Molly Ivins Can't Die Yet, Can She?

Word tonight that columnist Molly Ivins has died from breast cancer at the age of 62. Feels like a kick in the teeth to me. I can't think of another media figure for whom I feel such extraordinary affection. There have been better columnists, more fluent in policy, more influential in driving public debate (Krugman comes to mind). But no columnist in my lifetime has had anything like Molly's wit and verve. She could dissect the most loathsome politicians, expose their darkest or dimmest foibles, and leave you feeling better just for having read about it in her poisoned prose. I'm especially saddened that Molly didn't live to dance on Dick Cheney's grave, or at least see George W. and crew thrown out of office. Good night, Molly. We'll keep the light on for you.

"The Threat from Iran"

That was Brian Williams's lead-in to the "fear" segment on NBC Nightly News just now. What the f**k?

Today's Must Read

Chalmers Johnson has a must-read article over at TPM Cafe entitled "Empire v. Democracy". To his excellent reading of Roman History we could add the Athenian example. What ever happened to American statesmen and women being steeped in the fundamental lessons of the Classics? Thucydides and Livy used to be required reading, but these days it seems that we have little more than a tyranny of the ignorant running Washington.

Another Lame Duck Story

No, this post isn't about Bush. I thought that while I'm on the subject of injured animal stories on the evening news sucking oxygen out of other more important stories, I have to say that were I a newsroom manager shopping around for heartstring-tugging pabulum to serve up to the masses, instead of the Barbaro story this week I would have chosen the remarkable tale of Perky the Duck, who recently was shot by a hunter in Tallahassee, recovered by his hunting dog, brought home and placed in a refrigerator, discovered by the hunter's wife two days later to still be alive, taken to the animal hospital, flat lining on the operating table while the pellets were being removed, and then reviving and ducking death again. One thing's for sure, Perky's doc was no mere quack.

Playing WWII

We've all heard the rhetoric for years now. "Axis of evil." The "totalitarian" Enemy, worse than Hitler, or just as bad as Hitler, etc. The "great ideological battle of the 21st century." The Enemy we face--as Frances points out, the Enemy is never really identified--wants to destroy us. That's what makes this an "existential" threat and an existential war, that justifies illegal wiretapping. Indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals. The Baby Boomers running the show at the present time have a real jones for the WWII. They dream of fighting "the Good War," what some have called the last good war. (That's wrong, of course. There really is no such thing as a "good" war, which doesn't mean that some wars aren't necessary.)

Today, however, we read again a story that points out just how silly this WWII play-acting by the Boomers in charge really is. In today's Post, we read that the new troops being sent to Iraq as part of the new escalation lack basic equipment. Like some third-rate regional wannabe power, the U.S. is now deploying troops without arms, armor, and transportation. We read, for example, that:

Trucks are in particularly short supply. For example, the Army would need 1,500 specially outfitted -- known as "up-armored" -- 2 1/2 -ton and five-ton trucks in Iraq for the incoming units, said Lt. Gen. Stephen Speakes, the Army's deputy chief of staff for force development.

"We don't have the [armor] kits, and we don't have the trucks," Speakes said in an interview. He said it will take the Army months, probably until summer, to supply and outfit the additional trucks. As a result, he said, combat units flowing into Iraq would have to share the trucks assigned to units now there, leading to increased use and maintenance.

Now, if you're play-acting WWII, . . . I seem to remember that the U.S. transformed its economy into an "arsenal of democracy" (a term from the Great War, I believe), converting domestic production to military production to meet the needs presented in fighting an existential war against an evil Enemy. The Government called on Americans to sacrifice so that the men and women in the field would have the arms, armor, and transportation needed to win. There was a draft. There was rationing, and tax increases.

Not this time. The Enemy may hate our freedom, and dream totalitarian dreams. We are told that failure in Iraq would have catastrophic results for the United States. Cataclysmic.

And yet. And yet, we can't manufacture enough deuce-and-a-half trucks to supply the relatively small number of troops we have in Iraq.

Is it because the U.S. can't manufacture the trucks? Don't we have idle manufacturing plants that could be converted to military uses? I'm sure the good folks in the Rust Belt would welcome the work.

Is it because we can't afford the trucks? Don't make me laugh. The U.S. economy is huge. We could afford something much closer to total war than what we have now.

Is it because the military doesn't tell the powers that be that they need the trucks? There it is, in the Post.

I'm left with only one conclusion. The boys (and a few girls) dressed-up in khaki and dreaming Glenn Miller big band songs and V-I Day celebrations don't really mean the shit they say. Their actions belie that this is not an existential war. Their choices illustrate how little, strategically, is at stake.

I'm assuming, of course, that if these folks really believed that this was an existential threat, they would know what to do. So maybe I'm wrong there. But since they talk about WWII so much . . . .

Deconstructing the Donald

Although I'm not a consistent viewer, I consider NBC's The Apprentice a guilty pleasure. The high-pressure competition angle suckers me in every time. But I also love the show as a window into the world of American business and its well-scrubbed strivers.

Here's what I've learned.

1) Always laugh at the boss's jokes. The lamer the joke, the bigger the laugh. After all, it's about his ego, not your pleasure.

2) The boss wants you to be just like him, only quieter and less succesful.

3) The boss is insane. Not in a funny way (see #1 above), just in a vain, capricious, obnoxious, never had to answer to anyone else kind of way. The richer the boss, the crazier the boss.

4) Your job is to be noticeable without provoking the boss's ire. This is especially difficult, given that you need to be like him (vain, obnoxious), while he's being like him (capricious, insane).

5) Never take a stand on principle. It pisses off the boss. Except when it doesn't (see #3).

6) When you lose because you had a really bad idea that you've really badly executed, blame the one person who bothered to dissent from the beginning and accuse them of not being a loyal "team player." This ALWAYS works.

7) When in doubt, throw the weirdest person on your team under the bus. It doesn't matter that they didn't do anything wrong. It doesn't matter that this may be the one creative person you've got. They're weird, and nobody likes the weirdo. Not even your insane boss. The last thing corporate America needs is weird people sucking up to their insane superiors.

