Minding the Military Gap Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I completely agree, but what do we do about it?  What’s the right direction to begin thinking?  The options as I understand them – mostly from Phil Carter’s recent article in the Washington Monthly but also from a Princeton Project conference last fall are as follows:

1. Get foreign countries to share more of the burden.  Obviously this is key and easier said than done.  But even if we werre successeful, the assistance will be something we do not control.  We cannot find ourselves in a situation medium-term where we’ve banked on help, but cannot guarantee it’s there. So this doesn’t solve it.



2. Private contractors. Peter Singer at Brookings (no not the Peter Singer, the other Peter Singer) has a lot to say about why this is costly, hard to control, and sets up tension with the military.



3. So-called “transformation of the military.”  Flying tanks, robots and the like would lessen the need for manpower.  Untested and probably years away at least.



4. A draft.  This is how Israel copes.  But its politically untenable, and – at the very least – an option of last resort that few think we need to broach now.



5. Enlarge the force and/or the reserves.  Unclear whether we can do it and at what cost. It will also involve making heavy long-term financial commitments we’d have to see through even if our military needs shrank. But bottom line seems to be that we’ll have to find a way, get more creative about the career and other benefits of joining, and pay what it takes.  My stabilization force notion might help expand the pool.

Are these the right options to be thinking about?  Are there other avenues?  What more do we need to know to figure out what course is best, and building public support for it?

Beware the Broken Force Posted by Derek Chollet

A consistent theme from many of us here at DA has been the importance of bridging the gap between progressives and the American military – and by that we don’t mean that we should become militaristic or war-mongers (because that’s not what the military is about), but that we need to prove that we have better ideas for their future – from how our military men and women train and fight to how they are equipped and recruited to how we take care of them and their families here at home.

The first step is to understand the tremendous strain being placed on our military, why it’s happening, and what we intend to do about it.  Last week Salon published an excellent piece by Mark Benjamin describing the strain: over 1 million troops have been deployed since 9-11, and of those over a third have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan more than once.  63% of the regular Army have been to war at least once, and 40% of those have gone back.  Almost 90% of the Marine Corps Reserve have fought.

Such heavy personnel demands, coupled with runaway costs for maintaining equipment, make modernizing the military extremely difficult.  Right now Congress is debating another massive supplemental to pay for current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Republican Congressman Curt Weldon, a strong Pentagon supporter, describes the tension between current costs and future ambitions for the military as a “train wreck.” 

Moreover, given these strains, it is incredible to think that during the 1990’s the Clinton Administration was criticized for reducing military readiness (some claimed that the Bosnia’s and Kosovo’s hindered us from being able to fight two regional conflicts simultaneously).  It’s time for us to play the readiness card.   

This overstretch is having a huge impact on recruitment and retention, and the services are starting to miss their targets.  Military leaders know that this cannot be sustained; they talk openly about creating a “broken force.”  As Army Vice Chief of Staff Richard A. Cody told a Senate panel last month, “What keeps me awake at night….is what will this all-volunteer force look like in 2007?”   Given the potential challenges we face that might require military force – from the ongoing war against terrorists to the possibility of deploying troops to stop genocides like Darfur – such concerns should keep us awake too. 

Weekly Top 10 List: Top 10 Topics That Belong on Progressives' Homework Assignment Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Most of us seem to agree that progressives need a clear set of ideas that can attract wide support in order to fuel a foreign policy platform that gains traction (there’s some ferment over whether such ideas should be thought of as an ends or a means – to me the answer is both).

We should take the next year or so to formulate ideas in each of these areas, and then work to syndicate them across the constituencies that matter - the military, the unions, the left, interested ethnic groups, business, moderate and independent voters, etc. We won’t get broad agreement in all areas, but if we can forge some new ground in 5-6 (including #10) we’ll be well ahead of where we are now.

This isn't a list of all issues that matter. In some areas – like the war on terror, the Mideast peace process and intelligence reform – change is so fast that platforms agreed now risk irrelevancy by the time the public debate refocuses on foreign policy (sometime in 2007, is my guess). As Derek has touched on here, I think progressives have an idea how they’d approach Europe.

