UN Reform: Will the Summit Plummet? Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Drowned out amid Katrina is the drama underway at UN headquarters as the organization prepares for a gathering next week of 170 heads of state to review and approve a reform program for the organization.  Last time we checked, John Bolton setting the process backward by a characteristically impolitic 11th hour intervention that threw the negotiating document into disarray.   

Since then talks have staggered along.  As Mark Goldberg describes, the rest of the UN membership, including particularly the General Assembly's controlling developing world blocs, struck back at Bolton proposing counter-amendments that undid earlier compromises.   Since then, apparently recognizing that reforms the Administration has already trumpeted are now in jeopardy, the US has made some gestures toward conciliation.

While some are in suspense, let me offer a guess at what happens next.  There will be a consensus document.  It's too late to call off the Summit, and too embarrassing to have a Summit that fails to adopt a document.   High-stakes UN negotiations always come down to the wire; refusal to bend until the very last minute is deeply ingrained in UN delegates' DNA.

The document will be much vaguer than hoped, and will simply duck significant areas of disagreement including, inter alia, what should be done (i.e. how much money and political will should be devoted to) global poverty, terrorism, AIDS, global warming, human rights violators, streamlining the UN itself, etc.  You can get a feel for the document from this early draft. 

There will be some language that, if acted upon, could result in substantial, specific reforms to the way the UN does business (helping to restructure and re-legitimize its human rights commission, for example, or convening a Peacebuilding Commission to handle post-conflict reconstruction).   But the text will also leave loopholes that allow spoilers bent on killing particular reforms to get future bites at the apple (slowing the reforms down, watering them down, and/or refusing to fund them) once other bodies like the Security Council and GA working committees take over and attempt to implement.

More important at this stage than nuances of wordsmithing is how the whole enterprise gets spun:  do the heads of state and the media reference a sense of disappointment over the failure to get further, or do they declare victory despite a document that's short on details and iron-clad commitments, stressing those clauses that sound solid and real.   

The spin, in turn, will be driven by exactly how frustrated the governments become with one another - and most notably the US -  in the coming days:  most countries would prefer to have something positive to tout back home, though if they're angry enough at the US in particular, that desire could be trumped by the impetus to blame us for yet another international mess.

For the US's purposes at this point, the best we can hope is that 1) we don't get blamed for this devolving into failure; 2) that our key goals make it into sub-committee with some momentum.  This means ensuring that the Summit document is perceived as a major stride toward reform rather than a lowest-common-denominator compromise.  I expect the Administration will opt to paint the Summit outcome as a success, if only because it can ill-afford bad news right now.

David Shorr (aka Pollyanna) is confident that, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, John Bolton is committed to seeing through significant reforms if only because if in not doing so he personally risks being seen as a failure. 

I'm not so sure.  After all, as Assistant Secretary for Arms Control Bolton allowed the NPT and other non-pro mechanisms to wither and languish.  To many of Bolton's staunchest supporters, UN reform means confining the organization to a narrowly defined set of roles and responsibilities and otherwise getting it out the US's business (see here to get an idea of what I mean).  To them, successful obstruction of reforms that would augment UN capabilities would be viewed as a triumph.   By most accounts Bolton's obstructionist opening salvo two weeks ago was not done at Condi Rice's behest;  that being so, one has to wonder which constituencies Bolton has uppermost in mind.

The latest turnabout by the US, agreeing to accept language on the Millennium Development Goals and other issues that he had previously excised may signal that Rice and the White House have decided that, Bolton's personal agenda aside, they cannot risk failure.  Even putting the UN's future to one side, as a simple political matter given the pressures created by a chaotic Iraq and a sunken New Orleans, they're right.

UN management reform -- who's in charge at the UN? Posted by David Shorr

Two weeks ago a senior US official reassured me that the UN reform talks would reach an agreement in time for next week's summit, but that there would be tough bargaining along the way. "It's going to get ugly," the official warned. And ugly it has gotten.

Negotiators have abandoned the seven working groups that were focused on the major issues of development, terrorism, disarmament, human rights, response to genocide, peacebuilding, and management reform (see below). This is a concession to the reality that lower level diplomats in those groups were not empowered to make the needed compromises.

