A Running Diary of Thought

This site made possible by:

 

The Interim Iraqi Administration

Woolsey is Nuts; Is Syria Toast?

London's Guardian seems to have the early word on the outline of the interim administration of Iraq: "A Pentagon lawyer who sought to have US citizens imprisoned indefinitely without charge as part of the war on terrorism will supervise civil administration in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is removed.

"Michael Mobbs, 54, who will take charge of 11 of the 23 Iraqi ministries, is one of several controversial appointments to the Pentagon-controlled government-in-waiting being assembled in a cluster of seaside villas in Kuwait.

"Other top-level appointees include James Woolsey, a former CIA director with Israeli connections, who has long pursued a theory that Saddam Hussein, rather than Islamic militants, was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre in New York. Another is Zalmay Khalilzad, who once symp-athised with the Taliban but later changed tack."

If this is true, that would mean the State Department didn't fair so well with its nominees. Reuters says State recommended three former ambassadors: Barbara Bodine (Yemen, but also has experience in Iraq), Robin Raphel (Tunisia), and Kenton Keith (Qatar).

Conservatives had disparaged the picks because, as Reuters puts it, they "are too sympathetic to Arab views."

Is that such a bad thing?

P.S. Woolsey seems to be a raving lunatic. CNN has him declaring World War IV: a war against "the religious rulers of Iran, the 'fascists' of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al Qaeda." (CNN's words). Do we really want to declare war on Iran and Syria right now?

He also had harsh words for Egypt and Saudi Arabia. "We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you -- the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family -- most fear: We're on the side of your own people."

P.P.S This article in The Nation takes him to task. For example, it highlights his thoughts on the conflict with North Korea. War. With "a nation that might already have a few nuclear weapons and that does have 600,000 North Korean soldiers stationed 25 miles from Seoul, with 37,000 US troops in between." (Nation's words)

P.P.P.S. Syria, as Woolsey advocates, may be up next. Slate's Saletan tracks recent interviews and articles that suggest Syria has secured a high priority in the Bush administration. The Post notes the byzantine relationship between the U.S. and Syria.

posted at 8:56 PM |

 

Chalabi Watch, Day 3

It's a mixed day for Chalabi, the controversial candidate who wants to lead Iraq (follow the series here and here).

First up, U.S. News reported that "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is urging President Bush to install an interim Iraqi government immediately–even as the war continues. The new authority would be made up of Iraqi opposition groups in exile, including the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmed Chalabi."

Since the war began, Chalabi has been asserting his own role in a new Iraq by issuing "a flood of international communiques that imply he already has a leadership role."

In the meantime, Judith Yaphe, an Iraq expert at the National Defense University, tells Reuters, "There are few indications thus far that the exiles would be welcomed as participants in government in Iraq," she said, adding: "Iraqis... don't tend to look kindly on exiles who have been out of the country for 20 years or more."

When did Chalabi leave Iraq? 1956.

But, there are reports of very bad news for Chalabi. According to this story, Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition Zalmay Khalilzad (who apparently once supported the Taliban, before helping the U.S. in Afghanistan) has "refused to back his proposals," constituting a "bitter blow to Mr Chalabi’s hopes of being Iraq’s next president." The article adds that in the Kurdish region, only nine percent of people want Chalabi to be president.

In the Kurdish region? Weren't these the people who were supposed to be the most excited about getting rid of Hussein and getting a new government?

In another bout of bad news, the Washington Times reports that the State Department has set its sights on an 80 year-old man living in Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates.

At any rate, it sounds like we'll soon hear what role Chalabi will play.

