A Tale of Two Georges Posted by Heather Hurlburt

I’ve been accused lately of being obsessed with the New York Yankees.  But really, is there a better parallel for America's travails in the world?

A once-proud franchise, that in the 1990s seemed utterly unbeatable… in some ways (much as I hate to admit it) the symbol of baseball itself… all that prestige now lost… scraping along at the bottom of the division… the infallible suddenly fallible… decent people doing their best stymied by utter arrogance at the top… management suddenly turning against the unusual schemes and personnel that they themselves installed...

Quick test:  Yankees or US? (click on the number for the answer)

1.The numbers we are seeing today are the lowest numbers that have ever been recorded.

2.It is my understanding George has kind of backed off and left everything up to ...

Climate Change Legislation: The Inevitable Comes Home Posted by Lorelei Kelly

On April 19, Representatives John D. Dingell (D-MI) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) made public the responses of more than 70 industry groups, non-governmental organizations and labor unions to a letter from the Energy and Commerce Committee, soliciting recommendations on prospective climate change legislation.

The committee has set out to write a mandatory greenhouse gas control measure and asked organizations with a strong interest in climate change legislation to comment on a series of questions. See this link for the letter and to click to the responses--a wealth of information and opinions on the issue. I haven't read them all, but nobody's seems to be denying it anymore.

Post-Debate Spin, Part V Posted by Shadi Hamid

Giuliani's campaign manager is on and explains that his guy "says what he means, and means what he says," whatever that means. (I just noticed that I have a lot of trouble spelling Guiliani's name correctly). Ok, maybe I wasn't paying attention in school, but what exactly are the main points of the Hyde Amendment?

Campaign manager reassures us that "every option is on the table" regarding Iran. Phew again. At least I know we'll be safe. He won't "retreat" on the war on terror, unlike those pesky democrats, especially that Reid guy who David Broder doesn't like.

Rudy gave an "olive branch" to the Democrats, says Olbermann, when he said: "Neither party has a monopoly on virtue and vice." That's quotable, at least. Eugene Robinson of WPost says that this is RG's way of deflecting criticism about his "dressing up as a woman" and marrying three times, and all that moral stuff.

Fineman: "a tentativeness to Giuliani's performance." Yes. Maybe that's because he had to share a stage with 9 other people for the first time in his life. A center of attention thing.

The "truth squad" is coming up, but I'm going to sleep. Cheers.

Post-Debate Spin, Part IV Posted by Shadi Hamid

A "you-must-be-kidding me" alert. They discuss Guiliani and the Sunni-Shia question. Chris Matthews says sympathetically: "Everyone was learning as he answered that question." Really? after 4 years in Iraq and we're still "learning"? Olberman! Say something! Please.

Howard Fineman says that Guiliani got it "fundamentally right" and gets a "passing grade" for his wonderful dissection of the Sunni-Shia divide. Wow, this is worrying. Am I living on a different planet? Maybe I'm out of touch.

Post-Debate Spin, Part III Posted by Shadi Hamid

They discuss McCain's badassness. He said that he'd follow Bin Laden "to the gates of Hell."

For his part, Romney informed us that Bin Laden "will die."

Chris Matthews is on now. I didn't think he did a great job, but whatever. Wasn't he an aide for Tip O'Neill? Says it was a competition to see who was toughest on terrorism, and who can slash more taxes. However, they were "absolutely useless" on the issue of Scooter Libby. Not a single person "said thumbs-down on this guy."

Why isn't Olbermann skewering the Republicans? Is he trying to be "objective"? Back to Scarborough, who is talking to Jim Gilmore, who we are led to believe was the former governor of VA. Says he's been "picking up momentum" and assures Scarb that "we're gonna come through." He's not gonna "flip and flop" either.

Scarb asks Gilmore about Guiliani. JG doesn't "think Guiliani asserts himself as a conservative." Randomly brings up Hillary Clinton. Then they move to Katrina. Stock answer. Mentions "lunatic gunman."

Scarb notes that McCain said the "gates of Hell" thing with a smile. That's kind of scary. Happy warrior. McCain also managed to mention Joe Lieberman's full name three times in the span of three seconds, when asked if what Democrat he'd appoint to a cabinet position. That must have made JL all fuzzy inside.

Post-Debate Spin, Part II Posted by Shadi Hamid

Why is Duncan Hunter in the race again?

Hunter is trying to make a point about the military. Uses football analogy, something like "you build a football team, by playing football." This is really a band of deep thinkers.

