Legal Fiction

Atrios (via CAP) says:

Tonight, ABC's "Nightline" will pay tribute to U.S. troops killed in Iraq by airing a 40 minute special – the names of the fallen will be read by anchor Ted Koppel as their photographs appear on screen. But Sinclair Broadcast Group – the country's largest owner of TV stations – will not allow its ABC affiliates to air the show.

This is PRECISELY the problem with excessive media consolidation. In an age where we rely on fewer and fewer sources for more and more of our news, there is a greater danger that we will not be able to get access to news. I elaborated on this exact point in a prior post in which I recommended that the day is approaching when we might need to apply First Amendment protections against actions taken by major private media groups such as Sinclair or Clear Channel that either chill or restrict speech. (Because these groups use the public "spectrum," there is at least a plausible link to the government action that would be necessary before the First Amendment could be applied).

It's really simple. If Clear Channel (or Sinclair for TV) owns most or even many of the major radio stations, and if Clear Channel favors Republicans, then a huge segment of the population will be denied access to news that is unfavorable to Republicans. Anyway, I'd encourage people to read my prior post.

Everyone should read today's NYT op-ed about how wealth significantly increases one's chances of being accepted to a university (especially a top university). It reminded me of a recent Harvard Law Review article by Lani Guinier (you can see a much shorter version of her argument in the Village Voice). She argued that angry whites, many of whom simply detest affirmative action, aren't understanding the true nature of college admissions. What they don't understand is that rich and upper-middle-class kids are taking many times more spots than minorities are. But instead of focusing on wealth inequalities, or unequal access to college prep and SAT classes, angry whites direct their rage at minorities - who take up a miniscule proportion of the admissions slots when compared to wealthier students.

The unfairness in college admissions is not race - it's economics.

__________

I haven’t posted anything about last weekend’s march in Washington for abortion rights. Abortion is an issue that I’ve struggled with all my life. Basically, I consider myself as pro-choice, but anti-Roe (sorry people - it’s just not in the Constitution). I’ve also always thought that men should defer to women on this issue, and as long as majorities of women continue to be pro-choice, then count me in as well – at least for the first trimester. For me, legalized abortion is the lesser of two evils – I’m not crazy about its legality, but I’m even more freaked out about the thought of imprisoning doctors for providing abortions to 15-year old girls. And even if abortions were illegal, people with money would still have them, and the poor and the young would suffer disproportionately. But that’s not what I want to talk about. Today, I want to encourage gay rights activists to adopt the political tactics currently being used by the pro-life lobby.

I think everyone can agree that the pro-life lobby has become much more politically savvy in recent years. Rather than taking on Roe directly, they’re chipping away at it with small, politically popular laws. For example, on both the state and federal level, pro-life activists have sought to outlaw partial-birth abortions, enact crimes for “killing” a fetus, and require teenagers to obtain parental notification. In pushing for all of these laws, the pro-life lobby has made very effective use of “plausible demagoguery.” For example, it’s damn near impossible for elected officials (especially in particular states) to vote against the partial-birth abortion ban. I mean, how can you go back and face your constituents when other legislators are showing pictures of skull-crushings and other horrible illustrations of the procedure. I have no idea if these alleged horrors are true (or have been exaggerated), but they can certainly be made into an effective, demagoging political ad.

In short, the new strategy of the pro-life lobby is to identify small, piecemeal measures that are politically unopposable and then push very hard for them. Over time, the thinking goes, the courts will be forced to recognize the “personhood” of the fetus under law.

In my opinion, this template for political action would be perfect for gay rights activists to adopt. As much as I support the right of gay marriage, I’m also aware of political reality. It’s going to take some time for a majority of Americans to come around (though it’s happening – just look at our nation’s colleges). My fear is that pushing too hard for gay marriage would set back the cause for several years.

Instead, the gay rights activists should adopt a piecemeal approach and focus on the most egregious forms of discrimination. For example, I think that even evangelical legislators would find it hard to oppose a bill that merely gave visitation rights to parents whom courts deem to be a “guardian.” As I explained in prior posts (here and here), under current law, a lesbian partner can be denied any and all visitation rights if the biological parent breaks off the relationship. This has actually happened – you can only imagine the heartbreak these parents experience when they are completely cut off from their own children. In addition to guardian/visitation rights, I think that gay activists would find it easier to push for laws allowing them adoption rights (there are bans on gay adoption in states certain states). You can imagine an effective commercial featuring an orphan or foster child who cannot be sent to a loving family just because of this immoral ban.

I could go on, but you get the point. Real-life activists could certainly provide even more examples of everyday discrimination. If these smaller efforts were successful, there would come a day when people would hopefully say, “If we grant them all these rights, what’s the harm in civil unions, or even marriage?”

History has shown that a strategy with gradual measures can work wonders. For example, Mark Tushnet has written an outstanding book on the NAACP’s desegregation strategy from the 1920s through the 1950s (which culminated in Brown v. Board). Brown didn't just happen - the NAACP laid the groundwork for it. Because the NAACP was centralized, it could pick its battles strategically. For example, before they went after elementary school integration, they tried to get graduate schools integrated. Southern whites weren’t as likely to get enraged about blacks attending graduate schools, so the NAACP established a beachhead of sorts (i.e., valuable legal precedents) from which they eventually launched Brown.

On an aside, some have argued that the NAACP actually didn’t go piecemeal enough. Michael Klarman, for example, who has an excellent new book on race and the Constitution in the 20th century, has argued that Brown triggered a backlash that forced Southern moderates off the political stage. He, and others, have explained that southern whites had a list of priorities with respect to integration. Graduate school was a very low priority, while elementary school integration was unfathomable. Klarman also makes the innovative argument that, when the NAACP pushed for elementary school integration, the subsequent backlash pushed the South to the right and created the necessary conditions for the violent crackdowns in Birmingham and Selma that led to the Civil Rights bills. So, in an odd way, Brown did lead to the later civil rights bills, but not in the way most people think.

I should add that Brown itself was virtually ignored by most southern states until 1964 when Congress finally got into the act after the Birmingham police launched their dogs (literally) on peaceful protestors. You can see the picture here that Kennedy claimed made him “sick.” Many others can be seen here. It's easy to forget how bad things were.

Anyway, back to 2004. I think that, like Southerners in the 1950s, “mainstream” Americans have a list of priorities with respect to gay rights issues. Marriage is at the top of that list, and so resistance will be the most fierce with respect to that issue. By starting at the bottom of that list and moving up, gays rights activists can establish “beachheads” from which to launch future attacks on discrimination. If nothing else, small local political battles could also mobilize a grass-roots effort. I would also encourage this battle to be done legislatively and not judicially (for the sake of legitimacy).

(Via Billmon) - Here are some pictures of Iraqi prisoner abuse by American authorities. Correct me if I'm wrong - but didn't we "liberate" Iraq to stop just this sort of abuse? I hope there's more to this story.

It seems that an agreement has been reached regarding Fallujah, so the Marines aren't going to be sent in on a pointless and counterproductive mission that would kill hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilians. Thank you President Bush - you did the right thing.

For more on why a Fallujah invasion would have been wrong (and why the first one was terribly misguided), see this column in today's NYT.

__________

I saw Kill Bill Vol. 2 this weekend (which was AWESOME). One of the martial arts tactics discussed in the movie is the “five-point palm exploding heart trick.” Basically, you strike someone’s chest with all five fingers. At first, nothing happens and your opponent can even walk away. But after several minutes have passed, your opponent’s heart suddenly explodes. I thought about the exploding heart trick this week as I read all the stories about Bush’s recent rise in the polls, which have been accompanied by variations of Dan Drezner’s argument that bad news in Iraq actually helps Bush (as evidenced by the polls) because it focuses the nation on national security. I really like Drezner, but I think this argument is rather absurd (or a case of some very strong wishful thinking). Let me explain why.

Obviously, most polls over the past couple of weeks have shown that Bush got a slight bump. I think the bump was attributable to several factors. First, presidents almost always get a bump after an attack on our troops, or after an outbreak of war. It’s natural for people to rally around the president when they’re scared. But second, Bush also got to give a prime-time press conference (apparently people didn’t stick around for the questions) and has spent $60 million over the past month in advertising. Given the convergence of these events, a bump was inevitable.

But war-related bumps don’t last that long. Bush’s 9/11 bump was almost back down to pre-9/11 figures until the country got Iraq fever. And the Iraq war also gave him a temporary bump that has more than vanished. I think that Bush’s bump is not only destined to be temporary, I think that the uprisings in Iraq and the 9/11 Commission disclosures have inflicted fatal wounds on the Bush administration.

As I explained in an earlier post, presidents don’t really get in trouble for unfavorable news unless that news undermines what voters perceive to be the president’s (or candidate’s) prime virtues. For example, the Clinton impeachment wasn’t successful, in part, because everyone knew from day one that Clinton liked to chase women and had struggles with the truth. But we accepted his morally casual attitude because he wasn’t elected for his moral virtues. He was elected to improve the economic plight of the middle class – and he did. The Lewinsky affair didn’t drastically change anyone’s view of Clinton, nor it drastically change the justification for the Clinton presidency. This idea of perceptions also explains why Bush can get up at a press conference and stumble over gaffe after gaffe and not suffer. Everyone has always known that he's not a great speaker, and people didn't vote for him because of his speaking skills.

The real strength of the Bush presidency relies on the perception that he is honest and that he is the best leader to fight terrorism and/or Iraq. Thus, the reason why the uprisings in Iraq are so dangerous for Bush is that they contradict one of his most important perceived virtues – competence to fight the war on terror. And the ongoing failure to find WMDs and al Qaeda connections contradicts his other main strength – the perception that he’s honest.

Quite simply, when majorities start thinking that Iraq was a mistake, or that it undermined the war on terror, there is simply no compelling reason to re-elect Bush. That’s why I think that, even if the uprisings give him a temporary bump, the long-term damage from the uprisings will cause an even greater amount of harm. The uprisings are like the five-point palm exploding heart trick. Bush has been hit, and he looks fine right now, but the fatal blow has been struck. And if things don’t improve fast, his heart is going to explode. And it’s because the nationalist uprisings contradict almost everything the administration had been saying about the war – most Iraqis welcome us; most want us to stay; democracy is possible; our coalition is strong; we have plenty of troops; we have a clear plan; we were right to disband the army; Iraq is part of the war on terror; and on and on. The key here is that these events have strongly contradicted people's perceptions of Bush and his entire Iraq policy. Again, Bush isn’t hurt by bad environmental news because voters knew he wasn’t going to be a Greenpeace-friendly president when they voted for him. Bad environmental news doesn’t undermine his perceived strengths. But the Iraq uprisings strike him right in the heart of his perceived strengths.

Already, a new CBS/NYT poll is showing deep ambivalence, if not disapproval, of Bush’s policy in Iraq. So, the bump may already be over. If these numbers hold, it’s simply impossible for Bush to win, despite Drezner’s any-Iraq-news-is-good-for-Bush argument. (Though the Democrats, like the Red Sox, are experts in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.) In short, it’s all about perceptions. While a lot of people still favor Bush because they think he’s honest and is the right man to lead us in Iraq/war on terrorism, a lot of people no longer think that. And because of his Iraq mistakes, Bush can never get them back. That’s the nature of tragedy. Certain actions cannot be undone. Had Bush not invaded Iraq, he would have been untouchable. And if MacBeth hadn’t killed Duncan, he would have remained a hero.

We still have judgement here, that we but teach
Bloody instructions which, being taught, return
To plague th’inventor. This even-handed justice
Commends th’ingredience of our poisoned chalice
To our own lips. (Macbeth I.vii)

The Supreme Court today issued a fractured opinion in which it declined to act against partisan gerrymandering. So, gerrymandering is here to stay. As I explained in this post, gerrymandering cannot be remedied through the normal political (legislative) process. It's a classic example of an issue in which judicial "activism" is necessary to reinforce the democratic process (which is the only time activism should be tolerated - because the idea is that the legislature can never fix this). Yet another reason why the two-party system needs to be destroyed.

__________

I think it's over [unless there's a recount] – and Specter held on by the skin of his teeth. I know there are a lot of broken-hearted conservatives out there, but they shouldn’t be upset – they should be popping open the champagne. Specter’s victory is a very good thing for the GOP. Here’s why.

The Specter-Toomey race had important implications over both the short-term and the long-term. I think Specter’s victory is clearly a good thing for the GOP over the long-term, but I had questions about whether a Toomey victory would help or hurt the GOP over the short-term (i.e., in the Senate and Presidential race in 2004). Whether Toomey helps in the short-term depends on what sort of election strategy you subscribe to. The classic model for winning elections is that the successful candidates must be able to appeal across party lines and snatch up the “moderate” middle. Karl Rove has rejected this model. His view is that “there is no middle.” The key to winning elections (given the dynamics of modern split-in-half America) is to mobilize the base. Rove’s gamble is that, by energizing the base, he thinks he can make up (mathematically) for the loss of votes from the center by mobilizing more voters within the base who would not otherwise vote (thus, the gay marriage amendment). For example, some have argued that the 1998 midterm elections (in which the Dems picked up seats) can be explained by the Democratic base’s anger and mobilization at the impeachment proceedings. Likewise, the 2002 elections are thought to be the result of a highly mobilized (and happy) Republican base and a demoralized Democratic one (which created the necessary conditions for Dean’s rise).

To be honest, I simply don’t know which model is more correct. If the Rove model is correct, then a Toomey victory would be a short-term gain for the GOP. A happy energized base would come out to vote for Toomey, and while they were there, they’d pull the lever for Bush too. If, however, the “capture-the-middle” strategy is correct, then Toomey would cost the GOP both the Senate seat and possibly the Electoral College vote as well. I think that both models are probably correct in certain situations, but on the whole, I think that Toomey would hurt over the short-term given the dynamics of modern Pennsylvania. First, Specter sucks up a lot of the votes and fund-raising from Dems in the Philadelphia region. Toomey would simply get crushed there – with the help of the Rendell (Governor (D)) machine, of course. Pennsylvania has also been trending Democratic for years, and so I think that Toomey costs the GOP a valuable Senate seat and doesn’t do that much for Bush.

Over the long-term, however, I’m certain that a Toomey victory hurts the GOP. Whatever the merits might be in Rove’s “energize-the-base” strategy, it’s a long-term loser. As Stanley Greenberg and others have explained, the Republican Party is growing increasingly dependent upon a stagnant demographic. Greenberg (in his fabulous The Two Americas) borrows heavily from Ruy Teixeira’s The Emerging Democratic Majority to explain why the GOP could be in trouble over the long-term.

Like the Democrats, what is called the “Republican Party” is essentially a coalition of smaller groups. To be grossly simple (there are many other, smaller groups), white evangelicals (mostly from South and Great Plains/Rockies) are in a coalition with more socially liberal urban, coastal Republicans (like Specter) who like low taxes and tolerate the social conservatives unless they get too scary. Thus, the Jerry Falwells of the world are on the same “team” with the old Rockefeller/Gerald Ford Republicans such as Giuliani, Whitman, Schwarzenegger, Pataki, and Specter.

Rove, however, has pursued a strategy that increasingly anchors the GOP in the land of Jerry Falwell. His policies threaten to limit the GOP to a white, largely southern, evangelical base. Likewise, by moving the GOP right, especially on social issues like the FMA and abortion, Rove is threatening to chase the Rockefeller Republicans (or the Northeast and West Coast Republicans) out of the party altogether. The problem with Rove's strategy is that this demographic is shrinking. As Greenberg explains, the groups who tend to vote Democratic or are trending Democratic are increasing in numbers – i.e., post-graduate women, college graduates, minorities, urban areas. The so-called “Exurbs” (suburbs in the Sun Belt and Southwest that are trending Republican) are also growing, but not at the same rate. America is also becoming increasingly secular (nearly 40% go to church never or only on holidays). In other words, Rove is hitching his wagon to the wrong horse and driving it over a cliff. If the GOP is to remain viable, they have to expand their base beyond white evangelicals and Exurbia. And that brings us back to Specter.

As much as some conservatives hate him, Specter is surely better than a Democrat. But if Specter lost, it would simply speed up the ongoing process of purging Northeastern (and moderate) Republicans from the party. In today’s 50/50 world, there is simply no room for error. Conservatives must either accept the fact that the Specters of the world are necessary for their coalition, or the GOP must split up (which is what I wish both parties would do – and never come back – they’re both historical anachronisms).

A Toomey victory will force all Republicans to the right, and quite simply, Northeastern and West Coast Republicans can’t go much further right and expect to win state-wide offices. Moving right means that Democrats will win. The Toomey crowd just doesn’t realize that their social issues, when combined with their passionate opposition to affirmative action and down right xenophobia about Latino immigration, is leading to their marginalization. Of course, if anyone could fuck things up, it's the incompetent Democratic Party - but that's a post for another day.

(Via Atrios) -- When all you neocons (the paleo-conservative wing is largely against the Iraq war) are reading your Frum/Perle book and getting romantic notions in your head of the glory of American conquest, perhaps you should consider the reality behind those dreamy, abstract visions. Here's a small taste - an MSNBC article explaining the surge in brain and head injuries from Iraq:

More and more in Iraq, combat surgeons say, the wounds involve severe damage to the head and eyes -- injuries that leave soldiers brain damaged or blind, or both, and the doctors who see them first struggling against despair. For months the gravest wounds have been caused by roadside bombs -- improvised explosives that negate the protection of Kevlar helmets by blowing shrapnel and dirt upward into the face. In addition, firefights with guerrillas have surged recently, causing a sharp rise in gunshot wounds to the only vital area not protected by body armor. The neurosurgeons at the 31st Combat Support Hospital measure the damage in the number of skulls they remove to get to the injured brain inside, a procedure known as a craniotomy. "We've done more in eight weeks than the previous neurosurgery team did in eight months," Poffenbarger said. "So there's been a change in the intensity level of the war." . . .

"These injuries," said Lt. Col. Stephen M. Smith, executive officer of the Baghdad facility, "are horrific." . . . "We're saving more people than should be saved, probably," Lt. Col. Robert Carroll said. "We're saving severely injured people. Legs. Eyes. Part of the brain." Carroll, an eye surgeon from Waynesville, Mo., sat at his desk during a rare slow night last Wednesday and called up a digital photo on his laptop computer. The image was of a brain opened for surgery earlier that day, the skull neatly lifted away, most of the organ healthy and pink. But a thumb-sized section behind the ear was gray. "See all that dark stuff? That's dead brain," he said. "That ain't gonna regenerate. And that's not uncommon. That's really not uncommon. We do craniotomies on average, lately, of one a day." . . .

The improvised bombs are extraordinarily destructive. Typically fashioned from artillery shells, they may be packed with such debris as broken glass, nails, sometimes even gravel. They're detonated by remote control as a Humvee or truck passes by, and they explode upward. To protect against the blasts, the U.S. military has wrapped many of its vehicles in armor. When Xenos, the orthopedist, treats limbs shredded by an IED blast, it is usually "an elbow stuck out of a window, or an arm." Troops wear armor as well, providing protection that Gullick called "orders of magnitude from what we've had before. But it just shifts the injury pattern from a lot of abdominal injuries to extremity and head and face wounds."

Wars are not video games. They are not to be entered lightly, and only when necessary. And that's why we ought to send Richard Perle to go patrol Fallujah for a few days. Let him, for once, see the reality of war - the war he helped to create.

In a post this weekend, I had mentioned the panel at the LA Festival of Books entitled "The Seduction of War" that I happened to catch on CSPAN (because I'm a CSPAN junkie like all cool people). Anyway, Phil Carter caught it live and was similarly impressed. I'll let you know when the transcript or video becomes available.

__________

I wanted a break from politics this weekend, so I read Paul Johnson’s “The Renaissance: A Short History.” It’s a good, brief summary, though it’s heavy on the art (which would be fine if there were illustrations to guide the artistically ignorant like myself). But even while I was reading about the 15th century, my mind was stuck in 2004 politics. And what I noticed was that the 2004 culture wars are hardly new. They’ve been around for a long time. In fact, one could argue that the very first culture war (as we understand the term) occurred in the 1400s. Understanding this first culture war will give us some insight into the more modern culture wars.

