Only in 1984 does any of this make sense.

An Important Friend

I can't think of a more important relationship for US to cultivate than the one with Turkey. Fortunately the new National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley is doing his part. Mr. Hadley is checking in with the Turks before moving on to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Of course the US is making predictable noises about opposition to the PKK and our support for Turkey's entry to the EU.

Heil Schroeder!

Gerhard Schroeder has insisted that the only way that a Grand Coalition could work would be if he were to remain as Chancellor. It appears that he may have overplayed his hand. In the NYT I link to it notes that a number of German papers ripped Schroeder for his stand yet they Times failed to note what their ideological leanings were. For example I don't know that much about German newspapers but I am pretty certain that the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is conservative. The criticism of Schroeder, they compared him to Putin, should be expected.

We Did it Again?! Human Rights Violations in Iraq

Three former members of the 82nd Airborne say that Iraqi prisoners were regularly beaten and abused. The most vocal critic is Capt. Fishback who has been pushing for an investigation for months. Two sergeants have also spoken up. NYT says that they are unidentified yet The Independent (UK) mentions Hart Viges as one of those speaking out. It's best to allow the investigation to play out and see what happens. Hopefully it is not as bad or permissive as described.

EUnuchs Step Up to the Plate

The UK (an exception to the EUnuch rule), Germany and France have proposed a new resolution on Iran. Instead of giving up altogether after meeting fierce opposition they have opted to offer a kinder, gentler resolution that would note that Iran is in violation but could put off Security Council action for years if they choose to comply. Putting this off for years is not something that I'm looking forward to but it would be best to give them the benefit of the doubt for now. The obstacles remain the Russians and Chinese as well as members of the Non-Aligned Movement - which means that they are pretty aligned as far as I'm concerned. The NAM members may even opt not to show up at the scheduled meeting so that a quorum is not met.

N. Korea - No More Food Thank You

These N. Koreans are a rather odd bunch. According to the WashTimes almost a quarter of N. Koreans are fed through a UN relief program that the N. Koreans have said they no longer need. The N. Koreans insist that "good farming" they can take care of themselves. There is a chance that the N. Korean government may continue accepting the aid if it is relabeled as developmental as opposed to humanitarian.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

I can't think of any Republican worse than Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to be the chair of the House International Relations Committee yet there she is neck and neck with Dan Burton for the post. Not only is Ms. Ros-Lehtinen a one note politician she is also consistently off key. All that the Congresswoman from Cuba cares about is Fidel Castro. Yes she is downplaying her Castro obsession but there is no doubt in anyone's mind what her priorities are and unfortunately for the Congress and our country she is far more concerned with Little Havana than she is with our nation's interests. It may seem politically expedient to name an hispanic woman to high ranking post but it would be doing us all a disservice. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen lacks long-term vision and any sense of what America's priorities should be. Republicans should tap Dan Burton to the post. We need a sober steady voice with an understanding of the major issues that the US is facing and the ability to guide the committee to address them.

What Nye Was Talking About: Democracy in the Mid East

A day after his op-ed at CSM the paper follows up with stories on what he was talking about. In Syria prospective democrats are eager to challenge Baath. Over at Morocco there is a push for more transparent government.

Book Pages: WSJ on Imperial Grunts

Let me brief, because to be perfectly honest I'm a little sleepy. Daniel Ford reviews Imperial Grunts and he doesn't really care for it. That's ok because I don't particularly care for Ford's review. The thing is that Ford spends so much time complaining about Kaplan's prose and word usage that I really have no idea what he hates about the book. I know what I hate about his review - it's too long and does not tell me anything and why I should agree with Ford and not Kaplan. Ford did not totally hate the book and he also noted some of its observations:

One of the more surprising of Mr. Kaplan's findings is that evangelical Christianity helped to transform the military in the 1980s, rescuing the Vietnam-era Army from drugs, alcohol and alienation. That reformation, together with the character-building demands of Balkans deployments of the 1990s (more important, in his judgment, than the frontal wars against Saddam Hussein), created our "imperial grunts."

