London - July 7, 2005 Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Frightening.   Just some preliminary thoughts:

- Prayers, wishes and strength to the people of London;

- As irrational as it may seem, who among us in a major city isn't afraid to get on the subway this morning;

- We're not fighting them there so we won't have to fight them here - that's flat-out fallacy and Bush should never utter it again.  We're fighting them in both places;

- GWOT is alive and kicking - for the Administration and for all of us - a long-term fight against extremism may be the overarching umbrella, but people's lens will continue to be terrorism - the images this morning guarantee that;

- Curious if this bears the marks of al Qaeda.  Some suggest no and another group is being cited as having claimed responsibility.  If it's a different organization, what are we now up against, how will that affect the lens through which we interpret the success/failure of anti-terror efforts so far, etc.

- Yes, Gleneagles should go on.  But Tony Blair may need to be with his people.  There's nothing wrong with that.  It is not a concession to terrorists.

Peaceniks, Evolve! Posted by Lorelei Kelly

I'm still obsessed with how to get the anti-war movement on board with an opposition platform that allows criticism of the Bush Administration, but emphasizes a forward looking alternative such as a proposal for a negotiated peace settlement. There is so much middle ground between  "Out Now" enthusiasts and Bush's strategy of denial.  We must claim this terrain.

Looking back 30 years, here's what Gareth Porter advises:

The strategy adopted by the Vietnam anti-war movement in the late 1960s was to demand unilateral withdrawal and to mount mass demonstrations to demonstrate public opposition to the war. In retrospect that approach can be seen as a strategic error that allowed the Nixon administration to prolong the war for four more years. The error lay in the failure to focus on developing a proposal for the negotiated withdrawal of U.S. troops under a peace settlement at a time when it could have been an effective form of pressure on Nixon.

At that time, activists were so intent on getting an anti-war candidate nominated for president that they ignored the potential of crafting a legislative alternative to administration policy.  We can't let this happen again. Here's one idea: a year long moratorium on public demonstrations and instead spend time building support for this more sophisticated approach. Besides, all quiet on the left will drive the conservatives batty and they'll have to keep picking on each other to stay in the news. 

This week, I've asked several people about a peace process for Iraq.  One fundamental stumbling block is the administration's refusal to admit that this war was justified and sold to the American public based on mistakes. * Fantasty lapse* If Bush were to humbly acknowledge this truth, he would not only de-fang the ridicule corps-- his most ardent domestic opposition-- but also get the rest of the world back at the table to help us out. It would also allow us to overhaul our strategy for victory along the lines of negotiated settlement.

But this reality based admission is not likely to happen, so what are some alternatives? Comments from colleagues suggest that in order to turn the tide in our favor, we'll need a soft power onslaught.

(From a friend training US soldiers pre-deployment) "We are appearing to do a lot of the things recommended by the post conflict studies, but in truth we are paying only lip service to them. The US is always in a hurry, we don't have time to do it right.  It just isn't going to work this time. We need to stop, take a deep breath, rethink our planning, correct the gaps and prepare to take the time to train and conduct post conflict stability operations right. "Point and shoot" cannot be the first best response."

Getting Serious on Africa Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Salon asked to publish one of our nifty swifty Democracy Arsenal Top 10 lists, so this is reposted here courtesy of them.  I am gonna add in just a few DA links to reference our own prior discussioins on some of these issues (couldn't be as shameless in driving people here from Salon as I might've liked).

On the eve of the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, President Bush deserves some credit for his proposals to address the lot of Africa's roughly 850 million people. Bush's promises to double U.S. aid to Africa, to cancel the debts of Africa's 18 most heavily indebted nations, and to up funds for AIDS and malaria all tackle issues that matter in ways that will have an impact. But all told, these measures fall well short of amounting to a comprehensive strategy for Africa.

The administration promotes the impression that Bush is leading a drive to eradicate poverty and stem the African continent's many other woes. For now, these claims are overstated. Under heavy pressure from British Prime Minister Tony Blair and at a moment when the U.S. badly needs to improve its global image, Bush has chosen proposals that sidestep some of the biggest questions about Africa's future. Bush's critics have focused mostly on his failure to do enough for Africa. They complain that the U.S.' allotment for overseas development assistance falls far below the .7 percent of GDP target that the most generous European nations are hitting. Reaching .7 percent would require a fivefold increase in U.S. spending on development aid, something the administration has flat-out rejected.