P.S. the skeptic has found a new ally, and Chalabi has a new enemy. Nicholas Kristof writes "the Pentagon's apparent plan to make an Iraqi leader out of Ahmad Chalabi, whose support lies along the Potomac rather than the Tigris or Euphrates, is emblematic of the administration's Attila-the-Hun brand of diplomacy, which risks antagonizing the world and alienating the Iraqi people themselves."

posted at 8:35 PM |

 
Note to the Economist: That whole quoting-Adam-Smith-at-every-opportunity, and framing stories in the what-Adam-Smith-wrote, what's-going-on-in-the-world, what-Adam-Smith-might-think-were-he-alive structure is getting really old.

posted at 2:48 PM |

 

A Sad Loss

the skeptic is devastated by the loss of Michael Kelly, editor-at-large for the The Atlantic Monthly. the skeptic never cared for his conservative rants, and found his Post and Atlantic columns rather lacking in meaningful substance.

That said, the skeptic has become infatuated with The Atlantic for its smart, compelling and important articles. Kelly was widely seen as instigating the revitalization of what was once a less attractive, less readable publication. Yes, he was a "caustic conservative" (WP), but the skeptic appreciates the work he has done and pauses to remember him.

P.S. Slate's Shafer remembers him here, the NYT here, and the TNR staff does here.

posted at 2:21 PM |

 

Is the Dog Being Wagged?

What an unreal story:

"Mohammed, a gregarious 32-year-old Iraqi lawyer, went by the hospital in Nasiriyah one day last week to visit his wife, who worked there as a nurse, when he noticed the ominous presence of security agents.

"Curious, he asked around, and a doctor friend told him an American soldier was being held there. Something made him want to go see. The doctor took him to a first-floor emergency wing where he pointed out the soldier through a glass interior window — a young woman lying in a bed, bandaged and covered in a white blanket.

"Inside the room with her was an imposing Iraqi man, clad all in black. Mohammed watched as the man slapped the American woman with his open palm, then again with the back of his hand. In that instant, Mohammed recalled today, he resolved to do something. After the man in black left, Mohammed sneaked in to see the young woman.

"'Don’t worry, don’t worry,' he told her. He was going for help.

"As he recounted the events today, that decision set in motion one of the most dramatic moments in the first two weeks of the war in Iraq. Five days later, after Mohammed located U.S. Marines and told them what he knew, Black Hawk helicopters swooped in under cover of darkness, touching down next to the six-story hospital, and a team of heavily-armed commandos stormed the building. With hand-scrawled maps from Mohammed and his wife, the commandos quickly found the injured Pfc. Jessica Lynch and spirited her away to safety." ...

"When Mohammed mentioned that he would love an American flag, the Marines rushed to find one.

"'He’s sort of an inspiration to all of us,' said Lt. Col. Rick Long, who hosted the family in his trailer for a dinner of Meals Ready to Eat tonight."

Like something out of Wag the Dog, isn't it?

posted at 1:55 PM |

 

Aiding the Fight Against Aids, Part II

So far, good news from recent AIDS crisis legislation a U.S. House committee passed. They've doubled Bush's rather meager funding proposal, and quintupled the "authorized" amount to the UN Global AIDS program.

The debate had stalled over the role of abstinence in funding the fight against AIDS, and the accountability of the UN to the U.S. (See previous posting.)

As passed, there are no specific abstinence-only provisions, simply endorses wider usage of Uganda's effective ABC program. Furthermore, the compromise on the UN was the stipulation that the U.S. contribution can't be more than 33 percent of the total contribution (i.e. the Global Fund needs to raise at least $3 billion).

Will the full House keep all the money there? Will the Senate Foreign Relations Committtee treat this issue as generously? Will the Senate keep all the money there? Will the compromise bill that comes out of conference be as bold?

(The article notes, "There has been pressure from the White House and Senator Majority Leader William Frist (R-TN) to scale back the Senate measure. What the White House will support now is unclear.")

the skeptic is, sadly, doubtful. But he will be sure to keep readers posted.

posted at 4:51 PM |

 
Whoops!: Will some people never learn?

posted at 4:13 PM |

 

Chalabi Watch, Day 2: Let the Lobbying Begin

the skeptic has moved onto watching what will happen with Chalabi, that neocon golden boy, who isn't much liked by anyone else.