The phrase is slightly misleading--even off-putting. As a synonym for American troops, "grunt" came and mostly went with the Vietnam War, evoking the dispirited soldiery of that era. And "imperial," with its adjectival nod to "imperialism," concedes too much to those who argue that the U.S. and the world would be better served if we withdrew behind our own borders. But Mr. Kaplan intends something positive--a way of suggesting that our far-flung troops are the descendants of the cavalry, dragoons and civilian frontiersmen who fought the Indian wars of the 18th and 19th centuries. Indeed,
his opening chapter is titled "Injun Country," a term that was also popular in the early days of the Vietnam War and one that soldiers use with respect.

At the end he even tosses out a compliment (sort of):

If "Imperial Grunts" serves no other purpose, it is a wonderful corrective to the disenchanted troops we sometimes see on the television news or in the new TV series "Over There," or read about in the dispatches of reporters and pundits who are themselves disenchanted by the war on terror.

Czeching Castro

It is a relationship that is often overlooked and rarely examined. I speak of the remarkable support that the Czech Republic has consistently provided to Cuban dissidents. And no one has been more vociferous Vaclav Havel. While most of the EUnuchs have been eager to repair relations with Cuba the Czechs continue to hold the line. A piece at the Foreign Policy Association examines the relationship:

"We were also under the same conditions as Cuba," said Vladimir Bartovic, a Czech student who has collaborated with PIN and traveled to Cuba three times to support dissident efforts. "We were living in an undemocratic regime. We have an understanding for the people of Cuba and their living conditions, the inhumanity and the violating of human rights."

Cuban students and workers living in communist Czechoslovakia and other historical exchanges play an important role in existing bilateral relations. "Czechoslovakia was the second biggest trade partner with Cuba after the Soviet Union," said Dana Braschov PIN's senior program officer for Cuba. "A lot of Czechoslovakians were working in Cuba" she added.

On the Newstands: TNR on NK Agreement

The New Republic gives W a backhanded compliment by saying he finally got it once it got to N. Korea. They also lean heavily on the NYT account of the negotiations, which means that it should be taken with a grain of salt. According to NYT China leaned on the US hard saying they were isolated on the deal. This counters previous reports that Japan and the US were both holding steady on certain aspects of the deal particularly buying a reactor which technically is not even in the deal. TNR also seems to scoff at W's stated distrust of Kim Jong Il as if there is anything wrong in not trusting weasily tyrant. All you had to do was witness the political machinations after the deal was announced to know that the man cannot be trusted:

Although significant gaps remain between Washington and Pyongyang--most notably over the North's demand for a light-water reactor--even this basic statement of principles represents a sea change for the Bush team. After all, if the North's illegal weapons program is largely responsible for initiating the crisis, the White House's obstinacy has been largely responsible for drawing it out. Remember that, initially, the administration refused to talk to Pyongyang at all. When it finally did agree to meet the North, it was only to "talk," not to "negotiate." Hardliners like Vice President Dick Cheney and John Bolton, then the undersecretary of state for arms control, opposed discussions to end the nuclear program, demanding instead that the North unilaterally disarm and hoping that it would collapse under the weight of its own tyranny before compromise was necessary. Their central argument was that no agreement could secure denuclearization as long as Kim Jong Il retained power, rendering untenable any distinction between negotiation and appeasement. In 2003, Cheney rejected a Chinese plan similar to the deal reached this week, reportedly saying, "We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it."

EUnuchs Balk on Iran

Facing stiff oposition from Russia and China (surprise!) the EUnuchs opted to hold off on pressing the IAEA to send the Iran nuke issue to the Security Council. What's the point China is likely to veto any effort to sanction Iran. What possible interest does Iran have in complying? With insane petrol prices it is unlikely that the EUnuchs will punish them too hard. Iran can also count on third world support.

