# Posted 9:05 PM by David Adesnik  

CHUTZPAH CONTEST: Josh gave first prize to Jimmy Carter's op-ed in today's WaPo. But just like the Nobel Peace Prize, Carter doesn't deserve this award, either. On the very same page of the WaPo, there is a column by Palestinian minister Yasser Abed Rabbo. If you don't have time to read it, just run a word check and see what you come up with for "suicide", "bomb" and "terror."

Random thought: Is the Post trying to embarrass both Carter and Rabbo by putting their columns on the same page? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:47 PM by David Adesnik  

MOTHER OF ALL IRONIES: Check out this photo of a visiting anti-war protester in Baghdad. While Iraqi soldiers watch, he is holding up a sign that says "No to Racist War." That's really not smart. If any of those soliders read English, they might assume that the guy is protesting Saddam's brutal attacks on the Shiites and the Kurds. And then they might shoot the poor fellow, before recognizing that he's actually on their side. Oh, humanity. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:35 PM by David Adesnik  

DELUSION OF THE DAY, via Nick Kristof:

If only President Clinton had instituted the 1994 agreement with gusto, flooding North Korea with diplomats, investors, traders and pot-bellied bankers who ostentatiously overeat — without exploding — then monuments to the Great Leader might already have been replaced by American-run Internet cafes.

Hmm. That strategy didn't exactly work in China, now did it? Just ask the Taiwanese -- they probably understand the South Korean's situation better than anyone.

By thew way, how is it that a columnist who won a Pulitzer for his reporting on China didn't recognize the obvious parallel? Sheesh.

UPDATE: Daniel Drezner is onto this one as well, and provides lots of solid evidence that Kristof has no idea what he's talking about. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:24 PM by David Adesnik  

THE AXIS OF JOSH: Marshall and Chafetz, that is. Whereas Marshall has been criticizing the administration from the left, Chafetz has been doing so from the right (I presume).

Even so, their respective perspectives have led them to identical interpretations of the American effort to start talks with North Korea: that it is an embarrassing climb down from our initial hard line.

While I wouldn't rule that out, I think it still far too early to judge. As I explained one week ago, the administration will not compromise its initial position unless it offers concessions before North Korea abandons its nuclear program:

The difference between "before" and "in exchange" is more than a matter of diplomatic semantics. If the North agrees to stop its program before being rewarded, it thereby acknowledges that the US is right on the matter of principle and forgoes the right to resume its program in the future. If such an agreement results from an exchange, then the North can always insist that the US has failed to live up to its side of the bargain, thus releasing the North from its obligations. In light of the North's constant habit of exploiting its nuclear program to demand foreign aid, the "before" vs. "in exchange" distinction becomes quite important.

At the moment, the administration has been very precise in its insistence that concessions will follow a North Korean renunciation and not come at the same time. According to James Kelly:

Once we get beyond nuclear weapons, there may be opportunities with the U.S., with private investors, with other countries to help North Korea in the energy area.

While we're talking about Korea, it's worth thinking about this quotation from Roh Moo Hyun for just a minute: "The South Korea-U.S. alliance was precious, is now still precious and will continue to be important in the future." Whereas Josh Marshall described Roh's election as one of many "hostile reactions to America's newly strident and confrontational stance in the world", OxBlog had no doubts that Roh would start backtracking on his campaign rhetoric the same way Gerhard Schroeder did. So, let me get this out of my system: I TOLD YOU SO!!!

UPDATE: CalPundit asks: Is anyone really fooled by this business of insisting that there's a difference between North Korea agreeing to give up its nukes before we agree to an aid package vs. giving up its nukes in exchange for an aid package? When the piece of paper eventually gets signed, after all, the agreements are all going to happen at one time. First of all, I wouldn't count on a simul-signing. Would the administration really give that kind of gift to its critics? Speaking more substantively, the difference between "before" and "in exchange" will affect the contents of the agreement -- see above. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:37 AM by Daniel  

SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE....ISRAELI PRIME MINISTERS. Yes, Mr. Safire , we know that you are good friends with Ariel Sharon. And we do recognize that you even have his home phone number.

What struck me most from Sharon I mean Safire's column was the Prime Minister's moderate tone: "I won't put myself in the hands of any radical parties, neither of the left nor of the right. I can't have those who want to give up everything or those who want to keep everything. I need the center because we have to take painful steps." It might have been mere electoral positioning....but he has certainly governed more moderately than most expected. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:09 PM by David Adesnik  

HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL: David Brooks' op-ed on Americans' paradoxical support for tax cuts has been generating lots of comments just about everywhere. Matt Yglesias, citing TNR blog &c., says Brooks is a charlatan. In contrast, CalPundit thinks Brooks has cut straight to the heart of the matter.

In short, Brooks argues that Americans' unflagging belief that they are (or soon will be) rich leads them to support tax cut plans that favor the rich. The best response to this is &c.'s point that if Americans really favored tax cuts for the rich, Bush wouldn't have to spend so much time pretending that his tax cuts benefit all Americans equally.

While that response has merit, I think it's too simple. My guess is that most Americans are willing to swallow the administration's rhetoric without thinking twice because they are optimistic about their personal welfare. &c. is right that no one would support a tax cut the President described as a reward for the rich. But since Americans are pretty happy with their standard of living, they also won't invest the time it takes to figure out whether the Democrats or the Republicans have better statistics. I guess that's democracy.

UPDATE: Matt says thinks this is a pretty good explanation. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:42 PM by David Adesnik  

HAMAS NOT BACKING SHARON: It seems that almost every Palestinian terror organization is taking credit for last week's bombings in Tel Aviv. However, "authoritative Israeli observers now believe that it was Tanzim, another of Fatah's militias that actually shed the blood." It's Arafat, not Hamas, who's backing Sharon. This time, however, Arafat's help may not be enough.

Looking on the bright side, at least there's something which Fatah and Hamas can agree on. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:12 PM by David Adesnik  

SENTINEL OF DEMOCRACY: You can always count on Jackson Diehl to tell the stories about democracy promotion that others ignore. This time, his subject is Cuba. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:02 PM by David Adesnik  

STILL INTERESTED IN NORTH KOREA: Josh Marshall has plenty more commentary up today, with some interesting background about US negotiator James Kelly.

I'm not going to respond in detail, since I really want to get back to writing about the Middle East. My intention is to jump back in again when we know whether the President is going to try for a truly innovative and comprerehensive deal with the North Koreans, or just climb down from its hardline rhetoric and cut a deal with the North. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:44 PM by David Adesnik  

I'M CONFUSED: The WaPo has a moderately interesting story on the steady stream of foreign anti-war protestersarriving in Baghdad. According to one of them, "We're here out of no love for the current regime, but we're also opposed to the arrogant American position that we know what's best for the Iraqi people."

Where to begin? First of all, America's proposal to democratize Iraq means that the Iraqi people will be able to decide for themselves what's best for them. While there is no question that some of them will die as a result of the American attack, the fact that thousands of Iraqis have taken up arms against Saddam shows that they are quite familar with the Western concept of sacrificing one's life in the name of freedom.

Second, aren't the protesters insisting just as arrogantly as the US government that they know what's best for the Iraqi people? They're certainly not doing anything to help the world figure out what the average Iraqi really thinks.

Third, why are the protests so focused on the US? Doesn't the fact that the entire Security Council told Iraq that it has to disarm suggest that it, too, has pretentions of knowing what's best for the Iraqi people?

Fourth, if the opinion of the 300,000 Iraqi immigrants in the US counts for anything, then the US should tell the UN to go to hell and liberate Iraq right now.

There isn't much point in arguing, though. I'm just venting. The only real test of the protesters commitment to their ideals is an impossible one: whether they could observe first-hand what happens in Saddam's torture chambers and come out still insisting that the US and the UN don't know what's best for the Iraqi people. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:32 PM by David Adesnik  

"WORLD ON FIRE" is the title of a new book by Yale Law Professor Amy Chua. According to this review in Salon, the book's main point is that promoting democracy too aggressively can provoke a dangerous backlash. Or as the book's subtitle puts it: "How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Violence and Global Instability."

I must admit I am skeptical, but I will approach the book with an open mind. Who knows. Perhaps I will come away as a convert, determined to ensure a gradual transition from dictatorship to liberation. Prof. Chua's recent op-ed in the NYT wasn't all that bad and provides a good summary of her basic argument.

Chua argued that the current crisis in Venezuela reflects tensions between the white business elite and the darker Pres. Chavez. She also condemns the Bush administration for supporting a business-led anti-Chavez coup last November. On the second point, I stand behind Chua 100%. The United States should never seek to oust an elected leader who respects the basic principles of democracy and human rights. Chavez wasn't great on those points, but he is hardly the worst elected leader out there.

Chua's decision to hold racial tension responsible for the Venezuelan crisis seems somewhat strange, though. Has she considered the fact that Chavez's scattershot socialist ideology and heavy-handed governing style are responsible for the chaos in Venezuela? The problem there isn't that the markets are too free or the politics too democratic, but rather that Venezuela's markets and politics are not free enough. But I may be wrong. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:58 PM by David Adesnik  

IRAQ'S TALIBAN: The NYT has in-depth coverage of Ansar al Islam, the fundamentalist guerrilla organization that has imposed its brutal variant of Islamic law on the villages of Northern Iraq which it controls.

Ansar al Islam has connection to Al Qaeda and recieves arms from the government of Iran. But if America stands behind its commitment to promoting democracy in the Middle East, Ansar al Islam will not be Iraq's future. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:41 PM by David Adesnik  

I HAVE A DREAM that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:36 PM by David Adesnik  

AAAUUUGGGGHHHH!!! Even Charlie Brown's baseball team comes through in the clutch more often than the Jets. Final score: 30-10. The Jets gave up 17 points off of turnovers. Face facts: There are just some teams that aren't tough enough to survive in the playoffs.

But let's think about the big picture. The team that really matters is Team USA. We're the team that wins where it really counts: in the battle of ideas. And we're the only superpower, a sort of global amalgamation of Montana's 49ers, Jordan's Bulls, and Joe Torre's Yanks.

Knowing that it was not a good idea, I shared this thought with a friend who was watching the game with me. He's American alright, but he makes Susan Sontag look like Jesse Helms. And ironically enough, he's a New England Patriots fan. Though, of course, he doesn't find that ironic. Well, I guess sorta felt like picking a fight since I was pissed off about my team losing. That's disturbing, because means it means I really am picking up British habits. Or perhaps I'm just the only football hooligan who follows the NFL. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:07 PM by David Adesnik  

MARTYRS OF THE FAITH: In just an hour and a half, I will march off to my college's rec room to watch the Jets battle Oakland for a shot at the AFC title. But what does that mean? What does it really mean? I think Mike Vaccaro puts it pretty well in today's NYP (That's the New York Post, dammit! Just because OxBlog doesn't link to it every doesn't mean it any less important than any other newspaper.) As Vaccaro says,

You are a Jets fan, raised on heartbreak, reared on futility, nourished by 34 years of abject failure. You are trained to expect the worst, to understand that prosperity is only a mirage, to be wary of the next calamity lurking around every corner...

You are the king of pain. You watched the end of that Giants game last week, saw the world turn upside down, and smiled knowingly. Hell, you know a vintage Jets moment when it happens, even when it happens to someone else...You have waited an entire lifetime for this, or at least since that windswept day at Shea Stadium in December 1968 when Joe Willie Namath led the Jets on that late drive to win the AFL title...

[Raiders fans] have no idea the sense of relief, and release, that accompanied every second of that 41-0 victory over the Colts last week. They have no idea about the awful, nagging sense that something was bound to go wrong. And they certainly cannot appreciate the odd way things have broken for the Jets across the last three weeks. Only you can understand that...

You don’t want to call this a dream scenario because all dreams end eventually. And you want this to last for a good, long while. You should. You’re a Jets fan. God knows, you’ve earned it.

My prediction? Raiders 28, Jets 20. Call me a traitor, but I'd rather suffer the slings and arrows of your criticism than jinx our best shot at the Super Bowl in 34 years. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:47 PM by David Adesnik  

HAWKS ATTACK BUSH: I'm still behind the President on this one, but if you think we have to be tougher with the North Koreans, then check out these articles by Kristol & Kagan, John McCain and a pair of right-wing think-tankers. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:32 PM by David Adesnik  

THE DANGERS OF PATRIOTISM: Believe or not, the Weekly Standard has declared that excessive patriotism is a threat to America's cultural integrity. The evidence: the Motion Picture Academy's refusal to give Oscars to brilliant foreign films such as The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers.

Cute. Very cute. While we're at it, why not argue the underrepresenation of elves and orcs among studio executives demonstrates a racial bias? Face it. The Two Towers won't win because it was two-thirds boring. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:07 PM by David Adesnik  

FRONT PAGE "NEWS": The WaPo headline shouts: "U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past; Opponents of War Wonder When, How Policy Was Set"

The article then begins with this surprising revelation:

On Sept. 17, 2001, six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2½-page document marked "TOP SECRET" that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against terrorism.

Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq...

The article then says that Bush hid his intentions from the public for more than three months, until the Axis of Evil speech demonstrated that Iraq was on the President's mind. But even then, we didn't know what the President had in mind for Iraq.

Then, a ways into the article, we get this quote from John Ikenberry, a Georgetown prof fond of lambasting American imperialism:

The external presentation and the justification for [Bush's Iraq policy] really seems to be lacking...[but] the external presentation appears to mirror the internal decision-making quite a bit.

In other words, there is absolutely no "puzzling past" behind the administration's policy on Iraq. Only if you start from the premise that Bush has a secret plan does it seem like the administration's stance is puzzling.

In fact, the administration's Iraq policy is a straightforward reflection of political struggles within the administration that have made the front page of every national newspaper for almost twelve months now. All Glenn Kessler had to do to discover this fact was read "Bush at War", the inside account of administration politics produced by Kessler's WaPo colleague Bob Woodward. Then again, perhaps he didn't have time.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:41 PM by David Adesnik  

BLOG CABIN REPUBLICANS: Pardon the adjective, but in a somewhat hysterical editorial, the NY Times denounces the Bush administation's pro-life agenda as nothing more than a hypocritical attack on Roe v. Wade.

Alarmism aside, the Times makes some good points. If saving unborn lives were truly the administration's priority, it would increase the availability of sex education and contraceptives. After all, you can't get an abortion if you don't get pregnant. (And while I admire the ambition of those who preach abstinence, I think it's about time for conservatives to admit that no one is ever going to stop America's youth from getting its groove on.)

But here's an even more radical solution to the GOP's struggle to reconcile its secular pro-life stance with religious conservatives' aversion to latex: support gay rights. After all, how many lesbians have abortions? How many gay men ever got their partners pregnant?

Then again, that idea probably won't get all that much support from the Christian Coaltion either. But it is time for the religious right to start thinking strategically. If conservatives are serious when they say abortion is murder, than they should subordinate the rest of their social agenda to the struggle against abortion.

Besides, the campaigns against homosexuality and premarital sex are never going to succeed. While I am strongly pro-choice, even I recognize that banning abortion is one of the few Christian Right causes that has a chance to become law.

If the fundamentalists will not subordinate these other causes to the struggle against abortion, it will only confirm what moderate and non-Christians have long suspected: that what the Christian right elevates above all else is not the sanctity of human life, but rather the struggle to establish the law of the Bible as the law of the land.

PS I came up with the phrase "Blog Cabin Republicans" all by myself, then ran it through Google to see who else had come up with it before I did. As far as I can tell, the only mention of it was back in September 1999 over at a site called The BradLands. In addition, the Georgia branch of the Log Cabin Republicans has a section on its website called "Blog Cabin", but never puts the whole phrase together. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:49 PM by David Adesnik  

BLOG TOO MUCH? Glenn Reynolds writes:

I was dozing just now while my daughter was playing with her dolls. I dreamed I was in a Denny's-like restaurant where the menu items had a blogger theme. The Egg McMuffin equivalent was something called "The English Idiotarian," and featured a menu blurb stating that "Robert Fisk himself would be proud to order this hearty. . ." I wish I'd slept long enough to read the whole menu!

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:25 PM by David Adesnik  

FEELING LIKE MY OLD SELF AGAIN: Having spent the last couple of weeks defending the Bush administration's North Korea policy from liberal depredations, I'd begun to wonder whether I had become physically unable to criticize the President. What happened to the David of yore, whose unflagging criticism of the administration's incompetent diplomacy led Mr. Chafetz to throw down the gauntlet and demand that I provide evidence to back up my charges?

Well, that David is back. Take a look at this story about the NSC's hesitation to share intelligence with the UN inspectors in Iraq. I think sharing intelligence is good, even if the Blix Boys haven't shown themselves to be latter-day Sherlock Holmeses.

But the real question is this: Why didn't the Bush administration work out an intelligence sharing plan as soon as the UN passed Resolution 1441? As I said the last time this question came up, the answer is that the administration just can't think one step ahead when it comes to working with the UN. With Powell spending all his time convincing the President to work with the UN and Rumsfeld & Cheney spending all of their time trying to stop Powell, there is no one left to think about how to make US-UN cooperation effective.

Now, was it reasonable to ask that the administration recognize in advance that a lack of intelligence sharing might become an obstacle to effective inspections? Well, OxBlog pointed out the problem almost two months ago. And while one can't expect Condi to read OxBlog, my concerns were based on a report in the NY Times.

Next question: Does intelligence sharing matter? Absolutely. The French and British are now calling for further inspections, since Blix hasn't found a smoking gun. In other words, they don't want Bush making a final decision about whether or not invade at the end of this month.

But what will the inspectors find if given more time? In addition to the hawks who have always dismissed inspections as pointless, there are moderates who have long insisted that finding a smoking gun simply isn't possible.

Bush himself insisted way back in October, "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." On the other hand, he hasn't shown that he is willing to act unilaterally regardless of how much he talks about it.

Now, to be fair, things haven't spun out of control just yet. Jan. 27 is still a couple of weeks away. And the US buildup is set to reach 150,000 troops in the coming weeks. But the clock is ticking and the game is afoot.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:24 PM by David Adesnik  

MORE FOR MORE: At the end of long column that seems to be going nowhere, the Times' Bill Keller suddenly makes very solid point about North Korea. It begins with this question:

Does anybody have a plan that makes sense?

Actually, yes. Back in 1999 the National Defense University assembled a team of Asia experts to draft a strategy for dealing with North Korea. It came to be known as "more for more": we would expect more from the North Koreans, including rigorous inspections, a full accounting of their nuclear history, and an end to missile exports. We would offer more in return — financial aid (including speeding construction of the two promised light-water reactors, which are stalled), guarantees that North Korea will not be attacked if it keeps its promises, and eventually normal diplomatic relations. The plan contained a dash of testosterone — intercepting missile exports, even a cautious mention of "pre-emption" if all else fails — but mostly it depended on lots and lots of, pardon the expression, negotiations and quid pro quo. The proposal was comprehensive, hard-nosed, multilateral and level-headed.

Maybe President Bush should hire the guy in charge of that report.

He already has. It's Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Maybe what Mr. Bush should do now is listen to him.

Now, I still think that North Korea should have to renounce its nuclear program before we start offering them anything in return. But once we do get down to business, I think we have trade more for more. If we don't, we'll just have to face this problem again and again.

(Of course, negotiations may be futile if what Kim wants most really is a nuclear bomb.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:57 PM by Daniel  

AMERICA'S IMAGE. Our friend Matt Spence writes about perceptions of America abroad. He argues that we are "losing the war in public diplomacy." I do agree with him--but how do we win it? Changing "how we talk about our policies" is woefully insufficient. Our best friends really becoming out best enemies due to our rhetoric? Increasing foreign educational, democratic, technical, and humanitarian aid is a start toward improving our image abroad. We want other countries to want what we want.

A member of Congress said that America needed to take time to explain, not discuss, its position to the world and was criticized for doing so. What would "discussions" produce? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:31 PM by David Adesnik  

PEJMAN GETS MEDIEVAL ON THEIR A&*%$: Pej defends Tolkien on the charge of being an escapist Luddite.

Pej says that, in fact, the defenders of Helm's Deep made reasonable use of technology in holding off the orc hordes. Yet you don't have to be Advanced Dungeons & Dragons expert (which I once was, circa 1991) to know just how awful the defenders' tactics were. If you read the first reader response to Pej's post, you get a pretty good idea of just how many simple medieval technologies might have helped Aragorn etc. hold off the hordes.

But the real Luddites are the ones who built Helm's Deep (or Peter Jackson's version of it). Who the hell puts just one door on the main gate of a massive fortress? But if you read this, you'll see that old Pete isn't all that interested in being faithful to the reality of Middle Earth.

CLARIFICATON: Reader AH e-mails to remind me that there were, in fact, two doors at the main gate to Helm's Deep. The second door is the small (weak, unreinforced) one that Aragorn and Gimli slip out of. So, to be clear, what I meant to say is that I expected the architects of any decent fortress to have two doors one behind the other at the main gate, so that if the first were broken down, the second could be defended.

