Good night neocons

The neocons have stepped aside and allowed Karl Rove to take complete control of foreign policy. I guess liberating Iraq really didn't matter that much after all. Winning the election was priority number one. The White House position on troops is now closer to Dennis Kuccinich's position than ever before.

More on that last post

"The United States will fail in Iraq if our adversaries believe they can outlast us. If our troop deployment schedules are more important than our staying power, we embolden our enemies and make it harder for our friends to take risks on our behalf. When the United States announces a schedule for training and deploying Iraqi security officers, then announces the acceleration of that schedule, then accelerates it again, it sends a signal of desperation, not certitude. When in the course of days we increase by thousands our estimate of the numbers of Iraqis trained, it sounds like somebody is cooking the books. When we do this as our forces are coming under increasing attack, we suggest to friends and allies alike that our ultimate goal in Iraq is leaving as soon as possible – not meeting our strategic objective of building a free and democratic country in the heart of the Arab world."
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz)

Message we're sending the terrorists

Conservatives often claim that liberals are sending a message to the terrorists. They claim that the liberal media, by reporting on attacks on soldiers, is helping the terrorists. By questioning the war motives, we're helping the insurgents. Well, I can play that game as well.

The Bush Administration is sending dozens of signals this week to the insurgents. The signals mostly say, "Oh no, we're scared! We're leaving! Time to cut and run!"

President Bush is facing his second true military crisis of this Presidency (the first being 9-11) and he is proving himself a coward. I suppose that's to be expected - it is an election year after all.

Let's review

The most important piece of news that has come out in the last few months is the one I linked to a couple of days ago out of Philadelphia.

Why? This could spell defeat for the US. According to the CIA, Iraqis are seriously considering joining the insurgency. In group politics, you have a problem called the "free rider" problem. Most people can enjoy the "benefits" of the minorities' actions without actually joining. Essentially what's happening in Iraq is that the insurgency is becoming attractive enough for some of these former "free riders" to consider joining. It's a domino effect. As reluctant or ambivalent citizens choose sides, others will follow.

Doh!

Just when I'm warming back up to Wesley Clark he goes and does something like this. For those of you too lazy to click the link, "this" is supporting a flag burning amendment.

I often urge my fellow Democrats to grin and bear their favorite candidates' attempt at appearing moderate and electable, so I'll let this one slide and keep tepidly supporting Clark.

Just so you know - I find a flag burning amendment apalling. I equate support for it with support for other neanderthal institutions like prayer in school. For the record, Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kuccinich support the flag burning amendment as well. It's early in the morning and I've been up all night writing my thesis, so, in my cranky state, I'm going to quote a famous Russian author and leave it at that:

Patriotism:
"an instrument for the attainment of the government's ambitious and mercenary aims, and a renunciation of human dignity, common sense, and conscience by the governed, and a slavish submission to those who hold power… Patriotism is slavery"
-Tolstoy

update, 2 minutes later: I think the word "patriotism", in russian, might translate in english to nationalism or jingoism. nevertheless, enjoy.

Administration official admits we're losing in Iraq

Although it wasn't reported much yesterday, this was the most important story of the day. It comes from the Philadelphia Inquirer. Apparently the CIA thinks that Iraqi public opinion is shifting behind the insurgents (something that I once called the "doomsday scenario").

The new strategy of reopening the war campaign against the Baathists is an apt one, but will blowing up sections of Iraq (and occasionally the civilians in them) looking for insurgents help sway public opinion in the favor of the US? I'm doubtful.

All night nonsense

The Senate is engaging in an all night filibuster tonight in order to draw some attention to the confirmation battle. The truth is, as everyone knows, the Republicans did the same thing to the Democrats in the 90s, perhaps to a greater extent. The Democrats have blocked a measly 5 federal judges from having a vote. This is a non-story, although I admit, I have CSPAN on in the background and will probably have it on all night as I work on my thesis).

Somalia again?

Rumbling and grumbling from the Bush inner circle are pointing to a new strategy in Iraq:

Cut and run as soon as possible.

I think that many members of the Bush inner circle, especially in the Pentagon, are advising him that Iraq precipitously worse. Rooting out terrorists in an indigenous area that supports them (as they do in the Sunni Triangle) is close to impossible. Israel has been trying to do it for years and has made absolutely no progress.

I urge you to read (or reread) my post from Tuesday because I think it is important. As we get closer to the election, the political arm of the White House (namely Karl Rove) will take a stronger hold on policy.

Despite liberal rhetoric to the contrary, we CANNOT leave yet. Is peace in Iraq improbable while George W. Bush is President? Yes. If another administration takes over, is it at least plausible? Yes again. The United States must invite the UN to Iraq, but they won't be able to do so until, in the eyes of the world, we have learned some humility.

Ways we can show the world we have learned humility:
1. Do not put the US stamp on Bush's policies. Vote him out of office.
2. Endure a hard campaign in Iraq, but STAY the course because without the US presence, at least for the next two years, Iraq will crumble into an anarchy. The turmoil will be worse than any modern nation has experienced in the last few decades.

Weird Taiwan story

Talking Points Memo has the lead on a weird story about a Taiwan official bribing the Bush family to meet with them. It sounds ridiculous, but it's worth a read.

I'll be gone for about 2 days writing my thesis on the Enoly Gay controversy of 1994/5. So unless something huge blows up (literally or figuratively), don't expect any posts.

It's a trap

Imagine this:

It's June, 2004. Iraq has drafted a constitution and is ready to form an interim government (with elections and a permanent government in 2005). US soldiers are still dying at a clip of, oh, say 2-3 a day. Terrorists blow up something very big that is related to humanitarian aid at the rate of, oh, once every three weeks. Public tide has turned against the war (with Independents against it and Republicans still supporting it mostly).

You're George W. Bush (or, more precisely, Karl Rove). What do you do?

You call for the premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Iraq will crumble into a chaotic breeding ground for terrorists, but you're the hero. You've saved the day. The American public welcomes it's troops back home.

But there's one problem: Congress needs to authorize this insanity (technically they don't, but you cleverly decide to leave it up to them). How do you suppose the vote would go? How would Democrats vote? Think about the Democratic Presidential candidates. Their already murky positions would become seemingly incomprehensible. Does any Democrat dare stand up to the President's "patriotic" move to pull the troops out? Of course not. Democrats would be forced to go along or be seen as America-haters who wished further injury upon our troops. Remind anyone of a certain midterm election?

Oh, the games Karl Rove plays.

update: This theory ignores the Neoconservative presence in the Administration. Certainly they wouldn't let him leave Iraq? I actually think that the neocons have been falling from grace lately, and the influence of their squirly theories will wane as the election approaches and Karl Rove takes command.

Missing archives

For a while there (about 2 weeks) the archives were missing in my blog. This was problematic because I often link back to my own posts in the past (sometimes so I don't have to repeat myself, and sometimes to just say, "I told you so!"). The archives have now been restored.

My subscription gives me much more flexibility in the appearance of the site. If anyone has any suggestions for cosmetic improvements, let me know.

The gay card

William Saletan summed up what I've been saying for quite a while with a phrase: "playing the gay card".

It used to be that in culturally conservative areas politicians would exploit fear of blacks. This is no longer tolerated at the level that it once was, however. In the late 70s and early 80s, the "feminism" card was employed by Republicans to capitalize on conservative fear of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Today's social wedge issue: gays. Republicans will smear Democrats (namely John Kerry and Howard Dean) for their support of civil unions. Deep down in the heart of most Americans, even the most tolerant ones, lie feelings of discomfort towards homosexuals. Homosexuality unquestionably goes against societal norms that most Americans are taught from the moment they enter kindergarten. I'm currently writing a thesis on gay rights and gender wedge issues and how they will affect the 2004 election.

What's wrong with Republicans bringing up an issue that divides the nation? Can't they point out a difference between their policy and Democratic policy (with Dems in favor of at least SOME sort of partnership benefits and Republicans against it 100%)? It's their intent that really matters. The fact is, when Republicans bring up this issue they want to prime the underlying (and sometimes above the surface) fear of gays that exists amongst socially conservative voters (especially amongst key swing voters like socially conservative Hispanics and blue collar workers).

Let's consider a hypothetical white, married labor union member who voted for Reagan in the 80s and Clinton in the 90s, for example. At some point in the campaign, this issue will capture the news headlines for several weeks. What reaction will this man have to the coverage? Will he side with Bush or the Democrat who supports civil unions? I would expect the average union member to side with Bush. In fact, he may be made so uneasy by the Democrat's strong advocacy that this issue, by itself, may shift him to the Republicans. What "manly" man wants to be accused by his friends of supporting the gay rights agenda?

Finally - a change in strategy

I'm often impressed by the organizational efforts of the Iraqi insurgents. Not impressed by their deeds, of course, but impressed by the secrecy with which they conduct their assaults. Every time they attack they seem to slink back into the shadows undetected. Until now:

America on the offensive was the theme today. We apparently netted 18 arrests and bombed an insurgent hiding place. That is important. We successfully killed/detained SOMEONE. Over the past few weeks, what has been lacking is an offensive against the rebels. The strategy clearly had to change. This is no longer, strictly speaking, a rebuilding and security exercise. It has become a guerilla war.

US modeled Democracy in Iraq?

I don't think we'll ever have an American democratic government in Iraq. It has to be a mixture of Islam and Democracy. I like Turkey - they try to keep Islam out of their government (although it has crept in lately).