It’s hard to imagine it, but the idea of “skepticism” is relatively new. By skepticism, I mean the practice of examining texts (including historical texts) critically. It’s what happens in modern universities every day. Before the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, however, people generally took texts (such as the Bible) at face value. They might debate the theology, but they didn’t apply a critical eye to the text itself in order to challenge its authenticity, accuracy, and historical context.

According to Johnson, the Greeks first practiced skepticism, but it fell out of use during the Middle Ages until a man named Lorenzo Valla (1407-57) revived it. Valla used his innovative approach to critique the [Catholic] Church. Specifically, he cast a skeptical eye on the Donation of Constantine (written somewhere between 750 and 850), which was the document that allegedly justified the supremacy of the popes (who were enormously powerful in those days). As Johnson explains:

It [the Donation] had been challenged before . . . [b]ut Valla subjected it to textual scrutiny based upon the principles of what was to become modern historical criticism, and showed, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it was a deliberate forgery.

Obviously, the Church didn’t care for his insights and he soon faced the Inquisition. But his techniques spread like wildfire across Europe to people like Erasmus, who applied textual criticism to the Bible. Johnson argued that “revival of the skeptical approach . . . was one of the most striking aspects of the recovery of antiquity and the most explosive.” Valla’s criticism was thus the first culture war of the modern age. And at the heart of that battle was the struggle between orthodox certitude, on the one hand, and skepticism on the other.

Fast forward to the 21st century. The battle lines between Valla and the Church seem eerily similar to today's culture wars. In fact, I think that the modern culture wars, from the Renaissance through the FMA, can be described as one long, ongoing battle between skepticism and certitude. James Davison Hunter wrote a great book in the 1990s called “The Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America.” He describes the American culture wars as the battle between what he calls “Orthodoxy” and “Progressivism.” I couldn’t find my copy of the book, but here’s how a Stanford website defined these terms (as Hunter uses them):

Those inclined toward Progressivism, be they Catholic, Jew, Protestant, etc., believe that morality (and hence politics) should be informed by facts and experience that we learn as we travel through life. Morality is subjective to the times in which we live. The only ultimate truth we can know is that which we define for ourselves. Those inclined toward Orthodoxy, on the other hand, be they Secular, Protestant, Jewish, etc., believe that morality (and hence politics) is not only definable and unchanging, it is external and transcendent, as explained by the revelation of God in the Bible.

In other words, Orthodox people believe strongly in objective morality, usually as defined by some revered source (such as the Bible or Constitution). I would add that, for Orthodox people, this reverence is also more easily extended to treasured concepts such as “America” or the military, or even one’s political party (assuming they too are on the Orthodox side). That’s because the Orthodox are simply more comfortable with seeing certain things as objectively good, and are less inclined to see nuance or the bad sides of their treasured concepts. Progressives, by contrast, tend to see issues of morality and politics in more relative, or skeptical ways. I think this skepticism is also applied more frequently to concepts such as “America” and the military – and sometimes it's not always a good thing. Before conservatives get too upset, please notice that Hunter himself believes that religious people can be progressive, and that secular people can be orthodox (as I noted in my post about “rule-liberals”).

In my opinion, however, it seems clear that modern conservatives are (statistically speaking) much more Orthodox in their thinking, and that modern liberals are more Progressive. This ideological divide mirrors the divide that began when Valla first challenged the Donation way back in the 1400s. I think that when you look at the modern conservative and liberal movements, you can clearly see that Hunter is on to something.

Let’s start with religion-related issues such as abortion and gay marriage. To the Orthodox camp, these issues have been clearly banned by the Bible, which is definable, knowable, and unchanging. Thus, all arguments about unfairness or the importance of choice aren’t really addressing their position. These things are wrong to them because the Bible says they are wrong. The only hope (and one that I wish more progressives would adopt) is to challenge this views on their own terms. People should use the Bible’s message of love and tolerance to challenge these views. For progressives, the issue is viewed more pragmatically and many can’t understand the thinking of the Orthodox. To them, homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, and may be as immutable as race and gender. Thus, it just seems cruel to deny them rights. But again – these are pragmatic arguments consistent with the Progressive spirit.

On to foreign policy. The current neo-conservative foreign policy that has assumed power in this administration relies heavily on Orthodox thinking. You simply cannot believe in the teachings of Richard Perle and Kristol unless you first think that America is really really good. Because America is so unambiguously good, we need not worry about international institutions or foreign opinion. We can remake countries in our image because we are good. Progressives simply cannot stomach these simplified views of America’s virtue - and they are often unfairly maligned for sharing these thoughts (which are equally sincere). To them, America is part of a larger world. It’s better in some ways, worse in others. But it’s certainly not so clearly good that we can ignore the world and go around invading countries we think are bad. Vietnam was very much part of this cultural battle. To the Orthodox, it seemed like treason to accuse our troops and our government of doing such awful things. That’s because America and the American military are seen in similar ways as the Bible is seen – that is, as being unambiguously good.

On to law. The whole originalism/pragmatism debate in constitutional law is very much part of the larger Orthodoxy/Progressivism debate. Originalists such as Bork and Scalia see the Constitution as a transcendent, definable morality of sorts that must be obeyed. Whether or not they care to admit it, this sort of originalism is heavily suffused with the sort of religious Orthodox thinking that characterizes religious fundamentalism. The Constitution and the Framers are, in the legal world, the equivalent of the Bible. Their literal word must be followed regardless of how absurd the consequences seem in modern society. It's a perfect example of Orthodox thinking.

Finally, Orthodox thinking also characterizes the modern Republican Party. As many have noticed, the discipline of both the Bush team and the Republican Caucus in the House is nothing short of military-like. The party is very much run as a top-down, hierarchical organization. And as the NYT Magazine wrote this weekend, this top-down approach even extends to their Ohio ground operation – which is a pyramid-like structure similar to Amway sales strategies. My point is that this hierarchical top-down structure is very consistent with Orthodox thinking. Republicans are more comfortable with the idea of falling in line to authority that they deem as morally good, whether that “authority” be Bush, or the Constitution, or the Bible, or the military, or America. And that’s also why when Orthodox Republicans turn on Bush (or Republicans like Specter and Bush I), they turn on them for good. There’s simply very little room for ambiguity or nuance. You’re either in, or you’re out. For now, Bush II is still in. But Bush should heed the warning of Revelation 3:16: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will [spit] thee out of my mouth."

That’s also why I don’t think Democrats will ever be able to attain the same level of ideological and voting discipline that Republicans have enjoyed lately (I mean, look at Nader and the lack of a clear party-machine choice for President and compare it to the backroom coronation of Bush in 2000 by party leaders). That’s no accident – it’s actually very consistent with Progressive skepticism. And that skepticism has a long and rich tradition.

Before I end, I should say that I obviously don’t think conservatives are mindless followers – far from it. These things are always questions of degree along a spectrum. It’s just that conservatives are more willing to see in the world in objective, black-and-white terms. Sometimes that’s good – like in Afghanistan. But more often, I think it's bad – like in Vietnam and Iraq.

As a 27-year old, I'm very very sick of America's Vietnam obsession. And I would have objected strongly to making Bush's Guard "service" an issue if Bush and his chickenhawks had not opened the door to this debate by their outrageous accusations. First, they implied that Kerry's wounds weren't quite bad enough. Second, they're making a big stink about whether Kerry actually threw away his "medals." As Kos explains (and he provides military links to prove it), the small rectangle ribbons are referred to as "medals" by the military (of which Kerry is a part). These are what Kerry threw onto the Mall. There's no lie. No flip-flop. Only vicious personal attacks on someone who fought in combat.

That's why I love this:

"If George Bush wants to ask me questions about that through his surrogates, he owes America an explanation about whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. Prove it. That's what we ought to have," Kerry told NBC News in an interview. "I'm not going to stand around and let them play games."

Welcome back to the news cycle, Lt. Bush. We missed you.

Here's an experiment. Add up all the verses in the Bible that stress love, forgiveness, compassion, and tolerance. Then add up all the verses that reference homosexuality and compare them. I suspect it's about 1,000 to 1. If we can agree that, as a matter of strict textual interpretation (which seems to be the way people interpret it these days), Judeo-Christianity is far more concerned with compassion than gay-bashing, then perhaps someone can explain to me why this new Michigan law should be considered remotely Christian:

Michigan House Votes in Favor of 'Conscience' Clause

Here's what the Sun-Times had to say:

The legislation would allow health care workers and insurers to refuse for reasons of conscience to perform procedures, fill prescriptions or cover treatment. The legislation would not apply in medical emergencies.

''As written, this law would allow a health care provider to not provide health care services to someone based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation,'' said Democratic state Rep. Chris Kolb, the Legislature's only openly gay lawmaker. ''It's very worrisome and disturbing.''

This is pure malice and bigotry. You know, as much as I disagree with the FMA, I will concede that it's at least a plausible position to oppose gay marriage if you firmly believe your religion bans it. But it is quite another thing to allow a fellow human being to be denied medical treatment. I mean, we provide medical treatment to wounded al Qaeda members captured in Afghanistan.

This is simply cruel - and I hope conservatives will agree that it's also profoundly un-Christian. And if your religion says otherwise, you need a new religion.

In the post below, I argued that American polarization has become so strong that it's actually infected the way people perceive the world. I would point out, though, that I think the cause of this polarization has more to do with the structure of our current political process than with the voters themselves. The polarization has been created by a combination of factors including primary elections, national centralized parties, and the current two-party, winner-take-all system. I explained all of this in one of my earliest posts.

I don't think I'm being inconsistent, I just think that the current polarization (though it has become very real) was caused by, and reinforced by, flaws in our political system that tend to reward polarizing candidates. If, for example, we got rid of primary elections, there would be many more centrist candidates such as Schwarzenegger (who would have lost in a primary election for the reasons that Specter might lose in Pennsylvania). Anyway, I explained everything in the earlier post and I would encourage people to read it.

___________

A recent Knight-Ridder article (KR is awesome btw) pointed out that Americans still hold a number of misperceptions about Iraq:

A new poll shows that 57 percent of Americans continue to believe that Saddam Hussein gave "substantial support" to al-Qaida terrorists before the war with Iraq, despite a lack of evidence of that relationship. In addition, 45 percent of Americans have the impression that "clear evidence" was found that Iraq worked closely with Osama bin Laden's network, and a majority believe that before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38 percent) or a major program for developing them (22 percent).

There's no known evidence to date that these statements are true.

Gotta love that last line. Another recent Harris poll came up with similar numbers. And let’s not forget about last September’s poll showing that about 70% of people thought it was likely that Saddam was involved with 9/11, despite exactly zero evidence. These misperceptions are troubling for a number of reasons. First, and most generally, democracy only works if the people are informed about the relevant issues. Second, and more specifically, these widespread misperceptions make debates about the wisdom of the invasion almost pointless. That’s because the wisdom of the invasion depends heavily upon the existence of certain facts – such as the existence of WMDs and the connection to al Qaeda. If people are disagreeing about these most basic facts, everything else is a waste of time.

There are a couple of conclusions we could make from these disturbing polls. First, we could conclude that American voters are profoundly ignorant (not dumb, uninformed) about the major issues facing them. I mean, if people are this uninformed about 9/11 and the Iraq war, how much confidence should we have in their knowledge of the effects of environmental regulations, or macroeconomic policy? It really does call our most basic assumptions about democracy into question. The second, and less pessimistic, conclusion one could draw is that these polls aren’t reflecting Americans’ ignorance – they’re reflecting the effects of partisanship on the American mind. I subscribe to the second conclusion. I’m not ready to give up on Americans. I think that these polls are reflecting Americans’ conscious our unconscious decision to see the world in a way that’s consistent with their partisan loyalties. But let’s back up.

In an ideal world, people would develop their political views in the following rational way: First, they would learn about the facts surrounding a given issue as best they could. Second, they would then evaluate those facts in light of their own material interests, or religion (or whatever), and come to a final position. Finally, they would throw their support behind the candidate or party who shares their position (or shares a majority of their positions) with respect to a given issue or issues. In other words, in this ideal world, people would reach conclusions first, and only pick a political party (or a political label such as “liberal” or “conservative”) after they had reached their own independent conclusions. That’s why I’m so suspicious of people who follow the party-line with respect to every single issue. It’s a good indication that there’s not a lot of critical thinking going on.

But in modern, ultra-polarized America, this process has been reversed. People seem to picking political parties or labels first, and then relying on the parties (or “liberals” or “conservatives” in the media/blogosphere) to tell them what to think about all other issues. For example, let’s assume that Joe can only perceive the world through a clear glass window. He cannot observe the world any other way – everything is seen through the window. Now let’s assume that with respect to a given issue (let’s say welfare reform), someone has come along and splashed some red paint right on the part of the window through which Joe sees welfare reform. Joe can now only see the issue by looking through the red paint, which twists and distorts the way he sees it.

Essentially, this is what happens when people lose themselves in partisanship. The entire window becomes either blue or red. So, it becomes impossible for them to see any issue as it actually is – they can only see through the lens of partisanship which will necessarily distort their view. Again, try to imagine it on the most basic epistemological level. When looking at external events, Americans see the color of the window first, and then the actual issue, which always appears to them in that color. Or, to put it another way, when Americans perceive the world, they first reaffirm their political affiliation in their own minds, and then view the issues through the tinted lens of that political affiliation.

And this is where Fox News comes in (and where Air America aspires to come in). The entire GOP Inc. media strategy is to provide people who view the world through the “red” lens with a way to make sense of the world. Fox News, talk radio, and conservative blogs provide an absolutely vital function. They tell people what the party-line is. From an economics perspective, these media outlets lower information costs. People don’t have time to read books and magazines on every issue, so talk radio comes in and gives them quick, easy talking points on every single issue. If something bad comes up, like Richard Clarke, talk radio and Fox News gives them a way to think about it that’s consistent with their partisan preferences (i.e., “He’s not credible for reason X, Y, and Z. It’s all a liberal plot – just look at Gorelick. Nothing to see here. Bush made us safer. What we really need to be worrying about are all the queers getting married.”).

That’s the only way I can explain many polls I’ve been seeing lately. For example, Americans split along party lines about whether to believe Richard Clarke. That’s insane. Honest conservatives even admitted that this guy was for real, and not a liberal hack. But that’s not how most Americans saw it. That’s because they were seeing Clarke through their tinted lens of partisanship. To be fair, liberals do the same thing with respect to many issues. For example, many Dems liked Clarke a lot more than they should have (given his hawkish tendencies) simply because they were viewing him through the “blue” lens.

In my opinion, this idea of the “tinted lens” is the best way to explain the polls about Iraq cited above. The war was very much a partisan issue. And it was presented in a way that was intended to connect it to WMDs, 9/11, and al Qaeda. These potential threats became the paint, so to speak, through which many people perceived Saddam and Iraq. So, part of the problem is just that people initially conceived of the war in this way, and inertia has set in and it’s going to take a lot to make them stop seeing it in this way.

Another part of the problem is cognitive dissonance. A lot of people really believe in Bush. They think he shares their values, and that he's a good man. But good men with Christian values don’t send people to war on the basis of falsehoods. The two are mutually exclusive. So, in order to reconcile the two, they simply continue to believe that WMDs did exist, or that a connection to al Qaeda or 9/11 did exist. It’s a common psychological defense mechanism. It’s like saying my daddy is good, but my daddy does bad things, so I’ll pretend that he doesn’t so that my preconceived notions of him won’t be damaged. To be blunt, the cold reality of Iraq is simply too much to bear for many Americans. The thought that we’ve lost 700 soldiers (4,000 wounded) and killed God knows how many Iraqi civilians (many times the number lost on 9/11) for a war that was unnecessary and sold on false premises is, as Samuel Johnson said of King Lear, “too horrid to be endured.” So we don’t endure it. We assume that weapons existed, even though we have ZERO evidence. We assume that Saddam was linked to 9/11, even though we have ZERO evidence. The thought that the President who we so clearly identify with in terms of values and spirituality could do such a thing is unthinkable.

So have hope. Americans aren’t totally ignorant, they’re just totally partisan. And that partisanship has infected our most basic perceptions of the external world.

___________

I'm working on a longer post for tonight, but I'd thought I briefly offer some thoughts from this weekend's news.

First, read Dana Milbank's article in the Post. He explains:

Political strategists and public-opinion experts say a good part of this resilience of public support for Bush and the Iraq war stems from the president's oratory. They say Bush has convinced Americans of three key points that strongly influence overall support for the war: that the United States will prevail in Iraq; that the fighting in Iraq is related to the war against al Qaeda; and that most Iraqis and many foreign countries support U.S. actions in Iraq.

So, as Milbank points out subtly, two of Bush's three key points - the key points deemed necessary to maintain public support - are just flat wrong, and Bush's rhetoric has been misleading. This is very much related to what I'll be posting later tonight.

Second, Milbank includes another passage from a Bush aide regarding Iraq and Kerry:

Dowd also said Bush has been aided by a Kerry position on Iraq that mixes support for the war with criticism of Bush. "The public has decided [Iraq] has problems. But whose vision do we support?" he asked. "Kerry has supported either no viable or no acceptable alternative."

This is a great example of burden-shifting. Bush, who is 100% responsible for Iraq (for good or bad), should have the burden to explain either why his policies have been successful, or why he should be re-elected if they were not. What Dowd does is to shift the burden to Kerry to prove that he has a "viable alternative." While I agree that Kerry should present an alternative (which he has), I'm not sure Dowd's logic works. I mean, if your friend is driving drunk, you need to get him out of the car, even if he says "you can't replace me until you have a viable alternative - the burden is on you."

Third, I saw a great panel on CSPAN this weekend from the LA Festival of Books on "The Seduction of War." It included Anthony Swofford, the marine who wrote Jarhead (which is outstanding) based on his combat experience in the first Gulf War, and other authors and veterans. The question before them was why war is so strongly supported, and why humans turn to it again and again, despite its horrors. They reminded me of why I oppose war in almost every situation. They explained that people simply don't understand the horrors of combat. They blamed all of us for allowing the war to happen, not just Republicans. I agree. America (and I include myself) has once again bought into all the pre-World War I abstract visions of glory and honor, and used them to justify the invasion/occupation with no real understanding of the reality and the horror of experiencing combat. As Swofford said, these words become obscene to soldiers in combat. Once combat starts, they fight for each other and their unit, not for abstract glory. And war is hell. Remember Hemingway's words from A Farewell to Arms: Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene beside the concrete names of villages, the numbers of roads, the names of rivers, the numbers of regiments and the dates.

They also explained that the word "wounded" is a poor choice of words because it doesn't real convey the severity of the injuries. People simply don't understand that "wounding" includes blindings, getting half of your face shot off, losing limbs, becoming paralyzed, and all other sorts of horrors. And nearly 4,000 soldiers have been wounded (and God only knows how many Iraqi soldiers and civilians). We at home don't understand because our pictures of war are all sanitized. We don't see piles of bloody limbs. We don't see skulls with holes. War isn't real to most of us - it's not possible to conceive its horror. The lesson is that we shouldn't go to war unless it is absolutely necessary.

The panel also cited a military study that concluded that 60 days of sustained combat is the limit for human beings. After that, people just start losing it - and the psychological damage done to soldiers in combat has been well documented. Many of these soldiers will suffer psychologically for the rest of their lives. They also added (and I have no way to verify these stats) that 90% of all casualties in modern war are civilian casualties. And it's interesting that everyone in the administration who had been in war (Powell) opposed it, while the people who had never seen combat supported it (Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice).

Finally, I've got a really bad feeling about this supposed need to re-invade Fallujah. Fareed Zakaria just warned (on TV) that it has long been a goal in guerilla warfare to sucker the occupier into striking with great force in retaliation. For guerillas to succeed, the occupier must continue to be hated. Thus, razing Fallujah is exactly what they want us to do, just as invading Iraq is exactly what bin Laden wanted us to do. These actions increase the public support for both al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency. Thus, re-invading Fallujah is not only dumb as a military tactic, it's also going to create a humanitarian disaster that we in America will of course be shielded from.

