::

 
Schorring it up

Today, NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr dispensed nuance like the broken shake machine at McDonalds - he spat it out in large, gloppy chunks. While many a consumer would still find the end product acceptable, I choke on it.

Listen for yourself.

On NPR's weekend edition he did his weekly news roundup and inadvertently professed to his manifest bias on the war in Iraq (my emphasis)-

At 4:03 in the report -

The United States in nowhere near getting the multinational division that the Bush administration has asked for ....

No doubt a Freudian slip that went without correction. The next one couldn't be glossed over.

At 6:10 regarding Bush's recent poll numbers -

... %51 are in favor of how he is handling things in Viet ... ehhh in Vietnam ... eh there is a slip for you ... in Iraq ...

Schorr on Arafat / Israel -

At 1:55

From any point of view, the threat to remove him, especially if nothing is done about it, ends up as being counterproductive. What it really has done is invigorate Israel's enemies and dismay Israel's friends.

The United States Congress did the same thing as the Israeli cabinet in September of 1998. At that time, the 105th Congress voted to make it the policy of the United States to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Then President William Jefferson Clinton signed the bill into law.

Known as the "Iraq Liberation Act," it stated

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime,"

For those interested, it passed in the House of Representatives on a 360-38 vote October 5, and the Senate approved H.R. 4655 by unanimous consent on October 7. Clinton signed the bill into law October 31. This act is Public Law 105-338.

Scanning both the transcripts and audio of NPR's archives for October 0f 1998, I can find no commentary by Mr Schorr on this policy. None. (Anyone who can, Please send it to me - email at bottom of this page).

Did this policy pass without Schorr's comment because it had support from Democrats? I don't think so. I don't think his bias is that crude. I think the Iraq Liberation Act passed his muster because he expected it to never be acted on. It was a firm statement, which is enough. This commentary from September 28, 2002 the Christian Science Monitor attests to Schorrs preferred policy being bluff:

"Between the option of inspection that would be ineffectual and the option of invasion leading to occupation of indefinite duration, is there an option 'C' that might rid us of the hidden weapons but spare us the war?"

There was no option "C," unless "C" meant "Continue Charade." You know, tolerate the terror and repression within the region in exchange for stability - a dynamic equilibrium that permits the stifled screams of suffering in the region. The whole "sanctions, not war" paradigm that produced mass murder, penury and ambitious palace building.

Regarding Schorr - let's get this straight - Israel had better make good on its threats, or it will have made a counter productive move. Yet, to make empty threats is the preferred ploicy of the United States of America. Do I have that right, Mr. Schorr?

Adam Sullivan, 14:26 | 0 comments

::

 
The Sympathy Vote

Such is supposed to be a factor in Sunday's Euro referendum in Sweden.

Should the Swedes vote "yes"? Should they vote "no"? I consider it none of my business - Swedes should do what is in their interest. What is my business is the whole idea that one can be convinced to vote either way on such an important issue on the basis of "sympathy" for the murdered Foreign Minister who supported the idea.

I join the markets in figuring that Swedes won't be moved significantly on the issue on the basis of "sympathy."(Markets see Swedish euro ''No'' despite Lindh murder).

Fritz Mondale can attest to the fact that "sympathy votes" are not worth betting on - if anything, Sen. Paul Wellstone's funeral demonstrated that, taken for granted, sympathy backfires in the political arena.

Even Shakespeare knew that "sympathy" was a fickle thing, as the famously veiled entreatment "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him" demonstrated. Playing the sympathy card is a very delicate matter. Expecting the sympathy vote is very crude.

Sen. Jean Carnahan was able to work the sympathy for her husband's death without asking for it. She focused her campaign against John Ashcroft on substantive issues. Ashcroft was called on his social agenda and placed in the very difficult position of having to defend it on its merits. He couldn't go too negative for fear of beating up a grieving widow. The results speak volumes.

I, for one, see the "sympathy vote" to be about as substantive a political force as the "Arab street" - largely inert except for the very few Mark Anthony's of the world who can play complex emotions just right.

Adam Sullivan, 13:52 | 0 comments

::

 
The last 4 lines are the most interesting

That is the case in this Reuters coverage of the Arafat situation:

"The United States said that expelling Arafat would not be helpful. The European Union expressed 'great concern.'

Near as I can tell, that is authorization. Throttle up!

Any attempt to expel Arafat, who controls the most important Palestinian security forces, could end in bloodshed. He keeps a pistol at his side and has said he would be ready to die rather than give himself up.

Let's see if he keeps that promise.

It is not clear how Israel would pluck Arafat from his headquarters, even though they are half demolished from previous army raids, or where he would be cast into exile.

I'd be more interested in understanding how in the hell these Fatah Jihadi hope to prevent it.

He has in the past taken refuge in Jordan, Lebanon and Tunisia but such states would be unlikely to welcome him now."

Why wouldn't these nations welcome a Nobel lauriate of such stature? Maybe France will take him.

Adam Sullivan, 20:55 | 0 comments

::

 
Well - that does it

I've been here and there on expelling Arafat.

Now that we have the usual Arab "leaders" (read: tyrants) coming out against idea and invoking the vaunted "arab street" I am all for it.

Yes, if he ends up in an office in Tunis, he will be able to go all over the place promoting his victimology that nets him millions a year. That will likely make the government that ends up in the PA "illegitimate" in the current parlance of diplomatic equivocation.

If he can't hold the soil, he isn't legit.

This is a war. He loses. Too bad. Law is being dictated to him. Since when is he exempted from the laws of war? Oh yeah - his whole life.

Once he is gone, the variables will have changed. Under the current variables, only protracted killing can result. Getting rid of him is a responsible decision. It will also allow the Palestinian camp to split into camps - among them the Islamo Fascists and those who want a secular peace.

The road map should be seen as either a peace settlement or terms of surrender. Arafat chose to keep the war (and the personal wealth that it builds for him) going. Now it will end.

Peace will now be imposed on the PA. Yes, Hamas et al will have a shit fit and the Arab street will protest and angry phone calls will be made. Blah blah blah. I agree wholly with Den Bestse's assertion that Hamas has not been holding back and will not in any event. They might as well wear shirts that say "Got Jews?" As long as there are Jews in the region, they will try to kill them. They have said as much.

In the long run the Palestinians will benefit greatly from being freed from the tyrany of the trembling gangster that was swept in after the Gulf War. He got the job in a vain hope to establish a lawful state there. It was a job handed to him by the west almost in pity - he had, once again, come up a loser in the Gulf War having sided with Saddam and wishing him success in lobbing SCUDs at Israel. Israel was told that Arafat's return (as well as that of Hamas leadership) would be seen as a "confidence building measure."

I, for one, would have much more confidence in the future of democracy in the Middle East if Arafat were gone.

Who cares if France and he rest of the "international community" would be outraged at such a move? They have shown themselves unwilling to fight the war to defend democracy, so they don't get a vote in the matter.

Get rid of him, Ariel. And a bullet would be a better parting gift than a suitcase, IMO.

Adam Sullivan, 20:15 | 0 comments

::

 
Here are the guys Zogby missed

But I guess these 80 Arabist Jihadi wouldn't have been interviewed by Zogby - they aren't Iraqi's.

U.S. Troops Nab 80 Foreign Fighters in Iraq

Same was the case in Afghanistan. The Afghanis didn't want em. Just a small enclave did. So there they battle on, in an isolated region while the rest of the country moves on with life and comes to resent the Islamists more.

So let's see - we have a region where intense suffering has been rolled back for about 50 Million people in the last 2 years (thanks Andrew for pointing that out). Suffering imposed upon them by a clique of oil-brats. Now these people have hope, but have to put up with more harrassment from the oil-brats bent on dominating them through religious orthodoxy (no doubt to be supported by the equally oppressive the oil-sheik economic model).

And to think that there are serious westerners at this juncture in history advocating abandonment of the region. Mark their names. Mark their words. Mark them and smile smugly. You are entitled.

Adam Sullivan, 19:41 | 0 comments

::

 
Asking the Iraqi's

Seems Iraqis are far more hopeful than those in this country when you look at the Zogby Poll numbers. (Thanks, Volokh).

69.7% of Iraqis feel that their country will be better five years from now

70.9% of Iraqis feel that they will personally be better five years from now

42.6% of Iraqis did not participate in Friday prayers in the last 4 weeks.

Quagmire? Popular discontent? Resentful populace? Culture of Islam?

Seems Zogby somehow failed to interview the "thousands of Osama Bin Ladens" that the liberation of Iraq created. How could have that happened?

GMAFB (Give Me A F***N Break).


Adam Sullivan, 19:05 | 0 comments

::

 
The War

Click here for a stunning read.
Adam Sullivan, 18:49 | 0 comments

::

 
2 years later ...

It is willpower more than firepower that will win the next stage of the war.


Adam Sullivan, 01:31 | 0 comments

::

 
Some light autumn reading

Here is something that you may want to glance at - The Home Winemakers Manual.

It is written by a guy here in San Diego county (Lum Eisenman) who has been making wine as an amature for the good part of 50 years.

Take a gander. Right now, my father-in-law and I (mainly him) are making some Rose from some Syrah grapes that we planted 4 years ago and are coming into production this year.


Adam Sullivan, 22:58 | 0 comments

::

 
Always good to let some blog entries soak.

I wrote up my thoughts on Bush's speech the other night but didn't post them.

Thus, I have spared you a Lt. Niedermayer moment.

I was basically spitting out "You're worthless and weak" in the direction of many of the war wobbly. (For those unfamiliar with the enduring legacy of Lt. Neidermayer, please check out this page of quotes from the movie Animal House).

Karmic apologies for the burning ears out there - a more centered individual documented a more precise expression of my sentiments here.

Now for my constructively edited comments on Bush's speech cut down in size considerably.

When you go to the well ...

... bring a Fire Truck.

That is what GWB did the other night. A fire truck with a 87 Billion gallon capacity.

Good for him.

He also acknowledged for the first time that we are in a region building exercise.

The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations. The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and beyond would be a grave setback for international terrorism. The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and on the resentments of oppressed peoples.

Further, he stated why such is in America's vital interest.

The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done.
...
Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated.

This will take time, and require sacrifice. Yet we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom, and to make our own Nation more secure.

He also stated that this is a matter of will.

They want to shake the will of the civilized world. In the past, the terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge. In this, they are mistaken.

For those wavering from the war camp who say "The plan is unclear" and others who say "we need more troops," we have this:

Our strategy in Iraq has three objectives -- destroying the terrorists -- enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq -- and helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and their own future.

That is both the plan and explains why no more troops are wanted - the Iraqis will provide more of their own security.

On the troops question, we must be mindful of what our objectives are. They are not pacification. Throwing more US troops in the faces of Iraqis reminds them of the occupation - reminds them of their past failure to rid themselves of their oppressor. It keeps the whole Arab vs. West mythology alive and well fed. As Abizaid says, this isn't boots per square inch.

Read this opinion item again - this guy is still getting paid to be a Major in the disbanded Iraqi Army - his gripe about the Iraqi Army being decommissioned must not be material, but egotistical. Pride is an important consideration when handling Iraq. More troops are not a symbol of our will - they are a symbol of their failure.

A great and positive symbol of our will (and one that can't escape media notice as live reports are beamed into our living rooms) are construction cranes. Visualize downtown Baghdad cluttered with them - seen for miles. That is a symbol of will, intent and progress far more powerful than doubling the number of checkpoints in the country.

Alas - the issue of "flypaper." While I fully concede that Bush stated a flypaper strategy in Iraq, I hardly agree with the assertion that such was a strategy going in. It was certainly an adaptation. Acceptance and exploitation of the situation at hand. One would not have planned to execute such a strategy in the best case - creating such a situation would have been counter productive to our objective.

