OxBlog

Thursday, December 31, 2009

# Posted 1:23 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

EVEN THE LIBERAL NEW REPUBLIC... (PART II): The cover of the current issue of the New Republic blares, The Battle for Tora Bora: The Untold Story. It's a good article, but it's actually an old story. Some of the details are new, but I think it's been at least five years since we've known that Bin Laden was cornered in the caves of Tora Bora in December of 2001, but the chain of command rejected a request to send in US ground forces. Instead we sent in some Afghan militia and Bin Laden got away.

The individual clearly responsible for this bad decision was Gen. Tommy Franks, the US commander of all forces in the region. Yet Peter Bergen, the story's author, seems less concerned with explaining Franks' flawed decision than with tantalizing hints that perhaps Bush and Rumsfeld's early interest in Iraq somehow led Franks' astray.

The twist, however, is that exposing GOP hawks' incompetence in the past serves the purpose of scoring points against liberal doves in the present. Bergen writes,
Bin Laden was clearly at Tora Bora, and sending so few troops was indeed a major failure. It’s a lesson that bears remembering today as the United States continues to pursue Islamist militants in both Afghanistan and Pakistan: In the hunt for members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, there is simply no substitute for boots on the ground. Afghan proxies, Pakistani soldiers, drones--these are not unimportant tools in the war on terrorism. But they are not effective substitutes for U.S. troops. If we want to kill bin Laden and Zawahiri--and other top Al Qaeda leaders--we are probably going to have to do it ourselves.
So, next time a lefty protests' Obama's decision to escalate in Afghanistan, I will say, "Even the liberal New Republic..."

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(85) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:19 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

EVEN THE LIBERAL NEW REPUBLIC...publishes enough cliche polemics to justify the adjective "liberal". Now, it is certainly true that TNR generates enough heresy to justify its reputation as much more than a liberal meat grinder. That's why I have a subscription. But TNR also provides enough simplistic GOP-bashing to fortify the perpetually indignant, self-satisfied liberal intellectualism to which so many of its readers subscribe.

Case in point: The Rise of Republican Nihilism by Jonathan Chait. Here's a sample paragraph:
One observer dismissed DeMint’s [stimulus] plan thusly: “It is not innovative or particularly clever. In fact, it’s only eleven pages.” Oddly enough, this observer was DeMint himself, talking up his proposal in a speech at the Heritage Foundation. On the contemporary right, it is a mark of intellectual integrity that even a massive economic cataclysm would not prompt any revising of one’s economic prescription.
Clearly, DeMint was trying to score points by comparing his 11-page plan to the dictionary-length democratic alternative. Yet for Chait, DeMint's self-denigration suddenly becomes evidence of catastrophic intellectual rigidity.

Here's another example:
The quintessential moment in the health care debate came when Senator Lamar Alexander objected to Democratic attempts to weed out Medicare waste: “If you’re going to find some savings in waste, fraud, and abuse in Grandma’s Medicare,” he proclaimed, “spend it on Grandma.” Consider this as an ethical proposition: Alexander is saying that every dollar of Medicare is sacrosanct, that even those dollars he concedes provide zero public benefit must stay in the program. We live in a country where the occasional appearance of a roving charitable medical clinic will prompt thousands of desperate people to line up in parking lots for hours on end, to help mitigate their suffering. And yet, Republicans will not countenance the shift of even indisputably wasted resources to help them.
Impressively, Chait elevates Sen. Alexander's anodyne talking point into conclusive evidence of the GOP's cold-hearted intellectual rigor mortis. This kind of logic is one of the perils of being so smart. Sometimes, you fall into the trap of believing that being smarter means being right.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(38) opinions -- Add your opinion

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

# Posted 6:17 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

POLANSKI'S ART: Over the long Thanksgiving weekend, I finally had the chance to watch Roman Polanski's Oscar-winning film, The Pianist. It isn't the story of Polanski's own survival, although it seems natural to conclude that Polanski was able to evoke the Holocaust so effectively because he lived through it himself. He lost his mother to Auschwitz and survived in hiding with a Polish family.

Before Polanski's arrest, I didn't know much about his conviction for sex with a minor. For some reason, I thought he was tried for a consensual statutory violation. Nor did I realize he was convicted.

Knowing this much about the director forcibly changed my perception of the film. The suffering is so intense that you get lost in the film, only to wake up suddenly and wonder how a man who knows suffering so intimately could perpetrate such cruelty on a 13-year-old girl.

