exit145

A week in the life...

2005-12-03T20:06:00.000-05:00

I saw four pretty incredible speakers at SAIS this week.

First, on Monday, Marc Sageman guest lectured in my History of Irregular Warfare class. Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist who now teaches at UPenn, was one of two CIA case officers stationed in Afghanistan during its war with the Soviet Union in the 1980's. He is short, bespectacled, mostly bald, has a white beard, and speaks with an accent that I could not identify. He began his lecture by saying: "I love war. I enjoyed killing. I am not proud of that, but my time spent in Afghanistan was the most thrilling period of my life." He went on to explain the political dynamic in Afghanistan at the time and how he actually spent most of his time in Pakistan negotiating very shady weapons deals with many different foreign countries. He worked very hard to plant stories in the press that were favorable to the Afghani rebels, and ironically, he lamented the U.S.' current inability to manipulate the foreign press like they could "in the good old days." The things Dr. Sageman said were shocking, and a lot of the students reacted with gaping jaws, but as he said, "What I'm saying may not be P.C., but it is the truth, and this was war."

On Wednesday, I attended Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns speak at SAIS. He was speaking about United States policy toward Iran. Dean Einhorn described him in her introduction as a "matinee idol," which I found uncouth. In any event, it was billed as a big policy speech, and there were a long line of television crews and loads of press, but I didn't notice anything particularly new about what he said: that Iran is very bad, and that the statement of its recently elected president that Israel should be "wiped off the map" was very bad. Secretary Burns is a SAIS grad himself, and when he took questions from the audience, a Rolling Stone reporter interrupted him and accused him of not answering the questions he had asked. Burns replied: "Sir, I respect your right to ask any question you'd like in any way you'd like. And in turn you should respect my right to answer your question in any way that I'd like. I learned that when I was at SAIS." I would have rather Burns answered the questions more directly too, but that's a funny thing for a career diplomat to say.

On Thursday, Paul Frandano spoke about what it's like to be an analyst at the CIA. He was awesome. The main thing I took away from him was his insight that what the intelligence agencies provide is not and should not be considered "the truth." Information is imperfect, and intelligence analysts do their best to extract something meaningful from the information they have and then present their analysis to policymakers. What policymakers then do with that information is their choice and is outside the domain of influence of intelligence professionals (as it should be). It was an honest assessment of the limits of what can and should be expected of intelligence agencies. My conclusion is not that the agencies are bad things or that they are unnecessary, but rather that policymakers and citizens alike would benefit from being educated about the role that intelligence agencies play, lest they expect too much.

Finally, I saw the eminent political scientist and current Undersecretary of State for Policy Planning Stephen Krasner speak about what its like for an academic to work in government. He said that the ideas generated in academia do influence policymaking, and listed a few theories that had had a large influence specifically during his tenure at the State Department. He concluded, though, that academic training can benefit you in government in that it teaches you to write concisely and to communicate effectively which are very important skills when you are writing two-page memos on very complicated subjects to be read by people who are already well-informed and do not have a lot of time. I asked him, "as an academic, how do you feel about the Bush administration's description of our current war as a `Global War on Terror', specifically whether those words precisely describe the war we are fighting?" He argued (sort of half-heartedly) that changing the terms to a "War on Islamic Fundamentalism" (which is much more accurate) could have disasterous political ramifications, in that it could be perceived as a crusade against Islam. He added "and what happens when it is inevitably distorted in the foreign press, and `fundamentalism' is dropped from the name?". A fair point, I think, and he assured me that a lot of people at high levels were thinking about it, which is not at all surprising.

Monday morning Secretary Rumsfeld will be speaking at SAIS. I'll be there.
-- Eric

A Good Magician (almost) Never Tells: John McLaughlin in the Spotlight

2005-10-23T09:54:00.000-04:00

11/1/05

President George W. Bush was an officer in his college fraternity. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was a wrestler for his high school team, and General Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was a ROTC cadet as an undergraduate. The extracurricular interests of these influential policymakers foreshadowed the roles they would assume years later in government.

So what activity engrossed John McLaughlin, former Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, as a young man?

Magic, of course.

“As an eleven-year old, I began practicing magic like you’d practice a musical instrument. Today, I perform at a yearly outdoor fair in Loudoun country in a little town called Waterford,” said Mr. McLaughlin, who joined SAIS this year as a Senior Fellow at the Merrill Center for Strategic Studies. “I perform what you would call parlor magic, not stage magic like David Copperfield. For example, I recreate illusions that were performed three thousands years ago in the palaces of the pharaohs of ancient Egypt. That’s my theme - I weave it into history.”

Mr. McLaughlin made history firsthand during a 32-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, including a stint as Acting Director from July to September 2004.

And magic has not been an idle hobby. Some of the same skills that have benefited him as a magician, McLaughlin said, have served him well in his career with the spy agency. “Houdini once said something applicable to my business. Someone asked him after he had escaped from being buried alive- they said what’s your secret? He replied, ‘never panic - if you panic, you’ll die, if you keep your head and take things step by step, you can do these things.’”

When his career in government ended, McLaughlin was considering full-time job offers to work in business when, at SAIS’ 60th Anniversary party, Professor Eliot Cohen mentioned to him that a new Senior Fellow position was vacant.

“I didn’t want to do something that felt like my old job – suiting up and showing up every morning at 8 and being there until after the sun went down or sweating in a corporate culture somewhere," said McLaughlin. "I wanted to free myself to do a lot of different things that I hadn’t had time to do in the past four or five years.”

In the spring of 2005, McLaughlin joined the faculty at SAIS, where he presents seminars on intelligence and policy, participates in Strategic Studies courses involving intelligence analysis, and consults with students who wish to learn more about the field of intelligence. He is considering teaching a course on intelligence-related issues.

Before his career at the agency, McLaughlin developed an interest in international affairs as a member of the debate team in high school. During his senior year at Wittenberg College in Pennsylvania, while considering attending law school, he learned about SAIS from a fellow student. “I happened to have a colleague whose father taught in the Latin America program at SAIS. I visited the school and I said, 'Wow, wouldn’t I love to come here.'"

After being admitted, McLaughlin concentrated in European Studies and spent his second year in Bologna. The policy experience of the faculty there impressed him, and motivated him to work in government. “There was a commitment to being a contemporary person. [The faculty felt] the need to be grounded in some substantive field but to remain involved, concerned about, and desirous of affecting what’s happening now – because ultimately it turns into history.”

Even then, McLaughlin said, SAIS professors were focused on current events and policy as much as academia. “One of my professors would always begin his class with a review of what happened in the Middle East that week. It always impressed me that we would then go to the nineteenth century.”

After graduating from SAIS, McLaughlin joined the U.S. Army, attended Officer Training School and was commissioned as a second lieutenant. He spent a year working in Army intelligence in Vietnam, where he said his background at SAIS served him well. “I don’t think a day has gone by in my intelligence career where something that happened to me during my SAIS experience has not resonated.”

After returning to the United States, McLaughlin joined the CIA as an analyst in 1972, working on European, Russian, and Eurasian affairs. Later, he founded the Sherman Kent School for Intelligence Analysis, an institution “dedicated to teaching the history, mission, and essential skills of the analytic profession to new CIA employees.”

In 2000, McLaughlin was promoted to Deputy Director of Central Intelligence. In that role he represented the intelligence community in briefings with the President, at meetings of the National Security Council Deputies Committee, and at hearings on Capitol Hill.

McLaughlin is animated when talking about current SAIS students' career prospects. “This feels a lot like 1947 or 1918, one of those moments in time when what the US does in the world can be pivotal. Which means that as an individual you’re going to have a great opportunity to affect things and challenges that will leave you very satisfied.”

The key skill to develop in graduate school, McLaughlin said, is an ability to learn rather than mastering any particular subject. “There was a time in international relations when you could master a few major texts and have your conceptual framework for some years to come, but we’re past that now. The future belongs to those that are continuously learning, are flexible, engaged, and willing to roll with the punches.”
-- Eric

Getting it Right

2005-10-20T01:20:00.000-04:00

Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff speaks out.

Fascinating, brilliant stuff.

Maybe some commentary soon.
-- Eric

SAIS Observer Article

2005-10-06T20:56:00.000-04:00

The following article appeared in this month's SAIS Observer, which I am writing for. My first byline ever.

SAIS Professors Start New Magazine

War-hungry neoconservatives write for The American Interest. So do peacenik liberals.

Or do they?

The magazine’s founder, Francis Fukuyama, wants to change your mind about what those labels mean. If they mean anything at all.

“A lot of the important issues and debates are not ones that can easily be categorized as right, left, realist, or neoconservative,” said Fukuyama, who took over as director of the International Development program at SAIS this fall.

Frustrated with the rigidity of existing political magazines, which Fukuyama says foster the development of party talking points rather than honest, constructive ideas, he founded the magazine with SAIS professors Eliot Cohen and Zbigniew Brzezinski and former SAIS professorial lecturer Josef Joffe.

“Too much of the debate in foreign policy is partisan,” said Fukuyama in an interview. “You almost don’t need to read the articles because you can look at the cover of the journal and figure out what they’re going to say.”

Professor Cohen, head of the Strategic Studies department at SAIS, lamented the limiting effect of political labels. “Labels like conservative or liberal, realist, neocon, hawk or dove are profoundly misleading and they really don’t capture what are frequently complex views of the world. Since the world is a greatly complicated place it seems you should have complicated views.”

The American Interest, Cohen added, would differ from other publications like The National Interest and Foreign Policy by focusing on both domestic and international policy, noting that “In a way, the premise of a lot of writing on foreign policy in the past is that it’s somehow distinct from domestic policy. And that’s clearly untrue.”

Even though the magazine will feature a variety of opinions, Fukuyama emphasized that the articles will “be based on serious empirical arguments”

In a representative article, Glenn Loury, an economics professor at Brown University, asks, “How many Iraqis equal one Marine?” He maintains that, in the eyes of Americans, Iraqi lives may be “cheap.”

Fifty pages later, Robert Kaplan, a correspondent for the Atlantic Monthly, extols the virtues of the warrior, and notes that “wanting to fight is an ordinary emotion for those who choose combat arms as profession.” He concludes by admonishing Democrats, saying they should “act more like men.”

When two educated people disagree so fundamentally in their approach to foreign policy, can they have a constructive dialogue? Fukuyama says that it might be hard, but it can be done. “The whole point of a symposium is to have interaction and to develop ideas.”

If two people don’t find common ground, Cohen says, there is still an opportunity for others to learn. “Even if [Kaplan and Loury] don’t speak to each other directly, the rest of us can look and wag our heads and try to figure out where we stand.”

One particular focus for The American Interest, according to Cohen, will be to advance the debate over the war in Iraq. “My view of the Iraq War – which I favored – was that it was one that reasonable people could disagree on,” said Cohen. “One thing that troubled me was how quickly highly intelligent friends of mine began talking past each other. Hopefully, The American Interest will be a place where civilized discourse can take place and people can courteously disagree with each other.”

Though the foreign policy debate in America has traditionally been dominated by the so-called “wise men” – the old, white, male, Washington, DC, establishment - Fukuyama would like to give other voices an opportunity to be heard.

Many non-Americans are affected by the actions of the United States, Fukuyama said, and are frustrated that they can’t vote in American elections. “The idea is that they can at least write in The American Interest. “I think it’s not just up to Americans to determine how America shapes its interests and its objectives.

Non-Americans aren’t the only establishment outsiders Fukuyama has invited to join the discussion. The American Interest website (http://the-american-interest.com) features a blog that Fukuyama hopes will appeal to a younger audience who “may be turned off by the existing debate over foreign policy.”

It’s an ambitious plan: access new readerships, publish thoughtful and sober analysis, plunge headfirst into the turbulent blogosphere, and maintain credibility. Fukuyama did not have to search far for those who would take on the challenge.

“We’ve hired a couple of SAIS graduates, so SAIS has its fingerprints all over it. But I think that’s a reflection of the overlap between what we want to do and the kind of training that SAIS provides.”

Cohen added “it says something good about the school that this is the kind of place that can give birth to that kind of magazine.”

The autumn issue, the first of five to be published each calendar year, can be found at Books-a-Million bookstore on Dupont Circle.
-- Eric

The Church's Answer

2005-09-22T15:52:00.000-04:00

Like driving, it is probably not a good idea to blog when angry.

Today's NY Times reported on what has been in the works for some time now: a ban on gay priests in the Catholic Church. Celibate or not, homosexuals will not be permitted to join the clergy despite dwindling numbers of priests world-wide.

As a Catholic, I find this absurd, counter-productive and altogether unsurprising. And I'm not the only one.

Taken alone, this news is distressing. But combined with yesterday's release of a Philadelphia grand jury report chronicling yet another clergy sex scandal cover-up of Bostonian proportions, this is deeply troubling and embarrassing. Read the pdf report and prepare to be horrified.

The whole mess is simply too disgusting for words.

--Frank

The Chief

2005-09-07T01:05:00.000-04:00

Slate featured an article on William Rehnquist on Sunday that somehow flew under my radar, despite the fact that the author is Rick Garnett, a professor here at ND Law. Take a look.
--Frank

UPDATE: Here's a link to Prof. Garnett's blog with an entry about Justice Rehnquist's funeral.

What Happens When Your Faith in God Can't Feed Your Starving Children?

2005-09-05T15:07:00.000-04:00

I am glad that Frank has come around on the question of the Federael Government's performance in New Orleans. The hurricane produced a media circus and predictable political point scoring, but those events are separate from the Bush administration's performance in handling the crisis.

I will not be able to say anything new about the administration's abysmal response to the hurricane and its aftermath. In truth, I have been too busy to follow the tragedy very closely, and I think I also share other Americans' general weariness from watching the Bush administration blow it over and over.

One interesting aspect of the story, though, that has received a lot of coverage is that so many of the dead and abandoned in New Orleans are black. This, to my mind, is the first time the formerly hot-button issue of race has resurfaced to the forefront of American culture since 9/11. It is sad that images on television seem to be the only catalyst for outrage in our culture anymore. Those that read the news were probably not very surprised to see that the vast majority of the people who remained stranded in New Orleans are black, much like we were not totally surprised to see the pictures from Abu Ghraib (and will continue to not be surprised when new pictures emerge, as torture continues to be condoned and practiced).

Condi Rice has predictably been deployed by the administration to defend its handling of the crisis, and she has been adament that race has not influenced their response. One particular comment from Rice struck me:

Asked to say a few words from the pulpit, Rice, a preacher's daughter, said: "The Lord Jesus Christ is going to come on time." She added: "If we just wait."

There have been quite a few statements from public officials in the past few days that have come to symbolize how disconnected from reality they are (think of the picture of Bush strumming the guitar and the constant assurances by the FEMA director that everything in New Orleans was going alright). But Condi Rice pathetically asks residents of New Orleans to just have faith in God and know that everything will be alright, just as long as they are patient. It is easy to see how administration officials have remained publicly cheery in spite of the incredible messes they have been responsible for creating and mismanaging in the past five years. They just have faith in God, from the comfort of their cushy, powerful, prestigious jobs, that everything will be alright. Because, for them, it always has and always will.
-- Eric

It's Official: Slow News Month Over

2005-09-05T12:08:00.000-04:00

While some critics have proclaimed the demise of Exit145 due to lack of interest and time on our part, the reality is that August was, as usual, a tremendously slow news month. And unless you've been living under a rock for the last week, things have picked up. I'd like to draw your attention to two items concerning the biggest stories of the last week.

First off, the disaster that is New Orleans. I have to admit that I wanted to reserve judgment with regard to the federal government's handling of the post-hurricane situation in the Big Easy. I have determined, with influence coming from many quarters (including the man who puts the '145' in 'Exit145', Eric), that it is irresponsible to continue to look the other way. Further, I must admit that the visceral (and obviously expected) reaction to Bush's action (or lack thereof) from the far left inspired in me a knee-jerk reaction to defend a President who has appeared to this point to be a superior crisis manager. While criticizing the 'left' for playing the partisan card during a national tragedy, I was subconciously doing same. While reading Andrew Sullivan's op-ed from yesterday's London Times I officially realized my mistake. As usual, Sully cuts straight to the core of the controversy (albeit in a fairly emotional tone) while lending both historical perspective and potential future developments to the mix. The entire thing is worth a read, and I found this bit pretty interesting.

What harm can come to Bush? Not much: except a worrying weakening of his ability to carry the public for the war in Iraq. A competent Democrat could clean up with a message to restore government for the people rather than for special interests. But these days, a competent Democrat is an oxymoron. Hillary has been silent. She figures she need do nothing but let the anger vent on Bush.

But in Republican circles, one real change may have occurred. In a matter of days, Rudy Giuliani’s chances of becoming the next president improved drastically. What people want now is someone who can make the federal government work again. They want an executive who can fight a war and keep them safe. Nobody represents that kind of need better than Giuliani. His social liberalism — which makes him anathema to the religious fundamentalists who control the Republican party — would be overwhelmed by his appeal to law-and-order Republicans. Those Republicans know when an almighty error has been made. And last week, their president failed them. It will take enormous political work for him to win them back now.

Second, the nomination of John G. Roberts to Chief Justice was an interesting and seemingly shrewd move. As someone pointed out to me this morning, this puts Sandra Day O'Connor in an interesting position. Roberts was initially slated to replace O'Connor as associate justice once he was given Senate approval. Now that he'll be replacing Rehnquist, O'Connor will remain on the bench until a replacement for her is found. With the confirmation of Roberts expected to take some time, O'Connor could remain on the bench for months to come. Will she take a back seat or will she take advantage of her now 'rock-star' status that was given upon her announcement of retirement? Time will tell.

The gauntlet has been thrown down, Eric.

--Frank

DC Institution

2005-08-30T00:34:00.000-04:00

Check out this article from the Washington Post. Stoney's, a dive bar/restaurant in DC, is closing after nearly 40 years. The article gets it almost all right--the place is a total dive. One point of information: Tunnicliff's, the bar and grill owned by the same folks, was also open the night of Hurricane Isabel. Read the whole thing anyway, especially if you live in D.C. and have never been there. It's your last chance.
--Frank

Two Must Reads

2005-08-03T19:11:00.000-04:00

I'm on the road - about to leave for SF in the morning - but there are two must-read posts about the latest revelation of prisoner abuse broken by the Washington Post.

Read a description of the WaPo article here, and then read Marty Lederman's analysis here.

Prepare to be horrified.
-- Eric

Aaaaand....we're back

2005-07-30T16:11:00.000-04:00

It's been WAY too long since I posted last and seeing as I'm taking my leave from our nation's capital after this weekend, I wanted to put up a quick note to reassure our reader(s) that Exit145 remains a two-man affair. That certainly didn't sound right.