Jane Perlez reports that Chalabi won't be happy with "just an advisory position." Instead, he wants "the formation of a provisional government in which he would be a leading figure." And he's receiving a good deal of support from neocon heaven. (Quotes are Perlez's, not Chalabi's.)

Doesn't sound like Chalabi's in any hurry to create democracy.

The article then quotes a member of the "U.S. Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance" team as saying, "The decision on the new political class in Iraq is very hot. It has yet to be made in Washington." (skeptic's emphasis)

Doesn't sound like Washington's in any hurry to create democracy either.

posted at 3:02 PM |

 

That Legal, Ethical, and Political Quagmire: College Admissions

Jonathan Rauch advocates (3/28) "trust-busting" what he calls "a mighty cartel of color-consciousness" in colleges and universities across the country. "In higher education, the central problem is not that some selective schools discriminate but that the vast majority do, and all in the same way."

Interesting. Neither side would get what it wants. But will the proponents of affirmative action allow for public universities to lose a tool "vital" to ensuring diversity?

Sasha Polakow-Suransky wonders if the "fluffy diversity rationale" was the best way to go. P-S dismisses the U of Michigan plaintiffs' arguments as "the typical right-wing refrain bemoaning 'reverse discrimination,' racial preferences and set-asides."

She asserts, "In a color-blind society without a history of slavery and Jim Crow, these arguments would make a lot of sense."

AA advocates see the program as being vital not only to ensure diversity, but also to remedy past discrimination. But does a history filled with discrimination make current/future discrimination necessary? Has AA effectively been that remedy? The answer is far from clear. And how long must that remedy be in place?

Ignoring that "past discrimination" argument is what kept AA legal in the first place. Louis Menand notes:

What the Bakke decision basically said to universities was: Stop talking about redressing the effects of past discrimination and start talking about the educational benefits of mixed-race student bodies, and you’ll be on the safe side of the law. It preserved the practice by changing the rationale.

Another interesting quote:

Most people feel that a heterogeneous class is better than a homogeneous one, and the fact that this makes it harder to get in does not mean that the process is unjust. It’s just a supply-side system: excess demand gives the colleges the advantage in deciding what they want their student demographics to look like. And the truth is that anything that reduces the power of the S.A.T. is a good thing. It is absurd to believe that a test taken when a person is sixteen can predict how well that person will be performing when she is twenty-two. In fact, S.A.T. scores claim to predict academic performance only for the first year of college, and, even then, they explain less of the variation in grades than does high-school class rank or parents’ education. They have little correlation with performance in the last two years, which is when students start to specialize. There seems to be a developmental jump that people make when they are nineteen or twenty which can render past measures of merit irrelevant. When you’re suddenly publishing your stuff in Poetry, that 500 on the math S.A.T. seems pretty insignificant. (skeptic's emphasis)

posted at 2:38 PM |

 

NATO May Keep the Peace in Iraq

It looks like Friedman's column about NATO moving south is accurate.

This idea was so off-the-wall that it had Friedman twice warning readers: "No, I haven't lost my marbles."

He asserted, "Nation-building in Iraq can't be done by the U.N. It can't be done by a committee. So what we will eventually need in Iraq is a credible peacekeeping force that is multilateral, legitimate and still led by the U.S. That will bring us back to NATO, possibly in partnership with some Arab and Muslim armies."

So, he says, "Yes, NATO will continue to be based in Europe, but its primary theaters of operation will be the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly the Arab-Israel frontier."

And confirming the role of NATO in Iraq, the NYT reports, "Powell and the Europeans did reach tentative agreement, however, that NATO should consider deploying peacekeepers in Iraq.

"Powell said the United States made no formal request, but said, 'I am pleased that there was a receptive attitude' to the suggestion which was first made last December."