But in addition to asking for more funds and pressing the administration to make good on its newest pledges -- the purported doubling of aid monies actually falls far short of that -- Africa's advocates should demand that important gaps be filled if Bush is to style himself as Africa's protector and benefactor. They should press the administration to go beyond discrete pledges and programs and adopt a more comprehensive approach to addressing the continent's many needs. Regardless of which motive is paramount, moral outrage over the suffering and underdevelopment on the continent or fear that Africa's plagues -- disease, terrorism, failed states and environmental degradation to name a few -- may ultimately hit our own shores, a more systematic approach to an Africa policy is the right one.

Here are 10 things President Bush could do to show he's really serious about Africa.

1. Make good on existing promises. Perhaps the biggest weakness in Bush's newest announcements on Africa is his track record of leaving similarly ambitious proposals underfunded and underfulfilled. Doubts about whether Bush will deliver have not surprisingly undercut positive reactions to these latest ideas. It has taken more than three years for Bush's Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) to begin disbursing funds. As of this spring just one country, Madagascar, had seen a cent and just 2 percent of the appropriated funds had been spent. Amounts pledged to fight AIDS in Africa have also been vulnerable to repeated lowballing in the administration's budget requests. To rebuild trust, Bush should make clear that these new promises will be accompanied by a push to satisfy the old ones.

2. Launch a major push on vaccine availability. One of the less noticed but potentially pathbreaking outcomes of pre-G8 summit finance minister meetings was an agreement to expedite efforts to pre-purchase massive quantities of newly developed vaccines for distribution in African countries. The administration historically has been loath to intervene in the pharmaceutical industry's practices for making treatments and vaccines cheaply available in poor countries. U.S. leadership will be critical to this plan, and Bush should provide it. (Check out this blog for more details on how the plan will motivate faster vaccine development.)

3. Stop lumping all of Africa together. A key first step toward understanding and addressing the African continent is to recognize racial, socioeconomic, environmental, cultural, military, religious and political diversity within it. Some nations -- South Africa and Nigeria, for example, are key U.S. military and economic allies; others, like Congo and Sierra Leone, are in disarray and virtually without hope. By refusing to lump all of Africa together either rhetorically or through policies, Bush can pave the way for approaches that better reflect a polyglot region.

4. Address each stage of development. Whereas the MCA is targeted at Africa's most capable governments, and the latest debt initiative aims to help the very weakest, most of Africa's nations fall somewhere in between and aren't getting much out of the new Bush programs. A comprehensive strategy to address poverty in Africa needs to address countries at every stage of development. Missing pieces include debt relief for more nations (Nigeria has already been singled out to get a break), aid to African entrepreneurs and small businesses, and infrastructure/job creation programs.

5. Create a governance aid program. The Bush administration has rightly pointed out that hundreds of millions of dollars in development aid for African countries have historically been plundered and wasted by corrupt and/or inept governments. This is why the MCA gives only to countries that meet strict governance criteria. Rather than simply citing the problem and rewarding those who have overcome it, the U.S. should lead a major push to strengthen governance structures in countries that have the will to improve. Working with multilateral and private organizations, we should be training African lawyers, judges, accountants and auditors and sending in pro bono professionals of our own (as we've done in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan and Iraq) to address the stranglehold of corruption on Africa's progress. (the New York Times makes a similar point).

New New Spin on Having "Enough" US Troops for Iraq Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Retired General Jack Keane is on Charlie Rose tonight and made an obvious point that's nonetheless an important footnote to President Bush's seemingly disingenuous remark in his speech last week that our commanders on the ground in Iraq keep insisting that they don't need more troops. 

The General explained that what was meant is not that more troops aren't needed:  in fact, Keane has seen first-hand that the officers in the theater are badly understaffed and over-tasked. 

He went on to say that there is powerful opposition to the American presence, and that our troops are having great difficulty with the cultural and social challenges of combating an urgan Iraqi insurgency that, in his words, has as its sanctuary the Iraqi people.  Thus, notwithstanding how overloaded our troops are, General Abizaid and others have concluded that more American forces would make the problems worse, not better.  Keane acknowledged that more troops are needed to expedite the training of the Iraqi defense forces.  But, here again, he indicated that having more American troops in-country would backfire.   Our friend Charlie didn't have the heart to ask about whether foreign troops could do the job.

These are a pretty startling statements from a member of the Defense Policy Board, who seems to be representing Administration views.  Among other things, it underscores just how damaging our failure to enlist significant, sustained international troop contributions has been.