Anyway, regular readers may recall my interest in recent developments in Uzbekistan, particularly Andijon. The story has moved slowly but surely from posts on obscure blogs to (gasp!) the front page of Eric's favorite liberal rag, the NY Times. Check out the article, which summarizes the diplomatic and military situation in the country almost as accurately as Exit145 would have were it not for an extended summer vacation. In brief, pressure from the state department (and to a lesser degree the Pentagon) has forced President Karimov's hand. The Uzbek government has demanded that U.S. forces leave the country within 6 months. Strategically speaking, Uzbekistan has been invaluable as a jumping off point for operations in Afghanistan. As this page has noted before, however, it had come time for Bush's policy to match his rhetoric in dealing with the Uzbek leadership and we're happy to see that it now does. Now that this story has a major following, we will continue to update you on the facts and our opinions on such.

--Frank

JAG Memos Declassified

2005-07-27T14:07:00.000-04:00

The JAG Memos on Military Interrogation have finally been declassified and they tell quite a story. These memos are written by the JAGs, the military's in-house lawyers, and are a reaction to the infamous John Yoo memo, which essentially justified the legalization of the use of torture. The Yoo memo has still not been declassified, though the policy it lays out has since been repudiated by the administration. These JAG memos are a significant development in the ongoing debate over torture. And they are inspiring and reassuring to those of us who have faith in the professionalism and humanity of the majority of those who direct the course of the United States military.

Please, read the actual memos on your own, or read Marty Lederman's analysis. It's a lot to digest, but more soon.
-- Eric

Response to Anonymous Commenter

2005-07-25T21:58:00.000-04:00

A thoughtful commenter writes:

Curious about this:
[W]hether they think The Times and the rest of the media peform an essential service for our country (many conservatives believe they don't)

Many conservatives don't believe that the media perform an essential service for the country?

I'm unaware of a single notable person on the Right who believes that the press isn't a vital institution in a free society. Vital, essential, irreplaceable, et cetera.

Could you perhaps clarify that?

Conservatives are deeply sceptical of government, albeit less so when they're running things. But that goes with the Left too. Recall Clinton's line: "You cannot both love your country and hate your government"?

Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. I believe a more accurate statement would be that many conservatives don't believe that the media as it is currently constituted performs an essential service. Glenn Reynolds and Powerline, among many others, have instead argued on many occasions that the MSM primarily undermine our war effort. I give you examples of statements like this here, here, here, here, here, and of course here.

Those links are just the result of a quick search, but I know I have seen Instapundit suggest on many occasions that the mainstream media as a whole was being "unhelpful." If any reader can find such a quote, let me know.
-- Eric

Let us Pause to Appreciate the New York Times

2005-07-22T08:25:00.000-04:00

I love the New York Times. And because I love and respect it, I hold it to a high standard. But make no mistake about it, it's the best newspaper out there.

Which is why, in the past, I have been critical of some of its coverage, especially with regard to its military reporting. I expect the best from the Times, and I am disappointed when I see that its news reporting demonstrates an overt political bias.

But the right-wing blogosphere has mercilessly attacked The Times, to the point where its very legitimacy as a newspaper has been challenged, and it is instead viewed as a political wing of the Democratic Party.

To some extent, moderates/centrists like myself are partially responsible for the Times' diminished public perception. My complaints are motivated by a desire for critical public feedback to improve reporting. The right's complaints are motivated by a desire to discredit The Times and ultimately to destroy it. Not that I overly inflate my personal role in the process, but in general, moderates should qualify their criticism by being candid about whether they think The Times and the rest of the media peform an essential service for our country (many conservatives believe they don't and that their negative coverage of the war is intentional and reprehensible).

Which brings me to David Adesnik of Oxblog's latest post, JOHN ROBERTS, THE ANTI-BUSH?

Adesnik quotes from a New York Times article by Elisabeth Bumiller about the process President Bush used to select his nomination for the Supreme Court, John Roberts.

"Well, I told him I ran three and a half miles a day," Judge Wilkinson recalled in a telephone interview on Wednesday. "And I said my doctor recommends a lot of cross-training, but I said I didn't want to do the elliptical and the bike and the treadmill." The president, Judge Wilkinson said, "took umbrage at that," and told his potential nominee that he should do the cross-training his doctor suggested.

"He thought I was well on my way to busting my knees," said Judge Wilkinson, 60. "He warned me of impending doom."

Judge Wilkinson's conversation with the president about exercise and other personal matters in an interview for a job on the highest court in the land was typical of how Mr. Bush went about picking his eventual nominee, Judge John G. Roberts, White House officials and Republicans said. Mr. Bush, they said, looked extensively into the backgrounds of the five finalists he interviewed, but in the end relied as much on chemistry and intuition as on policy and legal intellect.

Adesnik then writes:

I would say that the often-condescending Ms. Bumiller has thoroughly misunderestimated the president. While I'm sure that Bush asked Wilkinson about his exercise habits, we have every reason to believe that Bush carefully chose himself a candidate with both strong conservative beliefs and an incomparable ability to persuade Democratic senators to support his nomination.
In fact, it is precisely because Bumiller and others perpetuate such hackneyed stereotypes about Bush's intellect that John "summa cum laude and law review" Roberts has established himself so rapidly as an unborkable candidate.

Now, Adesnik is a smart guy. And a lot of his quite frequent criticism of The Times is warranted and well-founded. But this particular instance is an example of the sort of reflexive anti-Times sentiment that has taken root among supposedly enlightened centrists during the reign of Bush and Rove.

Bumiller is an easy target, because so much of her reporting is obsequious and, frankly, unsophisticated. But what Adesnik characterizes as "condescending," is in fact simply a paraphrase of quotes from senior administration officials. Why, exactly, do we have "every reason to believe" that Bush "carefully chose" Roberts as a candidate because of substantive reasons, as Adesnik writes? That would seem to directly contradict what Bush's own officials say. Bumiller's later quotes from Judge Harvie Wilkinson, who was also interviewed for the job, essentially contradict Adesnik.

Judge Wilkinson said he was not asked about his views on issues like abortion or even a particular legal case in his interview with Mr. Bush as well as in interviews with others on the White House staff; he would not say if he had talked to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Now, I'm not saying that Wilkinson should or should not have been asked about his views about particular issues during the interview. But the interview does seem to have been less about his qualifications or judicial philosophy and much more about Bush's general feel for a candidate's personality, which is the very point that Bumiller is trying to make. Readers are left to draw whatever conclusions they would like about the validity of that process.
-- Eric

UPDATE: Adesnik responds.

Thursday's Three

2005-07-21T13:30:00.000-04:00

Without its better half to spark internecine warfare, Exit 145 seems to have degenerated into nothing more than a pathetic link-fest.

And on that note, I draw your attention to three fascinating articles.

First, Charles Krauthammer submits a big-picture update on the continued primacy of neoconservatism within the current adminstration's foreign policy thinking. Pieces like this on the administration's foreign policy, which I support, distract me and the rest of the country from focusing on mounting evidence of Karl Rove and the administration's possibly criminal and certainly unethical behavior, which I loathe.

Second, Larry Diamond, who worked for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and who has written a recent book about our failures there, is debating Dan Senor, the former spokesman for the CPA, about the war in Slate in a series titled, Has America Failed in Iraq?". Even though Senor is a trained PR flack, he is putting forth a reasonably honest and well-reasoned argument.

And, finally, Jay Rosen has posted the response from Orville Schell, the dean of the Journalism School at Berkeley, to his July 5th blog post about the forthcoming plan to revamp journalism schools. If you are interested in the state of modern journalism, you should be paying attention to this. You should also be sure to check out this synopsis of Karl Rove's visit to the University of Maryland's Journalism School. Rove explains his frank view of the American press (which he pointedly denies to characterize as "liberal"), which is somewhat enlightening if you are trying to understand the Bush administration's media strategy.
-- Eric

A Rove Respite

2005-07-20T14:53:00.000-04:00

DC has taken a break from LeakGate to focus on Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, John Roberts, which seems like a very solid pick to me. There is a lot of conjecture that Bush's political capital has dwindled to the point that he could only afford a moderate justice, but I find that unconvincing. I think Bush's main impetus was to get Rove out of the news.

In other news, check out Winnie Cooper: Math Genius.
-- Eric

Torture Revisited

2005-07-15T09:09:00.000-04:00

Andrew Sullivan has essential reading on the newly released Schmidt Report which "defines humane down," essentially characterizing the abuses that occurred at Gitmo as unfortunate but consistent with "humane treatment."

The kind of techniques used in Abu Ghraib - sexual humiliation, hooding, use of dogs, tying prisoners up in "stress positions", mandatory nudity, humiliating prisoners for their religious faith, even the famous Lynndie England leash - were all developed at Guantanamo Bay under the strictest of supervision. What we were told were just frat-guy, crazy techniques on the night shift - had been deployed by the best trained, most tightly controlled, most professional interrogation center we have. The Schmidt report argues that, while some of this was out of bounds, it was only because of some extra creativity, not because the techniques themselves were illicit, or unauthorized by Rumsfeld and Bush. Abu Ghraib is and was policy - just policy absorbed by ill-trained, unprofessional hoodlums. But those hoodlums didn't get their ideas from thin air. They got them from the Pentagon and the White House.

And Sullivan's conclusion:

What you call this is semantic and subjective. But we do know one thing. When president George Bush said that the vile practices recorded at Abu Ghraib did not represent America, he was right. They don't. They represent his administration and his policies. Of that there can no longer be any reasonable doubt.

-- Eric

Karl Rove Part II

2005-07-13T10:50:00.000-04:00

It is Karl Rove mania here in DC right now.

First, this Byron York story was published in National Review, which features an interview with Rove's lawyer, Donald Luskin. At the end, Luskin does not deny that Rove leaked the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the Agency. Thus, Rove should still be fired.

For a thoughtful look at the journalistic principles involved in the whole sordid affair, check out this piece by Jacob Weisberg, the editor of Slate who always thinks outside-the-box. Weisberg contends that journalists need not protect sources whose motivation is to "lie and manipulate the press." I agree. If Rove - or someone else - was trying to cow those opposed to the war in Iraq by leaking Plame's identity, and given that The Times has exhausted all of the legal avenues they possibly could, I think Judith Miller should feel comfortable revealing the identity of the leaker.
-- Eric

Karl Rove

2005-07-12T12:14:00.000-04:00

It has been revealed that Karl Rove told Time's Matthew Cooper that Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.

There are somewhat complex legal issues at play, but the most important revelation is simple to understand. Karl Rove, the White House's Deputy Chief of Staff, leaked information about an undercover CIA agent to a reporter. Even if he did not give her name and even if he did not know she was undercover, it would have been very easy for Cooper to have figured that out. If Rove knew she was undercover, which I believe he probably did, this is treason. And even if he didn't, he should be fired.

The White House previously characterized the idea that Rove was involved as "totally ridiculous" and promised that anyone involved would be fired. They are now saying they won't comment on the "on-going situation."

First, I have followed Joseph Wilson closely, read a lot of his book, watched him on Meet the Press, and even seen him speak in person. Though I respect what he has done in his career, he does strike me as someone promoting himself. A lot of what he has said in public has been proven to be untrue. But this case has nothing to do with Joseph Wilson. A White House official disclosed information that led to a public revelation of an undercover CIA agent. If a member of a John Kerry administration had done the same thing, we would be talking about impeachment hearings.

Second, Instapundit has been strangely silent on this topic. A few dilligent bloggers have documented this. It is telling that a confirmed compromise of national security would go uncovered by a blogger who typically reports on a minute-by-minute basis on that very topic.
-- Eric

Hitchens At His Best

2005-07-11T14:46:00.000-04:00

In Slate today, Christopher Hitchens provides some perspective with respect to the current war in Iraq and U.S. intervention in Srebrenica a decade ago. What makes Hitchens uniquely convincing is his pedigree as a very liberal, almost socialist, thinker who fully supports Bush's foreign policy aims. Regular Exit145 readers may recall Eric's review of a public talk given by Hitchens a few weeks past and newer Exit145 readers can surely look forward to more reviews of his writing.

Here is a short exerpt, but the entire piece is worth a read.

Stepping lightly over easy-listening moral cretinism like that of the Times' editorialist, one ought nonetheless to accept the implied challenge about Afghanistan and Iraq. Those of us who have supported the rescue of both countries have had to put up with a great deal of slander lately. We have been accused of being thoughtless war-mongers, sinister neo-conservative cabalists, slaves to Halliburton, agents of Zionism, enemies of innocent Muslims, laptop bombardiers, armchair warriors, and much else besides. I generally find that these loud insults conceal a surreptitious note of queasy unease. We were right about Bosnia.

--Frank

Obama on Justice Janice Rogers Brown

2005-07-08T09:19:00.000-04:00

When do we get to make this guy president.
-- Eric

The Douchebag of Liberty

2005-07-07T14:00:00.000-04:00

I have been waiting for someone to state this case for a moratorium on Robert Novak until he admits to what he did and knew. Jay Rosen stepped up.
-- Eric

Attacks on London

2005-07-07T13:11:00.000-04:00

I did not check the Internet before I commuted to work today, so I wasn't even aware of the horrific attacks in London that occurred during said commute. I didn't notice any armed military or police officers on the metro, either, but that could have been because I was half-asleep, as usual.

Andrew Sullivan has the best content right now with respect to the bombing, including a lot of links to London bloggers.

It remains to be seen whether this was an Al-Qaeda attack or not, and whether it was aimed at the G-8 Summit or against Britian's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. If nothing else, though, it should re-focus the public's attention on the fact that there are people out there who want nothing more than to kill innocent civilians in Western nations. Our tactics may be criticized, but we are surely at war.
-- Eric

World Wide Wedding

2005-07-06T09:46:00.000-04:00

I have returned from Wedding-Land. It was an amazing week.

I was not in Washington when Sandra Day O'Connor announced that she would be leaving the Supreme Court, but I can only imagine the chatter it provoked over the weekend. Reading over the potential list of replacements is disheartening. Jay Rosen asks an interesting question: how will the massive media campaigns being mounted on opposite sides of the political spectrum make any difference at all in the eventual outcome, given that it will be 100 senators voting and not the American people?

Christopher Hitchens argues in Slate that an American aversion to casualties in Iraq is hindering our war-effort. His article links to a moving obituary written for the Iraqi Knight-Ridder reporter, Yasser Salihee, who was killed in Iraq last week.
-- Eric

Exit145 heads to ....

2005-06-30T19:25:00.000-04:00

The shore. Exit 63 for the initiated. Blogging will be light for several days. Happy 4th of July to everyone and congrats to Eric's brother and his new wife. This mick is off for his yearly sunburning.

--Frank

Noonan Strikes Again

2005-06-30T17:59:00.000-04:00

A ways back Eric wrote a post comparing the recent efforts of his two arch nemeses, Peggy Noonan and Maureen Dowd. Using a deft maneuver mastered only by a true smart-ass, Eric was able to doubly insult Dowd of the NY Times while back handing Noonan of the Journal. The subject of Noonan's column that day was pompous politicians, specifically with regard to the infamous filibuster compromise. She was widely hailed by liberals and conservatives alike for that diatribe and, in the opportunistic fashion that defines DC lifers, has recycled the theme for yesterday's piece. Noonan saves her harshest vitriol for Sen. Joe Biden, a personal favorite of this side of Exit145. However, she is also particularly hard on freshman Senator Barack Obama, a personal favorite of the other half of Exit145.

This week comes the previously careful Sen. Barack Obama, flapping his wings in Time magazine and explaining that he's a lot like Abraham Lincoln, only sort of better. "In Lincoln's rise from poverty, his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat--in all this he reminded me not just of my own struggles."
Oh. So that's what Lincoln's for.
Actually Lincoln's life is a lot like Mr. Obama's. Lincoln came from a lean-to in the backwoods. His mother died when he was 9. The Lincolns had no money, no standing. Lincoln educated himself, reading law on his own, working as a field hand, a store clerk and a raft hand on the Mississippi. He also split some rails. He entered politics, knew more defeat than victory, and went on to lead the nation through its greatest trauma, the Civil War, and past its greatest sin, slavery. Barack Obama, the son of two University of Hawaii students, went to Columbia and Harvard Law after attending a private academy that taught the children of the Hawaiian royal family. He made his name in politics as an aggressive Chicago vote hustler in Bill Clinton's first campaign for the presidency.

You see the similarities.

There is nothing wrong with Barack Obama's résumé, but it is a log-cabin-free zone. So far it also is a greatness-free zone. If he keeps talking about himself like this it always will be.
Mr. Obama said he keeps a photographic portrait of Lincoln on the wall of his office, and that "it asks me questions."

I'm sure it does. I'm sure it says, "Barack, why are you such an egomaniac?" Or perhaps, "Is it no longer possible in American politics to speak of another's greatness without suggesting your own?"

Oh, she's good. Somewhere in Maine Eric is canceling his free online subscription to OpinionJournal.

--Frank

Brits on Bush

2005-06-30T14:29:00.000-04:00

Instapundit links to a great article and interview in the London Times with President Bush that comes days before a G8 summit in Britain. The money graph that Instapundit highlights:

In person Mr Bush is so far removed from the caricature of the dim, war-mongering Texas cowboy of global popular repute that it shakes one’s faith in the reliability of the modern media.

The article is interesting, if only for a glimpse into Bush's persona and conversation style. The interview, which Exi145 took the liberty of exerpting here, is more substantive.

Bush on aid to Africa:

First of all, the way I like to describe our relationship with Africa is one of partnership. That’s different than a relationship of cheque-writer.

In other words, partnership means that we’ve got obligations and so do the people we are trying to help . . . we have a partnership when it comes to African growth and opportunity. When you really think about how to get wealth distributed, aid is one way but it doesn’t compare to trade and commerce. And we’ve opened up markets and we’re beginning to see a payoff, more commerce.

Americans want to deal with poverty and hunger. Disease. But they don’t want their money spent on governments that do not focus attention on health, education, markets, anti-corruption devices. I can’t, in good faith, say, let’s continue to be generous but I can’t guarantee the money is being spent properly. It’s just not good stewardship of our own money, nor is it effective in helping people. Our approach, as well, has been when we see disaster, let’s move in to help people . . . I mean, I could proudly proclaim at the G8 that the US feeds more of the hungry than any nation in the world.

It is important for people to understand that the contribution of the citizens of the United States is made not only through taxpayers’ money but through private contributions. Our tax system encourages people to do this. My point to our friends in the G8 and to the African nations is that each country differs as to how we structure our taxes and how we contribute to help. And our contribution has been significant and there will be some more.

Bush on the 'idealist' label:

Frankly, I rejected the intellectual elitism of some around the world who say, “Well, maybe certain people can’t be free”. I don’t believe that. Of course I was labelled a, you know, blatant idealist.

But I am. Because I do believe people want to be free, regardless of their religion or where they are from. I do believe women should be empowered in the Middle East. I don’t believe we ought to accept forms of government that ultimately create a hopelessness that then can be translated into jihadist violence. And I believe strongly that the ultimate way you defeat an ideology is with a better ideology. And history has proven that.