I take Saturdays off from the blogosphere. In the meantime, you should check out these articles (here and here) (thanks for the tip steve, on the first one). Apparently, a majority of Americans STILL think that Iraq had an al Qaeda connection, and had WMDs despite exactly zero evidence. Unless something else comes up, I'll be writing about these misperceptions tomorrow.

_________

I was in the public library yesterday and saw a chart that floored me. It was a list of the number of AIDS infections by continent. Europe had about 600,000 - North America, roughly 1 million. Then I looked at Africa - 28 MILLION. That's equivalent to 1 out of every 10 people in America. I had no idea. This is like the Plague, and we're letting it happen on our watch. I dug around and confirmed this number in an LA Times article. It added that nearly 38 MILLION people were threatened by starvation. STARVATION. It kind of puts things into perspective back here in the land of no-carb diet. I suppose we should be grateful that our politicians have the luxury of getting furious about stupid, trivial shit.

Anyway, I was amazed at these numbers. There's no excuse for remaining ignorant about this massive humanitarian crisis. I'm going to inform myself about some of these issues, and I hope to have several posts about Africa in the months to come. If anyone has reading suggestions, or ways to help, please email me or comment below.

__________

There’s a saying in the legal world that when the law is against you, argue the facts. And when the facts are against you, argue the law. I think this maxim should be applied to politics – when you’ve got a bad platform, run on the candidate. And when you’ve got a bad candidate, run on the platform. It’s becoming increasingly clear that Americans, for whatever reason, just like Bush better than they like Kerry (maybe it’s the Southern accent Bush developed at Andover). That’s why the Democrats need to expand the scope of this election. The Democrats will lose if the election becomes a popularity contest between two men, as it was in 2000. Instead, the Dems need to depersonalize this election, and transform it into a contest between two administrative branches. Let me explain what I mean.

The belief that a presidential election is a choice between two individuals is probably the biggest fallacy in American politics. What you are actually voting for is an entire Executive branch of government, along with the judges or Justices it appoints. Unfortunately, too many people conceptualize the presidential election as a one-on-one contest between individuals, rather than between two potential Executive branches. When you think about it, reducing everything to an individual level is actually a common cognitive error in American thought. For example, terrorism is not a systematic phenomenon, but something caused by Osama (and which can be fixed by killing Osama) – which is the wrong way to think about it. Or, people think that capturing al-Sadr will end the uprising, which is an equally wrong way to understand the situation. Similarly, I think it’s somewhat irrational to base your vote primarily upon a candidate’s personal characteristics – which of course is always the main focus of our media (i.e., the way they look, or smirk, or talk).

I’m sure people would object and say that choosing the right individual is important. After all, the President makes the final decision on important issues like going to war. In addition, in the digital age, choosing the right individual is also important because a president must be able to sell his policies to the public over TV. That’s all true of course. I’m not saying that individual characteristics aren’t important. I’m just saying that they are HIGHLY overvalued in comparison to their actual relevance to most of the everyday activities and policies of the Executive branch. Just take Bush. Yes, Bush made the final decision on the war, and he had to go on TV and sell it. But where do you think the plan to invade originally came from? More generally, where do you think every single policy he has ever mentioned in his speeches comes from? They all come from his appointees, or his appointees’ appointees. And the way Bush talks, or clears brush in Crawford, has nothing at all to do with 99.9% of what goes on in the Executive branch every day.

The important point is that we are not choosing between individuals – we’re choosing between two machines, or corporations, or collective entities, or however you want to conceptualize it. Bush is merely the CEO, or the public relations person, who has been given final say-so and who must communicate to the shareholders, if you will. Consider Bush as the 24 hour commercial that attempts to persuade people to support the larger entity’s political preferences. Bush himself has very little to do with either the creation or implementation of most of these policies. You’ve got to keep in mind how these things work on a micro-level. Administrative officials are appointed, and are given an enormous amount of discretion to enact policies within their own department. Bush may approve or reject these policies, but the prime movers are the underlings, not the President. For example, Ashcroft runs DOJ. God only knows what creatures he has appointed to serve under him. But whoever they are, these people have more influence over the everyday actions of the DOJ than Bush does. The same is true of the EPA - it's run by people who don't care about the environment. Just ask them. And let’s not forget Iraq. The idea of invading Iraq was planned during the 90s by Perle, Wolfowitz, and the other Jacobins over at American Enterprise. Bush merely approved what was, in reality, Wolfowitz’s baby.

On to Kerry. If Kerry allows this race to become a personality contest, he’s going to get crushed. He needs to redefine the debate in a way that Gore could not. People need to realize that this race is about two massive entities - GOP Inc., and Democrats, Inc. – and not two individuals. And what's really at stake in this election is which of these two entities will get to place its people throughout the entire Executive branch. Kerry, of course, can’t say any of this. If he admitted this weakness, it would be demagoged like crazy. But that’s what underlings are for. Kerry’s underlings need to make 2004 a referendum not just on Bush, but on his entire administrative branch. In other words, a vote for Bush is not just a vote for the man, it’s a vote for Bush’s EPA, for Ashcroft, for Richard Perle, for Rumsfeld, for the people in HHS who lied about the Medicare bill, and for his energy team (i.e., Cheney). Kerry’s underlings have to de-emphasize the individual, and focus on what’s really at stake – total and complete control of the entire Executive branch and all the appointees of the Judicial branch. I suspect that support for the nut-cases currently running our administrative agencies is much lower than support for Bush, the man. But that's why it's so important for the GOP to focus on Kerry's Frenchness, or his wordiness, or the fact that he's from Massachusetts. The GOP has a bad platform, so they're running on the individual.

But that’s the problem for the Dems. Democrats, Inc. is rather pathetic compared to GOP, Inc., and I doubt they can match GOP Inc. in six months. GOP, Inc. is much larger and much more connected. That’s because the GOP isn’t really a political party – it’s a massive corporate/media/legislative conglomerate that we call the Republican Party. Bush himself is only one important cog in this much larger entity. The coordination within this entity is absolutely amazing. The GOP has an unholy Trinity between the White House, the Congress, and the media (talk radio, Drudge, and Fox News). These are all entities, which, in an ideal world, would serve as checks on one another (this is one of the ways that political parties water down the checks-and-balances of the Constitution). For example, the White House (or the Executive branch) comes up with a plan. Talking points are distributed to everyone on Capitol Hill and to the sympathetic media. And before people can even wake up, the army is marching lockstep all over TV and radio (and the Internet), almost always on message. Bloggers can quickly figure out what the talking points are, and they parrot them too. The ruthless efficiency is amazing, if not a little too Orwellian.

The genius of GOP Inc., though, is that the behind-the-scenes coordination itself is unknown to those who don’t follow the news closely (by which I mean 90% of Americans). To these people, the election is not about the machinations of two large entities, jockeying behind-the-scenes for votes; neither is it about voting for an Executive Branch that will implement policies that affect all Americans significantly. To them, it’s about which individual they like better. I concede that Kerry is wordy on TV, but that doesn’t have one damned thing to do with what’s going on in 99.999999% of the Executive branch. And whether Bush prays to God or secretly sacrifices dogs to Satan while wearing goat leggings has nothing to do with 99.999999% of what goes on everyday within the Executive Branch.

But I fear this is one cognitive error that’s going to stick. It’s very hard for people to see the Presidential election for what it is – a contest for control of the Executive branch, rather than as a reward for the person who seems like a “good guy to have a beer with.”

__________

OK - I can't let this one slide. Via CAP, I just read what is quite possibly the most ridiculous op-ed ever written. I've really been working on trying to strike a more cordial tone lately, but this is simply too much. The author is Edwin Fuelner, Ph.D - he's the president of the Heritage Foundation, a major conservative think tank. His argument is that economic growth is the best way to help the environment. I think that argument is fairly ridiculous, but it's at least plausible. But it gets worse:

If we want the rest of the world to be as clean as we are, we should shun the guerrilla tactics of the radical environmental activists. What’s needed are the free-market ideas that have fueled our economic growth and led to prosperity. . . In the meantime, of course, Americans are still giving environmentalists plenty to complain about, because we drive gasoline-powered cars. But with technology improving our vehicles all the time, they’re not really the disaster some claim. Our environment has improved markedly over the last three decades, even as the population rose 30 percent, the number of licensed vehicles jumped 87 percent, and vehicle miles traveled increased more than 125 percent.

Consider, too, the jobs generated by cars. They include everything from high-paying manufacturing, repair and sales jobs to entry-level gas station attendant positions. Plus, by allowing us to get around quickly and easily, cars enabled people to move out of crowded cities into suburbs, where they’re in closer contact with nature. And let’s not forget what autos replaced: horses. Back in the days when horse-drawn carriages were the main means of transportation, our streets were filled with manure. This waste was itself a dangerous form of pollution.

Horses required tons of hay, which meant thousands of acres of farmland were needed to grow food for animal use, not human consumption. The invention of the car actually helped clean our streets, clear our air and free land for more productive use.

Where to begin. First, I should point out that this guy is probably not actually a moron, he may just be employing highly disingenuous arguments to persuade people that environmental regulations don't help. Let's hope so. Anyway. . .

Let's begin with the very first claim that free-market ideas are needed to clean the environment. Lest anyone forget, it was the excesses of the late 19th century free market that destroyed our environment in the first place. It was only after the Progressives (like Teddy Roosevelt) started imposing government controls on the free market that the environment improved (that's also when national parks started being created). It's possible of course that the current regime could incorporate some market incentives to achieve its goals, but the underlying government controls must stay even if they might need tweaking sometimes. But make no mistake - the free market, left on its own, would destroy our environment (given the inherent collective action problems, race to the bottom, etc.).

Second, he cites statistics (the opiate of the partisan masses) that show that environmental conditions have been improving even though the use of cars has dramatically increased. Uggh. For one, those conditions have improved because Congress passed strict pollution control measures in the 1970s (which Bush is slowly but surely undermining). Second, Fuelner uses these stats to imply that cars aren't really that much a threat. This is just wrong as a matter of logic. Just because environmental conditions have improved doesn't mean that they've improved as much as they could or should have (if, for example, we switched to electric cars), or that cars don't pose a threat. I mean, have you been to Los Angeles?

Third, he cites all the jobs related to cars. I'm not sure what his point here is. No one that I know is advocating a ban on cars. People are just saying that cars should be made cleaner and more efficient, which would not cost a single job (though I would love to ban SUVs - in the name of national security, energy independence, etc.).

Finally, I'm not even going to discuss the claim that cars freed us from the horrors of manure pollution. Merely responding would imply that the argument has a modicum of merit - which it doesn't.

It's really quite simple. People like this want to undo environmental regulations. I honestly don't know if they simply don't care about the environment (or don't value protecting it for future generations, or for God, if you prefer), or they actually believe that the free market can make the environment better. I almost hope it's the former, because the latter just means they're out of touch with history and reality more generally.

I've been pretty busy at work, so I doubt I'll be posting anything substantial until later tonight (Thurs. night). In the meantime, Kos has an excellent round-up of Kerry's war records (which are compared to Bush's for your convenience). I get the feeling that the RNC might have walked into a trap by demanding the release of these records. For the next few days, the papers are going to be filled with glowing reviews of Kerry's military records, which is not exactly the issue that the Bush '04 team wants in the headlines. And by the way, what genius decided it would be a good political move to challenge a veteran's Purple Heart because the wound wasn't "bad" enough? Is that really a fight that Bush can win? Who are these people?

[Update: Slate has some choice quotes from the Woodward book. Here are my favorite:

Gen. Tommy Frank talking about Douglas Feith (undersecretary of defense): ""I have to deal with the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day." This is the same Feith whose office Powell referred to as the "Gestapo." And this is the same Feith who leaked bogus, discredited intelligence to the Weekly Standard in an attempt to link Iraq and al Qaeda.

Page 127: When Karl Rove worries about the perception in the media that he's meddling in foreign affairs, Bush says: "Don't worry about it. Condi's territorial. She's a woman."

Page 11: Bush as glutton: At a Pentagon briefing, staffers lay out peppermint candy for each attendee. Bush scarfs down his peppermint, and then begins to eye Bill Cohen's treat, which the former secretary gladly relinquishes. Gen. Hugh Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, "noticed Bush eyeing his mint, so he passed it over."]

One argument I've been hearing lately is that Kerry's support of abortion means that he should be denied Communion, or that he should quit the Church. Here's what Southern Appeal had to say:

It is really quite simple. You cannot be a devout Catholic and support abortion rights. If supporting abortion means more to you than your faith, I suggest you join this "church" and quit pretending to be Catholic.

Here's my question - does this mean that all politicians who support or use birth control should also quit the Church? Unless I'm mistaken (and please tell me if I'm wrong), the Church comes down pretty strongly against birth control (which seems to be in tension with its stance on abortion). Unless you say yes, then you have to come up with a way to distinguish abortion from birth control. Otherwise, you have to admit that people can be good Catholics and not agree with every single aspect of the platform.

After a brief vacation, Billmon has returned to form. He articulated something that I have been thinking about lately, and something that even all war supporters need to at least consider. First, the war may no longer be about successfully creating a Western democracy. Our mission may now have been reduced to preventing all-out chaos and disaster. In other words, we may not be playing to win, only not to lose. Second, even though I hope (desperately) that I'm wrong, I am growing increasingly resigned to the belief that America may have fucked up the Middle East for several generations. For example, if we have opened the storm-gates of Arab rage the way I think we have, I fear that all of our friends in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan may go the way of the Shah in Iran. And then, assuming we're still addicted to oil, we really will have a necessary war on our hands. Billmon says it better:

Access to cheap oil may or may not have been a neocon motive for the conquest of Iraq, but it could easily become the main motive for the next Middle Eastern invasion, if the chaos in Iraq spills over into rest of the region. In other words, the neocons may have screwed the pooch (to borrow a bit of pilot slang from Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff) so ferociously the poor beast can't be patched back up again. Instead of World War IV, America may find its been dragged into a Middle Eastern version of the Thirty Years War, if not the Hundred Years War.
. . .

We seem to have reached the point where a half-baked strategy for endless war in the Middle East is actually easier to sell politically than a sensible energy policy, an end to America's fawning subservience to worst instincts of the Israeli national security state, and a focused, relentless campaign to destroy Al Qaeda while drying up the pools of hatred in which jihad festers and grows.

__________

As everyone knows, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Gitmo case yesterday. I had originally intended to read many of the briefs and provide some detailed analysis in non-legal jargon, but I’ve been too busy. I may still write that post, but for now I want to make one general observation about the Gitmo case: the case is, at its essence, a question of how much we should trust the Executive Branch.

A Matter of Trust

I did manage to do a quick scan of the main briefs and the lower court opinion. Like so many important Supreme Court cases, there simply isn’t a clear answer to the jurisdictional question (i.e., whether the detainees can even get to court to air their claims). The law could easily justify either outcome. In other words, the law is indeterminate on this particular question. For example, one important issue (probably the most important issue) is whether Guantanamo Bay should be considered as a territory over which the United States is sovereign (if so, the government probably loses). And both sides can make strong arguments. The government points out that the lease from Cuba clearly states that Cuba retains “sovereignty.” However, the lease also gives complete “jurisdiction and control” to the United States, and it’s clear that Cuba has nothing to do with the military base, and that other federal laws apply there (such as the Endangered Species Act). The second important issue is how the Court should interpret an old 1950 case called Johnson v. Eisentrager. I won’t bore you with all the details, but the case has significant similarities to, and differences from, the current Gitmo case. Different aspects of the case could be used to support or oppose either side’s arguments.

There are also strong policy arguments that both sides could raise. For example, the government clearly has a strong interest in keeping the courts from second-guessing its military decisions. Rejecting the government’s position could also create an administrative nightmare, as Volokh has pointed out. On the other hand, if the Court accepts the government’s position, it means that an innocent person who was mistakenly taken captive could literally remain in prison until he dies, without any right to challenge the detention and without any right to see his family or his lawyer. It’s a very tough call.

In short, the government is asking the Court to give the Executive Branch an enormous power with literally no oversight. And that’s why I think the case is ultimately about institutional trust (or trust between the “branches” of government). In other words, the outcome will depend on how much the Court (the judicial institution) trusts the President (the executive institution). To give the President this power (when the law doesn’t force the Court to do so) is essentially saying, “We trust that the Executive Branch will not abuse this authority.” I, on the other hand, do not trust the Executive Branch and that’s why I hope the Court does find that the detainees have a right to be in court. Let me explain why.

First, it’s not so much that I distrust Bush, or the current Executive Branch (though I do), it’s that I don’t particularly trust government institutions in general. Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal of trust in government programs, but not in the governing institutions themselves. In my opinion, it is hard-wired into the genetic code of man to seek more power. Government institutions are made up of humans, and thus, all government institutions will seek to increase their power – unless they’re checked. To me, the real genius of the Constitution was its heavy reliance on separation of powers, along with checks and balances. I don’t deify the Framers (who were slave-owning aristocrats), but the basic governing structure they created was truly brilliant. Each branch is a check on the natural desires of the other branches to attain more power. That’s why communism (a more beautiful idea than liberal democracy) failed so miserably. It took a much too optimistic view of mankind. The original government worked well (and honestly) for a while, but it soon grew corrupt because there were no checks on it. Power, once given, will inevitably fall into the wrong hands or be used for the wrong purposes. I’m not saying that mankind is naturally bad (though many people think so), but I am saying that humans seek to increase their power and that government structures (or designs) must have a way of resisting this natural behavior.

That's why I’m so skeptical of the Gitmo detentions, the Patriot Act, and all the other post-9/11 actions that rely so heavily upon the discretion of the Executive. Once you give the Executive this power, it’s naive to hope that the government won’t exercise it improperly. That’s what governments (or institutions of government) do – you give an inch, they take a mile. Already, we’ve heard that the Patriot Act powers have been used for drug investigations. And I’m sure that the CIA in the 50s would have loved to have the Court’s blessing to round up Communist leaders, label them “enemy combatants,” and dump them in Guantanamo for the rest of their lives. If the legislature or the courts don’t provide a check (or the credible threat of one), these powers will eventually be used in bad or unintended ways. And remember my Republican friends, there will be a Democrat in the White House again and then they will have all of these powers. And boy would it suck if the government started using the Patriot Act to monitor militias for terrorist-related program activities. Actually, I’m surprised that more conservatives aren’t opposing the detainment and the Patriot Act (though some are). After all, the most paranoid people on earth with respect to government power are American conservatives (the intellectual heirs of the super-paranoid anti-Federalists). The basic point is that everyone needs to view this issue through a non-partisan lens because the power will be ultimately be used by Presidents from both parties. And as I pointed out yesterday, I am very uncomfortable with the extent to which the Legislative Branch has already allowed the Executive Branch to assume full control over the war powers (and Iraq has only increased my concerns over the current levels of Executive power and secrecy).

The idea of checks and balances is the most central and most important aspect of our Constitution. I hope the Court doesn’t ignore it. Because God knows Congress won't do anything about it. "Yes, Mr. Bush, if you say it's about terrorism, we'll approve it. We'll approve anything. Even wars. Can we shine your shoes while we're at it?"

As I said below, one of the reasons I support renewing the draft is because it would act as a deterrent against unnecessary wars of choice by the President. The Framers included such a deterrent in the Constitution by granting Congress alone (not the President) the power to declare war. The thinking was that this provision would force Congress - being the most accountable branch - to think long and hard about commiting to a war. Unfortunately, this provision has essentially been read out of the Constitution by the vastly-expanding Executive Branch and the increasingly-wussified Legislative Branch (it makes you miss Newt). Congress hasn't formally declared war since World War II - and we've had a few major wars since then.

Of course, people could point to the approvals of force in both 1991 and 2002. I'm not sure that's enough of a deterrent. First, the resolutions were voted only after thousands of our troops were deployed. War seemed inevitable (Bush even said he didn't need Congressional approval), so it's almost impossible to ask Congress to resist the President after he has strengthened his bargaining position by sending troops to the combat area. The resolutions should have been voted on before the troops were deployed. The President can simply rely on demagoguery ("you oppose our troops!") once the troops are in place and war seems inevitable. Because Congress has become the boot-lickers of the President, we can't count on existing procedures anymore. Renewing the draft would stiffen their spine - and it would make the wealthy donors (who have no personal stake in the war) think twice too.