The Public Wants an Energy Policy Posted by Heather Hurlburt

I'm weeks late to the party on this one, but this survey on environment/energy policy deserves even more attention than it got -- and some hard thinking by progressives.  How have we lost the environment as a political issue when more than half of Americans think our environment is getting worse and more than two-thirds think the government should do more about it?

Key finding for international affairs:  More than nine in ten Americans think that US dependence on foreign oil is a serious problem and want the government to mandate more fuel-efficient cars as a leading response.

Hmmm...

(Frivolous notes:  people who read blogs are more than twice as likely to know what fuel cells are than people who don't -- or more likely to say that they know what fuel cells are.  And people who know who Jon Stewart is are more likely to say that he is a trusted resource for environmental news than people who know who Bill O'Reilly is are to say so about him.)

The Opportunity, a word we've almost forgotten Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Last week I belatedly discovered Richard Haass's new book, The Opportunity.  Richard comes with an A+ GOP/foreign policy establishment pedigree --  Council on Foreign Relations President and Colin Powell's head of the State Department Policy Planning Staff, Brookings, Carnegie, previous administrations, etc.  The book is the kind of measured, rational critique of Bush Admin policies that earns adjectives like "revolutionary" (I'm not kidding, check the Amazon reviews) in these crazy times. 

By pure coincidence, John Ikenberry over at America Abroad seems to have discovered it at about the same time.  He is struck by how  Haass' doctrine of "integration" is like what he calls liberal grand strategy and welcomes Rockefeller Republicans "into the progressive fold."  I don't mean to sound churlish, as I've enjoyed what I've read of Richard's book, but he's been pretty consistent since his last stint of book-writing ten years ago, so I'm not sure it's he who's doing the moving.  (I pulled his 1994 Intervention down from my shelf to compare.)

Now, you can go read Ikenberry for yourself -- and then read the book.  I was struck by something different:  the overall note of optimism Richard sounds, and how absent that is from both progressive and conservative discourse these days. 

This could turn out to be an era of prolonged peace and prosperity, made possible by American primacy successfully translated into influence and effective international arrangements.

When's the last time you heard anybody, right left or center, dare to argue that good times just might be ours for the taking?  (Before September 11, methinks.)  When's the last time you heard someone argue in eloquent detail that we should look on the wider world as a venue full of opportunities, not just threats, for America?  (I would nominate William Jefferson Clinton on that, but I'm biased.) 

I say progressives should take an optimism transplant from this Rockefeller Republican. No, not false "the Iraqi insurgency is on its last legs" optimism but a confidence that we can go out and engage our problems, not just hunker down before them (President Bush on global warming, for example).

Rumsfeld's Review Posted by Derek Chollet

Today’s right lead in the New York Times is a must read about one of those Washington exercises that often goes largely unnoticed by the general public (despite occasional press coverage) but has huge consequences for the future. 

The Pentagon is working on a top-to-bottom review of military policy and planning that will establish the goals for defense policy as well as guide decisions about practically every aspect of military affairs: from the troops we need and the weapons we buy to the places and kinds of battles we should be ready to fight.

Conducted every four years, this year’s “Quadrennial Defense Review” (QDR) is more that just bureaucratic busywork-- it has the potential to become one of the most important blueprints for America’s defense ever produced.  It is the first systematic review of defense policy since the September 11 attacks, and should draw on the operational experiences fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism (or global war on extremism, as it is now called).   

This comes at a critical time for Rumsfeld – he sees the QDR as his chance to leave a lasting legacy other than the war in Iraq.  And as many of his senior colleagues leave the Pentagon (in addition to Wolfowitz, the Defense Department’s number three official Doug Feith has stepped down), Rumsfeld’s influence over this process only grows.  Leave no doubt: this is Rumsfeld’s QDR. 

The QDR will not change the fundamentals of the Bush Administration’s defense strategy.  Correctly or not, the Bush team considers last year’s close election as a ringing endorsement of its approach to the world, so don’t expect a revision of the “preemption” doctrine (although according to the Times, there will be a revision of the goal of being able to fight two wars simultaneously).  Instead, the QDR will address the military’s capabilities to implement the strategy, focusing on what changes need to be made to deal with threats like terrorists or WMD proliferation that were once considered “non traditional” but are now our central focus.