I'm sure I've missed something, but these are the core lessons. Of course, you could have learned all this from Dilbert or The Office. But those are fiction, not documentary. Any wonder at what happened when the CEO-wannabes took over the US government?

Barbaro-ians at the Gate

#3 had lamented about the MSM's overblown obsession with the injured race horse Barbaro despite the fact there was plenty of other real and important news to cover. Last night on The CBS Evening News the Barbaro story made a big comeback when they interviewed a friggin' veterinarian for at least 5 minutes about the race horse's impending surgery. 5 minutes of the 20 minutes of the evening news devoted to a horse's surgery. I should think a 5-second mention would have been generous. Now today the news comes that Barbaro has passed on to the great racetrack in the sky. Guess what news story tonight will crowd out things like deaths in Iraq, or Bush's new threats against Iran, or Congress' pursuit of a vote of no confidence in Bush's "surge", or corruption in Iraq contracts, or...?

Who Are We Fighting?

Day after day, television news leads with reports about fierce US fighting in Iraq. On Haifa street in Baghdad last week, near Karbala this morning. These stories never even make a serious effort to identify who it is we are fighting. It is as if this information is irrelevant. Whoever we're fighting is "the enemy," and that's all we viewers need to know. It's Orwellian.

UPDATE: Note the third paragraph of this article. When print journalists have inquired with "Iraqi security officials" into the identity of the fighters outside Najaf, they've received "conflicting accounts." Some say we're fighting Arab nationalists; others say members of the Baath party, members of an apocalyptic Shiite cult, or foreign fighters. No quotes from US military officials in the article. (Not that they have proven themselves trustworthy of late.) But does this mean that the US military won't go on the record explaining what they know of the identity of these fighters? Or does it mean that not even the US military has a good idea who is on the receiving end of its firepower?

Demonstration Disillusionment

To be honest, I found yesterday's anti-war demonstration rather depressing.

There was no real or credible leadership there. Hundreds of thousands assemble on the National Mall to express themselves on the most important issue of the day, and who do they get to headline the rally? Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda, Tim Robbins. Mere celebrities. Sure, there were a couple of members of Congress on the dais earlier in the day - John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich. But there was no one capable of translating the enormous public disaproval of the war or the energy of the thousands present into something that might have any impact on US politics whatsoever.

The lack of leadership is not just a matter of who was there on the dais. It is also a matter of who leads the various contingents within the march, an organizational backbone. Left demonstrations always have a substantial presence of the fringe groups that exist (I think) for no other purpose than to show up at rallies: the Socialist Workers, the "9/11-Was-an-inside-job" conspiracy types, etc. They're there with their flyers, banners, pamphlets, signs, chants. But what is so apparent is the relative lack of similar organizations to represent the thousands of mainstream folks who were there. The mainstream presence is so much less visible in the crowd than those exhibitionist fruitcakes.

Where were the churches, the labor unions, the local Democratic clubs, Americans for Democratic Action? Members of all these groups were obviously there in huge numbers, but they weren't well-organized or led. There were a few banners, a handful of actual organized mainstream groups, of course. But so little leadership, so little organizational structure, so few institutions represented.

In the end, this is the reason why demonstrations, no matter how impressively large, don't matter. But it is also the reason why the left as a whole is so irrelevant in shaping mainstream discourse and politics in the US. It's why Congress remains so pitifully afraid of confronting a president with 30% approval ratings. It's why the Sunday shows almost never book anyone who opposed the Iraq war from the start. The American left is just a big mob of individuals unhappy with their government. Its lack of leadership and organizational structure make it so, so much less than the sum of its parts.

Anti-Surge March, Washington, D.C. January 27, 2007

It was a beautiful day, weather-wise, so a few hundred thousand of our fellow citizens turned out to protest the administration's plan to escalate the Iraq war. The sad thing is that these folks are so un-represented in the U.S. political system. And I'm not talking about the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigades and other fringe groups. Thousands and thousands of ordinary, peace-loving Americans, trapped in a militarist political system.

The three photos, btw, were taken at very different points in the day, from different vantage points. The top photo is the rally, pre-march, taken from the east side of Third Street. The speaker stand you can see is part of the stage, which faced west. The middle photo is the march itself going up Capitol Hill on Constitution Avenue. The bottom photo is the march at the turn from Third onto Constitution, after the leading edge had probably already completed the march. There were quite a few marchers.

Of Arabs and Atheists

Feeling very Middle Eastern today, and in that spirit, I'd really hate to drop the debate Paul initiated below concerning Israel and Palestine while there's still FFB blood to be shed. So I'll pose a question: Why is it that, as a general rule, the more intense someone's atheism the more passionately they tend to identify with the Palestinian cause?

If you think about it, this question is really just the flip-side of the allegation that Paul made against me, namely that I am irrationally blinded toward Israeli injustice and Palestinian grievance because I'm Christian, as if being Christian made one naturally sympathetic toward the Jews. The long-view historical record might cast skepticism on such a claim, given the unsavory history of anti-semitism with which we Christians have only recently sought to come to terms. It is true, of course, that many contemporary evangelicals favor Israel from a belief that restoration of the second Temple is a necessary step in the apocalyptic return of JC (not Jimmy, the other one). That hypothesis doesn't explain my sympathies very well, however, since I'm not evangelical, would rather Revelation had never been included in the sacred canon, and don't expect to see fiery horsemen descending from the clouds anytime soon. Now, maybe I admire Israel partly out of a vague simpatico with other "people of faith," but that term certainly includes the Palestinians as well, so it fails to resolve the issue. Let's just assume then, at least for now, that my judgments in favor of the Israeli position have a primarily rational, not emotional basis.

On the other side of the debate, however, I've always found that atheism tends to correlate with a furious defense of the Palestinian cause, coupled with disdain for Israel. I've often found myself in arguments with otherwise very rational people--committed secularists and liberals, typically "anti-war"--who defend suicide bombing as a legitimate, even righteous expression of an oppressed culture's frustrations. Like Paul, many seethe with indignation about the blood on Israel's hands, breaking into rants on how Zionism equals racism or selectively quoting biblical passages designed to make the Jews look like a fascist cult full of bloodthirsty imperialists. Meanwhile, my disputants seemingly fail to recognize that the Palestinians they champion are dominated by their most bellicose and religiously fanatical elements. Why would anti-war, liberal, atheist rationalists embrace a cause that seems the very antithesis of everything for which they claim to stand?