Joe Scarborough is in the "spin room." He's with Romney's Policy Chairman, Vin Weber. He's happy with his guy's performance (and rightfully so). Scarb brings up flip-flopping on abortion. Weber explains that Romney thinking about cloning and stem cells led him to reconsider his position. He got worried about the "degradation of life." Fine, but what exactly is the direct link between being against cloning and choosing not to be pro-choice?

Romney says he "changed his mind" about abortion. That sounds kind of blase. I changed my mind today about cooking. I was going to cook, but then I decided to go to a kabob cart and clog my arteries. I changed my mind today about ordering three cups of coffee. I was going to a get my third cup, but then I changed my mind (not easy). I was thinking about going to Istanbul next weekend, but I changed my mind.

Scarborough anoints Mitt Romney as the winner.

Post-Debate Spin Posted by Shadi Hamid

Let's see. Post-debate spin on MSNBC. No one's mentioned Giuliani's stumble on the Sunni-Shia question. Can't understand why. It was so, so blatant.

Tancredo is being interviewed. Says it is not just a war on terror, but a war on "radical Islam," one might even call it a clash of civilizations....Yes, one might. Favors a policy of disengagement rather than withdrawal from Iraq and the Middle East. He's talking about "amnesty" now. Does this guy have anything else to talk about? Wow, he's so one-note.

By the way, Senator Brownback said he would support a non-pro-life President, and then, surprise, quotes Reagan, which seems to be the default position for, um, anything.

Romney Looks Presidential Posted by Shadi Hamid

Wow. Romney's pretty damn impressive. He really does look presidential. He's a great speaker too. Put this guy next to McCain and Guiliani, and it's really no contest on the charisma-meter.

One thing kind of bothered me. He was talking about the jihadist/terrorist threat, and listed Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Iran...and then the Muslim Brotherhood? Huh? The Muslim Brotherhood renounced violence in the 1970s and represents the leading opposition bloc in the Egyptian parliament (with 88 members). The group has publicly committed itself to the rules of the democratic game. Anyway, it's unfortunate that Romney did the standard Republican mistake of thinking that all Islamists are a monolithic terrorist threat, when there are clear, obvious distinctions within Islamism, between radical Islamists (those who operate outside the political system and use violence) and mainstream Islamists (those who operate within the system and renounce violence). Misinformation.

Republican Debate - LiveBlogging II Posted by Shadi Hamid

That was funny. Mike Huckabee informs us that no one knows Hillary better than him. Um, ok. Crowd laughs.

Someone said they believe in dividing Iraq into three states, also known as the Biden plan. Go Biden!

Tancredo's a really bad speaker.

Is Ron Paul a medical doctor? He's the only one that Chris Matthews calls "Dr."! Makes him sound really smart.

Did Paul just call upon the memory of Robert Taft? Sounds familiar. Wasn't he that isolationist guy? No one in the crowd probably got that. Probably better that way.

How many Reagan references can you really stand in one 90-minute period. I'm sure someone did a count.

Is it really fair that the Republicans got a Democratic moderator? Chris Matthews got a bit aggressive.

Giuliani Tanks Posted by Shadi Hamid

I felt kind of bad for Guiliani tonight. He totally tanked on at least 3 questions. The worst was when they asked him the difference between Sunnis and Shias. You should have seen the look on his face. I was embarassed watching him try to make something up on the spot. He said something about "descent" from the Prophet, which is partly correct, but he really struggled to come up with even that.

Generally, I'm kind of surprised at Guiliani's bad performance. He's good at speaking off the cuff, but apparently the debate format does him no favors. He's got to figure out where he stands on aborption, instead of looking like he's being scolded whenever someone brings it up. Just answer it for God's sake and stop trying to think of what your advisors told you to say.

Republican Debate - LiveBlogging I Posted by Shadi Hamid

Guiliani and Romney support "national tamper-free ID cards." I don't know much about this, but sounds kind of scary. See previous post. Brownback's against it. Good for him. I assume Ron Paul's against them too. He's talking now. Yea, he's against them. Tancredo, weirdly enough voices agreement with Paul. Go figure. Guiliani clarifies that he wants them only for "foreigners." Phew.

The War on Terror or the war on terror? Posted by Shadi Hamid

In last week's Democratic debate, Brian Williams asked the candidates: "do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?" Although I didn't notice it at the time, Edwards apparently didn't raise his hand. First of all, that's pretty gutsy, and you've got to give him credit for taking a potentially dangerous stand. I would have raised my hand, but that's probably because I interpret the question differently than Edwards did.

