Inactive Rebunk
Tuesday, August 2, 2005
The Sunset
For a variety of reasons, none of which we will get into at this time or place, Rebunk is closing its doors. We have enjoyed working with each other and with HNN. We have especially liked engaging all of our readers, and can only hope that you feel the same.
Lest there be any confusion, all of us remain good friends, and would like it very much if you would visit us at our other sites online:
Derek Catsam at DCAT.
Stephen Tootle and Tom Bruscino at Big Tent.
Richard Holmes at Slice of Life.
(We'll be sure to let you know if and when Marc Bacharach gets his own blog.)
All our best,
Rebunk
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Iraq and American History
It is tempting to look back on American political development as a virtual certainty, that once the war was won, the rest as they say, is history (which is to say, developed exactly the way one would think). The reality however, is far different. Even after the Constitution was ratified, the 1790’s was perhaps one of the most passionate and most dangerous for the union than any other decade in American history, save perhaps the decade of the Civil War. During that time, political discourse was intensely personal and heated, and the future of the nation was far from certain.
Debate that threatened to tear America apart was everywhere.
Should the federal government assume the debts of the states, as Hamilton wanted?
Where would the capital of the nation be located?
What were the exact borders of each state, a topic never really of concern during the colonial period?
Although the Constitution protected slavery and the slave trade (at least until 1808) a petition to abolish the practice was presented by a group of Pennsylvania Quakers in 1790 which almost led to succession of several states. During those early years, some Northern state too, threatened to walk out of the new union. Perhaps most famous of these was Timothy Pickering’s attempt to form a secession movement among the New England states and New York at the start of the 19th century (this failed to materialize when Aaron Burr lost his bid to be Governor of New York). And this was all AFTER the ratification of the Constitution.
I bring this turmoil in our own history up to indicate my pessimism about Iraq’s political future. Like ourselves, Iraq’s transformation is revolutionary (in speed, that is to say), forcing them to build a democracy essentially from scratch among factions with very different interests. Today, issues in dispute include the role of Islam, the official language(s), and even the official name of the country (somewhat reminiscent of the Congressional debate over what to call the president, a debate that led to John Adam’s memorable blunder of suggesting that “your majesty” be the appropriate address).
Unlike our own Constitutional Convention, which was done behind closed doors, allowing for genuine compromise and frank debate about the nature of the new government, the Iraqi debate is in full view, and under the tight constraints of an August 15 timeline, when the Iraqi Parliament must approve the document.
I am, of course, hopeful that this whole experiment will all work out, even while remaining pessimistic about the actual possibility. After all, unlike our forefathers, we have the knowledge of hindsight and of history, of what tends to work and what tends to fail. We also have the intense international pressure bearing down upon Iraq to get its affairs in order. Nevertheless, there is every reason to fear that even without this devastating insurgency, the various ethnic groups in Iraq will simply not be able to function as a unit and, like India and Pakistan, perhaps chose to part ways, and perhaps violently.
Of course, the situation over there changes almost daily, it seems, and perhaps one day my actual expectations will conform to my hope for the country. We shall see.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Uzbekistan
According to the Washington Post , “Uzbekistan formally evicted the United States yesterday from a military base that has served as a hub for combat and humanitarian missions to Afghanistan since shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Pentagon and State Department officials said yesterday.” The eviction came as an unwelcome surprise, since it will cost the US “several logistical problems for its operations in Afghanistan,” and a great deal more money. It is also important to remember that the nation is home to oil and gas reserves as well.
According to the article, part of the reason for the eviction notice has been the increasing amount of tension caused by America's emphasis on democracy and human rights. According to a “senior official,” “We all knew basically that if we really wanted to keep access to the base, the way to do it was to shut up about democracy and turn a blind eye to the refugees” (click here and here for descriptions of Uzbekistan’s terrible human rights record). A June editorial in the Washington Post seemed to credit a delay in bringing the issue to a head on “the Pentagon, which jealously guards its relationship with Mr. Karimov [the countries dictator] and has deliberately undercut past attempts by Congress and the State Department to pressure him.”
If this is all true, and American pressure on human rights and democracy have caused the country to demand our exist, then I would be remiss if I did not commend the Bush administration for following through on its pledge to push for greater democracy and freedom in those areas of the world.
In November of 2003, Bush made a speech in which he said the following radical words:
“Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.”