It would be tempting to chalk this all up to anti-semitism. If I were Jewish, that's probably how I would read the indictment that Paul levels below, not just on the Israeli government, but on the very foundations of Jewish faith, which he describes as silly and "immoral." And yet I find the antisemitism thesis unconvincing. Indeed, I presume that Paul, who likely has warm relations with Jews he knows personally, will consider the very suggestion outrageous. Charges of racism and antisemitism get thrown around very casually in debates like this one, and it seems to me that you shouldn't accept them unless you've got some damned good evidence. It also seems unlikely that antisemitism would be a systematic (as opposed to merely individual or random) motivator of atheists as a group. OK, maybe then it's the rational merits of the case that convinces so many atheists. Unfortunately, this thesis fails to explain the fist-pounding, eyeball-popping rage that Israel seems to provoke in the atheist minority, while leaving the vast majority of Americans on the opposite side. Nor does it gel very well with the atheists' tendency to falsify the historical record, as if Jews "stole" Palestine, "breaking into the house," as it were.

So what explains this rather perplexing paradox? I've got a pet theory. As a bonus, it's a theory sure to offend most of you. The answer is that atheists are prone to anti-religious bigotry that makes them incapable of exercising coherent moral judgment when religious disputes are involved.

Atheists presume that religion per se is wrong, but more importantly, they presume that all religion is a grievous moral error: it is superstitious, irrational, violent, and divisive. As a result, atheists tend to have a natural preference for those religions or sects that confirm all their worst opinions about religion generally. If you're going to be religious, at least have the good manners to be insane about it. Don't tell us you're a liberal, democratic, tolerant person of faith! That's hypocrisy, designed to quiet the outrage that you cultists properly deserve. Naturally, then, in a dispute between liberal religion (Israel) and fanaticism (Fatah, Hamas, etc.), atheists instinctively prefer the crazies.

Bigotry is an inflammatory word. In fairness, anti-religious bigotry cannot be simply equated with racial bigotry, sexism, or homophobia. After all, religion is a belief system over which individuals have a considerable degree of choice, whereas race, sex, and sexuality allow much less (although there's still some limited range in each). You're not entitled to courtesy just because you're religious, and "tolerance" does not require agreement or even respect. Hating religion is not the same thing as hating blackness. And yet, atheists abandon coherent moral judgment when they presume the equality of all religions in malevolence. Rather than looking for allies among tolerant, liberal believers, atheists suspect deep down that moderate incarnations of religion are dishonest and even dangerous. Because they see religion as the enemy, rather than religious extremism, they're especially unsympathetic toward the more successful incarnations of humanistic religion in the political realm. Hence, anti-Israel. That's my theory. Prove me wrong.

Anti-Iraq-War March in DC

Are any of the denizens of FFB planning to attend the anti-Iraq-War march in DC tomorrow?

Thoughts on Hillary

A local news station in Cleveland just did a piece on Hillary's chances to become president and as a part of the story they interviewed a professor of political science whose thoughts some of you may wish to hear and to see. It can be viewed here.

Recommended Reading

Glenn Kessler has the best analysis of the State of the Union Address I've seen so far. He does a nice job deconstructing the misleading use of the word "enemy" throughout Bush's speech.

Some memorable moments for me:

I could hardly believe that Bush would reference Lebanon's 2005 Cedar Revolution when--at this very moment--an equally powerful, important, and broad-based counter-revolution is already under way there. Bush implied that any turnaround since the "Arab Spring" was the result of our scheming enemies. But Bush himself gave the go ahead for the discrediting and humiliation of the Siniora government by greenlighting Israel's ill-advised war and blocking any effort to bring it to a speedy conclusion.

Bush said, "We have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism." Rallying the world? The Bush administration's diplomatic strategy? For the world's reaction to the Bush administration's "strategy," diplomatic and otherwise, see yesterday's post.

Thankfully, Jim Webb's response gave us something better to remember. It was, without a doubt, the best Democratic party response to a SOTU address in all the years of the Bush presidency. Forceful and genuine, with a big-picture world view that united both his domestic and foreign policy critique. I understand that he wouldn't read the speech written for him by the Democratic party staff (i.e., the speech by committee). He wrote the response himself, and he seemed to believe in what he was saying. It's about time for the Democrats to show some conviction and leadership.

Reporting on the Future

Before Bush's speech has even begun, the stories about what he said and the reaction of the audience have already been posted here. Maybe I'm a little old fashioned, but I get a bit uneasy about reporting in "real" news sources when I read about how "Democrats — and even some Republicans — scoffed at his policy [in his speech]" before anyone, including this reporter, has even had a chance to hear him speak. Of course making predictions in blogs about his speech before it is delivered is another matter...

A Credibility Chasm

The untenability and futility of the US position in Iraq is virtually encapsulated in a sad incident from yesterday:

US Army officials described how they disbanded what they called a terrorist network whose members killed tribesmen and otherwise sowed fear across large pockets of Diyala province north of Baghdad.

'There are shopkeepers who had closed their doors out of fear, that are now beginning to open their doors,' said Maj. Brett G. Sylvia, speaking from Diyala through a satellite video link to reporters in Baghdad. 'Families are starting to move back into the area. A sense of normalcy is attempting to be reestablished in this area.'

Minutes before the news conference began, armed men kidnapped the mayor of the provincial capital, Baqubah, blew up his office and stole six government cars."

So while military PR stages a press conference to advertise US successes fighting insurgents and returning "normalcy" to Diyala province (passing out press kits about the US commanders), insurgents literally blow up the city hall of Diyala province's capital and kidnap the mayor.

The journalist refers to this as a "Tale of Two Iraqs." I'm not sure what the two Iraqs are. I suppose it's the real Iraq versus the one portrayed by US military spokespersons.