It’s hard to quarrel with the four specific threats the Pentagon’s planners have said that they are focusing on -- fighting terrorists, protecting the homeland, defeating weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists or rogue states, and influencing the direction of rising powers like China.  Most experts agree that these are some of the challenges America’s military must be prepared to meet.  But few would argue that these represent the full range of challenges – or even the most immediate.  The QDR’s glaring weakness is that while it tries to be strategically visionary, it might end up being short-sighted. 

For example, the challenges associated with conducting the kinds of military missions that dominate today’s headlines – peacemaking operations like Iraq and Afghanistan – are not singled out.  Such missions place tremendous stress on our forces, with such long and frequent deployments wearing out our fighting men and women.  And we don’t have the supply of forces to meet the expected demand for such operations in the future. 

Military leaders understand this – and they are worried. The Army vice chief of staff told Congress last spring that the question that “keeps me awake at night” is “what will this all-volunteer force look like in 2007?”  Recruitment and retention are only getting harder. 

Moreover, while it is smart to focus on capabilities, one must also deal with the question of limits.  Put simply, what kind of military force can we afford?  The defense budget has ballooned due to such heavy personnel demands coupled with runaway costs for maintaining equipment.  Just maintaining the force as it is has proven expensive enough. 

The QDR should be the place to ask – not avoid – such questions as whether we need, and can afford, a larger Army or Marine Corps to handle the rotational requirements of such missions.  It must outline what kind of role we expect our National Guard and Reserves to play in meeting these challenges.  And it needs to provide Rumsfeld's answer for what, given the huge gap between demand and supply, many military experts believe is inevitable: a “broken force.”

Hard Job for a Hard Nose Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Apologies for taking the long weekend.  I thought they had wireless everywhere by now, but they don't.  Here's a piece I just did for the Prospect's online version:

The Bush administration’s options for advancing the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations are now dwindling, and one that officials are now considering is the recess appointment. [[ADDED:  Particularly given the battle about to rage over Justice O'Connor's replacement, the prospect of another Senate vote on Bolton has dwindled from miniscule to nil]]. 

As for the recess nod, they should rule it out. Plenty of people have pointed out how hypocritical it would be for President Bush to sidestep the Senate after Republicans castigated Bill Clinton for doing the same. The main reason to avoid a recess appointment, however, is not that it would shortchange the Senate but that it would shortchange the United States -- at a time when we need a leader who can deal effectively with not just Turtle Bay but also Capitol Hill.

While ambassadors to the UN are called “permanent representatives,” they are anything but: Most serve between three and six years. The vast majority of UN ambassadors from around the world are among their nations’ top one or two diplomats, and their rivals for that slot are often stationed in Washington. The UN position can be a capstone to a great career, or -- as was true for Egypt and Russia’s current foreign ministers -- a stepping-stone to higher office.

The U.S. ambassador to the UN holds a seat even more prestigious than that of his counterparts in that the position is subject to legislative confirmation. Very few democracies have their parliaments weigh in on this kind of appointment (Belize and Bolivia are exceptions). At times the UN ambassador post has also had cabinet rank. These marks of additional status, including particularly the political stamp of approval, have become integral to the job of representing the United States at the United Nations.

Ever since the Senate rejected membership in the League of Nations in 1920, Congress has exercised strong oversight of the United States’ involvement in world bodies. It manages our role in the UN in numerous ways. Congress appropriates the money for the United States to pay its dues. Senators and other political players outside the State Department frequently weigh in with political considerations when the United States is deciding whether to exercise its Security Council veto.

At this point, a piece of legislation (Representative Henry Hyde’s UN Reform Act of 2005, a meticulously detailed mandate covering everything from political to managerial reforms) is wending its way through Congress. And it’s not the first of its kind: Congress has long passed laws affecting UN reform and U.S. dues to the world body. We are also unusual in that our Congress must ratify every treaty before the United States can become party to it. Congress frequently dispatches the Government Accountability Office (formerly known as the General Accounting Office) to inspect specific aspects of how U.S. contributions to the UN are being used.

Amid this swirl of political oversight (and second-guessing), the job of U.S. ambassador to the UN is, not surprisingly, also inherently political. While most ambassadors to overseas posts get confirmed and sent on their way, Bolton, as UN ambassador, would have to deal with Congress continuously throughout his tenure. He would deal with a series of issues uppermost in the minds of members, including the UN’s role in Iraq and Sudan and U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court.