To the objection of some, I personally still use the phrasing "war on terror" when I write, because there is, in fact, a war on terror to be fought (i.e. there are people who want to kill us and we have to figure out a way to defeat them). But, at the same time, I purposely de-capitalize the phrase in order to distinguish it from Bush's "War on Terror," which is an altogether a different war, and one that has little do with actually fighting terrorists. So, I guess it depends: when Brian Williams asked the question, was he asking about a "global war on terror" or a/the "Global War on Terror" (the prepositions also might confuse matters)? 

Maybe it's Time to Start Getting Scared Posted by Shadi Hamid

I'm not one of those people who likes to be alarmist and call Republicans "fascists" and other such things. Unlike some of my friends, I don't think that they have any secret plans to annul the Bill of Rights and destroy democracy as we know it. That kind of alarmism doesn't get us anywhere. Or at least that's what I thought until I started reading about Rudy Giuliani.

There's a big debate on whether or not Islamist parties, like the Muslim Brotherhood, are normatively committed to democracy and the rule of law. It's a valid question. However, it seems to me that a much more relevant question, at least for Americans, is whether today's Republican party is normatively committed to democracy. I'm genuinely afraid after hearing this audio of Guiliani going berserk on a caller to his radio show. Then I read Michael Wolff's cogent, persuasive case that Guiliani is all of the following: unstable, insane, charismatic, depressive, able to speak without notes, susceptible to mood swings, an incorrible philanderer, doesn't talk to his kids, has an ambivalent relationship to truth and reality, has ties to the mob, and is in perpetual need of 24-hour attention, like a little kid on Ritalin. Then I read this:

There was Rudy's extra-legal plan to set aside the 2001 mayoral election (after his term limit had been reached, so he couldn't run again) and, by legislative acclamation (thwarted only at the last minute), extend his term.

So, yes, he's an autocrat living in a democracy. Would he still be an autocrat if he was President? Um, yes. But Rudy's Rudy, right? And then I stumble upon this Victor Davis Hanson quote, via Andrew. Andrew got pretty worked up, but after a I read the paragraph in question, I couldn't figure out what the big deal was. So I read it again more carefully:

Dear Europe; Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Dear Europe

Please, for the love of your yearly six-week spa vacation, prevail upon your friends in Poland and the Czech Republic to reject the US overtures on missile defense. Why Europe would be interested in this only occasionally successful technology is a mystery. Especially when you have really serious other problems to contend with. Like this. And this. And this. Sure, the three plus billion dollar project is going to be paid for by American taxpayers, but it started out small here, too. Since the 1980's, we've spent some 107 billion dollars on it with no end in sight. Missile Defense is a boondoggle (the wikipedia definition is priceless). Although the sparkly technology is hard to resist, and the alleged intentions are respectable. It DOESN'T WORK. And why NATO would go along with these plans is a mystery. Do we really want to hand Putin an arms race redux? If you think democracy is having a hard time there now....And lest you think that I am just bitter because I and my fellow citizens are footing the bill for this 30 year lobbyist golf trip, keep in mind that as long as the US is obsessed with technological Cold War era "fixes" for defense, its not going to get good at any of Europe's defense priorities. Much less take seriously the Responsibility to Protect. Europe has done a reasonable job since the end of the Cold War in reassessing security threats, becoming expeditionary, discerning the difference between the safety of states versus the safety of people. And understanding that our old defense tools are almost completely inadequate for today's problems. Like, um. terrorism. In the 1990's Europe bristled at the division of labor arguments made by Americans, i.e. that we would do the heavy lifting and the warfighting and Europe could do the peacekeeping and the otherwise messy custodial work of stability. You have an unprecedented opportunity right now to make the case to the USA that those days are over. We see on our TVs every night that relying only on the pointy end of the spear is moving us backward. Iraq and Afghanistan have taught all of us about what the post Cold War world looks like. And besides, if you are going to negotiate for three billion dollars worth of hardware, at least get some helicopters!

Don't Let Anti-Corruption Go Down With Wolfowitz Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Paul Wolfowitz's long, bitter swan song at the World Bank is now accompanied by supportive sounds from unexpected quarters.  In Tuesday's NYT, Nuhu Ribadu, Chairman of Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission wrote an impassioned defense of the embattled Bank President.  He praised the very crusade against corruption in developing countries that seems to have turned much of the Bank's staff against Mr. Wolfowitz.  While Wolfowitz may need to leave the Bank, the body's Board of Directors ought to ensure that the organization's commitment to fight corruption not disappear along with him.