Haven't Hit Bottom Yet

New BBC poll of 25 countries finds that the US hasn't bottomed out yet in world opinion. Only 29% of those polled believe the United States was having a generally positive influence in the world. That's down from 35 percent in the poll last year and 40 percent the year before. It's not an exaggeration to say that the US is approaching worldwide pariah status.

Pollster Steven Kull observed: "The thing that comes up repeatedly is not just anger about Iraq. . . . The common theme is hypocrisy. The reaction tends to be, 'You were a champion of a certain set of rules. Now you are breaking your own rules, so you are being hypocritical."

Sadly, all the particulars that fill out the world's hypocrisy indictment--Guantanamo, Iraq, secret prisons, Middle-East policy generally--are issues on which the Democratic party contiues to abdicate leadership. I doubt that a Democratic president will even have the courage to close the national disgrace at Guantanamo Bay.

One More Mount Vernon Point

In the "education center," the Mount Vernon folks had a display on the challanges facing the Washington administration, c. 1789-97. Three of these, not much dispute with. War debt, etc. But the fourth--Constant criticism from the press. Who designed this display? The Fascist Union? Maybe some folks who never heard of the First Amendment? Maybe Fox News?

Another Al Qaeda Bust

Via HuffPo, ABC's website is reporting that documents captured in Iraq 6 months ago indicate that Al Qaeda is trying to recruit operatives to enter the US on student visas to attack the Homeland. Rather strange that this story is leaked to the press the night before Bush's State of the Union Address, no? Any bets that this big bust will be mentioned tomorrow night in Bush's speech ("Intelligence sources have uncovered an Al Qaeda plot in Iraq and we're fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here...")? I'll also wager that once more details of the story come to light, it'll turn out to be a really big bust in another sense too.

Carter's Peace not Apartheid

I just finished Jimmy Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (Simon & Schuster, 2006). The main thrusts of the book are that the US should become a neutral broker in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and that Israel should begin to abide by several UN Resolutions, including returning to more or less the 1967 borders – something that looks more and more unlikely as they continue to build the new "security wall" and expand settlements into the West Bank. The use of the word “apartheid” in the title and a few times in the body of the book were probably ill-advised, and Carter is taking a beating for it in the press, although to be fair to Carter he was not the first to make the claim and in many ways the comparison is not completely without merit.

Naturally, there have been many scathing reviews of Carter's book. One can find an example here, or here, or here, or just Saturday in WaPo here. Some members of the board of the Carter Center have even stepped down in protest of the book and in their resignation letter they called Carter "malicious." Jimmy Carter may be a lot of things, but malicious isn't one of them.

If you read the reviews you'll see that most are attacking him for using the word apartheid in the title, many are pointing out erroneous "facts" or his "plagiarism" of maps, some criticize him for not taking into account Jewish feelings in light of the Holocaust (as if the Palestinians should suffer for what the Germans and Russians did), some play the anti-Semitic card or say that he's playing into the hand of anti-Semites, others point to comments made by "radical" Arabs or Muslims in other parts of the region such as Iran's Ahmadinejad (as if this also justifies mistreating the Palestinians in the occupied territories), and yet others say that the Israelis are willing to exchange land for peace, but not the Palestinians or Arabs/Persians. In addition, there has long been the claim that other countries in the region such as Jordan were created out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire and World Wars I and II, so why not Israel too? Of course this ignores the little inconvenient fact that the other countries were by and large carved out of existing local populations, whereas modern Israel was created mainly by displacing the existing local population and bringing in outsiders from around the globe. This displacement was brought home to me when I was playing a pick-up game of basketball around 1989-1990. On my team there was a guy who was wearing a t-shirt with a black, white, green and red flag. He played just about every day like me, and he almost always wore the same shirt so finally I asked him whose flag it was, and he said it was the Palestinian flag. I asked him what the colors meant and so forth, and he gave me a very fulsome answer. I then said something to the effect that I imagined he must not be terribly happy with the situation in Israel at that time and he agreed, adding that his parents were some of the Palestinian refugees who lost their home and land. He then said, "If someone broke into your house and took the best rooms and then said, 'Let's just split it now that we're here,' would you be happy?" I've never forgotten that conversation, and have since heard other Palestinians make a similar point.

A couple of things I found useful about the book were the historical chronology at the beginning and the appendices in the back, the latter of which included copies of UN Resolution 242 (1967), UN Resolution 338 (1973), The Camp David Accords (1978) and The Framework for Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (1978), UN Resolution 465 (1980), Arab Peace Proposal 2002 (I didn't even know the Arab League had even made and passed a peace proposal), and Israel's Response to the Roadmap for Peace (May 25, 2003). It's hard to read all the resolutions without coming to the conclusion that Israel is blatantly breaking or frustrating many of them. I'm sure they feel justified because some Palestinian militants aren't abiding by some of the provisions either, but it's bad form for the US to be the only one on the Security Council standing by Israel so often and to be selectively enforcing UN Resolutions only when it suits our domestic politics.

This brings up another thorny issue, which is how long an historical claim is valid? After all, it was the Romans almost 2,000 years ago in AD 135 who kicked the Jews out of the province of Judea and renamed it Syria Palestina (names which were already in existence). Is that the Palestinians' fault 2,000 years later? And if 2,000 years ago is a legitimate cut off point, why not 4,000 years ago? By that I mean that the Jewish sacred story explicitly tells us that Abraham came from elsewhere (from Ur, wherever this was – probably modern Iraq or Turkey) and settled the area of the Levant and his later descendents warred with the Canaanites and Philistines who were already there (never mind that the Arabs also say they are the descendents of Abraham). The latter group, who inhabited the area of what is now known as the Gaza Strip, are considered by some to be the ancestors of the Palestinians (Palestine comes from Philistine via Greek and Latin – I don't put much stock in tying modern peoples to such distant relatives). Many Israelis and Evangelicals, in fact, feel that Gaza should be the limits of modern Palestine, while Israel should extend into the West Bank as it did at the height of the kingdoms of David and Solomon (it's no coincidence in my mind that Israel has voluntarily withdrawn from Gaza but is settling the West Bank).