Nor is there any progress to report in the core negotiating group of over 30 countries. Yesterday some of the ugliness took the form of diplomatic niceties.  Apparently much of yesterday's bargaining session was taken up with bland statements welcoming a new working draft submitted by UN General Assembly President Jean Ping, the Gabonese foreign minister who has been leading the reform talks.

Speaking of the draft, by the tally of a colleague here, there are between 250-300 suggested changes in the new draft (depending on how you count). As the clock ticks down to the summit, practical questions become a consideration -- like how much time will UN translators need to translate the statement into various languages?

In a closely related development, the Volcker commission on the Oil-for-Food program released its definitive report today. The so-called Independent Inquire Committee highlighted the implications for and in their press release  made the important point that the member states on the UN Security Council must share blame rather than scapegoat Kofi Annan and his Secretariat staff.

One passage from the report preface is worth quoting at length:

Neither the Security Council nor the Secretariat leadership was clearly in command. That turned out to be a recipe for the dilution of Secretariat authority and evasion of responsibility at all levels. When things went awry -- and they surely did -- when troublesome conflicts arose between political objectives and administrative effectiveness, decisions were delayed, bungled, or simply shunned.

I don't think you could find a clearer statement of the UN's fundamental management problem. With most administrative matters, it is the General Assembly's Fifth Committee (comprised of all GA member states) that hamstrings the Secretariat. In effect, the Secretary-General is supervised -- micromanaged really -- by a board of directors with 191 members. No CEO in the corporate world would work under these conditions.

So what management changes are proposed in the UN reform talks to improve the situation? First of all, since the Oil-for-Food scandal highlights the importance of oversight and financial controls, would-be reformers want to strengthen the UN's internal oversight office and give it an advisory board of outsiders to advocate for its needs.

The draft UN summit document would also set in motion a more detailed review of the various administrative burdens that member states put on the Secretariat. The Secretary-General is supposed to study existing budgetary and personnel regulations, review the mandates of offices and programs that are older than five years, and submit in early 2006 a plan of action for proposed changes.

In effect then, some of the key decisions are being deferred. But only for a few months, during which it should be possible to sustain the political momentum (especially after the Volcker report) and shine the the bright light of day onto the real problems. In fact, 0ne gauge of the seriousness of these steps is how vehemently they are being resisted in the current negotiations.

The management reform under discussion is one example, among many, of reforms long sought by the US. Now we'll see whether the Bush Administration can carry the reform package across the goal line.

Katrina: The Global Response Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Everyone from rural Delta folks to our fellow bloggers have been asking where the foreign help is.  Yes, other countries -- and the UN -- have responded to Katrina, in some cases rather rapidly. 

It just doesn't seem to make the news.

The US has gotten offers of help from more than 20 countries -- admittedly, Cuba's offer of doctors and Venezuela's offer of cheap fuel and relief workers have something of the political about them.  And W. promptly insisted that we'd step up and handle it ourselves, which sounds great in theory.

Nadezhda started a list of responses from foreign governments last week.  She also expresses the hope that Bush will correct the mis-impression that foreigners aren't helping.  Of course he won't.  That would undermine the idea that we're out there by ourselves and can't trust international cooperation.  So we ought to keep the lists updated and zipping around the blogosphere.

Herewith, the inauguration of an occasional feature to list and document how generous some other societies are being -- some of them our oldest friends and others countries with precious little to spare themselves.  I'm only including countries where I have evidence that a specific amount is being provided, not just pledged.  Links are provided as best I can, and readers are encouraged to add to the list.

Afghanistan -- $100,000 (with a per capita GNP one-fiftieth of ours, this is symbolic but still astonishing)

Likewise Sri Lanka, one of the countries hardest-hit by last year's tsunami, pledged $25,000 to the American Red Cross.

Australia -- already donated $7.7 million to the American Red Cross and sent emergency specialists to see what else could be of use.

Japan -- donated $200,000 to the American Red Cross and pledged $300,000 of supplies.

Singapore sent four Chinook helicopters for relief operations.

Kuwait is donating $500 million of oil and relief supplies, per Brian Ulrich.

NATO allies responded rapidly to a specific list of US requests:

Germany has sent 40,000 ready-to-eat meals and is sending another 30,000.

The UK is sending half-a-million ration packs.

France, according to the Financial Times, has requisitioned 300 tents as well as other gear from the Antilles.  (I'm making a vow not to comment on any of these, even though some seem to be crying out for it.)