Survey research performed in Iraq lately has shown that a majority of Iraqis are for something in between an Islamic state and a democracy. So they basically want a socially conservative Democracy with limited marriage rights for women (but not anything too drastic).

I don't think we're doomed to failure in Iraq. If a Democratic administration was overseeing the occupation, we'd succeed. Well - we'd be more successful. What is success? Is it installing a democracy that mirrors the US? If that's the goal, then we probably won't meet the mark. But if the goal is to begin the progress of democracy in Iraq by building democratic institutions and helping create a strong constitution, then I think we can accomplish that.

Some of it is going to take some luck. Will the first president/PM of Iraq be a charismatic, likeable leader whom the people will follow? Will he surrender power once the US has left the region a couple of years from now? We need to install institutions in Iraq that 1. keep the consolidation of power from occurring (historically Iraqi leaders' power has been protected by strong family and tribal ties to military leaders, we need to make sure that doesn't occur) and at the same time 2. make for a stable government that isn't toppled every two years by elections, at least not at first.

Those two goals seem at odds with each other, but we can achieve goal number one by inserting a term limits provision in the constitution. Like our Democracy, Iraq must firmly reject the idea of a longtime ruler like Saddam.

For goal number two, we must encourage the development of strong political parties that do not have ties to the military. If a political party aligns itself with the future Iraqi military, that could lead to a military coup and a return to dictatorship. We must establish a tradition of CIVILIAN governance in Iraq because, when the military gets involved, Democracy is usually not served. We must also hope for a balance between the secularists and the Islamists. In Iraq, there is a long tradition of secularism going back to the days of the Hashemite Dynasty. We need to let the low level Baathists back into civil service because their tradition of secularism is something that will help Iraq avoid the path of Iran.

Alternative theory on Dean's statements

Here is an excerpt from David Broder's column in the Post:

It was into this troubled environment that Dean, innocently but recklessly, dropped his words. Display of the Confederate flag and its incorporation into state emblems have been at the center of emotional battles in the past decade in state after state. So I asked Merle Black, the Emory University scholar and author on southern politics, how Dean's words would be heard by southerners. "For a lot of African Americans," he said, "the fact that Dean used a Confederate symbol is very insulting. That remark can be used effectively against him," especially in Democratic primaries, where blacks make up a large percentage of the voters.

As for the white voters Dean embraced, Black said, "These are the most conservative voters in the South and the least likely to vote for Dean. I can't imagine a bumper sticker reading 'Flaggers for Dean.' They are the least likely to participate in the Democratic primaries, and I doubt they're really interested in his message. It comes across as saying that 'Southerners are so dumb they've been voting against their own interests, so I'm going to educate them on the error of their ways.' And what makes it worse, it's coming from a Vermont Yankee."


Here's another take from TNR's Jonathan Chait:



His aggressive secularism, association with civil unions, and antiwar stance all make him culturally anathema in the South. This is one of the many, many reasons Dean would be squashed like a bug in the general election if nominated: Bush could take the South for granted, and concentrate all his resources on battleground states like Pennsylvania. Thus Dean's bold assertion that he would win the South because he would concentrate on economic issues, as if liberals haven't been trying that for decades.

What's alarming here is not that Dean wants to win votes from guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks. It's that he thinks he actually can.


Broder makes the point that confederate flag waving southerners are the most conservative kind. Dean cannot hope to attract these voters.

Chait, who has long been a proponent of the Howard Dean = George McGovern theory, correctly argues that if Bush could completely ignore the South, he would have a great advantage in battleground states. What Chait fails to understand is that NONE of the Democrats have a chance in the South. This is not unique to Howard Dean. The Florida Democratic Party seems to have self-destructed, and Arkansas, while a possibility, carries very few electoral votes. What other states are there? Tennesee? I doubt Tennesse would shift into the Democratic column after they failed to support their native son in 2000.

The answer: Missouri. It's the lone "southern" state where Democrats can hope to contend.
All Democratic candidates will face this problem. They must make up for the loss of the south in other areas, particularly Nevada, West Virginia, and New Hampshire.

With all of the focus on the newly Republican south, the media has lost focus on another trend emerging: Democratic strength in the industrial midwest and the Northeast. Pennsylvania will not be a battle ground state in 2004, and neither will Michigan or Wisconsin.

Feedback

I would encourage everyone who reads this blog to send feedback to me. Whether you agree with something or you disagree with something, send me a note about it. There is nothing I love more than for my opinions to be bashed and torn to pieces - it helps me improve. In politics, criticism is good. Don't EVER listen to anyone who says, "let's change the tone" or "we need bipartisanship, friendship, happiness, and lollypops". We need none of these things. Politics is about fighting and arguing. So send those letters to paul@virginia.edu.

By the way - today the blog had 25 hits (according to my newly installed hit counter). That's above and beyond what I had expected, especially since I only made one post today. To everyone who reads the blog - thank you.