Bush on Iran's nuclear ambitions:

(Iran) should not be able to develop the technologies that will enable the enrichment of uranium which will ultimately yield a nuclear weapon.

I say that because they tried to do that clandestinely before, which obviously shows that there’s a conspiratorial nature in their thinking. And secondly, that their stated objective is the destruction of Israel.

In diplomacy, it’s important to establish common goals. Once you establish a common goal and common objective, it then makes it much easier to work together to achieve diplomatic ends. Our common goal is that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon.

Bush on Blair:

The decisions we have made have laid the foundation of peace for generations. His decision-making was based upon what he thought was best for the free world, for Great Britain and the free world.

What doesn’t happen in our relationship is we sit down here and calculate how best we can help each other personally. Our job is to represent something greater than that.

I admire Tony Blair because he’s a man of his word. I admire Tony Blair because he’s a leader with a vision, a vision that I happen to agree with. A vision that freedom is universal and freedom will lead to peace. I admire him because in the midst of political heat, he showed backbone. And you know, and so he’s been a good ally for America.

The whole article (or at least the 5% that I didn't cut and paste here) is worth a read.

--Frank

The Celtic Tiger

2005-06-29T20:10:00.000-04:00

Tom Friedman has an op-ed in today's Times on the surging Irish economy. Of course, if an economic surge lasts for over a decade, it's probably not a surge anymore, is it? Anyway, check out the article if: a) you have any interest in Ireland; b) you have any interest in European economics; or c) you want to take advantage of reading NY Times editorialists for free while it lasts. A teaser:

Here's something you probably didn't know: Ireland today is the richest country in the European Union after Luxembourg.

Irish bloggers have picked up on the op-ed and have a few comments of their own, including some additional requirements for gaining Irish-like economic speed.

1) cut taxes – especially corporate taxes
2) be open to trade
3) join the EU, get loads of money from bigger, richer nations who hardly notice how much you've taken them for
4) at the same time compete aggressively against those same EU members for foreign direct investment and (a real plus here) ensure that other EU members adopt anti-competitive tax policies, which help make you even more competitive.

Either way, the Friedman piece is not groundbreaking, but worth a look all the same.

--Frank

I've got to be the only one blogging about this, but...

2005-06-29T20:08:00.000-04:00

First of all, I'd like to point out that Exit145 had its 1,000 visitor today. Considering that more than half of those hits were likely from Eric and me this is not a huge event. Regardless, a heartfelt congratulations to....us.

That said, I'd like to make a few comments about the President's Iraq speech from last night. What's that you say? Everyone in the blogosphere is commenting on it? And they are all far more qualified to do so? Well, then turn the channel guy because it's coming anyway.

There was not much new information given by Bush, but my gut reaction to the speech was largely positive. A few points:

1) Among the American public, the President's disapproval numbers are at an all-time low. Far more importantly, however, support for the war has plummeted. This cannot be good for morale among the troops currently serving in Iraq, so a passionate call for support by their commander-in-chief, days before July 4th, is necessary and wise. The location of the speech (Fort Bragg, NC), the introduction of this website and the majority of the rhetoric were, one would surmise, aimed at improving levels of morale among very tested forces.

2) Bush avoided any 'last throes'-type comments and painted a less rosy picture of the Iraqi scene as compared to what others in the administration have done recently. While he obviously lauded the accomplishments of the past two years in Iraq (and elsewhere), he did begin to acknowledge the reality of a long road ahead. Surely his critics would have wanted Bush to admit that we're screwed indefinitely, but that was not going to occur last night.

3) Bush also laid down the law (once again) concerning any type of exit strategy. In classic Bush fashion ("not on my watch"), he left no room for interpretation on this front and anyone who heard the speech knows that the President will not be downsizing forces in the forseeable future. Perhaps his greatest strength shone here, as there is little doubt as to who the President is when Bush gives such a speech. Unbending and uncompromising for better or for worse.

4) Bush reiterated the connections between the war on terror/Islamic extremism and the present situation in Iraq. Drawing on comments made by Bin Laden and actions taken by Zaqarwi, he was able to remind the public that we are fighting not simply for the freedom of Iraqis from despotic rule but also against the Islamic extremists who were responsible for 9/11 and much of the violence against innocents in Iraq right now. Like much of what Bush said in the speech, this point has been made before. Seems as though people need to be reminded from time to time however.

5) Bush briefly addressed concerns from some quarters that as many as 100,000 additional soldiers are needed to, among other things, seal off the border with Syria to prevent additional jihadists from streaming across. Granted, we don't want to increase the size of our footprint in a country and region already skeptical of our presence. It seems to me, however, that a larger force would take less time to handle the situation and would be able to withdraw more quickly. At that point the logistics become an issue, but we'll save that argument for another day. Regardless, Bush (and Rumsfeld) have both put the decision in the hands of their military experts. Repeatedly and publicly doing so borders on abdication of responsibility. And considering that officials (Bremer) and Generals (Shinseki) who have expressed interest in more boots on the ground have been marginalized or worse, I have a hard time believing that honesty (read: subordination) in such matters is always appreciated. I'm not the only one who thinks so.

6) The delivery of the speech was better than average. For Bush. Forceful at times, but he's simply not the world's greatest orator. And I'm pretty sure I caught a smirk during the phrase 'carbombers and assassins.' But no matter how bad a speaker he is, I'm just glad I voted for the President instead of this guy.

Here's to another 1,000.

--Frank

Another Blogging Hiatus

2005-06-29T14:43:00.000-04:00

I will be taking a break from blogging for a little while to attend my brother's wedding in Maine. Expect posts to resume after the extended July 4th weekend.
-- Eric

Iraq the new Vietnam?

2005-06-24T19:00:00.000-04:00

Eric linked to an interesting blog post last week which drew 15 comparisons between the Iraq war and the Vietnam war. It's an interesting, albeit not entirely original, idea and a well thought out analysis that is worth the read if you haven't already done so. (Yes, I'm a little behind the times, I know.)

Certainly the lack of planning in both cases is the most compelling issue at hand. Perhaps a closer look into how we lost the battle for hearts in minds in Vietnam would provide valuable lessons in the present situation. Perhaps analyzing the pitfalls of fighting a new type of war with outdated tactics in Vietnam would help to alleviate similar problems in the deserts of Mesopotamia in the present day. Or perhaps the U.S. government could learn a valuable lesson about preparing the public for a long road ahead instead of consistently painting a rosy picture of a troubling situation. Indeed the similarities are striking. However, there were some specific and general flaws that I would like to tackle here.

When Vietnam started going badly, desperation led to expansion of the war into Cambodia and Laos. Frustration is also leading some to call for military action in Iran and Syria.

Frustration with the direction of the war is not the catalyst for calls for military action in Iran and Syria. There is little doubt that foreign forces are entering through Syria and Iran, are being supplied by Iranians and Syrians (if not those respective governments) and are successfully recruiting in those countries. Furthermore, the idea of taking action against either Assad's government or the Mullahs of Iran has not been seriously (or at least publicly) discussed. Yet. If the U.S. military does eventually engage with the enemy in Syria, Iran or elsewhere in the mid-east, frustration will certainly not be the cause.

As the casualties increased year after year in Vietnam, defenders of the war protested that pulling out would "dishonor the sacrifice" of those troops who had already died. We're now beginning to hear that withdrawing from Iraq too early would mean those who have died would have done so in vain. Both wars have given rise to a perverse logic by which death is only valid and honorable if it's followed by more death.

Baloney. The aim of continuing a war is not to create more death but to achieve victory. In this case that means bringing peace to Iraq, flushing out and eliminating the terrorists in country, establishing a working and effective government and military for and by the people of Iraq while providing a haven for democracy and freedom in an area of the world heretofore devoid of such basic rights. It would be a dishonor to those who died for these causes to disengage before achieving them, especially since our war aims remain within reach. To agree with the sentiments of the author on this point one must be convinced that this war is already lost, a point which I am far from willing to concede.

The tragedy of any war is the toll it takes on innocent civilians. Two remarkably similar pictures capture this perfectly: this one from Vietnam , and this one from Iraq. Apologists for these sorts of tragedies are fond of repeating the mantra that "these things happen during war." Indeed they do. And precisely because they do, war should always be a last resort---because when it's not, the inevitable outrages and tragedies cause the aggressor to lose the moral high ground. We didn't hear much about human rights violations American troops may have committed in Japan or Germany during World War II, did we? All wars are not the same; when in doubt, see Pyrrhus. Or Abu Ghraib.

I am not sure if the author is implying that American Troops did not commit human rights violations in WWII. I would be absolutely shocked if there were not similar--and worse--occurrences during that war compared to what has happened over the past two years. Furthermore, were there not enormous tolls taken on civilians all over the world during WWII? Did the U.S. not lock up thousands of Japanese Americans during that war? Finally, is the author saying the atrocities in Abu Ghraib prove that all wars are not the same? Do prisoner abuse reports determine the righteousness of the larger cause? I'm not sure what he means here, but I am positive he's wrong.

Specific issues aside, my main problem with the author is his apparent contention that if two situations have several parallels (no matter how stretched) then they surely will meet the same fate. Any war historian worth his salt can take two wars at random and create 15 reasons why the two incidents are similar. Obviously many of the reasons on this list are compelling. Methinks this is as much a product of the unique times and situations of the respective wars as the contended mishandling of the operations. The Vietnam war was the first war broadcast into the homes of the American public. No longer did soldiers alone bear the brunt of the awful scenes and memories of battle. In Iraq, the 24-hour a day media is able to capture the images of every bombing, every shooting and every personal tragedy for anyone and everyone to witness around the world. It is impossible for the public to consume these things for an extended time and not have their stomachs turn eventually. "Shock and Awe" was cool; live video of bloodied Iraqi mothers crying over their dead children is not. My critics will argue that such public broadcasts are beneficial in that support for a war without knowledge of what happens in war is blind faith. That is a fair point, but the fact that "all wars are awful" does not translate to "no wars are worth fighting."

The media, military technology and telecommunications all contributed to the speeding up of the Vietnam War (and now the Iraq War) in comparison to earlier conflicts. Major decisions are made and implemented at the drop of a hat, information can travel between allies (and among spies) faster than ever, and there is very little that is not exposed to the public and the enemy concerning the daily operations of the military and state department. As in Vietnam, we are fighting an enemy that cannot withstand a battle against us in traditional warfare. Instead they use their mobility and ruthlessness to their advantage. The face to face fighting of, say, WWII was replaced by jungle ambushes in Vietnam and IEDs in Iraq.

In short, the "Cunning Realist" does a fair job of analyzing the connections between Iraq and Vietnam. His premise, unfortunately, is to compare two recent wars the U.S. has failed in. Not only is this a false premise on its face, but it misses some of the deeper connections between the two. Connections more indicative of the times in which we live than anything else.

UPDATE: Check out this op-ed from Brendan Miniter in the Wall Street Journal's online edition.

--Frank

Partisan Warfare

2005-06-24T12:54:00.000-04:00

I don't typically allow myself to get roped into issues of partisan wrangling, but it's hard not to feel anything but rage toward George W. Bush right now for the White House's endorsement of Karl Rove's latest comments.

Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

Yes, the motive of liberals is to put our troops in danger. That is nothing short of accusing all liberals of treason. I wouldn't normally count myself as a "liberal" per se, but given that Rove clearly believes that liberals and conservatives are mutually exclusive groups with no overlap and given that I voted for John Kerry, I would count myself among the group whose motives Rove claims exclusive knowledge of. Shameful. It is hard for me to try to be clear-headed or to act in good faith about our country's policies when the people formulating them would say such things.
-- Eric

Rumsfeld: Please, Let Me Resign Already

2005-06-24T09:26:00.000-04:00

I had the opportunity to watch the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on C-Span last night, and witnessed an extraordinary exchange between Senator Ted Kennedy and Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld.

TED KENNEDY: Secretary Rumsfeld, as you know, we are in serious trouble in Iraq, and this war has been consistently and grossly mismanaged, and we are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire. Our troops are dying, and there really is no end in sight. Our troops deserve better, Mr Secretary, I think the American people deserve better. They deserve competency, and they deserve the facts. In baseball it's three strikes and you're out. What is it for the Secretary of Defence?
LEIGH SALES: Mr Rumsfeld took a deep breath when the Democrat finished.
DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, that is quite a statement. First, let me say that there isn't a person at this table who agrees with you that we're in a quagmire, and that there's no end in sight. The suggestion by you that people – me or others – are painting a rosy picture is false. I think that the comments you made are certainly yours to make, and I don't agree with them.
TED KENNEDY: Well, my time has just expired, but Mr Secretary, I'm talking about the misjudgements and the mistakes that have been made, the series which I've mentioned. Those are on your watch. Isn't it time for you to resign?
DONALD RUMSFELD: Senator, I have offered my resignation to the President twice, and he's decided that he would prefer that he not accept it. And that's his call.

When a man like Don Rumsfeld, who has a Pentagon-sized ego, responds to a question from a man like Senator Kennedy, who is a symbolic Enemy of all Republicans, about whether he should resign by saying "I have offered my resignation to the President twice," I interpret that to mean, "yeah, I know I have screwed up MASSIVELY. But the President wants me to keep serving, and so I will continue to do so." There are plenty of reasons why the Bush administration may have decided it would not be politically expedient to admit any setbacks in Iraq (most of which I do not agree with), but Rumsfeld's response says it all.
-- Eric

Blogging is a Force That Gives us Meaning

2005-06-23T14:15:00.000-04:00

Unfortunately, the diplomatic situation in Uzbekistan continues to deteriorate. As has been covered here, here, here, here, here and here on Exit145, the May 13 Massacre at Andijon has created a great deal of tension between the Bush administration and the Karimov regime. While Uzbekistan has been a critical ally throughout operations in Afghanistan, it appears that past military support may not be enough to save the friendship. Secretary Rice spoke out publicly on the issue late last week.

"We have arrangements with the Uzbek government and we continue to hope that we can use those arrangements," Rice said, referring to the Karshi-Khanabad base. Rice went on to say that the Bush administration for the last several years has been "urging the Karimov government to do something about the openness of its political system. The answer to the potential threat of extremism in a country is not to close the system down, but rather to open it up to legitimate and more moderate voices in the political system."

However:

In would appear that the Karimov administration is not willing to listen to such calls for domestic policy changes. Recent comments by top Karimov administration suggest that they are profoundly disillusioned with the US-Uzbek strategic alliance, apparently feeling that the United States has not provided the expected level of security. For example, Azizkhojayev, during his June 15 television interview, turned noticeably bitter when discussing US-Uzbek cooperation. "Those who regard themselves as members of the anti-terror coalition sometimes support such people [Islamic militants] in the [current] information war [surrounding the Andijan events]. As a result of this, although the threat posed by international terrorism is common knowledge, the fight against it has not shown any results."

The fluctuating relationship between the United States and Uzbekistan is fascinating. First, the external political situation is a microcosm of the potential contradictions within the Bush doctrine. The Karimov regime is repressive and undemocratic, factors that don't jive with the standard policy of international democratic reform that the administration has championed. On the other hand, elimination of Islamic terrorist threats remains the primary focus of Bush's foreign policy and Uzbekistan has helped to implement that agenda to some degree.

Second, the manner in which the U.S. addresses Karimov's government will show to what degree internal power has shifted between the State Department and the Defense Department. The Pentagon initially attempted to play down the May 13 massacre, or at least play down the effects the massacre would have on our military relationship with Uzbekistan. When the administration did not take much of a stand immediately following the killings, some observers were led to believe that the DoD's views would continue to dictate policy. However, as Rice and Bush have both spoken out against the massacre and it appears that Karimov's regime is not backing down, it looks as though Rice's shop is calling the plays more and more. Perhaps this is a coincidence or perhaps Rumsfeld is losing influence in the White House.

Few people on either side of the debate believe that regime change can happen at this time, largely because of the lack of viable options beyond President Karimov. However, that may be changing. "Sunshine Uzbekistan" seems to be the opposition group of the moment and despite rumors that its leader is somehow being manipulated by Karimov himself, it can rightly be said that any news is good news.

--Frank

Exit145 Spotlight: Chris Hedges

2005-06-22T19:44:00.000-04:00

Today I had the opportunity to see Chris Hedges speak at Politics n Prose in Washington. He was discussing his new book, Losing Moses on the Freeway. I am a big fan of Hedges' writing, which has focused primarily on the horrors of war, and has been informed by his twenty years spent as a war correspondent for the New York Times and other newspapers. I first became a fan when I randomly read interviews he had given about his experiences with war, and then from his book, War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning.

Hedges touched on a lot of topics during his talk. First, he explained that his dissatisfaction with the Church and his experience at Divinity School at Harvard led him to "hate liberals" (i.e. his professors) because they were out of touch with the oppressed and poor people whose interests they purported to represent. He thought the best way for him to fight fascism and assist the poor and oppressed would be to travel to El Salvador, where a civil war was occurring, and to report on it. His experience in war led him to believe, though, that it is nothing more than a destructive force that invades and corrupts every aspect of society. There is no glory in war, only pain, suffering, and death. And, finally, he touched on how the modern Christian Right constitute northing short of a powerful, fascist movement in America right now, which is the topic of a recent cover story he wrote for Harper's Magazine (and the topic of his next book). Hedges noted that they preach hatred and intolerance - of gays, liberals, and non-believers of any kind - and advocate the elimination of all who are not one of them. He commented that their movement is being legitimized by the left who has - for whatever reason - begun to engage and consequently further legitimize them.

The question and answer section was lively, and not very satisfactory. I asked Hedges two questions. One, what advice he would have for an aspiring war correspondent (sorry Dad). He said that he would first tell them not to do it, that they would have to be insane to do so, and began to list off the various ways in which the job destroys your mental and physical well-being. I interrupted him, though, and asked him if he regretted it. He said "no, because it enabled me to see the truth about war." When I spoke to him after the talk, he told me "don't go to war" and I said "you are not very persuasive when you say you did not ultimately regret it." I also asked him, "You write so articulately on the horrors of war, yet I know you are not a pacifist. With all due respect, when is war justified?" Hedges replied that indeed he was not a pacifist, that a discussion of pacifism among the Sandanista rebels would result in laughter. Pacifism is not an option when you are under attack. Before I could follow-up and ask Hedges if he theoretically supported wars, then, by foreign powers intervening on behalf of an oppressed people, he had already called on another questioner. The rest of the questions focused primarily on the current power of religion in American politics, and Hedges discussed the righteousness of MLK's message, and how religiosity should always be a personal thing, and should never be intermingled with power, or attempted to be legislated. He does not think that the Religious Right should be engaged or legitimized, because in the end, they are not intellectually awake, and cannot be convinced that their hatred and intolerance and power-mongering is anti-Christian and anti-Religious.