__________

As casualties started to spike this month, many progressives began expressing increased anger and sadness about the plight of both the soldiers and their families at home. One common response I’ve heard from war supporters is some version of the following: “The troops freely volunteered to take this risk.” Although that statement has some truth to it, it’s not entirely true. Today, I want to focus specifically on the question of whether American soldiers “freely” decide to join the military. The best answer to this question is “sorta.”

Whether we have a true volunteer army depends on what is meant by the word “free.” In my opinion, too many people conceptualize “freedom” in a binary, either/or sense. To them, you are either totally free, or totally not free. If this is the proper definition of freedom, then we certainly have an all-volunteer army. No one is using the threat of jail or physical pain to get people to sign up for the military. So, in the most basic sense of the word, soldiers “freely” volunteer for military service.

But let’s consider another way of conceptualizing freedom. Instead of thinking about freedom in terms of either “100% free” or “100% not free," let’s assume that these are the extreme ends of a spectrum and that everything else falls somewhere between these two extremes. For example, let’s assume that you reach a fork in the road and I say, “I’m going to kill you if you don’t go left.” In this situation, you are 100% not free – your decision is 100% coerced. If, by contrast, you reach a fork in the road and I say, “Pick whatever road you want” – you are 100% free to decide which way to go. These are the extremes. Now let’s muddy the waters. Let’s assume that upon reaching the fork in the road, I say “If you go left, I’m going to burn down your house.” It’s not as coercive as the threat of death, but it’s closer to that extreme than to the other one. Similarly, imagine that I say, “If you go left, you get $100,000. If you go right, you have to give me $100,000.” Again, this example probably falls closer to the “100% free” end of the spectrum, but I think we can all admit that it’s not completely free of coercion (even if we lowered the amount of money).

The point is that coercion is not an either/or concept. It is best conceptualized as existing along a spectrum that ranges from very light to very strong. And that brings us to the modern American military.

The key to my entire argument is that, as many people have noted, the American military has a strong class dimension. Our soldiers come from the working classes disproportionately. The wealthy – the patriotic wealthy who are unwilling to pay more in times of war – are almost entirely absent. Here’s some excerpts from the NYT article cited above:

A survey of the American military's endlessly compiled and analyzed demographics paints a picture of a fighting force that is anything but a cross section of America. With minorities over-represented and the wealthy and the underclass essentially absent . . . America's 1.4 million-strong military seems to resemble the makeup of a two-year commuter or trade school outside Birmingham or Biloxi far more than that of a ghetto or barrio or four-year university in Boston.
. . .

Confronted by images of the hardships of overseas deployment and by the stark reality of casualties in Iraq, some have raised questions about the composition of the fighting force and about requiring what is, in essence, a working-class military to fight and die for an affluent America.

Such a widespread phenomenon strongly suggests that there is a systematic cause for the class dimension in the composition of our military. And that cause is economics – pure and simple. The military provides a host of economic benefits – as it should. Soldiers learn important skills, they obtain medical benefits, and their education and retirement are subsidized by the government – as they should be. In pure economic terms, these benefits are more valuable (in a mathematical sense) to working class people than to wealthy people. Wealthy children are less likely to worry about affording health care, or college education, so the benefits offered by the military are not worth as much.

What I take from all of this is that there is some element of economic coercion involved in our methods of military enlistment (remember, it’s a spectrum). In terms of opportunity costs, it’s more rational (as compared to the wealthy) for the working class people to enlist. Many of them simply could not obtain the same level of economic benefits or social advancement if they did not join the military because many of them didn’t have the good fortune of having been born in a wealthy family. It’s similar to our fork in the road example. If you turn left (and enlist), you may have to risk your life, but there are a host of economic benefits. If you turn right (and don’t enlist), you’re going to have a harder time affording education, health care, and retirement benefits. Thus, for many, the decision to join the military is not entirely free, nor is it entirely coerced – but it's somewhere in the middle. I think we can all concede that there is at least some element of economic coercion involved (how else do you explain the demographics?).

And that’s why I say bring back the draft. And do it now. As Charles Rangel has stated, “It's just not fair that the people that we ask to fight our wars are people who join the military because of economic conditions, because they have fewer options.” I agree. All of America benefits from the sacrifices of our soldiers. It’s not fair for that burden to fall on a less affluent subset of the population. (One interesting question for some reporter would be to find out how many of the people attending Bush’s $2,000-a-plate fundraisers have children or close relatives in the military).

I’m not sure that we should completely replace our current system with a draft. But I think that we should pass a law (or amendment if necessary) that requires the President to authorize a draft before any major military operation begins. In other words, if the President wants to go to war, he’s got to authorize a draft. Consider it a "contingency draft." It’s time for ALL of America to start sharing the burden of combat.

In addition, authorizing a draft would ensure that the American population (and especially the disproportionately influential wealthy Americans) will think long and hard about supporting a conflict. I think that many people in the wealthy faction of the Republican Party supported the idea of the Iraq war more strongly because they didn’t have to risk anything. Creating this sort of “contingency draft” would help deter Presidents from sending our young men and women into war in all but the most necessary of situations.

One obvious objection is that, under my theory, the “underclass” (as the article so eloquently put it) should be highly represented, but they’re not. I have two responses. First, it might be the case that people in poverty have too many problems to overcome or face circumstances that prevent them from enlisting. I don’t really know. But second, even if my argument doesn’t explain the behavior of the poor, people still have to explain why the wealthy are virtually absent from our working-class military. I'll certainly change my mind if someone can provide a more compelling explanation for the demographics.

[Update: Atrios disagrees.]

Drezner has another post today arguing that outsourcing creates jobs (especially small business jobs). I must confess that I'm far from an expert, but Drezner's positions seem very plausible. I do have a question though: At what point does outsourcing become morally objectionable regardless of the economic benefits? The standard argument is that outsourcing lowers labor costs, which helps businesses make more money and expand and create jobs at home. But where do we draw the line? I mean, I don't think we could justify lower labor costs if we are allowing jobs to be sent to a slave-based economy. I'm not trying to invoke a straw man. I'm merely pointing out the ends of the spectrum - slavery on one end and strong labor and environmental protections on the other. Again, I don't know for sure, but it seems that many of our jobs are being sent to countries that are approaching the slave-end of the spectrum.

So, I guess my question is: What is the point at which outsourcing becomes morally objectionable, and are there any instances of American jobs going to a country that is beyond this line, so to speak? And I apologize if this question has been clearly answered in a post that I have not read.

__________

So I watched Woodward on 60 Minutes tonight. This administration never ceases to amaze me. I hope they have a really REALLY good explanation for the unconstitutional $700 million slush fund (I mean, Bush had at least heard of Iran-Contra, right?). But today, I don’t want to talk about Iran-Contra II, or the price-fixing deal made with the Saudis, I want to look at the specific type of process Bush used to decide to go to war. As I’ve said before, reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of the invasion. But if Woodward is correct, I think everyone should be very disturbed at the defects in the decision-making process that Bush used in deciding whether to invade. Bush’s process was not intended to generate discussion, gather information, or encourage dissent. He simply asked a handful of people (who were inclined to agree with him) about whether to invade, and then he simply told everyone else about his decision. That was his decision-making process. To understand why this is so troubling, let’s look at some parallels in the law.

When any Supreme Court case comes down, there are always two aspects of the opinion that should be evaluated: (1) the result of the case; and (2) the process by which that result was made. For example, let’s imagine that the Supreme Court struck down segregation in a two sentence opinion that said: “First, the Court is omnipotent and whatever we says, goes. Second, in light of this power, we find segregation unconstitutional.” It’s an absurd example, but it raises an important point. Even though the result was proper, the process by which the result was reached (i.e., “Court in omnipotent”) was not. If the Court continued deciding cases based on this sort of decision-making process, it would inevitably reach very bad results.

The law has also long recognized the importance of creating and protecting procedures (i.e., “processes”) to ensure that courts will arrive at informed and just decisions. The goal of these numerous procedural protections is not so much to ensure a given result, but to ensure that, whenever courts do make a decision, that decision will have been made in an adversarial setting where claims and witnesses are challenged, and where factual or legal support has been presented. Just take a look at the Bill of Rights (especially Amendments V-VII). When you look at these amendments as a whole, you can see that the Framers were very concerned about creating an effective process for courts to follow.

For example, before anyone can be convicted of a crime, the government must follow a number of procedural requirements. The government must inform criminals of the nature of the charge against them. They must then be indicted by a grand jury, which requires the prosecution to present evidence. The case must then go to trial, and the trial must meet the standards of “due process” (in other words, certain procedures must be followed such as allowing witnesses to testify). The case must be decided by a jury. The criminal also has the right to an attorney and a right to confront any witness who might testify against the criminal.

You can think of all of these rights as information-producing. The idea behind forcing information to be produced is to ensure that the decision is fair. Requiring the prosecution both to inform the criminal of the accusations against him or her and to present its evidence to a grand jury ensures that people won’t be thrown in jail because the sheriff doesn’t like them. The criminal’s right to counsel and to confront adverse witnesses is a way to make sure that the government’s accusations will be challenged. We feel more confident about sending people to jail because we know the Constitution has required that these decisions be made in a setting where claims are challenged, and where facts and empirical evidence are presented and scrutinized.

“Information-producing” is also the animating principle behind the Framers’ decision to limit the federal courts’ jurisdiction (under Article III) to “cases and controversies.” The idea is that courts make better decisions when there are two self-interested parties presenting the best legal case possible. We see the same thing in the “notice-and-comment” requirement for administrative agencies. The point of all this is to show that information is good. Dissenting views are good. When there is no process to ensure that information will be generated and that dissenting views will be presented, the ultimate decision is likely to be uninformed (and more likely to be wrong).

Which brings us to Bush. Regardless of what people think about the wisdom of invading, I think we can all agree that the process Bush employed to reach that decision is very troubling. It was the opposite of “information-producing.” According to Woodward, Bush never even asked several important people in his cabinet (such as his Secretary of State – the only one with any combat experience in the whole cabinet) about whether he should go to war. According to the Post, the only war cabinet member whom Bush asked was Rice. He explained that he knew what everyone else thought so there was no need to ask them. NO NO NO NO!!

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t cut it. Not by a long shot. I understand that intelligence and war plans had been trickling in for a year. But when the time came, Bush should have called everyone (not Cheney and Rice – everyone) together and said, “Ok, everyone has seen the evidence. Let’s think about the best arguments for and against invasion, in light of everything we've seen.” In this hypothetical universe, Powell could have challenged Cheney’s paranoid delusions (err. .. I mean, intelligence reports), and the hawks could have challenged Powell’s reliance on diplomacy (which had its own shortcomings). Everything would have been laid out on the table and scrutinized. But that’s not how Bush did it. When the time came to make the final decision, he relied on private, Iago-like conversations with Cheney. To make a long story short, Bush made the ultimate decision to invade by relying on a handful of like-minded hawks in his cabinet. In doing so, he deprived himself of contrary views and dissenting opinions. And now we’re paying for it.

Even if a better process would not have changed the ultimate decision, I think many things would have been done differently had Bush been better informed. He apparently did not understand the full consequences of "owning" Iraq – a state with a long history of ethnic hatred and almost no democracy-supporting institutions. I imagine things would have been different if Bush had been told, “Look, there’s a decent chance that the Iraqis will resist and that we’ll have to be there for a long time with a lot of troops. You don’t want Americans doing that alone. We’ve got to build a real coalition.” Or, “Mr. President, we must deal with the possibility that there are no weapons. Is America really ready to make the sort of sacrifice necessary for democracy-building?”

To me, it seems that all of our problems in Iraq have been failures of information. We were wrong about WMDs; wrong about al Qaeda; wrong about our post-war occupation planning; wrong about the effect of disbanding the army; woefully ignorant of Sistani and the Shiites; and on and on. These are ALL – everyone one of them – problems that could have been foreseen and planned for if Bush had employed a process that was more about producing information and less about affirming his divinely-inspired support for the war. For God’s sake, when you go to war, don’t rely only on those who are pushing for war. That’s the whole point of the adversarial process – interested parties don’t always share all the relevant facts (isn’t that right, Mr. Vice-President?). You need other interested parties there to challenge these views. Bush ignored the dissenting views by failing to make his decision through a process that would help him arrive at an informed decision.

And now our troops are paying the price.

__________

I think I've made it clear that I strongly disagree with many of Sharon's tactics. I certainly disagree with the concessions offered by Bush this week and the assassination of the Hamas leaders. But, I also think that too many American progressives have adopted a sort of knee-jerk anti-Israel position with no regard for the enormously complex situation that the Israeli government faces. In other words, we need to keep in mind that both parties are to blame. Today, I want to avoid an extended argument over the merits of these decisions (i.e., concessions, assassination), and instead focus on the timing of those decisions.

People can argue all day about whether Bush's concessions and Israel's assassination are good policy decisions. For the sake of argument, let's assume that they are. My point is that even if you agree with the merits of these positions, I think you have to agree that the TIMING of these decisions was horrible - both for Israel and America.

Think about it. We have a 130,000 troops in Iraq facing a nationalist uprising. We're in the middle of attempting to build a democracy in post-Saddam Iraq. To succeed, we must stop the uprising, and we can't stop it by military means alone. To win, we must win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi moderates and keep them from al-Sadr. We're also trying desperately to attract more troops and financial support. The actions of Bush and Sharon this week hurt (not help) each of those goals. Again, let's assume that both the concessions and the assassination were the right things to have done. Is NOW really the best time to have taken these "bold" steps. Is it really such a good idea to announce a radical reversal of US policy that will enrage Arabs at the same time we're massing outside of Najaf, hoping that al-Sadr's support won't spread? Why do this now? I have no doubt that Israel would have had many opportunities to assassinate the Hamas leader. Was it such a great idea to do so two days after Sharon met with Bush? Regardless of whether Bush approved or even knew about the assassination, it looks really sketchy on Al Jazeera TV. And it pisses off the Arab street, which, in the long-run, means that more terrorists will be created. But in the short-term, Bush and Sharon's decisions have endangered our troops and our mission in Iraq.

Second, why did Bush offer these concessions one day before Tony Blair was making his visit to Washington? Blair has literally risked his political life for Bush, and Bush has given him very little in return. One of the whole justifications for charging in with America (in England) was that Blair would have leverage to get Bush back at the negotiating table in Israel. Instead, Bush completely undermined Blair in a very embarrassing way. Bush's new position really makes life harder on Blair at home. Again, even if Bush wanted to make these concessions, why not wait until after Blair visited? Why go out of the way to embarrass him at home when he's your ONLY friend in Iraq?

If we fail in Iraq, the timing of this week's actions might very well be part of the cause.

________

As usual, I'll be taking Saturday off from the blogosphere -- I'll be posting again on Sunday afternoon or Sunday night. In the meantime, I would strongly recommend watching the Chappelle show this weekend on Comedy Central. Especially the skit "President Black Bush," which involves a look at the lead-up to the war in Iraq. Here's a link to the video - it's one of the funniest things I've seen lately. Chappelle is really coming into his own.

After reading Kaus today, I have no reservations about removing him from my link list. For a year, he's been bashing Kerry for refusing to take hard positions or unpopular positions. Well, Kerry just took one. He injected a welcome dose of realism into the Iraq debates by saying that the top priority in Iraq should be stability rather than democracy. That's clearly correct because the former is necessary before the latter can develop. On the other hand, it's a position that can be demagogued. So Kerry was brave to have said it. You would think that Kaus would take note, but no - he attacks Kerry for it (and his half-hearted recognition of the contradiction doesn't make it OK). Kerry "foolishly tells the truth." Face it - this guy is so lost in Kerry-hatred that Kerry can do nothing right. Screw him.

For a very even-handed and rational (as always) assessment of the problems with Bush's concessions to Sharon, you should read David Ignatius's column.

Also - I'm having trouble accessing this site along with other "blogspot" web sites. I've emailed Blogger.com, so hopefully they can fix this problem - which seems to be fairly widespread. If anyone has any information, please email me.

__________

Everyone should go out and get an issue of Harper's -- there's a great article by Thomas Frank that I will be commenting on next week. Today, though, I want to talk about an essay by Bruno Latour (a philosophy of science scholar) called "The Last Critique," which was reprinted in this same issue. Though he raises many interesting and difficult issues, I want to focus on one in particular. Latour explains that one of the reasons for the Right's success is that it has successfully co-opted the tools of deconstructive criticism traditionally used by the Left. Let me explain what I mean by that.

When Latour refers to "criticism," he has a technical meaning in mind. "Criticism" is what goes on in English grad schools all across America. You could also call it "deconstructionism." It's the act of breaking down familiar subjects such as religion, race, or gender in order to see the ideological biases or power hierarchies that are allegedly behind these concepts. For example, deconstructionists might study the old TV show Bewitched and use it to identify gender hierarchies. Taken to its most logical extreme, "critics" (in this sense) think there are no true objective facts. What we consider to be facts are actually, once you deconstruct them, a reflection of the biases of the scientific community, or the entrenched elite, or whatever. I prefer to call it postmodern horseshit. Latour agrees. Here's how he described it (and he wants to get beyond this way of thinking - which he thinks has lost all energy and vitality):

[E]ntire Ph.D programs are still running to make sure that good American kids are learning the hard way that facts are made up, that there is no such thing as natural, unmediated, unbiased access to truth, that we are always the prisoner of language, that we always speak from one standpoint, and so on.

As Latour explained, everything was fine and dandy when this type of "criticism" was being used to challenge conservatives' view of religion or race or gender. But things have now changed. Conservatives have learned how to play this game too, and they are playing it well. It's genius actually. Whenever scientific evidence is offered with respect to evolution, or pollution, or the effects of tax cuts, conservatives can merely respond that those facts are reflections of the scientist's (or the New York Times's or whoever's) liberal bias. Here's an excerpt that Latour quotes from a Republican strategist:

Most scientists believe that [global] warming is caused largely by manmade pollutants that require strict regulation. Mr. Luntz [a lobbyist for the Republicans] seems to acknowledge as much when he says that "the scientific debate is closing against us." His advice, however, is to emphasize that the evidence is not complete. "Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled," he writes, "their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue."

So, whenever hard scientific evidence is presented that challenges conservative positions, conservatives can respond by simply arguing that the speaker is biased ("Didn't you vote for Gore?"). Obviously, this works both ways. Clinton used these tactics during the Lewinsky scandal. But the Right has generally been more skeptical of adopting lines-of-argument from postmodern French philosophers. No longer.

But there is something very troubling about all of this. If we can get over our postmodern malaise and accept that there are objective facts, then we can hopefully admit that these types of arguments will further erode this nation's democratic dialogue (which doesn't need further erosion). Take the response to Dick Clarke. I'm sorry, but the whole don't-believe-him-because-he's-liberal argument doesn't work for him. Clarke has been a terrorist hawk for many years in several administrations. But the goal of the administration's response was not to refute his factual claims. Their plan was to cast him as a partisan so that all his claims would be seen as merely ideological-based constructions that were not objectively true. It was all so . . . French. And it worked. Polls showed that party affiliation determined whether you thought he was telling the truth (even though everything he said has written and oral corroboration).

The same is true in the evolution debates in schools. Even though evolution has 150 years of scientific evidence supporting it, and creationism (or Intelligent Design) has exactly no evidence (even under the most basic scientific criteria), that doesn't matter. The collection of supposedly objective facts is merely a reflection of the scientists' hostility to religion, and therefore, should not be believed. Eventually, the ID people have to retreat to the position that science itself is merely a reflection of left-wing bias against "real" people's values.

I hope to return to this theme in the future, and I'll hopefully have some sort of coherent description of the "New Empiricism" that progressives should adopt - which is something that Latour was getting at.

[Update: This same strategy is also being increasingly applied to the 9/11 Commission, as it becomes more clear that its findings will be critical of Bush.]