But a good UN ambassador not only represents the United States at the United Nations but also represents the UN in Washington. The ambassador translates UN proposals and debates into terms that Capital Hill can understand. He or she hears out members of Congress and ensures that their concerns get heard at the UN. For the UN community, the U.S. ambassador is a conduit to its most important shareholder, conveying information, eliciting reactions, and shaping how issues are received.

When reform tops the UN agenda, as is the case this year, Washington’s interest becomes more focused than ever. The last time the UN undertook major reforms, in 2000, U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke received visits from more than a dozen members of Congress and their staffs to New York. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held its first-ever out-of-town hearing, in Manhattan, on the subject of the UN. Reciprocally, the ambassadors on the Security Council were invited to Washington to brief the committee.

Those meetings paved the way for a historic agreement that lightened the U.S. obligation to the world body in return for repayment of U.S. back dues. Reconciling the UN reform legislation now pending on the Hill and the reform proposals under consideration at the UN would require at least as much two-way diplomacy, if not more.

Kidnapper President Posted by Michael Signer

On the revelation that Iran's new President may have been an organizer of the 1980 hostage-taking in Tehran, I have to disagree with my friend Kevin Drum, who writes:

I'm not sure that this really matters a lot, since Ahmadinejad has been routinely described as ultra conservative all along and it's pretty obvious that neither he nor the clerics who actually run Iran have any love lost for the United States. But it's an interesting tidbit anyway and I thought you might be interested.

Well, I completely disagree.  I side with Laura Rozen, who writes, "It's hard to imagine that US-Iran relations could get much worse but this would be the kind of historical irony that could do it." 

On reflection, I'm concerned less by what this signifies of any further intentions by (this may have been Kevin's point) Ahmadinejad, than by how the Administration will react to this predicament.  Especially with an Administration possessed with all the nimble diplomatic skills of, say, William Wallace, Ahmadinejad's past is going to present a terrible challenge. 

Ahmadinejad was already going to be a terrible pain in the ass.  The media has generally just described him as a "hard-liner," without going into specifics.  But look at a description in the Khaleej Times of a June 24th campaign rally for the "little street-sweeper":

British, US and Israeli flags had been painted on the ground at the entrance to the mosque so voters could sully them with the soles of their feet as they entered.

Ahmadinejad proceeded to praise the "martyrs of Islam" in his speech, as well as the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini." 

Well, so there's all of that, which could be interpreted (a) as raw affection for suicide bombing, (b) sheer pandering to the lower-class population that constituted his base, (c) a little bit of both. 

But, still, the picture may be more complex.  In his same speech, Ahmadinejad proceeded to extoll freedom.  Freedom, you say?  Really?  Just read what he said:

"Freedom is the spirit of the Islamic revolution and it is God's biggest gift to the Iranian nation.  We want to spread freedom in all aspects and we will have the biggest freedom in the spheres of economy, society, and politics.  Today the freedom in Iran is unique but compared to the desired freedom we are just the beginning of the way."

There are several ways to interpret these remarks:  (1) It's a whole-hearted lie, aimed at converting a popular sort of Western freedom-rhetoric in a media-sensitive age to soften Ahmadinejad's image, a little, (2) To Ahmadinejad, "freedom" is code for "rebellion against Western cultural decadence and political and military imperialism," and (3) There's actually a very subtle emerging doctrine of nativist nationalist Iranian/Islamic proto-democracy whose best aspects are worth cultivating by the United States. 

I think (3) is the answer, bolstered by a fascinating speech titled "Letter to Tomorrow" by Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Khatami, from this spring.  Khatami says (and apologies for the length quotation, but I think it's necessary to truly get the flavor of this new ideology):

Advancing toward a democratic system demands that a democratic culture be nourished. In our country, this culture can thrive and flourish by relying on Islamic justice and modesty, which have brought justice to the humanity, and have also been the factors contributing to the establishment and consolidation of democratic social relations, norms and practices and democratic political processes as well. It is left to our young generation to contemplate on the exiting historical situation and follow up its brave demand for establishment of a democracy compatible with its religion and culture; recognize both its resources and impediments and deal with them prudently. Democracy is a concept, a path and a process.

And then this passage on Iran’s resentment of outside influence.

A generation, which is agonized by dependence, which rightfully considers itself deserving freedom, without breaking away from its own national culture and religion and which is fearful and resentful of extremist and the narrow-minded moves that try to impose their violent and biased guardianship and volition on societies should be made to take charge of its own destiny lest deviated thoughts, narrow-mindedness and illusions hijack the great opportunity afforded to us, our Revolution and our noble people in this era. 

