Viva La Presidenta: Michelle Bachelet's Chile Posted by Johanna Mendelson Forman

For Michelle Bachelet September 11th is a day to remember.  But it is not the 9/11 of 2001, but the 9/11 of 1973, the day General Augusto Pinochet turned Chile into a dictatorship that crushed the opposition, repressed free speech and disappeared hundreds of innocent victims.  Her life since 1973 is a the history of how a young medical student, daughter of an Air Force General who was murdered by Pinochet,forced into exile, could on March 11, 2006 assume the presidency of Chile.  This personal journey is a tribute to the return of democracy, the importance of women in participating in political change, and a tribute to the personal charisma of Michelle Bachelet.

As part of the largest delegation of women organized by The White House Project, a US organization that supports the election of a women to elected office, I attended the three days of ceremonies that marked this important moment in Chile's history.  The air electric with excitement as Bachelet entered the Congressional chambers on Saturday morning to take the presidential sash from retiring president, Ricardo Lagos.  In the presence of more than 50 heads of state, she became the first woman who achieved the presidency in her own right in South America. Winning 53% of the popular vote, with men and women supporting her Concertacion coalition, she has broken new ground in country where machismo and conservative leanings have long characterized the political class.  It was a day of joy for women, for victims of the dictatorship, and it opened a new era for women as Bachelet promised and implemented a parity cabinet, with a 50/50 gender mix.

Has Competence Returned? Posted by Gordon Adams

To hear the pundits tell it, competence and reason have returned to US national security policy. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, it is said, leads the charge, ably supported by National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, with Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney in eclipse. Policy will now competently balance the various instruments of statecraft and reach out to the international community for the kind of support US national security policy needs to be effective in the 21^st Century.

Evidence: the careful march to the UN Security Council on Iran; the President’s call for greater international cooperation in Iraq, Secretary Rice’s proposals for diplomatic transformation and the reform of foreign assistance, among others.

The just is out, however and the database for remaining confused and uncertain about our national direction is large and wide-ranging. The Middle East/Gulf region is at the very top. In Iraq, a civil conflict is underway – muted as it may appear, in part because it is hard for reporters to get at the hard news. Even Amb. Khalilzad seems discouraged by the demons let loose by the US invasion and occupation. As for Iran, the move to the UN carries echoes of how we walked into Iraq, though the international community is being held together a bit better. Rather than “jaw, jaw, jaw,” our diplomacy and that of the Iranians has taken on a schoolyard tone: “If you do this, I’ll do that.”

Khalilzad Says What the Administration Won't On Permanent Bases In Iraq Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Juan Cole quotes US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad as saying in an interview with al Hayat as telling sectarian opponents of the US presence that:  "We don't want to stay in Iraq."  He's apparently concluded that one way to tamp down the hostility toward the American military, and perhaps even political tensions more broadly, is to reassure the relevant parties that America does not intend to station its military permanently in the country.  But President Bush and and Secretary Rumsfeld have never given such assurances, and - as Kevin Drum has reported - are instead allocating resources to build up what are said to be permanent military installations. 

Right now Khalilzad's efforts are about the only thing standing between Iraq and full-scale sectarian warfare.  Why won't the Administration support him by officially disavowing any intention to build permanent bases?

Caught in the Middle of An Iraqi Civil War Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I wrote a couple of weeks ago that the only thing worse than civil war in Iraq was civil war in Iraq with 130,000 American troops serving there.  This weekend, after a couple of weeks of relative calm, things blew up again with six simultaneous bombings in crowded markets in Shiite areas.  Shiite militiamen are out on the street and the fear is that this will spark a rash of sectarian violence akin to the outbreak triggered by the bombing of a Shiite temple three weeks ago, and maybe worse.  All this coincides with the planned drawdown of US troops starting this Spring.   

If sectarian violence flares up untamed, what will the US do?  It's been obvious for a long time that the consequences of Iraq becoming a failed state are so severe that the US must do everything in its power to avoid that outcome.  It's equally clear that the US's strategy - despite several reincarnations - has not placed Iraq on a trajectory toward stability.  It increasingly looks as though, despite the best efforts of our military and some improvements in American tactics, Iraq is sliding in the wrong direction. 

The worst thing about this is that now, with Iraq descending into chaos, even if everyone agreed that our presence was doing no good, it would be virtually impossible to leave.  Last fall, when John Murtha called for US withdrawal and the Center for American Progress argued for redeployment elsewhere in the region, drawing down struck many as premature and faint-hearted.  If we leave as Iraq descends directly into mass-killings, however, it will look even worse: unconscionable and craven, an invitation for Iran to have its way.  Given the Administration's rhetoric over the last few months, I can't see it happening.