By taking on the issue of corruption, Wolfowitz broke from longstanding Bank practice to avoid wading into "politics" in the countries it helped.  But in pressing countries to restructure their budgets and economies, the Bank inevitably bumped up against negligent and fraudulent practices that prevented resources from being maximized for public benefit.  By remaining silent, the lender was tacitly allowing such unsavory practices to continue.  Wolfowitz's predecessor, James Wolfensohn, saw the problem and railed against the "cancer of corruption" in 1996 and set up a unit to battle graft.  But he stopped short of withholding Bank aid on the basis of corruption.

Wolfowitz took matters a step further.  He held up aid to India for a health program that was reportedly being siphoned off for politicians benefit, and froze lending to Chad in retaliation for that country's failure to meet commitments to channel oil proceeds to the poor. Similar measures were taken to punish corruption in Kenya, Bangladesh, Argentina and elsewhere.

Bank employees and others have complained that in withholding aid, Wolfowitz has punished innocent people who are themselves victims of the very corruption he decries.  This is true:  as long as some aid was making it past the pilferers, end recipients would be worse off if Bank funds are turned off entirely.  But, as Ribadu points out, $300 billion in foreign aid to Africa over the last two decades has failed to stanch rampant malaria and AIDS, nor help the 40 million African children who are not in school.  While corruption is not solely to blame, Ribadu argues that corruption "kills far more effectively than AIDS, malaria or war."

Furthermore, while some focus on the near-term impact of anti-corruption efforts on the poorest, others have objected to Wolfowitz's approach on separate grounds.  These have included affected governments not accustomed to having their domestic practices scrutinized, as well as Bank staff who had trouble getting used to the new rules.

When Corn Kills Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Ethanol is God’s gift to Presidential candidates.  It makes us feel like we're doing something about the environment and energy security.  Even more conveniently it is popular in Iowa.  But Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer point out the potentially catastrophic results of the ethanol craze.

Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn -- which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year. By putting pressure on global supplies of edible crops, the surge in ethanol production will translate into higher prices for both processed and staple foods around the world. Biofuels have tied oil and food prices together in ways that could profoundly upset the relationships between food producers, consumers, and nations in the years ahead, with potentially devastating implications for both global poverty and food security.

Ethanol is not the answer.  First, it is already driving corn prices to record highs, which in Mexico for example led to a doubling of the price of tortillas earlier this year and caused protests around the country.  On top of that, as corn becomes more profitable farmers stop growing other staples such as wheat and substitute corn.  So, you get a double whammy with the price of all basic food staples rising around the world.  This is not good for the world's poor.

On top of that, in a freakish twist, ethanol and oil prices have now become correlated.  As oil prices rise, switching to ethanol becomes a more appealing option for consumers.  Basically, when oil prices are high you can charge more for ethanol.  When they are low, you can’t.  The natural consequence is that you now have staple food prices correlated to oil prices.  This is a real gut punch for developing countries, most of whom are both oil importers and food importers.  Now, when oil prices go up, they don’t just have an energy problem they have a food problem too.

Basically, this whole ethanol craze just isn’t worth it.  It is full of scary unintended consequences.  And what does it get you?  Even if the entire crop of corn in the U.S. were used to make gasoline it would only account for 12% of U.S. gasoline.  There are better solutions to this problem.

What a Day! Posted by Rosa Brooks

It's May Day! It's Law Day! It's "Mission Accomplished" Day! And it's probably going to be Veto Day as well. The stars have aligned!

Gross Incompetence Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

So what is this report talking about?

“[He] made up his mind hastily, despite the fact that no detailed military plan was submitted to him and without asking for one," the report said. "He made his decision without systematic consultation with others, especially outside the [military], despite not having experience in external-political and military affairs…

[He] was also censured for failing to “adapt his plans once it became clear that the assumptions and expectations of [the country's] actions were not realistic and were not materializing…  All of these," the report said, "add up to a serious failure in exercising judgment, responsibility and prudence."

"[The Defense Secretary] made his decisions during this period without systemic consultations with experienced political and professional experts, including outside the security establishment."

[The military] chief of staff at the time, was criticized for entering the war "unprepared,"... [He] failed to "present to the political leaders the internal debates within the [military] concerning the fit between the stated goals and the authorized modes of actions."

According to the report, “the government did not consider the whole range of options, including that of continuing the policy of 'containment', or combining political and diplomatic moves with military strikes below the 'escalation level', or military preparations without immediate military action.”

No.  It’s not George Bush.  These are the results of the Winograd Report, which evaluated the Israeli Government’s performance during the Second Lebanese War.  It includes an inexperienced leader, who never really asked the tough questions about whether or not the war should be waged in the first place, and then refused to change course once it became clear that his initial objectives couldn’t be met.  The Defense Minister made decisions without input from others.  The Army Chief of Staff did not disclose the military’s own misgivings about the operation.  Does this sound familiar?

The biggest difference is that in the U.S. we might have to wait another ten years to get a report this damning, and it will never happen while President Bush is still in office.  This report is as high profile in Israel as Baker-Hamilton was in the United States - if not more.  Could you ever imagine Baker-Hamilton being this harsh?  Then again, it's pretty easy to take shots at a PM with a 3% approval rating.

Judge this Administration on its own priorities Posted by Heather Hurlburt

It wasn't even one pm today -- officially I was on mommy duty and not even working -- and I'd already heard US credibility in three high-priority policy areas utterly demolished.

First, Europe's first terrorism czar, Gijs de Vries, discoursing on why the EU has found it so difficult to make effective information-sharing and policy-toughening on terrorism a priority.  Bureaucracy and a large community are important causes, but also there's this:

De Vries says America's current image makes the job of fighting terrorism difficult in Europe.

"The United States used to be known as a country of the rule of law and of liberty," he says.

Today, those associations are with the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, detainees at Guantanamo Bay and CIA renditions, de Vries says.

"That is sapping support for the United States, and also indirectly for Europe worldwide," he says.

Again, folks, that's not some lefty radical or weenie think-tanker.  That's the senior EU counter-terrorism official.

Then NPR got to the resignation ofUSAID Administrator and former Global AIDS czar Randall "have some abstinence education with your anti-retrovirals" Tobias.

Some Not So Good Signs Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Aside from the usual violence, there have been a number of stories over the past few days that taken together paint a bleak picture.

1. The Iraqi Parliament is considering a two month recess for the summer.  Urrrrgh…  Seriously?  Looks like the Administration hasn’t been too successful in instilling in the Iraqis a sense of urgency to reach a political solution.

2. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia refused to meet with Prime Minister Maliki before the international summit next week in Cairo.  So much for regional diplomacy.  Although, on a positive end, the reason for snubbing Maliki is that Abdullah is fed up with the lack of movement on the political front.  At least someone is trying to hold Iraqi politicians accountable.

3. The Administration is pushing back any comprehensive evaluation of the “new” Iraq strategy until the fall.  Shocker…  If you are actually surprised by this move, then I have a very nice piece of real estate that I’d like to sell you in Anbar Province.

Asking for Trouble Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

If I were President Bush I would be careful about not touting the recent success in Anbar province too publicly.  It’s exactly the type of declaration that invites retaliation.  The Administration is faced with a Catch-22.  In order to prosecute the war it needs the support of the American public.  It therefore goes out of its way to brag about specific successes.  Unfortunately, the American public is not the only audience that pays attention to the President’s and his advisors’ statements.  Iraqis, especially key players such as politicians and insurgent leaders, pay attention too. When they see themselves being used as a talking point they tend to go out of their way to debunk it.  Some recent examples:

Earlier this month the administration began talking about a 26% drop in sectarian violence in Baghdad.  A week later there was a massive bombing of a Shiite market and an attack on the Green Zone.

John McCain was in Iraq with a Congressional delegation in early April and they consistently used Moqtada al-Sadr’s marginalization and weakness as a sign that things were finally getting better in Iraq.  By the next week Sadr had organized a massive protest in Najaf and pulled his Ministers out of the Iraqi government. 

The Administration has been touting the joint Iraqi-American security stations that have been built around Baghdad.  And soon enough there is a suicide attack at one of these bases that kills nine American troops.

The President has consistently referred to Tall Afar as an example of success and a model for the “surge”.  But just last month it experienced one of the worst sectarian bombings of the war and an equally ugly reprisal.

These declarations are not the reason that the attacks are happening.  But every time supporters of the war cite a specific success, they add symbolic value to a target. At this point they have no hope of regaining public support for the war.  So, I'd suggest keeping quiet.