It may be worth quoting from the Bible itself to recall God's instructions to the early "Jewish" immigrants and how they first came into possession of their lands. I will bypass all the promises to Abraham c. 1900 BC in the Book of Genesis about how God would give him the land of the Canaanites and Perizzites (who were already inhabiting the region) and how God would multiply his descendents, and instead focus on the point in the Book of Deuteronomy at chapter 20 (NET Bible) when c. 1200 BC the Israelites, led by Moses, had come out of Egypt back to the promised land, which was still populated by Canaanites and Perizzites:

Laws Concerning War with Distant Enemies

20:10 When you approach a city to wage war against it, offer it terms of peace. 20:11 If it accepts your terms and submits to you, all the people found in it will become your slaves. 20:12 If it does not accept terms of peace but makes war with you, then you are to lay siege to it. 20:13 The Lord your God will deliver it over to you and you must kill every single male by the sword. 20:14 However, the women, little children, cattle, and anything else in the city – all its plunder – you may take for yourselves as spoil. You may take from your enemies the plunder that the Lord your God has given you. 20:15 This is how you are to deal with all those cities located far from you, those that do not belong to these nearby nations.

Laws Concerning War with Canaanite Nations

20:16 As for the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is going to give you as an inheritance, you must not allow a single living thing to survive. 20:17 Instead you must utterly annihilate them – the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites – just as the Lord your God has commanded you, 20:18 so that they cannot teach you all the abhorrent ways they worship their gods, causing you to sin against the Lord your God.

Well there you have it. It's hard to read a passage like this and not be jarred by the sentiments expressed therein. It's even harder to square this advice with anything approaching acceptable morality: God orders the new arrivals to steal others' land and personal property, to enslave, and to commit murder, ethnic cleansing and rape (the Israelites weren't allowed to intermarry with these people so the reference to take the women as plunder and spoils clearly points to sexual slavery and rape) because the Israelites are his chosen people and the other groups have the wrong religion. Somehow I think that if there is a God, and he is good, he never would have condoned any such thing. But I digress.

Another thing that struck me about Carter's book was that it lacked any discussion about the rational reasons as to why any US support for Israel is even in the interest of the US. I've often heard Israel is so important to us because "they are our closest allies in the Middle East", but I suspect we'd be a lot closer to a handful of other allies in the region, many of whom are sitting on piles of oil that we so crave, if we distanced ourselves a bit more from Israel. Then there's the more powerful reason why we support Israel so much; namely because of the need for US politicians to assuage the powerful Jewish and Evangelical Christian vote here in the US (note, I think Evangelical Christians in the US are more powerful than the so-called "Jewish Lobby"). Domestic politicking doesn't seem a very good enough reason to me for us taking sides in this ancient dispute, although for politicians I suppose it is practical.

And practical is where I'll end. At this point the state of Israel is a fact on the ground – they have nuclear weapons and aren't going to pushed off the land anytime soon whatever the US does. On the other hand, Israel will turn 60 next year and it seems to me that it's about time they acted more like mature adults and stood on their own two feet. Did we expect the French to continue to coddle us 60 years after we declared independence? Do good friends really involve others in their deadly quarrels when there's nothing really in it for them? So, I say put Israeli foreign aid on par with our other allies in the region. Nor do I mind if the US once again decides to be a broker in the peace process, in fact I hope we do, but peace and a cessation of terror threats won't be on the table any time soon as long as the US isn't neutral and Israel continues to build the wall and settlements in the West Bank. And these were Carter's overall points, and with them I agree. Indeed, I think they're unassailable.

A Steep Hillary to Climb

She's IN! Can you control your excitement?

Kevin Drum offers a post today suggesting that HRC is so formidable as to be almost unbeatable in 2008, although I assume he's talking about the Dem primaries rather than the general election. 'Cause I'd assume that, on that front, she's unelectable. For me, that latter point is the inescapable beginning for any discussion of her campaign. I suspect this is true for a lot of Dems, which is also why I suspect Drum is wrong about the primaries. There may be alternate universes where a polarizing, liberal, woman senator from NY can get elected to be a wartime president, but I won't believe I'm actually living in that universe until I wake up fully immersed in it. Even then, I'd probably assume that I developed some sudden psychotic disorder that made me unable to properly perceive reality ("Bush-polar"?).

Hillary's little roll out yesterday also got some buzz concerning her dropping the usual press conference for a video statement to the nation. My cringe moment? Calling for a national "discussion" and "dialogue" on our problems. Ugh. I could tolerate this kind of sappiness from the Big Dog, probably because I always felt I knew who he was and where he stood. (Maybe, also b/c he's a man, and I'm all about the double standards.) From HRC it comes across as unforgiveable mushmouthedness. I don't want a conversation. I want leadership. If I don't like your ideas, I will tell you--loudly. I don't need an invite to the rap session from a wannabe theapist-in-chief.

First in War, Yadda Yadda

So, we made our way out to Mount Vernon today for a little (local) tourism. The house itself is worth the visit, and the grounds are interesting . . . but the brand-new "educational center" is a bit much. Or, more precisely, a bit heavy on the militarism. Really, the present conception of Washington's life, as presented by the nice old ladies of the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, is a bit blood-thirsty.

The introductory film (18 minutes) at the visitors center focuses on the Revolutionary and French and Indian Wars, as though Washington were the U.S.'s greatest general. His role in the Constitutional Convention and as our first president is left to some text at the end of the Battle of Trenton. Lots of blood and gore, but little on Washington's life away from war. That is, little on most of his life. That's an interesting way to present the man, especially when you're about to tour his house, which was not really part of his military life at all.