Moreover, the positioning of the doors makes a big difference. If any of you have visited the Old City of Jerusalem, you will notice that the gates to the City have outer doors that are perpindicular to their inner doors. If that's hard to imagine, just think of a small, covered L-shaped passageway connecting the two. Now why go to all that trouble? Because if someone (orcs, Babylonians, whoever) tries to use a battering ram, they can't fit it inside the passageway that leads to the inner doors. Oh boy. If the widows of Rohan read this, Aragorn is going to get slapped silly. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:14 PM by David Adesnik  

IS SLEEP DEPRIVATION TORTURE? Ask your average investment banker. They should know. But seriously, take a look at this CalPundit post on reports that US is using interrogation methods that come close to being torture. Kevin is right that this should be a bigger issue. This is a war for hearts and minds, and hypocrisy will cost us dearly. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:36 PM by David Adesnik  

TURNING THE TABLES ON TPM: In his first ever post at Winds of Change, Trent Telenko says that Josh Marshall has opened a pandora's box by focusing on what Clinton's national security team knew about North Korea's weapons program.

While Marshall says that outgoing Clinton officials briefed their incoming Bush counterparts on the North Korean uranium program, Telenko links to this article which says that the Clinton team knew while negotiating the 1994 pact that North Korea may have had already developed nuclear warheads. It's hard to know what will come of that charge though, since the evidence seems to consist entirely of statements by North Korean defectors. Then again, it was defectors who led UN inspectors straight to Saddam's hidden cache. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:12 PM by David Adesnik  

FOREIGN AIDS: Nick Kristof reports that "the U.S. is now donating only 300 million condoms annually, down from about 800 million at the end of the first President Bush's term." Presumably, then, domestic demand for condoms shot up by 500 million units per year during the Clinton era. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:05 PM by David Adesnik  

MEMO FROM CLINTON TO SHARON: Lying only works before you've been caught. It looks like only Hamas can save Arik now... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:51 PM by David Adesnik  

HOMELAND "INS"ECURITY: If there's one agency that should overhauled before joining the Department of Homeland Security, the INS is it. Its officals must be the only law enforcement agents who can't even get racial-profiling right. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:34 PM by David Adesnik  

ON JOSH'S BEHALF: David Ignatius says that the US has Al Qaeda on the run despite top officials focus on Iraq. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:58 PM by David Adesnik  

A POST NOT ABOUT NORTH KOREA. The rebellion has begun. My brain has demanded the right to think about something other than the mind-boggling intricacies of US-North Korean relations.

As everyone knows, when thoughtless relaxation is called for, there is only one answer: Professional wrestling. Some of you may know that what was once called the WWF had to change its name to the WWE because some panda-hugging granola-munchers decided that they the name WWF could not be shared.

Back when I lived in DC, I'd watch Raw and Smackdown every week. Nothing made me happier than a Triple HHH title defense or hearing Mick Foley say "Have a nice day!"

Without a television of my own at Oxford, keeping up with the fast-paced world of pro wrestling hasn't been easy. At first, I turned to the ever dependable Rajah to keep me updated. But if you can't watch the show, it just isn't the same.

Last week, however, I managed to catch around half-an-hour of Raw on Sky cable. It was then that I met Chris Nowinski, one of the most hilarious characters the WWF has ever come up with. Chris' gimmick is that he is "very proud of his degree from Harvard". He wrestles in crimson trunks with a big white 'H' on his ass.

Where did any come up with an idea like that? Actually, I would think it's self-evident. Everyone hates Harvard. Nowinski is sure to become a legendary villian, right up there with the Iron Sheik and The Million Dollar Man.

What's really great about all this is that Nowinski actually went to Harvard. If you click here, you can even see him give a tour of the Harvard campus. (Click here and then click on the box that says Videos") In the ring, Nowinski does things hit the other wrestlers with books.

So, for all those people who told me that my interest in pro wrestling was stupid and childish, I say this: Who cares?

UPDATE: Josh Heit, aka Mr. Reality TV, reminds me that the WWE did not create Chris Nowinski's character, but rather that Nowinski used the gimmick while still a contestant on MTV's Tough Enough. In real-life, though, Chris claims to be a down to earth midwesterner who learned how to be a snob by watching other students at Harvard. Big surprise there. (Ooooh! Yale cheap shot!)

UPDATE: Reader SG writes: "I'm just as glad Mr. Nowinski doesn't wear blue with a Y on his rear, aren't you?" Yeah, I guess not. But if Nowinski had gone to Yale, he might give me free tickets!!!

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:43 PM by David Adesnik  

WARMING UP TO KIM JONG IL: CalPundit asks: "Do we have a leg to stand on when we claim that they 'violated our trust'"?

Now, it wouldn't be very interesting if someone who supports the administration's North Korea policy, i.e. me, answered Kevin's question in the affirmative. But what if he got a 'yes' from The Agonist, who has endorsed almost everything Josh Marshall has said about Korea?

If you don't believe me, take a look at The Agonist's close reading of the 1994 Agreed Framework. (NB: The link to the post itself is not working, so I've linked to the page on at www.agonist.org. Just search the text for "Agreed Framework") So in case you doubted it, yes, North Korea violated our trust. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:01 PM by David Adesnik  

SOMEONE ELSE VS. JOSH MARSHALL: TPM's conservative-bashing continues with this post about proposals to withdraw US troops from North Korea. Marshall says the idea is too clever by half, that we shouldn't be threatening to abandon our allies.

He also points out that abandoning South Korea would only expose it to nuclear blackmail from the North. An excellent point. Which is why OxBlog made it two weeks ago.

Daniel Drezner responds that the idea of a withdrawal isn't as absurd as it sounds, since we ought to at least ask ourselves whether the demands of South Korea's citizens are legitimate. Another good point. As OxBlog has said, "It is these same citizens who have made South Korea the strong democracy that it now is, and their opinion must be respected."

So is OxBlog trying to straddle the fence? No, not really. I agree with Daniel that wanting the US out isn't what South Koreans really want. As I said before, "We should be smart enough to recognize that South Korea's dependence on the United States makes it highly sensitive to all perceived sleights. Given time, it will recognize the danger of compromising with the North."

Now let me add this: South Koreans are willing to protest to vehemently precisely because they know that the US will not withdraw. As is the case in Europe, US security guarantees make those we protect confident enough to criticize us. While conservative often feel that such behavior reflects ingratitude (and it often does), it is precisely this ability to let off steam that makes our alliances work.

NATO has lasted for five decades because all of it members could speak their minds even if they couldn't always have their way. Speaking more broadly, what makes democratic states such good allies for each other is that the norm of respecting free speech leads them to tolerate criticism from their alliance partners. It may not always be easy, but its a helluva lot better than winding up the way the Soviets and the Chinese did.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:31 AM by David Adesnik  

DOONESBURY HAS HART: Garry Trudeau weighs in on the ex-Senator's prospects. Seems like he has Antwaun and Will all figured out... (Thanks to KJ for spotting this.)

PS How about this for a match-up in '08: Gary Hart and Bret "The Hit Man" Hart vs. Condi Rice and Donna Rice? Voter turnout would go through the roof! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:48 PM by David Adesnik  

CALLED OUT BY CALPUNDIT: Kevin asks how I could criticize all those who demanded negotiations with North Korea, then turn around and endorse Bush's decision to talk.

There's a fairly straightforward answer to that. Cited verbatim on Kevin's site is my statement that Bush's decision "shows flexibility by accepting North Korea's demands for face to face talks but preserves the US demand that North Korea has to disarm before its substantive demands are met." The key word there is before.

In contrast, Kevin and other critics have demanded negotiations without preconditions in which the US offers North Korea concessions in exchange for stopping its nuclear program. (It is my privilege, of course, to point out for the umpteenth time that only Kevin has actually admitted that negotiating without preconditions entails concessions.)

The difference between "before" and "in exchange" is more than a matter of diplomatic semantics. If the North agrees to stop its program before being rewarded, it thereby acknowledges that the US is right on the matter of principle and forgoes the right to resume its program in the future. If such an agreement results from an exchange, then the North can always insist that the US has failed to live up to its side of the bargain, thus releasing the North from its obligations. In light of the North's constant habit of exploiting its nuclear program to demand foreign aid, the "before" vs. "in exchange" distinction becomes quite important.

Now, Josh Marshall has argued that the administration is in the middle of an embarrassing climb-down which will end in its accepting North Korea's preconditions. If that turns out to be the case, then I'll eat my words. If not, I'll expect some reciprocal penance from my honorable foes. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:19 PM by David Adesnik  

MARSHALL ROLLS THE DICE: Up until now, I have been an unforgiving critic of Josh Marshall's one-man war on the Bush administration's North Korea policy. But today, Marshall comes up with some evidence that may turn the tide in his favor.

Citing the Nelson Report, Marshall says that outgoing Clinton administration officials briefed incoming Bush appointees about the existence of North Korea's illegal uranium-enrichment. This fact is expected to make the transition from rumor truth when the Clinton officials in question testify before Congress on the current crisis.

Citing the Nelson Report again, Marshall says that the administration had no idea that it might provoke a crisis when it confronted the North Koreans about the uranium program. For the moment, this point remains undocumented as well.

Put these two facts together, and you come to Marshall's conclusion that the administration's current effort to open talks with the North is not a well-planned strategy to secure a better deal than Clinton did in 1994, but an emergency face-saving maneuver designd to end a confrontation it never wanted to provoke in the first place.

In the coming days, we'll see who's right. In the meantime, take a look at Fareed Zakaria's column on North Korea. Marshall praises it highly becuase Zakaria also intimates that the administration is trying to save face after realizing that it has no strategy for dealing with North Korea. But Zakaria also says that if the US negotiates well, it could "significantly improve on the Clinton deal" of 1994. And that may happen because Bush chose to stand up to the North rather than rushing into negotiations. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:28 PM by David Adesnik  

LIEBERMAN GORES BUSH: I expected better from Senator Joe. In a WaPo op-ed, he blames the North Korean crisis on Bush's decision to confront the North after discovering its secret weapons program. Instead, he says, we should've negotiated right away.

Like every other critic of the administration (except the honorable CalPundit), Lieberman refuses to say we actually should've rewarded the North's violation of our trust.

There is a more serious flaw in Lieberman's argument, however. As Michael Kelly explains, negotiating right away is exactly what the North wanted. They have a long record of exploiting their nuclear weapons program to get foreign aid. Negotiating right away would've shown them that the US will let them get away with it.

As I understand it, the administration wants to emerge from this crisis with a guarantee that the North will not pull any more fast ones. If Bush's comes away with less, I'll be disappointed. But at least he tried.

Final question: Why would Lieberman want to challenge Bush on national security issues after supporting him so firmly on Iraq? Perhaps to show his fellow partisans that he is not an elephant in donkey's clothing. But who really thought that?

It seems Lieberman, like his former running mate, just doesn't understand that credibility on national security issues is not something that a Democratic candidate can take for granted. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:08 PM by David Adesnik  

VIVE LA GUERRE! French Pres. Jacques Chirac has begun telling his troops that they may have to fight. The WaPo says it's because Chirac was dismayed by Iraq's evasive report to the UN last month.

Of course, France will only fight if the UN authorizes military action. Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of hearing that one. If France backs a war, Russia and China will follow. France knows that it is the swing vote on the council.

Then again, Chirac has a domestic audience to play to, so we can't expect too much from him before Iraq does something provocative. Let's see what he says on Thursday, when the UN inspectors are expected to criticize Iraq for withholding critical information. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:58 PM by David Adesnik  

MORE IRAQI EXILE SQUABBLING: No surprise here. It just goes to show that Condi was right to side with the State Department and deny the exiles any official role in US occupation plans. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:54 PM by David Adesnik  

RECYCLING THE NEWS. Three op-eds on North Korea today. All the same as last week's. Nick Kristof says we have to negotiate. Yet just like every other administration critic except for CalPundit, he can't bring himself to say that we should actually make concessions.

David Ignatius reminds us that Bush's diplomatic approach to North Korea isn't consistent with his doctrine of pre-emption. Haven't heard that one before. Ignatius also pulls out the shopworn fallacy that Bush's inconsistent pre-9/11 North Korea policy is responsible for the current crisis.

And finally, former DoD cheif Bill Cohen says that the US, "acting indirectly and discreetly, will inevitably need to address some of Pyongyang's concerns." Or as Cohen puts it, we'll have to offer "concessions by another name."

Props to him for using the C-word, but it still seems that he won't commit himself to actually naming any. Instead, Cohen just presents a list of demands, such as "international monitoring and verification far in excess of what has been in place to date", which are rather ambitious for someone who favors concessions.

This is going to sound nuts, but I can't wait til Iraq is in the headlines again.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:18 PM by David Adesnik  

PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS: In a surprise move, the US, Japan and South Korea have declared that it is "willing to talk to North Korea about how it will meet its obligations to the international community," i.e. get rid of its nuclear weapons program.

That's good diplomacy. It shows flexibility by accepting North Korea's demands for face to face talks but preserves the US demand that North Korea has to disarm before its substantive demands are met. Hopefully, the North will go along with this plan.

Note that OxBlog was wrong when it predicted yesterday that the US was going to depend on back-room diplomacy to break the deadlock with North Korea. But you know what? I'm glad I'm wrong. This is a better idea.

It does raise the question, however, of why the Bush administration decided to be so accommodating? My guess is it wants North Korea out of the way so it can get down to business in Iraq. The clock is ticking... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:59 PM by David Adesnik  

JEWS AND LIGHTBULBS: Kesher Talk has the low down on this controversial subject. For example, how many Orthodox Rabbis does it take to change a lightbulb? Click here for the answer.

The folks at Kesher Talk also cover more serious subjects, such as Israeli politics and Jewish culture. And for all you goyim out there, the real reason to visit Kesher Talk is all their links to Tolkein parodies. Does it get any better than this?
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:58 PM by David Adesnik  

EXERCISE YOUR 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS! I was thinking of taking up hunting. Not because I support the NRA (which I don't), but because I think it is important to recognize that animals do not simply become food.

Now why am I having such strange thoughts? Well, you see, the NYT ran a story yesterday on a PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) plan to boycott KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken, like you didn't know). PETA's demands actually seemed reasonable and humane, which I didn't expect.

But let me expose my own bias: I already boycott KFC. Not willingly. But after I got food poisoning at the local KFC a couple of years back, I feel it would just be stupid to go in there and ask for it again. Anyway, what struck me about the NYT story was this quote:

"If people knew what happened to those chickens, raising them in their own filth and then dumping them on an assembly line to have their throats cut when they're still alive, they wouldn't go to Kentucky Fried Chicken." -- Bruce Friedrich, PETA spokesman

I don't believe that for a second. The average person knows what happens to a chicken on an industrial farm, even if the details are not something you want to think about just before sitting down with your MegaBucket. Besides, I doubt that the Purdue birds you get in the supermarket are raised in such wonderful conditions.

Still, there probably are some people who really would not be willing to eat meat and poultry if they had to take it's life beforehand. That's why I want to hunt. To know if I can stand by my principles when push comes to shove. Besides, I want an excuse to wear a hat with earflaps.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:38 PM by David Adesnik  

A CREATIVE IDEA from OxBlog reader Wretchard: The US could respond [to North Korean demands] by remaining silent on "nonagression" but by redeploying the US troops in South Korea away from the border. This would effectively appear to be a peaceful move [even though] removing [the] 2nd Infantry from the border would actually be an offensive deployment [because it would increase the mobility and striking power of US troops].

Redepolyment would also resolve an issue Wretchard pointed to earlier, which is that every time someone proposes moving US troops away from the border for tactical reasons, objections to the political significance of such a move get raised. But for now, politics may favor this strategically important decision. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:26 PM by David Adesnik  

BUSH GETS SERIOUS ABOUT DEMOCRACY: In Iraq. The NYT has a long article today on plans for the postwar occupation.

The plan projects a military presence in Iraq for a minimum of eighteen months. That extended period will enable US forces to hunt down both rogue weapons as well rogue members of Saddam's government. More importantly, it means there will be real force behind Iraq's first civilian government, and it won't be challenged by warlords the way the Karzai government is in Afghanistan. The plan explicity calls for a unified Iraq.

In refusing to pledge support for a provisional government made up of Iraq exiles, the plan comes down on the side of State Department and against the Pentagon. Good choice. As OxBlog has long insisted, the exiles are selfish, incompetent, and unable to demonstrate that they command the loyalty of anyone in Iraq. For an in-depth profile of the leading exiles, see this cover story from TNR.

Still, doing the right thing in Iraq is not the same as supporting democracy throughout the Arab World. Tom Carothers has that story and others in what I consider to be the best article out there on the Bush administration's democracy promotion efforts. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:58 PM by David Adesnik  

SPIES LIKE US: Saddam now says the UN inspectors are spies. If so, they must be some of the most incompetent spies ever. They haven't found anything, and they let their cover get blown!

The Blix Boys have been trying to show off their cojones, however, by shutting thousands of Iraqis into a research complex while investigating it. Good for them.

While the inspectors have done quite a reasonable job, all things considered, I don't believe for a second that they're going to produce any evidencethat Saddam has outlawed weapons. The President is just going to have ask himself whether he is so damn sure that Saddam has those weapons that the time has come to invade, allies or not.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:45 PM by David Adesnik  

IS ATRIOS KIM JONG IL? The WaPo has published a profile of Kim Jong Il, full of the usual amusing anecdotes. It seems Mr. Kim browses the web for around two hours per day, thus leading to the obvious question: Is Atrios really Kim Jong Il?

Regardless of the answer to that question, one would hope that Mr. Kim's browsing might take up enough of his free time so that he doesn't have to order the kidnapping of any more South Korean entertainers. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:41 PM by David Adesnik  

BE VEWY, VEWY QUIET!!! The IAEA has decided not to forward its condemnation of North Korea to the Security Council, but nonetheless described the situation as "urgent". IAEA Mohammed ElBaradei stated that "I hope (North Korea) will seize this opportunity. Complaince and not defiance is the way towards a solution."

In light of ElBaradei's statement and the Bush administration's considerable praise of the IAEA declaration, it seems clear that the IAEA's decision reflected a consensual effort to let quiet diplomacy have its fifteen minutes, thus giving the North Koreans a chance to back down without losing face.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:30 PM by David Adesnik  

IN MEMORIAM -- THE VISSER VIEW (2002 -2002): Born in a land below sea-level, Dutchman Michael Visser quickly rose to prominence in the blogosphere by giving us the news that that mainstream media wouldn't. With much work ahead of him in the next six months as he prepares for (surprise, surprise) more graduate school, Michael has decided to cast off his virtual coil, condemning the Visser View to the netherworld of the Netherlands. Farewell. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:00 PM by David Adesnik  

THE DEFINITIVE ARTICLE ON US DEMOCRACY PROMOTION: Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment is the leading authority on democracy promotion. His book, Aiding Democracy Abroad, is a must read for every Washington resident with an interest in promoting democracy abroad. Less well known -- but no less impressive is his first book -- which covers US democracy promotion in Latin America under Reagan.

Now, in the current issue of Foreign Affars, Carothers has given us the definitive account of the Bush administration's efforts to promote democracy abroad. A model of even-handedness, Carothers provides a comprehensive guide to what the administration has done about promoting democracy, as well as the best existing account of the conflicting ideas and interests that are responsible for America's inconsistency when it comes to promoting democracy abroad.

While Carothers is even-handed, I am not. Much of my admiration for Tom comes from the fact that I know him personally because I worked just down the hall from him during my year at Carnegie. In addition to being an innovative thinker of the highest caliber, Tom is living proof that you don't have to compromise your principles to get ahead in Washington. Every Junior Fellow at Carnegie looked up to him. Still, I believe that there is no one out there writing about democracy promotion who does it even nearly as well as Tom.

I consider it to be both a striking coincidence and an omen that Tom's office is where I was on the morning of September 11th. I was visiting Washington to do research for my master's thesis. I woke up and heard on the radio that two jets had crashed into the World Trade Center. I assumed they were small, that a few dozen people had died, that I could go on with my day. I showered and got dressed. I went to see Tom. I had an appointment for 10am. The Pentagon was hit. We tried to talk for a couple of minutes, but everything was becoming chaos.

Everyone rushed to watch the television in the staff kitchen. I didn't believe the towers would fall until I saw them collapse. I swore to myself that this would not stand. That I would devote my life to helping, in whatever way I could, make sure that this could never happen again. This is what promoting democracy -- in the Middle East and everywhere -- means to me. I am proud that I was in Tom's office that morning. That I was in Washington that summer researching democracy promotion.