There are areas – I would count armed intervention as one – that we must continue to talk about, but where I don’t think fixed policies necessarily have a whole lot of influence over how specific situations get handled. There are other questions, like the treatment of veterans, where we can do a whole lot better than conservatives without having to forge brand new policy ground.

Here are some ideas where some more homework could make a big difference. I invite commentators to add their own to the list.

1. Non-Proliferation. Too often, progressives seem reduced to arguing over the size shape of the negotiation table on these issues, rather than laying out a clear alternative to policies that are flagging. (see this exchange on North Korea from the first 2004 Presidential debate) This Carnegie Commission Report offers some useful new thinking to get the ball rolling.

2. Trade. We’ve begun to discuss here and here, and we all seem to agree that policy is stalled. Tom Friedman’s new book describes what we are up against, essentially tens of thousands of Indian programmers and call center entrepreneurs who are a lot hungrier than we are. The new issue of Foreign Affairs reports that we’ve slipped to 13^th in the global ranking for Internet Development, an area that helped us survive the last big economic dislocation a decade ago. The direction needed (new engines for job growth, much broader and better supported retraining and restructuring initiatives, realistic labor and environmetnal standards, etc.) is obvious though the details will be devilish.  Unions will need to get involved or their fears of irrelevancy will become reality. I read this short piece by Gene Sperling on the topic a while ago and still like it.

3. China. While the Bush Administration has antagonized traditional allies and racked up record trade deficits, the Chinese economy is growing at a record pace (though some think its in for a fall, there’s also a sneaking suspicion the Chinese may be able to sustain it) , and the government is shoring up relations with smaller allies and trading partners throughout Asia, isolating Japan. Meanwhile its hard to escape the conclusion that U.S. influence in the region is gradually waning, which may be precisely what the Chinese were hoping to accomplish. Progressives need a clear strategy for how we will play in Asia.

4. Democratization. We’ve talked about this already here and here. The latest Security and Peace Institute poll reveals that Democrats are less likely to view the promotion of democracy as a foreign policy goal than either Republicans or Independents. That’s understandable given the tainting of the concept in recent years, but we need an agenda for recapturing this issue and reuniting our own supporters behind it.

5. Military Readiness. The question of how we ensure that our military manpower needs are met in future is a tough one, but if progressives are hoping to forge a closer bond to the military (see discussions on Democracy Arsenal here and here) we are going to need to answer it. This provocative piece in the Washington Monthly is interesting less for its argument on behalf of a draft than for its analysis of why each of the alternatives now on the table is so problematic.  We'd better start generating some more options.

Chollet on Rice in Today's Washington Post Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Great piece this morning by Democracy Arsenal's very own Derek Chollet looking at Condi Rice's potential.  Stay tuned to Democracy Arsenal to find out whether she fulfils the promise.

Rice Aims to Put Foggy Bottom Back on the Map

By Derek Chollet

Sunday, April 17, 2005; Page B01

In trying to explain the role of a secretary of state, George Shultz likens it to the more mundane occupation of gardening. Shultz, who served as Ronald Reagan's top diplomat, says the job entails working every day to keep our alliances healthy, pulling the weeds before they rage out of control, and combating the dangerous pests that want to steal or destroy the fruit. The gardening analogy captures much of what U.S. foreign policy actually is -- the pursuit of America's interests abroad through the constant nurturing of a complex array of actors, interests and goals. Every secretary of state in memory, in his or her own way, has tried to stick to it.

Shultz's former Stanford University colleague and pupil, current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, wants to try something different. What's striking about her first three months in office is that she has articulated a role for herself and her department that goes far beyond the mere maintenance of diplomacy. She wants State to lead the reshaping of America's role in the world. She describes this as "transformational diplomacy," not just accepting the world as it is, but trying to change it. Rice's ambition is not just to be a gardener -- she wants to be a landscape architect.