U.S. to Push for a "Nonnegotiable" Roadmap for Israeli-Palestinian Peace

From the same NYT article: "On another front where there was far more unity, Powell said the U.S. administration would move swiftly to implement a 'nonnegotiable' roadmap for a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. The main goal is the establishment of a Palestinian state.

"'A roadmap is ready to be delivered' once the new Palestinian prime minister has formed his government, he said. 'We have been waiting for a new Palestinian leadership to come forward and we are now seeing that happen.'"

posted at 11:37 AM |

 

Opposing Hussein and the U.S.

An interesting aspect of the war in Iraq is what foreigners are willing to do to defend Iraqi civilians. Algerians have reportedly flooded the Iraqi embassy with potential volunteers. Interesting quotes:

"I'm ready to die for Iraq because their cause is just," a 28-year-old man told the BBC. "Iraq is a sovereign country, a member of the United Nations and has been invaded by the US and UK troops. I cannot cross my arms and do nothing, just counting the dead." (The man told the Beeb that he has been fighting local armed Islamic groups since 1992.)

"I'm not going to defend the Iraqi regime", a 23-year old man says, "even less to defend the dictator Saddam Hussein." He adds: "I'm going to help the Iraqi people who have been the victim of a gross injustice." (skeptic's emphasis)

posted at 1:46 AM |

 

"Borderline" Slavery is Alive and Well

AfricaPundit links to a Human Rights Watch report that exposes the 13-country child trafficking ring. AfP notes: In numerous cases, children were recruited by traffickers after running out of money to pay for school.


posted at 1:26 AM |

 

Hope for Kenya

However precarious the situation in many African countries may currently be, the situation in Kenya today must certainly provide a good deal of optimism.

To review:

Last year, Kenyan President Daniel arap Moi abided by the constitution and said he would step down. He then hand-picked his successor candidate.

A democratic election brought opposition leader Mwai Kibaki to power by a landslide.

One of the first appointments Kibaki made was hiring Transparency International's John Githongo to fight corruption.

The government launched a huge investigation into an infamous $600m scandal.

It launched a probe into the alleged misconduct of the Supreme Court's Chief Justice, who then resigned.

The government is investigating four state-owned energy firms to crack down on corruption.

An audit by the new government reveals how extensively the previous government stole land from its people.

The public fight against corruption has stimulated small business growth, been a boon to Kenya's horticultural sector as it re-attracts foreign investment, provides an overall boost to the economy, and helps the government curry favor with international institutions.

Kenya still has its problems. Yet Githongo's honesty about how the toughest battles are yet to come is as good a reason as any for cautious optimism.



posted at 1:16 AM |

 

Why Remove a Key Tool for Generating Arab Support?

As the skeptic has noted before, Al-Jazeera has certainly been an interesting factor in this war. Slate's Chris Suellentrop sees Al-Jazeera as "the closest thing the Arab world has to an independent press" and the sub-head says, "It's just as fair as CNN."

(Though that statement is less dramatic with this point: "But in wartime, the American slant has become more obvious, and as a result Al Jazeera's Arab slant has become less objectionable.")

It is thus somewhat surprising that the network that has done such a good job portraying the war as being brutal for Iraqis is now being kicked out of Baghdad.

Why would Iraq do this? the skeptic's best guesses: a) to provide cover for the atrocities its own government sees itself on the verge of committing or b) to prevent the Arab world from watching all of its troops surrender. Anyway you cut it, it seems like Hussein has given up on trying to convince the Arab world to prevent his removal...

P.S. the skeptic is still anxiously awaiting the English version of Al-Jazeera. Hackers apparently attacked the site after it broadcast images of dead American soldiers. Looks like an English version will be up soon with a full-scale english version launched at the end of the month.

P.P.S. Hackers condemn the hacking here. The article suggests that the attackers were actually "script kiddies" or "crackers"--which is to say, would-be "hacktivists." These people really have a language all their own.

posted at 11:44 PM |

 

Casting Perle to Swine?

Now, it has always been the belief of the skeptic that Richard Perle is a little crazy. That said, his debate with a European Parliament Green Party member is a very interesting read.