It might disturb Tom to read all this. He is too wise to believe that crusades make matters better rather than worse. But I am young and I still have a lot to learn and I have to fight. God save us all. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:19 PM by David Adesnik  

WILD CARD GAME: No, not in the NFL. In East Asia. The Council on Foreign Relations addresses the common question of whether China will help the resolve the North Korean crisis. Answer: Maybe. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:13 PM by David Adesnik  

PREACHING TO THE CONVERTED: Is it OK, if sometimes, instead of reading to learn, you read out of spite? I sort of felt that way while reading this Weekly Standard piece about the Palestinians. It didn't say much new, but it said it well. Here is a sampling of some of the goodies:

Even if Israel ceased to exist tomorrow, this would not affect in the slightest the tensions [within the Arab world]...It is helpful to remember that all of the dead in the Arab-Israeli wars of the past half century amount to only a tiny fraction of the million killed during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, the 100,000 killed in Algeria's civil war since 1992, or the 100,000 killed in Lebanon's civil war from 1975 to 1990.

Or:

For the Europeans, championing the Palestinian cause allows them to assuage lingering colonial guilt by championing the aspirations of a Third World people who claim to be oppressed by Western imperialists--in this case, Israelis. It also allows Europeans to trumpet their moral superiority over pro-Israel Americans. And, last but not least, it allows them to curry favor with both oil-rich Arab states and their own growing Muslim minorities.

Or:

All the Arab states combined donate less than $7 million to UNRWA [the UN body responsible for the refugee camps], just 2.4 percent of its $290 million budget. (Kuwait, Egypt, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates collectively contribute a grand total of zero.) By contrast, the Great Satan forks over $110 million, or 38 percent of UNRWA's budget. The Arabs prefer to spend their money to support Palestinian suicide bombers. Saddam Hussein alone has paid an estimated $20 million over the past two years to "martyrs'" families.

And finally:

Arafat's wife Suha has generously said that there would be "no greater honor" than to sacrifice her son as a martyr. But she doesn't have a son. She has a daughter and they live in Paris.

These things are sort of like potato chips. You can't have just one. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:58 PM by David Adesnik  

MULTIPOLARITY IS BETTER. At least in the NFL. Now say it with me: J-E-T-S...JETS, JETS, JETS! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:58 PM by David Adesnik  

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY: SAUDI ARABIA. I admit it. I've been somewhat derelict in providing the posts on Islam and democracy which I promised both long ago and just last week. I blame Kim Jong Il.

Previous posts in this series have focused on Algeria and Egypt. Now its the Saudis' turn. As before, my report will consist of a summary of and commentary on an essay in the Journal of Democracy.

In short, there is no good news about democracy in Saudi Arabia. But what's good about the bad news is the kind of bad news that it is. Dictatorship in Saudi Arabia is a product of greed and the struggle for power. It is not the final bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism.

So how bad is bad? For starters, there has never been an election in Saudi Arabia. There are no political parties. The press and judiciary are entirely subordinate to the regime. NGOs are all but forbidden. Arrests are arbitary. And women are treated like property.

While this sort of description suggests that the Saudi monarchy is an almost totalitarian dictatorship, it isn't. The royal family itself is an oligarchy, with thousands of princes participating in the struggle for power. Commoners play a leading role in the powerful oil, finance and commerce sectors, roles which the royals dare not challenge lest they provoke a rebellion. The commoners also dominate the bureaucracy.

Finally, conservative Wahabist clerics dominate the religious establishment. This domination is not a product of the recent fundamentalist surge in Middle East, but rather a traditional arrangement dating to the 18th century, when the royal house of Saud bought the loyalty of the Wahabist (or Al Sheikh) clan by granting it control of religious affairs.

The current balance between these three factions may not withstand the demographic revolution that has begun to engulf Sauid Arabia, however. Thirty years ago, there were fewer than 5 million Saudis. Now there are more than 15 million, plus 6 million foreign workers who are not citizens. Half the population is under 16.

Between 250,000 and 500,000 new workers enter the job market each year. Having failed to diversify its oil-based economy, Saudi Arabia struggles to provide jobs for this new generation. Even worse, employers prefer to hire Indian and Pakistani immigrants, who are just as well-educated as their Saudi counterparts but who can be paid much less.

In theory, the government should take advantage of its oil revenues to finance industrial diversification. But from a political perspective, that just isn't possible. The government's massive arms expenditures -- which could finance considerable diversification -- are in fact a subsidy to an industry dominated by the royal family. With no other source of income, the princes won't give up their share.

At the same time, the commoner-dominated bureaucracy refuses to facilitate diversification by means of deregulation, since the commoners fear that an economic opening would enable the princes to buy out commoner-owned industries, thus destroying the commoner elite's power base.

Finally, borrowing is not an option since the government has run budget deficits for more than two decades. As it well knows, the lethal combination of debt and deficit could destroy the kingdom's blue chip image and place it on the road to Latin Americanization.

An important question for advocates of democracy promotion is whether a growing Saudi underclass might embrace Islamic fundmentalism as the only available means of striking back at the regime. According to Jean-Francois Seznec, the Columbia University professor who authored the Journal of Democracy's article on Saudi Arabia,

The Wahabis themselves are very much divided: There are the traditionalist proponents of a "purer" Islam who support the regime [and] advocate reform by peaceful means...Then there are the "jihadis", who are generally younger, advocate change through violence -- they include the followers of Osama bin Laden -- and are widely disparaged as unstable hotheads. Their ideas frighten most Saudis, particularly the middle class. Despite Western impressions that a broad and deep stream of radical, anti-democratic Islamism runs just beneath the surface of Saudi society, the jihadis support is slim.

I hope Seznec is right, though I am skeptical. Then again, my knowledge of Saudi Arabia derives entirely from the Western press. As I know from personal experience in Argentina, the Western media often provide a profoundly disorted -- and generally alarmist -- account of local politics.

Still, Seznec seems to err on the side of optimist too often for my taste (and I am an optimist). For example, he presents the creation of the Shura, or appointed advisory council to the king, as a major step toward political decompression. Its deliberations receive wide coverage in the Saudi media. But I am not impressed. Seznec presents no evidence that the Shura has actual influence. Nor is there any reason to believe that it could withstand an effort by the king to destroy it.

As I have said before, the best hope for democratization in Saudi Arabia is pressure from the United States. We have to make it clear that the long-term health of the US-Saudi alliance depends on the future of democracy in Saudi Arabia. Right now, that does not sound credible. But if Saudi Arabia found itself bordered by a democratic Iran and a democratic Iraq, it might no longer take American support for granted.

A critical turning point in Saudi politics will come with the appointment of a new king after the death of the ailing Fahd. While rumor has it that Crown Prince Abdullah favors holding municipal elections, he cannot pass reform without the support of the selfsame princes whose authority elections might challenge. Since the monarchy is not hereditary, Abdullah will have to negotiate with his fellow princes before assuming the kingship. During those negotiations, the United States has to make clear to the the conservative factions of the royal family that their long-term interests will be best served if they grant the Saudi people the freedom that they deserve.





(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:48 PM by David Adesnik  

HAMAS BACKS SHARON: Sucide bombers kill 19 in Tel Aviv. It's as if Hamas (or Fatah?) wanted Sharon to emerge from this month's elections with an even stronger mandate. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:31 PM by David Adesnik  

AND A PSYCHIC AS WELL: It turns that Sean-Paul, the Renaissance Man and jack-of-all-trades known as The Agonist, is also a psychic. He told me he has a new post up on North Korea and that I would like even though I wouldn't disagree with it. Well, he's right.

Based on his professional experience in South Korea, Sean-Paul observes that consensus is critical to decision-making in both public and private settings such. If the US fails to appreciate this, it will antagonize the South Koreans, whose support is critical to a resolution of the current crisis on the peninsula.

As Sean-Paul correctly observes, very few American officials or commentators have taken South Korean interests seriously when responding to the current crisis. He also kindly notes that I have come closest doing so in my posts on the topic, including this one and this one.

While I lack the expertise Sean-Paul has on Korean culture, I sense that the Korean/East Asian pursuit of consensus applies only to non-political conflicts. In fact, the Koreans are perhaps more nationalistic than any other East Asian people. The campaign rhetoric of President-elect Roh Moo Hyun hardly advocated seeking consensus with the United States.

Looking back in time, it is also hard to defend the idea that Koreans value consensus in the political sphere. Brutal dictators such as Park Chung Hee and Chun Do Hwan did not seem all that interested in consensus. Kim Il Sung didn't launch the Korean War for the purpose of achieving consensus. And in past weeks, the North Koreans have violated a treaty, expelled UN inspectors and declared that they want to negotiate with the US one-on-one rather than in a multilateral context. So much for consensus.

Beyond suggesting that Sean-Paul's specific point about East Asian culture is less than tenable, I think that it is important to make the general point that cultural arguments about political behavior often fail because culture can explain continuity, but not change.

This still leaves one mystery unresolved: If I reject cultural approaches to politics, why have I shown just as much interest in South Korean interests as Sean-Paul has? Becuase of my commitment to democracy and equality. The voice of a democratic people must be respected if its wishes are consistent with democratic principles. If South Koreans have a different view of how to resolve the current crisis, we must approach them with respect and try to persuade them of the importance of our views when necessary.

Moreover, on a tactical level, it will impossible to resolve the current crisis successfully without South Korean help. Thanks to the administration's measured response, the South Koreans are showing considerable respect for American interests, despite the pervasive anti-Americanism of the recent presidential campaign.

The WaPo reports that a South Korean proposal recommends that "the United States would guarantee North Korea's security and resume shipments of fuel oil in exchange for promises by North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons programs."

The North has responded, via its official news agency, that "There is no reason why the U.S. should not accept the proposal, the best way for a peaceful solution." So much for those who said that Bush's talk of pre-emption had provoked the North Koreans to esclate the current crisis.

While I still believe that the US ought to secure UN backing for its position and demand an end to the North's illegal weapons program as a pre-condition for negotiations, I think that the new South Korean proposal shows just how much effective diplomacy can achieve even in a brief amount of time.

UPDATE: Seems both the Russians and South Koreans have moved closer to the US position. After talks between senior South Korean and Russian officials, South Korea's vice foreign minister said that ``North Korea should renounce its nuclear program and return to the situation as it was before the beginning of October...That move could pave the way for the resumption of dialogue with the United States.'' (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:27 AM by David Adesnik  

WISH THEY ALL COULD BE CALIFORNIA: Kevin Drum, aka CalPundit, has the guts to say what no other critic of the administration has: that negotiating means rewarding the North Koreans for their deception.

Still, I think Kevin is rushing to the conclusion that the time for negotiations and concessions has come. He says sanctions and isolation won't work because we might have to wait decades before anything happens. All the while, the North Koreans will keep on building more bombs.

Perhaps, but as the State Department has explained, the US isn't against negotiations per se. Rather, the precondition of those negotiations will be North Korea's renunciation of its illegal arms program.

Is that sort of precondition realistic? At the moment, no. But if South Korea, China and and the UN Security Council all endorse it, the North will find itself in a tough position.

Today, the head of the South Korean Foreign Ministry's North American Department said that "If North Korea announces its willingness to scrap [its uranium-enrichment program], that can set the stage for dialogue with the United States."

As for the UN, the IAEA's "directors [will] meet on Monday in Vienna to weigh a resolution that could lead to the imposition of sanctions against North Korea by the United Nations Security Council."

As Kevin says, what matters is not whether you negotiate, but whether you negotiate well. And this first part of negotiating well is negotiating under the right conditions.

All in all, I don't think Kevin and I are that far apart on the North Korea issue anymore. As he says, "North Korea precipitated the crisis, not us, and the administration's reaction so far has been quite measured. I hope it stays that way."
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:28 PM by David Adesnik  

I PROFESS IGNORANCE: According to the NYT's editors, "The American people are confused by the contradictions between their government's approach to North Korea and Iraq, and frustrated by the sudden lack of clarity in their government's foreign policy."

Living in the UK, it's hard to know what the American people are thinking. But since I haven't seen any polls on the subject, I sort of suspect that the Times'elitism has gotten the better of it. Anyone who reads a newspaper realizes that we can't attack North Korea because, if we do, the North Koreans will strike back by slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent South Koreans and/or Japanese. That is called deterrence. (Confused? Ask Tom Friedman.)

Fortunately, we still have the chance to stop Iraq before it becomes another North Korea. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:17 PM by David Adesnik  

CONSCIENCE ACTING UP AGAIN? In an effort to build bridges to the cynics, Tom Friedman tries to explain why some part of this war is about oil. Unfortunately, he can't seem to figure out which part.

Friedman starts off with this non-starter:

Why are they going after Saddam Hussein with the 82nd Airborne and North Korea with diplomatic kid gloves — when North Korea already has nuclear weapons, the missiles to deliver them, a record of selling dangerous weapons to anyone with cash, 100,000 U.S. troops in its missile range and a leader who is even more cruel to his own people than Saddam?

Perhaps the NY Times' resident expert on international relations has heard of deterrence?

Yes, might America has been deterred. The real question is, do we want Iraq to be able to deter us as well once it has nuclear weapons?

Friedman's next stab goes like this:

The primary reason the Bush team is more focused on Saddam is because if he were to acquire weapons of mass destruction, it might give him the leverage he has long sought — not to attack us, but to extend his influence over the world's largest source of oil, the Persian Gulf."

Now, if Tom were talking about Bush I and not Bush II, Tom would have a point. Oil played a critical role in the First Gulf War. This time, the critical issue is that Saddam has mocked the authority of both the US and the UN for over a decade. We realized on Sept. 11 that this had to end.

Next, Friedman offers some advice: "The Bush team would have a stronger case for fighting a war partly for oil if it made clear by its behavior that it was acting for the benefit of the planet, not simply to fuel American excesses." I see. If Bush were a good environmentalist, then the European left wouldn't suspect him of fighting an imperialist war for oil.

But the real point about oil is that if what Bush wanted was to ensure lower prices, he would've cut a deal with Saddam rather than antagonizing him. A war in Iraq will keep its oil off the market for a long time to come. The "No Blood for Oil" crowd just never seems to realize that war is bad for business. Then again, they probably never ran one.

Toward the end of his piece, Tom does offer some reasonable advice, however: "Should we end up occupying Iraq, and the first thing we do is hand out drilling concessions to U.S. oil companies alone, that perception would only be intensified." Yes. But if Tom knew about the oil business, he would also recognize that oil firms will probably form consortia in order to reduce their risk, rather than investing directly. So Bush probably won't even have a chance to cut all his bid'ness partners in on the deal.

The one really strong point that Friedman does make in his article is that if a brutal dictator did threaten the world's oil supply, resisting him would be justified. And that's exactly why dozens of nations signed on the first time we had to invade Iraq. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:06 AM by David Adesnik  

CONSERVATIVE EXCESS: Eugene Volokh, who happens to be at a conference right now with Glenn Reynolds, put up this post before heading out for the weekend.

PS TMI Glenn, TMI. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:02 PM by David Adesnik  

WHY IRAQ BUT NOT NORTH KOREA? The Wall Street Journal explains. Thanks to Pejman for the link. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:53 PM by David Adesnik  

STILL ANTI-AMERICAN? Daniel Drezner takes an innovative and balanced look at the charge that the Bush administration is aggressive, unilateralist and tone deaf. Also see his related posts here and here.

And while you're at, read Andrew Sullivan's post on Paul Krugman latest anti-American pronouncement. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:39 PM by David Adesnik  

WHEN DOVES ATTACK, PART III: OxBlog is in hot water. In my posts on North Korea yesterday and the day before, I referred to a number of fellow bloggers, including Josh Marshall, CalPunditand The Agonist as doves. I was mistaken and I take it back.

As Josh and Sean-Paul have pointed out, they are liberal internationalists who are not afraid of using force to accomplish principled objectives. Josh has often defended his views in print and Sean-Paul has done so online. I think Kevin might well fall into the same category, though he has not seen the need to say so explicitly.

That said, let's get back to North Korea. Today, the President's critics unveiled their newest argument: that Bush's pre-crisis rhetoric of pre-emption has provoked the North Koreans into dangerously raising the stakes of the current crisis. In addition, the administration's timid response to North Korea's defiance has convinced Kim Jong Il that he should go ahead and develop nuclear weapons since the United States will not launch preeemptive strikes against him.

With slight variations, this argument represents the views of Paul Krugman, Josh Marshall and the Democratic Leadership Council. As I see it, the argument has two main flaws.

First, the North Koreans have said over and over that what they want is not to develop nuclear weapons, but to negotiate a non-aggression pact with the United States. Krugman totally misses this. In contrast, Marshall and the DLC recognize that Kim wants concessions. Still, neither one explains what exactly the North Koreans would have done differently if Bush hadn't provoked them with his doctrine of preemption. Unless one really believes that an unprovoked North would've agreed to disarm instead of demanding a non-aggression pact, it's hard to argue that Bush pre-emption rhetoric had any impact whatsoever.

The second major problem with the critics' new argument is that it does nothing to explain the fact that North Korea began its secret uranium-enrichment program long before Bush became president. Neither Krugman, Marshall (in today's posts), nor the DLC can bring themselves to even mention that fact. And why should they? If the North Koreans set off the current crisis by continuing to do exactly what they had been doing throughout Clinton's second term, there isn't much to hold Bush responsible for.

In addition to these flaws, the adminstration's critics are still a number of disingenuous things which I've pointed out before.

First, not one of them has suggested an alternative to the administration's current strategy. Krugman and Marshall say sanctions and isolation are unworkable. Yet just yesterday the South Koreans "stepped up diplomatic overtures to Russia and China to seek help in pressuring North Korea to compromise."

Incomprehensibly, the DLC has called upon Bush to abandon his unilateralism and work with other nations to end the crisis. The best explanation I can come up with for this one is that the DLC refuses to read either the NYT or the WaPo.

Marshall has also begun to accuse the administration of having no plan at all, which doesn't exactly fit with his previous accusation that their plan isn't working.

Second of all, not one of the administration's critics has suggested any alternative to publicly confronting the North once the US has compelling evidence of that it had a secret weapons program. As I asked yesterday,

What was the President supposed to do after the CIA provided him with compelling evidenfce that the North was pursuing an illegal uranium-enrichment program designed to produce nuclear weapons?

Inaction might have delayed a US-North Korean conflict, but that might have given the North time to mount its uranium warheads on a missile pointed at Japan. In addition, confronting the North now -- in the aftermath of a unanimous Security Council decision to condemn Iraq's nuclear program -- ensures that the UN will have to apply the same strict standard to North Korea as it has to Iraq.

The point still stands.

Now, if after all this criticism of what I disagree with, you want some sense of what I do support, take a look at Charles Krauthammer's column on the crisis. While he is convinced that sanctions, he emphasizes the important point that the US has an important card which it hasn't yet played: Japan. With the exception of an independent Taiwan, China fears nothing more than a nuclear Japan.

While one can't expect Krauthammer to footnote his columns, it's worth noting that his view coincides with that of Tom Christensen, perhaps the leading expert on Chinese military and security policy. After conducting extensive interviews with Chinese officials, Christensen concluded that the US has significantly underestimated both their fear of Japan and their appreciation of US efforts to preventing Japan from becoming too powerful.

As Christensen points out, it is not widely known that Japanese defense expenditures are far higher than the PRC's, even though they consume a much, much lower percentage of GDP. Thus, the Japanese also have an almost unlimited potential to increase their military spending in the event of a crisis. Colin Powell's protestsaside, we are now in the midst of a crisis.

Finally, I'm going to plug Josh Marshall's post on whether or not the North has nuclear weapons and why Powell keeps insisting that it does. While the administration's strategy for dealing with North Korea is the best one available, it seems totally unable to talk straight about the crisis with the American people. Now that is serious grounds for criticism.



(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:21 PM by David Adesnik  

THAT IS, LIKE, SO SUPERFICIAL, DUDE: Patrick Ruffini takes a look at why anti-Americanism in Europe is only skin deep. Here's the clincher:

But what happens if and when our methods prove successful and a relatively stable pro-Western regime takes hold in Baghdad? Will the Europeans object even then? It's more likely that Europeans too will breathe a collective sigh of relief, and the current spasm of anti-Americanism that concerns so many opinion-makers will cease to be relevant.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:00 PM by David Adesnik  

WHEN DOVES ATTACK, PART II: "The Agonist" is the nom de blog of a fellow student of International Relations who has traveled the world in search of truth, enlightenment, and investment capital. Sean-Paul has even taught English in South Korea, which perhaps explains why his posts are so much more intelligent than those of the elder Democratic statesmen who polemicize in the NY Times.

The Agonist's most recent piece-de-resistance is an in-depth look at the Agreed Framework that resolved the 1994 crisis on the Korean peninsula. For those who not familiar with the details of the current crisis, the best place to start might well be Sean-Paul's Korean Primer.

Now, despite my gratuitously French-laden praise of Sean-Paul, I assure you that we stand far apart on some critical issues relating to North Korea. Most important of all is his insistence, drawing on Josh Marshall, that the President has embarassed himself by letting Kim Jong Il call his bluff on the nuclear issue.