Judged by her first months in office, Rice just might succeed. She has received a surprisingly warm welcome from the State Department professionals who were sad to see Colin Powell go and were fearful about what might come next. She has surrounded herself with a team of skilled bureaucratic players, including one of President Bush's closest advisers, Karen Hughes. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have praised her choices for key diplomatic posts. Inside the bureaucracy, excitement has shifted away from the White House and Defense Department and toward the State Department; after four years of beleaguered isolation, State's now a place where people want to go because that's where they believe the action is. And on Rice's recent whirlwind trips through Europe and Asia, she got rave reviews for her diplomatic skill -- as well as her fashion sense -- from some very tough audiences.

Part of her early success can be attributed to the usual honeymoon that every secretary of state enjoys -- especially those who had some degree of celebrity before moving to Foggy Bottom. Powell also rode into office on a tremendous wave of attention, excitement and glowing press. But as soon as he tried to assert himself, he proved out of step with his president and ineffective at fighting internal struggles. By this point four years ago, Powell's honeymoon had been shattered, as he found himself in public disagreement with Bush about whether the United States should engage North Korea in talks. (He favored doing so; Bush did not.) In many ways, he never recovered, leaving a legacy of dashed expectations.

To Beat the Drum (or the Horse) Further Posted by Michael Signer

So, the military benefits issue has been exploding all over the place, and all the 2008 Presidential playas (or so they think) are claiming credit for a lot of recent Congressional activity.  Just today, I got an e-mail from the John Kerry machine -- gearing up already.  To wit:

Yesterday, I put our values to a vote -- advancing two key elements of our Military Families Bill of Rights. Their successful passage produced a dramatic victory for military families that have sacrificed so much for our country.

You made it happen. By giving voice to our values over months of effort, the johnkerry.com community moved military families closer to the help they so richly deserve.

We succeeded in getting the Republican Senate to allow military families who have lost a loved one to remain in military housing for a full year, not the current 180 days. Then we got the Republican Senate to agree to assure that all military families receive a total of $500,000 in death benefits when a loved one dies in service to America.

These measures passed, in no small part, because I was able to read some of the more than 3000 personal stories that johnkerry.com community members shared in response to my call for help.

Several Senators were so moved that they asked on the spot to be added as co-sponsors. We still have work to do. The bill now goes to the House of Representatives where we'll have to press for action.

But, right now, I just want to thank you. We gave voice to our values and won.

Together,

John Kerry

And then yesterday, an e-mail from Wesley Clark:

Dear Friend,

The American people have a strong tradition of honoring our war veterans.  And Democrats have always led the fight to give our veterans what they deserve for their brave service to our country.  The time has come for us to do it again.

We all may not agree with the causes of this current war in Iraq, but we all agree that the brave men and women fighting it, and their families, deserve more than we can ever give them.

Now we must focus attention on our veterans and military retirees who have seen the government cut medical benefits, close VA hospitals, double tax disability payments, and more than double prescription drug co-payments, while requiring veterans to pay an annual enrollment fee of $250 to use government health services in the 2006 budget.

All of these costs add up to a "GI Tax" on our soldiers and veterans.  And it's time to end that "GI Tax" -- once and for all.  I need your help!

I was proud to join House Leaders Nancy Pelosi, Ike Skelton, Lane Evans, and Jon Salazar on Capitol Hill yesterday to unveil the new GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century.  From the original GI Bill, signed by Franklin Roosevelt, it's always been up to a grateful nation to stand up for veterans and their families.  Now it's our turn -- so please help.

So, to take these e-missives at face value, it looks like folks are following my and Lorelei's  ideas for re-allying progressives and the military.  Or are they?  Is there a sustained, well-thought-through platform underlying these momentary legislative blips?  Does the DNC have what it takes to build such episodic flirting into a marriage?  Is there an underlying theme (with teeth and legs), e.g., we're moving toward our middle-class military folks, aggressively showing them we're on their side, and that the nature of the left is to work for the people who need help? 

I hope my choice of the Rhetorical Question Device doesn't too obviously expose my own sneaking suspicion that a "Yes" for all is hardly in the offing.