Perle: You are imagining a U.S. general riding roughshod over Iraqis and confirming the worst fears of Muslims around the world that we are an aggressive, imperialist power. I have another view. We have Ahmed Chalabi, chief of the opposition Iraqi National Congress, to enter Baghdad. Ending the current Iraqi regime will liberate the Iraqis. We will leave both governance and oil in their hands. We will hand over power quickly—not in years, maybe not even in months—to give Iraqis a chance to shape their own destiny. The whole world will see this. (skeptic's emphasis, as always)

the skeptic needs to interrupt here.

1) The aforementioned Ahmed Chalabi has already taken steps to head a new Iraqi government. And while neocons like Perle may love him, the State Department, CIA, Joint-Chiefs of Staff and Iraqis in general don't quite feel the same way. Is this really the guy the U.S. should be counting on to run Iraq, and recognize Israel?

(Furthermore, by anointing Chalabi as the U.S.'s frontrunner, isn't the US not quite living up to Perle's wish to "give Iraqis a chance to shape their own destiny." Unless, by "Iraqis" he's referring to Chalabi, instead of hinting toward democracy....)

Cohn-Bendit: With Iraq, you are talking about nation building. Yet we have not finished our job in Afghanistan. We see a backlash against women and deteriorating security. We have barely secured the capital, Kabul. It is my biggest fear that Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar will take over Kabul while you are fighting in Iraq. After the war, you will neglect Iraq and shift your attention to Syria, then Saudi Arabia. Because you are Americans, you have the biggest army in the world—you can do anything you want. This is revolutionary hubris.

Perle: I do not know that this is any American official’s view. (ditto on emphasis)

2) Knee-jerk liberal reaction is that Bush will quickly ditch Iraq to chase after some other chimera. If Bush keeps the focus on Iraq, it could make a big difference. And Perle suggests that he doesn't know if it's any American official's view, which is interesting because it seems to be the prevailing thought in the neoconservative scheme.

Cohn-Bendit: Don’t say that. After the war in Iraq, you will adopt this view. Syria is financing the Hamas terrorist organization, right?

Perle: Yes, and Syria is not alone. But I think we will have a very good opportunity to persuade Syria to stop sponsoring terrorism. I promise we will be more effective in that if we remove Hussein, rather than crawling back from where we are today, throwing up our hands, and saying, “It’s too hard. We couldn’t do it, we had too little support.” Would you rather talk with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad about terrorism before or after the liberation of Iraq?

Cohn-Bendit: Before.

Perle: You think you would achieve anything? (same with emphasis here)

3) And here's where Perle makes his (and the administration's) goal clear. This war is, as many commentators have now noted, about increasing the ability of the U.S. to project power. Maybe Syria won't pay too much attention to the US now. But once it demolishes one pest, it demonstrates that it is willing to take out others. Perle's statement about "American officials" is ambiguous. Does he not believe that American officials will neglect Iraq? Or does he not believe that American officials seek to up their pressure on Syria? This last excerpt would suggest the former.

Perle goes on to make a point that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process can't move forward with Hussein in power... the skeptic's instinctive reaction is that this is simply neocon hogwash, but maybe this article comes closer to making a justification for what seems like an otherwise absurd claim. (note: the skeptic hasn't read it. Yet, anyway.)

P.S.: Can the skeptic come this far in a Perle story without mentioning Sy Hersh? Nope. Turns out Perle resigned from the Defense Policy Board after the New York Times's Labaton started sniffing around. Once again, Shafer has more links.... And Hersh Wins!

posted at 5:30 PM |

 
Notable: An interesting article that argues policy-makers need to shift the focus from increasing money in people's pockets to increasing their happiness. Quick question: Isn't this really about jobs at this stage in the game?

posted at 7:39 PM |

 
Hersh Watch, Day 20: The Bush Administration must be furious with this guy...

posted at 6:20 PM |