Hedges looked a lot older in person than I expected. He said that when he wrote War is a Force he was living in a studio apartment in New York with just a futon and a computer, and that a lot of afternoons he was unable to write because he would sit at his desk and just cry. He also said he had post-traumatic stress disorder, though not a debilitating case of it. I happened to overhear someone else ask him why he had stayed on as a war correspondent for 20 years when it was so obviously destructive to his physical and mental health. He said that part of the reason was that he had become addicted to the adrenaline rush of war, but partially it was loyalty to his fellow war correspondents who had been killed. He felt he was honoring their legacy.

I want to finish Moses on the Freeway and think more about what he said before commenting much further on Hedges. And while I do respect the man greatly and think he has a lot of fascinating and insightful things to say, I am skeptical about how his beliefs translate into a coherent foreign policy, or at least one that does not embrace an isolationist pacifism.
-- Eric

If you think that's a freedom fighter, I've got a bridge for sale

2005-06-22T10:09:00.000-04:00

Hey folk(s), it's been quite a while since I danced not-so-nimbly across this page. My diligence and manhood have been questioned after a shocking dearth of posts and one reader went so far as to call me a disgrace to the blogging community. Those critics may be a tad disappointed now that I'm back.

One of the largest problems I have with the coverage of the Iraq war is the usage of the term "insurgent" or "the insurgency." There were undoubtedly Baathist elements involved in the early stages of the fighting (and, to a lesser degree, they still exist). And it would by naive to think that there are no forces in Iraq whose singular goal is to create political change solely within Iraq. But it seems quite clear to me that the overwhelming majority of these "insurgents" are jihadists pure and simple. Not Iraqi freedom fighters. Not Iraqi anything. No, they are extremist Islamic terrorists.

At this point, the majority of these men are not Iraqi. They are by in large Syrian and Saudi and fight not for a goal or unified set of beliefs as much as they work together against a common enemy – the U.S. For quite some time, common thinking held that the sooner the Sunni minority was incorporated into the government and elective process, the sooner the suicide bombings, IED bombings and mortar attacks would subside. Yet the violence has increased noticeably despite recent willingness on the part of the Sunnis to enter the political fold. Not only are these 'insurgents' targeting civilians but they lack any sort of alignment with a semi-legitimate political party ala Sinn Fein-IRA.

At times during the American Revolution, forces led by General Washington engaged in what can be described as insurgent warfare. A similar argument could be made for the tactics of Massoud's forces in Afghanistan against the Soviets and later against the Taliban. Likewise for the North Vietnamese during the aptly named Vietnam War. These insurgencies differ from what we are seeing in Iraq in that they had goals that ended within the boundaries of their own countries. What we are witnessing in Iraq is a terrorist movement, orchestrated and implemented by the very same forces that brought 9/11 to bear. They have but one goal: destruction of the United States. Whether we were in Iraq, Iran, Syria or elsewhere, we would be facing the same enemy--perhaps the very same men--motivated by the same beliefs and ideals.

The forces fighting against U.S. and Iraqi troops (and terrorizing the public) would not remain effective were it not for the support of nearby legitimate governments, namely Syria. President Bashar Assad is nimbly playing both sides of the fence on this issue by withdrawing troops from Lebanon and jailing known terrorists on one the one hand while on the other hand releasing said terrorists nearly immediately after their incarceration. It is a game well-practiced by like-minded middle eastern states; for years, the Saudi and Jordanian royal families have whispered sweet nothings in the ear of the U.S. while implicitly and explicitly supporting clerics and organized groups militarily opposed to the U.S. and its interests. Unfortunately for the Assads of the world, the initiator of such actions rarely wins in the long run. It is only a matter of time before Assad (and others like him) will face the rath of those he encourages (the extremists) and those who he seeks to damage (United States).

Regardless, people who blow up diners and street markets do not constitute an insurgency. They are terrorists, pure and simple. They deserve to be addressed as such.

--Frank

A Hitchens in my Plan

2005-06-21T13:02:00.000-04:00

Last Friday, Exit 145 had the chance to listen to Christopher Hitchens talk about his new book on Thomas Jefferson. I went mainly to learn a little bit about Thomas Jefferson and to see the famously contrarian writer speak. He didn't disappoint, and even interrupted his otherwise dignified and erudite presentation to comment that his visit to North Korea taught him that the country is "seriously fucked up."

Christopher Hitchens writes that partisanship is a good thing in the Wilson Quarterly this month, effectively dismissing my call for a post-partisan America. Hitchens, though, does not address how partisan wrangling can impair the ability of a nation to focus on and defend itself against a foreign threat, which is my point of criticism.

Also, don't miss this Hitchens piece on Wolfowitz from March 2005.
-- Eric

Neal Pollack, Your Name Sounds Familiar

2005-06-20T10:40:00.000-04:00

Can somebody fill me on the back-story of this Neal Pollack essay in the New York Times Book Review? I know I have read him before, but I can't remember where. Is he a real person?
-- Eric

A Defense of Tucker

2005-06-17T16:27:00.000-04:00

Tucker Carlson gets ripped on constantly. Jon Stewart famously accused him last year on Crossfire of promoting uncivil discourse. But away from Crossfire, that isn't really the case. Anybody that has actually watched his show on C-Span knows that, notwithstanding the bowtie, he's actually an intelligent, intellectually honest, curious dude. We could certainly use more civil discourse in this country, but Tucker Carlson is not Enemy #1.

You may not know that he in fact changed his position on the Iraq War last year (initially supported, now he doesn't).

"I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it. ... I want things to work out, but I'm enraged by it, actually."

He has a new show on MSNBC. I plan to check it out.
-- Eric

Excuses

2005-06-16T17:22:00.000-04:00

Unreliable home internet service combined with unreliable job status has led to little blogging and much of this. Expect more useless photos and comparable levels of blogging. What? I'm the bad guy?!
(this picture has been removed because it is ruining the site - the editors)
--Frank

Is Iraq the New Vietnam?

2005-06-16T12:21:00.000-04:00

This question runs shivers down any war supporter's spine. But is it such a crude proposition?

This post is worth reading.

As James Lindsay has been saying, "`stay-the-course' arguments always leave you wondering when perseverance has turned into pigheadedness."
-- Eric

Tom DeLay: Pure Evil

2005-06-16T10:54:00.000-04:00

I did pay some attention to the Terry Schiavo case, and could not for the life of me figure out why Republicans, who at some point in the past used to believe in small government and state's rights, were trying to strong-arm the state of Florida's court system. Senator Frist's "interview diagnosis" was beyond the pale.

Dr. Frist, in his floor statement on March 17, said that after viewing videotape of Ms. Schiavo, it was clear she was responsive. "To be able to make a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state - which is not brain dead; it is not coma; it is a specific diagnosis and typically takes multiple examinations over a period of time because you are looking for responsiveness - I have looked at the video footage," Dr. Frist said. "Based on the footage provided to me, which was part of the facts of the case, she does respond."

Can't the AMA revoke his Medical license?

And the recent relevation that Schiavo's brain was withered and untreatable should provoke shame from those congressman that would say absolutely anything - no matter how ridiculous - to advance their agenda.

Who could I possibly be talking about?

"Ms. Schiavo's condition, I believe, has been misrepresented by the media," Mr. DeLay said on March 20. "Terri Schiavo is not brain dead; she talks and she laughs, and she expresses happiness and discomfort. Terri Schiavo is not on life support."

Shameless.
-- Eric

Obama Commencement Speech

2005-06-14T09:57:00.000-04:00

This is a commencement speech given by Senator Barack Obama at Knox College on June 5 that is worth reading.
-- Eric

Taking Tom To Task

2005-06-09T11:35:00.000-04:00

This is a hilarious skewering of Thomas Friedman and his new book that all 3 of our readers should check out.
-- Eric

Standards?! We don't need no stinkin' standards!

2005-06-07T13:25:00.000-04:00

It has come to the attention of the editors here at Exit145 that some of our readership has linked to the site through various search engines. Were these curiosity monkeys eager for information concerning the latest "Uzbekistan goings-on"? No. Could it be commentary on "military policy and recruiting" that interested readers crave? That was my guess too, but wrong again.

It seems that Google has listed us as a source of Lindsay Lohan gossip. So, in the interest of pleasing our fans, we will continue to post the occasional nugget on the activities of everyone's favorite teen star. Well, second favorite after Hillary Duff. But whatever. Please note that the editors have no interest in this whatsoever and simply live to serve you.

Lindsay Lohan is still upset at Ashlee Simpson for "stealing" her ex-boyfriend, Wilmer Valderrama, last year. When Ashlee arrived with her sister, Jessica, Saturday night for Lohan's party at the Standard in L.A. after the MTV Movie awards, there was almost "a catfight," sources say.

"Jessica and Ashlee pulled up, and as hotel employees were clearing a table for them at Lindsay's party, Lindsay supposedly found out and said, 'No way — they are not coming to my party.' And the guy at the door told the Simpsons that [Lohan] said to go away," our spywitness said.

The Simpson sisters then went to Jimmy Fallon's party at the Argyle Hotel, where Jessica was heard ranting, "That [bleep]. If she comes here, I will kick her ass!"
>
Sure enough, an hour later, Lohan ended up at the Argyle, where Jessica "went ballistic," spies said. "She was screaming how she was going to kick her butt, and had to be separated from Lindsay. Ashlee wasn't so upset, but Jessica was furious because she says she is a star and should be let in everywhere."

The trio ended up making up after Lohan "explained it was a mistake that they were not let into her party."

A rep for Lohan said, "Maybe their names got misplaced on the list."

A rep for Ashlee said, "Ashlee and Jessica had a great time at Jimmy's party, which was the hottest one of the night."

More?! Ok, here's a little taste:

Meanwhile, at the MTV awards, everyone was buzzing about Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' strange behavior.

"Katie requested a private dressing room, which was in the basement," we're told. "Tom and Katie came roaring up on his motorcycle and disappeared for the whole night into the room with her p.r. guy, a stylist, a hairdresser, a makeup person and six Scientologists, including Tom's sister [and p.r. woman] Lee Anne DeVette. They did not come out except for when they went onstage — did not mingle with anyone in the green room — and then left."

Holmes had to be back at the Regent Beverly Wilshire early the next morning for the "Batman Begins" junket, where she and Cruise "made out in the hallway in front of all the journalists and TV people in between every interview."

"We are talking a public display for hours," said our source. "It was over the top, unnecessary and gross."

That pretty much sums it up. I hope you're happy.

--Frank

Life Lessons from a Man Wearing a Pink Tie on a Pink Shirt

2005-06-07T11:23:00.000-04:00

Check out David Brooks' column, "Life Lessons from Watergate," from Sunday's NY Times; this goes double for my contemporaries in the DC area. The Times' remaining 'conservative voice' discusses -- aptly for the most part -- what the atmosphere can be like for ambitious 20-somethings in today's working world. As has been widely reported, Bob Woodward cultivated a relationship with Mark W. Felt while serving as a Naval Lieutenant on duty at the White House. Woodward, like many in his position then and now, wanted to learn how the game was played at the highest levels in order to establish a path to success. As Brooks notes, Woodward was looking for any advantage he could gain.

Bob Woodward, in other words, was in the midst of the starting-gate frenzy.

Places like Washington and New York attract large numbers of ambitious young people who have spent their short lives engaged in highly structured striving: getting good grades, getting into college. Suddenly they are spit out into the vast, anarchic world of adulthood, surrounded by a teeming horde of scrambling peers, and a chaos of possibilities and pitfalls. They discover that though they are really good at manipulating the world of classrooms, they have no clue about how actual careers develop, how people move from post to post.

And all they have to do to find their way amid this confusion is to answer one little question: What is the meaning and purpose of my life?

And later:

Fear of the unknown sends thousands back to law school, but others plunge into the precarious world of entry-level jobs.

Yes, David, and some nameless persons try the latter before resorting to the former in a blatant act of desperation. Later still:

The most nakedly ambitious - the blogging Junior Lippmanns - rarely win in the long run, but that doesn't mean you can't mass e-mail your essays for obscure online sites with little "Thought you might be interested" notes.

Yeah, I'm not really sure what he's getting at here. Either way, the column is worth a look.

UPDATE: Oh SNAP! Matt Yglesias ain't havin' none of that!

--Frank

Quick update on Uzbekistan

2005-06-07T09:58:00.000-04:00

The situation in Uzbekistan continues to deteriorate. Human Rights Watch has released a damning report on the May 13th massacre.

The witness accounts describe the circumstances of a massacre, says Allison Gill, a Human Rights Watch expert on Uzbekistan who helped with the report.

"We tried to provide as clear a picture as we could establish of what happened -- and I think it's probably the most comprehensive picture to date of what happened -- to show that there were very serious crimes committed by the government and a lot of unanswered questions still," Gill says. "There has to be transparency and accountability around the government's use of force on civilians."

Gill tells RFE/RL that the report does not provide an estimate of casualties or the size of the crowd that gathered in a main Andijon square ahead of the arrival of government troops. But the report suggests the death toll is far higher than the official government figure of 173 dead. For example, numerous witnesses told the organization that one group of fleeing protesters numbering close to 400 people was almost completely mowed down by gunfire from government forces.

And later...

The Human Rights Watch report confirms the raid on government facilities. But it disputes the government charge that Muslim extremists were behind the uprising.

The report says the events appear to have been sparked by the trial of 23 businessmen accused of Islamic extremism. But researcher Gill says the charges lacked evidence and that the protest in Andijon grew into a large rally of people voicing anger about poverty and government repression:

"There is no evidence of an Islamic agenda of the people that we talked to," Gill says. "There is no evidence of an Islamic agenda witnessed by any of the many eyewitnesses of the events. And it's a very, very convenient excuse for the government, and we've seen the government use it many times before."

In other news, the Peace Corps has suspended its program in country and there is anticipation of terrorist attacks or further clashes between citizens and Karimov's government. This is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

--Frank

Journalism, Government Service, and the Myth of Watergate

2005-06-06T16:08:00.000-04:00

Media-slayer Jay Rosen's latest post on the myth of Watergate and its role in proselytizing for the "the religion of journalism" is a must-read.

And down in the comments section, presumably from a reporter talking about his experience in journalism:

The first hard lesson I had to learn: I was full of crap. Were there liars and manipulators in the governments I covered? Of course. But things are never that simple, and I learned pretty quickly that the Watergate model was a lousy way to do the day-to-day job of covering a community.

When I graduated from college, I felt the pull toward what would be a logical career choice for an energetic and idealistic college graduate: journalism. But is it good for society that journalism (rather than government service) is the natural path for such a young person? Shouldn't idealistic young people aspire to have a stake in the actual operation of our government, rather than aim to simply report on (and often diminish and undermine) the government?
-- Eric

From the MailBag

2005-06-06T10:27:00.000-04:00

To respond to reader MJef's comment on the post, Is The New York Times a liberal newspaper? Well, not exactly.

Mothers and fathers around the country said they were terrified that their children would have to be killed - or kill - in a war that many see as unnecessary and without end. Around the dinner table, many parents said, they are discouraging their children from serving.

I don’t have a problem with parents discouraging their children from serving. I don't object to the right of the parents to object to the military recruiting practices if they believe they are problematic. I do have a problem with parents banning the military from even trying to recruit their children. There is a big difference.

You say that perhaps if the military were to make a “compelling enough case that Saddam Hussein was an actual threat to America” that they wouldn’t have such problems with recruiting. But it is not the job of the military to make a compelling case that Saddam Hussein was a threat. It is the job of the military to support the president’s policies. And they must be able to recruit the number of soldiers requisite to perform this task.

If the recruiting campaign was based “on some sort of cartoonish, racist image of Osama Bin Laden” (which it may subtly be in some areas), that would surely be objectionable. But, again, the problem is banning the recruiters altogether, not the objection to their tactics.

“Are there any strategies of recruitment that are legitimately objectionable, or does the military have the right to use any and every tactic at its disposal without objection?”

The military does not have the right to use every tactic at its disposal without objection. But the reality is that we are a nation at war, and we need to recruit soldiers. One can object to specific instances where the military has used improper recruiting tactics, but one should not deny the fundamental fact that they must be able to recruit.

”is it possible that this sort of dissent is primarily understood by those who practice it as objection toe policy, rather than objection to the military as a whole, and if so, are citizens wrong to conceive of or practice dissent in such a way?”

Yes, I believe they are wrong. If you disagree with the policy, protest against those that formulated the policy. Yes, the military plays a crucial role in planning and decision-making at a tactical and even strategic level. Ultimately, though, it is the civilian leadership that led us to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they should be held to account, not the military.
-- Eric

Zapatero, Take 2

2005-06-06T09:57:00.000-04:00

Seems that much of the Spanish population has grown tired of Prime Minister Zapatero's policy of terrorist appeasement, noted on this page last week. A massive protest rally was held over the weekend in opposition to Zapatero's proposal to hold meetings with the Basque separatist (and terrorist) group ETA.

The march comes more than a year after Mr Zapatero's Socialist party formed a government and a month after the Spanish parliament gave him the go ahead to open talks with Eta if it shows a "clear will" to renounce violence.
"Do not negotiate in my name," is the slogan of a march that was also expected to attract dissident sectors of Mr Zapatero's own party.
The marchers, to be led by relatives of some of the 800 people killed by Eta over the past three decades, will go from the site of one Eta bomb attack in Madrid to another.

In a perfect world, this would have happened a year ago. Nonetheless, let's hope Zapatero gets the message.

--Frank

Shaq--Who knew?

2005-06-03T20:19:00.000-04:00

As a die-hard Knicks fan in the early 90's (there will be a serious run-off when it comes to naming my first son--Frank V or Oakley Nolan), it was my sworn duty to despise Shaquille O'Neal from the second he entered the NBA. It was not hard to root against the man-child early on: he seemed to lack respect for the older players in the league (see: PA-trick Ewing), he relied on his size more than his skill and he was just so damn good. Over the course of his career, which I can't say I have followed more closely than most NBA stars, I have grown--grudgingly--to like Shaq. He makes his teammates better, he is as graceful an athlete as you can get for a 7'1", 330 pound behemoth, he is one of the smartest players in the league, and he has far more respect for the game and the greats than my 13-year-old self was aware of. Check out this article from espn.com. Not to sound too much like Rick Reilly, but Shaq really is one of the good guys.

It's Friday here in our nation's capital, so while Eric and I will surely be verbal-blogging all weekend, posting will be light-to-non-existent for yours truly.

--Frank

Recruiting and Retention

2005-06-03T13:30:00.000-04:00

Congress recently passed an $82 billion supplemental budget to finance the continued fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. The U.S. military and its supporting contractors are making technological advances in weaponry, transportation and communication at a rate rarely seen in history. Support for the military among the general public, despite a divided view of the war in Iraq, is arguably stronger than at any time in the last half century. The average U.S. soldier is more adequately armed and protected than perhaps any warfighter in history. But the largest problem facing the United States military today trumps the long list of positives.