Bush's critics are right that his administration has not had any sort of consistent policy regarding North Korea and that the administration's insistence that it won't launch a preemptive attack on North Korea shows just how superficial its commitment to its National Security Strategy really is. But neither of those facts mean that Kim has been (or will be) successful in resisting international pressure.

Another significant difference between myself and the critics is that they stand united behind their insistence that Bush ought to negotiate with the North. Yet while calling for negotiation, not one of them can actually bring himself to say that the US should reward the North Koreans with additional economic aid in exchange for their violation of the 1994 treaty. In fact, both Leon Fuerth and Josh Marshall say that rewarding the Norh for its deception is something that we definitely can't do.

In order to support their call for negotiations, the administration's critics avoid any serious consideration of whether its current strategy -- working with regional powers to isolate the North -- might work. Kevin Drum says that "we should either launch a military attack or else go to the table and negotiate" since all previous sanctions have been a failure. Might that be because we've been shipping fuel to North Korea since 1994?

According to Josh Marshall, "The administration says it has a plan: isolate the North Koreans economically and diplomatically. But how serious a plan is that?" Well, the UN, the Japanese and the Russians all think its the best idea anyone has had so far. Marshall dismisses out of hand that the Chinese will go along with it, but such judgment is premature.

The final trick in the critics' playbook is their insistence that it is the United States rather than the North Koreans who are responsible for the current crisis. In admirable effort to demonstrate the relevance of Star Wars to international relations, Kevin D. compares Bush's provocation of the North to the Emperor's provocation of Luke, which results in the Emperor being thrown down a bottomless energy shaft. (If you need this explained to you, call Pejman.)

Josh Marshall just asks "why in the hell did [the US] provoke this situation in the first place?"

Question for Josh and Kevin: What was the President supposed to do after the CIA provided him with compelling evidenfce that the North was pursuing an illegal uranium-enrichment program designed to produce nuclear weapons?

Inaction might have delayed a US-North Korean conflict, but that might have given the North time to mount its uranium warheads on a missile pointed at Japan. In addition, confronting the North now -- in the aftermath of a unanimous Security Council decision to condemn Iraq's nuclear program -- ensures that the UN will have to apply the same strict standard to North Korea as it has to Iraq.

I may not know how to resolve the current crisis, but I do know that no critic of the administration's approach has come at all close to suggesting a viable alternative.

UPDATE/CLARIFICATION: In response to my mail, I just want to say that I actively support the administration's approach, rather than simply accepting it because the critics haven't come up with anything better. I don't offer an alternative to the administration's strategy because I believe that it is doing what's best right now. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:39 PM by David Adesnik  

HIT ME BABY ONE MORE TIME: The NY Times presents an in-depth report on Israeli soldiers' beating of innocent Palestinians. Other than a quote from an Israeli human rights organization, the only evidence provided comes from Palestinian witnesses. Come on, can't we get some real reporting just once? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:12 PM by David Adesnik  

WHEN DOVES ATTACK: Hawks are predators. Doves are not. When doves attack, their lack of natural talent quickly becomes apparent. Take for example, the all-out attack on W.'s Korea policy launched by Warren Christopher, Leon Fuerth and Josh Marshall.

Christopher is the most civil of the three. He argues that "North Korea's startling revival of its nuclear program...presents compelling reasons for President Bush to step back from his fixation on attacking Iraq and to reassess his administration's priorities."

In a column entitled "Outfoxed by North Korea", Fuerth asserts that "when using words as weapons, a leader must be prepared to back up his rhetoric with force. The president's nomination of North Korea as a member of the 'Axis of Evil' in his last State of the Union message now looks like a bluff that is being called."

Marshall hits hardest, describing the crisis as "an administration screw-up of mammoth proportions."

In addition to their harsh criticism of the President, what unites all three authors is their total unwillingness -- or perhaps inability -- to suggest an alternative to the administration's current policy. Each one acknowledges that the situation on the Korean peninsula is complex and volatile and that there are no simple answers to the questions that Bush is facing. But if there aren't any answers, why spend so much time criticizing the President?

Christopher thinks that if the Bush administration leaves Iraq alone for a while, it could spend more time figuring out how to resolve the Korean crisis. On the one hand, ignoring Iraq would waste all the politicam capital that the United States has invested in focusing Security Council attention on the issue. On the other, how exactly would spending more time thinking about Korea make things any easier? Christopher says that diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis will be complex and time consuming. And yet the administration has already made significant progress toward winning both UN and regional support for isolating North Korea.

Fuerth justifies his criticism by saying that "it would be wise for the administration to reverse course and engage with North Korea." Yet he also writes that "if the president negotiates, he will send a message that the key to respectful attention from his administration is blackmail." So what Fuerth is basically saying is that he wants Bush to give in to North Korean demands regardless of how embarrassing such a decision is. Now does that make any sense at all? Actually, yes -- if your ulterior motive is to show that Clinton's embarrassing 1994 concessions to the North Koreans were inevitable.

Marshall takes a third approach, alleging that Bush's failure has to be publicized because it has been "inexcusably ignored in the American press." Except in the NYT, on whose pages both Nick Kristof and Bill Safire have savaged the administration. Even the editors chipped in with some mild criticism. (NB: OxBlog took a few shots at Bush as well.) And all that was before the Times published Christopher and Fuerth's columns.

Admittedly, Marshall promises "more details soon", instead of just closing with his observation that "Tough talk sounds great until your opponent calls your bluff and everybody sees there's nothing behind the trash talk. Then you look foolish." Still, I find it extremely ironic that Marshall is now denouncing the administration for its weakness when just yesterday he was denouncing it for its dangerous unilateralism.

For constructive commentary on the Korean situation, its best to turn to the Washington Post, where Robert Gallucci -- the man who negotiated the 1994 accord on Clinton's behalf -- argues (along with Sandy Berger), that engagement won't work and that North Korea "must be willing to step forward to resolve its past nuclear history and open its future behavior to comprehensive and verifiable international scrutiny." The Post's editors agree. It's good to see that some observers can put partisanship behind and tackle the current crisis head-on.

UPDATE: Reader B observes that my zoological metaphor is slightly off-base. Non-predators such as doves are sometimes more brutal in their attacks because predators have instincts which prevent them from going to extremes. I guess you could apply that metaphorically as well. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:22 PM by David Adesnik  

THE SAGA CONTINUES: Pejman responds to new theories about why certain dead Jedi disappear while others have to be cremated. He also unveils his site's new unofficial slogan: "PejmanPundit--Providing Cheap Brainless Humor For Rhodes Scholars Everywhere."

The compliment is much appreciated, but methinks it won't be generating much traffic. Those looking for intellectual sustenance should turn to Pejman's response to Josh Marshall's anti-W. rant, which complements my own. Pej offers several good reasons -- which I missed -- as to why the victories for Schroeder and Roh say nothing about anti-Americanism as a force in world politics.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:51 PM by David Adesnik  

THE (JOSH) MARSHALL PLAN: In a careful and measured way, Josh Marshall comes to a provocative conclusion: That George W. Bush's aggressive unilateralism is provoking a major anti-American backlash in democratic nations around the world.

"Schroeder in Germany, Lula in Brazil, now Roh's victory in S. Korea…[this is the] latest 'wake-up call' to [the] U.S., but [it's] not clear what's being heard." Marshall notes that each of these election outcomes had "deep local determinants" and was fundamentally "multi-causal." Fair enough. But, Marshall concludes,

...add these and other election results up and you start to see that hostile reactions to America's newly strident and confrontational stance in the world are becoming an important force in world politics and an important force in the domestic politics of many of our allies.

Not so fast. First of all, Lula's victory in Brazil is an indication of the strength of American values, not a backlash against them. Lula was once a true working-class radical who campaigned in denim and spoke of socialism. As a result, he lost three consecutive presidential elections. This year, Lula decided to wear a suit, accept a binding commitment to IMF economic policies, and pledge to fight inflation and budget deficits.

Just a couple of weeks ago, the WaPo ran the following headline : "Brazil's Leader Seeks to Ease U.S. Concerns About Policies". After appointing a moderate cabinet and shutting out pro-Cuban radicals, Lula met with W. to assure him that Brazil is going to be a good citizen.

Now I admit that what happened in Germany and South Korea was disturbing. But in contrast to Lula, who won in a massive landslide, both Schroeder and Roh won by razor-thin margins. Fearing for their political lives, they took the low road and sought to increase leftist turnout by bashing the US. But does that mean that anti-Americanism is becoming "an important force in world politics"?

Not by a long shot. What Marshall doesn't ask is whether anti-American rhetoric results in anti-American actions, or whether it is just a diversion from fundamentally pro-American foreign policies. Take Schroeder's latest speech for example. While he talks about searching for alternatives to war, he also refuses to rule out German support for a UN-authorized invasion of Iran. And Schroeder adds that: "We Germans know from our own experience that dictators sometimes can only be stopped with force."

Now what about Roh? Marshall writes that

Roh is the first Korean head of state since the partition to be elected on a platform which called into question key aspects of the US-ROK security alliance

And yet Roh is already showing signs of moderation.

Leaving all this aside, it's still worth considering what Marshall asserts is the answer to America's problem. Carefully dissociating himself from the Blame-America-First chorus, Marshall says that there is a "thoughtful middle ground" for the US to stand on. If you click on the words "thoughtful middle ground", you will be taken to Fareed Zakaria's essay in the New Yorker on the subject of multilateralism.

This essay was, of course, the recent subject of a four-part OxBlog fisk-a-thon. Now, I don't hold Josh responsible for not reading my posts. He has better things to do with his time, like taking down Senate majority leaders.

But if Josh were to read my posts, I think he might agree that the best way to address concerns about American greed and belligerence is to pursue an ethical foreign policy rather than searching for a consensus that will only come at the price of accommodating the greed and belligerence of Russia, China and (sometimes) France.

Now Josh is of course right that the Bush administration has needlessly antagonized a lot of people as a result of its ham-fisted diplomacy. Hell, I've spent almost all of my time on OxBlog criticizing every detail of the Bush administration's foreign policy. But all in all, I've come to recognize that things are going more than just alright.

In the end, I don't think Josh and I are all that far apart on the issues. As he points out, he thinks we should use force against Iraq. If I've been a little harsh, it's because I'm worried that a lot of very intelligent and well-intentioned individuals have begun to see multilateralism as an end in itself rather than a means of promoting democracy and human rights across the globe.

UPDATE: More on German backtracking. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:17 PM by David Adesnik  

ARM YOURSELF WITH FACTS: If you are against invading Iraq, you should memorize today's WaPo article on US-Iraq relations in the 1980s. If you are for invading Iraq, you should memorize it as well. We did very bad things in the 1980s and, for that matter, throughout the Cold War.

There isn't all that much new in the article, though it does report on the contents of recently declassified documents from the Reagan administration. While there is no mention of who filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the documents' release, I'd have to imagine it was the National Security Archive, which is the national leader in FOIA requests related to foreign policy. I spent six weeks there doing research on Reagan's El Salvador policy for my master's thesis.

FYI, the Bush administration has been doing all that it can to delay the release of documents whose publication would have no adverse effect on national security, but might prove to be quite embarrassing to both members of the current administration as well as the President's father.

Anyway, the real issue here is how supporters of American foreign policy can address the perennial argument that America's record of immoral actions in the Cold War invalidates any aggressive initiatives the United States plans today. The argument becomes especially complicated when one considers that current members of the cabinet were responsible for those actions. The WaPo, for instance, reports on Rumsfeld's intimate relations with Saddam at a time when the State Department knew that Saddam was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis.

I think the proper response is to admit what the US did wrong and shift the discussion to the merits of its current policy. As Ken Pollack tells the WaPo, what we did in the 1980s "was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now." The worst thing to do is come up with defensive justifications of immoral acts. For example, David Newsom, a former ambassador to Baghdad, told the WaPo that

"Fundamentally, [our] policy was justified...we were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible."

Talk about low standards. All Iraq had to do to become less repressive was massacre thousands of innocent men and women instead of tens of thousands.

The reason such arguments backfire is that they imply a continuity between the moral standards of the past and of the present. But the fact is, the US has learned from its mistakes. For all Bush Sr. and Clinton did wrong when it came to foreign affairs, they did uphold a moral standard higher than any of their predecessors since Harry Truman. (Yes, including Jimmy Carter.)

That is no small accomplishment considering that Bush and Clinton were the first presidents of the first lone superpower since Roman times. Lord Acton observed that "Power corrupts...and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That may have been true once. But the United States took advantage of its unprecedented power to raise its moral standards and those of other nations as well. That is what makes America exceptional. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:29 PM by David Adesnik  

EVIL SOUTH KOREAN CAPITALISTS: The NYT headline reads "U.S. Plan for Trade Penalties for North Korea Worries South Korean Investors". You read it and you think "Oh no! I thought Anti-Americanism was bad enough, but now South Koreans have a real, material interest in preventing the US and UN from imposing sanctions on Kim Jong Il."

But then you read the article and you realize that the headline should've been: "Economic Ties Between North and South Korea Minimal, Irrelevant." What is the annual value of inter-Korean trade? $600 million. Now, it might've been helpful if the Times put that figure in context by giving figures for South Korean trade with other nations. But they don't, so I will. The statistics are available here, from South Korea's National Statistics Office.

Exports to the US: $26.8 billion; To Japan: $12.4 billlion. Germany, the UK, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong all clock in at over $3 billion as well.

Oh, and one more fact buried near the end of the NYT article: North Korea's dysfunctional political system has screwed up almost every foreign investment project in North Korea.

Bottom line: Economic interests are not going to get in the way of imposing sanctions on North Korea. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:50 PM by David Adesnik  

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY: LEBANON. A top-notch post from Matt Scofield, who is interested in a lot of the same issues that I am. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:13 AM by David Adesnik  

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY: EGYPT. While guest blogging over at The Volokh Conspiracy a few weeks ago, I promised to provide in-depth, country-by-country accounts of the prospects for demcratization in the Middle East. I started out with Algeria, but didn't follow up on it. Until now. This week I'm going to be writing about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Morocco (in that order).

But first, a brief recap. As I said before I want to present a comprehensive, empirical case for the viability of democratization in the Middle East. The previous round of this debate focused on the cultural incompatibility of democracy and Islam. This time I want to focus on the situation on the ground in the Middle East. As I see it, a strong case for democratization must respond to what I called the "Iranian paradigm", or the belief that reform promotes both terrorism and fundamentalism.

So what about Egypt? It made headlines last month when the government broadcast a vicious anti-Semitic television program based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Going back somewhat further, Egypt is best known for the brutal attacks by Muslim fundamentalists that resulted in the murder dozens of Pyramid-bound tourists. Thus, at first glance, the Mubarak dictatorship seems to be the only thing standing in the way of an Islamic revolution. Even so, leading analysts such as Fareed Zakaria have asserted that

If we could choose one place to press hardest to reform, it should be Egypt. Jordan has a more progressive ruler; Saudi Arabia is more critical because of its oil. But Egypt is the intellectual soul of the Arab world. If it were to progress economically and politically, it would demonstrate more powerfully than any essay or speech that Islam is compatible with modernity, and that Arabs can thrive in today's world. (Newsweek, 24 Dec 01 [permalink expired])

Perhaps. But Colin Powell isn't listening. Just after September 11th, he described Mubarak's brutality as a model for the war on terror. Or, as Powell put it,

Egypt, as all of us know, is really ahead of us on this issue. They have had to deal with acts of terrorism in recent years in the course of their history. And we have much to learn from them and there is much we can do together.

Recognizing the significance of what Powell said, Mubarak later responded that "There is no doubt that the events of September 11 created a new concept of democracy."

But suppose for a moment that Powell & co. wanted to get serious about Egyptian democracy. Would they just be opening the floodgates of fundamentalism? I think not. In an article in the most recent issue of the Journal of Democracy, Princeton doctoral candidate Jason Brownlee reviews the prospects for democracy in Egypt. Put mildly, Brownlee is not optimistic. But the problem isn't fundamentalism. It's Mubarak.

While consolidating his power in the years after Sadat's assassination, Mubarak spoke of administering "democracy in doses". Thousands of NGOs sprang into existence, as well as professional organizations for lawyers, doctors, etc. The opposition even began to gain ground in the Assembly. Once Mubarak consolidated his position, however, he shut down all avenues of dissent. Newspapers were closed, human rights activists jailed and political opponents given military trials.

To be sure, Egypt has faced a threat of Islamist violence. The annual death toll from its guerrilla conflict reached 1,000 in 1993. But by 1998, the government had crushed the armed opposition. While the memory of slaughtered tourists lives on, it does not reflect the realities of Egypt today. Now Mubarak is focused on crushing non-violent Islamic dissent as well. And he has no intention of letting other dissenters organize either. The regime has rejected the application of every political party that sought to organize over the past decade, including an explicitly pro-democratic party made up of both Muslims and Christians. Clearly, Mubarak's main interest is in preserving his own absolute power, not defending Egypt from fundamentalist Islam.

In a surprising announcement in November 1999, Mubarak informed the public that the next year's elections to the Assembly would be "subject at all stages to supervision by the judiciary." The legislation implementing this announcement made clear, however, that the President's announcement was nothing more than a publicity stunt. Nonetheless, the Egyptian judiciary seized on the President's announcement as justification for its decision to launch an ambitious election monitoring program, which included placing monitors at each of the country's 15,000+ polling stations.

While the monitor did ensure that no fraud occurred at the polling stations, the government's control of the ballot counting process enabled it to produce results that it found amenable. Still, the results were surprising. Less than 40% of the government's official candidates won their races. Another 40% went to candidates from the ruling party who failed to gain official backing and ran as independents. The secular opposition disgraced itself by winning only 3.5% of the races. The Muslim Brotherhood, which operated without official party status also won 3.5% even though it put up candidates in only 10% of the races. The remainder of seats went to independents.

The significance of the 2000 is hard to place. Angered at the results, Mubarak immediately moved to crush the judiciary's autonomy so that it would never pull a similar stunt again. While it is hard to know how much the regime managed to influence the final results, it seems clear that the Islamist opposition would not dominate at the polls if given the chance. On the other hand, there is no true democratic force that has the potential to prevail either.

Brownlee concludes that American influence is the best hope for Egyptian democracy. In addition to $2 billion in annual aid, the US has played a critical role in securing multilateral loans for Egypt as well as granting it an extra $2 billion to compensate for tourism revenue lost after September 11th. As Powell's words indicate, however, the US is not interested in taking advantage of the influence it has to promote democratization, even though there is no danger of an Islamic revolution.

So far, the most that the Bush administration has done is announce that it will limit aid to $2 billion per year if Egypt's human rights record does not improve. As I see it, that doesn't exactly seem like much of a threat. The administration must recognize that there can be no final victory in the war on terror until the governments of the Middle East rests on the consent of the governed, rather than the same brute force which gives terrorists their influence.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:30 PM by David Adesnik  

DRIPPING SARCASM: This is just too funny. And when you get to the last line, you'll see that it makes a profound point as well. (Thanks to Instapundit for this link as well as one to the same author's delightful review of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:16 PM by David Adesnik  

GEE WHIZ HIGH TECH: Imagine being able to see through walls or beneath the ground. Imagine tracking devices the size of a quarter which can be located anywhere on earth. Imagine a two-way radio communicator that cannot be intercepted or jammed and runs on so little power that it could be mounted on wristwatch. Dick Tracy, eat your heart out.

All these things will be made possible thanks to a single technology known as UWB, or UltraWideBand. I only came across it because I live with an electrical engineer who is going to be presenting on UWB at a conference in a few weeks. Since the focus of his presentation is military applications, he wanted a politics person to give him a hand. So here I am.

The battlefield potential of UWB is stunning. Right now, urban settings enables less sophisticated forces to match their superiors by taking advantage of the complex and confusing battlefield environment. Within a decade, individual soldiers will all have portable radar devices that let them locate opposing forces in urban environments without ever having to confront them face to face. The US Army is poised to test prototypes of the individual radar should it have to conduct operations in Baghdad this winter. Other applications include searching below the ground for hidden tunnels and bunker complexes (as well as land mines). Tracking devices based on UWB would faciliate communication and tactical planning on the battlefield.

For a whole set of downloadable articles explaining how UWB works, click here. The basic idea is that instead of using continuous radio waves to communicate, UWB relies on short pulses of radio energy. Released at intervals so precise that they can be measured in trillionths of a second, one can only detect such pulses if one knows in advance the schedule of their release. Whereas as high-frequency radar waves bounce off walls or other solid objects, UWB pulses can be emitted on much longer wavelengths which go right through solid objects.