In The Tanks - Help Katrina Recovery by Cutting Tariffs

The Heritage Foundation thinks that slicing tariffs will help in the rebuilding effort along the Gulf Coast:

Most Americans hope that Gulf Coast businesses will be able to return to the area quickly and provide jobs for displaced workers. With lower reconstruction costs from reduced tariffs, companies in the region will face greater incentives to rebuild and Katrina’s impact on the U.S. economy and the federal budget would be blunted. Moreover, breaking down tariffs could increase regional investment and employment prospects, improving both the business climate and the chance that local government finances will stabilize soon. Perhaps most importantly, with lower tariffs, the region’s residents—now displaced from their homes, facing unemployment, and receiving limited compensation from insurance policies—would have less to fear about the cost and time required to rebuild their lives.

Penalty tariffs on lumber imports from Canada average 27 percent. This adds an additional $1,000 to the price of a new home, on average. Cement imports from Mexico face average penalty tariffs of almost 55 percent, a markup that will make the price of rebuilding home foundations, office buildings, highways, bridges, ports, and other infrastructure far more costly. Eliminating these tariffs would reduce the amount of federal assistance that is required as well as reduce the burden of rebuilding on U.S. taxpayers. Likewise, steel and specialty steel products will be essential to rebuild the Gulf Coast, but their supply is tight due to protectionist policies favoring a few U.S. producers. Unless these policies are changed, steel prices will climb when rebuilding begins.

I think the rebuilding effort along the Gulf Coast could be as good as time as any for W to fufill his pledge before the UN to look at tariffs.

Joseph "Soft Power" Nye on W's Democracy Push

Considering that he is no friend of the administration Joseph Nye does not rip W for his push to democratize the Mid East. Sure he knocks him for confusing elections for democracy, but what realist doesn't by this point. Here are the highlights:

With the invasion of Iraq and his increased rhetoric of democracy, Mr. Bush transformed the status quo. In the past six months, there have been national elections in Lebanon and local elections in Saudi Arabia. Egypt has amended its constitution to allow its presidential election to be contested. Moderate steps have been taken in Bahrain, Oman, and Morocco. Some of these things would have occurred without the Iraq war; some might not have.

Democracy, however, requires the tolerance of minorities and individual rights, as well as the development of effective institutions for the resolution of political conflicts in divided societies. It is much more than just elections. That is why the current dispute over the Iraqi constitution is so important. Unless a compromise is achieved and the Sunni minority is conciliated, another set of elections will not solve the problem...

The Bush administration may be correct that the risks of promoting democracy are less than the risks of allowing the status quo of authoritarian regimes to persist indefinitely. But the means matter as much as the ends. The development of civil societies, economic growth, and openness to the world are crucial. In addition, it is important to address conflicts like the Israel-Palestine issue that create a sense of indignity in the region.

Democracy will not convert the current crop of extremist jihadis to peaceful change, and too rapid a transition may destabilize governments and enhance the extremists' opportunities to wreak havoc. But over time, the slow, steady progress of democratization and freedom provides a sense of hope for the moderates. We need to create a narrative about a better future that undercuts the message of hate and violence promoted by the extremists.

No Posting Until Later

I'm actually working at work today so hopefully I'll be able to post later...

The American Interest

No I am not bitter that I have yet to recieve my first issue of The American Interest. Just to show you that I am not bitter I'm even to link to a blog hyping them up. I found the link on AI...contd which kind of mentioned that they were mentioned. So you won't have to read the whole post I am excerpting the section relevant to AI:

I mention that roundtable because a similar question gets asks of Francis Fukuyama, one of the participants of the APSA Roundtable and the Chair of the Editorial Board of a new journal, The American Interest. Those following the philosophical and policy debates in Washington will recognize the allusion to the 'National Interest', which has changed hands and now represents more of a realist of neo-isolationist perspective rather than the neo-conservative and realist mix it promoted up until this year.

The American Interest went live online in the last few days and would be worth the attention for the distinguished and eclectic contributor pool and editorial board alone. Irish readers, particularly those opinion leaders who have been attacked an ill-defined idea of neo-conservatism since the Iraq War without attention to the scholarly debate that has been underway over the last two and half years behind the scenes, would do well now to examine the new publication for indications of how neo-conservatism may be reverting to a more realist worldview, or at least how it might branch out over the next few years.

A survey of the first issue offers some clues. For a start, the choice of Secretary of State Rice as the interviewee of the cover article nicely picks up on the tension between the neo-conservative and realist tendencies embodied in Charles Krauthammer's phrase 'democratic realism' by selecting an individual who has been recently portrayed variously as steering US policy back to realism and as a leading backer of neoconservative theories within the White House. From the statement of principles and the presence of several articles on aspects of American political culture, it could be inferred that the journal will emphasise the particularly neo-conservative thesis that a state's internal arrangements greatly shape its behaviour in world affairs. Robert Kaplan's listing on the first table of contents suggests that a rather un-neo-con bent towards realpolitik may be making a bit of a resurgence at the same time. Notwithstanding the routine disclaimer that the journal represents no one viewpoint, the circumstances of its origin mean that its future line will of particular interest.

Of course, what that future line may be is all speculation for now. What's important to note is twofold. First, that there is a well-developed debate on the future of American foreign policy amongst those lazily labelled neo-conservative. Second, it's largely slipping in under the radar in Ireland. Reading the American Interest would go a long way towards addressing the problem.

Popping the MDG Bubble

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks that the MDGs are nothing more than a feel good initiative that could potentially throw away good money that could be spent elsewhere. Here is Richard Tren from TCS:

Professor Amir Attaran of the University of Ottawa pointed out in a recent paper that most of the goals are un-measurable. For instance, MDG number 6 calls for the incidence of malaria to have been halted and begun to reverse by 2015. But no one, not even the World Health Organization, knows what the incidence of malaria actually is. How is one supposed to know when malaria cases have been cut in half when the starting point is unknown and no effort has been made to measure progress along the way?

There are many more examples: MDG number 6 also pledges to reverse the incidence of tuberculosis; but no country measures the incidence of TB. MDG number 5 aims to "reduce by three quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio." The maternal mortality ratio measures the number of women dying through complications of pregnancy and delivery per 100,000 live births. Yet in the poorest countries, where maternal mortality is worst, the data on live births and deaths is scanty.

Professor Attaran considers one MDG -- that relating to under-five child mortality -- is actually measurable. Household surveys can be effectively used to record whether a child has died before the age of five and progress on this target can indeed be measured. If the UN were to set up goals that mean something and can be measured therefore, they can promote policies to meet the goal.

It is morally reprehensible for political leaders to sign onto goals they know they have no means of attaining. Endorsing the fight against disease and poverty may build political capital for a politician, but it means little to ordinary people in poor countries. The fact that no one can measure progress allows that politician to declare success at any point or blame others for failure, as he or she likes.

Tren also provides us with the solution that I had previously found rather obvious:

Instead of signing onto targets and uttering yet more platitudes, the leaders of poor countries should be doing everything that they can to reduce poverty and that can only be done by increasing economic growth. Economic growth in turn can only come from the enterprise and energy of the private sector and they can only be successful when economic freedom increases. If African leaders really care about the MDGs they would implement economic reforms, such as securing property rights, ensuring the rule of law,
removing bureaucratic barriers to business and trade and reducing tax rates. Without that, economic growth will be sluggish, if positive at all, and individuals will continue to be hungry and poor.

Of course, if those much needed reforms are not made it will not be all bad news at the UN and WHO. Yes, Africans will remain poor and sick, but in ten years time academics
and bureaucrats will be able to raise lots of money to think up more meaningless targets and hold more conferences and the whole merry-go-round will continue.

N. Korea - The Other Shoe Drops

You had to know that N. Korea would not go silently into the night. Right after agreeing to end their weapons program N. Korea came out and demanded a light water reactor. The US said no and Russia agreed. Where does China stand?