From yesterday's Borowitz report:

BUSH IS PERFECT, WHITE HOUSE REVEALS

First Flawless Person in History, Experts Believe

President George W. Bush received some much needed good news today as the White House revealed conclusive evidence that the President is perfect. “After reviewing his actions since entering the White House in 2001, we have come to the conclusion that the President is perfect,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. “And we believe that his perfection may date back even further than that, possibly to his date of birth.”

Mr. Bush responded to the news of his perfection with self-effacing modesty, Mr. McClellan said, “which is exactly how you’d expect a perfect person to react.”

“He said he would move mountains to find some flaw that would make him less than perfect,” Mr. McClellan said, adding that the President could, in fact, move mountains. Mr. McClellan then distributed to the press copies of a bowling score-sheet attributed to the President which showed Mr. Bush bowling a perfect score of 300.

In the aftermath of the White House’s announcement, experts in the field of human perfection expressed astonishment at the news of Mr. Bush’s flawlessness. “We’ve always operated on the presumption that nobody is perfect,” said Dr. David Stemmins of the University of Minnesota. “If these revelations are true, that would make President Bush the first perfect person in history.”
Not so, says Mr. McClellan: “Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Ashcroft are also perfect.”

In other news, Barry Bonds’s home-run heroics were overshadowed yesterday when President Bush produced his 660th reason for invading Iraq.

I wanted to direct everyone to Billmon's analysis of the press conference with Sharon. According to him, Bush has apparently made major concessions to Israel that reverse 40-year old policies that were once defended by Bush I. The Palestinians are going to be furious. I can't say it enough - this conflict is the fount of Islamic terror. Until we become a neutral arbiter, and stop giving Sharon everything he wants, our national security will be threatened by terrorists. It's that simple.

[Update: Now that I'm reading some of the articles that are explaining the importance of what Bush said, I can't help but think - did he even know the significance of what he was doing? Even if he did, his statements provide further proof that Bush doesn't realize that the war on terror is as much a war for hearts and minds as it is a military operation. We are all less safe today because of yesterday's concessions and we just became even more hated in the Middle East .]

[Update 2: I never want to hear any more shit about how Bush doesn't lead by following polls. As Dana Milbank explains, he's sacrificing the Middle East peace process to pick up Jewish votes in Florida. If I had any outrage left, I'd be outraged. But I'm just exhausted - I've had too many things to get outraged about: Iraq; immoral tax-burden shifting; gay marriage amendment; lies about Medicare. And now - pissing on the Palestinians (and endangering the entire world) to win votes in Florida. We're going to pay for this one.]

__________

One of the new justifications for the Iraq war that I’ve been hearing lately is that Saddam presented a “gathering threat” that would have inevitably required action. In other words, people are saying that, even though Saddam lacked WMDs, the invasion was still justified (and necessary) because it was only a matter of time before he threatened the U.S. or the stability of the Middle East. Because this conflict was inevitable, we needed to take care of him sooner rather than later. This is simply the doctrine of preemptive war – we attack you before you can attack us. One of the big questions about Bush’s foreign policy is whether preemptive war is an effective (and justified) response to terrorism. Although there are many ways to approach this debate, I want to focus specifically on some of the parallels that I have noticed between debates about preemptive war and debates about the death penalty. I think the death penalty debates provide an excellent illustration of some the conceptual problems with the doctrine of preemptive war, as espoused by neocons like Richard Perle and David Frum.

When people say, “I oppose the death penalty,” this statement could mean one of two very different things. On the one hand, people could be saying that they oppose the very idea of the death penalty. In their mind, the state has no business killing anyone. Period. On the other hand, people could be saying that while they support the idea of the death penalty, they think it is simply impossible to administer fairly. In other words, they think that the criminal justice system, which is run by fallible humans, is incapable of distributing capital punishment fairly.

Thus, there are actually two types of opposition to the death penalty – opposition based on the immorality of the act itself, and opposition based on the limits of human knowledge and ability. I consider myself part of the second camp. Personally, I have no problem with the act of capital punishment if it can be applied evenly and fairly. For example, if we assume perfect knowledge (or that God came down to try all criminal cases), I would not object to capital punishment. That said, I do oppose the death penalty. But I oppose it because I think that, not only is it administered unfairly, but that humans are inherently incapable of administering it fairly.

First, many states don’t even have the death penalty, which means that a death sentence depends in part on where criminals commit their crime. For example, a criminal committing a murder on the Ohio side of the Ohio-Michigan state line could escape capital punishment by walking 10 yards into Michigan before he pulled the trigger. Second, even in states with capital punishment, the decision to seek the death penalty depends entirely on the discretion of the local prosecutor or U.S. Attorney. Assuming that we could quantify “badness,” this means that if there are 100 identically “bad” murders scattered across 100 different jurisdictions in the state, capital punishment will depend on the whims of the local prosecutor. Some defendants will be executed, most won’t, even though their crimes were identical. You should keep in mind that only a minuscule proportion of homicides result in execution. Third, whether a defendant gets capital punishment depends heavily upon race and class. I would love to see statistics on the average income (or education level) of the inmates on Death Row. Similarly, there have been many studies documenting how either the race of the defendant or the victim affects the probability that a prosecutor will seek the death penalty (hint – killing white people is more likely to get you executed than killing black people).

But despite all these problems, the most basic problem with the death penalty is epistemological – it’s simply impossible to determine objectively whether someone "deserves" death (which is what prosecutors must determine every day). As Rumsfeld might say, there are no “metrics” available to us. If we could determine someone’s "badness" objectively, then that would go a long way in removing the problems I noted above (i.e., prosecutor discretion; disproportionate executions of the minorities and the poor). But we can’t. To measure “badness,” we would have to compare and contrast all murders across the country along with the various circumstances surrounding those murders. Then we’d have to subtract “badness points” if the criminal was insane or had been abused, and on and on. It’s a pointless exercise. And let’s not forget about the limits of our ability to determine guilt or innocence in the first place. In sum, because we are inherently incapable of knowing when to execute someone, we should err on the side of not executing people.

This exact same thinking can be applied to the doctrine of preemptive war. Some people oppose the idea of it altogether. Others don’t oppose the idea, they are merely skeptical of whether we are capable of knowing when such a war is necessary. Again, I fall into the second camp given my skepticism of the abilities of human reason to determine whether a future threat is “inevitable.” That said, I don’t oppose preemptive war 100% of the time. For me, it depends entirely on how reliable our knowledge is. Obviously, if troops are massed along our border loading their guns, that’s enough to justify a preemptive strike. I also think that invading Afghanistan was justified because we clearly knew that the Taliban was hosting al Qaeda, who was a clear and obvious threat.

But the argument that people are now making – that a future battle with Iraq, like Darth Vader, was inevitable – doesn’t cut it. There are too many epistemological obstacles to overcome before you can reach that conclusion. First, there’s the logical problem of predicting future behavior based on past action. Saddam hadn’t sponsored terrorism against the U.S. for over ten years. Osama and al Qaeda hated the secular Baathist regime. Saddam’s army was also in ruins. Based on these facts, it’s hard to support the argument that his military or terrorist ties posed an “inevitable” threat. Second, the future itself is inherently unpredictable. I mean, Saddam will die one day. It would have been far better to isolate and contain him, and wait for him to either die or be assassinated. Just look at history. Every preemption-related argument people are now making could have been applied to Qaddafi and Libya in the 80s. But the United States contained Qaddafi rather than invading Libya, and our patience and prudence paid off. Today’s madman can become tomorrow’s diplomatic opportunist. Saddam was a definitely a bad man, but he wasn't irrational. The short answer is that when in doubt, even after 9/11, we should err on the side of not starting a war that will inevitably have unintended or unforeseeable consequences (as ALL wars do). And we should be cautious not because the idea of preemptive war itself is bad, but because our knowledge is too limited to launch preemptive wars.

To me, the invasion of Iraq completely refutes a broad doctrine of preemptive war – and makes Frum and Perle look like jackasses. Remember, the most basic epistemological criticism of preemption is that it’s hard to know whether a threat actually exists and even harder to know whether a current non-threat will inevitably become a threat in the future. Iraq showed all too clearly that this criticism was right on. The war was premised on the threat of Saddam’s WMDs and his terrorist connections, both of which presented either a current or a future threat. Both premises were dead wrong.

A fundamental principle of criminal law is that the state cannot punish you unless you committed an act of some kind (an act of murder, an act of attempted murder, etc.). It’s not an ideal system. Some people should be criminalized before they act. In an ideal world where we had perfect knowledge, they would be. But the requirement of a criminal act (the actus reas I think it's called) is necessary because of the limits of human reason. Because we cannot know for sure whether the crime will actually take place – because the criminal can always change his mind – we require a criminal act before we punish or execute someone. That’s the lesson of “Minority Report” (the Spielberg movie with Tom Cruise).

In short, err on the side of not killing people. It’s true for the death penalty and it’s true for preemption.

Just to give everyone a heads up, the new Bob Woodward book is coming out this weekend - following another 60 Minutes interview on Sunday night. It's called "Plan of Attack" and examines the decision-making process behind the Iraq invasion. And word on the street is that it's going to be rather embarrassing to the administration.

On an aside, I think people need to take Woodward with a grain of salt. I mean, I'm sure that the same people who thought "Bush at War" was excessively glowing will turn around and say that "Plan of Attack" is right-on. But still, it's coming at a very bad time for the administration. Here's what the WP said about it last week (though it was obviously being sarcastic - everything is a rumor right now):

Talk show producers I speak to are on steroids waiting for Woodward. They have always just heard from a D.C. insider who had lunch last week with a friend who ran into Woodward at the pharmacy/ grocery store/Blockbuster and reported breathlessly that "he didn't want to say anything but I hear it's going to blow the lid off all the stuff about why we really went into Iraq/who's really making the decisions/what Powell really believes/what the real hold is that Cheney has over Bush/what Condi will never say to the 9/11 commission."

If any of that is true, it's going to be another bad week for Bush.

Stay out of Najaf. Don't invade Najaf. And for God's sake, don't touch Ali's mosque where al-Sadr is hiding out. It would be disastrous for reasons I explained earlier.

_________

I fear I may be losing my mind. I watched Bush’s press conference tonight and then I watched the so-called liberal media discuss it on a number of the news networks. After watching them, I felt like I saw something radically different than what they saw. And that led me to conclude one of two things: (1) either I am completely crazy and have become so mired in partisanship that I am no longer capable of objectively assessing this President (which is something I struggle with); or (2) the political spin shows on MSNBC, PBS, CNN, and even the networks are staffed with mindless imbeciles incapable of critical thought (I’m talking about the anchors and guests – I thought the actual White House Press Corps finally did a good job tonight).

Contrary to what Chris Matthews said, Bush did a terrible job. TERRIBLE. Well, let me back up. I thought the opening statement was fine. I obviously disagree with the argument that terrorism had anything to do with Iraq – and that seems to be the crux of the argument about Iraq. I also thought he did fine in his responses to the first two questions. But it all started going downhill after Bumiller asked whether he felt any sense of personal responsibility for 9/11 (which, of course, he did not). Beginning then and continuing until the end of the questioning, I cringed with embarrassment as I watched the leader of the free world make a fool of himself to the entire world at a time when an articulate, powerful message was most needed. Bush stumbled over his words, refused to admit any error (repeatedly), and refused to answer questions directly - in some cases, he even failed to provide answers that could be plausibly construed as answers to the questions. Perhaps my Iraq anger has blinded me so much that it colors my perceptions. But it’s equally possible that Bush supporters’ perceptions are also colored, which causes them to ignore the plain fact that this man cannot articulate a compelling reason for why the war in Iraq was necessary. There’s no unifying theme to my response to the press conference, so I’ve assembled a laundry list of observations that I took away from it.

Learning the Art of Plausible Obfuscation

Answering questions in the digital age is tricky business. Whenever an uncomfortable question is asked, candidates and officials must be able to rattle off a vague non-response that can be plausibly construed as an answer to the question. Clinton and Ari Fleischer were geniuses at this game. Bush can only do it if he or his staff anticipates the question. You can always tell when Bush gets a question that he’s prepared for versus one that catches him off-guard. With Clinton, you could never tell. When Bush gets a question he’s not ready for, he retreats into vague abstractions and platitudes, as all politicians do. But here’s the difference – Bush is unable to think on his feet and craft an answer that can be plausibly construed as an answer. This exchange was the most clear example (though there were many others):

QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?

BUSH: We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over. And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.

Obviously, “looking forward” was a talking point he had been given, but Bush couldn’t use it to construct an answer that could be plausibly construed as an answer - and it made him look very bad.

The Infallible Administration

I pretty much captured my thoughts about the administration’s strange refusal to concede even the slightest of errors in an earlier post this week. I will briefly point out that Bush got four (maybe five counting the last one) questions that challenged him to admit even the slightest error or to concede responsibility for something that went wrong. He refused each time, and did so in a way that made it embarrassingly obvious that he was ducking the question. Here’s what I considered to be the worst and most inarticulate response of the night:

QUESTION: You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it. John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet.

Articulating a Vision

Like I said before, the crux of the dispute about the Iraq war is whether it had anything to do with terrorism, or put another way, whether it was an effective tactic in the war on terrorism. I say no, others say yes and history will crown a winner one day. Even though I think Bush’s position is dead wrong, there are articulate ways to argue that position. Senator McConnell was on CNN and he did a very good job articulating the rationale for the war and linking it to the war on terror (even in light of the knowledge that no WMDs existed). Tony Blair has given many fine speeches on this exact point. Read some of his words (via the blogger formerly known as Calpundit):

Iraq in March 2003 was an immensely difficult judgement. It was divisive because it was difficult. I have never disrespected those who disagreed with the decision. . . . Their argument is one I understand totally. It is that Iraq posed no direct, immediate threat to Britain; and that Iraq's WMD, even on our own case, was not serious enough to warrant war, certainly without a specific UN resolution mandating military action. And they argue: Saddam could, in any event, be contained. . . . For me, before September 11th, I was already reaching for a different philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held sway since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648; namely that a country's internal affairs are for it and you don't interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance. . . . We know now, if we didn't before, that our own self interest is ultimately bound up with the fate of other nations. The doctrine of international community is no longer a vision of idealism. It is a practical recognition that just as within a country, citizens who are free, well educated and prosperous tend to be responsible, to feel solidarity with a society in which they have a stake; so do nations that are free, democratic and benefiting from economic progress, tend to be stable and solid partners in the advance of humankind. The best defense of our security lies in the spread of our values.

You should read the whole speech, but you get the picture. American political dialogue is so dumbed down and anti-intellectual that this sort of speech is impossible. But that's for another day. . .

To be blunt, George W. Bush will live or die by Iraq. The war will determine his fate in 2004, and it will determine his historical legacy. In addition, the war is the most important issue of our generation, and it promises to be the most influential – in either a good or bad way. My point is that it’s absolutely essential, at this super-critical juncture in history, that the war supporters are able to articulate a strong vision and a justification for doing what we did, even though no WMDs existed. Justifying Iraq is (or fucking should be) the GOP’s top priority. Bush, unlike McConnell and Blair and others, is completely and utterly incapable of articulating that justification. I fear he is a man unequal to the responsibilities cast upon him, which include articulating a rationale that can rally national and world support. The war cannot be justified by framing the issue with vague, meaningless abstractions. Nor can it be justified with kindergarten-like invocations of good and evil, and by casting all those who question you as evil or anti-America. Quite simply, I fear that Bush is incapable of justifying this war. I have to think that honest conservatives realize this in their hearts. What’s sad or even tragic is that Bush’s rationale is probably the same substantively as the intellectual one provided by Blair -- it's just that he can't (or won't) articulate it. So instead of heady speeches about the shifting paradigms of international law given the new reality of terrorism, we get this:

Look, this is hard work. It's hard to advance freedom in a country that has been strangled by tyranny. And yet we must stay the course because the end result is in our nation's interest. A secure and free Iraq is an historic opportunity to change the world and make America more secure. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East will have incredible change. It's hard. Freedom is not easy to achieve.

That’s a good argument to make to eighth-graders, but not to an anxious nation who fears we’re on the brink of disaster and is wondering whether we did the right thing.

[Update: Here's what Andrew Sullivan had to say: I've just watched the press conference later on C-SPAN. Not only was the transcript encouraging. I found the president clear, forceful, impassioned, determined, real. This was not an average performance. I found it Bush at his best. He needs to do it more. I really don't know what to say. Either our subjective biases are causing us to perceive the world in radically different ways, or Sullivan is being very very dishonest. As I've explained before, Sullivan has a vested interest in linking Iraq to the War on Terror, because his historical legacy depends on it.]

__________

I was listening to Juan Cole on NPR's Fresh Air today. He made a number of interesting comments, but what struck me most was his charge that Wolfowitz and the neocons were ignorant (not dumb - uninformed) about the Shiite culture. This lack of understanding is exactly what I was trying to articulate in last night's Lebanon post. Here's a good example of what Cole was talking about. This is Wolfowitz in February 2003.

First of all, the Iraqi population is completely different from the Saudi population. The Iraqis are among the most educated people in the Arab world. They are by and large quite secular. They are overwhelmingly Shia which is different from the Wahabis of the peninsula, and they don't bring the sensitivity of having the holy cities of Islam being on their territory. We're seeing today how much the people of Poland and Central and Eastern Europe appreciate what the United States did to help liberate them from the tyranny of the Soviet Union. I think you're going to see even more of that sentiment in Iraq.

Just to be clear, the main visionary behind the Iraq invasion planned the action while thinking that most Shiites were secular, and apparently while being unaware that Iraq hosts two of the most holy cities for Shiites - Karbala and Najaf. Tell me again why he hasn't been fired?

to Eric Alterman (of the excellent blog "Altercation") for the shout-out. His "The Book on Bush" is definitely on my reading list - and should be on yours.

[It's a long post today, but an important one.]

__________

Iraq is not Vietnam. Yes, there are some superficial similarities between the two wars, but Vietnam is a totally different war rooted in a totally different historical context. Most importantly, Vietnam was part of the Cold War, and must be understood within that context. Likewise, the domestic political battles surrounding Vietnam must be understood within the context of the larger socioeconomic trends that made the 1960s such an unstable time. Vietnam also took place on a much larger scale and for a much longer time. Don’t forget that we lost nearly 60,000 troops in Vietnam. That said, there is an almost perfect historical parallel of our invasion of Iraq – the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Understanding the lessons of Lebanon can help us understand what an uphill battle we’re facing (and have always been facing). And to illustrate just how eerily similar the two wars are, I’m going to quote extensively from Tom Friedman’s From Beirut to Jerusalem. But first we need some very brief background.

For those who don't know, Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. From 1970 on, Lebanon had been the home of Arafat’s PLO, which was more feared in those days (and viewed by the Israelis more like Hamas or al Qaeda is viewed today). Led by General Ariel Sharon (yes, same guy), the plan was to invade Lebanon, expel the PLO, and remake the Middle East by setting up a friendly Arab regime that would sign a peace treaty with Israel and create “forty years of peace.” It didn’t really work out that way. Here’s a good brief description from Ethan Bronner (who wrote this article for the NYT on March 30, 2003 ). This background information is necessary in order to understand Friedman’s commentary.

Israel's experience in Lebanon -- an ambitious invasion that turned into a draining quagmire -- is a cautionary tale for the American war in Iraq. The parallels are striking. Like Iraq, Lebanon was, from its inception, a collection of some of the region's most sophisticated people and a civil war just waiting to happen. It was carved out of the decayed and defeated Ottoman Empire after World War I and forced together groups that hated one another. . . .

Like the American decision to go to war in Iraq, Israel's invasion of Lebanon started from an asserted desire to end terrorism. In the 1970's, Palestinian guerrillas set up a ministate in southern Lebanon, near Israel's northern border. Infiltration into Israel led to wrenching hijackings and hostage-taking. . . .

By the time Begin [Israel’s Prime Minister] was re-elected in 1981, he was strongly influenced by his hawkish defense minister, Ariel Sharon. Even though the border with Lebanon had been quiet for some time, Mr. Sharon told those around him that Lebanon was "at the top of the list" of Israel's security concerns. A small group of like-minded officials around Begin reinforced this view.