Some of the responses to my earlier post on health benefits for veterans were interesting.  Don Birchler, Ph.D., wrote the following:

I am an analyst for the Navy and worked in the Navy's assessment office for one year. During that time we looked at the Navy/military health benefit. And I can tell you that it is a very rich benefit that most Americans will only DREAM of having. It really is the closest thing to socialized medicine in this country. Throw on top of that the annuity that many of them receive after 20 years and it hardly clear that they are in financial hardship.

Hm.  Hard to know where to start, except that the slam about "the closest thing to socialized medicine"... this is ideology, folks, as pure as the driven snow, and I wonder if Dr. Birchler has unwittingly exposed the true, anti-New Deal, radical-right underpinnings of this policy... and then, the condescension in "it is a very rich benefit that most Americans will only DREAM of having" -- well, I'd rather have a dream be the incentive for joining our armed services than a nightmare...

And I suppose the more pungent point is why was it OK, even laudable, for many military contractors in this public/private war to make lots of money, yet the people who actually fought the war... they don't deserve a "very rich benefit"??? 

I still don't understand why moderate progressives -- not the Michael Moore oil conspiracists, but regular old left-leaning jus' folks -- haven't made a bigger issue of war profiteering generally.  This is not just about Cheney/Halliburton.  In a sense, Cheney distracts from the larger issue, which is that this extremely expensive and inefficient war was and is being used simply as a way for Bush-friendly companies to make money.

Ack, alack.  It boggles the mind.

Doddging a Bolton Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I think Dodd has it right.  Not that I can make this argument myself, having authored a column on 10 Reasons to To Oppose Bolton, but he makes the case that even if one agrees with Bolton's views and accepts his style, the intimidation of intelligence analysts is in itself a disqualifier from the UN post.  Here's what he said tonight on the Newshour:

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD: Well, first of all, I can't speak for all Democrats on this, but let me tell you my reasons here. It has nothing to do with Mr. Bolton's substantive views, although I may disagree with him on many of these issues. But over my 24 years in the Senate, Jim, I've never voted against anyone because of their substantive views.

Much to the chagrin and disappointment of some of my fellow party members, I voted for John Tower, I voted for John Ashcroft. I can count on less than five fingers the number of people I've opposed where they have sought positions in a presidential cabinet. My opposition and my concern about Mr. Bolton therefore has nothing to do with Cuba, arms control, or the United Nations. In fact, I agree with some of Mr. Bolton's conclusions about the United Nations. I have no problem with that at all.

My concern is this: That on at least five different occasions over the past forty-eight months, Mr. Bolton, as an undersecretary of state at the State Department, tried to remove at least two intelligence analysts because they concluded different positions than Mr. Bolton wanted to express in public speeches.

In this day and age, where we know all the problems we have with the gathering of intelligence and the reliability of it, to promote someone who tried to fire two individuals because they gave an honest assessment of what the intelligence community felt was the right position on those matters, I think is wrong. I think it's the wrong message -- the wrong message to bring to the United Nations. I think it's the wrong message to send to other intelligence analysts, that you can be promoted; you can threaten people's jobs and get away with it. That's why I'm opposed to it.

You can read the rest of the interview (actually a debate with Senator George Allen, Republican of Virginia)  here.   The only flaw in Dodd's performance is his failure to go farther in questioning how an administration that purports to have made intelligence reform a top priority can look the other way upon learning that a nominee to a high profile post is prepared to ride roughshod over analysts who stand up for truthful and accurate interpretation of intelligence.

Bad Intel, Bad Policy Posted by Derek Chollet

We should all pay more attention to the recent report of the bipartisan presidential commission chaired by Laurence Silberman and Chuck Robb regarding U.S. intelligence and WMD threats.  It got a couple of days of buzz when it was released a few weeks ago -- especially for its no-nonsense conclusion that all the pre-war judgments about Iraq's WMD were "dead wrong" – but has pretty much dropped out of sight since.  At over 600 pages, it’s not exactly bedtime reading.