Talabanni Speaks Part II

I'm a little late posting this interview. Talabanni spoke to the WSJ and managed not to flub his talking points. He also revealed how Saddam was allegedly tricked into confessing:

"At first Saddam refused to talk," Mr. Talabani said. The former dictator would not discuss the operational military details of alleged Baathist crimes elsewhere. "Then a young Iraqi judge, a very clever man, said to him, 'I'm very sorry to see the ex-president of Iraq is a coward.' Saddam said, 'I am coward? I can answer every question.' After that, he talked."

Good Blog on Germany

If you are interested in keeping track of what is going on in Germany check out Davids Medienkritik (hat tip andrewsullivan.com). They have a good breakdown of what is going on and what may end up happening with Germany. There is even a post with a picture of the repulsive campaign poster featuring American war dead.

In The Tanks - Gaza

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy has some interesting stuff on Gaza after the Israeli pullout. First there is a great map of Gaza on PDF. They also provide a plan to to "empower" Mahmoud Abbas and discuss issues surrounding the Gaza/Egypt border including contents of the Israeli/Egyptian aggreement.

A Neo-Con Take on Lula and W

Joshua Muravchik of AEI compares Lula and W's troubles and figures that the reason W has bad press internationally is the fact that he is fiscally irresponsible. I think there might be a little bit more to it than that, but I just had to post this just for the man eat dog angle of a neo-con praising Lula.

W Needs to Lead on Trade

CSM wants W to do something about the Doha Round. They're sympathetic to his challenges with the Congress but feel that W need needs to be a leader on trade.

More on Korean Nukes

The details are that there are few details so don't break out those party hats yet. Fred Kaplan at Slate shocked me last week when he wrote that W could not be blamed for the impasse of the six party talks with N. Korea returned to form today and blamed W for taking so long to get an agreement.

I Couldn't Have Said It Any Better...

I've notice that whenever I sleep in cominganarchy beats me to the punch on EVERYTHING. Since their "WTF!" comment on the N. Korea deal is dead on I have to prepare (maybe) for another hurricane (probably) check them out. I have to agree with Curzon's post on the German elections and loved Chirol's "red/blue" map of Germany Can't the west ask for a divorce?

Hopefully I won't be out of commission but there is a 50/50 chance that I will not be posting tomorrow.

John Fund on the German Election

John Fund at WSJ is one of the more astute observers of politicial campaigns and he weighs in on the mess that is the German election:

The muddled result, with neither major party able to form a stable parliamentary majority, means that Germany will not be taking decisive action anytime soon to reform its unwieldy welfare state, which has helped bring it 11% unemployment and zero economic growth That will not be good for the world. Germany, the third-largest economy in the world, represents 30% of the output of the European Union. The "sick man of Europe" is likely to remain bedridden for a while longer.

Fund blames the Germans in the east, a lousy campaign and a fear of change for the disastorous result. He closes with lessons for Americans:

The late economist Mancur Olson argued that the downfall of democracy would be its tendency to calcify into special-interest gridlock. Germany's extensive welfare state has created millions of voters who fear the loss of any benefits. Combine that with voters in eastern Germany who cling to outmoded notions of state support and you have an formidable challenge to bring about real reform.

"The lesson for America is do not go down the road as far as Germany has," says Horst Schakat, a German who created a series of successful businesses in California for 30 years but retired to his native land in 2001. "You may find yourself unable to go down a different but correct path once too many people have become dependent on the state."

I've always meant to but I've never actually gotten around to reading anything Mancur Olson but Jonathan Rauch's Government's End: Why Washington Stopped Working (originally published as Demosclerosis) explored the themes discussed by Olson and cites his work.

China Will be # 1

According to the OECD China will be the world's biggest exporter in five years and biggest economy by mid-century.