We also watched the 14-minute special effects show on the Revolutionary War, at the new "educational center," in which one is given a high-tech presentation on the battles of Boston, Trenton, and Yorktown. The high-tech is shaking seats, flashes of light with cannon fire, and fake snow during the crossing of the Delaware preceding the Battle of Trenton. This show makes one thing clear, at least: Washington was an "opportunistic" commander, always willing to take maximum advantage of his opponents' mistakes. So Howe leaves the heights overlooking Boston Harbor undefended, Washington moves in fortifications and makes like he will bombard the British fleet. Howe withdraws. The Hessians pull their sentries on Christmas Eve, and don't defend the crossings of the Delaware--Washington attacks, on Christmas morning. Cornwallis decides to march his forces to the end of a peninsula and await the British fleet--the French fleet blockades the Chesapeake and French and Continental forces besiege the garrison.

Btw, in the history of warfare, Cornwallis's decision to move his army to Yorktown and await the fleet has to be one of the worst, and most arrogant, tactical decisions ever made. I can imagine a junior officer on his staff recommending a different location--since, on a peninsula, one is easily cut off. And Cornwallis ranting that his is the best army on the face of the earth, yadda yadda . . . .

So, GW--first in war, first in peace? Not so much, at Mount Vernon today.

Oh, one last thing: On the tour of the house, there was this sort-of know-it-all woman, who asked whether Washington's family was English or Welsh (Jefferson's family was Welsh). The guide answered: "British." That's for you, Rebecca and Sam.

Think About It

So, watching Faux News, where the phrase "anti-war Left" is being used. Now that folks like Chuck Hagel are speaking out, and George Voinovich has stopped dreaming the dream, I'm not sure how "Left" the anti-war opposition is, at this point.

But I don't want to comment further on the "surge." I want to talk about the word "anti-war." In a sane, rational world, of course, this would be the default position, and "pro-war" would be a synonym for crazy. Because I don't really need to argue that war is a really bad thing, do I? (I will, if I must. But seriously, people?) So every sane, rational person should be anti-war. That doesn't mean that there might not be situations where war is necessary, as a last resort. Actually, I describe my position as last resort plus. By that, I mean that a nation should resort to war in cases of self-defense only, only when all options short of war have been exhausted and when exhausting those options has actually imposed costs on the nation. So I'm not a pacifist. But I'm decidedly, definitely, defiantly anti-war.

Maybe the term is used more specifically--the folks on Faux only mean anti-Iraq war. Of course, a majority of Americans are now opposed to the Iraq war, so this isn't special to "the Left." But my sense is that "anti-war" is used to smear opponents of this particular war as loopy pacifists. My point, if I have one, is that pacifists are less loopy than warmongering War hawks, including those on "the Left," who think that the systematic use of highly mechanized violence by the United States against other human beings is often a positive force for good in the world. At times, it's a necessary evil, but no more.

The problem is that we don't live in a sane world. And "anti-war" can be used as a term of derision in the world we live in.

Exclusive offer

Dear FFB readers,

I have just had the pleasure of receiving this kind e-mail directly from Prince Fayad Bolkiah of Brunei. I, however, am unable at this time to respond to the Prince's exclusive offer, which is just too good to be...kept to myself. So, rather than let this opportunity languish in my inbox I have decided to post it here, unedited, so that some one of you may share in this serendipity (I realize the Prince asked me not to do this, but maybe he won't notice?). At the end of the message, you will see that his royal highness has a yahoo account by which you may contact him. He awaits your kind response, apparently in Estonia where he must have been exiled.

Dear Friend,
I know you would be surprised to read from someone relatively unknown to you before now. My names are Prince Fayad b.s. Bolkiah, the eldest son of Prince Jefri Bolkiah,former Finance Minister of Brunei, the tiny oil-rich sultanate on the Gulf Island, .I will save your time by not amplifying my extended royal family history, which has already been disseminated by the international media during the controversial dispute that erupted between my Father and his stepbrother, the sultan of Brunei Sheik Muda Hassanal Bolkiah.As you may know from the international media, the sultan had accused my father of financial mismanagement and impropriety of US$14.8 Billion dollars. This was as a result of the Asian financial crisis that made my father's company Amedeo Development Company and government owned Brunei Investment Company to be declared bankrupt during his tenure in office.
Though, I would like to hold back certain information for security reasons for now until you have found time to visit the website stated below to enable you have insight regarding what I intend to share with you, believing that it would be of your desired interest in one way or the other.
http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/magazine/2000/0310/nat.brunei.jefri.html>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/670959.stm>
Also, could you get back to me having visited the above website to enable us discuss in a more vivid manner to the best of your understanding. I must say that I'm very uncomfortable sending this message to you without knowing truly if you would misconstrue the importance and decide to gopublic.In this regards,I will not hold backto say that the essence of this letter is strictly for mutual benefit of you and I and nothing more.I will be more vivid and coherent in my next email in this regards.Meanwhile,could you send me an email confirming that you have visited the
site and understood my intentions?PLEASE SEND YOUR REPLY TO THIS MY PRIVATE EMAIL
bolkiahisgood@yahoo.es
Awaiting your kind response.
PRINCE FAYAD BOLKIAH

Does al-Maliki Read FFB?

Just the other day, I posted on the autonomy that client states have vis-a-vis their patrons--that once a superpower, or great power, installs a regime in a client state, the leader(s) of the client state have the ability under many sets of circumstances to make life difficult for their "masters." And just this week, Iraqi P.M. answered a question about Bush administration criticism of his regime by claiming that such criticism only emboldens terrorists. That's the scenario, exactly. Maliki was asked whether Bush needs him more than he needs Bush, and Maliki laughed.

It is an interesting question: Who needs whom more?

Anxiety Dreaming

So last night I had one of my recurring anxiety dreams--not sure why, last night, as I'm not feeling particularly anxious. I think that this is one that many people have: I'm enrolled in a course, for an entire semester, but I stop going to class, stop doing the homework, and then it's time to take the final exam. Usually the course is a math course, often calculus, in my dreams. But last night, it was psychology, which adds a special level of irony, no?

Any good dreams lately?