The speech was perhaps one of the greatest and most profound in his presidency, and I said so at the time (the media, predictably, gave it little attention). By acknowledging our mistakes of the past, Bush was able to re-create American foreign policy with a new emphasis on democracy and freedom. The war on Iraq was, in my opinion, a magnificent blunder in that it tried to force democracy in a country relatively unilaterally and incompetently. Other actions however, have been far more productive and illustrate our commitment to expanding democracy, even at the expense of short-term strategic assets. Of course, we will never truly be able to assert our moral authority so long as the West is unable to free itself from its addiction to Middle Eastern oil, and obviously countries whose populations have been radicalized through decades of indoctrination must be dealt with slowly and carefully.
Nevertheless, I welcome Uzbekistan’s eviction as a badge of honor. Contrary to the international image as a global empire, the US will leave the country without a fight. The greatest military power on earth will voluntarily depart a strategic location because it has asked us to and we will not backtrack on its human rights record. This is the United States at its absolute best.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Could this be the first ideological victory in the war on terror?
On Thursday, The Irish Republican Army (IRA) has formally ordered an end to its armed campaign and says it will pursue exclusively peaceful means. The IRA is, of course, the terrorist organization responsible for the murder of over 1,700 people in its quest for full independence from Great Britain.
I am well aware that IRA violence has been trailing off over the past few decades, exemplified by its 1997 ceasefire and continuing in its 2001 decision to quietly start the disarmament process. Nevertheless, although it is far too early to be “crediting” any one thing or event, I would like to believe that part of their decision has been the increasing de-legitimization of terrorism throughout Europe in general, and within Britain in particular over the past 4 years. Of course, terrorism has always been met with denunciation and rejection, but the disdain for the tactic, the outrage, the sheer intolerance of it independent from any cause or issue, is a relatively new development in that area of the world from what I can observe.
I would like to believe that the IRA realized that its preferred method of resistance, while once tolerated if not accepted, has become THE faux pas of modern resistance politics.
Of course, it is possible (indeed, probable) that the IRA’s decision was entirely independent of the new international consciousness that took root after 9/11 and the US-led war on terror. However, if the IRA based its decision in some small way on the changing perception of terrorism, then it may quite possibly be the first major ideological victory in the war on terror, insomuch as the ultimate objective of the war is not just to punish individual perpetrators, but also to create an environment in which alternative forms of resistance and expression are encouraged.
This is a big step for the IRA in a decades old political battle, and the announcement should be seen as another chapter in that long saga, not as the conclusion or the pivotal climax in their history. Nevertheless, the timing is instructive and will hopefully send a message to other violent nationalist organizations throughout the region (ETA, CCC, Action Directe, Brigate Rosse). Of course, that is only what I would like to believe.
The Iranian Threat
THE NEWS:
According to the Lebanon newspaper, The Daily Star , President Mohammad Khatami of Iran announced that his country “will end a suspension of sensitive uranium ore conversion activities regardless of what proposals the European Union makes in the coming days to change its mind.”
THE BACKGROUND:
In 2003, Iran revealed its uranium enrichment program to the world, claiming that it was for peaceful purposes only and inviting the IAEA to visit. In September 2004, Iran rejected the International Atomic Energy Agency's call for closing down its nuclear fuel production programme (which many in the United States and Israel believe to be linked to a covert nuclear weapons programme). Iran then test fired a ballistic missile with sufficient range to hit targets in Israel as well as US military installations in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. Before the matter could be brought before the Security Council for possible sanctions however, in November of 2004, Iran cut a deal with Germany, France and Britain to end its uranium enrichment program and the IAEA confirmed it. What the IAEA could not confirm was whether or not Iran was conducting covert nuclear activities.
THE PLAYERS:
Israel: According to the Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, “under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession.” Since October 2003 Israel had a plan in place for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's major nuclear facilities, but this would not be as easy as their strike on the Iraq Osirak plant in 1981. The excellent article located here gives a more complete analysis of the military dimension, and the Daily Star had a pretty compelling editorial on why it is unlikely to happen, but ultimately, Israel will be unable to act without implicating the United States (since they will have to use US/Iraq airspace to get to Iran) and the potential for an Iranian retaliation is far greater today than it was with Iraq in 1981. This is to say nothing of the logistics of such an effort, given the geographical scope of Iran’s program. Right now, Israel is simply biding its time and hoping that the US and the EU can resolve the matter before forcing their hand.
Russia and China both have energy interests in Iran, and both could veto any sanctions proposed by the Security Council. Furthermore, any attempts at imposing stiffer sanctions without the support of Russia or China could prove far less effective than with them on board.
France and Germany seem to be unworried about the potential for a nuclear Iran, even though it would effect them in the long run just as surely as it would the US. As recent history has shown, these countries seem to believe that all problems and conflicts can be revolved peacefully and diplomatically if they just wait patently and ask nicely. It truly seems like any type of punishment at all is strenuously avoided, as if a world of international law and cooperation is incompatible with actual enforcement of such laws.
The United States finds itself in a jam, due in no smart part to its decision to spend all of our international capital, and military resources on the Iraq debacle. As numerous observes have commented, an invasion of Iran is almost sure to result in chaos. The Iranian people are far more homogenous, and more nationalistic than its Iraqi neighbors and ironically enough, probably the most pro-American population in the region. Such sentiments however, would never support seeing US forces in their country, and the Iranian regime, while hated by many, is not so brutally totalitarian as to make average Iranians prefer the inevitable anarchy of their neighbor to the current political climate. No, any military action taken against Iran must be directed at eliminating the nuclear threat, NOT changing the regime and this means total war with the Islamic state should not even be in consideration. The alternative to war, of course, would be to compel Iran to disarm peacefully.
The problem is that unlike North Korea, where the US has a great deal it can offer in exchange for compliance, it is Europe that has the most to offer and the most to threaten with. According to an article signed by the Canadian external affairs minister, as well as 5 former European foreign ministers, and former Secretary of State Albright, “Europeans must prove to the Iranians that severe political and economic consequences will result if Iran does not renounce the nuclear weapons option. In the event that diplomacy fails and Iran decides not to abandon its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, Europeans should be ready for alternative courses of action, including going to the U.N. Security Council, and they should repeatedly stress their willingness to act.”
BOTTOM LINE:
Iran must not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.
In 2001, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani , the number two man in Iran after Ayatollah Ali Khamenehi, called on Muslim countries “to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them “damages only.” Whether or not this was just saber-rattling, a nuclear Iran would surely create a standoff with Israel the likes of which would likely be as serious or worse than the standoff several years ago between India and Pakistan. Furthermore, the stability of Iran’s political leadership is currently in doubt, as calls for reform continues to echo throughout the country.
Finally, although the so-called “domino-theory” has largely been discredited since Vietnam, the reality is that if Iran is able to acquire nuclear weapons, thereby indefinitely postponing any American attack, it is not unfair to ask why other states would not immediately follow with their own programs, both because they can see that they will get away with it and to protect themselves from an increasingly nuclear world.
There are so many dimensions to this problem, I wanted to make this post a first attempt at simplifying them, since much of what I have written is only the tip of the iceberg, but there is one last element that should be addressed. Some might ask why we should care about Iran when Israel, Pakistan, India, etc. have nuclear weapons. The answer is simple: There is nothing we can now do about those countries having nuclear weapons, although I would prefer that they did not.
Further, there is no real risk that Israel would ever actually use such a devise for any other reason than to save its very existence. It did not use them in 1967, even though according to William Burroms and Robert Windrem in their book, Critical Mass (1994) it had them to use. It did not use them in 1973, even though the Israeli front lines were overrun, nor did it use them against Iraq in 1991 even though it had been attacked without cause. In short, I am bias in favor of democracies and will sooner trust a democracy with The Bomb than a non-democracy any day of the week. Of course perhaps the greatest argument against this “all-or-nothing” logic is the same argument people use to support gun control in the US. Even if some of the bad guys will get them anyway, it is no reason the government should encourage its unfettered spread.
Nuclear weapons, at the risk of sounding overly dramatic, have the potential to destroy the world with enough of them, and no one should be so cavalier as to advocate their spreading simply because some countries already have them. If the European community is unable to do what is necessary to secure any semblance of nonproliferation in the Middle East, than the United States cannot be blamed for taking actions necessary to ensure it.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Excellent editorial, as usual, from Mr. Friedman
Another intelligent article by Thomas Friedman in today’s New York Times. An excerpt:
“Wouldn't you think that if you were president, after you had read the umpteenth story about premier U.S. companies, such as Intel and Apple, building their newest factories, and even research facilities, in China, India or Ireland, that you would summon the country's top business leaders to Washington ask them just one question: "What do we have to do so you will keep your best jobs here? Make me a list and I will not rest until I get it enacted."
And if you were president, and you had just seen more suicide bombs in London, wouldn't you say to your aides: "We have got to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil. We have to do it for our national security. We have to do it because only if we bring down the price of crude will these countries be forced to reform. And we should want to do it because it is clear that green energy solutions are the wave of the future, and the more quickly we impose a stringent green agenda on ourselves, the more our companies will lead innovation in these technologies."
Instead, we are about to pass an energy bill that, while it does contain some good provisions, will make no real dent in our gasoline consumption, largely because no one wants to demand that Detroit build cars that get much better mileage. We are just feeding Detroit the rope to hang itself. It's assisted suicide. I thought people went to jail for that?
And if you were president, would you really say to the nation, in the face of the chaos in Iraq, "If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them," but they have not asked. It is not what the generals are asking you, Mr. President - it is what you are asking them, namely: "What do you need to win?" Because it is clear we are not winning, and we are not winning because we have never made Iraq a secure place where normal politics could emerge.”
In this administration, some things will never change
The latest prisoner abuse story involves the use of dogs being used to terrify inmates. According to the Associated Press , at least 2 prisoners were bitten by dogs, one of them on the thigh so bad, it required 12 stitches. According to prosecutors, the dogs are sometimes used as competition among the guards to see how many inmates they can get to urinate on themselves.
This, of course, is only the most recent in a long line of abuse scandals involving our military and it is sickening that like every other issues in this government, there has been no accountability. Of course, the individual soldiers are tried for their crimes and serve time and to his credit, Rumsfeld twice offered to resign (an offer Bush should have accepted), but there is no reform, no changes to prevent these types of depraved activity. Part of the reason is that the issue has become partisan, with many conservative commentators and news anchors either ignoring it, denying it, or glossing over the story (the site Media Matters does a great job of exposing much of the bias in the national media). Just one recent example: Bill O’Reilly recently accused the ACLU and any judge that agreed with them “terror allies” for trying to release photos and documentary on the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.
In an article 2 months ago, Seymour Hersh wrotes about “the continuing practice of American operatives seizing suspected terrorists and taking them, without any meaningful legal review, to interrogation centers in south-east Asia and elsewhere” and he relates the story of a
“young special forces officer whose subordinates were confronted with charges of prisoner abuse and torture at a secret hearing after one of them emailed explicit photos back home. The officer testified that, yes, his men had done what the photos depicted, but they - and everybody in the command - understood such treatment was condoned by higher-ups.”
The article was just as damning as the one he wrote in 2004 as well , when Hersh credited the problem with “Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.”
In June, Newsweek ran a story subtitled: “Bush insists that 'a few American troops' dishonored the country. But prisoner abuse was more widespread, and some insiders believe that much remains hidden.” The article points out how “numerous critics—not just in the human-rights community, but in Congress and the U.S. military as well—insist that the current probes are still too limited to bring full accountability.”
It is a credit to our democracy that those individuals who have committed the worst of the abuses (at least that have been discovered thus far) have faced justice, but it is a tremendous discredit to know that nothing really has changed. The conditions that allow, and perhaps even encourage abuse and mistreatment are still in place, and the buck stops at the individuals responsible rather than a leadership that allows it to continue.
Psychological Armor?
I'd like to hear from those of you who have a military background or expertise. What do you think of this?
Basically, when the US military was looking to outfit various vehicles with armor, it seems they tried to do so on the cheap. The writer had designed a lightweight but, he argues, effective form of armor that he called FLEA (Forward Light Escort, Armored). He submitted it for consideration when the military was in search of a contractor. Here is a key excerpt in a damning account:
After a month or so, I called TACOM and inquired as to the progress of the selection process. The officer said, "The FLEA yes, I have it here Oh, yeah this is armored. We don't want armor."So, credible? Not credible? If so why or why not? If true this seems scandalous, but there is also a hint of conspiracy mongering to it all, so I am awaiting feedback from those of you who know more about these things (if you are even reading during the summer lull). Lift your pint glass up in honor of Chris, one of my new Oxford buddies, for the source.I knew the specification they wanted. The bodywork had to defeat the equivalent of a pellet fired from a pellet gun. Something like 19 grains at 435 feet per second. Something silly like that. I mentioned this to the officer. "Yeah, right. We call it psychological armor'"
"'Psychological armor?'" I let that sink in to my brain. "You mean, the guys just THINK they're sitting behind armor?"
He chuckled. "Yeah, pretty much."
"But, " I said, "I'm under the weight requirement even with the armor. Why not give them the protection?"
"That's not what we want."
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Some random judicial thoughts
In an interview on Tuesday , Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that Supreme Court Justices are “not obliged to follow” the Roe v. Wade precedent, although he at least acknowledges that lower courts ARE bound by the ruling.
Perhaps Gonzales did not get the memo that John Roberts, and not he, was offered the SC nomination. What makes Gonzales’ statement so puzzling is its rather cavalier tone. Of course, as anyone knows, the Supreme Court is not obligated to follow anything. There is no Constitutional provision that would prevent them from deciding cases based on the flip of a coin or a game of monopoly. Furthermore, many-a-Supreme Court case has been rightly overturned by some subsequent court throughout American history and our democracy has been no worse for much of it.
No, what troubles me about the statement was when I read the grounds that Gonzales says a Justice should overturn the most controversial ruling in the last 30-plus years: “If you believe it’s wrong.” If you believe it’s wrong? A Republican cabinet member in the Bush White House advocating Justices making rulings based on what they personally think “is wrong”? Now that doesn’t sound very much like judicial restraint to me. If the Supreme Court does overturn Roe v. Wade, I would hope that it is done on the basis of sound Constitutional interpretation and not simply because they think abortion is wrong. Now what would the media say if a liberal President (or a Bigfoot since it is just as rare to actually see one) said that Justices should vote against the death penalty, or gun manufactures if they “believe it’s wrong.”
As Justice O’Connor, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Souter said in their 1992 opinion, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, “Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.”
In all fairness, however, it is possible that Gonzales meant “wrong” in a legal and not in a personal, way. If not, then I guess it is good that he is not the nominee after all.
While we are on the subject, I will likely make few friends by saying that I would not find overturning Roe all that catastrophic. After all, doing so would not make abortion illegal, it would simply means that states MAY make it illegal if they so choose. If you don’t want them to, then go out and join those most rare of political animals: the local election voter.
Although I support a woman’s right to chose to have an abortion, I am not entirely convinced that such a right can be Constitutionally protected under the privacy right enumerated by Griswold v. Connecticut. Like many issues, perhaps it is best left to communities (i.e. states) to make decisions based on the interests of its own citizens.
Memorials
We do not make great or grand memorials anymore. The Vietnam Memorial is right, but it is not great or grand. There is something sadly off about the Korean War Memorial, as if someone held up a fuzzy mirror to the Vietnam wall across the way. The Franklin Roosevelt Memorial is a train wreck of epic proportions—an architecturally inconsistent celebration of our crippled, environmentalist, pacifist president (who, the designers might have taken note, also happened to have given hope to a nation in despair and done the major work in winning the Second World War). If a country could not properly honor one of its greatest presidents, there was little hope for the World War II Memorial.
The World War II Memorial sits in a place of prominence in the National Mall, but it is not all that prominent. By the standards of most memorials in the capital, it lies low to the ground, not obscuring the sight-lines of the Mall. That’s not to say it isn’t big. It spreads out over a large area. Stone columns inscribed with the names of states and territories line the perimeter. Two larger columns flank the memorial. One side is dedicated to the Pacific theaters; the other to the Atlantic. A low-lying wall emblazoned with four thousand gold stars is meant to symbolize the ultimate sacrifice made by over 400,000 Americans.
Perhaps most striking about the memorial is all the water. In front of the wall of stars sits a still pool. On either side, small waterfalls flow from another pool. In front of both major columns sit identical small pools, with water running here and there. And a massive fountain and pool dominates the middle of the monument. Jets of water continuously spray upward and diagonally. Not exactly like a fountain in Las Vegas, but if you’re thinking Oceans 11 (the new one) you’re not too far off. On a hot day like this past Saturday—a hot summer day in Washington! Gasp!—people gather around the central pool and dip their feet in the water.
It’s all very noisy. All the flowing water is like one of those relaxation CDs with the volume turned way up. Then there’s the people. In order to be heard over the water, they have to talk louder. In order to be heard over one another, they have to talk louder still. And they are taking pictures. With so spread out a memorial, there are lots of pictures to take.
The result is that the World War II Memorial is more like a carnival than a memorial. It’s a regular clamor, a cacophony, a hullabaloo. There is none of the melancholy sense of loss that accompanies the Vietnam Memorial; none of the overwhelming grandeur of the Jefferson Memorial; none of the stark power of the Washington Monument; none of the throat-catching solemnity of the Lincoln Memorial.
People gab away. They get together for group pictures. They splash their feet in the water and chase children who want to go in deeper. They smile and talk and soak up the sun. Tourists and locals, citizens and visitors from abroad, organized groups and unorganized humanity, all stomping through a monument to those who fought and died in the world’s greatest war.
There is nothing grand or great about it. It’s perfect.
Better late than never, I suppose
The UN is actually trying to (gasp) come up with a definition of terrorism . Although it might surprise many, the UN has been operating over its lifetime with no agreed upon understanding on this important international action. Four years after the attacks of 9/11, over 30 years after the Munich Olympics, and despite literally thousands of terrorist attacks throughout the world and the international body still has yet to agree on what constitutes terrorism. This, despite the fact that there have been no fewer than 1427 terrorist attacks internationally between 1986-2005, and indeed likely many more (click here for details on each attack), several hundred within the past few years alone. So… what took so long? The answer, to anyone who follows international news, is painfully obvious.
The debate, according to the BBC, has focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Over the past several years, many in the international community could simply not bring themselves to accept that the murder of innocent Jewish men, women, and children in the worlds only Jewish state, is just as bad as the murder of anyone else. Because of this, they refused to agree on any definition since any meaningful definition would have to include the preferred Palestinian method of warfare.
The proposed draft that the UN is hoping countries will sign, says the following:
“We affirm that the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance, and we declare that any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organisation to carry out or to abstain from any act cannot be justified on any grounds and constitutes an act of terrorism.”
This definition is useful for several reasons.
First, the “targeting and deliberate” clause separates terrorism from accidental of unintentional killings, so as not to include episodes like the police shooting in London , or the unfortunate collateral damage inherent in any modern military conflict.
Second, the clause includes not only murder, but even actions “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm,” but do not. Thus, failed attempts may still constitute terrorism.
This act is a long time coming, if indeed it is adopted. The lack of any agreed upon definition has prevented the possibility of any comprehensive convention on terrorism or agreed upon counter-measures. In place of any agreement is the relativist and morally empty mantra that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
It is time for the world to realize that one mans terrorist is another mans terrorist. Words have meaning and unless such meaning is legitimized by the most important international body on the planet, this world will continue to be a no-man’s-land of moral equivalency and international misunderstanding.
North Korea Update
Several days ago, I said in my post, “Remember North Korea,” that “It is still possible that Bush will follow in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan, who reversed his hard-line attitude towards the Soviet Union in his second term and was then able to negotiate with Soviet leaders effectively.”
I am pleased to see that this is what appears to be happening. Today, the United States resumed 6-party talks with North Korea, according to the New York Times , “stating that the United States recognized the sovereignty of the North Korean government as a "matter of fact" and had "absolutely no intention" of launching a military attack against the Stalinist regime. The American envoy, Christopher Hill, also appeared to suggest that the United States would be amenable to a step-by-step process under which North Korean concessions would be met by rewards from the United States and other participants in the talks.”
I commend Bush for his recognition of a failed and arrogant policy and sincerely hope that this dangerous situation on the Korean peninsula can be resolved.
Be Ready
In 1994, the Republicans picked up 52 seats in the House of Representatives, the first time in 40 years they held a majority. There was nothing inevitable about this phenomenon, so how did they do it? Although analysts and pundits have discussed this “Republican Revolution” for years, it really boils down to 3 elements:
• The personal leadership and political brilliance of Newt Gingrich
• The Contract with America
• Party unity on the contract
Almost every Republican candidate for office, both incumbent and challenger, literally signed the Contract, allowing Republicans to run a national campaign for the House for the first time in political history (House races have before always been local, with national issues brought in to be tailored to specific districts). Regardless of whether Americans were aware of the Contract or not, it helped Republicans stay on message, and provided a unifying framework for Republicans across the nation.
Today, the shoe is the other foot. Republican excesses and corruption in Congress mirror what they once accused Democrats of, and Democrats are the ones out in the cold. I am not suggesting that the Democrats create their own Contract (that would be too obvious an emulation). However I am suggesting that if the Democrats hope to win in 2006, they are going to have to start acting like a national party rather than a series of independent local candidates. They need a platform to unite them and above all, party unity. Rank-and-file Democrats need to remember that the Presidency is not the only branch of government worth voting for.
In 2006, the Democratic party will have another opportunity to miss an opportunity. They can either continue to hope that disgust over Republican hypocrisy and deception simply “force” the nation into the Democratic camp (which obviously did not work in 2004), OR they can formulate a national platform, outlining their plans for Social Security, Healthcare reform, fiscal responsibility, and above all, national defense.
November ’06 is coming soon and the Democrats should not allow themselves to once again let Republicans define the campaign.
Wicked Cool!
I want someone to make me a bedroom just like Manny Ramirez Jr.'s (Make sure to look at the second photo in particular).
Prediction: Romney is Running in 2008
I'll bet dollars to donuts, as my grandfather used to say, that this op-ed piece in today's Boston Globe means that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is running for the Republican nomination in 2008. I can think of no other reason why this high-profile and obviously ambitious man would both change his views on abortion and privacy so quickly and why he would then go out and do so in such an overtly public fashion. The Globe also has an article on Romney's change of heart.
Monday, July 25, 2005
The Failed States Index and Africa
Foreign Policy and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace have issued their disquieting first "Failed States Index." We need to pay serious attention to the index and its findings. More than a third of the countries are African nations, including seven of the ten most failed states. perhaps the most alarming fact is how deep the list goes. It is 60 deep, and I wouldimagine that most of you would have little interest in moving to a lot of those countries. Iran? Cuba? There are more than fifty-five countries considered to be failing worse than these authoritarian nightmares. Even more sobering? Niger, which is in danger of succumbing to a famine in which it is feared that death tolls might surpass a quarter million, is not even on the list.
It also seems germane to point out that Smith College Professor Eric Reeves gave the best overview I have seen of the Sudan crisis over the course of five days last week in The New Republic's "&c." notes section. You'll need to scroll down (I am not hyperlinking separately because it comes in five parts), and the five lessons are long -- I printed them up after some reformatting and it comes to some fifteen single-spaced pages, but it is essential reading. And The Sudan only ranks third in the Failed States Index, which tells us much that we need to know about life in C'ote d'Ivoire and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Ethan Brooks, Khari Stevenson and the Purple Cow
Here is more on my boy Ethan Brooks, who started training camp with the Jets last Thursday. And while I'm at it, check out a profile of another high-profile Williams athlete, former Eph soccer standout Khari Stevenson. Even the Williams Purple Cow mascot is getting some attention at the NCAA Hall of Champions.
The Simpsons and the Big East
If you like college football, and you like the Simpsons, check out one Miami fan's take on the Big East. A couple of the characterizations are great. (A shout out for the heads up goes to the Thunderstick).
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Howard Dean and the DNC
Today's Boston Globe Magazine has a fascinating portrait of Howard Dean. Charles Pierce's lengthy piece is definitely worth a read.
Dougie Flutie's Story
Doug Flutie is a legend in New England. The scrappy little quarterback from Natick who almost single armedly put Boston College on the national college football map will forever be 22 years old, slinging the ball through the Miami night to Gerald Phelan to beat the Hurricanes in one of the greatest college football games. Jackie McMullen has a wonderful story in today's Boston Globe about Doug Flutie, Jr., Doug's autistic son. It is touching, and reminds us of the human factor behind the famous athlete. I hope you will all consider donating to the Doug Flutie Jr. Foundation for Autism.
Recent Entries
- The Sunset
- Iraq and American History
- Uzbekistan
- Could this be the first ideological victory in the war on terror?
- The Iranian Threat
- Excellent editorial, as usual, from Mr. Friedman
- In this administration, some things will never change
- Psychological Armor?
- Some random judicial thoughts
- Memorials
Recent Comments
- David Allan McGinnis on The VP Debate
- YJ Lee on Hotel Rwanda
- Mitch E. Milo on Honor
- Ashley Young on The Supreme Court and Judicial Activism
- Charles V. Mutschler on The Sunset
- E. Simon on The Sunset
- Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach on The Sunset
- Oscar Chamberlain on The Sunset
- Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach on Iraq and American History
- Oscar Chamberlain on Iraq and American History
Archives
August 2005July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