Voting in Afghanistan and Germany

They're voting in Afghanistan today and in Germany. In Afghanistan the people are once again shaking off the Taliban and doing their part although turnout is reportedly lower than it was for the presidential election. NYT and others may read a great deal into that but aren't our turnouts lower when there isn't a presidential race?

In Germany things appeared tight for Angie as the day began but now she says she has a mandate. Unfortunately for her projections show that FDP did slightly better than expected but her CDU/CSU did worse so she still might have to join up with the SDP for a grand coalition. Unless she somehow hooks up the Greens.

Chavez Plays from the Castro Playbook

Literally 45 years ago Fidel made Harlem his during visit to New York to speak before the UN. Now Chavez in town because of the UN seeks to make a whole borough his own. Hugo lived it up in the Bronx and had a grand old time.

John Bolton and the UN

NYT is surprised that the UN is still standing after John Bolton's arrival. Meanwhile at the WSJ we have Bolton as Sisyphus. This by the way is only the second time in my life I've seen Sisyphus referenced in any general circulation newspaper - The Economist is the other.

Cohen on Iraq

Speaking of Eliot Cohen he had a great piece on the war in Iraq that was published by WaPost. It was set off by his mixed feelings as his son was getting ready to be shipped off to Iraq. Cohen's criticism of the military leadership should not be surprising considering his book, Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen and Leadership in Wartime, argued in the words of French Premier Georges Clemenceau, "War is too important to be left to the generals."

Book Pages: Eliot Cohen on Imperial Grunts

At the WaPost Eliot Cohen gives his take on Imperial Grunts. Cohen has his quibbles with Kaplan:

He notes more than once how much he despises the academic, journalistic, diplomatic and wonkish elites...And he takes on many of the other dislikes of the men (he encounters very few American women in this book) with whom he lives: diplomats, bureaucrats, most Army general officers, lumbering regular-army units, and all REMFs (an acronym unfit for printing in a family newspaper whose first letters stand for "rear echelon").

After a while, these sentiments begin to look more like a chip on the shoulder than an argument; they are, in any event, a distraction from the purpose of the book, which is to depict elements of the U.S. Army (Special Forces soldiers, above all) and some units in the Marine Corps in the front lines of the awkwardly named "global war on terror."

Considering Cohen's background you can understand why he bristles at the criticism of wonkish elites yet Cohen goes on to say a great deal of good things about the book and Kaplan's writing:

As befits such a global tour, Kaplan is a very good travel writer indeed. He superbly describes bazaars and rainforests, brothels and junkyards, hootches and bases, M-4 carbines and M-240 machine guns, heat and dust. He captures in a few pages what it takes to train a moderately competent sergeant or plan an assault on Fallujah.

He is also an acute observer of soldiers. His is a picture of perhaps the most experienced and able military the United States has ever had, led by junior and mid-level officers and NCOs who are versatile, self-reliant and quick-witted. It is also a military that is culturally distinct from the stateside groups that make policy -- the latte-swilling cultural elites at whom Kaplan periodically thumbs his nose.

Ultimately Cohen is not so convinced of Kaplan's assertion of the inevitability of American empire (careful Dr. Cohen or you can't write for Weekly Standard anymore) nor that the most active element of US foreign policy should be a Special Forces soldier but a diplomat. Nonetheless Cohen finds Imperial Grunts to be a book worth reading:

Kaplan has made a career of bravely covering the ungoverned parts of this world. Until Sept. 11, 2001, when the consequences of allowing al Qaeda its Afghan base became clear, most Americans did not think they had to care very much about them; some would argue that we still should not. But chaos exercises its compulsions even upon reluctant imperialists. There are many instruments of national power other than the military, some of which Kaplan unfairly ignores -- think of the diplomats and activists who helped secure the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, for instance. Nor should one be as comfortable as he is with having the military assume foreign-policy-making roles; plumbers should not be architects. But for better or worse, the grunts Kaplan describes so brilliantly will be out there representing America in the chaotic zones of a dangerous world, and to understand them one is well advised to read this book.