Recruiting is at a virtual standstill and retention rates among active duty soldiers are falling tremendously. They have the money, they have the support, but they don't have the manpower. Outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Richard Myers, recently testified to Congress that the current deployment of soldiers to Iraq and elsewhere could potentially limit the effectiveness of the U.S. military in future confrontations. Despite his assertion that we would eventually be victorious in any potential war, a total vote of confidence this is not.

It would be reactionary to claim that the military (particularly the Army and Marine Corps) is in crisis mode, but it is obvious to the most casual observer that a some new ideas to reverse the trend in recruiting and retention need to be proffered.

A number of factors are at play in the recruiting dropoff. Resistance from parents, a strengthening economy and the potential of serving in a combat zone have all contributed to the dismal statistics. Meanwhile, as the Wall Street Journal reports, standards for new enlistees and current servicemen have been lowered in order to increase the raw number of personnel. This is a practice that Phil Carter and Owen West over at Slate rightly see as a counterproductive solution.

(T)hese are not soldiers who field commanders want to retain. One lieutenant colonel currently commanding a civil-affairs battalion said these troops were the ones "who eat up my time and cause my hair to gray prematurely." A former infantry officer said he could "not recall a single soldier chaptered for the reasons identified ... that I would have wanted to deploy with."

This new retention directive represents a regression by the Army, from the vaunted all-volunteer force of today back in the direction of the all-volunteer force of the 1970s, when drug use, race riots, and AWOL incidents were common among all services. The Marine Corps Historical Branch traces its own severe spiral to "the end of the draft and the pressure of keeping up the size of the Marine Corps. In the process, a number of society's misfits had been recruited." By 1975, the corps had so decayed that newly appointed Commandant Lewis Wilson sought permission from Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger to implement a radical personnel proposal: Push the authority to discharge unworthy Marines down to the battalion level. Under the "expeditious discharge program," commanders quickly cut 6,000 undesirables, sending a message that reverberated throughout the military, paving the way for the subsequent military performance surge credited to President Reagan.

Now the Army intends to reverse the policy, implying that battalion commanders are not able to weigh the needs of the total force against those of their units. By the time a soldier reaches the discharge point, the officers above him have already invested a great deal of rehabilitative effort. Forcing units to keep these troops—and indeed, to take them to war—puts a very heavy rock in the rucksack of any field commander who must now balance managing these subpar performers with his mission and the needs of his unit.

It may seem counterintuitive, but perhaps a raise in standards would be positively reflected in recruiting numbers. At the very least this practice would increase the productivity and effectiveness among current forces. It is essential for the military to set its sites on increased retention rates, particularly among the officer and specialized forces ranks.

The Pentagon must stop the proliferation of its private army. Today there are as many as 30,000 private military contractors serving in traditional military billets. They are paid up to five times as much as soldiers performing the same duties. Encouraging the privatization of soldiers when there is a severe shortage of riflemen is circular reasoning. While the Army and Marines struggle to increase their infantry ranks, the DoD is paying private companies lucrative contracts to act as personnel brokers. Where do these firms find the recruits? The military. So the government is paying hefty finders' fees to locate quality soldiers it recruited in the first place. Far from being castoffs, they are among America's best, mostly senior soldiers lured by pay and flexibility. They belong in the ranks of the Army and the USMC, not the NYSE.

This is the most striking argument of all. As a government contractor with the military, I can attest to the accuracy of these statements. It is common for highly ranked and capable servicemen to retire from the military in favor of a contracting job. There is no feasible reason that the Army or Marine Corps could not match those offers by scaling back the amount of work done by private firms.

There are several broad-based campaigns being implemented to drive up numbers among enlisted soldiers, including a sped-up naturalization process and targeting niche audiences. While the Defense Department would be remiss to minimize the recruiting struggles as they stand, the first reaction should be to hang on to the best soldiers that are already serving. Increased retention could solve dual purposes. Indeed, what greater incentive for a potential recruit than a service that expects the best, provides the best and does the most to hang onto its current people?

--Frank

Is The New York Times a liberal newspaper? Well, not exactly.

2005-06-03T12:13:00.000-04:00

It is no secret that conservatives love to hate The New York Times. Under seemingly constant attack since the Jayson Blair scandal, the paper's credibility has taken a huge hit in the past few years. A lot of the criticism seems to be, more than anything else, part of a calculated political agenda from the Right.

The central substantive critique offered by more mainstream critics, however, is that the Times writers are predominantly liberal and therefore their reporting and writing is (consciously or unconsciously) slanted by a liberal bias.

I recently watched a panel where Bill Keller, the Times' Executive Editor, was asked whether he thought such a bias existed. He replied that there is probably a bias among reporters, but that it is much more of an urban, secular bias. I think that's a pretty solid insight. Though much has been made of the red/blue state divide, the reality is that liberals and democrats are well-represented in most areas of most states across the country, and their views about the military and religion are diverse. But in urban areas, where members of the military and the fervently religious are few and far between, an enormous disconnect exists. And because the writers of the Times largely reflect the values and worldview of urban secularists, they produce awkwardly framed articles during a time of increased prominence in coverage of the military and religion in American life.

Exhibit A: Today's article, Growing Problem for Military Recruits: Parents.

The gist of the story is that the military is getting more aggressive with their recruiting tactics - which are aimed at defenseless children - and parents are trying to fight back.

Mothers and fathers around the country said they were terrified that their children would have to be killed - or kill - in a war that many see as unnecessary and without end. Around the dinner table, many parents said, they are discouraging their children from serving. At schools, they are insisting that recruiters be kept away, incensed at the access that they have to adolescents easily dazzled by incentive packages and flashy equipment.

Where is the balance here? Some parents are insisting that recruiters be kept away, but surely there must be some who encourage their children to join the military?

And the recruiters tactics are made to sound insidious, dazzling children with their incentive packages and flashy equipment. Is this different from how other companies might recruit for positions? Isn't it reasonable for the military to aggressively advertise its most attractive features? The article does not put forth any evidence that the military is in any way being dishonest about the sacrifice one makes when one enlists (which is not to say that it doesn't happen). But how is this recruiting behavior different from any other American organization - it only is, of course, if you believe the military is inherently evil.

So although the Garfield P.T.S.A. voted last month to ban military recruiters from the school and its 1,600 students, the Seattle school district could not sign on to the idea without losing at least $15 million in federal education funds. "The parents have chosen to take a stand, but we still have to comply with No Child Left Behind," said Peter Daniels, communications director for the district. In Whittier, a city of 85,000 10 miles southeast of East Los Angeles, about a dozen families last September accused the district of failing to properly advise parents that they had the right to deny recruiters access to their children's personal information.

It's hard for me to understand why Americans would be so adamently opposed to the military recruiting in their schools. Whatever you think of our current engagement in Iraq, it is simply a largely urban, secular assumption that the military is so evil that it should not even be allowed to recruit high-school age children. And this assumption is embedded in the reporting of the story. If this story were instead about, for example, parents "taking a stand" to ban organizations that were tolerant of homosexuality, would the reporter let the phrasing go unchallenged as he does here?

Unlike Mr. Terrazas, Ms. Rogers, 37, of High Falls in the upper Hudson Valley, had not thought much about the war before she began speaking out in her school district...When her son, Jonah, said he was thinking of sitting out a gym class that was to be led by National Guard recruiters, Ms. Rogers, who works part time as a clerk at the local motor vehicles office and receives public assistance, said she told him not to be "a rebel without a cause." "In this world," she recalled telling him, "we need a strong military." But then she heard from her son that the class was mandatory, and that recruiters were handing out free T-shirts and key chains - "Like, 'Hey, let's join the military. It's fun,' " she said.

I'm not sure why the military should not be allowed to hand out t-shirts or keychains, or why they shouldn't be able to promote military service as a worthwhile endeavour. Few jobs in this world are "fun," and if parents are unhappy with this false impression that their children received, they should educate them. But banning recruiters altogether makes no sense.

On May 24, at the first school board meeting since the gym class, she read aloud from a recruiting handbook that advised recruiters on ways to gain maximum access to schools, including offering doughnuts. A high school senior, Katie Coalla, 18, stood up at one point and tearfully defended the recruiters, receiving applause from the crowd of about 70, but Ms. Rogers persisted. "Pulling in this need for heartstrings patriotic support is clouding the issue," she said. "The point is not whether I support the troops. It's about whether a well-organized propaganda machine should be targeted at children and enforced by the schools."

It's only a "propaganda machine" if you don't believe in the cause it advocates. Again, no balance here. Imagine if, instead, this article quoted a white supremacist bemoaning the "propaganda machine" of the Godless left. And the supremacist lived in a town where they had recently voted to ban recruiters from organizations that endorse affirmative action policies. Would there have been more balance? Perhaps a few quotes from a truly dissenting citizen?

I love the New York Times. It's the best newspaper in the country, and I couldn't live without it. But its urban, secular bias - confirmed even by its executive editor - is undeniable.
-- Eric

Bolton Comes Unglued

2005-06-02T17:17:00.000-04:00

I happen to agree with a lot of John Bolton's views on Foreign Policy -- and I do agree that the ambassador to the U.N. should be tough-minded and relatively assertive -- but this video of him condemning the United Nations is a portrait of someone who is simply unfit to be a diplomat in any capacity.
-- Eric

Developments in ... Guess where?

2005-06-02T15:56:00.000-04:00

Bloggers are not the only ones picking up on the rapidly developing events in Uzbekistan. Christopher Hitchens writes on the subject today in Slate.

I was not born yesterday or even the day before, and I can see perfectly well what is being implied here. How can America claim to be the protector of new liberties in Muslim lands if it acquiesces in Karimovism?

Indeed. Further, while there are rumors intimating that extremist elements were behind the Andijon uprising, the U.S. needs to verify these statements before lending them any credence. These rumors are, after all, being pushed by Karimov, Putin and Hu--three men whose words need be taken with a grain of salt.

Karimov is not morally equivalent to the Taliban or Saddam Hussein. He has not invaded neighboring states, or committed genocide, or subverted the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or hosted international gangsters. However, the fact remains that he is a nasty tyrant, and that American policy has come to adopt a position that post-Soviet states should be helped to overcome post-Soviet dictatorial malaise. The record here, in Georgia and Ukraine and Kyrgizstan and (soon, one hopes) Belarus, is not too discreditable. The president has changed the lazy manner in which he used to greet the appalling Vladimir Putin and has quite rightly criticized the post-Yalta settlement and its ancestry in the Hitler-Stalin pact. The defensible elements of this policy succeed only in making Uzbekistan an even more conspicuous and ugly exception. And one ought never to forget Chechnya, where the West in general has been amazingly supine in the face of Russian depredations.

As Hitchens points out, our relationship with Uzbekistan has been complicated by the growing number of newly formed democracies in the region and the precedent we have set by our policy in dealing with those states. Furthermore, Russia's support (and China's to a lesser degree) of the Karimov regime has put the onus on the Bush administration to pick a side. To the point, the role that the Bush administration plays here could impact future relations with Putin's Russia on on larger scale. Despite the slight gestures of friendship displayed between Putin and Bush last month that Bush will likely side against Putin. It would not be surprising for a diplomatic confrontation to occur on the issue of Uzbekistan's present and future.

Hitchens continues:

It has always to be remembered that such regimes will not last forever, and that one day we will be asked, by their former subjects, what we were doing while they were unable to speak for themselves. Better to have the answer ready now and to consider American influence in a country as the occasion for leverage rather than as the occasion for awkward silence.

This idealism is what drives many of Bush's foreign policy supporters. I have a hard time arguing against this point myself, particularly if that support translates to a friendly and profitable relationship years down the road.

UPDATE: After a safety warning earlier today, all U.S. citizens have been told to leave Uzbekistan within the next eight days.

UPDATE 2: An article on the subject in TIME.

--Frank

Sands of Empire

2005-06-02T15:05:00.000-04:00

Congressional Quarterly editor and political journalist Robert Merry is set to release a new book titled "Sands of Empire: Missionary Zeal, American Foreign Policy, and the Hazards of Global Ambition." As Bob Novak points out, this book should provide ammo for the,

...increasing numbers of conservatives deeply concerned by U.S. military intervention in Iraq. They voted for and admire President Bush, but were profoundly disturbed by his second inaugural address pledging to spread democracy worldwide.... This is no anti-Bush political screed seeking Democratic gain and Republican loss in Iraq's casualty lists. Merry over the years has been an objective journalist but considers himself a conservative and is said by friends to be a Republican who voted for Bush. What worries Merry is that Bush mixes the moralism of Woodrow Wilson and the exceptionalism of Theodore Roosevelt to produce fatal U.S. global ambitions.

It is not surprising that many Republicans are beginning to question the Iraq war specifically and the GWOT generally. Conservatives have traditionally placed themselves in the 'realist' camp of foreign policy, a camp home to Kissinger, Nixon and Bush I more so than to the current President. Indeed, the aggressive push for democracy around the world for the sake of ideals and not for the sake of American security is what many realists have found troubling. According to reviews and public relations material, Merry rejects this shift in U.S. policy as unrealistic and potentially disastrous. The argument between cyclical history and progressive history remains at the center of the debate among policy experts and historians around the world. "Sands of Empire" stands as an emphatic vote for the growing number of Republican realists opposed to the Bush doctrine.

From the book jacket:

From the first president Bush to Clinton to the second Bush presidency, the United States has compromised its global leadership, endangered its security, and failed to meet the standard of justified intervention, Merry suggests. The country must reset its global strategies to protect its interests and the West's, to maintain stability in strategic areas, and to fight radical threats, with arms if necessary. For anything less than these necessities, American blood should remain in American veins.

As Exit145 has not yet received an advanced copy of "Sands of Empire" from the publisher (lost in the mail??), we will hold off on providing a full, potentially scathing, analysis of the book just yet. However, the highlighted sentences above do not go along way to convince this observer of anything. How are our 'interests and the the West's' defined? What qualifies as a strategic area? When is it 'necessary' to take up arms? And is there a formula to determine when 'American blood should remain in American veins'? Expect a review, or at least an answer to the questions posed here, soon after "Sands" drops.

--Frank

NJ Politics--Is it Even Worth It?

2005-06-02T12:17:00.000-04:00

It seems that the Republican nomination for Governor of New Jersey is all but locked up with Doug Forrester increasing his poll lead to double digits a week before the primary election. Despite the rampant corruption and sky-high taxes that have become associated with the powerful state Democratic party, voters are likely to make an also-ran of Forrester when he faces Sen. John Corzine in the general election. Corzine's probable election will undoubtedly be funded by his own personal wealth and should allow the state government to continue its trend toward high tax rates, fiscal irresponsibility, poorly distributed public funds and deteriorating public schools. And you wonder why some of us choose to move out of the Garden State...

--Frank

Eric is the Source for this Post

2005-06-02T10:24:00.000-04:00

This Bob Woodward story on Deep Throat provides a behind-the-scenes account of how the most exceptional Washington story was researched and reported.

There has been lot of speculation in the blogosphere that in our current media climate the anonymous nature of the source of the Watergate story would have rendered it unpublishable, or at least called into question the source's motives.

Woodward states:

With a story as enticing, complex, competitive and fast-breaking as Watergate, there was little tendency or time to consider the motives of our sources. What was important was whether the information checked out and whether it was true.

The revelation of Deep Throat's identity has provoked a resurgence of Watergate discussion (and even some Nixon defenders) and provided new context for the current debate about the use of anonymous sources.
-- Eric

Bush Breaks Silence on Andijon

2005-06-01T13:30:00.000-04:00

As noted in this Reuters article, Bush has finally directed criticism toward President Karimov of Uzbekistan regarding the May 13th massacre.

"We want to know fully what took place there in Uzbekistan, and that's why we've asked the International Red Cross to go in," Bush told a Rose Garden news conference.

"We expect all our friends -- as well as those who aren't our friends -- to honor human rights and protect minority rights," he added.

It has been coming for some time, so we're happy to see Bush publicly address Karimov. Over at EurasiaNet is a solid piece of analysis by Ariel Cohen on the major policy implications of Uzbekistan.

While the best available option may be to press Karimov to reform, a significant number of Washington analysts believe that the Uzbek president is incapable of changing. This inability to open up Uzbekistan’s political and economic systems is detrimental to US security interests, as Karimov’s continued reliance on force pushes Uzbeks, out of desperation, to resort to violence, and possibly embrace Islamic radicalism. As a result, distaste for Karimov seems to be growing in Washington, and many wouldn’t mind seeing a new leader in Tashkent, provided that stability could be maintained.

That, in a nutshell, is the situation. Bush has a difficult choice to make between the status quo and his oft-quoted and lofty principles. If the last few years have taught us anything about this President, it is that he is not hesitant to take risks. It appears that W. is moving away from Karimov quite definitively.

--Frank

UPDATE: Sergei Luzyanin offers some commentary suggesting that Andijon is likely to be repeated.

UPDATE 2: In an unsurprising move, Tashkent has denied the need for international investigations, but did allow for the possibility of foreign ambassadors to advise an internal review of the Andijon massacres. In an equally unsurprising development, Russia has fully supported President Karimov's unbending stance and has chimed in with rumors of Chechen aid in the uprising on May 13.

Lohan's Grip on Reality

2005-06-01T00:15:00.000-04:00

First of all, the new TPMCafe that Eric made reference to earlier today is spectacular. Matt Yglesias has his own corner over there and offers this post.

On vacation in the Outer Banks with various DC-types -- Hill staffers, etc. -- it's become clear to me that the single issue that most engages the passions of the American people is the question of Lindsay Lohan's weight. She's gotten too skinny, you see. Fortunately, two friends of mine working at a prominent policy-analysis shop have started a blog dedicated to this and related issues.

Seems that Yglesias has taken some of our readers. Here's the link to your daily fix--enjoy.

--Frank

The Extremist Grip on Reality

2005-05-31T22:00:00.000-04:00

Check out this Internaional Herald Tribune op-ed.

One day, when historians study this first major war of the 21st century, they will scratch their heads in disbelief, wondering how it came to pass that Muslim extremists managed to intimidate moderates of every religion - including Islam - on every continent on earth.

The whole planet, it seems, twisted itself into knots trying to untangle the forces at work behind the retracted Newsweek story about desecration of the Koran. Journalistic practices came under attack, while experts on Islam tried to soothe the less erudite, not quite justifying, but more than thoroughly explaining why desecration of the Holy Book leads to mob rampage and murder in a Muslim society.

No question, insulting any religion is beyond reprehensible. It appears, however, that nothing is more reprehensible than insulting the Muslim religion. And the extremists now decide what constitutes an insult.