The peacetime applications of UWB are no less important. Its main commercial application will be the creation of wireless local area networks (LANs) which can handle 10 megs or more per second. UWB may also enable significant improvements of cellphone networks, which are now limited by the scarcity of available bandwidth. Moreover, UWB should finally let cellphones work indoors. From a humanitarian perspective, UWB would be critical in locating victims of earthquakes or other disasters, who may have been buried under mountains of rubble. Alternately, parents could easily locate children who have become lost in public places or even kidnapped. The possibilities are endless. But first we need peace. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:55 PM by David Adesnik  

CHECHEN TERRORISTS: While the Russian military is hardly a credible source, the NYT and WaPo seem convinced that the suicide bombing which left 46 dead in Checnya are the result of close collaboration between Chechen insurgents and Arab terrorists.

Josh and I have debated this issue before, and even though there is no clear evidence yet, I think the Chechens tactics speak for themselves. Even if Russian brutality is the moral equivalent of Chechen bombings, the United States cannot defend anyone who embraces terrorism. Sadly, we will have to wash our hands and let fate decide who lives and who dies. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:44 PM by David Adesnik  

DEMOCRACY IN KENYA (YES, KENYA). For the first time since gaining independence from the British Empire in 1963, Kenya has held free and fair elections. The opposition won a landslide, crushing the hand picked candidate of Pres. Daniel Arap Moi, who has ruled Kenya for the past 24 years.

It's hard to know exactly why the President chose to let the people have their way, but it is a significant step forward. According to an article in the April 2002 issue of the Journal of Democracy, the only reliable indicator that a country is on the road to reform is that the opposition has triumphed in democratic elections. In those states where former dictators won elections, no real reform has taken place. Let that be a lesson for those who will decide the fate of the Middle East. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:29 PM by David Adesnik  

WHAT, ME WORRY? Remarkably, the Bush administration is insisting that the situation on the Korean peninsula has not yet become a "crisis". If you ask me, that kind of spin is downright Clintonian. The North has a million men under arms, close to four thousand tanks and 600 to 750 missilesthat can hit both Japan and South Korea with conventional, chemical or biological warheads. When an enemy with that kind of firepower tries to blackmail you, it's a crisis.

So what do we do? The NYT reports that the US has a plan designed to raise pressure on Pyongyang to give up its nuclear program. What is the plan? Who knows. The Agonist observes that any serious plan ought to recognize that "China fought us in the fifties to keep Korea divided...a divided Korea is one of China's vital national security interests."

But do the Chinese believe that possessing nuclear weapons will strengthen Kim's regime, or just raise the risk that the United States will launch a preemptive war to unify the peninsula? According to a former State Dept. official, "While China is opposed to North Korea having nuclear weapons, they are also opposed to chaos in North Korea. They are reluctant to apply any kind of sanctions unless they have to." Which means it won't be easy to get China on board if we actually have to try and punish North Korea for its illegal weapons program.

And what about the South? Will it go along? OxBlog reader JK points to an LA Times article which says that most South Koreans hold American belligerence responsible for both the current crisis as well as the Northern retaliation it may provoke. While I can't vouch for the accuracy of that report, it is interesting to note the inconsistency in this alleged majority view. If Kim Jong Il bears no grudge against the South, why are South Koreans so afraid that his artillery will slaughter them by the tens of thousands if the United States bombs the reacor at Yongbyon?

The only good news on the North Korean front is that the NYT has finally run an intelligent column on the subject. According to Georgetown prof Victor Cha (who had a column on the same subject in last week's WaPo),

The engagement policy the United States followed in 1994 would be ineffective and unfeasible today. Indeed, if the North does not come clean, the true "moderate" position for both Washington and Seoul is isolation and containment.

Cha is no hawk, so this is a serious statement coming from him. Nonetheless, Cha is an optimist, arguing that North Korea will cooperate because "it now has much more to lose than it did in 1994." I wouldn't go that far. Kim could care less about new ties to the EU. If he comes around, it will be because he knows that cannot last any longer without Western aid. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:12 PM by David Adesnik  

SLOW NEWS DAY: Time on your hands? Read Pejman's hilarious Star Wars posts. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:53 PM by David Adesnik  

GOTTA HAVE HART: Gary is getting people more excited than I thought. Bill Peschel says he thinks Hart is the only Democrat with a credible record on national security, and that he'd cross party lines to vote for Bush if the Dems put up Lieberman or Kerry. Glenn Reynolds also linked to Bill, and says that voters like him are the reason that Bush and the GOP are in such a dominant position right now.

Both Bill and Glenn think the Donna Rice issue is irrelevant in the post-Clinton era. I disagree. Rather than lowering the bar, Clinton raised it. America is resolved never to have another president like him again. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:34 PM by David Adesnik  

SACHS AND VIOLENCE: Steve Sachs says that Robert Kagan's attack on Michael Walzer's hypocritical pacifism is wrong and almost downright dishonest. Sachs' analysis is solid and well worth reading. It seems that my admiration for Bobby K may have become a blindfold. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:44 PM by David Adesnik  

HAWK IN DOVE'S CLOTHING: Conservatives are supposed to have patience. But since Bill Safire thinks that South Koreans aren't giving the US the respect is deserves, he wants us to bring back home the 37,000 troops we have protecting the South from its evil twin in the North. As Safire puts it, "because the U.S. is not an imperialist power, it does not belong where a democratic nation decides America is unwanted."

Ooh, how clever. Ooh, how ironic. Using anti-imperialism and democratic principle to justify a thinly disguised threat to abandon the South if it doesn't give in to American demands. But as a former Nixon speechwriter and veteran of the Cold War, Safire should be the first to know that democratic allies will always have to weather the rhetorical storms set off by electoral politics. He complains that President-elect Roh wants "a repeat of Clinton's fruitless 1994 cave-in." Well, nothing would force the South to cave in faster than an American retreat that leaves it exposed to Northern blackmail.

The South did not vote to expel the United States. Rather, it lashed out at what it perceived as American high-handedness. While we may not be imperialists, we should be smart enough to recognize that South Korea's dependence on the United States makes it highly sensitive to all perceived sleights. Given time, it will recognize the danger of compromising with the North.

Having patience, however, is not the same as giving up with out as fight, as the editors of the NYT recommend. They say Bush should sit down to negotiate before the North pledges to give up its weapons. But that accomplishes nothing.

What Safire gets right is that we have to put pressure on China to confront Kim Jong Il. But how do we influence China? One way, is to have Japan do what it can. Well aware that North Korean missiles can devastate its cities, the Japanese are desperate for both a peaceful solution and American support. It also seems that the US has the support of the UN, since IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei has strongly condemned North Korean behavior.

Now, I admit that this all beginning to sound like the sort of mulitlateral strategy that was so controversial when applied to Iraq. But the President knows we can't risk the lives of tens of thousands of South Korean and Japanese citizens unless a North Korean attack is imminent. So for the moment, we'll have to swallow our pride and send in the diplomats.

UPDATE: The diplomats are being been sent. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:49 PM by David Adesnik  

REAL POSTWAR PLANNING: In the WaPo, a former senior official at USAID argues that the reconstruction of Iraq will depend on the establihsment of a clear, national property law. I'm not exactly equipped to evaluate that specific an argument, but it sounds reasonable enough. More importantly, it is the kind of argument that should be getting a lot more play in both the media and the government than it is. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:54 AM by David Adesnik  

AMERICAN HYPOCRISY: As a passionate advocate of promoting democracy in the Middle East, I am often told to get real. Don't I know that Muslims can't handle democracy? Don't I know that Bush talks a good game but that he really couldn't care less?

On the first point, I'm not giving in. The desire for freedom is universal. On the second point, I myself have asked whether the President really cares about promoting democracy in the Middle East. I want to keep an open mind on the issue, but isn't easy when even the Weekly Standard is blasting Bush for his hypocrisy. Damn it, what happened to Wolfowitz? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:46 AM by David Adesnik  

THE BLOGS INVADE: The ever-humble Glenn Reynolds links to this article in the Boston Globe about bloggers' role in bringing down Trent Lott. Glenn doesn't mention that the Globe interviewed him and that what he told the Globewas pretty insightful. So check it out. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:38 AM by David Adesnik  

WASH-POST WHITEWASH: This is an embarassment. Was it ignorance or prejudice that led the Post to print such a praise-laden article about a vicious, anti-Semitic, anti-American Islamic fundamentalist? For those of you who are fans of Michiel Vissier, you may recognize the name Dyab Abou Jahjah. Earlier this month, Mike profiled the young leader of the Arab European League (AEL). When I read the Post's article on Jahjah, I immediately e-mailed Mike and told him it was time for a fisking. 'No', said Mike, 'I am on vacation. You do it.' So here goes:

ANTWERP, Belgium -- In the dim fourth-floor walk-up, past the wrestler-turned-bodyguard, the leader of the Arab European League sat in silence. Before him were a batch of newspapers bearing his image and a flier informing Belgian police that his group was "watching" them.

Last month, Dyab Abou Jahjah's group fielded unarmed patrols to follow this northern Belgian city's police officers in what the group called an attempt to prevent abuse of Arab youth.

If you trust the Post's account, Jahjah sounds like Gandhi. Visser observes: One of the more notorious activities of the AEL is sending surveillance teams, clad in black uniform, onto the streets of Antwerp to "monitor" the police, who are accused of discriminating against Muslims. The Belgian prime minister, in turn, has accused the AEL of aiming to create "police-free zones", where criminal activity can then take place unchecked.

Later in the month, he was arrested and held for five days for allegedly inciting two days of riots in Antwerp that followed the fatal shooting of a young Moroccan teacher by an elderly white neighbor whom the police called deranged.

The face of Abou Jahjah, 31, has flashed across Belgian television screens often in recent months. Dressed in sharply cut suits, he gives a fresh voice to the rage felt by many Arabs in this country and across Europe. He is also forcing Belgium into a deeper conversation about whether the country welcomes immigrants and, more broadly, just who is a Belgian.

To ask those questions is to incite a fiery, complex response from the Lebanese-born Abou Jahjah, who in the days after his release remained holed up in his spartan apartment in a largely immigrant section of this port city.

"My family in the U.S. are Arab American, and they feel [American]. I'm Belgian, and I don't feel it," he said in an interview. "Belgians are unable to be multicultural, because to them, to be Belgian is to be white. So we say we're 'Arab European,' because Europe itself is multicultural and Arabs aren't new in Europe; we helped make Europe what it is today."

That's a lovely quote. Here's what Jahjah says when he isn't talking to the Western press: "We are opposed to the war of Bush and Sharon. We are opposed to the sanctions [against Iraq] and the inspections. This is not the last time we will be on the streets. If war breaks out, we will demonstrate everywhere in the world: in Brussels, Paris, and Baghdad. We have to arm ourselves to continue our struggle. We need to arm all those who want to resist the United States. Because everywhere in the world there is one fight: against the United States. Today and in the future. We support the resistance in Palestine and in Iraq. We support everyone who battles today against zionism and imperialism." (Translated by Mike)

The 1,000 or so core members of his movement are mostly young Arab men disillusioned with Belgian society and high unemployment in their communities. White Belgians, he said in an interview, "can't look at us as equals because, in their minds, we're guests. We have to shut up and obey."

Rhetoric like this has made the country sit up and listen. There has long been anti-immigrant sentiment among many Belgians, said Badra Djait, a professor of cultural anthropology at the University of Leuven whose father emigrated to Belgium from Algeria in the 1960s. "Now, there's a real face, a real target, and it's Abou Jahjah."

One of Abou Jahjah's biggest critics is Belgium's third-largest political party, Vlaams Blok. Like maverick parties elsewhere in Europe, it is tapping sentiment that newcomers are overpowering local society and bringing a rise in street crime, and perhaps terrorism. Across the continent, these feelings appear to have grown since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

"Our cities have changed into, well, Islamic neighborhoods, with mosques instead of churches, like it's some kind of Islamic state," said a spokesman for Vlaams Blok, Philippe Vander Sande. He denied the party was racist. Its point, he said, is that immigrants can "choose to assimilate with the Belgians, and if they do, they're welcome. If they don't, and say Islamic law and Islamic religion are above our Belgian law, our Western lifestyle, then we say, that's not possible. They must go."

Vlaams Blok wants Abou Jahjah to be stripped of his Belgian citizenship.

Which, as Mike points out, he came by dishonestly. A one-time member of Hezbollah (yes, that Hezbollah), Jahjah emigrated to Belgium in 1992 and claimed that he sought asylum from his former comrades-in-arms. When the Belgians sought to expel Jahjah, he arranged a bogus marriage to a Belgian woman which lasted just long enough for him to get his citizenship.

In the middle is the coalition government of Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt. He once avoided discussing immigration, but following the Antwerp riots, he declared on Belgian television that the Arab European League is a "threat to our society" and thrives "on confrontation and provocation."

In the last two months, the group has staged two large street protests in the capital, Brussels, against U.S. aggression toward Iraq and Israeli policies toward Palestinians. In the next year, it plans to open chapters in the Netherlands and in France, which is home to about 4 million Arabs, the largest such population in Europe.

Because people of Middle Eastern descent comprise about 5 percent of Belgium's 10 million people, he has suggested that Arabic be made the country's fourth official language (Flemish, French and German are the first three) and said he might field candidates in next year's national elections.

In Antwerp, which has a sizable immigrant population, police are sent in force to break up groups of young men of Arab descent who gather on the streets; government leaders view the Muslims who shadow police patrols as illegal vigilante groups and say they frequently curse and spit on officers carrying out routine duties. Many political analysts say the national government's tough new policies are motivated at least in part by hopes of reducing support for Vlaams Blok, which controls about a third of the seats on the Antwerp city council.

Abou Jahjan was born in Beirut and said he joined the Lebanese resistance as a teenager to fight Israel's occupation of Lebanon, and dreamed of studying at the University of Michigan, close to where his relatives live.

Hmmm...What might the name of that Lebanese resistance group be?

The 1991 Persian Gulf War, he said, led him to cancel those plans, and at 19, he moved to Belgium, obtained citizenship through marriage, divorced, mastered the Flemish language and earned degrees in international politics. He is now working on a doctorate, focusing on post-Cold War security.

Funny how the Post ignores the relationship between citizenshiip and marriage.

He observed what he considered to be Arabs being marginalized in Belgian society, and the muted response from established, government-subsidized Arab groups led by first-generation immigrants who came in the 1960s and 1970s as guest workers. "It was obvious the real problems weren't being addressed," he said of these groups, whose leaders have widely dismissed him a radical.

Antwerp remains tense. It is common to see young Arabs with hands raised leaning against storefronts, being frisked vigorously by police. Arabs say the officers often call them makukah, or "white ape"; the phrase is so familiar to youngsters , they've begun calling each other "makukah."

Abou Jahjah said that his Nov. 26 arrest, along with 160 youths allegedly involved in rioting, sent the wrong message to the Muslim community. "Some people in this organization are, shall we say, less patient than I am. So if they eliminate me, what will you have?"

Wait, I recognize that argument! It's usually made by Arafat in reference to Hamas...

A few last notes: One topic which Mike addresses but the Post doesn't is where the AEL's money comes from. AEL refuses Belgian government subsidies, which suggest that it's money comes from abraod. The organization admitted that its lawsuit against Ariel Sharon in Belgian courts was financed from abroad. And parents of young Arab rioters reported that they were offered mobile phones and other gifts in exchange for their participation. That way, perhaps, they can call the Saudi government directly...

UPDATE: Steve Sachs has been kind enough to point out that Time Magazine also ran a profile of Abou Jahjah recently. It's much more balanced than the WaPo piece, but still has some flaws.

For example, Time writes that Abou Jahjah "is not anti-American; in fact, he admires anti-discrimination laws in the U.S." Presumably such laws would help Abou Jahjah carry out the armed struggle against against American imperialism he is in the midst of planning.

In Time, Abou Jahjah also asserts that he "is not a fundamentalist." Perhaps he is right about that. His fondness for European life suggests that he isn't exactly ready to be bound by state-enforced Islamic law.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:36 PM by David Adesnik  

ONLY IN CALIFORNIA, ONLY ON CHRISTMAS: In a striking repudiation of the stereotype that bloggers are misfit shut-ins, four eminent citizens of the blogosphere celebrated Christmas together at the house of the Armed Liberal. One of the four was our friend and occasional correspondent, CalPundit. The four of them talked about politics. Take that, Robert Putnam. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:21 PM by David Adesnik  

LORD OF THE YAWNS: Pejman loved The Two Towers. He said that we should "go see this movie. Again, and again, and again, and again." Ruffini loved The Two Towers. He agrees with Pejman that it was "far better" than The Fellowship of the Ring. Both Pej and Patrick commented on the inspirational value of Tolkien's work in a time when we are ourselves must face Evil. (In contrast, Salman Rushdie argues that Tolkien's view of evil is as naive and dangerous as George Bush's).

But I ask you this Pej and Patrick: Could we not be inspired by a movie that was considerably shorter? Yes, the battle for Helm's Deep was first rate, or as the WashPost put it, "the last hour of 'The Two Towers' is pure combat and it's mind-blowing." Give me a DVD and I will watch the last hour of TTT again and again. In contrast, Fellowship opened with a stunning battle scene and kept things moving after that. Some have said that an improvement in the acting and script balances the lack of action. But from where I'm standing, it's hard to produce more one-dimensional characters than Tolkien has. Of course, that isn't Peter Jackson's fault. And The Two Towers is inherently more resistant to being filmed. Still, it's my eight bucks and I can think of better ways to spend it.

The good news for Jackson and the folks at New Line Cinema is that everyone in America disagrees with me. Exit polls (yes, really) show that 9 out of 10 viewers thought TTT was very good or excellent. It's box office take was a third better than Fellowship's. As they say, vox populi, vox dei.

UPDATE: CalPundit found TTT less than exciting. He argues, though, that the films are far better than the books. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:35 PM by David Adesnik  

COUNTERFISKED! The Agonist has put up an in-depth critique of my response to Fareed Zakaria. The tone is respectful, the arguments thoughtful. In general, The Agonist's point is that my ideological commitment to promoting democracy has prevented me from producing a realistic analysis of the situation in Iraq. Or, put more emphatically, Mr. A warns that I am unaware of the "dangers of unchecked messianism."

On factual matters, the main point of tension between my arguments and that of Mr. A is his contention that "Bush has given no indication that we will 'democratize' Iraq. Especially if you take Afghanistan as an example. I might go so far as agree with Adesnik that Bush's words are Wilsonian but his actions are not." While one might question Bush's commitment to his stated objective, I think his UN speech as well as Condi's remarkson the matter have made clear what our policy on Iraq is.

Unsurprisingly, I share Mr. A's belief that the Bush administration has shown little indication that it is serious about democracy in Afghanistan. Still, Bush has done more than any Republican president ever to promote the cause of democracy abroad. As such, it is premature to draw firm conclusions about his intentions. More importantly, one should recognize that Bush's rhetorical commitment to promoting democracy makes him vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy should he fail to do so. Significant pressure from Congress and the American public will ensure that he does not back away from his pledge. So speak up!

UPDATE: Afghans look back on Karzai's first year.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:54 PM by David Adesnik  

JUST WAR OR 'JUST DO IT'? Bob Kagan exposes the hypocrisy of just war theorist Michael Walzer. While Clinton was president, Walzer argued for preemptives strikes against Iraq on explicit moral grounds. After Bush became president, he did a 180. Hmmm... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:47 PM by David Adesnik  

WHAT THIS DAY MEANS TO SADDAM: The great one observes that US airstrikes are not in keeping with the meaning of the holiday. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:41 PM by David Adesnik  

THAT'S NOT MEDIA BIAS: Hezbollah runs Al Manar TV. "Hassan Fadlallah, the station's young, clean-cut news director, explained simply, 'All Arab states consider Israel our enemy, so we go ahead and call it that.'" (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:38 PM by David Adesnik  

WHAT THIS DAY MEANS TO ME, courtesy of Kyle Braflovski:

It's hard to be a Jew on Christmas.
My friends wont let me join in any games.
And I can't sing Christmas songs
Or decorate a Christmas tree
Or leave water out for Rudolph
`Cause there's something wrong with me.
My people don't believe in Jesus Christ's divinity.
I'm a Jew,
A lonely Jew
On Christmas.

God bless all of you who spent Christmas eve at the movies after eating at Chinese restaurant. Tradition...TRADITION!
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:16 PM by David Adesnik  

LAST MINUTE GIFTS: Can't afford a subscription to OxBlog? Well, here are some free e-cards you can send to everyone you've been meaning to get a gift but just haven't found the time.

My favorite one is from Dilbert, with Peanuts a close second.

If you want'em en espanol, then click here. Auf deutsch, click here. B'ivrit? Lama lo!

Happy Holidays, y'all! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:19 PM by David Adesnik  

WOLFOWITZ BLOGS! The Deputy Secretary of Defense recommends that we all visit www.defenselink.mil in order to learn more about the prospective performance of Iraqi forces in a second Gulf War. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:08 PM by David Adesnik  

LET'S PLAY SPOT THE RACIST! In addition to their field day criticizing Trent Lott, America's punditocracy (especially its Democratic punditocracy) has had quite a ball going after other senators, mostly Republicans, with terrible records on race. Here are some highlights:

1) Bob Herbert on George Allen (R-VA) and Conrad Burns (R-MT).