But like the 9-11 commission, this group has produced a rare kind of government report: compelling, hard-hitting, clear, provocative, and actually pretty entertaining.  But it is also really scary.  The commissioners conclude that there is no greater threat than the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (placing special emphasis on the threat from biological weapons, which they describe as the “greatest intelligence challenge”).  Yet they show with great detail that our intelligence community is not sufficiently trained, motivated, equipped, or organized to deal with these threats.  Even if we had an Administration intensely focused on the WMD threat, the limits of our intelligence capabilities would leave still leave us fighting with one hand tied behind our backs. 

Right now, we have the worst of both worlds: an intelligence community that is not up to the challenge, and an Administration that talks a good game but is still not making counter-proliferation the priority it needs to be.  As Ash Carter points out, until we get the policy right, it really doesn’t matter if intelligence is imperfect.   Folks, I gotta tell you, we should be genuinely worried about getting hit with some sort of WMD device (for a very scary illustration of what this might be like, everyone should watch the recent HBO/BBC film “Dirty War”).  The American people understand the problem – according to the recent SPI/Marttila poll, 3 of the top 5 concerns most American have about the world have something to do with the spread of nuclear weapons.  So where's the outrage?  There’s a lot I really don’t understand about the Bush Administration, but not doing more to address the WMD threat – especially when we know what to do about it – is the most perplexing, and I think its greatest long-term failure. 

Redefining Progress Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Here are two books that each tell a story of post Cold War change from a military "ground truth" perspective and also bolster the claim that the military is a progressive institution--not in philosophy, but in action.

The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century by TX Hammes

Colonel Hammes describes how "Fourth Generation Warfare" or "4GW" has evolved over decades, with powerful military forces from economically advanced nations being defeated by seemingly weaker opponents. This book illustrates what is meant by asymmetric warfare....and points out how we, with our hardware and technology fixation...are using the wrong tools for today's wars.

The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace with America's Military by Dana Priest

This book shows how, over the past decade, the U.S. government has become increasingly reliant on the military to carry out foreign policy.

My post about progressives and the military needing each other generated both pushback and agreement.  The comments made me realize that this blog needs to help re-define what it means to be progressive and what are the values of any nascent "progressive movement." I, at least, need to understand this better before plunging into what a progressive security alternative looks like.

Here goes: Today's progressive still has a basic faith in people, participation and broadly shared well-being. However, given the degraded state of our democracy, and the increasing decadence of our political leadership, progressives can simply go back to basics and reclaim many of the democratic principles enshrined in our history like problem-solving, compromise and benign, pragmatic nationalism.  Blogs can claim the role of the progressive journalists of the last turn of the century, who documented the frenzy of institutional corruption and greed--and were motivated by a conviction that publicized facts would lead to social transformation. In other words, that truth would set us free.

Truth is a little more problematic nowadays, however. Current political leadership are virtuousos at "truth management" and polls have shown how a chunk of the population believe the product that's served up despite hard facts to the contrary. Karl Rove has truly turned corporate public relations into a governing philosophy.  So we have to learn a hard lesson, there's a worldview and then there's facts.  If you're a non-negotiable conservative, when the facts don't fit the worldview, you don't chuck the worldview, you jettison the facts.

Today's new progressive movement needs to be non-partisan but not apolitical. In short, it needs to rescue our democracy by claiming the wide terrain that has opened up in the middle of the political spectrum. This is the fundamental reason why the military and progressives need each other.  The market fundamentalism of the conservative movement--along with its anti-government rhetoric--has damaged cultural notions of sacrifice, common good and public service, the military's very reason for being.  This damage can be seen in the effects of privatization on the uniformed Americans serving in Iraq...where a private contractor earns several times more than a soldier.

The military institution--whose professional education system is steeped in American history and the labors involved in building a healthy democracy--looks more and more ideal as our civilian/public sector systems fail.   Internationally this holds true as well: American JAGs have become global human rights champions for their work defending the rights of prisoners in Guantanamo.