The best case would have been patrolling the borders to keep pissed off Iraqi's from pursuing their tormentors and their sponsors in neighboring countries after a GWB victory speech among construction cranes in downtown Baghdad. Didn't happen. Something else did. We are cleverly exploiting it - but it wasn't "The Strategy." It reflects adaptation - something the US military is good at.

What about the polls - Bush's re-election? I for one don't care. For the most part. Bush was not my first pick for the job of president. But he has the job and is resolute on the war. I am bordering on becoming a single issue voter in this cycle (for the first time in my life), and Bush has unblemished marks in the war department. Dean is on the short list of Dems to watch because I trust that he means what he says, and he says we are in it so we have to win it. I have no doubt of Lieberman's commitment to the war, but may get blind sided by conceding too much to internationalists. The others - I don't trust them except to tell me which way the wind is blowing.


Adam Sullivan, 14:38 | 0 comments

::

 
Quote of the Month

What is required is a steady, unostentatious stoicism, made up out of absolute, cold hatred and contempt for the aggressors, and complete determination that their defeat will be utter and shameful.

- Christopher Hitchens

Firepower is useless without willpower, my firends.


Adam Sullivan, 11:54 | 0 comments

::

 
That is funny. It's OK to laugh.

That is what comes to mind when I see the letter Al Franken sent to John Ashcroft asking for Ashcroft's testimonial in a suposed book on abstinence (via Volokh).

Read the letter - this is sarcastic jujitsu. It exploits a stereotype (of moralists being sexually repressed and uptight) and uses both the momentum and blind spots of that stereotype in an effort to put one over on its target - the Attorney General of the United States.

If that isn't brilliantly constructed, satirical free-speech directed at a public official and politician, I don't know what is. Such is a sign of health in a democracy.

Did Ashcroft get the joke? Probably not, IMO - why else the apology? Instead, Harvard's Shorenstein Center got heat, as Franken's apology letter implies. Ashcroft's apparent response isn't a sign of health in a political leader. Either a clever response or none whatsoever would have been better.

Sure. Al Franken is a pain in the ass. I don't agree with most of his politics - he pedals some old, leftist-orthodox ideas that the center-left abandoned long ago. So what? He is funny, and he communicates his views more often than not with wit. He is also a showman with a nose for creating controversy within the mundane, as he has done here.

That the right has a real problem with this sort of thing is a problem. For the right.

When you can't laugh (or even crack a smile) at an antagonist's well constructed sarcasm, you are taking yourself and your position entirely too seriously, IMO. You also expose your lack of wit and/or your obstinance - neither of which are healthy traits for a speaker in persuasive political discourse.

Ronald Reagan mocked himself with ease, and disarmed his opponents in the process. "I won't make an issue of my opponents youth and inexperience" was his statement when the question of age came up in a debate with Mondale. Most Americans can laugh at themselves and learn to take a joke, and they empathise with leaders who do. Politicians who can't laugh at themselves have to ask - "who do I represent?"

Adam Sullivan, 00:41 | 0 comments

::

 
The Carter Option

For those who were toddlers during the 1980 presidential election, please note that the Iran Hostage Crisis was in full swing for that entire election year. It was at the very moment of Reagan's swearing in that the Ayatollah Khomeini authorized the actual release of the hostages - intended as an insult to president Carter.

As that election year got under way, Carter publicly asked other candidates to refrain from discussing the hostage crisis, as such might complicate the situation and endanger the hostages. Candidates largely complied, as did late night talk show hosts. ABC news developed and aired Ted Koppel's NightLine to give the daily wrap-up on that story alone - after the hostage crisis it evolved into a broader show.

Would it be wise for Bush to try to invoke "The Carter Option" and ask the candidates to not discuss the Iraqi occupation? Certainly not - but I think the idea is worth hypothetical discussion. In my mind, the merits are simple - the election hyperbole we already see on the Iraqi situation will only give hope to those maintaining the "insurgency" there. It will also impede efforts throughout our foreign policy because the issue will be considered pliable and worth introducing in any negotiation so as to get the US to give more in favor of the other country either not making things worse for us, or actually helping.

The cost? Huge. I think shutting down political debate in a presidential election cycle is wrong. We are a democracy, after all. Nor would it be effective, since surrogates (many on-line) would debate the issue freely.

As for political viability, the Carter Option certainly didn't help Carter (though I think it was his "malaise speech" where he told American's that our most prosperous days were behind us and we needed to learn to expect less, basically killed him - I never saw my yellow-dog-Democrat father more irked at a Democrat than at that moment). For Bush, it would be suicide to ask for such a thing.

Tyranists always confuse political discourse as weakness. In a battle of wills between nations, this places democracies at a disadvantage, and the broader war we are in will be protracted as a result. Simply a function of the fact (and support for its assertion) that this is a war for democracy and western civilization.

I suppose the Carter Option entered my mind because I am a bit frustrated with the occupation-fatigue in this country. We have had no bigger problem than this since the Cold War and region building in the Middle East is ultimately a matter of will and political morality - two things that are supposed to be national virtues. Even Howard Dean says we have no choice but to succeed and see things through. Perhaps Bush's policy adjustments of the last week are intended to blunt future rhetorical attacks in lieu of banning them, as the Carter Option would allow. I doubt that will work for him, either.


Adam Sullivan, 01:09 | 0 comments

::

 
Considering demobilization of the Iraqi Army.

Forbes also put in some thought and consideration in delivering this post on the decision to demobilize the Iraqi Army. Another item worth reading on the topic is this editorial in "Iraq Today" (thanks Andrew Sullivan) that was written by a major in the former Iraqi Army (I find it interesting that, while his Army was demobilized, he is still getting paid).

I admit to being undecided on this one. As a former US Army officer I know it is our tradition that the enemy force, once defeated, is treated with a degree of deference and respect. They are seen as professionals, as we hope they see us. This goes beyond pragmatic aspects of wanting the same treatment if you were on the other side of the table - it goes to a more visceral understanding among "brothers at arms."

Certainly at the moment that battle ends and peace begins one is compelled to "sort through" the ranks looking for the war criminals and the loyalists that one should not trust with weapons and garrisons. The question that nags at me is "Have we had such a moment?" No surrender by Saddam or his government has occured - they tell us they will continue to fight. So can we realisticaly "sort through" the herd when no capitulation has occured? If the force is left intact but confined to a garrison somewhere, how can we be sure they won't mount a coup down the road and restore the Baathists?

We just don't know.

If Saddam were dead and his lackey's capitulated, such risks would be reduced dramatically, IMO. An acceptance of the situation would occur, and anyone wishing to mount an action from within would have to convince many to join him. Contrast that with the situation that we currently have were Iraqi's are still unsure of our will to establish a liberal democracy there - a concern deep enough to have Donald Rumsfeld have to speak to the issue in Tikrit.

Frankly, the history in the region is of strong men. Violence and repression. A stable state maintains a monopoly on political violence. Demobilizing the Army there may have been prudent, albeit costly.

Adam Sullivan, 00:33 | 0 comments

::

 
Very Cool

Scott Forbes, aka "A Yank In OZ" has tweaked his blog with a style sheet selector - you choose the layout, and it reformats. Not just color changes - the whole works. Very, very cool. Something for the to do list.


Adam Sullivan, 00:10 | 0 comments

::

 
Joke of the day

The joke of the day is found in this UPI story about Arafat accepting Abbas' resignation.

Hamayel said that the situation now is in the hands of Arafat, adding that according to the Palestinian basic law, Arafat has to ask another Palestinian official to form a new PNA cabinet.

"Arafat" and "according to law" in the same sentance. Seriously stated, no less.

Update: Nabil emails and takes me to task on Arafat and Palestinian law, pointing out that Arafat managed to nominate a replacement well within the legal time frame. I have to point out that the same law leaves security forces under the control of the Prime Minister via his Interior Minister - Arafat certainly didn't let that law get in his way, which precipitated Abbas' resignation.

Adam Sullivan, 01:44 | 0 comments