And further down:

The views and life choices of moderate Muslims must be respected, as must those of people of all religions, by members of all religions. The demands fall on Muslims, too. And the requirement of standing up against intolerance falls on all governments. Only intolerance is undeserving of tolerance.

Good stuff. The lack of accountability here--not to mention the silence of regional political and religious leaders--is appalling.

--Frank

I Know I Don't Speak the Language, But...

2005-05-31T14:50:00.000-04:00

Due to overwhelming popular demand, Exit145 will continue to follow what is happening in Uzbekistan.

As has been widely reported, Sens. McCain, Graham and Sununu were in Tashkent over the weekend to meet with members of the Karimov regime and leading opposition groups. The U.S. delegation was turned down by the government, but used the press conference with the opposition to conduct Senatorial finger-wagging in the direction of Karimov amid fresh reports of disappearances and brutality.

"History shows that continued repression of human rights leads to tragedies such as the one that just took place," Senator McCain said. He later added, "When governments repress or oppress their people, sooner or later, if they have no avenue of expressing their desire for freedom, violence takes place."

This is a start, but more needs to be done. The NY Times and Gateway Pundit seem to agree with the position that Exit145 has taken here and here. Transitions Online offers a hard-line approach to the situation: pull out of the military base on the border of Afghanistan, sever ties to the current regime and force Karimov to play by someone else's rules.

Some in the West may feel Uzbekistan’s oil and gas are more important than blood. But they must now be suffering severe doubts about their ability to get their hands on any more gas or oil. On 26 May, Karimov agreed a $600 million oil deal with China, a move that sent a clear political message: China had just gave its wholehearted support to Karimov’s policy.
That decision of Karimov’s merely underlined trends that have been becoming clearer ever since Georgia’s revolution in November 2003: Karimov has been moving away from the West, seeking a rapprochement with Russia, and forging closer ties with China.

Karimov's recent visit to China and the apparent snub of McCain, et al, amount to a virtual line in the sand. It may be time to call his bluff.

Better than unconstructive engagement would be to treat Karimov like his neighbor, Turkmenistan’s President Saparmurat Niazov – as a pariah. The two were always similar; Niazov was simply more clearly eccentric, more colorful, and actively sought out isolation. At Andijan, Karimov has gone beyond anything that Niazov has ever done. Now, Karimov too is seeking isolation from the West. Making Karimov a pariah is therefore also making a virtue of necessity.
The virtues are, firstly, that the onus would be on Karimov to make a new effort to revive the only Western relationship that may still matter to him, the relationship with Washington. Rice has said that "I think Uzbekistan does not want to endure further isolation from the international community”; she should test the notion. Secondly, it would give the United States an opportunity to show that its perceived national interests are not more important than its loudly proclaimed national values. President Bush has given one of his top staffers, Karen Hughes, the task of improving America’s image in the Islamic world. That is a tough sell when the White House seems so reluctant to condemn a crime as heinous as any seen in years. It also ensures a skeptical response when Bush asserts that people across the Caucasus and Central Asia "are demanding their freedom – and they will have it." At present, Central Asians will find it hard to see how they might gain their freedom courtesy of the West; many may instead simply see democracies as hypocrites – and condemn democracy as a result.
That highlights one of the tragedies of Andijan: one of the few things that the West can currently do for ordinary Uzbeks is to draw attention to and condemn the crime in Andijan – and it seems to be squandering that opportunity, an opportunity that is also an obligation.

It does not take a regional expert or Phd. to question the tactics of the Bush administration thus far. If backchannel diplomacy was in effect immediately following the events of May 13, that is clearly no longer the case. As mentioned, sending McCain to the Uzbek capital will begin to draw attention to the situation. Let us hope this is only the beginning of a policy shift away from what had begun to resemble a compliant attitude.

Additional Info: Islam Online has a brief background on Islam's role throughout the history of Uzbekistan while Registan.net has been posting frequently on current developments. Also, it seems that the 'refugee' situation has had some unexpected related effects on civil society in Kazakhstan.

--Frank

1, 2, 3, Be Boring!

2005-05-31T14:03:00.000-04:00

Exit145 readers may be put to sleep by the latest slugfest between New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and the recently departed NYT Public Editor, Daniel Okrent.

In other news, TPM Cafe launched today. The cast of the America Abroad blog is incredible. This group of foreign policy heavyweights - the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton and an ex NSC speechwriter among them - could perhaps refute the recently overheard assertion that "almost nobody who blogs produces anything halfway worthwhile."
-- Eric

UPDATE: Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards is also guest-blogging there this week.

UPDATE2: Jon Chait takes Okrent to task - "I didn't think Daniel Okrent...could get any more cowardly...but he just did."

Zapatero

2005-05-31T10:44:00.000-04:00

The NY Times reports that the Spanish government is planning conciliatory talks with Basque separatist groups in hopes of finally putting an end to the on-again off-again terror campaign that has lasted for nearly 40 years.

Members of the main opposition group in Parliament, the Popular Party, have attacked Mr. Zapatero's proposal as tantamount to appeasing terrorists.

Not the first time, eh Mr. Prime Minister?
--Frank

An Exit 145 Hajj

2005-05-27T18:31:00.000-04:00

A few points of order:

1. I did not, unfortunately, get the chance to catch Andrew Bacevich last night. So you'll all have to wait a little longer for Exit 145's first exclusive lecture report.

2. Frank and I will be in our home state's metro area this weekend; expect blogging to be light. (I am a tool)

3. I no longer receive the New Yorker at my home, so I am very much looking forward to reading the John McCain profile when I get to my parent's house. Expect posts next week on McCain's chances in '08.
-- Eric

Gitmo, Torture and "Perception"

2005-05-27T16:04:00.000-04:00

Thomas Friedman calls for the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay to be torn down amid the countless allegations of torture and murder and the -- here we go again -- ensuing image problem the U.S. is facing. In typical Friedman fashion he calls for a plan of action that cannot feasibly be implemented, but he makes some solid points along the way.

Why care? It's not because I am queasy about the war on terrorism. It is because I want to win the war on terrorism. And it is now obvious from reports in my own paper and others that the abuse at Guantánamo and within the whole U.S. military prison system dealing with terrorism is out of control. Tell me, how is it that over 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody so far? Heart attacks? This is not just deeply immoral, it is strategically dangerous.

And farther down:

Guantánamo Bay is becoming the anti-Statue of Liberty. If we have a case to be made against any of the 500 or so inmates still in Guantánamo, then it is high time we put them on trial, convict as many possible (which will not be easy because of bungled interrogations) and then simply let the rest go home or to a third country. Sure, a few may come back to haunt us. But at least they won't be able to take advantage of Guantánamo as an engine of recruitment to enlist thousands more. I would rather have a few more bad guys roaming the world than a whole new generation.
"This is not about being for or against the war," said Michael Posner, the executive director of Human Rights First, which is closely following this issue. "It is about doing it right. If we are going to transform the Middle East, we have to be law-abiding and uphold the values we want them to embrace - otherwise it is not going to work."

Somewhere in DC, Eric and Andrew Sullivan are high-fiving.

--Frank

Response to Commenters

2005-05-27T15:26:00.000-04:00

It seems that my first post of the day stirred up some strong feelings, at least among two of our readers. Both responses were thoughtful and well-argued so instead of putting my response in the comment section, I have decided to address their issues here. I will begin with Anonymous and then move on to Kerner. Their comments are in italics.

First, I think that you would get some strange looks in Germany and France for calling them "Muslim Chiracs and Arab Schroeders (those who gain power and popularity briefly by preaching anti-Americanism)". Not only do I think that is inappropriate, it is just wrong.

Fair point, it was probably a little over the line and pseudo-clever. Nevertheless I still like the phrase – Muslim Chirac sounds like a racehorse. But I digress.

Schroeder did not come to power by preaching anti-Americanism, and a statement such as that only goes to show how influenced you are by the American mainstream media. Schroeder was an incumbent when unemployment in Germany raged. People believed that the Social Democrats would be able to solve the problems of the economy without a drastic cutback in the welfare state (Chirac is much the same story). While Schroeder was no friend of the U.S. and the war, and he used it to his advantage, there was no difference between his position of "No War" and that of CDU/CSU candidate Edmund Stoiber.

Ok, both you and Kerner have a point here. I should have differentiated between gaining popularity/power and hanging onto it. I understand that the war in Iraq is greatly unpopular across France and Germany, and so do the leading politicians. My point, perhaps fashioned sloppily, was that both Schroeder and Chirac played up to their countrymen’s disdain for the Iraq war specifically and U.S. foreign policy overall in the hope of taking the focus off of domestic failures during election time. It is also the tactic that has been used by Arab leaders for years to shift blame for repressive and ineffective governments. Hell, all politicians use it to one degree or another.

You seem to leave out the fact that the media (not liberal media) do very often fan the fires of dissent and publish inflammatory pieces. The Bush administration has done a poor job of communicating with the Arab world, but how can this be an example of the failure. How can the administration disprove a negative?

I do not believe I did leave out the fact that the media (liberal, conservative, fascist, whatever) “very often fan the fires of dissent and publish inflammatory pieces.” Two examples from my post spring to mind: 1) The headlines from papers across the country misrepresented the content of the articles. The story, to me at least, was more about discrediting the Koran flush story and noting the relatively small scope of this problem in the detention facilities. 2) While the conclusion of the post was pointed in the direction of the administration, that was largely because I thought it redundant to lay this problem at the feet of the media. That simply goes without saying. Perhaps this was not made clear.

Riyadh Comm Director: "Just another one of our daily notices to the people of Saudi Arabia today that we are 36 days without one desecration of the Koran. Thank you. Just in case you hear some story from a prisoner and the media picks up on it."

Very cute, anonymous.

That would be difficult to pull off. Much of the Muslim world does not trust the United States because of many years of neglect and abuse--not reports from Newsweek. The administration, while doing a poor job, has an uphill battle and, much like Nixon, inherited a pretty shitty situation.
Why not say "However, the failure on the part of the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT is the larger issue here." We have never communicated well with other cultures. We get involved based on short-term national interest, and we don't think long-term. Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Chile, Nicaragua, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and the list goes on.

The government must find a way to communicate with non-Americans--that is the key. As Kissinger will tell you, perception is more important than reality, and we have to fix their perception. But this is not a problem created by Bush and his actions--only exacerbated.

I agree with almost all of these comments particularly the point about perception. The whole idea behind the original post was to note the administration’s lack of ability to change the existing perception – which is not to say it is a simple open and shut task. I called on the Bush administration specifically because: 1) it is currently in office now and therefore is the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT; and 2) Under the Bush administration, which again I support in these matters, we became far more involved than before. And it was the specific responsibility of the Bush administration to have a plan going in for dealing with these issues which have obviously been festering for years. I do not believe that they did have a coherent plan.

When I wrote this post I thought that if it got any responses they would be representing the opposite perspective of “anonymous.” Although I must note that the references to German politics, Kissinger and Nixon somewhat disintegrate the façade of anonymity.

And Kerner:

Second, Newsweek isn't "a third rate U.S. newsmagazine." You may not like Newsweek, but I am pretty sure it has one of the largest circulations of any magazine of its type. I don’t think the liberal media debate (which I think you were referencing) is at all relevant here. Considering a mini-series based on the protocols of elders of Zion was a big hit in the middle east recently, Newsweek seems like a pretty credible source of information.

Circulation does not translate to credibility or quality. And despite the mini-series you reference, that credibility has been damaged.

Third, I think it’s ridiculous to chalk up Arab mistrust to our failure to get the message out. I don't really know what we are or are not doing, but even if we were doing an impeccable job, I can't think of any reason why the Arab world would take our claims of good intentions seriously. We don't exactly have a good track record over there. And even if we did (and we don't), a lot of these folks just don’t like the idea of non-Muslim interference in the Muslim world and it doesn't really matter what our intentions are or how well we sell them.

I did not ‘chalk up Arab mistrust to our failure to get the message out.’ Nor do I necessarily disagree that there are some men you just can’t reach. The administration was not responsible for the riots over the Newsweek error. But surely there was a more effective (and, to reference anonymous here, far-sighted) approach to dousing the flames than to have the white house press secretary wagging his finger at Newsweek. That was merely a “get even and settle a score with the media” moment. I believe that we played directly into the hands of the enemy here.

Where were the calls for restraint, from the administration or Arab/Muslim leaders? In this instance, responsibility was only taken by the media and the white house, not those responsible for the riots and killings. We are repeatedly caught off guard by these occurrences and lose every public relations battle that comes along. It is not necessarily the fault of the administration or Bush’s policies that these battles occur, but the lack of a thoughtful and, again, far-sighted approach is distressing.

--Frank

Lebanon vs. Iraq

2005-05-27T10:52:00.000-04:00

Michael Young has written a very informative piece in Slate on the current state of affairs in Lebanon. Elections begin this weekend and will likely result in a government far less dependent, and beholden to, Syria. Events have progressed at a phenomenally quick pace since the yet-unsolved murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut, and while there are still some major obstacles (see: Hezbollah, disarming) there is much good news. The only issue I have with the article is the following paragraph:

Those who accuse the Bush administration of incompetence in the Middle East because of events in Iraq may soon have to temper that with an assessment of its shrewder behavior in Lebanon. Lebanon is today under de facto international trusteeship, and the mainstays of that order, ironically, correspond to what the Bush administration's critics would have regarded as ideal in Iraq: The United Nations is involved; the United States and the Europeans are reading from the same songbook; the administration has not used military force; and a heinous crime may one day be punished. Most important, change came through a combination of outside and domestic pressures, so even compulsive foes of U.S. unilateralism might approve.

While it is true that the Bush administration has played its hand well in Lebanon so far to compare what has taken place there since February with the events in Iraq since 2003 is laughable. To begin, the nations of Western Europe (save Britain) have largely abdicated responsibility in Iraq. Hitching a ride on the diplomatic cakewalk that has been the movement toward Lebanese independence does not make up for that abdication. Indeed, when Egypt and Saudi Arabia are calling for Syrian withdrawal, it is somehow not as bold to step in and 'help.' At no point was outside (re: U.S.) military force needed or even suggested in Lebanon as the transition has been largely peaceful. Rest assured, however, no empty threats were needed to convince Syrian President Assad that it was in his best interest to pull out of his smaller neighbor's land. Perhaps most astoundingly is the implication that only in Lebanon will a 'heinous crime' be punished. Is Saddam, murderer and torturer of thousands, not in prison awaiting trial by his own people?

To state a case for Lebanon as a model for a peaceful uprising is fair; to compare events there to those in Iraq is amateurish at best and disingenuous at worst. The overarching answer to all of the criticisms leveled above is simple: the dramatic and inspiring events in Lebanon would not taken place without intervention in Iraq first laying the groundwork. The Lebanese protestors knew they had an ally in the Bush administration, Assad knew he could not respond to the protests violently because a precedent for direct U.S. intervention had already been set and thus no military intervention was necessary.
--Frank

Toilets and Holy Wars

2005-05-27T10:37:00.000-04:00

Read this front page article from the NY Times. I cannot be the only one to find this particular quote from a one-star general ridiculous: “I'd like you to know that we have found no credible evidence that a member of the Joint Task Force at Guantánamo Bay ever flushed a Koran down a toilet.” A few points on this mess:

Headlines in papers around the country trumpeted the news that there have been documented occurrences of Koran desecration at Guantanamo Bay. Nevermind that these occurrences were very rare or that half of these cases were unintentional. What’s more is that the detainee who started the entire “Koran in the toilet” uproar claimed in the new interview that he “was not a witness to any Koran abuse.” (emphasis added).

Despite these new reports, there are massive protests scheduled for today throughout Pakistan. (Look for folks upset about a wet book to be burning flags and stabbing Bush mannequins.)

Is this all the fault of Newsweek? To a small degree, yes: no one is denying their sheer and utter incompetence. However, the failure on the part of the Bush Administration is the larger issue here. It has become too easy for extremist clerics and leaders to rally the masses to their side based on flimsy allegations and hearsay. When waving a copy of a third rate U.S. newsmagazine can start murderous riots, we know the message machine is broken badly. The administration needs to find a way to communicate directly with the Muslim world – possibly in Arabic? – as the current method of denying all wrongdoing and pointing the finger at the liberal media is clearly not working with the masses. What is most frustrating is that the overall aims of the administration in the region are wholly positive -- yet we cannot convince these people of it. We are making it way too easy for the Muslim Chiracs and Arab Schroeders (those who gain power and popularity briefly by preaching anti-Americanism) to influence events. An interesting and related post can be found on Democracy Arsenal.
--Frank

Torture: An Introduction

2005-05-26T15:24:00.000-04:00

Slate has an excellent interactive and quite comprehensive piece on torture today. The abuse and torture of prisoners is a subject that both Frank and I have been discussing informally and would like to address on Exit145. The topic, however, is so complex, and requires such a finely-tuned understanding of legalese that I have been reluctant to engage it.

I will say, for now, that while I am opposed to torture on human rights grounds, I am surprised by the lack of a widespread argument against torture on realist terms.

As usual, Andrew Sullivan has made the most sense on this issue:

My careful, fully documented criticisms of the U.S. treatment of detainees have been made not because I am anti-war or anti-military. They are because I am pro-war and pro-military. Does Glenn really believe for a second that idiotic tactics like brandishing fake menstrual blood or Stars of David at Muslim inmates are good interrogation practices? Does he think these excrescences have helped gain any useful intelligence in any way? The problem with these abuses is that they are evil and stupid; immoral and counter-productive, as so many experts in interrogation will testify. All of this is the gift to bin Laden that keeps on giving. But it wasn't Newsweek who gave him the gift. It was this administration. And, indirectly, those who shill for it.

Those on the right who argue for zero restraint on the treatment of prisoners and for journalists to exercise discretion by not reporting allegations of torture against U.S. troops have no concept of the ideological war we are fighting with fundamentalist Islam.

To quote John Cole:

In the weird world-view of the post-modernist right-wing apologista that Hugh represents, if a story is unreported, it didn't happen....Except it did, and the communities we are ostensibly trying to help know it did, and it breeds legitimate resentment, contempt, and hatred for the United States to bolster the already existing irrational hatred of the US. If Hugh gets his way, the 'Newsweek riots,' as he pithily labels them, will give way to a much deadlier and much more wide-spread and, I might point out, LEGITIMATE groundswell of violence that will have long term implications in the region and on American military and diplomatic power for years to come.

Amen. Check out the Slate interactive piece and look for more on torture soon.
-- Eric

Peggy Noonan 1, Maureen Dowd 0

2005-05-26T13:36:00.000-04:00

Maureen Dowd's evil twin, Peggy Noonan, has written a blistering column criticizng the self-congratulatory nature of the coalition of moderates that saved the Senate from nuclear holocaust.