Ahmadinejad's victory speech makes a little more sense in light of his predecessor's remarks, which indicate some appreciation for the Western ideal of freedom, strained through the sieve of Iranian Islamist culture.  Ahmadinejad has already made some surprising overtures to the West,  politically, suggesting in his victory speech:

We are interested in protecting the rights of the Iranian people, and there is no one who can tell us not to use this technology. And if we look at this with mutual trust and understanding and if the European Union is committed to what they promised, we will continue our cooperation with them.

Based on all of this, there's a chance -- a small chance, granted -- that there's a narrow, brambly, but promising path for US-Iranian relations, focused on cultivating the intriguing hybrid of nativist self-respect; education; increasing secularization and a rolling-back of the clerics' institutional power; a growth in democratic institutions; growth in the lower-class, fanatic-breeding economy; and careful, deft diplomacy focused on carrots as well as sticks.

With some blend of these ingredients, there's a chance we could help this populist leader walk out of the wilderness and into the world.

But if we react to this hostage story -- as horrifying as it is -- with the President's customary sturm und drang, we're going to make things worse.

Democracy with Rice Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Condoleezza Rice's recent trip to Egypt and Saudi Arabia is having quite a second life in the blogosphere.  You can start over at americansforrice.com and follow related links to find her fans hyperventilating over everything from her new haircut to her stance against all gun control.  (Next week, when my beloved is off work and caring for BloggerBabe, I will be trying to verify this site's claim that her father "hunted Klansmen, not ducks" -- count me politely skeptical for now.)

Exhibit B is a Weekly Standard piece by an ABC reporter who breathed deeply of the rarefied air on Air Force Two-and-a-Half, as we used to call the Secretary's plane.   He is positive, positive that no one has ever taken it to the Saudis like Secretary Rice.  He is struck, well, dumb by the sight of bright toenail polish on a Saudi woman reporter.  (Guess he's never read any of those trashy exposes on the lives of wealthy Saudi women, or he'd expect nailpolish...)

Finally we have the pile-on hapening over at America Abroad, where at last count something close to 30 posters had signed on to slam Anne-Marie Slaughter for suggesting that Rice's remarks in Cairo showed a welcome humility.

I'm struck by the contrast between the ABC reporter's breathy insistence that "Condoleezza Rice did something no US Secretary of State has ever done in the Middle East" and the equally fervent insistence of Slaughter's critics that Rice "lies through her teeth over and over again."

About that Cairo speech:  the Weekly Standard asserts that the White House sent senior adviser, former chief speechwriter, and acknowledged speech genius Michael Gerson along to help out the 25-year old speechwriter.  Call me cynical (maybe it comes from having been a 20-something writer on that plane once upon a time) but the speech is only average to good for Gerson's usual.  And it seems to have produced more rapture among Americans than among its intended Arab audience.  I would say that it appears to have been written more with an American audience in mind, but perhaps instead I should say "with an American mindSET." 

(Note to Christian Bale, the State Department speechwriter:  way to hang tough and get the stuff they cut from your draft into the media.  Bet your boss didn't appreciate that!)

AND not much in it is as new as the Administration would like you to believe.  Yes, the Administration is currently pressing Cairo and Riyadh more openly and vigorously than has been the case in a while.  For that they deserve credit.  But their mismanagement of Iraq, their lethargy on Middle East peace, and their inability to develop a serious energy policy, have at the same time left the US even more at the mercy of the "friendly" Arab despots than we were seven years ago, when Madeleine Albright created a similar fuss by descending to the Saudi tarmac in a vee-necked, knee-length dress and shaking hands with her Saudi counterparts.

I'm delighted to have our Secretary of State talking about all governments being "inherently imperfect" and recalling that the US has "no call for false pride and every reason for humility."  It's an invitation for the reformers we are trying to help to tell us what they really need, and ask us to stop sending what we think they need instead.  It's an invitation for others to call us on it when our humility falls short.

But all Secretaries of State learn, most of them painfully, that making elegant speeches in place of elegant policies only gets you so far.  The risk of being Secretary, especially, we've seen, of being a woman and/or minority Secretary, is that you are not merely a policymaker; you are a totem of all things great and good, all things American.  It starts to seem as if saying something can make it so.  Playing to that is tempting; being judged for it later, excruciating.