Luxembourg and Romania came through with blankets and beds and medical teams, respectively.

Canada, according to the blog centerfield, has offered to help and so far is being assessed by our Department of Health and Human Services for what it might do.

The Dutch deployed a naval frigate that had been in the Caribbean.

And those hated international organizations?

The US has accepted the UN's offer of help (gee, who knew) and allowed UN assessment teams in to start figuring out what prepackaged UN supplies, housing, etc could come in handy.  Just watch out for those black helicopters.

The International Energy Agency offered 60 million barrels of crude oil or gasoline to help us over the current shortages.

Soon, when I don't owe the rest of the evening to my in-laws, I'll run some comparisons to help us think about how this aid stacks up to the quantity of aid we dispense elsewhere.  And I'll again solicit reader help in keeping this list going and accurate.

The Wrong Commission Posted by Derek Chollet

To answer the howling criticism from every corner about "what went wrong," President Bush said today that he would launch his own investigation into the flawed Katrina recovery effort – but what he said does not come even close to passing the laugh test.  Here’s his statement in full:

“Q Do you intend to replace any from your administration who are leading this recovery effort, who were part of the effort last week that has been so widely criticized?

“THE PRESIDENT: What I intend to do is lead a -- to lead an investigation to find out what went right and what went wrong. And I'll tell you why. It's very important for us to understand the relationship between the federal government, the state government and the local government when it comes to a major catastrophe. And the reason it's important is, is that we still live in an unsettled world. We want to make sure that we can respond properly if there's a WMD attack or another major storm. And so I'm going to find out over time what went right and what went wrong.”

Josh Marshall rightly calls this “sad”; I’d also add appalling and pathetic.  What we need is not for the President or executive branch to investigate itself – the White House’s transparent efforts to shift blame from itself to the local and state authorities over the weekend pretty much undermines what little credibility any such investigation would ever have.  Congress is initiating its own inquiry, but as we’ve learned with the numerous investigations into 9-11 and intelligence failures in Iraq, such efforts will also be limited.  So we must demand that the President works with Congress to appoint a bi-partisan, independent investigation, with both Republicans and Democrats allowed to choose an equal number of members, and an independent staff with expertise at all levels of government.  And if the President refuses, Congress should force him (which is what it did with the 9-11 Commission).

Or, if Washington partisanship proves to be too much for any branch of the government to do the right thing, another idea would be for Congress to outsource the effort to a consortium of outside research institutions to run and supervise, which is what happened earlier this year with the Gingrich-Mitchell commission on UN reform -- whose work earned wide respect for its seriousness and independence.  The Katrina catastrophe is the most urgent crisis our country has faced since 9-11; like that tragedy, it revealed deep flaws in America’s ability to respond, and warrants a credible, independent assessment so we can learn how to prevent such disasters from ever happening again.  The last thing we need is another vehicle for partisan point scoring.

What Does John Bolton Want and Other Questions about UN Reform Posted by David Shorr

Thanks Suzanne for the gracious introduction. I am indeed an optimist, though anybody with their eyes open at this point has to be worried (see below). For anyone tracking my own movements, I am at the office in Iowa this week in between trips to New York and will head to the UN over the weekend. Meanwhile, I encourage readers to check out the Stanley Foundation's web pages on UN reform; we have been tracking these issues ever since Kofi Annan launched the current push for reform in late 2003.

Please indulge me a thought or two on Katrina before I dive in. I'm sure many who have worked on international humanitarian action have been wondering "what would Fred Cuny do?"  Cuny was the late genius of emergency response who was killed in Chechnya in 1995. (I did not know him, but count a number of his associates as mentors.) One of Cuny's first rules was to get local people themselves involved in rebuilding. So here's an idea that actually comes from my wife (a classical musician) -- Home Depot should be setting up classes in basic carpentry and construction for the evacuees in Houston or Baton Rouge. If some of those displaced were to acquire skills for which the reconstruction effort will create a high demand for a long time, this could only improve the longer term outlook for their families.

Now to my main question, what is John Bolton up to, and how does it affect prospects for meaningful reform at the United Nations? [Go here for my not entirely optimistic article in The Globalist.] Bolton is being portrayed as the unilateralist fox in the multilateral henhouse across the media, including here on DA by resident UN expert Suzanne. Judging by appearances, Bolton showed up for the final phase of negotiations before next week's summit determined to keep them from reaching an agreement.