The answer to that question is found partly in the film. Victims of the Holocaust are often portrayed as noble and stoic. Yet Polanski also shows how the Nazis' brutality dehumanized and debased their victims, so that many of them committed acts as disgusting as those of their oppressors.

Yet Polanski understood that, too.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(19) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:15 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

DEATH THREATS FOR OBAMA: Four times as many as death threats for Bush? More? For his most passionate supporters, it is only natural to think of this young, charismatic and inspirational leader as another potential JFK, RFK or MLK Jr. (Although I doubt we'll ever call him BHO.)

Yet it was Kevin Drum of all people who noted that according to Secret Service chief Mark Sullivan that the number of threats against the president is "at the same level" as it was during the previous two administrations. The day after Kevin's post, the NY Times published a long story about threats against the president, which according to unnamed sources, includes a "big increase in threats against Mr. Obama took place in the first four months of his presidency," but have leveled off since.

Some pundits are still playing catch-up, though. On Sunday morning, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, asserted that "I think we have to be worried about egregious security lapses. This president, I believe, has received a record number of death threats."

Let's hope the threats stay down or go even lower.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(15) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:13 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WHERE WAS BARACK OBAMA ON SUNDAY MORNING? The White House sent Bob Gates and Hillary Clinton out on Sunday morning to do a set of joint interviews on Meet the Press, Face the Nation and This Week. (Fox had to settle for Gen. Petraeus. CNN got Jim Jones.)

After his address to the nation on healthcare reform, Obama himself made the rounds on Sunday morning. I'm inclined to think that the President didn't want to face the music this time, since there are so many contradictions in his policy and public statements for the interviewers to exploit. Better to let cabinet officials take the heat. On NBC, David Gregory reminded both Gates and Clinton about their own opposition to a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq, because it would only encourage the insurgents. So what's different about Afghanistan? Clinton responded:
Because we're not talking about an exit strategy or a drop-dead deadline. What we're talking about is an assessment that in January 2011 we can begin a transition
So July 2011 is a date certain for an assessment of a potential transition?

You have to give Clinton and Gates credit for trying. They were the human shields protecting Obama's policy from journalists' arrow-like questions. Perhaps it's time for POTUS to step out front?

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(6) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:11 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WHAT WAS OBAMA DOING FOR THREE MONTHS? If you don't read Shadow Government, you should. It's a blog written by a lot of very smart people who held significant positions in the Bush administration. (No, that isn't a contradiction, wiseguy.) Shadow Gov's recent posts focus (naturally) on Afghanistan. One very interesting question comes from Peter Feaver -- Did Obama's speech give us any sense of why it took him three months to come up with any Afghanistan policy that was barely different from the one he announced back in March ? What Obama really announced was a very simple compromise: Hawks get 30,000 more troops, doves get a (very flexible) deadline for withdrawal. Peter notes:
It did not take [Obama] 3 months of painstaking review to find that compromise. It was available to him all along.
The speed of deployment was accelerated a bit, but it's hard to imagine the White House was debating for three months about deployment schedules.

Peter's somewhat cynical answer to his own question is that Obama wanted time to pass healthcare reform before he antagonized his base by escalating the war. I can see that as one factor, but my instincts are telling me something else (which is also somewhat cynical):

Obama was hunting for a reason not to send the troops. Part of that hunt was political. He didn't want to antagonize his base. He didn't want to break the momentum of his reform agenda. But Obama needed a very strong argument to make if he was going to turn around 180 degrees and ignore two years of his own rhetoric about the "necessary war" in Afghanistan.

For moral and intellectual reasons, Obama also wanted a reason not to send more troops. Things are looking grim in Afghanistan. Why go deeper into the quicksand? Why sacrifice anymore lives? Wasn't Iraq enough? Those questions seem to reflect Obama's instincts. They were suppressed when politics made it necessary and convenient to attack Bush as weak on Afghanistan. But that was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

Anyhow, there's plenty more worth reading at Shadow Gov, including posts by Dan Twining, Kori Schake, and Will Inboden.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(35) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:08 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

AFGHANISTAN: A GOP TWOFER? David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has introduced a war tax bill.
“As presidential historian Robert Dallek reminds us, ‘war kills off great reform movements’,” Obey said, noting that World War I ended the Progressive Era, Korea ended Harry Truman’s Fair Deal and Vietnam ended Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.
Now, I know that's supposed to be an argument against sending more troops to Afghanistan, but if you're a Republican, isn't it a pretty good argument for supporting the surge?

Surely some nefarious Republican operatives thought of this while the party was planning its response to Obama's speech at West Point. The GOP's reputation as the party of ideas isn't all that bright at the moment, but any good Democrat can tell you that the GOP is still the master of skullduggery.