Prodi government drop kicks the Dal Molin ball back to Vicenza

I had blogged here about the controversial plans to expand the Dal Molin airport at Vicenza, Italy into the largest American army base outside of North America despite the fact that about 2/3 of the local residents of Vicenza are against it. The Vicentini were waiting for the recently elected center-left government of Romano Prodi to revisit the issue. Prodi had kept his cards close to his chest over the last few months, but in Bucharest yesterday he finally played his hand. He said, "Non sono mica il sindaco io ...una questione urbanistica e locale e non un problema politico... non si oppone alla decisione del precedente esecutivo e a quella del comune di Vicenza a che venga ampliata la base militare americana," or "I myself am not at all the mayor [of Vicenza; the mayor is a center-right guy named Hüllweck]... this is a local issue of urban planning and not a political problem....[The government] is not opposed to the decision of the preceding executive [=Berlusconi] nor to the decision of the local government of Vicenza to expand the American military base." So, Prodi punted the issue back to Vicenza. While he's smokin' crack or lying when he says it's not a political problem (the far left of his tenuous coalition is going to give him hell over this and I suspect that’s why he made his announcement outside of Italy) I agree with him that it should be treated more as a local issue than one decided at Rome. That means letting the citizens of Vicenza hold a referendum on it. At any rate, if the center-right coalition of Hüllweck does not let it go to a popular referendum, I bet he and his center-right allies will be railroaded out of town. Also, if the expansion goes through without a referendum, the base and American soldiers will be a greater target of local harassment; the expansion may even spawn groups similar to the Brigadi Rossi of decades' past.

These (Rogue) States

The US meddling in the Horn of Africa hasn't received much coverage in the news or much attention in Congress. Judis provides a disturbing update.

Civilian life has become very cheap to US policymakers when they use an AC-130 gunship to hunt down a single terrorist.

Daily the world seems to become more and more like the dystopia portrayed in Children of Men, a dystopia in which the indiscriminate brutality and inhumanity of the radicals/terrorists is matched and sometimes exceeded by the indiscriminate brutality and inhumanity of the government.

Different But Still More of the Same

So, Obama's declaration that he's "exploring" a presidential run included a vow to seek "a different kind of politics." He said: "Today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions."

It's funny. Don't we hear the same thing every four years? We need a different or new politics, based in pragmatism, practical thinking, problem-solving . . . common sense. We need to bridge partisan divides, reduce the influence of money and . . . influence, "the special interests."

The big reason why I'm less than thrilled by Obama is not his lack of experience. It's that his spiel is so tired. If I'm right--and I'm sure I am--that we hear this every four years, then the previous common-sense-pragmatist-reformers-uniters-not-dividers have all failed, for the most part, at tackling the big problems with homespun treacly goodness--from Carter, at least, through W. Why? There are lots of reasons, from ineptitude (Carter) to insincerity (W.). But isn't that the point? We've heard it before, it never works. Either Obama doesn't realize he's spouting cliche after cliche, which I doubt, or he knows that this is pablum but continues to spoon feed us. In which case, he's a cynical operator. The political equivalent of an infomerical promising that you can lose all the weight you want to lose without exercising, or counting calories, or dieting.

Of course, I'm sure Obama will go far with this shit, because it's like crack for mainstream political pundits, like Broder and his ilk.

How Do You Feel?

In the last few days I finished reading Cormac McCarthy's new novel, The Road, and saw Children of Men at the theater. Both paint very grim pictures of the End of the World and the (potential) extinction of the human species. This follows closely upon having finished The Brief History of the Dead last week--that's about the end of the world and the extinction of the human species, too. Is there something in the air?

The Road tells the story of a father and son, "on the road" in a post-nuclear holocaust America, trying to make it South and to the coast--ostensibly seeking out other people. Of course, all the time there are people seeking them--in order to eat them. I'm talking cannibals. I can't remember the last time I read a book in which cannibalism featured so prominently. It's "Mad Max" without cars, or hope. I'm not sure I can recommend it--it's dark, and unrelenting--but if you "like" that sort of thing, or you like McCarthy, worth a look.

Children of Men is excellent. You should go see it, as soon as possible. You probably know the story. Clive Owen is a depressed, alcoholic bureaucrat in a dystopian future in which the "youngest" human being, "Baby Diego" (a major celebrity), is in his twenties. This "mass" infertility is never explained, but that's not really necessary since it poses a serious problem for the species, not to put too fine a point on it, whatever it's source. Owen's character gets sucked into an effort to save the species, and thus the "world of men (and women)." The last half of the film is basically a chase film, but the premise is so great, the production values so amazing, and the vision of the world so complete and bleak--this one is an instant classic. Maybe one of the best science fiction films ever.

I would actually like to see COM again.

But back to the "serious" question. Is there something about the zeitgeist that explains the end of the world as we know it as a theme in contemporary letters and film?

Laundering a Smear Job

For those of you interested in a new, creative way to apparently pull (I love to boldly split my infinitives wherever I go) off a political smear job in the age of Wikipedia and Blogs, check out this purported gem of a hatchet job on Nancy Pelosi. Yeah, something smells fishy with this story all right. Maybe one of you could tell me, but is it even legally possible that Nancy Pelosi's husband could own 17M in Del Monte stock without her having to report it on her Congressional Financial Disclosure forms in some manner? Unfortunately a Google search on whether or not any respectable journalistic source has checked out this story is overrun by all the rightwingnut blogs that have pounced on it.

The End of the Cold War

So both Judt, in Postwar, and Gaddis, in The Cold War: A New History, agree that Mikhail Gorbachev is the person most responsible for the end of the Cold War. But neither account paints a very flattering portrait of Gorby. Both scholars agree that, while Gorby recognized that the Soviet system was just not sustainable, he really didn't have any substantive ideas about what to do about it. Glasnost and perestroika were slogans, policy goals without actual, um, policy. So he started to "reform" without any ideas about where it was leading. (That might be why he was so surprised when the coup in 1991 happened?)

Most tellingly, even before Gorby, the Soviet leadership had determined that the Brezhnev Doctrine was dead. By which, I mean, that the Soviets had determined that they wouldn't repeat the invasion of Czechoslavakia, in response to the Prague Spring of 1968, or the invasion of Hungary in 1956, were uprisings to roil one of the "fraternal" nations of Eastern Europe. According to Gaddis, the Soviet leadership was concerned that another such invasion would cause more trouble than it was worth. The Red Army troops sent into Czechoslavakia had been told that they would be greeted as liberators, and that had proven not to be the case, which actually caused discipline problems. Plus, there was the damage that the Communist revolutionary movement suffered whenever it had to put down popular dissatisfaction with tanks (or build a wall to keep its citizens in). Gaddis claims that the Soviets were bluffing about inading Poland in the early 80's, when the Polish government imposed martial law because of a fear of a Soviet invasion.

Basically what happened in 1989, then, was that popular movements, disgusted with their low standards of living, lack of basic freedoms, etc., started to dissent and were met by Soviet inaction. Gorby made clear to the leaders of the fraternal nations that their problems were their own . . . at which point, regimes without significant popular support were forced to either reform, which was untenable for the then-leadership to attempt, or to crackdown, at which point their public support would evaporate and they would fall. There were sinply no Red Army tanks to prop them up, so they fell, in quick succession.

Things could have been much worse. (Gaddis especially points out how few people died in the 1989 revolutions.) The reason Gorbachev is "most responsible" for this fortunate chain of events is the decision, carried out, to stand aside and let things run their course in the fraternal nations of Eastern Europe.

The only reason that such an eventuality could result, of course, was that the West had acted, mostly in concert, to contain Soviet expansionism, and had pursued its own course of economic prosperity and freedom. In the end, the western alliance had not needed to fire a shot to bring down the "evil empire." The Cold War, then, was resolved through political leaders, from Truman through Reagan, temporizing.

This is yet another one of the points that our current leaders don't really grasp. If you are faced with evil regimes that lack popular support, but have weapons, it might be the best course to temporize, make the most of a bad situation, work around the edges, push for negotiation, and, well, wait. Wait for a change in leadership. What for a change in context, in domestic politics within the evil regime. Because if the regime you are seeking to change ("regime change") is one that genuinely lacks popular support, the worst course of action to keep it permanently on a war footing. Because even unpopular leaders can generate domestic political support when there is a threat from an enemy without--an enemy easily characterized as evil. Propaganda works, but it needs something to work with. That's why efforts at detente, although unpopular with hard-liners, are so dangerous for tyrants. Because if "the Leader" is going to do business with the "evil" capitalist dogs, then the propaganda doesn't work so well. And if you erode domestic support generated from fear of an external enemy, then regimes without popular support internally become much weaker.

Or, of course, you can pound the war drums and threaten air strikes. Against Iran, for example. But that will almost certainly increase popular support for the mullahs. Imagine, on the other hand, how weak the mullahs would become if the U.S. administration made security guarantees to the Iranian regime. If the U.S. promised to respect Iranian sovereignty and territory, and maybe even reduced its presence in the Persian Gulf, then the flowering of a reform movement in Iran would face fewer obstacles. But right now, the mullahs can use the threats of the Bush administration to stifle internal dissent.

Again, I just read this in a book. But maybe some of the "grownups" have other ideas.

A 3-Way anyone?

The big news today is that the fair Condoleezza will have a 3-way with Olmert and Abbas. Man, after her date at Tim Horton's with Peter Mackay in Nova Scotia, her prospects sure have fallen off. Let us pray that no pictures will emerge.

An Example of Real Reporting

The purpose of this article is to evaluate the truth of the administration's claims about the causes of the Iraqi civil war. It systematically documents the politically motivated oversimplifications in the administration's account. This is not an opinion piece published on the op-ed pages. It is straight reporting. In other words, this article does what reporting should do, but almost never does: hold government claims to a free press's natural skepticism. I can't remember the last time I saw a story do this. Normally, the best readers get is, "Government Claims X; Experts Disagree."

The Limits of (Super)Power

Gaddis describes an interesting situation in The Cold War: A New History. Sometimes the superpowers (back when there were two) would find themselves losing control of situations, unable to dictate the actions of their "client states" or subordinate powers, but trapped into less-than-optimal outcomes or policies because their client states would have them over a barrel. This took two forms, for the most part. The first form is the "weak" client, always and allegedly on the verge of falling to the other side. Any efforts by the United States to get such regimes (e.g., South Korea for a very long time) to become less authoritarian, for example, would be met with complaints that any additional liberties would cause the regime to collapse and the country to go over to the other (Red) side of the Cold War. Thus the United States would be in a relatively weak bargaining position, even with a country like South Korea that only existed because U.S. troops were on its border, protecting it. Even an administration interested in improing human rights would be confronted with a Cold-War-power-stakes argument when it tried to push pressure on its "clients." The superpower, in short, couldn't just call the shots.

The second form was when a subordinate power had the option of playing one side against the other--Tito in Yugoslavia and Mao in China played this one against the Kremlin, despite their Marxist governments. This really gave the subordinate or client power to bargain and play the sides against one another.

The former version of this superpower dilemma is much more relevant to the present situation in Iraq--i.e., the clusterfuck--than the latter, but both have some relevance. (Thus, the current "Unity" government in Iraq has much closer relations with Iran than the United States--at least, some of the factions included in the "Unity" government do. So they can make visits to Iran that must worry certain members of the Bush cabinet, no?)

The Bush administration constantly talks about putting pressure on the Maiiki government is Baghdad, but really, the bargaining stakes aren't that even. Maliki knows that the Bushies can't let things deteriorate beyond a certain point in Iraq, if they have the power to prevent it (or have the option of escalating the clusterfuck to prevent it). So the Bushies' hands are tied--there's a limit to what they can do to pressure Maliki. Withdrawal isn't an option, for them, and thus he gets their continued support. No matter what he does, or doesn't do. Because if he's pressured, he can claim, with some plausibility, that after him, the deluge. So if he says that he's moving against the militias, for example, as much as he dares, what is Hadley to say? "Do more." And then Maliki says, "If I do more, the government will collapse and you will dealing with a full-fledged civil war." What does Hadley say then? "How can I help you prevent that?" See how this works?

There is a kind of naive idea that superpowers, like the United States, get to call the shots. That if Bush says jump, the Iraqi "Unity" government has to ask, "How high?" But in reality, once you are in a