Two things about appearances. First, they can be deceiving. John Bolton can hardly afford for these talks to break down. It won't serve his interests to have his bosses show up for a summit with a big dark cloud over it. That would only highlight his inability to successfully do business with his international counterparts. It would also give lie to the Administration's stated commitment to a strengthened UN.

There is even evidence that Bolton is rolling up his sleeves for these negotiations. From the time he arrived, Ambassador Bolton has been on a charm offensive (did I just use the words charm and Bolton in the same sentence?), which has impressed many of his colleagues. Hopefully, Bolton's famous doggedness will work to everyone's advantage. Here are some more words never associated with John Bolton -- disengaged, passive, complacent.

Something else about perceptions, though -- they matter in politics, and the administration walked right into this one. The legitimate critique of the US position is that it is an extremely long list of demands. American negotiators are probably prepared to yield on many of the less important issues, but when? The time is past due for the administration to distinguish between the things they can't live with from the merely irritating. Mark Goldberg of The American Prospect, who is also blogging daily on this process, raised a very good question: do they even know where their bottom line is?

From what I understand, US positions are all put through an interagency process, so there may be too many Washington cooks preparing the soup served in New York. If so, we need the chef to mix up something with a few key priorities. When the State Department's number three official, Under Secretary Nicholas Burns, recently briefed NGO representatives, he chafed at all the discussion of "negotiating tactics." But with the effectiveness and credibility of the United Nations on the line, outsiders are right to worry that an unwieldy, maximalist American agenda will bog down the entire process.

Because there is another problem with all the focus on Bolton and the US position: it is providing cover for a group of countries that are being wilfully obstructionist. Algeria, Cuba, Egypt, India, Iran, Pakistan and Venezuela have all been engaged not in open debate on the merits, but in full-blown assault on the main elements of the reform package -- a new Human Rights Council to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission, strong statements on terrorism and response to genocide, management reform measures. As the summit draws near, some of the action needs to move from the conference rooms of New York to the personal intervention of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, something I've been told she is prepared to do. I nominate Washington's friends like India, Egypt, and Pakistan for such attention.

David Shorr on UN Reform Posted by Suzanne Nossel

David Shorr of the Stanley Foundation is, from what I can tell, an unremitting optimist on the subject of UN reform.  He's going to be here in NYC for the next couple of weeks tracking the blow-by-blow at Turtle Bay.  We've invited him to post running commentary here at Democracy Arsenal starting tomorrow.  David's been one of the leading advocates of the reform process for the last few years, sponsoring countless off-the-record gatherings of key players to formulate ideas and strategies.  His bio is here.  We welcome him to the blog and look forward to poking holes in a potentially Pollyannaish take on the action at UN HQ.

Rebuilding New Orleans: Fairness in Contracting Post-Katrina Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Call me paranoid, but if Iraq is any indication, there's good reason to be concerned to ensure that the devastation of New Orleans does not wind up simply lining the pockets of contractors with deep connections to the Bush Administration.

For the reconstruction of Iraq, exigencies like the need for speed and the lack of security on the ground were used to justify granting massive, long-term no bid contracts to firms with tight ties to senior members of the Administration.  The principal beneficiary was, of course, Halliburton, where Dick Cheney was CEO prior to becoming Vice President. 

Rep. Henry Waxman has revealed that Halliburton and its subsidiaries have been awarded more than $10 billion in contracts for providing logistical support to US troops in Iraq and helping to rebuild that country's oil infrastructure.  This is despite the fact that government auditors had, as of the end of last year, issued nine reports criticizing Halliburton for mismanagement and waste.   This prompted a series of criminal investigations into fraud and kickbacks by Halliburton, at least one of which has apparently led to the indictment of a former Halliburton official.  Auditors recommendations that a portion of Halliburton's payments be withheld pending more complete expense accounting were rejected by the Administration.   

A laundry of egregious revelations is included in this memo from Waxman's office.  They include scrapping $85,000 trucks due to flat tires, manipulating contracting practices to avoid bidding requirements, and charges of $45 per case of soda and $100 per 15-pound bag of washing. 

The problems are not limited to Halliburton - the facts on the multiple investigations, the hundreds of billions of dollars of overcharges to US taxpayers, the political interference in contracting and the cover-ups are all here.