2) TNR's Sarah Wildman on Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

3) Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-NC) on himself. (With a parting blow by Josh Marshall.)

While it makes for good copy, one has to ask whether this has all gone too far. One could argue that this trend has led to unfair attacks on Bill Frist by the NY Times and Josh Marshall. But the unfair attacks on Frist were shot down very quickly. It's not as if you can get away with anything just because Trent Lott is in hot water.

Even from a Repubican perspective -- and especially from a Republican perspective -- it's all for the best if this trend keeps on going strong. First of all, it has laid to rest false accusations that might have damaged Frist later on. It will also let the Republicans know whether potential candidates for Senate leadership positions have a past they are trying to hide. And if the trend goes too far, it can be used as evidence of liberal media bias. With two full years to go before the next election, the separation of the wheat from the chaff can only make the GOP stronger. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:31 PM by David Adesnik  

RHODES SCHOLARS BACK HART IN '04: As if Bill Clinton didn't do enough to ensure that the phrases "Rhodes Scholar" and "illicit sex" became stuck together with super glue in America's imagination... It turns out that a pair of Rhodes Scholars who've just come back from Oxford have launched Gary Hart's 2004 presidential campaign. Hart himself hasn't said yes or no, but that sort of thing shouldn't trouble a committed over-achiever. In fact, the only reason George Stephanopolous brought up a potential Hart candidacy on ABC's This Week was that one of the Scholars suggested it to him.

The Scholars behind the campaign are Antwaun Smith and Will Polkinghorn, both of whom are now in graduate school at Harvard. One thing I know about Antwaun and Will is that they are always looking for things to do besides their homework. That is one of the reasons they spent so much time with Hart when he was at Oxford a couple of years back. For those who don't know Antwaun or Will (or Gary), their enthusiasm for Hart might seem to be utterly ridiculous. Even if we are living in the "post-Clinon" era, it is hard to believe that America would forgive Hart for his involvement with Donna Rice. But because I've spent time talking to Hart one-on-one, I know why Antwaun and Will are so enthusiastic.

Gary Hart cares about America and cares about ideas. Rather than spending his time at posh dinners, he tried to learn as much as he could from other students. He was even nice enough to read my 30-page memo on US grand strategy and give me substantial feedback. (If you need a cure for insomnia, I'd be happy to send you a copy.) When you talk to Hart, you get the sense of talking to someone who has been out of politics for a long time and reflected thoughtfully on the lessons of his time in Washington. He thinks outside the box. When you talk to him, you understand how he and Warren Rudman could've realizedbefore September 11th that terrorism is the single greatest threat to American security and that we need a Department of Homeland Security to plan our defense.

Does this mean that Hart has a shot? I am pessimistic. His strength is his expertise on national security affairs. But as of now Bush is untouchable on that front. With good reason, most Democratic voters would probably be afraid that a Bush-Hart campaign would become a referendum on Clinton's sexual ethics. Which is why Joe Lieberman is now the leader of the pack, albeit not in a commanding position.

UPDATE: Amygdalapoints out that Hart was known for being an innovative, outside-the-box thinker even while he was in office. So I might be wrong that he has learned to think more creatively about politics by being away from it. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:32 PM by David Adesnik  

BLAME CANADA! TNR reports on Canada's embarrassing permissiveness toward Hezbollah.

UPDATE: Canada arrests Al Qaeda pizza boy.

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh observes: Canadians are generally indistinguishable from Americans. The surest way of telling the two apart is to say that to a Canadian. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:39 AM by David Adesnik  

BRITNEY VS. THE AYATOLLAHS, PART DEUX: So is the Voice of America committed to hard-hitting coverage of Iranian politics or not? On Saturday, the NY Times ran a story on President Bush's radio address to the Iranian people, in which he pledged that VOA would commit itself to the cause of democracy in Iran.

The Times described Bush's speech as a response to criticism of VOA's decision to replace political coverage with teeny pop. Strangely, the Times reported that this criticism was coming from VOA staffers and dissidents in Iran. It avoided any mention of the op-eds by Jackson Diehl and Jesse Helms which focused public attention on VOA. Which forces one to ask: Is the Times going soft on VOA because it got scooped, because it doesn't know what's going on, or because it has good reasons to believe that VOA will take the Presdient's advice seriously?

I'd say either 'A' or 'B' is right. As a Reuters report makes clear, the switch-over from politics to pop is going ahead right on schedule. In other words, it seems that Bush is covering for VOA rather than committing it to the cause of democracy in Iran.

UPDATE: Occam's Toothbrush observes that VOA's Arab language broadcasts have a solid track record precisely because of their emphasis on Britney, Christina, et al. Occam also links to Fouad Ajami's excellent article in the new issue of Foreign Affairs. In fact, a quick look over the table of contents suggests that FA may have put together one of it's best issues in years, which is saying a lot.

DOUBLE UPDATE: Both this post and Occam's have been picked up by Instapundit! I guess that calls for a response. Here's what I wrote to Moe Freedman (Mr. Occam) in an e-mail earlier today :

My brother's name is Moe, too! (Though he spells it "Mo") Turning to more substantive matters, thank you for the link to the NRO article. I recognize that my posts haven't mentioned the acheivements of Radio Sawa, which deserve to be mentioned. Still, I think Diehl makes a pretty compelling case for VOA's stupidity vis-a-vis Iran. Yet unlike me, he acknowledges the value of Radio Sawa in countries which don't have a pro-Western anti-Fundamentalist student movement. So it's a situational matter, more than a blanket comdemnation of Britney...

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:44 PM by David Adesnik  

PLAYA-HATING AT THE NYT: Lacking real criticism of Bill Frist, the NYT is recycling myths and slanting the truth. Pejman provides the links.

UPDATE: Innocents Abroad exposes even more bad NYT reporting. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:58 PM by David Adesnik  

THE IMMUTABLE LAWS RETURN: While Maureen Dowd hasn't come up with a better nickname for the prospective Senate majority leader than "Dr. Frist", she nonetheless manages to spend more time discussing the check-ups he gives monkeys at the National Zoo than the policies he is for or against. As such, it is fair to say that the "People Magazine principle".

But the real purpose of Dowd's column is to expose the Machiavellian calculations behind the President's subtle support for the Tennessee senator. Apparently, Bush still hasn't gotten over Lott's support for Jack Kemp in the '88 primaries. And, as Dowd bizarrely asserts, the President wants to set Frist up for a successful primary run against Jeb in '08. Why? Sibling rivarly.

Not once in Dowd's column does she even consider the possibility that Bush meant what he said about segregation being an embarassment to everything America stands. Nor does she consider that Bush may have recognized the threat that Lott represents to Republican chances in coming elections. No, it's all about personal vendettas. But don't forget the Second Law, that it's easier to whine than take a stand or offer solutons. What pray tell, should Bush have done with regard to Trent Lott? Unsurprisingly, Dowd never comes out and says Bush should've either supported Lott or even just said nothing. Better to whine.

All there is to say in Dowd's defense is that, contra Law Three, she does make a coherent point. But if you compare this column to her last one, the illusion of coherence disappears. At least she doesn't bother us with details of her personal life...

UPDATE: Instapundit isn't happy either. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:35 PM by David Adesnik  

BLUFF OR STRATEGEM? North Korea has dismantled UN-installed monitoring equipment at the Yongbyon nuclear plant, thus raising the stakes in its conflict with the US. No doubt Kim Jong Il has taken notice of South Korean president-elect Roh Moo Hyun statement that he (Roh) is "the only person who can resolve the nuclear issue through dialogue." In other words, it seems Roh is willing to negotiate even though the US has said that it will not talk until the North agrees to shut down its nuclear weapons programs.

If one believes that Kim Jong Il is a competent diplomat, than his raising the stakes represents an assumption that the US will not be able to coordinate its efforts with the new South Korean government, thus enabling him to secure additional aid without disarming. If one believes that Kim Jong Il is a semi-educated shut-in, then his raising the stakes represents nothing more than traditional North Korean belligerence. Yet either way, the road from Washington to Pyongyang leads through Seoul. President-elect Roh has to vindicate his anti-American rhetoric by showing that he can be tough with the US. The Bush administration should take this into account, and accept that there is no point in a war of words. It may even be necessary to let Roh talk to Kim. What really matters is whether Roh is willing to offer Kim aid before he disarms. If Bush or Powell can win a commitment from Roh to withhold aid, then the US can continue to take a hardline against Northern violations of the 1994 pact.

Unfortunately, there is no pleasant way to deal with North Korea. Withholding aid may mean abetting the North's efforts to starve its own desperate population. But Kim alone bears the moral responsibility for that. If the North will not disarm, the US must ensure that no nation -- not China, not Russia and not South Korea -- sends aid to the North. Raising the stakes always benefits the gambler with the deepest pockets. Kim will recognize that he can disarm or watch his government crumble from within.

PS The Times has put up another embarrasingly bad op-ed on the Korean situation which asserts that "North Korea's behavior is not unpredictable" and that the real cause of tension on the peninsula is "an erratic United States policy that veers between neglect and overattention". I guess that's a reasonable conclusion if you just ignore the fact that North Korea was caught red-handed secretly violating an international treaty that its current government signed just eight years ago.

UPDATE: Rumsfeld is talking tough but holding out the prospect of a diplomatic solution.

UPDATE: In the WashPost, Maddie Albright's North Korea policy coordinator argues that we can't let the North divide us from the South. The tone of the argument is weepy and (liberal) guilt-ridden, but the basic argument is sound. On a related note, the Post's editors defend Bush for playing hardball with Kim Jong Il. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:49 PM by David Adesnik  

THE MATING HABITS OF INTELLECTUALS: This past week's issue of the Weekly Standard ran a cover story on life, love and achievement in the Ivy League. Not a topic I would put on the cover if I wanted to increase sales, but we can leave that aside. While the article was interesting, I think it's important to correct one major misconception and a few associated details that it embraces.

The major misconception is that the ethos of achievement has led Ivy Leaguers, especially a new generation of confident young women, to reject traditional, romantic dating practices and instead resort to "hook-ups" that satisfy their momentary lust. The alleged logic behind the decision is that dating takes too much time away from work, so it isn't worth it unless marriage is in the offing (which it isn't for upwardly mobile student types).

The best I can say about this strange observation is that it is half right. Traditional dating practices are almost dead. But love and romance are not. Both in my own experience and that of my friends at other $30,000-a-year colleges, there are two behavioral patterns that have replaced traditional dating. One is, in fact, the hook-up. The other is the total commitment. After one or two dates, Ivy Leaguers who really get along well seem to establish an almost unbreakable bond and begin to spend hours and hours together almost everyday. Exhibit A: Josh Chafetz and the lovely Jenn.

These relationships are intense and romantic. Many of them end in devastating heartbreak. Mine did. Contra Brooks, Ivy Leaguers and their kin are not afraid to put their emotions on the line. There isn't always a clear rationale behind the decision to have such intense relationships. To a degree, it reflects the fact that at small colleges, total commitment is facilitated by being close by one's significiant other. If there is any social or political meaning behind such decisions, I think it is this: that our generation believes that one cannot expect a first relationship to go right. One cannot afford to get married and have children without first knowing what it is to love, be loved and have one's heart broken. We get hurt, but we hope to learn.

In David Brooks' world, extreme pressure to achieve great things threatens the traditional values on which social stability and personal fulfillment rest. But what I saw in my four years at Yale was a community devoted to strengthening traditional values in untraditional but still romantic and successful ways. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:25 PM by David Adesnik  

APOLOGY COMING SOON: North Carolina rep Cass Ballenger defends Lott and segregation. This should be fun.

UPDATE: And it gets worse... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:18 PM by David Adesnik  

GIVING BLIX A HAND: In response to a request from Inspections Chief Hans Blix, the US is preparing to share with him its own intelligence concerning Iraqi weapons programs. As an unnamed official told the NYT, "We are going to give them one piece of information at a time," another official said, "given strategically at the right moment."

That's well and good, but why didn't the Bush administration try to figure out before inspections started whether or not it was safe to share intelligence? Answer: Because it simply doesn't think one step ahead when it comes with cooperating with the UN. While it is fair to differ on whether the US should be cooperating with the UN at all, I don't see how anyone could defend the decision to cooperate, but in an ad hoc and ineffective manner. It's not as if the administration is incapable of thinking ahead. It's military buildup is being accomplished with impressive speed and subtlety. Which demonstrates that the administration's dovish multilateralist critics are right when they assert that sometimes, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld just don't get it. So, while I don't have much good to say about Colin Powell in general, I am glad that that he plays a balancing a role.

Such criticism aside, one has to recognize that the administration's overall plans are moving ahead on schedule, with a decision for or against an invasion expected in January. As I see it, the challenge for the administration will be to avoid antagonizing potential allies for no good reason. If our intelligence about Iraqi weapons is as good as Rumsfeld keeps insisting it is, we should have no problems convincing others to go along or at least not hamper our efforts. There should be no need for another fight on the Security Council over whether Iraq is in material breach. While I don't favor a second resolution, the combination of Saddam's absurd denials and our comprehensive evidence should make it easy to secure one if it comes to that. Even better, the US should persuade the Council to issue a finding on the issue of material breach that provides a legal justification for the invasion without requiring another vote. This is a good compromise, and should help secure allied participation in postwar efforts to rebuild and democratize Iraq.

UPDATE: Reader PG has generously provided a link to this NYT article on early problems in the intelligence sharing relationship between Blix and the Security Council member states. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:06 PM by David Adesnik  

SILENCE EQUALS CONSENT: Scroll down to the end of this article about Iraq's material breach and read the comments made by the French and Russian diplomats. If they can't even think of something negative to say about America declaring Saddam in material breach, it means they know that he is. In the meantime, another 50,000 troops are on their way to the Gulf. The French and Russians don't seem to object to that either. This is the payoff for establishing consensus within the administration before going to the UN. Saddam has nowhere to run.

UPDATE: The NYT now (Sun.) has a news analysis piece which argues that the US has, in fact, antagonized the rest of the Security Council and that on the issue of material breach it is "far out ahead of the other Council nations, including Britain, its closest ally." But if you look carefully at the statements made by French, British and Russian ambassadors to the UN, you'll notice that none of them take issue with the American characterization of Saddam's report as an apalling lie. Instead, they are just working to ensure that the US doesn't invade without UN permission.

Interestingly, IAEA chief Mohammed El Baradei told the Times that "I do not see the Security Council exonerating Iraq" if it doesn't provide a serious report. I think it is pretty interesting that a UN official thinks of Iraq not as innocent-until-proven-guilty, but as a criminal in need of exoneration. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:00 PM by David Adesnik  

SEND HIM BACK TO CHINA: Here's what Nick Kristof has to say about North Korea: "Washington's failure to engage North Korea has in a few months turned a minor problem (a uranium program that would take years to produce weapons) into a major crisis (the restarting of a reactor with enough plutonium to produce five additional warheads)."

Huh? By "engagement" does Kristof mean that the US should have said nothing about North Korea's secret and illegal nuclear program? Or that it should have rewarded it with additional aid? As I see, it there was no better moment to confront the North Koreans. In the face of a UN resolution that condemns Iraq for its secret weapons programs, the North Koreans will have no choice but to concede that their actions violate all existing notions of acceptable state behavior. That puts them on the defensive when negotiations begin. For the moment, things are worse than they were before the US exposed North Korea's deception. But the only alternative was to wait for North Korea's secret nuclear program to succeed, at which point it would have been able to blackmail the West for better terms than it got in 1994.

The thing about Kristof is that he's a good reporter but a terrible columnist. His previous column was so bad I didn't even have the patience to fisk it. But if he's willing to do another stint abroad, the Times should send him back to the hunting grounds where he earned his Pulitzer.

For good advice on the Korean situation, the President should turn to an op-ed in the Post by Georgetown prof Victor Cha, who advises that the United States should not antagonize Roh Moo Hyun, the South Korean candidate who won by capitalizing on anti-American resentment. Kim Dae Jung, the current president, built his reputation the same way, but developed into a staunch ally of the United States.

With the South so dependent on the United States for security, periodic hostility is unavoidable. More importantly, no approach to the North can succeed without strong backing from the South, whose interests are immediately threatened by the North in a way that ours are not. Necessary as it is, getting tough with North Korea means raising tensions on the peninsula. If we have to threaten the North with force, such threats will only be credible if they have the unconditional support of the South, whose civilians will pay a heavy price if war breaks out. It is these same citizens who have made South Korea the strong democracy that it now is, and their opinion must be respected. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:35 PM by David Adesnik  

'NEO-'S VS. TECHIES: Who took down Trent Lott? The neo-cons, as Charlie K. and Josh C. argue? Or the techno-cons, as Jonah Goldberg argues? You might be asking, of course, what exactly a techno-con is. Well, as Goldberg observes:

...the self-defined neocons weren't the first conservatives to denounce Lott. Andrew Sullivan, Robert George, David Frum, Glenn Reynolds, Virginia Postrel, yours truly, etc., were much more prompt than the usual neocon suspects, like Krauthammer, Bennett, Kristol, et al. when it came to breaking with Lott...the more telling split among conservatives is a generational one. The bloggers claim it's a technological thing; the "blogosphere" is less beholden to the establishment and more rebellious. Well, that's true of younger conservatives generally, who actually believe that a colorblind society is the moral position. The fact that these conservatives (and libertarians) work disproportionately on the web speaks less to the uniqueness of the web than to the fact young people rarely have perches at the Washington Post or the New York Times.

Goldberg has a point, but he takes it too far. Yes, the techno-cons were the first to demand that Lott resign. But after that, which conservatives put their reputations on the line after that? The neo-cons. (See Kristol's op-ed yesterday.) As for the mainliners, can anyone name one conservative senator who came out strongly for Lott's resignation? The President got tough, but refused to call for Lott's resignation.

Now what about Golberg's own National Review? Krauthammer says that NR's editoral on Lott is a clear indication that NR does not oppose racism on principle. Goldberg says that Krauthammer is badly misreading what NR wrote. But he isn't. The harshest condemnation NR can come up with for Lott is that he "misspoke." Even better, read the whole paragraph that quote was taken from.

Minority leader Tom Daschle's initial reaction (prior to his mauling by the Congressional Black Caucus) to Lott's remarks was essentially sound — Lott misspoke. But Lott misspoke in a particular way, one freighted with symbolic significance. Many southern whites of a certain generation have a shameful past on civil-rights issues. This doesn't necessarily make them reprehensible people, or mean that they are racists today. But, when they are public figures, it is reasonable to expect from them an honest reckoning with their past, and, of course, an awareness that a reckoning is necessary.

It sort of makes Lott's absurd apologies seem noble by comparison, doesn't it?

But hold on a second. Let's step away from the immediate controversy and address the larger issue that Goldberg raises: Are Krauthammer and other neo-cons sowing division among Republicans by separating the principled neo-conservatives from the pragmatic mainliners? To dispel suspicions, let me state up fron that I am an uncommitted independent. My past is Democratic, but I can't decide if that should be a mark of pride or one of shame. But getting back to the question, one good answer is the one proposed by E.J. Dionne, that the real division is between advocates of "states' rights" and those with no attachment to them. In general, that division mirrors Krauthammers' division between mainliners and neo-cons. Still, it exposes the ideological underpinnings of that divide better than descriptions of one side as old and the other as new.

Now, I happen to agree with Dionne that the principle of states' rights has generally been invoked in order to defend inexcusable local privileges, whether based on race or other factors. In that sense, it is not much of a principle. In contrast, the neo-cons oppose big government because of what it is, not because of an illusory belief in states' rights. More broadly speaking, neo-cons embrace a true ideology rather than a set of precedents. That has its pro and cons. But it is honest, and I respect if for that. If the Lott affair has taught us one thing, it is that the GOP will suffer if it pretends to be one things but then inadvertently exposes itself as another.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan weighs in.

UPDATE: Ranting Screeds comments on my take on states' rights.

UPDATE: Innocents Abroad strongly backs the neo-con line while TNRbashes the NR editorial.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:09 AM by Daniel  

SETTLEMENTS. I do agree with some of Saeb Erekat's points in his NY Times op-ed--settlements undermine Palestinian trust in Israel's intentions, and they make an equitable division of the land all but impossible. But here is where he drifts from a sound argument:

"Without a dramatic change in Israeli policy, the possibility of a two-state solution will be relegated to the history books. Yet despite international laws that prohibit the construction of settlements, despite a call to "freeze all settlement activity" by an international panel led by former United States Senator George Mitchell in 2001, despite Palestinian pleas to address the underlying causes of violence — occupation and settlement construction — the international community has done nothing to stop Israel. President Bush reiterates support for two states, yet he continues to support an Israeli government that makes the two-state solution an increasing impossibility."