When a Palestinian terrorist shot Israel's London ambassador in the head in June 1982, the invasion was set in motion. The gunman was from a breakaway group that had nothing to do with Yasir Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization in southern Lebanon. But the shooting was the pretext Mr. Sharon needed. . . .

[In time], the Israelis began sinking in the Lebanese mud. With violence everywhere and no central authority, they couldn't leave. But their troops' continued presence created more resentment and more violence. To protect its forces, Israel set up stringent security measures, like roadblocks, that prevented locals from moving freely. They quickly learned to hate their new rulers.

Sound familiar? You should read the entire article, but you get the point. Israel continued to occupy southern Lebanon for another 18 years. During this time, the nation experienced a steady drip-drip-drip of murdered soldiers, very similar to what America experienced prior to last week’s uprising. And ironically, Israel’s invasion to end terrorism actually gave birth to a new, deadly terrorist group called Hezbollah, which continues to menace Israel to this day.

Tom Friedman wrote about the tragic folly of the Israeli invasion in 1989 in his award-winning From Beirut to Jerusalem (which is a must-read to get a grasp on the region’s history) in great detail. The few quotes I’ve selected pretty much speak for themselves. Obviously, you need to read the entire chapter (or book) to get a better understanding. Still, I think you’ll agree that the parallels are eerie, especially if you substitute “al Qaeda” for “the Palestinians”; “Cheney/Neocons” for “Sharon”; and “Sunnis and Shiites” for “Christians and Muslims.”

The first weeks after the invasion began were heady days for the Israeli boys in Lebanon, days of discovery and, they thought, of making new friends. . . . The attitude that Lebanon was a friendly place, where the Israelis might soon be able to come skiing in the winter, reflected the profound Israeli ignorance about the true nature of Lebanese society and the players there. Before the 1982 invasion, Israeli scholarship and intelligence on Lebanon was extremely scanty. . . . I once asked [my soldier friend what he knew of Lebanon prior to the invasion.] “We knew it was some kind of complicated Middle East Belfast. Okay, so they had lots of tribes. It meant nothing. We didn’t know about the differences between Sunnis and Shiites. And then, all of a sudden, we went in.” . . .

Indeed, instead of entering Lebanon with a real knowledge and understanding of the society and its actors, Israel simply burst in with tanks, artillery, and planes in one hand and a fistful of myths in the other – myths about the nature of Lebanon as a country, about the character of Israel’s Lebanese Maronite Christian allies, about the Palestinians, and about Israel’s own power to reshape the Middle East. . . . What the Israelis did not understand . . . was that the real Lebanon was two Lebanons – at least two. [T]he real Lebanon was built on the merger between Maronites, representing the Christian sects, and the Sunnis, representing the various Muslim sects. . . . The real source of Lebanon’s troubles was the fact that these two Lebanons – Christian and Muslim – frequently were at odds with each other, going back to the very foundation of their state, when they were literally thrown together. . . .

Not only did the Israelis enter Lebanon with a myth about their allies . . . but also with one about their enemies, the Palestinians. . . . They saw the Palestinians as part of an undifferentiated Arab mass stretching from Morocco to Iraq. . . . Myths are precisely what give people the faith to undertake projects which rational calculation or common sense would reject. . . . The idea that Israel might finally be able once and for all to bring an end to the physical and existential challenge of the Palestinians was an intoxicating notion that touched the soul of the vast majority of Israelis, and this explains why so many of them were ready to join Begin and Sharon on their march to Beirut. . . .

[W]hat made Begin even more dangerous was that his fantasies about power were combined with a self-perception of being a victim. Someone who sees himself as a victim will almost never morally evaluate himself or put limits on his own actions. . . . Sharon didn’t share Begin’s victim complex, but he had his own fantasies about power. Sharon knew how strong Israel was, and he believed, wrongly, that this military strength could, in an almost mechanical fashion, solve a whole know of complex, deeply rooted political problems. . . .

[Israel then set up a puppet government headed by Bashir Gemyayel.] Bashir was supposed to rebuild the Lebanese army so it could take over from the Israelis, keep the Syrians out of Beirut, prevent the PLO from ever taking root again in the Palestinian refugee camps, and, to top it all off, sign a peace treaty with the Jewish state. [Bashir was soon assassinated.] After Bashir was assassinated, however, the Israelis could no longer depend on his brute force replacing their brute force so that the Israeli army could withdraw. Israel would have to find its own way home, and in the process all her myths and misperceptions about Lebanon would come back to haunt her. . . .

Begin was so obsessed with getting a peace treaty from Lebanon to justify the invasion that he barely seemed to notice the country was going up in flames. He had promised his people forty years of peace and he had to have a treaty to show for his troubles – not to mention 650 Israeli lives. . . . Not one article of the treaty was ever enacted. . . .

So, on the first anniversary of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Begin must have understood that he was really in trouble. . . . Its choices, too, were between bad and worse: bad was staying in Lebanon indefinitely to preserve the military gains of the war; worse was unilaterally withdrawing, without leaving any peace treaty of formal security arrangements behind. . . . Begin finally discovered that if you don’t gradually let reality in to temper your mythologizing, it will sooner or later invade on its own.

Creepy.

[Update: Hitchens has an article on Slate refuting the Vietnam analogy. He dismisses the Lebanon parallel in passing, but fails to recognize the numerous similiarities.]

From AP, via Yahoo:

The 20-year-old private died when her Humvee was ambushed in Baghdad, making her the first woman in the Wisconsin National Guard to die in combat. Her family is asking the military to stop her sisters from being sent back to Iraq after this week's funeral.

"I can't live another year like I've lived this one," John Witmer told The Associated Press. "The sacrifice that this family's made can never be understood by someone who hasn't gone through it... It's a burden I can't bear. My family can't bear it."

When the neocons were playing fantasy Risk with Richard Perle in the 90s, their abstract notions of war and democracy probably did not include the cold reality that the Witmer family has had to endure.

What if all these fantasies come flaming a-ground. - REM "Losing My Religion"

__________

While the decision to disband the Iraqi military was the worst, most tragic decision made in "post-war" Iraq, the strike on Fallujah may be a close second. Let's do a quick review of the actions that led up to this horrible decision (and I'm relying on this excellent Washington Post article from Sunday - which everyone should read). First, after being warned by local Fallujah leaders to stay off the streets, the Marines decided to enter the city to conduct a search operation for insurgents. The event "spiraled" (as wars tend to do) into an extended gunfight and 15 Iraqis were ultimately killed. Two days later, with Fallujah boiling in anger, Bremer decided that that now was a good time to close down Sadr's newspaper, even though Bremer did not have any contingency plans in place if Sadr decided to respond violently (which he did).

Three days later, the Fallujah mobs murdered and mutilated the American contractors. On this same day, protests raged through the Shiite south. On April 3, Bremer thought that it would be wise to arrest Sadr's top deputy, which added even more fuel to the fire. It was only after the Shiites turned violent that we decided to go into Fallujah with guns-a-blazin'.

Don't get me wrong - the murders of the contractors were unacceptable, but our response has been equally unacceptable. We decided to strike a city of 200,000 at the same friggin' time that the Shiites were attacking our soldiers. And look at what we've accomplished for our efforts - we've united ethnic groups that hate each other; we've killed hundreds of civilians; we've created a humanitarian disaster; blasted a mosque (however justifiable it was under the circumstances); caused four Governing Council members to resign; and now we're negotiating with the insurgents, which means they will continue to remain in the city and the whole mission was for nothing. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that the admittedly gruesome murders of the four American contractors justify the mess we've made (nor does it justify the hundreds of civilians we've killed).

You tend to think that the people in charge of military operations know what they're doing. They apparently don't. And the British agree (thanks Duncan).

[Via Leiter: Here's an on-the-ground view (though I obviously can't verify its veracity) from a journalist inside Fallujah. If true, it's pretty disturbing.]

__________

Though I hate to admit it, the criticism of Bush’s reaction to the August 6th memo is a little unfair. Yes, he could and should have done more, but it’s very problematic to view the pre-9/11 world through a post-9/11 lens. That said, I really don’t care. In my opinion, Bush brought all of this criticism upon himself and he deserves every last bit of it – though not for his pre-9/11 actions. Bush deserves to be pounded by the August 6th memo because of actions he took after 9/11. Specifically, he deserves to be criticized strongly (with respect to the August 6th memo) for two reasons: (1) his administration’s refusal to admit error of any kind; and (2) his blatant exploitation of 9/11 for political gain, and as a rallying-cry for the war in Iraq. I’ll look at each in turn.

The Infallible Administration

Like I’ve said before, I don’t think anyone would be upset with Bush if he came out and admitted he could have done more to prevent 9/11. It was a life-changing day, on both an individual and a world-historical level. I find it hard to believe that anyone (even those with their “hair on fire”) could have grasped, pre-9/11, just how consequential the attacks would be, post-9/11. And because 9/11 literally changed the world, no one would hold it against Bush if he said, “In hindsight, Dick Clarke was right and we should have listened to him. We should have taken more actions. And for this inaction, I apologize to those who lost loved ones and I promise to take the fight to the terrorists.” If the administration accepted the obvious fact that everyone bears at least some of the blame, then we could go about figuring out what went wrong.

But admitting error is not the Bush administration’s style – they are physically incapable of doing so. Rather than admit the obvious, they continue to insist that they committed no error and, even worse, that there was nothing more they could have done. Clinton could have done more. The CIA could have done more. The terrorists could have done more by providing us with the exact date and location of their attack. But as for us, there was nothing more we could have done. The arrogance is disgusting. Not a single Bush official has apologized or admitted even the slightest of errors. This arrogance was, to me, the most striking aspect of Rice’s testimony. No apology – no admission of error. NOTHING. Bush has not admitted error either. Just look at this exchange (via Atrios):

[REPORTER]: So I wonder if you could say what specifically was done, and do you think your administration should have done anything more?

THE PRESIDENT: David, look, let me just say it again: Had I known there was going to be an attack on America, I would have moved mountains to stop the attack. I would have done everything I can. My job is to protect the American people. And I asked the intelligence agency to analyze the data to tell me whether or not we faced a threat internally, like they thought we had faced a threat in other parts of the world. That's what the PDB request was. And had there been actionable intelligence, we would have moved on it.

It’s not my fault - it’s the intelligence community’s fault. There was nothing I could have done. And if the terrorists had helped us out by telling us when they were planning to attack, I would have moved mountains. That last sentence is especially reassuring.


While there are many things to be said of this arrogance – this refusal to admit any error – it opens the door to criticism about the August 6th memo. Think about it logically. In hindsight, I think we can all agree that more action should have been taken after the August 6th memo. FBI offices should have been warned. The FAA should have been warned. No one was. The administration should have done more and that’s obvious to everyone. If Bush simply agreed, and showed a sliver of humility and contrition, the August 6th memo would have lasted two news cycles. But the administration refuses to admit error. So, as a matter of logic, this position requires them to make the absurd argument that, even though they had warnings of attacks in America, there was nothing more they could have done to prevent 9/11. Until they admit error and stop blaming everyone but themselves, I hope that Democrats and reasonable Republicans blast them every single day for not responding to the August 6 memo. Again, it’s not the failure to act that’s so maddening, it’s the failure to concede that they should have acted. It’s the arrogance.

Exploiting 9/11

The other reason that Bush has opened himself to pre-9/11 criticisms is because of his blatant exploitation of 9/11 for political gain and war-mongering. First, as this 2003 Washington Post article pointed out, Bush commonly invoked 9/11 when discussing policies that had nothing to do with the attacks.

In the past six weeks, Bush has cited "9/11" or Sept. 11, 2001, in arguing for his energy policy and in response to questions about campaign fundraising, tax cuts, unemployment, the deficit, airport security, Afghanistan and the length, cost and death toll of the Iraq occupation. (“Bush Cites 9/11 on All Manner of Questions”).

Second, Bush and the GOP used the fear and anger surrounding 9/11 to punish Democrats in 2002. When Democrats opposed the Homeland Security Department because of certain provisions that stripped federal workers of their employment rights, the GOP ran ads comparing Democrats to Osama bin Laden. Karl Rove even told Republican candidates explicitly to “run on the war [on terrorism].”

Third, Bush exploited our 9/11 fears and anger to rush us into an unwise war. Just to make it as partisan as possible, the GOP scheduled the war resolution vote one month before the 2002 midterm election. All the while, they were spouting off all this bullshit about Saddam’s nuclear weapons and mushroom clouds – allegations that made Democrats look like traitors when they spoke out against the invasion.

Fourth, if Bush had successfully prevented the 9/11 Commission from being created, he would have exploited 9/11 in every way he could have in order to help his re-election. I mean, the GOP has already pushed their convention (in New York) back into September, which is the latest convention ever. I wonder why they would do that? Also, Bush’s first campaign ad included pictures of the wreckage and even showed the remains of the victims. Make no mistake – Bush planned on punishing Democrats with 9/11 again. It’s just that Dick Clarke and 9/11 Commission (which he tried so desperately to block) have made that impossible for him.

Once you’ve used 9/11 to punish your opponents unfairly, you can’t cry when they use 9/11 to punish you. You reap what you sow. And Bush is doing a lot of reaping these days.

The New York Times is finally worth reading today.

1) First, read John Burns's article. He's provided outstanding coverage of the entire uprising, but today's was especially informative. On an aside, I simply don't understand the point of our actions in Fallujah. As readers know, I was very disturbed by the killings of the American contractors (unlike some liberal-leaning blogs), but I'm equally disturbed by our foolish and disproportionate response. We're holding a city of 200,000 responsible for a single attack. We're alienating everyone, killing hundreds of innocent civilians, and creating a humanitarian disaster. And what exactly will we gain?

2) The NYT finally gets tough on Bush. The August 6 memo shows that Condi's claims that all the information was "historical" was simply not true. Was she lying, expecting that the memo would remain confidential?

3) This article compares the current situation in Iraq to past wars. As it explains, and as I have always thought, the most appropriate analogy is not Vietnam, but Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 (I'm reviewing some of this history, and I intend to post some thoughts on the parallels soon).

4) There's a great article in the Arts & Ideas section (which is always the best part of NYT - and always on Saturday) that explores America's role in the creation of terrorism as a tactic (specifically, a Cold War tactic that we encouraged and facilitated). The mindless liberals and conservatives among us will respond to the article in their usual way. Mindless liberals will use it to illustrate how evil America is. Mindless conservatives will invoke as an example of the Left's America-hatred - because America can do no wrong, and none of our past actions have had bad consequences. The proper reaction is to understand that America's actions are, and always have been, ambiguous. They are neither completely good nor bad, and it's time that we stopped looking at America in a juvenile, my-daddy-is-the-best-daddy way. We have blood on our hands too.

I'll be away visiting family this weekend, so I doubt I'll post anything again until Sunday night. I'll leave with you this very thoughtful essay on the American "Empire" by Josh Marshall. Have a good weekend.

Whatever disagreements we may have with Bush, all of our thoughts should be going to the soldiers and their families. Although I feel sort of helpless, there are ways to contribute. For example, I found the following site called "Books for Soldiers." This site posts various book requests by our soldiers, but the requests aren't limited to books (you can send food or Maxim magazines, for instance). It's worth checking out - you can also donate money if you don't have the books lying around. I'll be adding it to the sidebar, which I will hopefully be updating this weekend (the "past highlights" are a little old).

If people have other sites that they recommend, please let me know.

__________

The Iraqi Intifada has caused a lot of people to revisit the question of whether we should have invaded Iraq. Even the Senate has been weighing in on the wisdom of our invasion over the past few days. From what I've seen, both on Fox News and in comments on this blog, the new talking point seems to be that invading Iraq was proper because of Saddam's mass graves and rape rooms - or more generally, because Saddam was evil. I'm not sure that argument holds up as a justification for war.

Obviously (obviously obviously . . . obviously), Saddam was a very bad man. I don't dispute that he created mass graves, or that he tortured his citizens and subjected them to rape rooms. If Saddam had existed in a vacuum, then removing him would not only have been justified, it would have been immoral NOT to have removed him. But Saddam didn't exist in a vacuum. He existed in the real world, where the removal of dictators has collateral consequences. What's troubles me most about the new justification for the war (from both conservatives and liberal hawks) is that it refuses to acknowledge the cost-benefit analysis that all such decisions must include.

For example, let's assume that everything people say about Saddam is correct. Let's also assume that removing Saddam would have resulted in a nuclear war that killed millions. I think we can all agree that removing him would have been unacceptable under those circumstances. Obviously, I'm exaggerating, but I do so to make a point. The question of removing Saddam is not an a priori question. To say that Saddam was evil is not sufficient to justify invading Iraq, unless you reject all utilitarian calculations. To justify the invasion, you have to conclude, not one, but two things: (1) Saddam was evil; and (2) the costs of removing him did not outweigh the benefits of removing him. As the nuclear war example illustrates, there must (as a matter of logic) be a point at which the costs of invading Iraq become unacceptable even though Saddam would be left in power.

The costs-vs.-benefits question is something that reasonable people can disagree about, and history will decide who was right. But what annoys me is that people who now justify the war by citing “rape rooms” or “mass graves” completely ignore the cost-benefit analysis. Essentially, they’re saying: “Yes, we’ve destabilized the Middle East. Yes, we’ve diverted resources from al Qaeda. Yes, we’ve inflamed world opinion. Yes, we’ve created a situation with an unhealthy risk of civil war. Yes, we’re in danger of creating a new generation of terrorists. Yes, we’ve spent $200 billion and lost 600 troops. But none of that matters because Saddam had rape rooms.”

Perhaps I’m being melodramatic, but I’m just sick of this particular argument. If you want to convince me that invading Iraq was proper, you need to address the question empirically. You need to argue within the cost-benefit analysis framework. In other words, you need to convince me that this action is actually leading to a democracy. You need to convince me that terrorism suffered a setback by our invasion (Clarke claimed that Osama wanted us to invade – if true, that's an odd wish for a terrorist, no?). You need to convince me that inflaming world opinion was worth the cost. You need to convince me that Saddam really did pose a threat, or was linked to terrorists. I’m an empiricist, and I would be intellectually dishonest if I did not change my opinions when the evidence no longer supported those opinions. But don’t patronize me by justifying the whole thing by invoking Saddam’s evilness as if it existed in some abstract vacuum. It’s a juvenile argument, intended to convince idiots. Tony Blair, for his many flaws, at least tries to justify the war by appealing to people’s intellect. He doesn’t try to demagogue the issue by framing it as, “You either support Bush or you support Saddam’s rape rooms.”

There is one last possibility. It could be that the politicians who invoke these arguments know that they’re horseshit. Like lawyers defending a guilty client, politicians have to make the best argument they can. While I find it intellectually dishonest, I can at least sympathize with their plight. God knows what happens to you when you come out publicly against the administration’s policies (and because politicians depend on the party leadership for campaign funds and committee placements, they lack the structural freedom to criticize the administration too strongly). But that does not excuse bloggers, pundits, and others who know better and are free to make whatever arguments they want.

If you want to argue for the invasion, argue empirically and we can have an honest, democratic dialogue about it. But stop insulting my intelligence by pretending that Saddam's evil was the only thing that mattered.

The strategy for today was clear: filibuster. She knows each interviewer has 10 minutes. She's clearly been instructed to avoid direct responses and make long-winded speeches in response to yes or no questions. I would add that Kerrey's Iraq comments, though correct, were inappropriate for the 9/11 commission. I also think he blew it by calling Rice "Dr. Clarke" repeatedly.

[Update: I know that many conservatives read this blog, so maybe they can answer this question: Why is it so goddamned hard for administration officials to admit they did anything wrong? From what I read in Rice's opening statement (and tell me if I'm wrong), the administration committed no errors. NONE! They set out to make a "new strategy" because Clinton's was insufficient. Their activity was "intense." There were "structural" problems with the FBI and CIA. The warnings were not "specific." But not once - NOT ONCE - did she say that the adminstration perhaps, just perhaps, did not do all it could have done.

I've said before that people (including me) would give Bush a break on this one if he just said, "Look, 9/11 changed things and of course we could have done more in hindsight." But no. Nothing. Not one damn word of contrition or humility. It's Clinton's fault. It's the FBI's fault. It's certainly not our fault, because our activity was "intense." Please tell me if I'm mischaracterizing her opening statement - because I hope I'm wrong. And while you're at it, can anyone identify a SINGLE INSTANCE in which the administration admitted they were wrong, and even apologized? I can't think of one.

Again, the most fundamental problem with this administration is not its flip-flops - it's the refusal (the absolute refusal) to admit error.]

__________

I’m not sure that history will look kindly on Paul Bremer. Disbanding the entire military was probably the single biggest (and now irreversible) mistake the CPA made. To be fair, however, it’s not clear whether he had any choice in the matter. And though I agree that al-Sadr’s newspaper needed to be shut down, I’m skeptical about Bremer’s timing, especially in light of the approaching holiday this weekend – Arbayeen. That holiday is what I want to talk about today. If Bremer and the military commanders want to avoid another tragic mistake, they should heed this advice: Stay the hell out of Najaf this weekend. Don’t arrest al-Sadr and don’t take out his militia until the holiday is over. Once you know a bit more about the history of Arbayeen, you’ll understand why I’m concerned. The short version is that it’s a holiday that encourages resistance against unholy rulers, which is not exactly what we need right now. But let’s back up.

Arbayeen marks the end of the forty-day mourning period for the death of Husain, a martyr to the Shiites. To understand its significance, you’ll need some very general background information about the origins of Islam (I’m getting most of my information from Karen Armstrong’s The Battle for God, A History of Fundamentalism). The prophet Muhammed (570-632 CE) was, obviously, the founder of Islam. During his lifetime, he was both a prophet and a political leader of the Arabian tribes. After he died, he was succeeded by a series of men called the “caliphs.” Over the next twenty-five years, there were four different caliphs who assumed power. The last one of this group, named Ali, assumed power in 656. When Muhammed had initially died back in 632, many thought that he intended Ali (a very pious man) to take his place, rather than Abu Bakr, who was the first caliph. To this day, Shiites don’t recognize the first three caliphs, but only recognize Ali (this is the source of the split between Shiites and Sunnis - the latter recognize all four caliphs).

Ali was murdered in 661. His tomb is in the mosque in Najaf (the same one where al-Sadr is currently holed up – so you can understand why we can’t bomb it). After his murder, one of Ali’s rivals seized the throne and moved the capital to Damascus. When this ruler died, there were huge demonstrations in Iraq (in the city of Kufa, near Karbala) demanding that Ali’s son, Husain, become the next leader. The Damascus regime was seen as unholy by many early Muslims. Husain, however, did not become the leader. A man named Yazid did. This new Damascus leader, Yazid, sent soldiers to Mecca to kill Husain. Husain then decided to make a statement by marching to Kufa (in modern-day Iraq) with a small band of followers, including their wives and children. It wasn’t really a military march – it was more like a Martin Luther King-style march. Husain wanted the government to return to a purer form of Islam. Yazid’s troops eventually caught up with Husain near Karbala, and they killed him with his infant in his hands (which apparently was sort of a white-flag truce symbol). The holiday Ashura marks the day of this murder (that’s the holiday where hundreds were killed a few weeks ago), and Arbayeen (this weekend) marks the end of the 40-day mourning period.

The death of Husain has come to symbolize tyranny and injustice at the hands of a corrupt unholy regime. To commemorate it, Shiites march en masse to the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala to observe the holiday. Saddam had banned this holiday ritual, and that’s why so many marched on the cities after he was overthrown. Here’s how Karen Armstrong describes the ritual:

The Kerbala tragedy would develop its own cult and become a myth, a timeless event in the personal life of every Shii. Yazid [Husain’s murderer] has become an emblem of tyranny and injustice; by the tenth century, Shiis mourned the martyrdom of Husain annually . . . weeping, beating their bodies, and declaring their undying opposition to the corruption of Muslim political life. . . . When Shiis walk in solemn procession during the Ashura rituals, they declare their determination to follow Husain and even to die in the struggle against tyranny.

Hopefully, you can begin to see the potential dangers for the occupiers. There are going to be hundreds of thousands of Shiites marching to Najaf, observing a holiday which is entirely about standing up against tyrannous foreign leaders who threaten the purity of Islam. Even if we do nothing this weekend, it’s not going to be hard for religious leaders to cast America as the new Yazid, and al-Sadr as the new Husain, who is standing up bravely in the face of the more powerful infidels. But it’s going to be a lot easier to cast us as Yazid if we go in to Najaf this weekend with guns a-blazin’ and take al-Sadr from, or kill him in, Ali’s mosque (remember Ali is the father of the Shiites). I mean, the whole holiday is about standing up to perceived tyranny. As Armstrong explained:

The rituals . . . always had a revolutionary potential, demostrating as they did the willingness of the people to fight tyranny to the death.

Now you can understand why this weekend’s holiday poses such a potential threat. It’s very possible that al-Sadr could fire up the whole city by skillfully casting America as Yazid, and exploiting the holiday for his political purposes. If we do something stupid, we’re going to make it that much easier for him to do so, which in turn makes it that much harder for us over the long-term.

[Obviously, I’m not an Islam scholar. So if I’m messed some part of the history up, please email me or comment below.]

Who knew? Apparently, the entire Bush counter-terrorism department was full of lying, non-credible, Clinton-loving, Bush-haters. That must explain why they're all leaving. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with Bush's failures in the war on terror.


Former counterterrorism officials said at least half a dozen have left the White House Office for Combating Terrorism or related agencies in frustration in the 2 1/2 years since the attacks. Some also left because they felt President Bush had sidelined his counterterrorism experts and paid almost exclusive heed to the vice president, the defense secretary and other Cabinet members in planning the "war on terror," former counterterrorism officials said. . .

Iraq has been a distraction from the whole counterterrorism effort," said the former official, adding the policy had frustrated many in the White House anti-terrorism office, about two-thirds of whom have left and been replaced since Sept. 11.

I'm sure they're not really "experts" in comparison to Cheney, who has a very firm grip on reality.

Bart Acocella has an excellent article in the Gadflyer that describes our nation's most principled Senator, Zig-Zag Zell Miller.

I know everyone has seen this quote, but it's seems like an appropriate day to remind everyone of Cheney's wise words in 1991:

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad . . . And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

____

In a parallel universe far, far away (that has MSNBC) - November 10, 2004

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Thanks for coming to Hardball, Publius. I love your blog. Well, Bush has just won in a landslide, and you of all people voted for him. Republicans love him. Democrats love him. The world loves him. How did Bush pull it off?

PUBLIUS: Well, Chris, I think Bush obviously got a lot of capital for his response to 9/11. He calmed us. He took out the Taliban and sent fifty thousand troops into Tora Bora to finish off the top al Qaeda leaders (which is a lot more than Rumsfeld wanted). But all that’s a familiar story by now. What really solidified my support for Bush was the path he chose to take in early 2002, after the Afghanistan war.

As we now know from various insiders who have since left the administration, there was a fierce internal battle within the White House during the spring of 2002. Bush was faced with a historic choice. He could concentrate on strengthening America, or he could concentrate on strengthening the Republican Party. On the domestic front, Rove and others were putting a lot of pressure on Bush to use his 9/11 capital to create a new Republican majority and punish Democrats. He wanted Bush to ram through a new round of tax cuts and make the war on terror a distinctly Republican issue. On the foreign policy front, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were clamoring for a war with Iraq. They also wanted to free America from the constraints of the UN and world community. Rove immediately sensed the political possibilities and he joined the hawks in pushing for the war too. What won my absolute support, Chris, was that Bush had the courage to tell them all to go to hell.

You see, Bush had a different vision than the ideologues. 9/11, he said, changed him. It changed his entire outlook on life. He saw that he had been given one of those rare, once-every-hundred-years opportunities to unite America and channel its collective energy toward making the world a better place. Thus, even though he lacked the expertise of the people in his cabinet, his instincts were telling him that 9/11 presented an even greater opportunity than Rove was offering. It offered something more than partisan gain. It was one of those rare existential moments when a single individual has the power to change the world for the better. So, rather than moving to the right and squandering that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, Bush moved to the center. After 9/11, Bush decided to stop being a Republican president, and start becoming an American president. And just look at what followed.

For the week that Rove had originally planned a speech on tax cuts (complete with black-and-white demonizing of Democrats), Bush ordered him to draw up the now infamous “New American Patriotism” speech. In it, he called on Congress to create a national service program, in which all high school graduates would be called to serve America in some fashion for a year. The youth ate it up. It filled them with the sense of purpose and possibility that they were yearning for in the aftermath of 9/11. In the same speech, he called on the country to make a common sacrifice in the war against terror. Just check out this clip from his speech.

Terrorism is the greatest threat of our generation and the war against terror is the greatest challenge of our generation. It is our duty, to our children and the world, to meet this threat and conquer it. And this challenge will require sacrifice. And by sacrificing, America will once again renew her role as the world’s last, best hope for freedom. Tonight, I ask all Americans to sacrifice, just as the New York firefighters sacrificed. Tonight, I ask all Americans to sacrifice, just as our soldiers in Afghanistan have sacrificed. [Pause. Bush smiles.] You know, I had originally planned to make this speech about tax cuts. And tax cuts are important, but they can wait for another day. We are now at war. And I’m asking all Americans to sacrifice to win this war. I’m asking all of us to put aside partisanship, as I have, and join together in a new common cause. I’m asking for a new economic patriotism. I'm asking for a new American patriotism.

It was a remarkable speech. Everyone loved it. But even after Bush rejected Rove’s domestic strategy of destroying the Democrats, the hawks were still pushing him to go invade Iraq. After firing Wolfowitz, Bush sent an even stronger message by traveling to Egypt to give the speech of his lifetime. This speech – the “New Covenant with the Middle East” speech – solidified the world’s support at a time when America had the entire world’s sympathy. In this speech, he praised Islam and the Muslim people. He spoke eloquently of the growing interdependence between the rest of the world and the Middle East and how we’re all in it together. The speech was a great mixture of firmness and hope. In front of nearly a million Egyptians, he announced the now famous “two-front” war against terrorism. He vowed that he would fight the actual terrorists, and fight even harder to remove the causes of terrorism. He promised to return to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to invest significant capital in it. He promised to reward democratic reforms with aid.

And it’s worked fabulously. When Egypt eased its harsh treatment of women, America flooded it with billions in aid to create schools. When Libya turned over its weapons programs, it invited the country to share in the markets of the world.

But here’s a really scary thought for you. What if we had followed Cheney’s advice and invaded Iraq? Can you imagine what kind of mess that would have been? First, we now know from the inspections that Iraq had no weapons whatsoever. Second, 9/11 triggered an intellectual revolution across the Middle East. Arabic countries did a lot of self-reflection and democratic reform started (and is continuing) to bubble up in places like Iran and Egypt. Invading Iraq would have inflamed the entire region and set back democratic progress for a generation. I don’t even want to think about it.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, what a terrible decision that would have been. I remember Bush saying last year that he wasn’t about to squander the goodwill of the world for an unnecessary war.

PUBLIUS: The big point is that presidents are rarely given the opportunities to achieve greatness. Bush may be on his way. He got a window of opportunity with 9/11 and he used it to make the world, not his party, a better place.
______________________________________

Meanwhile, in this universe:

Dana Milbank (Wash. Post - 3/17): A year after the Iraq war, anti-American views have hardened in Europe and in Muslim countries, where lopsided majorities oppose President Bush and are suspicious of U.S. motives, according to a new nine-country opinion poll. The survey, the largest of its kind, found slipping support for the U.S. war on terrorism in most countries and negative views of the United States in all foreign countries polled except Britain. Big majorities said that the United States does not consider other countries' interests and that Europe should develop more diplomatic and military independence.

NYT (4/7): American forces in Iraq came under fierce attack on Tuesday, with as many as 12 marines killed in Ramadi, near Baghdad. . . It was one of the most violent days in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein, with half a dozen cities ignited.

Of all the words of tongue or pen . . .

[Footnote: The phrase "economic patriotism" came from Billmon.]

CNN is reporting that al-Sadr supporters have taken control of Najaf, the home of one of Islam's holiest shrines. Fighting continues in Baghdad, Fallujuah, and Nasiriyah. To keep up with everything, I've been reading Juan Cole and Back to Iraq.

Although Kennedy's statement that "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam" is getting all the attention, I actually thought another part of the speech was more interesting. It seems that we may finally have our first meta-theme from the Kerry campaign (I'm assuming that Kennedy coordinated his statements with the campaign). The way I see it, Kerry needs two meta-themes around which to organize his campaign -- one theme to describe Bush, and one theme to describe his own vision. We're still waiting for the latter, but Kennedy may have given us an insight into the former. Check out this statement (via Atrios):

The senator said, "As a result, this president has now created the largest credibility gap since Richard Nixon," who was forced to resign as president in 1974 as a result of the Watergate scandal that exposed abuses of power. . . . Iraq. Jobs. Medicare. Schools," Kennedy said. "Issue after issue. Mislead. Deceive. Make up the needed facts. Smear the character of any critic." . . . "It is undermining our national security, undermining our economy, undermining our health care ... undermining our very democracy," Kennedy said. "We need change. November can't come soon enough.

Those are very strong and very simple talking points (especially the text in bold). And Republicans know, in their heart, that these charges have more than a grain of truth (or at least the real American Conservative conservatives do; the wussy Weekly Standard country club conservatives may not) Perhaps everyone (including me) needs to calm down about Kerry's absence on the campaign trail. It's better for Kerry if he takes a few days off and develops some good Clintonian meta-themes. If he can come up with a theme this compelling to describe himself, Bush is in trouble.

It’s been all the rage lately to document Bush’s many flip-flops. Kos had a great list last month. CAP has an even better one. If Bush is going to attack Kerry on this front, then he’s opened himself up to the same charge and it’s important for people to document these flip-flops (because god knows the SCLM [so-called liberal media] won’t do it). But I think everyone’s got it backwards. We shouldn’t be punishing Bush for flip-flopping. We should be rewarding him. Cheering him on. I wish Kos or Atrios would organize a campaign where people would send the White House a batch of cookies every time Bush flip-flopped. Like I said before, the real problem with Bush is not that he flip-flops, it’s that he refuses to, even when his initial position has been completely undermined by the facts. And if he doesn’t flip-flop on this June 30 deadline for handing over power to the Iraqis, there may be little hope for the new Iraq. But let’s back up.

Again, I can understand the urge to criticize Bush for flip-flopping. The problem is that Bush never really flip-flops, in one sense of the word. "Flip-flopping" implies that you have one belief on Monday, and a different one on Tuesday. Bush doesn’t change his beliefs, he merely succumbs to political pressure (which is a type of flip-flop, I'll concede), even though he never actually changes his mind. For example, Bush opposed all of the following positions or policies before he ultimately switched in the face of political pressure: creating the 9/11 commission; appearing before the 9/11 commission; creating the Homeland Security Dep’t (Dick Clarke shows how Lieberman forced this issue on Bush – and Clarke hates the new department); signing McCain-Feingold; and allowing Rice to testify. To this day, Bush doesn’t believe in a single one of these positions. He still opposes the 9/11 commission. He still opposes Rice testifying, and so forth. But make no mistake - Bush never actually changes his beliefs. And that's why I'm so happy when he flip-flops. Think about it – if you (like many others) find yourself disagreeing with every single thing that Bush believes, then it’s ALWAYS a good thing when he flip-flops. It means the good guys won.

Sarcasm aside, a MUCH MUCH bigger problem is that Bush refuses to flip-flop. As several insiders have noted (John DiIulio, Paul O’Neill, Dick Clarke – not exactly commie pinkos), the Bush administration has a very bad habit of rejecting empiricism and rational assessments of policy in favor of their own preconceived beliefs. They came into office with a series of these beliefs and went about implementing them regardless of whether the facts supported them or not. For example, we know that the administration wanted to invade Iraq from the get-go (and there are new corroborations from the British press - via Kevin Drum). It didn’t matter that the counter-terrorism czar told them repeatedly that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It didn’t matter that conflicting intelligence reports challenged their belief that Iraq had WMDs. It didn’t matter that the State Department was warning them that the postwar would be a mess. It didn’t matter that top generals were challenging the number of troops that would be needed. Iraq had to be invaded and come hell or highwater, we were going to invade. I mean, Bush was asking for any “shred” of evidence on 9/12. War plans were ordered to be drawn up six days later. The British even had to jump in and make sure we would invade Afghanistan first.

The list goes on and on. I won’t repeat everything, because I’ve said a lot of this before. Just see my previous post, which links to Will Saletan’s article on the same topic. As Will and I have written, it’s the same story for other major issues. Tax cuts. Stem cells. Slashing environmental regulations because they allegedly “hurt” business even though the facts show otherwise (see the wonderful NYT Magazine story for further corroboration).

But there is one position that Bush desperately needs to flip-flop on – the June 30 handover of power. Whatever else that this week’s violence showed, it’s now clear that Iraq is not ready for self-rule. The different ethnic groups are showing little willingness to cooperate. Sistani warned the UN not to recognize the new Constitution. The Shiites are jockeying for power (the violence is best understood as an early battle between Sistani and al-Sadr for control of the Shiites). As Billmon noted, the much-ballyhooed Iraq security force either turned and ran from the militias, or turned their guns on us. To be blunt, handing over sovereignty now could lead to civil war (or would create an unacceptable risk of civil war). And we don’t have nearly enough troops to stop it. And if civil war breaks out, THEN WE'RE ALL FUCKED. I’m not sure people are grasping the reality of how truly horrible and destabilizing (and terrorist-producing) an Iraqi civil war would be.

I can’t express how strongly I feel about this. I’m willing to make a pact with the GOP that if they will do what’s right, and postpone the handover until things calm down (or, dare I dream, an international force is deployed), then I promise I won’t criticize Bush for flip-flopping. It’s too important. Handing over power prematurely could really set the Middle East back for twenty-five years if war breaks out and, god forbid, spreads to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. We’ve (thankfully) changed our minds on so many issues regarding Iraq, why not this one? Why not reassess this position in light of new facts? Why why why why??

I’ll tell you why. Election 2004. Bush and Rove have decided (wrongly, I think) that they must be able to stand up in October and say that Iraq is now on the road to self-rule. In other words, they’re willing to risk allowing the Middle East to go up in flames (and they’re betting it will happen after Nov. 2004) just because they think the handover will help the campaign speech. As DiIulio explained:

"There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus," DiIulio tells Esquire. "What you've got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

This issue is more important than stem cells, tax cuts, and the 9/11 Commission combined. This is the future of the world we’re talking about. This is about avoiding a humanitarian disaster of Rwandan proportions. Bush must NOT be allowed to sacrifice the Middle East for his campaign. He must flip-flop. And if he does, I promise to shower him in praise.

You may think I'm being unnecessarily pessimistic or even doomsday. Perhaps. But I think we need to be very risk-averse here. For example, a 10% chance that these events happen is a 10% chance that the Middle East will become completely destabilized. And the "war" on terror will be lost.

Read this article. It's exactly right, and he makes some the same arguments that I made in my post "Yankophobia." Here's an excerpt from Frank's article:

Thanks to the rightward political shift of the past 30 years, wealth is today concentrated in fewer hands than it has been since the 1920s; workers have less power over the conditions under which they toil than ever before in our lifetimes; and the corporation has become the most powerful actor in our world. Yet that rightward shift - still going strong to this day - sells itself as a war against elites, a righteous uprising of the little guy against an obnoxious [liberal sushi-eating] upper class.

. . .

There was a time, of course, when populism was the native tongue of the American left, when working-class people could be counted on to vote in favour of stronger labour unions, a regulated economy and various schemes for universal economic security. Back then the Republicans, who opposed all these things, were clearly identified as the party of corporate management, the spokesmen for society’s elite. . . . [He goes on to point out problems with the Left.] Until the American left decides to take a long, unprejudiced look at deepest America, at the kind of people who think voting for George Bush constitutes a blow against the elite, they are fated to continue their slide to oblivion.

Read it.

I wanted to add one last thought to yesterday's post on "rule-liberals" (which you should read first if you haven't). One political scientist (whom I cannot remember despite a lot of Googling) has written that the traditional political classification of right vs. left is misleading. To classify our political divisions more accurately, we need to break down the two-part division of right vs. left into a four-part division, or a quadrant.

As the professor explained, there is a division within both the right and left between freedom-imposers and order-imposers (or "freedom" and "order"). For example, the current right-leaning coalition includes a substantial number of libertarians, or South Park Republicans. These people want to impose freedom. They want the governments off their back, and many of them advocate for abortion rights, drug decriminalization, and are agnostic or even atheist. The other part of the right-leaning coalition are those who would use government to impose order. These people want to use the government to enforce their own moral code. Thus, government should be used to impose school prayer, enforce abortion bans, enforce bans on burning the flag, and so forth. This is the division between the freedom-right and the order-right.

The left has a similar divide. On the one hand, you have the freedom-left. These people tend to be very much like the freedom-right people on social issues -- favoring abortion rights, free speech, and gay marriage. On the other hand, you have the order-left. When right-wingers like David Bernstein refer to the "Left," they are usually referring to the order-left. These are the people who go nuts when an offensive word is uttered on campus. They want to impose political correctness on campuses, where the freedom-left, by contrast, would prefer a more open discussion (even if people get offended). Like the order-right, the order-left (which is where rule-liberals reside) is full of angry, puritanical types who are hell-bent on imposing their religious (or secularly religious) vision upon the rest of us.

The lesson is to be careful when you throw around terms like "right" and "left." Though I would add that the order-left is currently confined to coffeehouses in Portland, whereas the order-right is on the phone with Rove everyday and dictating our national policy.

Best line of the day (from today's NYT about Rice and her pre-9/11 priorities):

To oversee the creation of a new strategy on counterterrorism, [Rice] relied on her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley. For Ms. Rice, in part, that preserved time to concentrate on issues more familiar to her, to tutor Mr. Bush and to translate his instincts and decisions into policy.

Give me a friggin' break. Translate his instincts?? Why not stop the sentence at "tutor Mr. Bush." Why does the NYT go out of its way to present Bush in the best possible light, ALWAYS. There's no such thing as "translating instincts" - it's a bullshit term to make it look like Bush had firm (if inchoate) convictions about a subject (foreign policy) that he literally knew nothing about. And by the way, how did that "translation" work in practice? "Mr. President, Jesus would support missile defense." "Yep. That's consistent with my instincts." Uggggh.

By now, I’m sure everyone has heard about the controversy surrounding Daily Kos's Fallujah post (if not, visit Kevin Drum here, and Instapundit here and here). It’s caused quite a fuss because Kos had been raising funds for Democrats, who have understandably wanted to distance themselves from his comments. For example, Kerry officially “delinked” him from his website, and Joe Hoeffel (running for Senate in PA) has pulled his ad as well. Obviously, if Kos wants to be a major player in politics, he’s going to have learn a thing or two about “plausible demagoguery.”

But I want to look at the Kos controversy and use it to make a larger point about the modern American Left. I should say that I have always enjoyed Kos, and one stupid post written in anger is not going to change that – and I will continue to read him every day. But I think it’s wrong to say that Kos’s post was a one-time mistake that in no way reflects anyone else’s sentiments. I fear that his post reflects something more systematic. In other words, Kos’s post is a manifestation of a larger pattern of thought among too many people on the Left. And if the word “liberal” is to be restored and made “cool” again (as it should be), we’ve got to purge ourselves of this strand of thought. To explain what I mean, I want to return to a theme I raised last month regarding religion – specifically, how religious feelings become translated into formal rules. Here’s what I had to say:

I think that, in all religions, conflicts develop between the religion’s formal rules and the animating spirit that gave rise to the rules in the first place. For example, new religions (such as Christianity) are created (or adopted on an individual level) in moments of inspiration or revelation - we feel it to be true. But the feeling (like alcohol, acid trips, and infatuation) always goes away. Religions respond by trying to formalize that initial feeling with rules and rituals. This, in a nutshell, is the history of the rise and decline of the Catholic Church. The Church’s practices were initially inspired by the feelings and emotions of the earliest followers. But over the course of many centuries, the Church added so many rules and rituals that only priests or Latin-readers could understand what the hell was going on. The Protestant movement (much like Jesus was to formal Judaism) was a rejection of the Church’s excessively formalized rules and rituals that were divorced from the spirit of the movement. Over time, these rules no longer served as a way of maintaining a connection with the initial inspiration - they became an impediment to that inspiration.

This thinking led me (in a prior post) to distinguish between “rule-Christians” (those who value rules over Christian spiritual values of love, forgiveness and tolerance) from “spirit-Christians” (who value love, forgiveness, and tolerance over strict rules). I think something very similar exists with respect to today’s liberals. There are “rule-liberals” and “spirit-liberals.” To win elections, the Left needs to forsake the former and embrace the latter. Unfortunately, Kos’s post struck me as a particularly stupid example of “rule-liberalism.” Let me explain.

One of my “first principles” as a progressive is that America is a part of a greater world community. Humans are humans, and we should reject mindless patriotism to the extent it demonizes the rest of the world and makes us forget our shared humanness with all of humanity. It’s not an anti-American principle. It’s a principle based out of love and respect for humanity. This, then, is one of the animating spirits behind modern American liberalism. Liberals do not always blindly support everything that America does, because America is merely one of many actors in the world. Sometimes it acts with greatness (World War II), other times it does not (Vietnam). But the point is that skepticism of unnecessary wars is rooted in the belief that we owe a responsibility to not just America, but to the world community as well.

The problem with many liberals, however, is that they’ve taken this principle (which is merely skepticism rooted in values of love and respect) and formalized it into the following angry rule: “All American action in Iraq is bad.” I really don’t know how else to explain seeing charred limbs hanging from a bridge and responding “Screw them.” Clearly, Kos is pissed off about the war (as we all are). But his comment, in my opinion, reveals that he is lost so deeply in anger that he now thinks that all American action in Iraq is bad. I’m sure he would respond by defending the troops, but I suspect in his heart of hearts that Kos thinks the troops are doing a bad thing too (though it's not their fault because they are under orders). To be sure, the invasion was a bad thing and I won’t ever apologize for saying so. But things have changed. We are now in the postwar. And our postwar actions to stabilize Iraq are very much a good thing, and we must encourage and support them (and mourn those who die in the efforts). And the reason we must is because our animating spirit as liberals – our love for humanity – compels us too. The same principle that gave us the rule, “Don’t invade Iraq,” now forces us to adopt the rule, “We must not leave Iraq.” The same principle that gave us the rule, “Invading is wrong,” now forces us to adopt the rule, “Our reconstruction efforts are right.” I fear that Kos lost sight of the principle and is blindly adhering to a rule that is now divorced from the animating principle that gave rise to the rule in the first place.

I’ll have more on this subject in the months to come. But real quick, I would note that liberals have this problem in many other areas. For example, our support for unions is rooted in a strong desire to help working families and prevent their exploitation by wealthier interests who care nothing for them. That is the animating spirit behind the rule “Support the unions.” And history is on our side – employers have beaten, killed, fired, and obstructed union efforts throughout history, while conservatives sat idly by and praised the free market and social Darwinism. But when, for example, teachers’ unions start thwarting all progress in education, we need to reexamine just why it is we are supporting them (the NEA is a terrorist organization and that’s the only good thing I’ve ever heard a Bush administration official say). Our principle – looking out for people – is undermined by our rule, “We must support teachers’ unions.”

The same is true for trial lawyers and medical malpractice. Our traditional rule, “Support the trial lawyers,” is based, again, on our desire to protect the little guy from wealthier, stronger interests and to make sure justice is served. The basic desire is to help people and ensure that they can be made whole when they suffer from others’ negligence. But, when frivolous lawsuits start driving doctors out of a state en masse (and thus causing a great deal of harm, especially to poor people), it’s time to reconsider our “rules” regarding malpractice.

The distinction between “rule-liberalism” and “spirit-liberalism” will be a constant theme of mine up through the election. Democrats need to remember that anger is not enough. Democratic policies, at their essence, are rooted in a loving spirit and in a desire to help people. Progressives, in their heart, want to use government to help people. It’s a beautiful political philosophy and, too often, we lose sight of that in our anger (and I am guilty too). Progressives want to help the world, help the poor, provide strong education, and provide real health care. I think the fundamental divide between progressives and conservatives is that conservatives want to return society to a free-market Darwinian state where the strongest thrive and the weakest suffer. Progressives, by contrast, want to free people from excessive Darwinian struggles. We want to use government to help people transcend Darwinism. The free market is a cruel place, and it causes a great deal of economic anxiety (e.g., outsourcing). We don’t want to abandon the free market, to be sure, but we do want to make it more humane. In a word, we want to make it more . . . Christian.

I'll be taking Saturday off from the blogosphere. In the meantime, I thought that everyone might be interested in reading a couple of older posts from Billmon. These posts provide an excellent explanation of what exactly is meant by the term "neocon" - a term frequently used, but not always understood.

The first post is "What is a Neocon?" The second post is "Twilight of the Neocons." Enjoy.

I watched the MTV "Choose or Lose" interview with Kerry last night. I was very surprised at how much I agreed with a lot of what Kerry said. And I was also surprised at how many specific policy proposals he offered. I kept asking, "Why I have not heard any of this?" I suddenly realized that I've never heard Kerry speak in any other forum besides a five-minute interview (which is usually combative because the journalists are trying to score "Gotcha" points) and the debates, where nothing substantive ever gets said.

Anyway, I'm going to have much more on the MTV interview in the posts to come. I'll leave you with this excerpt though. I found it extremely refreshing to hear a presidential candidate speak about a subject like rap music in an intellectual way that I both agree with, and that shows he's given the subject some thought:

[MTV GUY]: Well, we know that you were into rock and roll when you were in high school, and we know that you play the guitar now. Are there any trends out there in music, or even in popular culture in general, that have piqued your interest?

KERRY: Oh sure. I follow and I'm interested. I don't always like, but I'm interested. I mean, I never was into heavy metal. I didn't really like it. I'm fascinated by rap and by hip-hop. I think there's a lot of poetry in it. There's a lot of anger, a lot of social energy in it. And I think you'd better listen to it pretty carefully, 'cause it's important.

More like this please.

A few days ago, Kevin Drum wrote that Kerry insiders are whispering that Gephardt is the front runner in the "race" for VP. My first reaction was something like, "Ugggggggh." But I really didn't think about it much after that. Last night, however, I happened to catch part of Gephardt's speech to the AFL-CIO on C-SPAN (all true bloggers are insomniacs). After listening to the speech, I'm coming around (tentatively) to the idea of a Kerry-Gephardt ticket, though I still have reservations. So today, I'm going to go over what I consider to be the pros and cons of Gephardt as VP.

The Pros

In addition to his attempts to persuade union members to vote Democratic by scaring the shit out of them, Gephardt also seemed to be making the case for himself as vice-president, and he didn't do that bad a job. First, he correctly noted that the Midwestern Rust Belt will decide the next president. These states include Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Quite simply, these states are ground zero in November. Second, Gephardt explained that these states are heavily unionized and have a higher percentage of union members than any other region in America (I don't remember exactly what statistics he used, but that was his basic point). I think you see where I'm going.

Don't get me wrong. I think Edwards is an infinitely better candidate (and better than Kerry too for that matter). And I have also explained before that people tend to put too much emphasis on Electoral College dynamics in selecting a vice-president, when they'd be better off using the VP to fill in the Presidential candidate's gaps (for example, compare Quayle to Cheney). But with Gephardt, it's about a lot more than picking up Missouri (which would be huge in and of itself). It's about the possibility of picking up ALL of the Rust Belt states. In these states, union families are part of the blue collar, socially conservative, uber-patriotic demographic that could very well be the swing vote this year. Thus, union members are the swing voters in the swing states. And with Gephardt, unions would know that the ticket would include someone who's spent his entire life fighting for them. If Gephardt were selected in May, he could literally spend the next six months criss-crossing the Rust Belt (from Wisconisin to West Virginia and back again over and over and over).

Second, Gephardt would balance Kerry in that it's hard to make the "librul" label stick to Gephardt. He's socially conservative. He voted for the war and the $87 billion (which will be the most damaging vote for Kerry, along with his vote against the First Gulf War). The people who Kerry needs to add are not the socially liberal anti-war people. He needs the blue collar Nascar types who are very skeptical of Bush's economics, but are equally wary of anti-war "libruls."

Third, the VP candidate is traditionally an attack dog. As Howard Dean can attest, Gephardt is very capable of playing that role. Fourth, if Kerry wins, Gephardt would be very valuable in communications and backroom dealings with Congress.

The Cons

There are a host of potential problems with a Kerry-Gephardt ticket. First, Iowa seemed to show that unions are in decline and can't really deliver votes like they once could. I think that's true nationally, but not as true in these particular states. Again, the election is not a true national election. It's an election to win about 10 swing states (many of which are unionized Rust Belt states). Thus, if Gephardt can get these organizations out (and they're certainly scared these days by the manufacturing losses and outsourcing), then he could make life very tough on Bush.

Second, tapping Gephardt creates the most boring ticket since Pierce-King in 1852. There is a real chance that a ticket with old, uninspiring Beltway insiders would depress turnout and add to the Nader vote. That's probably the best objection, and it may be right. On the other hand, I think this election is going to turn on how much people like Bush, and not on how much people like Kerry. By nominating Kerry, the Democrats passed up an opportunity to tap a Kennedy or Clinton-like candidate who would transform the party and attract people with fresh ideas and an inspiring message. I'm not sure that even Edwards could make people excited about Kerry. So if it's going to be a boring ticket anyway, Gephardt might be more valuable than Edwards because he could deliver unions all across the Rust Belt.

Third, I'm certain that Gephardt has cast many votes throughout his long career that could be demagogued by Rove.

And finally, there is always the possibility of internal bickering. As the NYT pointed out this weekend, Kerry's economic team consists of Clinton third-way free market types. They do not subscribe to Gephardt populism. On the other hand, Gephardt could keep them honest.

Again, I'm not terribly excited about the ticket, and I suspect very few others will be either. But you have to remember that this election is not a true national election. It really doesn't matter if people in New York don't get excited about Gephardt. The election is about winning ten states, and the Rust Belt states are a HUGE chunk of these swing states. In terms of pure Electoral College calculations, Gephardt is a wise choice if the mobilization of unions merely holds the Gore ("Blue") states and adds Ohio. And Gephardt would also at least put Missouri in play, if not win it out right.

A month ago, I would have bet on Richardson. But I'm beginning to see the logic of the Gephardt ticket, as boring as it may be.

I must admit that it’s hard to stay rational after seeing the pictures from Fallujah. I’m trying to remind myself that many times more Iraqis have died than Americans, and that we invaded them in the first place. But it’s hard. I am sure of at least one thing though – we must all be occupation hawks now. If I were John Kerry, I would go on TV tomorrow and reaffirm our resolve by promising to send even more troops if necessary. I know a lot of people will disagree, but hear me out first. I’m going to explain why we must double our resolve by borrowing a concept from John Nash (the guy featured in A Beautiful Mind).

One of Nash’s contributions (to economics and game theory) was the so-called “Nash equilibrium.” Basically, it refers to the best possible strategy (or set of strategies) that one can adopt in response to an action by another player. To illustrate the concept, let’s assume you’re playing a game of chess. In any given game, there is a move (or set of moves) that is your “best move” (mathematically). However, once your opponent moves, it changes your Nash equilibrium. In other words, your opponent’s response creates a whole new “best move.” For example, if you suddenly lose your queen (the strongest piece in chess), your Nash equilibrium (or “best strategy” – or “best set of moves”) will change drastically. It’s more complicated than that, but that’s the gist of it. The basic point, for purposes here, is that one’s best possible strategy can vary wildly if circumstances change. And once the circumstances have changed, an earlier “best move” is no longer the “best move.”

So let’s apply to that Iraq. The best move, by far, would have been staying the hell out of Iraq. Dick Clarke’s book makes a very strong case for why it was such a horrible, tragic decision. And you won’t find anyone who opposed invading Iraq more strongly than I did – for a whole number of reasons, many of which are yet to come. But we no longer have the luxury of deciding whether to invade. We did invade. Circumstances have changed irrevocably. Given our current position on the chess board, our Nash equilibrium requires us to stay in, not to pull out or get weak-in-the-knees (though I find it distasteful to talk about willpower when it’s not my ass in the Sunni Triangle crossfire). That’s why Kucinich’s argument that if-it’s-wrong-to-go-in-it’s-wrong-to-stay-in is just not correct. He failed to factor new circumstances into the equation.

Especially after reading Clarke’s history of terrorism, there’s just no doubt that pulling out or wavering would be the worst possible response – for America and the people of Iraq. Saddam, as bad as he was, was a cork in the dam that prevented the ethnic hatred from flooding the country. We removed Saddam and stuck ourselves into the hole in the dam. And if we leave, civil war – violent, horrible civil war and humanitarian disasters – will follow. Terrorists will fill the vacuum. Radicals will be encouraged. Israel would be threatened. Pakistan would be destabilized (everyone should say a little prayer for Musharraf every night). Just imagine Lebanon or the Balkans and multiply it several-fold and I suspect you’re getting close.

We’re in and we can’t leave until we can establish some permanent stability (even if it takes 50 years). Obviously, we can’t do it alone. But we can’t back out either. So, here’s what I think needs to happen. Bush and Kerry need to get up this week and give a good speech, in which they promise to send in as many troops as necessary. Then, immediately following the speech, Bush needs to get his ass on the phone to the UN and offer them whatever they want. Give them the oil, the power, everything. Apologize – lick their boots. Whatever is necessary. Give them anything and everything if it will convince them to make Iraq a long-term UN nation-building project.

If that won’t work, it gets really tough. It’s easy for me to sit here and say we should send more troops. But we may have to. If so, we should institute a draft (I’m going to have a post on the draft in the weeks to come) to make sure that the $2,000-a-plate donors feel the burden of war, just like our working classes do.

I know that this sounds like Vietnam-like escalation. I know, I know - and the whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. But I really don’t see what choice we have, now that we have invaded. Remember, circumstances have changed and there are new Nash equilibria. A power vacuum (and/or civil war) in a Middle East seething with anti-American hatred is the worst of all possible worlds. If that happens, then there really will be an imminent threat to America. And if the chaos sucks the Pakistan government down with it, then we can throw some nuclear weapons into the mix (which would find their way to Tel Aviv).

It’s an absolute mess. The only answer is to concede everything to the UN (except for direct control of our troops) in order to relieve the burden. If that fails, I fear we are truly fucked. And our young men and women in the military will pay the price for Richard Perle’s fantasy. (What was REM's line - "What if all these fantasies come flaming a-ground?"). But leaving would be worse. It’s a choice between two horrible options – stability paid in American blood or absolute tragic chaos leading to God knows what.

If the war on terror is a game of chess, Bush lost our queen to a pawn. And it’s friggin’ hard to win without a queen. But when the cost of losing includes the possibility of a nuclear bomb in Tel Aviv, losing is not an option. We have to press on with the occupation, and present a credible threat at least until we can get the UN in. I’m assuming (perhaps wrongly) that our invading days are over. Hopefully, the administration has learned that invading a real country is a lot harder than playing Risk with Richard Perle at the American Enterprise Institute (which is where the current cabinet drank scotch in the 90s).

I may rethink some of these points later after I've had some time to reflect on it. This was sort of my gut reaction. I would especially like to hear from those with military experience, who could hopefully tell me if it's not my place to be demanding that other people go fight a war.

[Update: Bill O'Reilly had his own "final solution" (yes, he used those words) about what to do in Fallujah -- burn down the city and kill 'em all. Atrios has a partial transcript of this exchange. I watched this part of the show live (at the gym) last night and the full transcript is actually worse than the excerpt that Atrios provided. But they haven't posted the transcript up at Foxnews.com -- and I'm sure they won't. Maybe we should call him "Genocide Bill."]