Rather than crack down on such abuses, the Bush Administration has punished the whistleblowers, including a top Army procurement official who tried to call attention to the cheating.

Ten billion dollars have already been appropriated by Congress for the relief and reconstruction of New Orleans.  Billions more will follow.  Halliburton's already in on the action - under an existing $500 million contract with the navy they are rebuilding a Gulf Coast naval base.

It's not hard to imagine the justifications that will be given for simply awarding billions more in post-Katrina recovery deals to Halliburton and its kin:  the company is located in nearby Texas; they've got lots of experience with similar government contracts (natch); they're so enormous that they can get people on the ground quickly; and they're so profitable that they can afford to pay experts.  And with New Orleans literally under water, whose got time for competitive bidding?

There are several reasons why this must not happen:

- - The people of New Orleans deserve better.  We all know by now what the people of New Orleans, and particularly the city's poor, have gone through.  There will be those who profit from New Orleans' tragedy.   But we should make sure to the extent possible that it is local business owners and citizens who will, in turn, invest those proceeds into rebuilding New Orleans.   Contracting practices should require eligible companies to employ local people, and should favor companies that are locally owned and controlled.

- We have time.  Sad to say, it will take months of pumping and demolition before any kind of rebuilding can begin.  While there is urgency to the former, there is lead-time on the latter.  During the intervening months, responsible federal, state and local authorities should conduct a competitive bidding process so that the majority of the contracts which are not highly time-sensitive can be awarded fairly.

- The public should not be cheated again.  The American public is already awakening to the fact that the massive bill we will pay to bail out New Orleans is the result of shoddy planning and bad decision-making, including the de-funding of projects aimed to fortify the city's levees.  We have no choice but to eat those costs, but that is no excuse to further pile on.

- Cronyism is already being fingered for the inadequate initial response to Katrina.  FEMA head Michael ("Brownie") Brown ascended to the post after being ousted as a judges and standards of the International Arabian Horse Association.  His primary qualification was apparently being a buddy of Joseph Allbaugh, the former head of FEMA, whose own primary qualification for the country's top emergency management post was having been Bush's 2000 campaign manager.  From blaming the victims to being way to slow with aid, Brown's inexperience is showing.  We cannot afford more of the same when it comes to the reconstruction effort - we need the very best people in charge.

- It's bad politics - Whereas the fraud and waste underway in Iraq seem remote to most Americans, the same won't be true on the Gulf Coast.  Katrina will be an inflection point on a range of issues.  The reconstruction process will either be viewed as part of the problem or part of the solution.

What should happen? 

• Competitive bidding for everything, or for everything but the work that must happen over the next few weeks;
• Zero-tolerance for shoddy accounting and over-billing - in Iraq we may have few alternatives, here there are many;
• Strict GAO and Congressional oversight of the reconstruction process from the get-go;
• Immediate planning for how to involve the local community and maximize opportunities for area companies, for skilled people and for the unemployed/unskilled labor;
• Close media scrutiny of the bail-out and reconstruction process as it unfolds - this story will have legs for years to come as either a tale of redemption or a chronicle of abuses piled on other abuses.

Katrina and the World Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Today I have been fielding two kinds of inquiries, and I don't know which is worse.  One is from Americans who aren't foreign policy experts, asking what the rest of the world must think of us.  The other is from Europeans, asking, with exquisite politeness, why on earth we can't get medical supplies and relief to our own people within 72 hours.

There's genuine bewilderment out there -- people may scorn our politics and culture, but they do still tend to belive that we are technologically advanced and incredibly citizen/consumer friendly -- that this is basically a great, if soulless, place to live.  The scenes on our tvs do not compute.  (I know, they don't compute for us either.)  And, if only we can lift up our heads to see it, there's a genuine outpouring of sentiment -- and donations -- at least among foreign bloggers.  Check out some non-US blogs on this mixture of fondness and astonishment:  France, Croatia, Britain/Spain.

Had the incredibly odd experience of listening to the BBC interview rural Delta residents who were asking when the foreign aid was going to show up.  One of our readers suggested that this period will presage a tremendous turn toward isolationism -- I'm not sure that's true.

Meanwhile, we hear the Germans are sending aid and a Dutch frigate is steaming in from the Caribbean.  NATO to the rescue, after all?