People who charge into burning towers are heroic; nuns who work with the poorest of the poor are self-denying; people who volunteer their time to help our world and receive nothing in return but the knowledge they are doing good are in public service. Politicians are in politics. They are less self-denying than self-aggrandizing. They are given fame, respect, the best health care in the world; they pass laws governing your life and receive a million perks including a good salary, and someone else--faceless taxpayers, "the folks back home"--gets to pay for the whole thing. This isn't public service, it's more like public command. It's not terrible--democracies need people who commit politics; they have a place and a role to play--but it's not saintly, either.

I have never read a column by Noonan that sounded so sensible. I have never read a column by Noonan that didn't make me want to tear out my hair. I also never knew that during the JFK era, the term "politicians" was deliberately changed to "public servants," reflecting either a sea change in public perception of politicians or the success of a political strategy to manipulate our use of language.

So for those of you keeping track of worthwile Noonan and Dowd columns, it is now Noonan 1, Dowd 0. (Book reviews don't count)
-- Eric

The New American Militarism, Part I

2005-05-26T08:29:00.000-04:00

Democracy Arsenal scoops us this morning with a discussion on Andrew Bacevich and his new book, The New American Militarism.

Issues of war and peace deserve far more congressional attention--says Professor Andrew Bacevich, who is the author of "The New American Militarism" and who I had the opportunity to have a discussion with today. His book outlines worrying trends--both in US policy and society--of the American infatuation with all things military including unrealistic idealization by the public and the mis-match of resources in policy making. The resulting imbalance, he attests, creates both social division as well as an unhealthy environment for the military as an institution in American democracy.

When one works in conjunction with the military and lives inside the Beltway, it is difficult to get a good perspective on just how deeply the culture of war and the military has been infused into the rest of our country. It's worth noting, too, that Americans could gain a lot of very good things by learning from the culture of the modern American military, namely an appreciation of civic responsibility and service as well as an increased tolerance of different religions and ethnicities.

It seems, though, that Bacevich is more concerned with America's current enthusiasm for and glorification of the use of force to solve our foreign policy problems. I look forward to hearing Bacevich speak tonight and plan to buy his book.
-- Eric

Mankiw: With Rove, Good Policy Trumps Politics

2005-05-25T21:48:00.000-04:00

An insightful interview with Greg Mankiw. Who is that, you ask?

Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, recently spoke with FORTUNE’s Peronet Despeignes, providing his most extensive remarks to date since leaving the White House on...well, just about everything.

It's worth reading the whole thing.

Tomorrow: reaction to this interview and an Exit 145 exclusive recap of a Washington DC lecture by Andrew Bacevich on his new book The New American Militarism.
-- Eric

You want Lohan?! You can't HANDLE the Lohan!

2005-05-25T16:54:00.000-04:00

First of all, this blog was started for a number of reasons, not least of which is that the topics addressed here interest the posters. This will be the last time I defend our blog. We do appreciate the feedback and will take your comments to heart. Note that this is our first week at this, so we are still trying to find our niche in an already overcrowded blogosphere.

It's nearly midnight in Central Asia, so we'll have to wait until tomorrow for more updates on the Azeris and Uzbekis. To tide you over, however, a little taste from today's Page Six.

LINDSAY Lohan has a new friend and protector — Scarllett Johanssen's ex, Jared Leto. The two were hanging out at the "Saturday Night Live" after-party at Rock Candy when, a spy says, "a guy got drunk and got into a small argument next to their table on the stage. Jared acted like security and held up the guy onto the wall to try to calm him down." A staffer ran up and said, "Be nice to the kid, he just drank a little too much — it happens." Leto let the guy go and partied with Lohan until 6 a.m. Sunday.

--Frank

Hater Mail

2005-05-25T16:33:00.000-04:00

Exit 145 reader CV writes in:

relate iraq to the OC

Reader SR writes:

Your blog makes my head hurt. Where is the celebrity gossip and pictures of Lindsey Lohan’s eating disorder?

Your feedback is helpful, and Exit 145 truly appreciates our readers. While the blog's original purpose was for Frank and I to practice our writing, we will make an effort to be more open-minded when choosing topics to address.
-- Eric

Just Writing in my Gournal

2005-05-25T13:43:00.000-04:00

An interesting article in the Wall-Street Journal summarizes the high-points of The Journal's D: All Things Digital conference which was held the past few days.

In the article, Ana Marie Cox is quoted as suggesting that blogs are becoming more like the mainstream media:

"They're cliqueish, they're arrogant, they get things wrong." As an example, she cited the Power Line blog (www.powerlineblog.com), whose investigations helped debunk the now-notorious CBS memo about President Bush's National Guard service, but which then got "memo-happy" in the case of the Republican strategy memo on Terri Schiavo, decrying it as a fake. GOP Sen. Mel Martinez later said an aide had written the Schiavo talking points.

It does seem that with time the bloggers are becoming more arrogant, but they have been cliqueish since day one. Powerline, in particular, has become almost the mirror-image of the New York Times editorial page during the mid-nineties: speaking with a tone of uncompromising authority and supreme erudition while above all remaining steadfastly devoted to factual accuracy. It is worshipped by its readers. Except, significantly, Powerline now does this from the right, and of course it is a blog.

And then, from Dan Gillmor, a former columnist:

"People have all these new options in terms of where they get what they want and how much they want to participate," he said, comparing what's happening in journalism to "bringing the conversation into what had been a lecture," with readers now talking back to journalists.

Which begs the question: if novices like Frank and I, who have little or no experience in journalism, can make our voice heard on a blog like this, what reasons remain for smart, young people to enter journalism as a field? The terrible pay? The contempt from your fellow citizens?
-- Eric

Dictionary Chief Wields Military Metaphor

2005-05-25T11:15:00.000-04:00

The otherwise splendidly-written story on a project to promote dictionary use by Exit 145's Gaithersburg correspondent Sebastian Montes contains a dubious paragraph:

Erin McKean, editor-in-chief of American dictionaries for Oxford University Press, believes the dictionary will always have a permanent, though nebulous (adj., lacking definite forms or limits), place...But if looking up a word electronically is a commando raid, she said, then using a paper dictionary is a full-scale invasion.

Are we to believe that Ms. McKean described looking up a word electronically as a "commando raid" as the article suggests?

And the American media scandal juggernaut accelerates.
-- Eric

UPDATE: Exit 145 contacted Sebastian Montes and confirmed the accuracy of the quote. To avoid another Stephen Glass situation, we will be reviewing his reporter's notes after work. We extend a very insincere apology.

Humanitarian Aid and the War on Terror

2005-05-25T09:46:00.000-04:00

Democracy Arsenal has a thought-provoking post on humanitarian aid and how it fits into the War on Terror. It has been a longstanding policy of the International Red Cross for its workers to both remain non-partisan during their work and to give out "little or no information about the situation that" they observe. By maintining discretion, they aim to preserve their neutrality.

Field NGOs trying to be genuinely non-partisan, of course, don't have the luxury of wringing their hands. Instead, they have two unpalatable choices: leave or diminish their activities in war zones, as the ICRC did after an attack on its Baghdad headquarters in 2003; or become more partisan and seek protection from one side, as many NGOS have felt they had no choice but to do in Afghanistan.

Perhaps during military interventions of lesser scope - Bosnia and Somalia come to mind - it was realistic for the ICRC to remain non-partisan. But considering we are in the midst of a Global War on Terror - where we have declared that people are either "with us or against us" - trying to preserve complete independence is dangerous to the aid workers and simply unsustainable.
-- Eric

Uzbekistan

2005-05-24T22:38:00.000-04:00

Bill Kristol and Stephen Schwartz take on U.S. policy toward Uzbekistan in an excellent op-ed in the upcoming Weekly Standard. The authors note the reasons why we are allied with the Karimov regime at this point and dismiss such reasoning as out of date.

An ongoing hazard of the fight against terrorists has been that tyrants would exploit the threat of terror to win indulgence or even support from the United States. From the Saudi royals, to Vladimir Putin, to Putin's Uzbek friend Karimov, strongmen hope to gain acceptance by Washington of their violent habits of governance. Of course, it is true that the United States does (mostly) have to deal with the governments it finds in place in the world. But we don't need to wink at their bad acts. To the contrary, a more or less coherent strategy for the spread of freedom will often require pressuring and criticizing these governments. And, incidentally, it is political, civil, and economic freedom to which most Central Asian Muslims aspire. Just like Ukrainians, Georgians, and Iraqis.
So, toleration of Karimov's brutality threatens to undercut this administration's impressive and successful foreign policy. Previous administrations have unfortunately allowed dictators to learn the lesson that repression works.

Exactly. As has been expressed here in an earlier post, the lack of reaction from the Bush administration to the massacre in Andijon is appalling.

President Bush should lead the international pressure on Karimov to allow journalists, legitimate relief workers, and trustworthy investigators to travel to Andijon and render a verdict on the events there.

Read the whole thing.

Despite what some may think of Bush's foreign policy, it is difficult to deny that we have men of Karimov's ilk on their heels around the world. A double standard in this case would be unwise. At this juncture, independent relief groups, NATO and various western countries have supported an investigation along the lines of what Kristol and Schwartz mention above. Nearly two weeks after the violent crackdown on political dissidents, it is past the time for Bush to directly address what is happening there.

And in the "as if the news couldn't get any worse, now this" department, there are two new developments today. First, China is now openly supporting Karimov's indefensible use of force, strengthening the comparisons drawn between Andijon and Tiananmen. Also, there are now reports of political activists 'disappearing' throughout Uzbekistan in the wake of the May 13th events.

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has been following this story well from the beginning and has more on Karimov's visit to China here.

Azerbaijan Update: As noted here yesterday, Secretary Rice was expected in Baku today for the opening of the BTC Oil Pipeline. Exit145 has learned that contrary to these reports, the Secretary will not be attending. All we can do at this point is speculate, but one has to wonder if the Bush administration is sending a signal to the Aliev government by pulling the plug on Rice's trip. An Op-Ed in the Washington Times today is quite giddy over today's opening of the BTC and makes a strong argument for continuing ties to Azerbaijan.
--Frank

Response to a Sobering Question

2005-05-24T19:26:00.000-04:00

Point taken. But as Rosie Perez said in "White Men Can't Jump," 'sometimes when you win you really lose and sometimes when you lose you really win and sometimes when you win or lose you really tie.'
Victories:
1) Kerry remains a junior Senator.
2) Gore teaches journalism.
--Frank

A Sobering Question

2005-05-24T15:36:00.000-04:00

Bill Quick asks:

What was the last "big one" that secular, small-government, constitutionalist conservatives won under the GWB administration?

Frank, I assume that's approximately how you would classify yourself. In all seriousness, do you have an answer?
-- Eric

Police Academy?

2005-05-24T13:25:00.000-04:00

Ross Douthat, quickly establishing himself as Complainer-in-Chief when it comes to discussing the academy's failings, has another piece in The New Republic today.

Kimball advocates greater alumni influence on campus culture and academic appointments (he praises Princeton's right-leaning James Madison Program, funded by wealthy alums like Steve Forbes) and suggests the abolition of tenure, which he calls "a means of enforcing conformity and excluding the heterodox."...
These lines of attack are defined, above all, by a belief that universities can be diversified from the top down. And this is precisely why it's likely to fail. Understandably but fatally, conservatives are ignoring the example set by the very New Left "tenured radicals" they hope to unseat, which is that real academic change comes through bottom-up infiltration, not attempts at engineering from the top.

Douthat is the author of a recent book excoriating Harvard, his alma-mater, as a "an incubator for an American ruling class that is smug, self-congratulatory, and intellectually adrift."

Douthat's solution to this problem - the cultivation of "a new wave of great minds and great books" - seems easy enough, but he never answers exactly where these minds and books would come from. Is the problem that conservatives are barred entry by a biased academy, or instead, that conservative intellectuals are simply not drawn to academia?

Could the dearth of conservatives in academia possibly be attributed to their predisposition toward careers in other fields? And given that conservatives are running Washington, DC right now - where their ideas are actually being implemented - does it make sense to complain so loudly about their lack of influence in the academy?

It seems this current state of affairs refutes the notion that the vibrancy of conservative ideas relies in any large part on their development in academia.
-- Eric

Rice in Azerbaijan Tomorrow

2005-05-24T10:58:00.000-04:00

Here is an informative article on EurasiaNet detailing what's been happening in Azerbaijan lately and what may soon boil to the surface there. Also check out an earlier posting here for further background. Things seem to be coming to a head in the former Soviet republic and tomorrow could prove a big day. The official opening of the Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline takes place on May 25 and none other than Secretary Rice will be in attendance. The clash in U.S. policy between new energy production and democratization of the region will be hard to ignore, particulary after last weekend's protests. More on that:

Before being set upon by club wielding riot police, some opposition demonstrators could be seen holding portraits of US President George W. Bush. During a May 10 speech in capital of neighboring Georgia, Bush indicated that the United States would back democratic change in all former Soviet states. "Across the Caucasus, in Central Asia and the broader Middle East, we see the same desire for liberty burning in the hearts of young people. They are demanding their freedom -- and they will have it," Bush told the crowd assembled on Tbilisi’s Freedom Square. "We are living in historic times when freedom is advancing, from the Black Sea to the Caspian." In organizing the Baku rally for fair elections, opposition leaders seemed to be acting on Bush’s Tbilisi’s comments. "

Rice does not have an easy task ahead of her. The Azerbaijani government obviously has no intention of democraticizing soon, despite vague comments to the contrary.

In comments made prior to the May 21 rally, Ali Hasanov, an advisor to Aliyev, insisted that the Azerbaijani government is committed to democratization. "We think this [democratization] is normal," Hasanov said in comments broadcast May 21 by Space TV. "Azerbaijan has chosen the way of evolution. Some states have chosen the way of revolution, and that is their own business."

Bush's trip to Georgia last month was a phenomenal P.R. success. But there were few of the complications in Georgia that will arise in Azerbaijan in the coming months as November elections and the implementation of the massive BTC pipeline could escalate the situation. This story will develop rapidly over the next few months--and potentially tomorrow in Baku. Expect the state department to play down the U.S.'s role for the time being.
--Frank

Syria: Friend or Foe?

2005-05-24T09:55:00.000-04:00

It's hard to know what to make of this Times article that appeared on the website late last night about our deteriorating relations with Syria.

Syria has halted military and intelligence cooperation with the United States, its ambassador to Washington said in an interview, in a sign of growing strains between the two nations over the insurgency in Iraq.
The ambassador, Imad Moustapha, said in the interview on Friday at the Syrian Embassy here that his country had, in the last 10 days, "severed all links" with the United States military and Central Intelligence Agency because of what he called unjust American allegations. The Bush administration has complained bitterly that Syria is not doing enough to halt the flow of men and money to the insurgency in Iraq.
Mr. Moustapha said he believed that the Bush administration had decided "to escalate the situation with Syria" despite steps the Syrians have taken against the insurgents in Iraq, and despite the withdrawal in recent weeks of Syrian troops from Lebanon, in response to international demands.

This certainly seems to be something of a he-said/she-said situation. The current poor state of our relationship with Syria has probably been exacerbated by the recall of our Ambassador to Syria after the Feb. 14 assassination of the Prime Minister of Lebanon.

The crux of the American complaints seems to be here:

American military officers in Baghdad and intelligence analysts in Washington say militant cells inside Iraq draw on "unlimited money" from an underground financial network run by former Baath Party leaders and relatives of Mr. Hussein, many of whom they say found safe haven to live and operate in Syria.

So while Syria has been aggressively policing its borders, which the military officer later concedes, they have been less dilligent in identifying and arresting the remnants of the Baath party that have sought refuge there. This does seem to be a major problem, but it's difficult to know how serious without having access to the specific intelligence.
-- Eric

Some Historical Perspective

2005-05-24T09:53:00.000-04:00

Recently there has been a backlash over the popular history genre, highlighted by an article in Slate last week. The thrust of this argument is that the large scale blockbuster biographies and American history books (authored by such household names as McCullough, Ambrose, Chernow and Morris) 'dumb-down' the field of historical research and analysis. David Greenberg, the author of "That Barnes and Noble Dream" acknowledges some of the reasons for the McCulloughesque popularity among the American public. Superior storytelling ability, exciting and patriotic subject matter and a lack of deep (read: boring) insight. It is this same absence of rigorous analysis that has upset so many 'traditional' historians. For example, by adding sheen to the subject matter and playing up heroism while avoiding psychological analyses and in-depth discussion of the effects of cultural forces on individuals, the author is cheating the reader. To a point, yes. But this is also very much a case of sour grapes.

Having read most, if not all of the major works cited (largely unfavorably) by Greenberg, I can attest to the vapidity of several of these studies. "Truman," by Greenberg's main target, David McCullough, was an entertaining and informative story replete with historical drama. As a summary of a period of time and one of the more important lives in that era, it was incredible. After reading the book I had a far greater understanding of a subject I had earlier known little about. However, the book lacked significant depth and I closed the book knowing much about what the man did and little about what drove him other than what I had gleaned from the book jacket. The same can be said of "Theodore Rex" by Edmund Morris and, to a lesser degree, "Benjamin Franklin" by Walter Isaacson. However, two points must be made in opposition to this theory.

Firstly, there are a great number of books that have sold phenomenally well--some by the very authors listed above--that are very insightful. Two examples are Morris's "The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt" and McCullough's "John Adams." In the case of "Adams," the strength of the book lies not in the tales of the formation of the nation nor in the day-by-day description of Adams' term as President. Instead, what sets it apart is the analysis of the letters that flow back and forth between Adams and his wife, Abigail. Through these letters the reader gains more of an understanding both of what influences the second President and how this changed the course of history. "Rise," the Pulitzer Prize winner and precursor to "Rex," chronicled the early life of T.R. While any author could have done wonders with the breadth of material offered by Roosevelt, Morris captured well the bravado that drove him and the weaknesses that limited him.

Second, Greenberg stops just short of comparing these books and their respective authors to the Grishams and Clancys of the fiction world. Now this is vapid. Furthermore, the goal of these books is twofold: 1) to make money; and 2) to capture complex ideas and histories in abridged form. While there should always be room for more advanced scholarship in the market, the function that these books serve as basic lessons for the general reading public is invaluable. In short, the McCullough's of the scholarly world more than make up for their lack of analytical heft with the service they provide to an increasingly aware public. I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the critics cited in Greenberg's article would trade their "intellectual superiority" for the stylistic ability of Ambrose.