The conservative strategy of substituting public relations for a governing philosophy has impacted the military as well. Intentions aside, the military has allowed the public and elected leaders to persist in the belief that defense industry pronouncements equal professional military opinion. As a Hill staffer, I visited military installations--trailed by industry staff (and lobbyists) where Lockheed or Boeing reps answered all the gadget and hardware questions and the uniformed professionals were mostly silent. Strategy, doctrine and the challenges they were really facing in the world went unmentioned.  Military involvement in policymaking is always controversial, but somehow this inaction has helped lead us to where we are now: with lots of non working missile defense and not enough body armor.

In two out of the last three years, the only budgets that have passed in Congress within the fiscal year are the defense bills.  If all Congress is willing to fund is defense, then pretty soon everything is going to become a security issue.  This should frighten every American, left, right and center.

Progressives need to stand together to turn back the contagion of institutional pyromania unleashed on our federal government by conservatives.  Getting to know and understand the military, its history, culture and needs will hopefully lead to a more balanced and mutual respect.  This is an important first step in any progressive security alternative.

Something for Everyone Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Wherein we join Derek in piling on the Europeans; blast trade orthodoxy of all kinds; show some love to our readers; and inaugurate the democracyarsenal politix reading list.

Re Derek's report from the junkets of Europe:  shortly before the election last fall, a European diplomat, from a country that sent troops to Iraq, told me that his European colleagues were rooting for Kerry without considering how quickly we would come knocking if Kerry won.

I used to lie awake at night worrying -- and I assume folks with no nursing baby but lots of foreign policy responsibility did too -- about what Kerry's first six months would have looked like.  He would have had to return troops to Iraq, as Bush did.  He would have had to deal with the pre-vote uptick in insurgent attacks.  He would have found some allies willing to make nice noises about more troops, but likely not in time to do much good.

So here's where I think there's no point in agonizing too much about Europeans' Bush obsession:  for that subset of Europeans who define themselves as "not America," Bush is such a godsend that, if he didn't exist, they'd have to invent him.  And they do, as anyone who has ever spent much time being subjected to European cliches about America knows.  Freedom fries, schmeedom fries -- the Europeans give as good as they get when it comes to transatlantic stereotyping.   

As a final bonbon for the Europe-watchers among us, I have been enjoying the delicious ridiculousness of the situation in which the other Perm Four favor a German seat on the Security Council and the sober, rational Americans are left looking at the EU, which says it coordinates foreign policy among the UK, France, Germany and the rest of them, and saying, "hey, this doesn't make any sense."

***                     ***                    ***                    ***                    ***

Suzanne's Top 10 mentioned trade policy the other day.  I think the actual mythology problem is broader than she suggests:  both pro-trade idealogues and protectionism purists are working from models that are outdated, don't reflect economic reality and don't represent actual swathes of voting Americans.  Foreign policy progressives ought to get their minds opened on this one for two reasons.  Overseas, trade has the potential to help or undnermine so much of what we are trying to do.  Imagine, for example, if the end of clothing and fabric duties kills off what's left of Pakistan's fabric and garment industry, sending that many more young men to extremist madrasas for hope. 

At home, anybody trying to put a progressive coalition together to govern, much less win elections, is going to have to grapple with the threatened textile, auto and agricultural industries on the one hand, and the copyright-protecting pharmaceutical and entertainment industries on the other.  Not to mention their workers and voters in key swing states such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania.

That same pre-election PIPA poll that I cited earlier this week found that 93 percent of Bush voters favored labor and environmental standards in trade agreements.  So deviation from free trade orthodoxy is not a fringe point of view and not limited to union members.  (It's still the case, by the way, that about one in four voters, not likely voters but people who really pull the levers, comes from a union household.)

None other than Bill Clinton said at Davos in 2000:  "Those who heard a wake-up call on the streets of Seattle were right."

In some parts of the developing world, farmers and their families are literally dying for lack of open trade to sell their goods at decent prices; elsewhere, though, free trade is hurting coffee farmers, garment workers and even Chinese factory workers.  Trade policy is no panacea -- economists will tell you that there are always sectoral winners and losers -- and while progressives shouldn't fear trade, we needn't fetishize it either.