It will be interesting to see whether this spurs a decline in views of US hyperpower/omnipower.  If so, this Administration will have only itself (and global warming) to blame.   This interview with Homeland Security Chertoff, in which he denies the nightmare at the New Orleans convention center, and a staffer has to call later and admit NPR was right, is one of the most shameful performances by a Cabinet-level official I've witnessed.  Robert Siegel finally says to him, more or less, but didn't someone near your office have a contingency folder that said, "New Orleans is inundated" on it?

Good question.  Juliette and Derek, Gingrich and Mitchell are all very well, but when we have your Katrina Commission, let's insist that it be run by people who are familiar to -- and have credibility with -- the folks who were left behind in New Orleans and the Delta.  The folks the planners forgot, because they don't have cars and laptops and cellphones and big credit cards to fund hotel stays.

 

A Katrina Commission Posted by Derek Chollet

The finger pointing has started.  Regardless of your political persuasion or party affiliation, one cannot watch the horrifying images coming out of New Orleans – and read the articles about how officials knew for a long time that something this terrible could happen -- and conclude that the recovery effort has gone well. 

Of course, the aftermath of this disaster will have huge political consequences, and there’s no doubt that the White House is hoping that today’s images of President Bush “taking charge” and of troops and supplies pouring into New Orleans will quiet the political beating he has taken during the past few days (of course, this morning there were already dueling press events, with the Congressional Black Caucus slamming the recovery efforts, while Bush was in Alabama flanked by two Republican governors and Mississippi and Alabama Republican Senators praising his efforts).  Yet with lawmakers returning to Washington next week, don’t expect any of this to go away.

But as Suzanne and Lorelei here at DA and many others in the blogosphere, on TV, and in print have been writing for the past few days, our government’s response to this disaster raises many serious questions about its preparedness to anticipate and handle another such event, whether from a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, especially a chemical or biological attack that would impact a large geographic area.  Why didn’t more people leave New Orleans when the warning went out?  Why has the relief and refugee effort in the city been so screwed up? Why has it taken troops so long to get on the ground and for food and supplies to arrive?  Why did FEMA appear to be slow out of the gate?  Could more have been done last weekend before Katrina hit?  Or more fundamentally, why wasn’t more done years ago to ensure that levees could withstand anything greater than Category 3 storms?

We need answers to these and other questions, and we have to learn from these mistakes.  We need to ensure that nothing like this happens again, and yes, hold our leaders accountable.

This morning over at TPM’s America Abroad, Juliette Kayyem suggests that an independent investigation like the 9-11 commission – let’s call it the “Katrina Commission” -- should be launched to do just that.  I agree.  I don’t think it is an overstatement to say -- as many have -- that this is an event of 9-11 proportions – on our economy, on our politics, and as a wake up call to leaders at local, state and the federal levels and for people all across the country who are thinking and worrying about how their cities and communities are prepared (or not) for a similar catastrophe, whether natural or manmade.

The President said this morning that he’s going to find out what’s not working and fix it, and find out what is working and duplicate it – well, if he’s smart he should ask Congress to help him appoint two well-known leaders from each party to form an independent commission to report on what happened and why and to make recommendations.  How about Newt Gingrich and George Mitchell (they did a great job as co-chairs of a recent commission on UN reform)? If he doesn’t do this, Congress should do so when it returns to Washington next week.  Obviously such a commission won’t alleviate the suffering of anyone right now – and that clearly should be the priority – but if done right, it could be an important step in ensuring that no one ever has to go through this again. 

Katrina: Some questions Posted by Suzanne Nossel

How about these:

- What does this say about the status of homeland security preparedness steps taken since 9/11 - plans for "first-responders," command and control, the efficacy of disaster drills, etc.

- If we cannot deal with this, how would we ever cope with, say, a dirty bomb?

- What is the true impact of our obligations in Iraq on our ability to mobilize in response to this disaster?

- Why, as reported this morning, have some troops serving Iraq been flown in and heading straight to duty in New Orleans?  Were these people scheduled to come home?  Were they ordered home?  Are we that short of manpower?

- What will the rest of the world make of this - a grim reminder of America's gaping class and racial divisions?  more evidence that we're not omnipotent?  more gratitude for what we have contributed to the tsunami and other relief efforts?

- How will the hurricane affect already waning public support for the Iraq war effort?  What about the war on terror?

While we ponder and debate, here's a link to liberal blogs for hurricane relief.