Matthew Continetti Tells Us How Well Things Are Going Posted by David Shorr

Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard was on NPR's On Point yesterday. One exchange with host Tom Ashbrook was hilarious, if it weren't so sad (at around 21:45, for those who'd like to listen). Continetti was reporting that local sheiks all over Iraq, not just in Anbar, are joining the fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq. What's more:

Once these sheiks flip, many of the Sunnis who live in these areas, they join the Iraqi security forces. So in a sense, this is a way in which the grassroots political developments help strengthen the central government of Iraq by joining the national Iraqi army.

When host Ashbrook pushed back, asking whether these forces aren't just arming themselves for civil war, rather than integrating into the national army, Continetti replied:

The Army takes its orders from the central government in Baghdad, so of course it's integrating with that government.

All of which delivered in a how-could-you-be-so-dense tone. I mean, why would anybody pretend to be regular forces, and at the same time secretly doing mischief on behalf of their own tribal kinspeople, rather than the government in Baghdad?? (Hearing this, and imagining my 6th grade daughter saying it, rolling her eyes and doing that head-wiggle thing.) Like, duuh.

On Civilian Casualties in Iraq Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

O'hanlon's piece in the Wapo today points to a significant reduction in sectarian violence.  But as Matt points out the U.S. military won't actually verify those numbers or show any proof. 

In fact getting access to any kind of civilian casualty number has grown much more difficult in the past year.  The most reliable source for civilian casualty estimates, the UN, has not been allowed access to the data since the start of 2007.  The Iraqi government was mad because it thought the UN's numbers were too high so it stopped sharing the data. 

There are also numerous reports of underreporting of civilian casualties inside Iraq.

Even more damning is the fact that just last August the military and the Bush Administration specifically underreported civilian deaths in an attempt to tout the success of the original Baghdad security operation.  An accusation that was confirmed by the Iraq Study Group.

A drop in civilian casualties would be great news.  I just wish someone who doesn't have a vested interest in reporting that news could actually verify those numbers.

Allawi Will Never Run Iraq Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

There is no way Iyad Allawi will ever run Iraq.  This is strictly a Washington story (And I gotta say the Republican lobbying angle is distributing).  But the man has zero support inside Iraq and so the only way into power is through a military coup, which is impossible to pull off right now.   This is no different then when the neocons supported Chalabi before the war, only to have him fall flat on his face once he got to Iraq because he had no support amongst the population.

The reality is that if Maliki were to lose a no-confidence vote you would have total deadlock in the Iraqi government and no one would be able to form a governing coalition.  It took the Iraqis five months to form the Maliki government the first time (January-May 2006), and you'd probably have an equally long stand off today.  That is why the NIE concluded that "Maliki will continue to benefit from recognition among Shi'a leaders that searching for a replacement could paralyze the government."

Ironically, one of the more sensible pieces on this comes from Nibras Kazimi.  He clearly has his own vehemently pro Shi'a agenda, having worked for Ahmed Chalabi at the Iraqi National Congress and on the de-Baathification Commission (Surprise, he is now at the Hudson Institute).  To be very clear, I don't agree with much of what Kazimi says in his post, but the vote counting he does in the Iraqi Parliament seems to be on the money.

-No one can pull-off a military coup in Iraq.

-Parliament is out for another three weeks, so Maliki is not facing an immediate no-confidence vote.

-Adel Abdel-Mahdi, the current Vice-President, cannot deliver SCIRI’s parliamentary votes for the Allawi camp.

-The Sadrists won’t vote for Allawi.

-The Da’awa Party won’t follow former PM Ibrahim Jaafari if he moves against Maliki.

-Anyone seen as “Saudi Arabia’s guy”—as Allawi projects himself, although that may not really be the case as far as the Saudi leadership is concerned—is not likely to get Sistani & Co. to go along with this plan.

-The Iranians won’t let this happen, and they have far more political cards to play in Iraq than the Americans—and they can play those cards smarter than O’Sullivan.

-Why would the Kurds substitute their strong alliance with the Shiites, who are going to run the country for a very long time to come, in return for the fleeting favor of the defeated Sunnis (their rivals on Kirkuk) and a politician such as Allawi whose word really doesn’t go that far?

-Qasim Daoud, a favorite of the Emirati leadership and another PM candidate as far as the Americans are concerned, has too many corruption scandals hovering around his head.

-My sources tell me the following: one of the principal actors who was attempting to bring down Maliki has left Iraq for an extended vacation, telling anyone who’d listen that it can’t be done.

I’ll say it: the Americans are irrelevant to political events in Iraq.

Re-Invade Vietnam!!! Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Rosa has the solution to all our problems.

The Experienced Candidate.... Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Didn't have such a good week. 

Apparently the surge is working.