Both parties are really stuck right now, to my mind, between ideological free-traders and old-style protectionists.  Meanwhile, we don't have free trade, never have, and never will, given what it would do to Florida sugar and orange growers, just to name two commodities of many.And the 1990s "Washington consensus" of expert advice for emerging economies, including extreme free-trade prescriptions, has quietly been walked back by the World Bank and IMF, and more loudly abandoned by countries in Latin America and elsewhere.

Somebody is going to figure out a smart new middle ground on this issue.  It will include real supports for workers who lose their jobs, not tiny hikes in assistance to community colleges.  It will reverse US intellectual property policies that block life-saving medicines from the people who need them, and may eventually even restrict how we get healthcare here at home.  It will include some global re-thinking about where freer trade is working in favor of stability and freedom and where it is not.

It should be progressives who figure this out.  But the more we cling to old orthodoxy and tell ourselves not even to talk about trade, the more likely it is that smart conservatives will beat us to the punch.   

They could do worse than go back and look at Clinton as a place to start.  And one thing Clinton was too smart ever to do was stick outdated labels on his progressive allies.   

I'm looking forward to hearing what Derek, whose former employer represented a whole lot of un-and under-employed former millworkers, has to say on this one.  I for one thought Edwards did a nice job of connecting with real folks' concerns on this without grossly pandering.

***                    ***                    ***                    ***                    ***

I'm guessing I speak for all five weapons in democracyarsenal when I say that the response has been just amazing... and gratifying.  I want to make a habit of responding to at least some of the comments and emails we get.

So, Ezra asked me for five books that every aspiring political writer should read.  I'll offer one, to get us started, and then invite fellow bloggers and readers to jump in with suggestions for the democracyarsenal reading list.

What I Saw at the Revolution:  A Political Life in the Reagan Era by Peggy Noonan.

Her politics are not mine.  But this book is beautifully-written, vivid and real -- about how young people get their politics, and their jobs; how movements, specifically Ronald Reagan's, form; and how lofty and petty the world of White House politics can simultaneously be.  I don't believe it's been equalled.

Other submissions?

Screwed on Bolton Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Pretty disheartening stuff on Bolton.  A staunch conservative risks his career to come forward and say that Bolton is a “serial abuser” of underlings who challenge his views.  Steve Clemons understandably thinks, upon hearing the testimony, that this will be the strike that moves the needle.  Yet this apparently does nothing to move conservatives on the SFRC off the idea that the President’s deserves "deference" in his choice of nominee.

Disturbing on a bunch of levels:

Perhaps the most important finding of the 9/11 Commission and the Silberman-Robb Reports (see attached) was that the U.S. intelligence establishment to take adequate account of dissenting views, and the need for steps to ensure that dissenters get a full hearing in future.  But when confronted with a nominee who seems to fit the worst of this pattern, the Senators look the other way.

Also, there’s no question that having an Ambassador with a track record of vindictiveness will have a chilling effect on the staff at USUN.  With 190 delegations to deal with, an Ambassador (as well as the mothership back at Main State) must rely on staff to pick up on attitudes and positions and help formulate strategy.  If Bolton is unwilling to brook dissenting views, cautious foreign and civil service officers will keep their mouths shut, limiting the quality of analysis that goes both to Bolton and to Washington.

I don’t know whether an analyst fired for refusing to clear inaccurate statements concerning U.S. intelligence would be able to invoke the protection of a whistleblower statute. 

But, particularly given the findings of the 9/11 and Silberman-Robb Commissions, it seems pretty clear that some form of protection is needed (never mind that the head of Bush’s Whistleblower Agency is himself under investigation by the FBI on charges of corruption and cronyism -- actually, you should mind, this too is a symptom of exactly the same problem that will lead to Bolton’s being confirmed despite today’s revelations . . . ).

In other words, if isn’t in violation of existing law, Bolton’s action in attempting to get the analyst booted probably ought to be.

According to Laura Rozen, there are more State staffers willing to come forward with similar stories.  But it doesn’t sound as though their testimony will make any difference.