to, e.g., news of potential American withawal?  finalization of an Iraqi constitution?   partition?

See post continuation for 5 things the U.S. should not do in the next 3-6 months.

The Long Arm of Halliburton Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Apropos of last week's post on 10 reasons to close Guantanamo, it seems Halliburton has been extended a $30 million contract to build a new prison at the naval base.   The work won't be completed until July, 2006.

Reason #11.