--Frank
**UPDATE**: A review of McCullough's latest, "1776" in the NY Times. Two appropriate quotes:

"Although the reader in search of a wide-ranging overview of the Revolution would be better off turning to any number of earlier books (from Trevelyan's classic "American Revolution" to more recent works like "The Glorious Cause" by Robert Middlekauff or Benson Bobrick's "Angel in the Whirlwind"), "1776" does succeed in its limited aims. Mr. McCullough uses his descriptive powers and tactile sense of drama to lend his story a pungent immediacy, and he does an ardent job of conveying the hardships and outright specter of devastation faced by George Washington and his troops as they took on the better trained, better equipped, better disciplined British forces." Washington, Mr. McCullough concludes, "was not a brilliant strategist or tactician, not a gifted orator, not an intellectual," and at several crucial moments "had made serious mistakes in judgment." But "experience had been his great teacher from boyhood, and in this his greatest test, he learned steadily from experience." Above all, he adds, "Washington never forgot what was at stake and he never gave up.
"Similar assessments of Washington's achievement, of course, have been made many times before - most recently by Joseph J. Ellis in his 2004 book, "His Excellency." But if "1776" remains a highly familiar story, and an incomplete story at that, it nonetheless remains a gripping read: readable, even thrilling popular history, and a graphic reminder of the parlous circumstances that attended the birth of this nation."

Seems that despite the largely positive review by the Times, this book would provide more ammo--and angst--to Greenberg.
--Frank

My other blog is a blog

2005-05-23T22:33:00.000-04:00

It seems appropriate that today, the second anniversary of my move to the District of Columbia, would also mark the first full day of blogging at Exit145. I have fully and officially become part of everything I loved to hate about DC before I got sucked in. I like to think I fought the good fight for some time, but a daily barrage of Belgravia Dispatch, OpinionJournal, political conversations in bars, infinite emails from my current blogging colleague and WAY too much free time led to the inevitable. We hope you like what you find here but even if you don't, post a comment and tell us what you think. Looking forward to your feedback. Of course, this leads to the inevitable question: If two guys in DC spend hours a day on a blog and nobody reads it--does it really exist?

--Frank

A Fresh Perspective from Hamid Karzai

2005-05-23T22:06:00.000-04:00

There are two ways to view Hamid Karzai's recent statement that he made when he visited President Bush.

The prisoner abuse thing is not at all a thing we attribute to anybody else but those individuals. The Afghan people are grateful, very, very much to the American people, and recognize that individual acts do not reflect either on governments or on societies. These things happen everywhere."

On the one hand, one could view Karzai simply as President Bush's puppet, ready to thank the U.S. in spite of their abominable behavior. Doubtless many on the left will take this view.

On the other hand, in spite of our recent failed effort to attend a Karzai lecture at Johns Hopkins, the bloggers at Exit 145 take a more charitable approach. Yes, we find the recent reports of torture in Afghanistan to be repellent. We do not support the action of any individual in the military who would torture prisoners. We must recognize, however, that the United States' broader war effort in Afghanistan, which has done much to liberate the Afghanistan people and ridded the country of the abusive Taliban, is frankly far more important than any isolated incidents of torture. Karzai's words of appreciation put these events in perspective.
-- The Editors

Sullivan on the State of Conservatism in America

2005-05-23T13:43:00.000-04:00

Andrew Sullivan has blogged and published prolifically on his skepticism about the current state of conservatism in America.

His article in the New Republic "Crisis of Faith" was the second big-picture piece that has caused a stir in Washington since the election, the first being Peter Beinart's excellent "A Fighting Faith." Kudos to TNR for putting these out.

Today, Sullivan disapprovingly quotes The Belmont Club:

Not only the treatment of the enemy combatants themselves, but their articles of religious worship have become the subject of such scrutiny that Korans must handled with actual gloves in a ceremonial fashion, a fact that must be triumph for the jihadi cause in and of itself.

Sullivan rightly condemns this line of thinking as counter-productive to the war that we are trying to win which, of course, is both military and ideological. When those on the right attack a caricature of Islam, or characterize "Arabs" or "Muslims" as inherently violent, they do everyone a disservice. Newsweek and RatherGate aside, it is ludicrous that right-wing bloggers have been attacking the MSM for the invaluable reporting they provide, simply because the information the reporting uncovers may reflect negatively on America.
-- Eric

Band of Brothers

2005-05-23T12:59:00.000-04:00

Over the last few weeks I watched the "Band of Brothers" mini-series for the second time. Based on Stephen Ambrose's book of the same title, the ten-part epic follows the men of Easy Company from paratrooper training, through the battles at Normandy and Bastogne and finally into Germany and Austria at the conclusion of WWII. The series earned high ratings for HBO and wide critical acclaim when it aired in 2001. I would recommend to anyone who has not seen it (and equally to those who have not seen it in a few years), to rent the dvds and watch them sequentially.

The quick pace of the action and storylines combine with the enormous cast to make B.O.B. easy to get into but difficult to follow closely. Rewatching some of the more chaotic episodes (particularly the drop on D-Day and the closing of the Battle of the Bulge) cleared up much of the confusion. While the battle scenes are powerful, it is the emotional and physical toll that war takes on these men that becomes the central focus of the series. By experiencing different periods of the war through the eyes of various men in the company, the viewer is able to learn more about what really went on at the front lines during the advance through Western Europe. Perhaps more exciting--and certainly more emotionally involving--is to learn how the men interacted with each other through alternating losses and triumphs. One cannot breeze through the ten-plus hours of this epic and fully appreciate the story that Ambrose captured. Through the help of the dvd bonuses (character bios, battle outlines and background) and by simply taking the time to become involved in the lives of the men of Easy Company, it is possible to get the full experience out of "Band of Brothers."
--Frank

W = Tsunami

2005-05-23T10:44:00.000-04:00

Fouad Ajami has just returned from four weeks in Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq and has excellent news to report.

I was to encounter people from practically all Arab lands, to listen in on a great debate about the possibility of freedom and liberty. I met Lebanese giddy with the Cedar Revolution that liberated their country from the Syrian prison that had seemed an unalterable curse. They were under no illusions about the change that had come their way. They knew that this new history was the gift of an American president who had put the Syrian rulers on notice. The speed with which Syria quit Lebanon was astonishing, a race to the border to forestall an American strike that the regime could not discount. I met Syrians in the know who admitted that the fear of American power, and the example of American forces flushing Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole, now drive Syrian policy. They hang on George Bush's words in Damascus, I was told: the rulers wondering if Iraq was a crystal ball in which they could glimpse their future.

The Bush Doctrine continues to transform the political environment of the Middle East. You don't have to be a fan of cynical Republican politics or even want Social Security reform to recognize the success of Bush's foreign policy.

We met with parliamentarians and journalists, provincial legislators, clerics and secularists alike, Sunni and Shia Arabs and Kurds. One memory I shall treasure: a visit to the National Assembly. From afar, there are reports of the "acrimony" of Iraq, of the long interlude between Iraq's elections, on Jan. 30, and the formation of a cabinet. But that day, in the assembly, these concerns seemed like a quibble with history. There was the spectacle of democracy: men and women doing democracy's work, women cloaked in Islamic attire right alongside more emancipated women, the technocrats and the tribal sheikhs, and the infectious awareness among these people of the precious tradition bequeathed them after a terrible history.

Truly amazing. It may sound trite when Bush speaks about the "power of freedom" and "doing the hard work of democracy," but it's true. The insurgency has not been quelled in Iraq, but most rational supporters of the war never believed it would be a cakewalk. A report like this from someone like Ajami is heartening.
-- Eric

More on Islam and Democracy

2005-05-23T10:29:00.000-04:00

In this International Herald Tribune op-ed, Egyptian presidential candidate Saad Eddin Ibrahim makes a case for Islamist democracies, specifically in the Mid-East. Money graph:

"Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have hinted recently that the United States would accept the outcome of any fair and free elections, even if it brings Islamists to power. That hint should be explicated in a clear doctrine.

A government open to all and serving all is our best weapon against both autocracy and theocracy."

And terrorism. Word.
--Frank

Quick thought on Uzbekistan

2005-05-23T09:37:00.000-04:00

This Fred Kaplan article in Slate offers no real solutions to the festering situation in Uzbekistan, but goes along way in outlining why it is imperative for the Bush administration to find an alternative to Karimov's harsh rule. Things in Uzbekistan are far more complicated than the situations in Ukraine or Georgia recently (or even Azerbaijain currently) thanks to the overwhelmingly Muslim population. Yet as Kaplan notes, two factors take precedence here.

1) We do not need to give Muslims in the region another reason to hate us. At best we are loosely allied with the brutal Uzbek autocrat, at worst we are propping him up. This is yet another battle for hearts and minds in the War on Extremism that the administration cannot afford to lose.

2) Dictatorial governments around the world are beginning to heed the calls toward democracy, or at the very least have gone through the motions of doing so. To think that the Mubaraks and Assads of the world are not evaluating how Bush reacts to developments in Central Asia is naive.
--Frank
UPDATE: Check out this post on TechCentralStation.

Channeling Joseph Heller: The Real Life of Pat Tillman

2005-05-23T08:44:00.000-04:00

Drudge links this morning to a story about Pat Tillman, a truly inspiring young man who was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan. Tillman was a football player for the Arizona Cardinals who decided to join the Army Rangers after 9/11. Though he was killed by fratricide, the Army originally tried to spin the story to make Tillman's death sound more heroic and even misled his family.

Influential opinionmakers in the American media continue to misunderstand the concept of war. Death and random killings are going to occur during any war, and this makes the war itself no more or less morally justified.

Similarly, the circumstances of Tillman's death make it no more or less tragic. The fact that he was willing to serve his country in Afghanistan is sufficient cause for us to honor him.

On the other hand, the way that the Department of Defense has handled the situation is embarassing, and not exactly out of character. The fact that Tillman's death did not fit the fantastical Hollywood storyline that had begun to be drawn up in the media should have re-enforced to the public the mundane and inglorious nature of most deaths that occur during war.
-- Eric

Santorum Slept with a Dead Fetus

2005-05-22T23:03:00.000-04:00

That should have been the title of this New York Times Magazine profile of Rick Santorum.

What happened after the death is a kind of snapshot of a cultural divide. Some would find it discomforting, strange, even ghoulish -- others brave and deeply spiritual. Rick and Karen Santorum would not let the morgue take the corpse of their newborn; they slept that night in the hospital with their lifeless baby between them. The next day, they took him home. ''Your siblings could not have been more excited about you!'' Karen writes in the book, which takes the form of letters to Gabriel, mostly while he is in utero. ''Elizabeth and Johnny held you with so much love and tenderness. Elizabeth proudly announced to everyone as she cuddled you, 'This is my baby brother, Gabriel; he is an angel.' ''

That is nutty. On the one hand, Santorum seems to be a relatively genuine guy, at least as far as politicians go. On the other hand, I disagree with about 98% of his beliefs. I also find his intolerance of gays to be abhorrent. I was surprised how positive the article was, though. This and the fact that they have appointed a former Wall Street Journal editor to be their new public editor may even temporarily placate disgruntled conservatives.
-- Eric

More Democratic Rumblings....

2005-05-22T22:56:00.000-04:00

An exciting, and dangerous, time to live in Central Asia. Gateway Pundit follows the pro-democracy uprising in Azerbaijan. Even more interesting is the post from Democracy Guy, who pointed out the possibility of an uprising days ago.

The Bush administration and the neo-con movement are peppered with oil interests linked to Azerbaijan. This is not conspiracy theory nonsense. It is a well documented fact, which has helped keep geopolitics in the region frozen in stalemate while democracy continues to decay. In addition, there is no real Islamist movement in Azerbaijan that could be blamed if protests turn into blood stained streets, as in Uzbekistan. In short, Azerbaijan is the perfect storm in which the democracy doctrine will either be shown as real policy, or merely neo-con happy talk.

So, Mr. Bush...here you go. Time to put up or shut up.

I almost wish I hadn't found this gem. I would love to have written it myself, albeit with far less credibility. Here's to hoping that Azerbaijan follows the lead of neighboring Georgia more closely than, at least so far, Uzbekistan.
-- Frank

Okrent's Swan Song

2005-05-22T21:44:00.000-04:00

I have only recently begun to read the Public Editor column in the NY Times Sunday Edition, but from what I have seen, I'm sorry to see Okrent go. As Eric pointed out in an earlier post, he delivered some perspective with regard to the difficulty of his job. My favorite part, however unsurprisingly, was the triple call-out of Dowd, Krugman and the now-retired William Safire.

Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults. Maureen Dowd was still writing that Alberto R. Gonzales "called the Geneva Conventions 'quaint' " nearly two months after a correction in the news pages noted that Gonzales had specifically applied the term to Geneva provisions about commissary privileges, athletic uniforms and scientific instruments. Before his retirement in January, William Safire vexed me with his chronic assertion of clear links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, based on evidence only he seemed to possess.

No one deserves the personal vituperation that regularly comes Dowd's way, and some of Krugman's enemies are every bit as ideological (and consequently unfair) as he is. But that doesn't mean that their boss, publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., shouldn't hold his columnists to higher standards.

I didn't give Krugman, Dowd or Safire the chance to respond before writing the last two paragraphs. I decided to impersonate an opinion columnist.

The last line was particularly funny, but I think out of the three editorialists, only Safire will be laughing at this well placed dig. Emphasis added above as a way to point out the only statement I disagree with.
-- Frank
***UPDATE***: Power Line comments on Okrent's piece as well.

Filibust-a-rhyme

2005-05-22T20:30:00.000-04:00

For the second time in a week David Brooks has gone against popular opinion (he was one of the first to call a spade a spade at the start of the Newsweek fiasco), and I have a feeling people will catch up with him on the Filibuster matter too. The climax of Brooks' argument:

"The answer, to be blunt, is that some of the moderates are moderates out of conviction. They do have courage. But many moderates are simply people who feel cross-pressured by different political forces, and their instinctive response is to shrink from pressure. They lack spirit to take risks, to actually lead."

Tough but fair.
-- Frank

Iraqi Pluralism--Yet Another Catalyst for Change?

2005-05-22T19:14:00.000-04:00

The influence of Iraqi elections throughout the Middle East and elsewhere is a story that has been covered before. As the elections drew nearer toward the end of January, fewer pundits and experts in this country and around the world truly believed that Iraqis were ready to participate in a democratic exercise. That outdated thinking has become just that.

Nearly four months later and the Iraqi government is finally starting to materialize. Despite a recent surge in violence courtesy the terrorist 'insurgency', it seems that the largest groups in Iraq, the elected officials and their appointees are moving forward. Whether the increased bombings are a direct result of this progress remains to be seen. The largest development over the last few days is the apparent realization by the Sunni factions that agreement among themselves will be necessary for effective participation in the new government. Essentially, this is Democracy 101 and it is being taught on the fly. While the different Sunni elements are sparked by unique causes, a lack of unity behind a greater Sunni 'banner' will leave them out in the cold. Not your typical party system, but a promising start nonetheless. The NY Times has a front page article on this very subject. Peaceful political discourse...this is very promising indeed.
Over at the WaPo, Jim Hoagland has an interesting piece regarding Iraqi pluralism. The money quote:

"There is a realization that Arab nationalism should be redefined," Kuwait's foreign minister, Mohammed Sabah, told me. He pointed out that Iraq has Kurds as its president, deputy prime minister and foreign minister; Sudan is
shortly to name a non-Arab vice president, and minority groups advance toward greater influence in other Arab countries.

"We should look again at the concept of the Arab League, to get away from any racist interpretation that Arab nationalism emphasized in the past," said the forward-thinking Sabah, whose country was invaded by Iraq in 1990. "The Iraqis are showing that a more multicultural approach does not divorce the country from the Arab world."

Excellent.

And from Ahmed Chalabi, the CIA's on-again-off-again heartthrob and one of the newly appointed deputy prime ministers:

"Arabs are a majority in this area, but it is not an exclusively Arab area. Other communities cannot be subjugated and their identity eradicated by the force of arms, as Saddam tried to do. We can show that Arabs will accept
pluralism as a fact of life, politically and culturally.

"The great majority of Iraq's population lives nearer to the borders of non-Arab Iran, and non-Arab Turkey, than to Arab countries. These are realities that our politics and culture must reflect."

Starting to sound like a real democracy, no? Take notice Iraqi neighbors.
--Frank

A Post-Partisan Era?

2005-05-22T17:45:00.000-04:00

This is an op-ed I have been working on.

In the wake of September 11, the phrase “everything has changed” has been uttered so frequently and so gratuitously that it has been rendered almost meaningless.

This is unfortunate, because the words accurately convey a transcendent truth for millions of our citizens. These men and women reject the partisan invective that we take for granted as ubiquitous in our society since the attacks. They embrace the necessity of a strong national defense and respect above all the courageous sacrifice of our military.

These men and women are not Democrats. They are not Republicans. They are Americans living in a post-partisan era.

If you follow current events, you’d hardly know these people exist. The nightly news shows are heavy on political vitriol, but light on addressing the serious policy questions on national security and foreign policy that our country face. If 9/11 taught us anything, it is that these questions are ignored at our own peril.

Americans who remember that the suicide bombers did not discriminate between Democrats and Republicans or between hetero and homosexuals see little utility in society’s current fixation on our relatively trivial internal cultural differences. We recognize that these differences inevitably manifest themselves in the political arena, but reject the prominence they are given by American media. Too much is at stake for us to be that shortsighted.

There is no moral relativism here. Tom DeLay and his cabal of power-mongers are unpatriotic – treasonous, even – when their actions needlessly perpetuate the partisan divide in our country at the expense of a focus on serious issues. Similarly, post-partisan Americans reject those on the left with an antipathy toward President Bush’s often visionary approach to confronting these issues.

The post-partisan message is voiced by fearless, truth-telling bloggers like Andrew Sullivan, Josh Chafetz, and Philip Carter. They recognize that Democrats and Republicans alike must make a calculated and entirely rational decision to support an imperfect party, and do not glibly reject those that disagree with them. Rather, they are engaging and thoughtful, always questioning, developing and cultivating ideas that can help us better understand the world. These writers are difficult to characterize politically, because their primary loyalty is to America, not a party. For the most part, they are not idol worshippers. Post-partisan Americans realize that they have the responsibility to passionately but respectfully voice their disagreement with the administration. This is correctly perceived as a patriotic act, not a defection from the team.

Post-Partisan Americans are not naïve enough to think that partisan politics will disappear, but instead deeply believe that the American people deserve and need to demand a more relevant and civil public discourse.

But if they were to organize and speak with a common voice, perhaps one of the parties would better support their message. Cynical politicians might dismiss their writing as the idealistic rambling of an incoherent, non-existent movement. They would be wrong to do so. Post-partisan Americans are out there, and they’re dead serious about their love and appreciation for America and their devotion to its continued existence.
-- Eric

Okrent Nails It

2005-05-22T17:28:00.000-04:00

Daniel Okrent is brutally honest in his last column as public editor.

Okrent gives us a valuable piece of perspective.

12. I wish I hadn't made so much noise, in print and in various interviews, about how hard this job was. Dexter Filkins, in Baghdad, has a hard job; Steven Erlanger, in Jerusalem, has a hard job. By any reasonable standard, public editor is a walk in the park.

Indeed.
-- Eric