Wrong. Did Erekat read the entire Mitchell Report? If he did, he would have sees that it calls for the PA to take "immediate steps to apprehend and incarcerate terrorists operating within the PA's jurisdiction" before calling for a freeze on all settlement activity The PA has done no such thing. Trust is a two way street, and I am glad that Erekat points out the destructive role settlements play. But solely focusing on the Israeli side will get us nowhere.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:35 PM by David Adesnik  

REBUILDING AFTER 9/11. I strongly encourage everyone to visit the website of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which has slideshow presentations on each of the seven plans submitted for the reconstruction of Lower Manhattan. The public must demand not just a memorial, but a creation that will give us the confidence and pride to stand up for America's ideals (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:30 PM by David Adesnik  

THE PARADOX OF CONFIDENCE: In addition to Bill Krisol's challenge to Senate Republicans, Bill Safire has thrown down the gauntlet and demanded that the Bush administration make amends for its embarrassing decision to let North Korea ship missiles to Yemen. As a Times lead story makes clear, Yemen is as much against us as it as with in the war on terror. And it is a firm dictatorship.

While some might regard these internal conflicts within the GOP as signs of political drift, I think that they are exactly the opposite. A willingness to publicly admit and confront one's own mistakes is a sign of mature confidence. If this is the face of the new GOP, it will find itself in a strong position to win a second term in the White House in 2004.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:21 PM by David Adesnik  

POWELL PLAYS HARDBALL: I give credit where credit is due. The administration sent Colin Powell out to declare that Iraq is in material breach of 1441. Instead of a public conflict, the administration has put forward a unified front. If Powell is willing to risk the reputation for moderation that he was has worked so hard to cultivate, that means he is convinced that Saddam's violations of 1441 are so flagrant that the US will not have a hard time convincing potential allies to join the war effort. However, as Powell explained, this declaration of material breach is not an indication that the time for war has come. The decision for or against an invasion is expected in late January. Thus, Powell's declaration is his way of telling Saddam that the games are over, that he can either cooperate now or be forced to deal with Tommy Franks. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:07 PM by David Adesnik  

KRISTOL CHALLENGES SENATE: The Weekly Standard has never been afraid to speak up for what it believes is right, even if that means hacking away at fellow conservatives. That is why the Weekly Standard commands respect. Today, the founder of that proud tradition, editor-in-chief Bill Kristol, challenges Senate Republicans to stop hiding from the media and say whether they are for Lott or against him. If we're lucky, even old Strom will come out and say something! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:57 PM by David Adesnik  

RESPECT FOR PRECEDENT: When Katherine Mangu-Ward publishes an article, Josh links to it. Now that Josh is on vacation, that responsibility has fallen on me. Enjoy! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:35 PM by David Adesnik  

FAREED BETWEEN THE LINES, PART IV: Here is the final insallment of my commentary. Click for parts one, two and three.

…But while [Bush] adopts some of Wilson's loftiest ideals, [he] is also following some of his most fatal practices. Wilson's means were often highly unilateral. When he took the United States into the war, in 1917, he insisted that although it fought alongside France and England, it was not an ally but an "associated power." His entire approach to the war and its aftermath was to dissociate the United States from the sordid desires of its allies.

A surprisingly effective strategy!

Impatient with other countries' cultures and uninterested in their views, Wilson tended to issue declarations for the whole world. He believed strongly in the righteousness of his cause, and that was enough to allay any concerns he might have had about the reaction of foreign countries. In fact, he thought, their hostility was often proof of the revolutionary nature of his ideas. Some of this may have been true—just as some of Bush's frustration with European and United Nations diplomacy is understandable—but it insured that Wilson was a practical failure. Bush's high-handedness also promises to make his policies ineffective. Yet there is a way to conduct a robust and visionary foreign policy without triggering an avalanche of anti-Americanism around the world. It's called diplomacy.

This is where Zakaria's analytical relativism becomes most apparent. He presumes that other nations – including other democracies – will become fiercely anti-American if the United States disrespects multilateral norms regardless of whether it does so in order to realize Wilsonian ideals that both Americans and Europeans share. Yet if past behavior is an accurate guide, Europe will hem and haw if the US does an end run around the UN, but then forget all about it once Iraq is disarmed and democratic. On the other hand, if Iraq becomes what Iran was under the Shah – a brutal pro-American puppet state – Europe will become truly antagonized. No amount of diplomacy, i.e. spin, will change that.

…Roosevelt and Truman knew that to transform the world one had to engage in it. Roosevelt thought poorly of many of his wartime allies and their goals—he despised French and British colonialism, for example—but he understood that those countries had to be accommodated. Truman understood that the United States could best combat Soviet Communism by creating permanent, entangling alliances with other countries. As a result, these two Presidents and their successors created the conditions for the triumph of a world quite different from any that existed in the past. Today, there is an international consensus in favor of democracy, some version of open markets and capitalism, and some international norms, rules, and restraints. This has happened because of the inherent strength of these ideas but also because they have been hitched to American power.

Perhaps most important, Roosevelt and Truman, having lived through the nineteen-thirties, knew how fragile the international system was and believed that it needed support. Having reaped the fruits of this system—upheld by all successive Presidents of both parties—we have come to believe that stability is natural. But the world order put into place by the United States in the past half century—an order based on alliances, organizations, and norms—functions largely because of the respect paid to it by its superpower creator. Without that support, it will crumble into chaos.

Here, Zakaria clearly elevates the importance of means, i.e. “alliances, organizations, and [presumably multilateral] norms”, over ends such as the defense of capitalism and democracy. But did the US win the Cold War because of its “respect” for the system or because it dedicated its unmatched power to the pursuit of its ideals? If one recalls such unpleasant events such as France’s effective withdrawal from NATO in the 1960s or Reagan’s insistence on funding the Contras despite widespread European resentment, it becomes clear that what kept anti-Communist alliance together was not a respect for multilateralism, but a commitment to the ideals threatened by Soviet power.

…The Bush Administration is right to recognize that consensus is not an end in itself. And some American concerns about international organizations are valid. Within these organizations, America faces a special challenge: the United States has only one vote in most international organizations, and when other countries want to gang up on it they use these organizations to do so. But these are the kinds of problems that skillful diplomacy can resolve.

As my posts have indicated, I share Zakaria’s view that the Bush administration fails to recognize that it can often accomplish via diplomacy as much as or more than it can without it. Still, Zakaria overestimates the dangers of unilateralism.

…[via cooperation] American hegemony would gain the legitimacy that comes from operating through an international consensus.

Without this cloak of respectability, America will face a growing hostility around the world. During the Cold War, many nations disliked or disagreed with America—over Vietnam, for example—but they despised the Soviet Union. The enemy of their enemy was, in the end, their friend. But today, with no alternative ideology and no competitors, America stands alone in the world. Everyone else sits in its shadow. This doesn't mean that other countries will form military alliances against America; that would be pointless. But countries will obstruct American purposes whenever and in whatever way they can, and the pursuit of American interests will have to be undertaken through coercion rather than consensus. Anti-Americanism will become the global language of political protest—the default ideology of opposition—unifying the world's discontents and malcontents, some of whom, as we have discovered, can be very dangerous.

It is interesting that Zakaria refers to respectability as a “cloak”, as if it were hiding something more sinister. I think this reflects his refusal – much like that of Joe Nye – to recognize that America’s allies accept it for what it is, not for what it seems to be.

Also, note the contradiction between asserting that other nations supported the US against the Soviet Union because the “enemy of their enemy was…their friend” but that other nations will not support the US war on Al Qaeda. Yet even if no Europeans had died on September 11th, I think Europe would recognize that Al Qaeda is its enemy. Even in the case of Iraq, I have a sense that Europeans know which side they want to win. They just want that victory on their terms, not America’s.

"It is better to be feared than loved," Machiavelli wrote. But he was wrong. The Soviet Union was feared by its allies; the United States was loved, or, at least, liked. Look who's still around. America has transformed the world with its power but also with its ideals. When China's pro-democracy protesters gathered in Tiananmen Square, they built a makeshift figure that suggested the Statue of Liberty, not an F-16. America remains the universal nation, the country people across the world believe should speak for universal values. Its image may not be as benign as Americans think, but it is, in the end, better than the alternatives. That is what has made America's awesome power tolerable to the world for so long. The belief that America is different is its ultimate source of strength. If we mobilize all our awesome powers and lose this one, we will have hegemony—but will it be worth having?

No, Zakaria is not a moral relativist. I owe him an apology for once calling him that. But I believe I have made it clear that his idealism is strongly attenuated by his belief that only a fragile multilateral bond stands in the way of a chasm opening between the United States and its democratic allies.

The end!
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:54 AM by Daniel  

FREE SPEECH TO THE FULLEST. Ted Gup offers a powerful (if anecdotal) case for it. This is definitely worth reading, if you haven't done so already. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:40 PM by David Adesnik  

AMERICAN EXPERTS BETRAY IRAQI DEMOCRACY: Yesterday, the Council on Foreign Relations issued what it describes as an "integrated, coherent post-conflict strategy" for Iraq. I'd simply call it an embarrassment. I admit that I have been talking about the importance of postwar planning for a long time now. But this report remains stunningly silent on the political future of Iraq while focusing extensively on the reconstruction of its oil industry.

Let me sum up the problem this way: If you search the text of the CFR report for the word "democracy", you won't find it. All you will find is a vague reference to a "government based on democratic principles." If you search for the word elections, you will find it once, in the following context: "The United States should also encourage Iraqi-led efforts toward a new constitution, census-taking, local elections, and convocation of a new parliament." Encourage? Encourage?

Perhaps someone should have told CFR that democratizing Iraq is not just an option, but rather the heart of President Bush's vision for the reform of the Middle East. A true "integrated, coherent post-conflict strategy" for Iraq would provide considerable detail about how exactly one might go about introducing democracy to a nation that has no experience with it. When will elections be held? Who will supervise them? What sort of party system can be expected to emerge? What sort of judicial and police institutions will be able to defend a democratic order? What can be done to ensure that the Iraqi army stays out of politics? A list of questions like this could go on and on. None of them are answered in the CFR report.

In addition to ignoring such questions, the report explicitly denies the relevance of America's experience in democratizing Germany and Japan. As it observes,

The continued public discussion of a U.S. military government along the lines of post-war Japan or Germany is unhelpful. After conflict, Iraqis will be a liberated, not a defeated, people. While considerable U.S. involvement will be necessary in the post-conflict environment, such comparisons suggest a long-term U.S. occupation of Iraq that will neither advance U.S. interest nor garner outside support.

Why won't an extended occupation advance US interests? In light of the fact that the CFR report says nothing about how to ensure that Iraqi democracy survives its infancy, there is every reason to believe that a long-term American presence will be critical. And why wouldn't an American presence garner outside support? Admittedly, the Saudi and Syrian governments would not appreciate the presence of an American occupation force committed to creating an actual Arab democracy. After all, that might convince ordinary Saudis and Syrians that democracy in the Middle East is possible now.

While France and Russia tend to object to whatever the US proposes, there is good reason to believe that they would support an extended occupation as well, provided that their oil interests are taken care of. No one in Europe objects to the extended occupation in Bosnia or Kosovo, whose purpose is to prevent ethnic violence and restore democracy. That would be the purpose of an occupation force in Iraq as well.

Finally, the distinction between a liberated Iraq and the defeated Axis powers is misleading. While there it is probable -- but by no means definite -- that Iraqis resent Saddam more than the Japanese and Germans did their rulers, simplistic distinctions ibetween defeat and liberation ignore the fact that liberation does not just come from the fall of a hated dictatorship, but rather from its replacement with a functioning democracy. Like most Arabs today, the Japanese and (to a lesser extent) the Germans simply did not see democratization as a viable option. When the Americans imposed it on them, they realized that only then had they been truly liberated.

Another embarrassing aspect of the CFR report is the following passage:

It is possible that Saddam will be overthrown prior to the end of hostilities, with a new Iraqi strongman or a national salvation committee taking power in Baghdad. Assuming that such a government makes a clean break with Saddam's reign of terror and pursuit of WMD, the United States should be prepared to work with it and to help it establish the broadest, most favorable terms for post-conflict international involvement on disarmament and reconstruction.

Prepared to work with a "strongman"? Strongman? What could be more glaringly hypocritical than getting rid of one dictator but working with his successor? While it might be possible to persuade a strongman or "national salvation committee" to commit itself publically to democratization, experience shows that unelected governments tend to focus on preserving their own power while doing almost nothing to advance the democratization process. Besides, would there be any reason to believe than an unelected government would actually give up all of its weapons of mass destruction?

While I could go on for quite a while about the report, I'm going to end with one last criticism: the report's failure to mention even once that the most critical determinant of Iraq's future will be a personal commitment by the President to ensuring that Iraq becomes stable and democratic. Nowhere does the report suggest that the absence of presidential interest in Afghanistan has resulted in a return of warlordism and chaos. Instead, the report endorses Donald Rumsfeld's assertion that Iraq's future government "is not for the United States, indeed not even for the United Nations to prescribe. It will be something that's distinctively Iraqi". In other words, Rumsfeld will work with a dictatorship if he has to.

Perhaps the only thing worse than the CFR report was the NY Times article about it. The Times reports that

The study, sponsored by the Baker Institute and the Council on Foreign Relations, warned that "a heavy American hand" would only convince the Iraqis, as well as "the rest of the world, that the operation against Iraq was undertaken for imperialist, rather than disarmament, reasons."

Actually, the CFR report said that a "heavy American hand" specifically in the oil sector would validate speculations that this was another war for oil. To CFR's credit, the report does not say that a strong American presence in postwar Iraq would undermine the justification for war in the first place. It seems the NY Times paranoid fear of criticism from the left has been influencing its reporting. I'd call that liberal media bias if it weren't so touchingly naive.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:20 PM by David Adesnik  

FAREED BETWEEN THE LINES, PART THREE: Click to read parts one and two. If you already have, here's part three:

...but this view misinterprets history and misunderstands the unique place that America occupied in twentieth-century diplomacy. America was the most powerful country in the world when it proposed the creation of an international organization, the League of Nations, to manage international relations after the First World War. It was the dominant power at the end of the Second World War, when it founded the United Nations, created the Bretton Woods system of international economic coöperation, and launched most of the world's key international organizations. For much of the twentieth century, America embraced international coöperation not out of fear and vulnerability but from a position of confidence and strength. If the Bush Administration rejects this approach, it is indeed, as Richard Holbrooke has charged, making "a radical break with fifty-five years of a bipartisan tradition that sought international agreements and regimes of benefit to us."

Zakaria is right that Kagan’s approach can not explain the coincidence of American power and American multilateralism. But Zakaria cannot explain why America has now turned toward a more unilateral approach. The answer is that America prioritizes its ideals over the means of putting them into practice. Always Wilsonian (even before Wilson), America has pragmatically alternated between unilateral and multilateral methods to achieve Wilsonian ends.

…The fundamental questions about America's approach to the world are about ends. The Bush Administration has often used America's extraordinary power effectively, getting its way on a host of specific issues, from the A.B.M. treaty to Iraq's weapons production. But what do these issues add up to more broadly? What are the purposes of American hegemony?

The historical answer to that question is to be found in the British missionary movement of the nineteenth century, whose stated aims—to civilize developing countries, abolish the slave trade, act against human-rights abuses, and ostracize despotic governments—were adopted by the liberals, most prominently William Gladstone. In modern times, this Anglo-American vision of an idealistic foreign policy is most closely associated with President Woodrow Wilson.
Wilson was, in many ways, a failure as a politician. A stern man with few skills at negotiation or mediation, he was unable to get his own country to accept his most important project, the League of Nations. The Senate killed it, unwilling to commit America to the defense of something as vast and as vague as world order.

Zakaria shrewdly argues that Wilson’s unilateralism (vis-à-vis the Senate) was what prevented his ideals from becoming reality, thus implying that if Bush resorts to similar methods to achieve his ideals he will fail as well. Yet this argument reflects an outdated and inaccurate account of Wilson’s diplomacy. As historian Thomas Knock has demonstrated, the Senate did not resist Wilson because it would not “commit America to the defense of something as vast and vague as world order.” Rather, the Senate believed that the League charter imposed too many restraints on America’s freedom of action. Ironically, Wilson was too stubborn to recognize that his multilateralism would not prove acceptable to a more unilateralists Senate and public. Bush seems to have learned this lesson well. He has compromised at home but not abroad.

…Of course, like every powerful nation, the United States has pursued its own interests, often harshly—for instance, in Central America. And when the Cold War seemed most threatening—during the Vietnam War and amid rising Soviet expansion in the Third World—Americans turned to calculation and Realpolitik, carried out most intensively by Henry Kissinger. This raison d'état is still evident in our support of dictatorships from Saudi Arabia to Turkmenistan. But when the United States' position in the world has felt secure its goals have been the broad, idealistic ones that Wilson embodied. "We have it in our power," Ronald Reagan often used to say, quoting Thomas Paine, "to begin the world over again."

Rather than commenting on this paragraph, I will simply note that my master’s thesis is, in essence, a hundred page-long refutation of it. (You can look it up in Oxford's online library catalogue here.) If you happen to have a lot of free time on your hands, I will be happy to send you a copy via e-mail. But for the moment I will move on, since this point doesn’t bear all that directly on my analysis of Zakaria.

George H. W. Bush is often seen as a narrow-minded realist, and he would certainly not accept the label "Wilsonian." Yet, when searching for a way to describe his hopes for the world after the Cold War and the Gulf War, he grasped for one of Wilson's most famous ideas. "What is at stake," Bush said, "is a big idea—a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law." A few weeks later, in a speech to a joint session of Congress, Bush evoked "a world where the United Nations, freed from Cold War stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations."

Bush is considered a realist precisely by those who confuse realism with unilateralism. Bush and other presidents have rejected the label “Wilsonian” because it carries connotations of a multilateralism so extreme that it led to the appeasement of Hitler. But Bush’s ends are consummately Wilsonian.

…in what was billed as an important speech, delivered in June at the West Point commencement, Bush began to outline a world view. He described the dangers of the new era and then asserted that "America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace." It is a breathtaking statement, promising that American power will transform international politics itself, making the millennia-old struggle over national security obsolete. In some ways, it is the most Wilsonian statement any President has made since Wilson himself, echoing his pledge to use American power to create a "universal dominion of right." This claim is at the center of Bush's new National Security Strategy document, which says on its first page, "Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage. We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom."

Note the that Bush believes “American power will transform international politics”. That is the essence of Wilsonianism, not the multilateralism of the League of Nations.

To be continued...
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:57 PM by David Adesnik  

SOUTH KOREA'S TRENT LOTT: Apparently, stupid remarks are a global phenomenon. South Korean presidential contender Roh Moo Hyun let slip that he might keep South Korea neutral in a US-North Korea war. His running mate promptly bolted, offering a tremendous advantage to hawkish conservative candidate Lee Hoi Chang. The election will be held today.

UPDATE: Exit polls give victory to Roh. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:51 PM by David Adesnik  

COW INJURED: Al Qaeda has had no success in destabilizing the Afghan city of Khost with random missile attacks. However, a cow was injured. This cow, however, represents Khost's past rather than its future. In contrast to those cities controlled by warlords, Khost is embracing the freedom it won after the fall of the Taliban. It's main achievement has been the establishment of a university whose students had been studying in exile in Pakistan. I like good news! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:37 PM by David Adesnik  

SILENT STROM: Last week I asked whether Strom himself has said anything to indicate disapproval of Trent Lott's remarks. Howard Kurtz has done the research and says the answer is no. Big surprise there. At least Strom can't vote for the next session's majority leader. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:32 PM by David Adesnik  

SHE'S DONE IT AGAIN: WIth the aid of the Adesnik Corollary, Ms. Maureen has once again defied the Immutable Laws of Dowd. She has even come up with a bit of concrete (though slightly self-evident) advice for the President: let Lott go quietly so you don't alienate Southern voters.