Maliki should be ousted even though the entire Intelligence Community agrees that doing so would paralyze the Iraqi government for months.

The Republicans are better on terrorism.

I try to stay out of Presidential politics on Democracy Arsenal. But when you have a consistent set of mistakes that are undermining what progressives are trying to do on national security and foreign policy I can't help but get annoyed.   Stay on Message!!!

Limbaugh: less fat but STILL an Idiot Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Hat tip to mediamatters . Note to Republicans: I am so, so, sorry that this guy reportedly speaks for your base.

Limbaugh claims Dems' interest in Darfur is securing black "voting bloc" Summary: On his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Democrats "want to get us out of Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur." He continued: "There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble." A caller responded, "The black population," to which Limbaugh said, "Right."

On the August 21 broadcast of the nationally syndicated *Rush Limbaugh Show*, a caller said to host Rush Limbaugh"I know I'm no expert in foreign affairs, but what really confuses me about the liberals is the hypocrisy when they talk about how we have no reason to be in Iraq and helping those people, but yet everybody wants us to go to Darfur." Limbaugh responded by claiming Democrats "want to get us out of  Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur." He continued: "There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? Ifthey lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble." The caller responded, "The black population," to which Limbaugh said, "Right."

Limbaugh also stated: "So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa,  you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela -- who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing."

Limbaugh added: "Clinton sent the U.S. military off to Bosnia. No U.S. national interest at stake. The liberals will use the military as a 'meals on wheels' program. They'll send them out to help with tsunami victims. But you put the military -- you put the military in a position of defending U.S. national interest, and that's when Democrats and the liberals oppose it."

However, interest in ending the killing in the Darfur region of Sudan is bipartisan. In 2006, Congress passed the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act*(sponsored by then-Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-IL). The law contained several sanctions on Sudan, including a ban on ships involved in Sudan's oil trade  docking at U.S. ports of entry. An initial version of the bill  passed the House by a vote of 416-3, and the final version passed the House by  voice vote and the Senate by unanimous consent and was  signed by the president on October 13, 2006.

Keep going for the transcript.

A Bizarre Anti-TNR Missive Posted by Shadi Hamid

Some of you may have seen this rather bizarre anti-TNR rant from Kathy G. on Ezra's site. First off, can Kathy please find a synonym for "wanker"? More substantively, take a look at the following graf, and see if you can make any sense out of it:

The sexual and racial uniformity [of The New Republic's staff] is offensive on principal, of course. Moreover, in practice, it is one of the factors that has caused TNR to suck so hard. For example, there’s the classic TNR genre of pointless look-how-clever-I-am contrarianism. Only in a culture as insular, inbred, and out-of-touch as TNR’s could a style of argument as inane and precious as this one flourish. The obnoxious white boy entitlement complex probably also explains why TNR has harbored more than its share of frauds and fantasists. Because if you’re as special as we are who needs fact-checkers, right?

So, let me get this straight - lack of women and African-Americans on staff leads to contrarianism; contrarianism leads to entitlement; entitlement leads to bad fact-checking or, worse, no fact-checking. Hmm, right...

But then, later on in the post, we get to the heart of the matter:

It doesn’t matter if 19 out of 20 articles in a given issue are liberal; the one wingnutty one out of the 20 will, by virtue of its setting, be all the more influential.

Kathy G. apparently would like an enforced liberal orthodoxy where liberal magazines are required to toe the party line at all times. Even having 95% of your articles be "liberal" is not enough. She wants 20 out of 20 articles to fit her own conception of what "liberal" is. Well, that would be a pretty damn boring magazine to read. I know people like to have their own ideological biases confirmed by what they read. This is why you have magazines like the National Review and The Weekly Standard, which, as far as I can tell, serve only one purpose - to further pre-confirmed ideological agendas and advance purely partisan arguments. But perhaps there is a constituency out there that values at least some ideological diversity in their reading. God forbid.

How is Speechwriting Like Sausage-Making? Not for the Squeamish Posted by Heather Hurlburt

I admit that I dropped everything to read the smackdown of Bush speechwriting deity Michael Gerson by his erstwhile colleague Matthew Scully in this month's Atlantic.  Every current and reformed speechwriter I know did the same (you too, Michael Cohen, 'fess up.)

I expected a good dose of Democratic Schadenfreude, and I got it. (Best-ever definition of Schadenfreude?  These lyrics from Avenue Q.) I expected some flashbacks to my own least-pleasant speechwriting experiences, and I had those too.

But at a certain point, it was actually too much.   

The Clerisy Did Its Job Yesterday Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Atrios and Matt owe the clerisy an apology.  Matt writes

In particular, a bipartisan, yet also non-partisan, group of experts would be a useful thing to have on hand if, for example, both the President of the United States and a leading Republican candidate for President were to endorse a lunatic revisionist view of the Vietnam War. Members of this clerisy, Democrat and Republican alike, could set the country straight on the facts.  Then I was going to observe that the clerisy we have has done no such thing and has, in fact, stayed utterly silent on this small question that happens to rest at the center of the Bush administration's justification of its policies.

In fact, that's exactly what they did.  Ten minutes after the President's speech ended yesterday 40 reporters from many of the key mainstream media outlets got on a press call sponsored by the National Security Network with with General John Johns, General Robert Gard, Rand Beers, Larry Korb and Steven Simon (Of the hated Council on Foreign Relations).  For over an hour these experts took the time to explain to the press why the President's comparison to Vietnam was bull.

Afterward a press release with a summary of their comments went out to reporters and editorial boards across the country.  The comments were all over the MSM yesterday as the main response to the President's speech.  See AP, WSJ, NY Times, to name just a few. Try google news on any one these five guys and you will find that just about every major media outlet had a quote from them in the Bush's speech story saying how the President's Vietnam analogy was wrong.

These stories don't write themselves.  There is a reason the speech got trashed yesterday  by the media and the clerisy had a great deal to do with that.

I'm not saying the clerisy is always right.  There are many problems.  But in this case they did exactly what they were supposed to do and exactly what Matt asked of them.

Update:  A nice response from Matt.

The Surge is Dead Posted by Michael Cohen

Today's release of the latest NIE on Iraq provides compelling evidence of something many of us have already suspected - the surge has failed.

Now I'm quite sure the President and his enablers will argue that the document's opening line supports continuing this failed policy:

There have been measurable but uneven improvement in Iraq's security situation since our last NIE on Iraq in January 2007.

See, it's a "A War We Might Just Win!" But what they will likely ignore is this more relevant point:

Broadly accepted political compromises required for sustained security, long-term political progress, and economic development are unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments.

This is, and always has been the rub of the issue. In the end, Iraq's only hope is in political compromise. Indeed, lest we forget, the entire premise of the surge was predicated on giving the Iraqis breathing room to move forward with political reform. In fact, here's what the President said when he announced the surge policy in January.

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas.

Bumper Stickers for Democrats Posted by Shadi Hamid

Via the Corner, I was made aware that the DSCC has launched a bumper sticker contest:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is launching a campaign to find the bumper sticker slogan that will carry us through the 2008 elections.  It'll be on their website, on campaign literature and on the bumpers of jalopies coast to coast.

We need a turn of phrase that really jumps out and tells you right off the bat what this election is all about. In 1992, it was "It's the Economy, Stupid."  In 2006, Democrats simply said "Had Enough?" It was the only question America needed to ask.

Yes, stop right there - I know what you're thinking: "But, Shadi, we don't think in sentences or slogans or soundbites. We think in paragraphs. We are nuanced and analytical. Where the Republicans see things in black and white, we only see things in gray." Dear friends, I feel your pain. But you must try! After all, the future of the Republic is at stake. Is that not enough incentive?

Here are my initial suggestions, off the top of my head:
- "It's the fact that we launched a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and we had no post-war plan whatsoever, and Republicans generally aren't aware of the difference between Sunnis and Shias and that's pretty damn important when you're invading a country that has a lot of Sunnis and a lot of Shias, Stupid!" (really too long)
- "Latte-drinkers of the world unite against republican persecution" (too long, but better)
- "Rudy Giuiliani is crazy!"
- "Sick of bombing countries? Vote Democrat."
- "Rock out of Iraq."
- "Give me back my constitution."
- "Got civil liberties?"

Wow, that was pretty bad. I don't even know if those count as slogans. I've got to get better at this.

Iraq: Avoiding The Killing Fields II Posted by Suzanne Nossel

As the calls for US withdrawal from Iraq grow ever louder, both boosters and opponents of American disengagement are kept up at night by a common fear:  that the departure of American troops will eliminate the one thing standing in the way of Iraq’s descent into chaos and slaughter of a magnitude that could make the last few years look calm by comparison.

Some Iraqi politicians argue passionately that as bad as things are in their country, they would be far worse without the Americans on patrol.

Even those who want the US military out acknowledge grave risks to the human rights, security and welfare of the Iraqi population after withdrawal.  Presidential candidate John Edwards is among the most outspoken in the 2008 race about the need for pullback on a tight timetable, but he too calls for a “plan” to prevent genocide after the US goes.

The prospect of even wider ethnic killings, terrorist attacks, and abuses of civilians by militias and insurgents is of grave concern no matter where you sit.  For the Bush Administration and other  proponents of the war, the idea that the Iraq adventure could end in mass slaughter is the ultimate indictment of their flawed policies.   For opponents of the war who decry the bloodshed and disruption that it has caused, a stance that culminates in untrammeled civilian killings and human rights abuses is unconscionable.

For those mindful of international norms, a deterioration in conditions in Iraq would implicate the UN’s newly-minted “responsibility to protect” a global doctrine that mandates that the world not stand by in the face of genocide or mass atrocities that a national government is unwilling or unable to stop.  For Arab opinion-leaders and publics who protested the invasion and occupation of Iraq, concerns for both the wellbeing of the Iraqi people and the stability of the wider region are implicated. Given the growing inevitability of US (and UK) withdrawal, what are the realistic prospects for preventing an onslaught on civilians?  At least six possibilities are on the table, none of them close to satisfactory:

Fatal Fallacies of the Surge Posted by David Shorr

I could dissect President Bush's battle cry for the long ideological struggle, delivered to the VFW convention this morning in Kansas City, with its invocations of chapters of history such as Vietnam. But I won't. Suffice it to say that the tragedy of Vietnam was American leaders' inability to see the war in any other terms than the spread of Communism -- thereby completely missing the dimension of nationalism and anti-colonialism.

Instead, I want to take stock of the fundamental flaws in the current Iraq strategy, if only to remind myself of the premises of the whole thing. Little, if any, of the following is news, but unless I'm crazy, the very basis of the policy is very flimsy indeed. Nothing we didn't know, perhaps, but maybe it's useful to cut through the data on violent attacks or the question of whether Petraeus will write the Petraeus Report to remember what a house of cards this is.

1. No military solution. Iraq will only stabilize if the various factions are satisfied with a political state of affairs in which they can protect their interests without needing a paramilitary to do so. U.S. military officials acknowledge the lack of political progress. Once we admit that political progress is completely separate from, rather than depending on, pacifying local areas, the rationale for the US occupation collapses.
2. Time for Iraq leaders to reconcile. As the Center for American Progress report points out, "Iraq's leaders fundamentally disagree about what kind of country Iraq is and should be ... [resulting] in a violent struggle for power." We're holding out for progress for which there just isn't any basis. The 82nd Airborne soldiers say as much in their NY Times op-ed and put it very well: "There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers ... Trying to please every party in the conflict -- as we do now -- will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run."
3. A strong central government for a unified Iraq. ...would be a great thing. Again, the issue is whether it is at all realistic. Given the defection of key Sunni parties from Maliki's governing coalition, Iraq's national government increasingly looks hollow.
4. Building up Iraqi security forces. The 82nd Airborne guys highlight the questionable allegiance of the Iraqi military, saying "reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands ... who are really loyal only to their militias." Weren't we saying something about parallels with Vietnam?
5. Let our troops do the job. I posted on this issue a few weeks ago, in response to a William Kristol column. What does it mean to support the troops? We really have to get this straight, once and for all. Our system has a very clear division of labor between the military and us civilians: they execute the mission as ordered; we decide what the mission should be. The wisdom of a given mission is a separate question from its execution -- and our support and gratitude. Peter Pace recently made a point of saying that policy debate doesn't harm morale. Likewise, the soldiers in the New York Times explicitly shrugged off the morale issue and affirmed their duty to the mission at hand. I'm only sorry that people in uniform have to remind us of this.

It seems to me that once you debunk these fallacies, current policy doesn't have anything to stand on. We just have to hope that the glaring obviousness of this becomes recognized widely enough to unshackle the policy from its stubborn inertia.

Democracy Promotion Needs a Plan of Action Posted by Shadi Hamid

Matt Yglesias, referring to the failure of the Bush "freedom agenda," gets it right:

The president gave a speech about the democracy agenda, but he never put a democracy agenda together. In all policy areas, but especially in foreign policy and diplomacy, saying things isn't the same as changing policies. Like if you want to cut taxes, you can't just say "let's cut taxes" you need to submit budget documents, work with members of congress, do some calculations, etc.

Circa early 2005, President Bush's rhetoric on democracy was wonderful (Michael Gerson is a great speechwriter). But the gap between rhetoric and actual policy was never bridged. I'm a believer in the necessity of "vision," but a vision that stays merely on the level of sentiment, of something to be wished and hoped for, is a vision that is doomed to fail. A vision, to succeed, needs more than a declaration of intent; it requires follow-through. It requires actionable items. It requires policies. Bush claimed he wished to end tyranny. But how? The "how" of it all was never addressed in any serious way. With that said, where I may disagree with Yglesias is on the presciptive side. He says:

I sometimes think people have unfairly criticized Bush for not "doing something" about autocracy in Pakistan but when it's not clear what should be done, but that's just the point it's not clear what should be done.

Actually, I don't think it's nearly as "unclear" as Matt suggests. Democracy promotion is difficult, but on some points (assuming you endorse the objective), it is actually quite clear what should be done. Each year, we give close to 2 billion dollars of economic and military aid to Egypt, one of the most repressive dictatorships in the region. The least we could do, and the least the Bush administration should have done, was move towards making aid to Egypt conditional on political reform. Egypt would have to demonstrate that it is making progress on various indicators, among them respect for opposition rights, protection of civil liberties, freedom to form and join political parties, and judicial independence. This is not asking that much. It's not asking that Egypt become a democracy tomorrow. It's simply asking that Egypt, if it would like to continue receiving me and Matt's tax dollars, has to start making some progress on reform.

New Guest Blogger Ari Melber Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Well he beat me to the post, but wanted to introduce our new guest blogger Ari Melber.

Ari Melber served as a Legislative Aide in the U.S. Senate, covering foreign policy, trade and judiciary issues, and worked as a national staff member of the 2004 John Kerry Presidential Campaign.  He is currently a regular contributor to The Nation magazine, the oldest political weekly in America, and a contributing editor at the Personal Democracy Forum, a nonpartisan website analyzing technology's impact on democracy. His commentary has appeared in The Baltimore Sun, The Philadelphia Daily News,  The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Politico, The Forward, The Huffington Post, New York Magazine's "Daily Intelligencer," Alternet.org, CBSNews.com and The American Prospect Online, among others, and as a commentator on public affairs, he has been quoted by publications such as The New York Times, Roll Call, and Time, and appeared on national radio and television, including CNN, C-SPAN, FOX and MSNBC.

Edwards Reengages in Search of a Doctrine Posted by Ari Melber

The September issue of Foreign Affairs hits newsstands today, featuring a 5,700-word article with John Edwards’ most detailed foreign policy vision to date, under the internationalist headline “Reengaging With the World.”  Of all the prominent presidential candidates, Edwards has staked out the most comprehensive challenge to the Bush Doctrine of the Global War on Terror (GWOT).  Top Republicans have promised to continue most of Bush’s foreign policies – or “double” them, as Mitt Romney pledged for Gitmo – while leading Democrats have largely operated within Bush’s framework. Democrats tend to criticize the Iraq war’s execution while crediting GWOT for improving national security (Clinton); or to oppose the war while endorsing variations of preemption (Obama); or to call for multilateral diplomacy while supporting unilateral plans to partition Iraq along sectarian lines (Biden).  Only Edwards completely rejected the failed GWOT framework, which has anchored U.S. policy for six years, and fully confronted the Bush administration’s reckless exploitation of terrorism for domestic political aims – an important critique that has been unthinkable for Obama and Clinton because of their bipartisan instincts.  This record makes Edwards’ new article more relevant than the typical campaign white paper, and though his provocative criticisms are enumerated in detail, some of the proposed alternatives are wanting.

Edwards advocates American power guided by “moral leadership,” deployed in concert with a reengaged set of allies, and bolstered with new assistance for the developing world on par with the Marshall Plan.

The "Changing Dynamic" in Iraq Posted by Michael Cohen

From an advance copy of today's speech on Iraq by President Bush:

Our troops are seeing this progress on the ground. And as they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they are gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq?”

A brief overview of the good news coming out of Iraq:

A helicopter went down in northern Iraq on Wednesday, killing all 14 U.S. soldiers aboard, the military said, the deadliest crash since January 2005

. . .Wednesday’s deaths raised to at least 3,721 members of the U.S. military who have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

More good news. . .

One week after a series of truck bombs hit a poor rural area near the Syrian border, the known casualty toll has soared to more than 500 dead and 1,500 wounded, according to the Iraqi Red Crescent Society, making it the bloodiest coordinated attack since the American-led invasion in 2003.

Even more good news. . .

Iraq's prime minister lashed out Wednesday at U.S. criticism, saying no one has the right to impose timetables on his elected government and that his country "can find friends elsewhere."

. . . Without naming any American official, al-Maliki said some of the criticism of him and his government had been "discourteous."

Now if only the Congress wouldn't pull the rug out, maybe we could continue this great progress.

The Search for the Perfect Anti-War Song Posted by Shadi Hamid

The "experts" got it wrong. The foreign policy community got it wrong. Who got it right then? Artists and musicians of course. The art of the "anti-war song" is a difficult one, and many have failed in their attempt to fuse musical and political sensibility into an effective package. It's hard to find a political song that you can listen to over and over. So I am now nominating "I Want to be the President" - a somewhat obscure tune from the amazing Brighton girl-rock band Electrelane - as the best anti-war song of the new millenium (Please offer competing nominations if you disagree). You can listen to the song here. The tune is unbelievably catchy, it's danceable, and the lyrics are playful without being preachy. The most affecting part is when lead singer Verity Sussman wearily accuses:

but if they say that is so,
is that the way you will go?
and if you thought it was wrong,
would you still follow along?

Toward the end, Sussman croons "there'll be a war tonight." Then the song moves from a mellow groove to a full-on instrumental assault.

Haleh Esfandiari freed on bail from Tehran's prison Posted by Anita Sharma

I'd like to think that adding your names to the Free Haleh petition resulted in this surprise decision from Tehran to release Haleh. Although the picture shows that the already slim Haleh had lost weight during her three month incarceration in Tehran's Evin Prison, she's said to be doing well. Accused by the Iranian government of conspiring to topple the government, the dual national was released on $333,000 bail to the home of her 94 year-old mother in Tehran. We're not sure yet what "free on bail" means. Hopefully it means the charges are dropped and she can return to the States and continue her work at the Woodrow Wilson Center.

Bush: A 'Dissident' in His Own Government? Posted by Shadi Hamid

I feel like I have an obligation to comment on Peter Baker’s Washington Post piece on why/how the Bush administration’s efforts to promote Middle East democracy failed miserably. It was one of the most frustrating, dispiriting reads I’ve read in a long time (Laura Rozen was similarly dissapointed). Some thoughts:

1. At best, the article's interesting in the kind of way a car crash is interesting ("car crash" refers to the Bush administration, not Baker's writing style). At worst, it's quite bad and incredibly misleading. President Bush comes out as a courageous visionary whose wonderful ideas were stilted by the State Department bureaucracy and by the government’s traditional resistance to new ideas (Poor George, he says he feels like a "dissident" within his own administration). What’s funny is that the State Department comes across as being separate than the Executive Branch, as if it was founded for no other reason than to defeat any good ideas that come out of the White House.

What’s strange, though, is that nothing of note or interest is said about Condoleezza Rice, who comes off as periphery player. She’s mentioned a few times, but only in passing, and only, it seems, so that Baker can continue with his narrative. However, over the course of 3000 words, we learn nothing about what Condi thinks about her rebellious bureaucracy. Presumably, as head of the State Department and invested with the authority granted to her by the President of the United States, she could have done something about this. It’s doubly amazing that Rice is more or less ignored by Baker, since she was central in articulating a foreign policy orientation known as “constructive instability” (a radical way of looking at the world that, while scary, isn’t altogether bad. For a primer on CI, see here and here).

2. Wait a second, wasn’t the State Department against another “new idea” in 2002? I seem to recall that there was some talk around then of invading a foreign country that had nothing to do with 9/11. I seem to also recall that the State Department bureaucracy was furious about this. President Bush was able, however, to overrule or circumvent this “resistance” because he wanted to. Iraq was his priority. I don’t doubt that Bush is sincere in his commitment to democracy, but I’m under no illusions that it was ever a top priority of his, or that it took precedence over more “tangible” strategic interests…like, um, supporting dictators with billions of dollars, something which Bush has proven quite fond of.

Dissecting Greenwald Posted by Michael Cohen

Glenn Greenwald has launched quite the missive about the Foreign Policy Community. My colleague, Shadi Hamid as well as Daniel Drezner have provided insightful critiques, but here are my two cents. Greenwald asserts:

The Foreign Policy Community -- a term which excludes those in primarily academic positions -- is not some apolitical pool of dispassionate experts examining objective evidence and engaging in academic debates. Rather, it is a highly ideological and politicized establishment, and its dominant bipartisan ideology is defined by extreme hawkishness, the casual use of military force as a foreign policy tool, the belief that war is justified not only in self-defense but for any "good result," and most of all, the view that the U.S. is inherently good and therefore ought to rule the world through superior military force.

Even though I am supposedly a member of the Very Serious People (VSP) Foreign Policy Community (FPC) I feel obliged to say that I don't agree with any of these sentiments (well except for the part about America being "inherently good.") Nor I imagine would any of my colleagues here at Democracy Arsenal or any of my colleagues at the National Security Network. Indeed we are not alone.

According to a recent Foreign Policy/Center for American Progress survey:

Though a majority—83 percent—do not believe Tehran when it says its nuclear program is intended for peaceful, civilian purposes, just 8 percent favor military strikes in response. Eight in 10, on the other hand, say the United States should use either sanctions or diplomatic talks to negotiate an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Similarly, a majority of the experts favor some kind of engagement with groups that may be labeled terrorist organizations but have gained popular support at the ballot box, such as Hamas in the Palestinian Territories or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Counter to Mr. Greenwald's assertion, the VSP FPC seems to hold a very different view about the use of force then the one he ascribes to it. Mr. Greenwald has a problem with some people in the Foreign Policy Community, but he has painted with a rather broad brush.

1991: Algeria Posted by Shadi Hamid

Thanks to all those who took the "1953/1991 test for future U.S. policymakers." I know the suspense has been overwhelming as you've waited on the edge of your coffee-stained seats, wondering what could have possibly happened in 1991. For newcomers, the question I posed was: "What two major (U.S.-relevant) events occurred in 1953 and 1991 in the Middle East?" Or, stated differently, what are the two events that every future U.S. policymaker (who deals even tangentially with the Middle East) should know about ?

Most of you got the 1953 part right: it was the U.S.-sponsored overthrow of Iran's democratically-elected leader, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. At the risk of indulging in the heady art of counterfactualizing, I would venture to say that if 1953 didn't happen, 1979 wouldn't have happened, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have become a bus driver. I actually made this argument a while ago; see here.

The more difficult one, though, was 1991. Only one commenter, "judy," got it right: U.S. silence/tacit approval of the military coup which effectively ended what was then the most promising democratic experiment the Arab world had yet seen. Here's a quick overview of what happened:

On December 26, 1991, in [Algeria's] first free legislative elections, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) won 47 percent of the vote and was poised to capture a commanding parliamentary majority. The staunchly secular military, claiming to save democracy from itself, intervened, canceling the elections and provoking a brutal civil war that would rage for more than a decade...the United States stopped well short of outright criticism, saying instead that the military intervention did not actually violate the Algerian constitution...as one State Department official later remarked, "By not saying or doing anything, the Bush Administration supported the Algerian government by default."

The "PNAC/DLC Test" for Future US Policymakers Posted by Shadi Hamid

In a spin-off from my "1953/1991 Test for future US policymakers," frequent DA commenter Don Bacon proposes his own "test," in an apparent effort to force me into conceding that "liberal interventionists" (such as myself) are, in reality, no different than neocons. I am copying the full text of the "test" below if you are interested in "taking it," or, even better, stumping your lefty friends at a dinner party. Don thinks that the listed DLC agenda is equally (or more) neoconnish than the PNAC agenda. The DLC one says:

First, we must marshal all of America's manifold strengths, starting with our military power but going well beyond it, for the struggle ahead.

Second, we must rebuild America's alliances, because democratic solidarity is one of our greatest strategic assets.

Third, we must champion liberal democracy in deed, not just in rhetoric, because a freer world is a safer world.

Fourth, we must renew U.S. leadership in the international economy and rise to the challenge of global competition.

Fifth, we must summon from the American people a new spirit of national unity and shared sacrifice.

As Michael noted, these points are all pretty inocuous, so I don't see what the hullabaloo is about. In fact, at the risk of casting myself into lefty blogger purgatory, I have no problem saying that I fully agree with all five points. And to Don or anyone else, I'd be very interested to know exactly which one of the five points you have a problem with.

Screening Changes at U.S. Airports Posted by Shadi Hamid

Just received the following email from The Sikh Coalition. Make of it what you will:

Subject: TSA Changes Rules for Headdress Searches at U.S. Airports

Dear Friends,
As some of you may be aware, we learned late last week that the Transportation Security Administration has changed its airport screening procedures as of August 4, 2007. The sudden change in policy includes, as we understand it, mandatory secondary screening for all travelers wearing any form of headgear - including religious headdress. In addition, secondary screenings of religious headdress are now permitted even if a passenger has already been cleared by a metal detector.

Millions of Sikh, Muslim, South Asian, and Jewish passengers worldwide will be affected by the new process. Still, the TSA not only sprung this on our communities without warning, but now refuses to inform the public of what the new policy entails, on the grounds of security concerns. It took Sikh Coalition staff members almost 36 hours simply to get a confirmation that the policy had indeed been changed, let alone details of the new procedure.

Neoconservatism is Dead Posted by Shadi Hamid

Well, not really, but more dead than alive. Anyway, I was prompted to say something in response to Glenn Greenwald's rather bizarre claim that

Unlike "lefty bloggers" and anyone who thinks like they do, neoconservatives are not only full-fledged members in Good Standing of the Foreign Policy Community, but are situated at its core [emphasis mine].

Maybe a handful of neocons are still around and kicking, in places like AEI perhaps. But PNAC, the former standard-bearer of the movement, appears to have fallen off the face of the earth, while analysts like Steve Clemons has documented extensively how the neocons are an embattled and dwindling minority in the Bush administration. In short, as a movement, they are significantly weaker and less respected now than they were, say, 4 years ago, which makes me wonder if Greenwald is using a different definition than I am.

Let's also keep in mind that one of the important distinctive features of neo-conservatism (in contrast to its cousin "muscular nationalism") was a belief that America should use its influence and power - and even military force - to spread democratic ideals abroad. Even the so-called "neo-cons" who are still around aren't talking much about this anymore. If anything, they seem to be have become increasingly comfortable (if not out outright cheerleaderish) with the fact that we're supporting and arming brutal sunni dictatorships ("the moderates") against shia powers like Iran and Hezbollah. In raising Iran as the new evil, and in failing to speak out in any real way against our indulgent support of Arab dictators, a movement once defined by what seemed a genuine desire to help oppressed peoples rise against their rulers, has lost any internal consistency or ideological distinctiveness it might have once had. 

On the other hand, if all Greenwald means by "neo-conservative" is someone who believes we should use our military as a first resort against anyone we don't like, then he is wrong on this count as well. If you look at the major institutions in the mainstream foreign policy community, there are few people who would seem to fit this categorization. 

More "Decoding" Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Atrios takes issue with my “decoding” of the VSP community.  I agree with his main point that this problem shouldn’t exist at all and the VSPs should hold “experts” up to a higher standard and make them pay for saying stupid stuff.  But they don’t so what do we do about it?

You could just throw everyone out and not listen to any of these guys because they are full of it.  In my view that would be a shame.  There is a use for expertise.  Experts’ opinions should not be the absolute be all and end all, but people should have an opportunity to listen to someone who reads the Arabic press every morning, has spent years living in the region, devotes their career to these issues and for the most part has been right on important questions like the war in Iraq. 

So, here’s my proposal.  You can have some people in the blogosphere make the decoding easier for everyone.  People who pay attention to this stuff regularly (Like some of the more notable bloggers and their readerships.) could work to come up with a list of good experts on various issues.  This expert list should include people who really know what they are talking about, but don’t get enough attention.  Then, maybe guys like Atrios, with their massive readerships can spend more time linking to these experts and helping raise their profiles.  It’s easy to link to O’Hanlon and say he sucks.  But why not link to Brian Katulis or Steven Simon when they write excellent reports and op-eds on Iraq?

It’s easy to complain that the wrong people are getting air time. But unless you are able to offer the producer an alternative expert who can fill those two minutes they are going to continue to default to what they know.  If we can help build up some new faces, we can get rid of some of the old ones and we can also send a clear message that people need to be held accountable for what they say.

Apologies to Juan Cole Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Yes.  He should have been on the list.  I left him off because I was pointing out high quality experts in the hated Washington think tank world.  Anyway, it was a partial list off the top of my head.

The "1953/1991 Test" for Future US Policymakers Posted by Shadi Hamid

I hereby propose “The 1953/1991 Test”: all US experts and policymakers who are involved even tangentially in US-Middle East policy should be aware of what happened during those two crucial years in modern Middle Eastern history. I think if you asked all the presidential candidates, particularly the Republicans, most if not all would fail the test. This is a problem, but, luckily, it can be solved in a couple hours through a little independent research.

I'm curious though. I'm not providing links or giving any hints, because I want to see if Democracy Arsenal readers can pass the test. Please submit your answers in the comments section. The question again is "what two major (U.S.-relevant) events occurred in 1953 and 1991 in the Middle East." (ok, one hint: the 1991 event has nothing to do with the Gulf War). Go! 

Middle East Experts Posted by Shadi Hamid

Just to lead off Ilan’s post, a couple things:

1. The Middle East experts that Ilan mentioned are all great, but very few of them (Brian Katulis being the obvious exception) are explicitly Democrat or are part of the “progressive movement” in any significant way. Not only do we need more Middle East experts, we need more “in-house” talent. When Democrats talk about their political appointments come 2008, very few of the major names are experts/policymakers who have a background in the Middle East. This is a problem.

2. Ilan is right: all other things being equal, those experts who speak Arabic or who have lived in the Middle East for a significant period of time, were more likely to be against the war. The reason for this is obvious. Any student of the Middle East is more keenly aware of the unfortunate fact that Western countries have a horrendous record of military (and non-military) intervention in the Middle East, with few exceptions. There’s a history here: and American experts and policymakers seem to have a hard time understanding – or, for that matter, acknowledging – longstanding Arab grievances, among them the fact that we’ve consistently supported Middle Eastern dictatorships with financial, political, and moral resources for upwards of 5 decades.

Insanity is when you keep on making the same mistakes, expecting different results. Most recently, the Bush administration announced a new $20 billion arms deal to what may very well be the most undemocratic country in the world (if you’re living under a rock, that country is Saudi Arabia). Yes, some prominent Democrats opposed the deal, but not necessarily for the right reasons. They focused on the natonal security component of it. But very few raised what seems to me the most obvious point of contention – that we shouldn’t be arming to the teeth countries that are brutal dictatorships.

The Post-Debate Fashion Police Posted by Shadi Hamid

Can someone please buy Mike Gravel a suit?

And, for Chris Dodd, we liked what you said about the Military Commissions Act, but please: no more green ties.