Actually, I haven't any Republicans make the Obey argument. Of course, I may not be plugged-in to the nefarious side of the party. All I hear is security this and terrorism that.

On a related note, Obey's comment about war being the enemy of reform tells you something about his war tax. His primary concern isn't paying for the war. It's stopping the war so that his domestic agenda can move forward.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(4) opinions -- Add your opinion

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

# Posted 8:47 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

OBAMA SPEECH WRAP-UP: The President was crystal clear about why we are sending more troops to Afghanistan. We were attacked on 9/11. If the Taliban take back Afghanistan, Al Qaeda will come back with them. America's security is directly at stake. Right now, we only have enough troops for a stalemate, not for success.

How will our military strategy change in Afghanistan? What will the mission be of our 30,000 additional troops? The President offered a couple of nods to "securing the population", the core concept of counterinsurgency theory. He also mentioned training Afghan forces. But this issue deserves much more detailed discussion, because the deployment of additional troops is the key commitment we are now making.

Finally, the exit strategy. There was a clear date for when it will begin. Must certain conditions be achieved before the exit begins? What will be the indications of success we should monitor? What if the Afghan government does not improve its performance? What if the new Afghan forces take longer to train? Are we committed to success, because our "vital national interests" are at stake? Or will those interests be reconsidered if they aren't met by July 2011? That is the great unknown. Or more precisely, the great unsaid.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(5) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:47 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WHY BOTHER LISTENING TO OBAMA'S SPEECH? The front page of the Washington Post has already announced that 34,000 new troops will deploy to Afghanistan. The front page of the NY Times says "about 30,000".

So tonight's speech isn't about the decision Obama has made. It's about how he will justify it to his own party and to the American people. Here are five things to listen for:

1. "A war of necessity" Obama made those words famous. Will we hear them again tonight? If it is a war of necessity, failure is not an option.

2. "Counterinsurgency": Will Obama give his strategy its proper name? Or will he present his approach as a compromise that reflects the input of skeptics?

3. "Victory": Will Obama say that he wants to achieve "victory" or even "success"? What is our mission? What must we achieve before we even think about an exit strategy? If winning isn't essential, why should we sacrifice American lives?

4. "Exit strategy": Obama has the thankless task of explaining how escalation actually means he wants to end the war sooner. Which phrase will Obama use? Will there be any specifics? Will Obama tell us how, 6 or 12 or 18 months from now, we will be able to distinguish success from failure?

5. "9/11": Will Obama justify this escalation as the continuation of what started on 9/11? That may infuriate the skeptics in his own party. But if he doesn't invoke 9/11, how will he explain why success is worth the loss of more American lives?

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(4) opinions -- Add your opinion

Monday, November 30, 2009

# Posted 10:54 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

THREE CHEERS FOR MICHAEL MOORE! Moore has penned an open letter to President Obama, begging him not to send more troops to Afghanistan. And just in time -- with all the talk about Lou Dobbs and the rest, the heartland was beginning to forget that the left bows to no one in its willingness to anoint an ignorant loudmouth as its beloved champion. Here's some of my favorite passages from Moore's letter:
Choose carefully, Mr. President. Your corporate backers are going to abandon you as soon as it is clear you are a one-term president and that the nation will be safely back in the hands of the usual idiots who do their bidding. That could be Wednesday morning.

We the people still love you. We the people still have a sliver of hope. But we the people can't take it anymore. We can't take your caving in, over and over, when we elected you by a big, wide margin of millions to get in there and get the job done. What part of "landslide victory" don't you understand?...

What would Martin Luther King, Jr. do? What would your grandmother do? Not send more poor people to kill other poor people who pose no threat to them, that's what they'd do.
Cue the violins. And if you think that Michael should be argued with instead of teased, read Jazz's post.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(5) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:14 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

HOPE FOR AFGHANISTAN? Kagan & Kristol:
Some conservatives are arguing that President Obama's weakness and indecision forecast American failure--and that, if we're going to fail, we should just get out now...

Some Republicans are understandably dismayed at the prospect of supporting a war they worry this president is incapable of prosecuting with sufficient vigor or conviction. They argue that keeping faith with the troops requires rejecting any halfhearted approach. They are right that Americans who wish to support our troops in the field should not accept policies that deprive them of the means to win. But a turn by Republicans to rhetorical opposition to the war would only absolve the Obama administration of its Afghan duty. The better course is to push the administration to take responsibility for the outcome in Afghanistan by continuing to support a fully resourced war effort, while criticizing and opposing any decisions that undermine the troops' chance of success...

A model for Republicans is the behavior of Senator John McCain from 2003 to 2007. McCain consistently questioned, challenged, and criticized President Bush's strategy and tactics in Iraq, but he never wavered in his determination to do everything possible to succeed there.
No need for me to repeat how much I admire McCain. But if things get worse in Afghanistan as election day gets closer, will the GOP be tempted to take advantage?

Not impossible, but I think most Republicans feel that they were ultimately vindicated on Iraq, so backstopping the "war of necessity" is a much easier call.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(3) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:09 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

THE MAYOR OF WASILLA: I told you I was Going Rogue and going to write about it.

The story of Sarah Palin's political life begins in Wasilla. Last fall, adversaries mocked her as a one-year governor and two-term mayor of a small town in Alaska. But what did being mayor of Wasilla mean to Palin? How it did shape her politics? Reading a political memoir, you don't expect to get much more than one side of any given story. But I want to know how Gov. Palin understands Wasilla.

For Palin, her time as mayor is a demonstration of her leadership abilities and the value of conservative principles. She writes on page 78,
As a result of our common sense conservative efforts, Wasilla became a booming, bustling town--the fastest growing area in the state, and an independent financial auditor (Mikunda, Cottrell & Co.) reported that Wasilla was "the envy of Alaskan cities."
I'd be curious to know more. The book's focus is on author, so it's hard to get a sense of how Wasilla really changed in those years.

Now, which efforts represent Palin's ideas about common sense conservatism? Above all, cutting taxes. She writes on page 78,
I cut taxes -- lots of them. I eliminated small business inventory taxes, I got rid of personal property taxes, I gave the boot to burdensome things like business license renewal fees, and I cut the real property tax mil levy every year I was in office.
Palin is very clear that what she did for the economy is get the government out of its way. That meant fewer taxes and an effort to cut the budget.

But there is one active component to Palin's philosophy of local government: infrastructure. Commenting on her race to unseat incumbent Mayor John Stein, Palin says,
I wanted government to appropriately provide the private sector with infrastructure tools to increase opportunities. Stein supported expanding land-use restrictions and building codes. (Page 70)
Wasilla is also where Palin began to think of herself as a principled reformer determined to take on special interests. Of her time on the city council before running for mayor, Palin writes "I voted according to my principles and let the chips fall where they may." (Page 66) That remark reflected her vote against using city authority to favor the garbage trucking firm owned by the council's "de facto leader", Nick Carney.

Wasilla is also the place where Palin first realized that being a reformer means being the target and victim of nefarious forces. In 2008, Palin was accused of spearheading an effort to ban books at the Wasilla library. She says that's a false accusation -- apparently ginned up by Nick Carney and his wife -- because they resented Palin's victory at the polls. Palin also says that opponents spread rumors that her daughter smoked marijuana. Her oldest daughter at the time was in kindergarten.

In short, Palin's Wasilla is the story of how selfish men wanted to grow the government, mostly to serve their private interests, but Palin but a put a stop to that. Am I convinced? I don't know the first thing about Wasilla aside from what's in this book so it's hard for me to say. If you like Sarah Palin, you'll probably trust her account. If you don't like her, you won't.

I sort of like Palin precisely because of the extreme condescension and vindictiveness of the attacks she faced first as a candidate, now as an author. But when Palin says something, is my instinct to give her the benefit of the doubt? Not yet. Her account of Wasilla is suspiciously black and white, with its heroic young mayor taking on the town's underhanded cabal of special interests.

On a related note, this means Palin never describes herself as facing hard decisions, where there were strong arguments on both sides, the stakes were high, and good people disagreed. Instead, it was always about right vs. wrong. It takes some courage to do what's right, but the temptations to do wrong seemed pretty minimal.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(3) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:06 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

EVEN THE NY TIMES IS BEATING UP ON OBAMA: In case you missed this editorial on the Arab-Israeli peace process, condescending titled "Diplomacy 101":
The president’s promising peace initiative has unraveled...

The Israelis have refused to stop all building. The Palestinians say that they won’t talk to the Israelis until they do, and President Mahmoud Abbas is so despondent he has threatened to quit. Arab states are refusing to do anything.

Mr. Obama’s own credibility is so diminished (his approval rating in Israel is 4 percent) that serious negotiations may be farther off than ever. Peacemaking takes strategic skill. But we see no sign that President Obama and [special envoy George] Mitchell were thinking more than one move down the board.
Those who want to defend Obama would probably have to pivot away from the facts on the ground and find a way to blame Bush. Hey, it's still his first year in office, people! Still, it's looking like amateur hour.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:02 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

ABU MUQAWAMA QUITS DAILY BLOGGING: Andrew Exum, aka Abu Muqawama, has announced that he will be dramatically scaling back his blogging. Exum is a very serious analyst of military issues and his daily presence will be missed. From the comments on his post, you can get a sense of how much he is respected.

So why is Exum quitting? He writes:
Blogging forces me into more or less split-second reactions to complicated policy events before I have had the opportunity to research and weigh opposing views. In addition, the AD/HD nature of this medium -- as well as its format -- has harmed both my research abilities as well as my ability to write in the long form. Blogging, like any medium, is one you get better at with practice. As I have become a better blogger, my long-form writing skills have atrophied.
A valid position, although I feel very differently myself. I don't see a trade off. I see a chance to develop my abilities to express myself through different media.

To be fair, I have a fraction of Exum's audience and post less often, so he faces a different set of challenges. However, my audience and my output both peaked while I was writing my dissertation a few years ago, and I saw no trade-off then, either. In fact, I really appreciated the chance to comment on the news of the week since my academic research focused on events from a generation ago.

Also, I'm curious about Exum's comment that blogging forces him to provide instant reactions. I think it's quite valuable to test your rapid judgment ability and see how it lines up with your conclusions later on. What's the worst that can happen? People know you've changed your mind?

Bottom line, I only care about these secondary points because I have so much respect for Exum's work and hope he continues contributing to the public debate.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(49) opinions -- Add your opinion

Thursday, November 26, 2009

# Posted 3:08 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

SMEAR MAYONNAISE ON CONSERVATIVES! Matt Labash of the Weekly Standard writes about his effort to have a zero-carbon footprint.

It literally involved smearing mayonnaise on his face. Go read!

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(2) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:07 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

OBAMA ON BREAST CANCER: David Gregory pointed to this Presidential declaration from July:
PRES. BARACK OBAMA: We are--we've been under the illusion that the more health care we get, the healthier we become. And it turns out that every study shows that the question is are you getting the right care, are you getting the best care, the high quality care; rather than are you having a whole bunch of tests ordered that are unnecessary, getting a bunch of treatments that are unnecessary, staying in hospitals longer than maybe necessary? All of which drives up your costs, but doesn't make you better.
Yet all of the liberals Gregory spoke to last Sunday were at extreme pains to insist that the new research will not involve any reduction in the number of mammograms. Suddenly, science and evidence didn't seem very attractive. What gives? I thought conservatives were the ones who put ideology ahead of science.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:03 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

I'M GOING ROGUE! (AND MAKE WAR ON FISH): I'd like to think I am one of very, very few customers who bought both Going Rogue and Eating Animals as part of the same order from Amazon.

What could be more inconsistent than buying an anti-factory farming polemic and the autobiography of a woman who asserts that every animal has place -- right next to your mashed potatoes? What will Amazon now recommend for me? Books on cognitive dissonance?

Anyhow, some initial thoughts on both books:

I don't expect politicians to write fair and balanced books. But there is a difference between an interesting book and a set self-congratulatory of talking points, like Hillary's auto-bio. I don't mind a partisan book, as long as it makes a good argument.

So what have I found in the first sixty pages of Palin's memoir? So far, it's mostly about the peculiarities of Alaska from the perspective of the Lower 48. That's reasonably interesting. In terms of arguments, there isn't much yet. But there is plenty of self-congratulation. That's annoying.

When it comes to Eating Animals, I have to begin with a disclosure: I was good friends with the author in high school and college, although I've barely seen him since. Early on, Foer admits that he knew what he expected to find when he started researching the meat industry. It would be ugly. So let me respond with my own confession: I know what I expected to think of an entire book that dwells on the moral implications of eating animals. It will be fatuous. It will lecture the reader on animal suffering while downplaying human tragedy.

So far, I feel sort of vindicated. On page 33, Foer tells us,

As I came to see, war is precisely the right word to describe our relationship to fish--it captures the technologies and techniques brought to bear against them, and the spirit of domination.
Foer has an extraordinary sense of humor, but I don't sense any of it here. Best I can tell, he's dead serious. I hope that later in the book he asks whether a morally serious person can talk about a war on fish without trivializing actual wars, like the ones in Darfur, Afghanistan and Iraq.

I confess, I'm not too optimistic. On page 35, we learn that "Technologies of war have literally and systematically been applied to fishing." So? A Pentagon research agency basically invented the internet. Will high-minded liberals now boycott the blogosphere?

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(2) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:01 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

BLOGGER RESIGNS FROM PENTAGON DETAINEE POST: I first got to know Phil Carter as a blogger, rather than an attorney, a Iraq war veteran or the director of the Obama campaign's outreach to veterans. Until this week, he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Policy. Or as the NY Times put it: Official charged with closing Guantanamo quits.

The Times hints that Carter's departure had to do with the failure meet the Gitmo closure deadline:
Mr. Carter’s departure comes as the administration has acknowledged that it will not be able to close the prison by Jan. 22, the self-imposed deadline Mr. Obama announced immediately after taking office.
Glenn Greenwald argues that Carter may have resigned because Carter is a civil libertarian and Obama has gone back on most of promises regarding detainees. And why would I ever disagree with Glenn Greenwald?

Kevin Drum says he's also disappointed with Obama on civil liberties, but he wouldn't know whether that affected Carter's decision. I haven't spoken to Phil since he started working at the Pentagon, but he's a talented guy and he'll land on his feet.

I should add that Phil himself said he's resigning for personal reasons, and even though that's a cliche, it's true for him.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(2) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:58 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

BOB REICH AGREES WITH LIZ CHENEY ON NATIONAL SECURITY? I certainly didn't expect to hear this from the liberal super-pundit and former Secretary of Labor. This is from ABC:
REICH: I agree with Liz. I think that -- that in preparation for this trip [to China], as in many others, even the trip to Europe to try to sell Chicago as the Olympics, there needs to be more thought about the appearance of weakness or strength that may come out of the trip.

But I want to go back to, George, your point, because I think the big issue over the next 10 years and the big contest is going to be between authoritarian capitalism, a la China, and democratic capitalism,

a la the United States. And it's not clear to me that authoritarian capitalism is not going to win, that is, it -- there is so much efficiency. The Chinese say, "We're going to build 10 new universities. We're going to build this. We're going to build this." And, boom, it happens.
I'm hope Reich remains an advocate if strength when it comes to other subjects. But I part ways when it comes to his pessimism about free-market capitalism and veneration of the Chinese. It reminds me of all those who praised Japan's unstoppable engine of government-led capitalism. It's hard not to conclude that Reich and those of his ilk simply can't resist the hope that more government control will prove to be the best thing for all of us.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(5) opinions -- Add your opinion

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

# Posted 5:40 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WHEN BUSH DITHERED ON IRAQ: Jackson Diehl:
[After months of deliberation in 2006], no one accused George W. Bush of dithering. So why does Barack Obama keep hearing the taunt as he deliberates about Afghanistan -- and why do even some who sympathize with his dilemma find it hard to shake the feeling that this commander in chief lacks resolve?

One part of the answer is easy: Bush was renowned for summoning plenty of resolve, and not enough critical thinking. No one questioned that Bush's heart was in his bid for "victory" in Iraq. Not a few wondered whether he had weighed carefully enough whether dispatching 20,000 more American troops in early 2007 was a reasoned strategy or a reckless gamble...

Obama's prolonged deliberation would be understandable if he were choosing between escalating or ending the war, as Bush was. Yet he narrowed his options many weeks ago -- and still has been unable to come to closure...

In the end, it's not enough for a president to be seen as having thought through a decision to send more troops to war. Enemies, allies and the country also need to be convinced that he believes in it.
Read the whole thing.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(3) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:31 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

SHERLOCK HOLMES IS ON THE CASE: Andrew Sullivan informs his readers that he is taking a brief pause to pore over Sarah Palin's new book:
Since the Dish has tried to be rigorous and careful in analyzing Palin's unhinged grip on reality from the very beginning - specifically her fantastic story of her fifth pregnancy - we feel it's vital that we grapple with this new data as fairly and as rigorously as possible. That takes time to get right. And it is so complicated we simply cannot focus on anything else...

There is a possibility here of such a huge scandal that we would be crazy not to take our time either to debunk it or move it forward for further examination.

We have only one commitment: to get this right. Please bear with us as we do the best we can.
Perhaps Sullivan & Co. will finally solve the mystery of who Trig's parents really are. My hunch: Ann Coulter and a polar bear.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(4) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:29 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

THE NETROOTS EAT THEIR OWN: On Monday, Think Progress trashed liberal pundit Mark Shields for allegedly saying, with regard to Obama's patience on Afghanistan,
[It] makes me nostalgic for those days when we had a manly man in the White House who could say, “Let’s kick some tail and ask questions afterwards” you know? That’s what we really need instead of any reflection.
Kevin Drum read TP's post and seconded the motion, albeit with more circumspection and less vitriol. But to his credit, Kevin read the comments on his post and apologized.

Why? The quote was accurate. But if you watch the one-minute clip embedded in TP's post, it is more than obvious that Shields is being sarcastic and mocking conservatives who criticize Obama. Extra credit to Kevin for admitting that he put up his post without even watching the clip.

Now, if you really want to see the netroots at their worst, read the comment thread at the end of the original post on TP. Both the ignorance and the viciousness are disturbing. According to Comment #14:
What we really need is gutless fat *ssed scum like [Shields] getting the beatdown of your life from the families of those who have paid the ultimate price in wars cheered on by your spineless, unaccountable pontificating.

Shields is nothing but another worthless piece of sh*t in a long line of tough guy chickenhawks.
Incidentally, Shields is a Marine Corps veteran. And that comment is just par for the course, not just one ugly comment I picked out to pass judgment on the netroots. To their credit, a handful of commenters insist that Shields was being sarcastic. Others know so little about Shields they call him conservative.

Full disclosure: There's plenty of insanity in the far-right blogosphere as well. But the attack on Shields is so bizarre I thought it deserved a post.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(8) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:25 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

KRISTOL ADMONISHES CONSERVATIVES: From the Weekly Standard:

Republicans need to point out that Obama's economic policies aren't working. But they need to resist appearing to relish bad news for the country on Obama's watch. When rising unemployment numbers come out, there is occasionally an unseemly sense of celebration in the emails that come from various GOP offices. More in sorrow than in joy, more in confirmation than in vindication--that should be the Republican mood as the news of Obama's failures, failures which damage the well-being of Americans and of America, rolls in.
Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:19 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

mailman_newman_seinfeld

YES, DOGS REALLY DO BITE MAILMEN:

A "dog warning card" arrived with my mail today. Thanks to a New Jersey branch of the National Association of Letter Carriers, you can see the form online. The form provides invaluable advice, such as "Do not deliver mail if you feel endangered by an animal."

For a better understanding of the threats faced by America's letter carriers, I recommend the following passage from The Postal Employee's Guide to Safety (August 2006 edition), Section IX D:
Animals and Insects
1. General Rules
You are not required to deliver mail when an animal threatens you. Use extra care in making deliveries when dogs or other animals are loose on your route...

Neither antagonize nor attempt to pet dogs. If a dog rushes toward you or takes you by surprise, do not run. Retreat very slowly, facing the dog. Keep your mail satchel between you and the dog as a first line of defense. Be careful not to stumble over objects as
you retreat.

Use dog repellent spray only if you are attacked. Spray it directly at the dog’s eyes, nose, and mouth. Do not use dog repellent indiscriminately or when there is danger of spraying children or adults.

When delivering mail through a door slot, keep your fingers out of the slot; an animal may be on the other side.
Yikes.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(4) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:05 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

CLINTON: "NO LONG-TERM STAKE IN AFGHANISTAN". NY Times, Page 1:
Every time Mr. Obama declares that the United States will not have an “open-ended” military commitment in Afghanistan, he fuels a second concern of the powerful Pakistani military and intelligence establishment, which believes the United States commitment is fleeting.

It is a concern that some of them say justifies Pakistan’s continuing ties to the militants who fight American troops in Afghanistan.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to fuel this concern on Sunday in her comments on the ABC program “This Week,” saying: “We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan. We have no long-term stake there. We want that to be made very clear.”
I was listening to the program and I was pretty surprised when Hillary said that. It sounded more like an improvisation than a well-prepped talking point. But it illustrates the confusion at the heart of Obama's policy. The White House wants to demonstrate resolve while being sure it has an "off-ramp" for its commitment. When delivering that kind of confused message, even the best talkers will slip up.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(4) opinions -- Add your opinion

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

# Posted 6:02 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

A HAM SANDWICH ON YOM KIPPUR:
“Having a ham sandwich on the afternoon of Yom Kippur doesn’t make you less Jewish,” Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet, chairman of the Rabbinical Council of the United Synagogue, said recently.
I feel like this may be a license for mis-behavior. (If you're interested in the context of Rabbi Schochet's remark, click here.)

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(7) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:51 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

OBAMA WILL CRUISE TO 2012 RE-ELECTION: No, that's not a serious prediction. My real point is about Republicans getting too excited about thrashing the Democrats in 2010. Sure, that's what I'd like to see. But remember what happened during Reagan's first term? That precedent has been on my mind, so I was glad to see that Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts were thinking along the same lines. Here's their exchange from Sunday morning:

SAM DONALDSON: ...[Reagan's] popularity went down to 37 percent, at one point. But guess what, we came out of that recession. Thanks to Paul Volcker, wringing out inflation the old-fashioned way, by jacking up interest race at the Fed. And it was morning in America again. So, I say to people, anyone who thinks that Barack Obama isn't kind of odds on, for re-election, must not think we're going to come out of this recession. Because of assuming we do, and I think, we are going to by 2012, it will be morning in America again.

COKIE ROBERTS, ABC NEWS: I think that's right... I mean, when you look at the -- since you did that nice Reagan analogy, 1982 was a terrible year for Republicans. They lost 26 seats in the House, and 4 in the Senate. Everybody was saying, ah, see, the Reagan landslide really wasn't what it looked like, and all of that. 1984, a very different story. And what we really had in 1980, with that Reagan election, was a realignment that lasted for a generation. And I basically think that despite what happened on Tuesday, and what I think is likely to happen in 2010, I think we probably did see a realignment in 2008.
I don't really buy into the idea of a realignment in either 1980 or 2008. But that's another story. Just remember how bad things looked for Republicans after the 1982 elections. Remember that after the Democrats take a beating in 2012, and remember how fast things change.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(2) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:49 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

DONNA BRAZILE PRAISES GOP IDEOLOGY: If you wait 15 years, people will say anything. Sunday morning on ABC, Donna Brazile explained why 2010 won't be another 1994:
Well, first of all, I don't think it's '94, because in '94, we also had some potential disastrous that happened that caused Democrats to lose so many seats. First of all, we had a great deal of retirements in the Congress, we had the bank scandal, the post office scandal... We also had a Republican Party that had ideas. We had a Republican Party that was a lot more viable and had plans to help solve some problems. We don't have that Republican Party today.
I wasn't all that politically active back in 1994 (although I was a big Clinton fan), yet somehow I don't recall any Democrats praising the GOP for the depth of its ideas or for its pragmatic willingness to solve problems. I guess that some Lexis-Nexis work might turn up the odd bit of praise, but what I mostly remember from the late 90s is a kind of vindictiveness that makes today's bickering seem pretty dull and substantive.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(4) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:47 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

DO CARROTS FEEL PAIN? Natalie Portman is giving up eggs and milk. She writes on HuffPo:
Jonathan Safran Foer's book Eating Animals changed me from a twenty-year vegetarian to a vegan activist. I've always been shy about being critical of others' choices because I hate when people do that to me. I'm often interrogated about being vegetarian (e.g., "What if you find out that carrots feel pain, too? Then what'll you eat?").
With that kind of radical anti-pain attitude, the next thing Portman will oppose is probably abortion. Seriously. I'm still figuring out my own position on pro-life issues, but it sure is strange when Hollywood stars tell you that the one issue they get evangelical about is the mistreatment of animals.

Coincidentally, I was friends with Foer back in high school and college. (Yes, I am name-dropping.) I am a huge fan of his first novel, Everything Is Illuminated. In case you were curious, he is just as funny and clever in person as he is in writing.

You can get the flavor of his latest book from his recent essay in the Wall Street Journal, suggesting we may as well eat our dogs.

It's hard not to be ashamed by the casual, pointless cruelty often inflicted on various animals on the way to our tables. But if you fundamentally believe that we have a right to kill and eat lesser creatures, even by the million, then it's hard to treat their suffering as a priority. I get more worked up about human rights and healthcare reform.

But I haven't read the book yet. So I'll order a copy and see if an old friend can change my mind.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(11) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:44 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

MOTHER JONES AGREES WITH THE NATIONAL REVIEW! Kevin Drum praises Jonah Goldberg for resisting the impulse to call Nidal Malik Hasan a terrorist. A traitor? A murderer? Sure. But not a terrorist.

The strange thing is that liberals assume they should be against labeling Hasan a terrorist and conservatives assume they should be for it. That makes a certain amount of sense. Liberals fear exaggerated threats. Conservatives fear threats that are ignored.

But wouldn't the Afghanistan doves want Hasan to be a terrorist? Then they can say the real threat is at home, not in Afghanistan. Actyally, nix that. Too complicated. Anyhow, Kevin writes:
Unlike, say, a suicide bomber in Jerusalem, there's hardly even a hint that he was trying to make any kind of political statement. There was no note, no videotape left behind, no explanation while he was shooting, no nothing. What kind of terrorist does that?
Incompetent ones, I guess. If initial reports of Hasan's radicalism turn out to be correct, Kevin may have to revise his opinion.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
(29) opinions -- Add your opinion

Home