On the other hand, Dowd spends her entire column implying that Republicans actively court the Southern racist vote without ever coming out and saying it. In other words, she's coming close to obeying the Second Law of Dowd, which dictates that "It's easier to whine than to take a stand or offer solutions." Admittedly, Geroge Bush's tactics in the South Carolina primaries were disturbing. Still, Dowd conveniently ignores the fact that Trent Lott has fallen from power because his comments outraged Republicans and Conservatives. And, of course, that Democrats court the anti-white racist vote. Perhaps if she spent more time thinking about the issues and less time writing about her personal life, Dowd could defy not just the Immutable Laws, but her own political prejudices. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:48 PM by David Adesnik  

ANOTHER BLOG-CHILD! OxBlog proudly announces the arrival of Ben Cannon's BeaverBlog. Despite the name, there is absolutely no pornographic material on Ben's site. Rather, the title refers to Oregon, the Beaver State. I guess Bob Packwood chose the name. That said, make sure to visit Ben and the BeaverBlog for up to date information and links about Oregon news and politics. You'll be glad you did. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:42 PM by David Adesnik  

SAUDIS DIVERSFY: Who says you can only fund one terrorist organization at once? Looks like the Saudis have been backing Hamas as well as Al Qaeda. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:21 PM by David Adesnik  

DOUBLE ENTENDRE? The NYT writes that "Al Gore deserves the gratitude of the nation...for his unquestionably painful decision not to run in 2004 for the presidency." Yes. Because he has spared us all the prospect of a Gore presidency. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:56 PM by David Adesnik  

THE BAD OLD DAYS: Women are still oppressed in Afghanistan. Why? Warlords. And it seems that Al Qaeda is reopening its Afghan bases as well. Wait a second. To do that, it would need the protection of a local warlord! Nahhh... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:47 PM by David Adesnik  

AYY, MATEY: Nelson Mandela has accused the United States of 'piracy'. Why? Because we insisted on seeing Iraq's weapons report before the rest of the Security Council. Predictable. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:36 PM by David Adesnik  

IT ONLY HURTS WHEN YOU LAUGH: Compare this NYT headline: "Israelis kill 3 Men in Gaza" with the story that follows:

JERUSALEM, Dec. 16 — Israeli soldiers in the Gaza Strip shot and killed three Palestinians early today. Two of the dead men were later found to have been carrying a large bomb and other weapons, the Israeli military said.

An Israeli military spokesman said the latter two were killed as they tried to infiltrate into Israel from the northern Gaza Strip. The spokesman said the men were carrying grenades, rifles, bulletproof vests, night-vision goggles and a large bomb. The militant group Hamas said the men were part of their organization...

This one is just so silly I can't even call it media bias. This may be naive, but I sense that the Times is bending over backwards to show that it isn't a kneejerk pro-Israeli paper. While I find that laughable, I also grew up in Jewish New York and know first-hand just how obsessed influential liberal Jews are with showing that they are not reflexive supporters of Israel.

At least the Post seems to have its head on straight. It asks: "So why is Mr. Sharon winning? One simple reason is that the Palestinians have utterly failed to control the terrorists in their ranks or put forward a leadership that could be a credible negotiating partner for Israel." (Of course, the Post isn't perfect.)

Sometimes it even seems like Arafat is a step ahead of the NYT. As he said, "Why is bin Laden talking about Palestine now? Bin Laden never, not ever, stressed this issue, he never helped us, he was working in another completely different area and against our interests...I'm telling him directly not to hide behind the Palestinian cause." Then again, that strategy has worked for Arafat for thirty years, so bin Laden may as well give it a try. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:04 PM by David Adesnik  

FAREED BETWEEN THE LINES, PART DEUX: Continued from yesterday...

…[In the 1990s] foreign problems, no matter how distant, seemed to end up in Washington's lap. When the crisis in the Balkans began, in 1991, the President of the European Council, Jacques Poos, of Luxembourg, declared, "This is the hour of Europe. If one problem can be solved by the Europeans it is the Yugoslav problem. This is a European country and it is not up to the Americans." It was not an unusual or an anti-American view. Most European leaders, including Thatcher and Helmut Kohl, shared it. But several bloody years later it was left to America to stop the fighting. By the time Kosovo erupted, Europe let Washington take the lead. During the East Asian economic crisis, East Timor's struggle for independence, successive Middle East conflicts, and Latin-American defaults, the same pattern emerged. In many cases, other countries were part of the solution, but unless America intervened the crisis persisted. During the nineteen-nineties, American action, with all its flaws, proved a better course than inaction...

American Presidents, however, were slow to embrace their imperial destiny. Bill Clinton came into office promising to stop worrying about foreign policy and to focus "like a laser beam" on the economy. But the pull of unipolarity is strong. By his second term, he had become a foreign-policy President. George W. Bush, in his campaign, reacting to what he saw as a pattern of overinvolvement in international affairs—from economic bailouts to nation-building—promised to scale back America's commitments. Today, the President who urged that America be "a humble nation" issues diktats to the world community, supports nation-building and bailouts, and is increasing America's foreign-aid budget by fifty per cent. The shift was made complete last month, with the publication of the White House's "National Security Strategy," an unapologetic acceptance of American hegemony.

In stating that “the pull of unipolarity is strong”, Zakaria implies that American power rather than American idealism led it to assume an active international role in the 1990s. Why then, did the United States pursue an active role in the 1940s? The pull of “bipolarity” perhaps. Still, this sort of power-based explanation cannot account for American activism in the 1890s or 1790s. Regardless of its weakness or strength relative to others, America has pursued an active role in the world because of it idealism. While often tempted to be no more than a model for others, the United States has always ended up using force to compel others to do right (and sometimes wrong).

As America's power became more apparent, foreign governments voiced their growing distaste for it. Clinton's chief economic advisers, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, and their de-facto subordinates at the International Monetary Fund were frequently accused of arrogance as they travelled in developing nations. Diplomats like Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke were disparaged in Europe for acting as if America were, in Albright's phrase, the "indispensable nation." The French foreign minister, Hubert Vedrine, devised the term "hyperpower" to describe Bill Clinton's America.

Once again, Zakaria assumes that power determines behavior and that growing power produces an automatic backlash. Developing nations may accuse the US Treasury and the IMF or arrogance, but they continue to grant them ever broader rights to interfere in their domestic politics. As for Europe, Robert Kagan has compellingly showed how Europeans protest the 'excess' of American power when it feels secure, but becomes deeply concerned that America is not strong enough when Europe is threatened. (Kagan, "The Benevolent Empire", Foreign Policy, Summer 1998 [no permalink]) On a related note, how can Zakaria account for the Europeans’ interest in having America solve European problems such as Bosnia and Kosovo? The answer is that Europe trusts America’s ideals much more than it resents America’s power.

…Even when the [Bush] Administration has ended up pursuing policies multilaterally it has done so muttering and grumbling—as it has in taking its case against Iraq to the United Nations—so that much of the good will it might have generated has been lost. Some neoconservative writers assert that such rancor is an unavoidable by-product of hegemony. In an influential article published this summer in the journal Policy Review, Robert Kagan argues that European and American differences over multilateral coöperation are a result of their relative strengths. When Europe's big countries were the world's great powers, they cared little for international coöperation, and celebrated Realpolitik. Europe is now weak, he writes, so it favors rules and restraints. America, for its part, wants complete freedom of action: "Now that the United States is powerful, it behaves as powerful nations do."

This passage is critical to Zakaria’s argument. He is right to criticize Kagan (as I have) for justifying American behavior in terms of American power. But note that Zakaria uncritically adopts a vital but implicit assumption in Kagan’s work: that cooperation is the antithesis of Realpolitik. This, however, is a comparison of apples and oranges. Realpolitik entails the ruthless pursuit of one’s objectives by whatever means necessary. Multilaterialism prescribes cooperation as a preferable means regardless of one’s objectives. Interestingly, what Realpolitik and Multilateralism share is an agnostic approach toward one’s ends. In contrast, Wilson idealism believes one’s ends are paramount. Thus, the Wilsonian United States often rejects Multilateralism as a restraint on its ability to achieve its ethically defined ends. As such, the critical question for both Zakaria and myself is this: What is more important to Europe? Multilaterial means or Wilsonian ends? If the former, America’s soft power will turn out to be fragile. If the latter, America’s soft power will prove to be durable.

To be continued... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:29 PM by David Adesnik  

FAREED BETWEEN THE LINES. Just a few days back, OxBlog had the honor of receiving fan mail from Newsweek editor and foreign affairs superpundit Fareed Zakaria. While Dr. Z said that OxBlog is “a great read”, he took exception to the charge of moral relativism that I laid at his door sometime back, in reference to an essay he published in The New Yorker. In particular, Dr. Z pointed to the last paragraph of his article, which read as follows:

America remains the universal nation, the country people across the world believe should speak for universal values. Its image may not be as benign as Americans think, but it is, in the end, better than the alternatives. That is what has made America's awesome power tolerable to the world for so long. The belief that America is different is its ultimate source of strength. If we mobilize all our awesome powers and lose this one, we will have hegemony—but will it be worth having?

I have to admit, that’s damn good evidence. I owe Dr. Zakaria an apology. The charge of moral relativism is a serious one and should not be made without careful consideration of one’s subject. As such, I would like to extend my apology to the three other authors whom I labelled as relativists along with Dr. Zakaria.

That said, I do believe that there are significant flaws in the four essays I cited. Without question, each one deserved more than the cursory treatment I gave it. Since the issues that each of the authors raised are still relevant, I will take time now to comment on their work in depth. I will begin with Zakaria's essay, covering it over the next four days.

Rather than moral relativists, it might be better to describe these authors as 'analytical relativists', since they come close to seeing international politics as an arena in which nations are judged according to their power, not their ideals. While some would no doubt resist that characterization, I believe that I can show it to be a meaningful one, even for Zakaria.

Before responding to Zakaria's essay directly, I think it is important to place these four authors in their proper intellectual context, as scholars rooted in the political science tradition known 'realism'. Historically speaking, realists have often been explicit advocates of moral relativism, both as an analytical as well as a prescriptive paradigm for the conduct of international relations. Prominent realists such as Henry Kissinger have often dismissed ethical restrictions on the conduct of foreign affairs, e.g. the consideration of human rights, as nothing more than impediments to the pursuit of a favorable balance of power.

In contrast, other realists have argued that the United States must respect human rights even though doing so might complicate efforts to safeguard our national security. Some realists take this position because they believe that the ethical significance of human rights demands that sacrifices be made in order to respect them. Others argue that since no foreign policy can succeed in the absence of domestic support, statesmen must take into consideration the ethical norms of their constituents.

What unites these kinder, gentler realists with the old guard is that none of them believe that strict adherence to ethical norms benefits the United States by convincing others of its good intentions. Believing international politics to be a domain in which power alone determines the welfare of nations, these realists see good intentions as nothing more than paving stones on the road to hell.

Against this background, it becomes apparent that Zakaria has departed significantly from mainline realism with his assertion that American idealism “has made America's awesome power tolerable to the world for so long…[thus] the belief that America is different is its ultimate source of strength.” Still I believe that there are significant elements of the old way of thinking still present in Zakaria’s work, especially his definition of what it means for America to be “different.” Through a detailed analysis of Zakaria’s essay in The New Yorker, I think I can show that his definition of difference has firm roots in the realist tradition.

Our Way: The Trouble With Being the World’s Only Superpower
By Fareed Zakaria

…a world with just one major power is unprecedented. For several centuries before 1945, European states of roughly equivalent standing dominated global affairs in a multipolar system. Many powers jockeying for advantage meant shifting alliances and almost constant war. It fixed in people's minds the image of international politics as Realpolitik, a ruthless, ever-changing game of might…

Most nations—including the United States—are still unsure of the character and the consequences of the unipolar world. The confusion has increased dramatically since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which for many Americans revealed the country's vulnerability: America's overwhelming military power cannot keep it safe. The attacks underscored the point that Harvard's Joseph S. Nye, Jr., made in his recent book, The Paradox of American Power, which argues that while American power is unmatched, it has its limits in a modern, globalized age.

I had the pleasure of meeting Joe Nye when he visited Oxford in the spring of 2001. Nye is an all-around nice guy and still thoroghly modest despite his towering achievements as both a scholar and a policymaker. Within the academy, Nye is best known for his introduction (along with Robert Keohane) of the phrase “complex interdependence”. In doing so, Nye became a co-founder of the school of thought known as neo-liberalism, which distinguished itself from realism by virtue of its insistence that nations’ growing interdependence could provide them with a purely rational, self-interested motive for avoiding conflict. This was a striking departure from the realists’ insistence that self-interested behavior makes conflict inevitable in international relations.

Outside of the academy, Nye is best known for coining the phrase “soft power” to describe the attractive force that the United States’ economic and cultural success has on other nations. In pre-publication lectures on “The Paradox of American Power”, Nye restated his earlier insistence that soft power is a fragile resource, since even limited unilateralist behavior can erase the goodwill that cultural and economic attraction creates. During the Q&A after the lecture, I unsuccessfully tried to persuade Prof. Nye that soft power is actually rather durable, since it rests not on goodwill, but rather on other democratic nations’ recognition that the United States shares their fundamental ideals, regardless of whether it occasionally misbehaves.

As becomes apparent later in Zakaria’s essay, he agrees with Nye that soft power is a fragile resource. As I see it, this view has reflects the strong influence of realism on neo-liberals such as Nye, despite their conscious rejection of it. In arguing that nations’ interdependence provides them with a rational, self-interested motive for cooperation, neo-liberals effectively adopt realism’s belief that the primary determinants of a state’s behavior are its interests, rather than its ideals. An implicit corollary to this assertion is the idea that nations judge their rivals primarily according to their interests rather than their ideals. If one adopts such a position, a logical extension of it is the belief that soft power is fragile, since its rests on goodwill rather than self-interest. While I was wrong to describe such beliefs as an example of moral relativism, I think it is clear to what degree such beliefs approach analytical relativism.

Much of the Western world has lived for some decades with the knowledge that terrorism can plague an open society. But the September attacks were more nihilistic, more deadly than any that had come before. And they were, in a sense, a consequence of the new unipolar world. Americans like to think that this country was attacked because it is free. But so are Italy and Denmark, whose cities stand undisturbed. America was attacked because it is the master of the modern world, deploying its economic, political, and military powers across the globe. Because America is "No. 1," it is also target No. 1.

In this provocative passage, Zakaria makes it clear that September 11th was a response to America’s power, not to its ideals. Absent in this passage is any hint of the leftist relativism that declares America’s ideals to be no more legitimate than those of Osama bin Laden. Nonetheless, Zakaria rules out the possibility that America was attacked because it has used its power in order to advance its ideals. Yes, Italy and Denmark are free. But it was the United States who defended the freedom of Kuwait and in doing so introduced degenerate infidel practices into the holy land of Islam.

Continued tomorrow...
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:03 PM by David Adesnik  

OXBLOG RULES NORTH KOREA: As OxBlog has said many times before, North Korea is addicted to a predictable strategy of good cop/bad cop when it comes to dealing with the United States. It's almost as if Kim Jong-Il reads OxBlog. Last week it played bad cop by threatening to reactivate it nuclear plant at Yongbyon. Today it says it wants a non-aggression pact with the US. Not a chance. Before we talk, the nukes have got to go. And if the North wants a non-aggression pact, it will have to finally give in and sign a real peace treaty with the South, formally ending the Korean War (and promising a thorough demilitarization of the North so that the US can focus its military efforts elsewhere).

UPDATE: Japan is behind us. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:49 PM by David Adesnik  

BRITNEY VS. THE AYATOLLAHS: In a scathingly brilliant column, Jackson Diehl lashes out at the Voice of America's Persian-language radio service for replacing its hard-edged coverage of Iran's student protests with a heavy rotation of teen pop idols. Diehl's objection isn't just a matter of principle. The fact is that VOA's Radio Azadi had become the pre-eminent forum for the student protesters. As Diehl explains:

Every day, student leaders would call by cell phone from the roiling campuses to the radio's headquarters in Prague and narrate the latest developments live. Each night the radio would broadcast a roundtable discussion, patching together students and journalists in Tehran with exiled opposition leaders to discuss where the reform movement was going. So instrumental to the rebellion-in-the-making did the radio become that pro-regime counter-demonstrators recently held up a placard reading "Who does Radio Azadi talk to?" -- a taunt taken by the station's staff as a badge of honor.

Two weeks ago, Radio Azadi went off the air. The mullahs had nothing to do with it. The man responsible for Azadi's disappearance was Norman Pattiz, a major Democratic donor rewarded by President Clinton with a position on the VOA's Board of Governors. A devout advocate of Clinton-style engagement, Pattiz insisted that Azadi's "old-style propaganda" was alienating the Persian masses. The protesters have learned to survive without Azadi. The cost to the United States is unknowable.

One question Diehl does not address is how the hell the Bush administration let a Clinton holdover make such a stupid, stupid decision. I see three causes. First, the administration has never gone beyond lip service in its efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East. W. and Condi say the right things when asked, but they just aren't making sure that officals at State, Defense or elsewhere in the administration incorporate democracy promotion into their frame of mind. If the VOA had cut off a good service in Qatar or Sudan, I wouldn't be so incensed. But Iran is a pillar in the axis of evil. A spontaneous, democratic and pro-American revolution in Teheran would demonstrate to the world just how powerful our ideals are.

The Azadi affair also implicates the Bush administration's inability to think in grand strategic terms. This isn't just about promoting democracy, but about the war on terror. There is no better way to end Iranian support for Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations than by supporting a democratic revolution. But the administration is so focused on the military aspects of the war on terror that it has forgotten the importance of public diplomacy. This, in essence, is my third point. The Bush administration does not know how to reach out to anyone except during campaign season. Karl Rove deserves credit for his success, but the war and terror would be going a lot more smoothly if the administration had avoided antagonizing the UN before demanding a new resolution on Iraq. Would Hans Blix really hesitate to interview Iraqi scientists if he thought the Security Council was really behind US demands that he do so? By the same token, the administration just didn't think about the impact of appointing Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 investigative commission. (As Glenn Reynolds points out from personal experience, the administration's insistence that it wasn't aware of Kissinger's conflicts of interests is patently absurd.) Or to pull an example from today's headlines, take a look at the Pentagon's absurd plans to covertly spread pro-American propaganda in countries friendly to the US. Perhaps DoD should worry about Iran before it worries about France.

One final reason that Jackson Diehl deserves credit for his column is that just two weeks ago the NY Times ran a puff piece praising the VOA's work in the Middle East, including its decision to send Britney off to do battle with the ayatollahs. In it, the ever-brilliant Norman Pattiz declares that "We can reap terrific dividends by talking to these young people directly in a way they understand." May I pause to savor the irony? To be fair, I have to admit that OxBlog was taken in by the Times. We praised the Times for praising Pattiz. I guess the moral of the story is that even the most dedicated critics of NYT bias aren't immune to its charm.

UPDATE: Fareed Zakaria provides the context in which to assess the prospects of the student protesters.

UPDATE: Ari Fleischer is already spin controlling the Pentagon's propaganda plans. According to Fleischer, ""The president has the expectation that any program that is created in his administration will be based on facts." I guess Fleischer forgot about the budget. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:04 AM by David Adesnik  

IMMUTABLE LAWS MUTED? There is ample room for criticism of Maureen Dowd's latest column. First of all, it's late. She is just about the last person to weigh in on Trent Lott's offensive comments at Strom's 100th. Second of all, she adds nothing new to the flood of commentary that's already out there.

But as I drew closer to the end of Dowd's column, I realize that just might have achieved something she never has before: breaking out of the constraints of the Immutable Laws. According to the First Law, "all political phenomena can be reduced to caricatures of the personalities involved." But in contrast to Dowd's casting of W. as the Boy Emperor, all we get about Lott are facts. Facts!

The Second Law commands that "It's easier to whine than to take a stand or offer solutions." Admittedly, Dowd never explicitly calls for Lott to forgo election as Majority Leader. In fact, she even observes that "Democrats were publicly screaming for less of Lott, while privately wanting more, gleefully exulting that he could be a potent symbol." If we just replace the words "Democrats were" with "Maureen Dowd is", we realize that Dowd herself may be ambivalent about Lott's resignation since it would complicate her search for pre-fab column topics. Still, I'm going to go ahead and say that since everyone knows Lott should resign, Dowd can't be criticized for not saying it again.

Law the Third: "It is better to be cute than coherent." This one's easy. Dowd makes a simple case that Lott's apology was not sincere. Yes, we knew that. But it is a coherent point, supported by actual evidence.

Law the Fourth: "The particulars of my consumer-driven, self-involved life are of universal interest and reveal universal truths." True, Dowd does begin the column with a story about how she was at a Broadway show. But there's a real point to the anecdote. In the show, which takes place in the late 40s, the characters argue about Communism. Then, Dowd heads back to work to find that other 1940's issues are still on the table: segregation, cross-burnings and all-male golf clubs. Hard as it is, I think I have to admit she has a point.

Law the Fifth: "Europeans are always right." The only Europeans mentioned in Dowd's column are Trotsky, Stalin and Kissinger. They most certainly are not right.

So what are we left with? Clear exceptions to Laws One, Three and Five along with possible exceptions to Laws Two and Four. In order to resolve this apparent contradiction, I proudly announce Adesnik's Corollary to the Immutable Laws of Dowd. It states that: "When the correct stance on a social or political issue is so painfully obvious that Josh Chafetz finds himself in agreement with Al Sharpton, then the Immutable Laws of Dowd may be temporarily suspended." Wonder if it'll ever happen again. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:20 AM by David Adesnik  

CALLING SHERLOCK HOLMES: America needs a new 9/11 commission head now that Henry K. is gone. Seconding Mr. Urman, I backed Gary Hart and Warren Rudman. The WashPost has weighed in and they want Rudman or former Dem congressman Lee Hamilton as chair. The only problem with Rudman is that a powerful senator has been resisting his appointment. Who might that be? Yes, you know who. Trent Lott! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion