Monday, November 26, 2007
liberty-oriented foreign policy
Blake succinctly summarizes the problem: for all our rhetoric about freedom, in practice our foreign policy has been pro-Western instead:
The policy has been consistent across political parties and presidential administrations, though only the Bush Administration has staked so much rhetorical capital on freedom.
As The Arabist notes, we are essentially pursuing the same strategy in Iraq: SADDAM II, ie the Sunni Arab-Dominated Dictatorships Against the Mullahs:
The United States says it supports democracy, but ends up backing pro-Western leaders when push comes to shove. Take the case of Pervez Musharraf, whom U.S. President George W. Bush described Tuesday as "somebody who believes in democracy" despite the fact that the Pakistani leader has suspended the Constitution, thrown many of his opponents in jail, and gone after independent media outlets. Or consider the Palestinian territories, where the White House called for elections and then blanched when the distasteful Hamas won them fair and square. Is it any wonder that U.S. rhetoric on democracy isn't taken seriously?
The policy has been consistent across political parties and presidential administrations, though only the Bush Administration has staked so much rhetorical capital on freedom.
As The Arabist notes, we are essentially pursuing the same strategy in Iraq: SADDAM II, ie the Sunni Arab-Dominated Dictatorships Against the Mullahs:
The new SADDAM is much more collaborative (and less mercurial) than the old Saddam. The aging autocrats and puppet kings that make it up are getting some nice trade-offs for their support, most notably the abandonment of the Bush administration’s last policy du jour, the “Forward Strategy for Freedom.” You may remember another Bush speech—delivered at his inauguration in 2005—in which he said: “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.”
Well, with the new SADDAM policy, you get something more along the lines of “I know we previously encouraged you to stand for liberty and all that, but if you live in tyranny and hopelessness we will ignore your oppression and excuse your oppressors. When you stand for liberty, we will look the other way.”
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
those wacky mullahs!
The Economist reveals that the Ayatollah apocalyptic quote that Norman Podhoretz is throwing around doesn't actually seem to exist.
Norman Podhoretz, when pressed for a source, says it was Amir Taheri. And that the quote was from 1980. And that the dog ate the quote in subsequent compilations of the Ayatollah's speeches. thus spake the Tool:
First of all, Amir Taheri is not exactly a reliable source. He essentially invented - or at best was spoon-fed - the story about jews wearing yellow ribbons in Iran. The National Post issued a retraction, but Taheri stood by his "facts".
But let us take Taheri at his word. Suppose that the Ayatollaah catually did utter those words in 1980. Is this even remotely relevant to the question of whether Iran can be deterred? Julian Sanchez says it succinctly:
In other words, the very act of censorship which Taheri claims is occurring to sanitize the Ayatollah's utterances in the revolutionary era nearly three decades ago, actually demonstrates rather clearly that the modern ruling elite of Iran is eminently deterrable, and not wacky insane at all.
And the bottom line is that Iran is totally outmatched, and knows it. Blake Hounshell, writing at Foreign Policy Magazine, does the tally:
For all Anne Applebaum's hand-wringing about the only option being "fingers crossed", the simple truth is that a nuclear Iran is far less a threat to Israel's existence, let alone ours, than the Soviets were during the Cold War. And recall the rhetoric of that age:
Deter that! oh wait, we did. We buried them.
Norman Podhoretz, when pressed for a source, says it was Amir Taheri. And that the quote was from 1980. And that the dog ate the quote in subsequent compilations of the Ayatollah's speeches. thus spake the Tool:
The quote, along with many other passages, disappeared from several subsequent editions as the Islamic Republic tried to mobilize nationalistic feelings against Iraq, which had invaded Iran in 1980.
The practice of editing and even censoring Khomeini to suit the circumstances is widely known by Iranian scholars. This is how Professor Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak, the Director of the Center for Persian Studies at the University of Maryland and a specialist in Islamic censorship, states the problem: “Khumayni’s [sic] speeches are regularly published in fresh editions wherein new selections are made, certain references deleted, and various adjustments introduced depending on the state’s current preoccupation” (Persian Studies in North America, 1994).
First of all, Amir Taheri is not exactly a reliable source. He essentially invented - or at best was spoon-fed - the story about jews wearing yellow ribbons in Iran. The National Post issued a retraction, but Taheri stood by his "facts".
But let us take Taheri at his word. Suppose that the Ayatollaah catually did utter those words in 1980. Is this even remotely relevant to the question of whether Iran can be deterred? Julian Sanchez says it succinctly:
the broader question is whether Iran should be treated as a potentially suicidal nation run by apocalyptic madmen, or as an aggressive but ultimately familiar sort of antagonist, motivated by raison d'État and therefore deterrable. And if we're looking for insight into that question, then the fact that Khomenei may have uttered the quotation given above in revolutionary days strikes me as far, far less significant than the fact that Iran's "Khomeinist" government has since seen fit to toss it down the memory hole.
In other words, the very act of censorship which Taheri claims is occurring to sanitize the Ayatollah's utterances in the revolutionary era nearly three decades ago, actually demonstrates rather clearly that the modern ruling elite of Iran is eminently deterrable, and not wacky insane at all.
And the bottom line is that Iran is totally outmatched, and knows it. Blake Hounshell, writing at Foreign Policy Magazine, does the tally:
Let's take the case of Israel, which would theoretically be the country most threatened by an Iran with nuclear weapons. Israel reportedly has upwards of 200 nuclear bombs and/or warheads and second-strike capability. Notably, Israel has three nuclear-armed submarines; Iran has no technology that can detect them.
In the extremely unlikely event that the mullahs are foolish enough to launch their unreliable missiles on Tel Aviv and/or Jerusalem (most likely killing tens of thousands of Muslims and destroying several major Islamic holy sites in the process), Israel will annihilate Iran. With their submarines, the Israelis can do so even if their entire country is destroyed first. Boom. That's deterrence.
For all Anne Applebaum's hand-wringing about the only option being "fingers crossed", the simple truth is that a nuclear Iran is far less a threat to Israel's existence, let alone ours, than the Soviets were during the Cold War. And recall the rhetoric of that age:
At some point amidst the amiability and the inability to reach every agreement, Khrushchev broke out in one of his flights of rocket rhetoric. "Technicians make me laugh," he said, "when they argue over the question of whether five or maybe six rockets armed with thermonuclear warheads might be needed to demolish Great Britain. We have at least twelve already pointed at that target." And then, looking at his guest, Khrushchev remarked that Italy, with its allied missile bases, could expect its share. "This is not a threat," he added with a straight face, "just a warning."
Deter that! oh wait, we did. We buried them.
Labels: Iran
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
"an excellent question"
Charles Bird at RedState recently made an articulate and principled case for John McCain. Ultimately, for Charles (who I respect very highly), it came down to one thing: character.
Keep that in mind when watching this:
Keep that in mind when watching this:
Monday, November 12, 2007
Obama's speech
Obama's speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa has received a lot of plaudits, from myDD to David Yepsen:
Obama has a real talent for this. I still remember the feeling I had when I heard his speech at the DNC convention in 2004... it was like Howard Dean redux. He delivered the same message again: "I don't want to pit red America vs blue America. I want to be the President of the United States."
But while Obama did a fantastic job of highlighting the leadership failure of the Bush Administration, and differentiated himself admirably and with honor from Hillary Clinton (entirely unlike Edwards has done of late), the question remains in my mind, just where is the proof that Obama can deliver?
Obama's recent validation of the frame that there is a "crisis" in Social Security is a symptom of a deeper problem with Obama that the speech doesn't illuminate. Obama seems in many ways as committed to the establishment as Hillary. He says he is change we can believe in, but why should we believe? As Krugman notes, the social security comment is
If Obama had a parcel of policy proposals that were truly visionary and bold, then he would have a leg to stand on as he makes his case. But where is the bold?
Obama has a real talent for this. I still remember the feeling I had when I heard his speech at the DNC convention in 2004... it was like Howard Dean redux. He delivered the same message again: "I don't want to pit red America vs blue America. I want to be the President of the United States."
But while Obama did a fantastic job of highlighting the leadership failure of the Bush Administration, and differentiated himself admirably and with honor from Hillary Clinton (entirely unlike Edwards has done of late), the question remains in my mind, just where is the proof that Obama can deliver?
Obama's recent validation of the frame that there is a "crisis" in Social Security is a symptom of a deeper problem with Obama that the speech doesn't illuminate. Obama seems in many ways as committed to the establishment as Hillary. He says he is change we can believe in, but why should we believe? As Krugman notes, the social security comment is
a bad omen; it suggests that he is still, despite all that has happened, desperately seeking approval from Beltway insiders.
Substantively, this is wrong — and the tone-deafness is hard to understand. Tim Russert doesn’t vote in Iowa.
If Obama had a parcel of policy proposals that were truly visionary and bold, then he would have a leg to stand on as he makes his case. But where is the bold?
Friday, November 09, 2007
Hillary is Gore
It's 2000 all over again, and this time it's blogs who are the mainstream media (though the mainstream media is also the mainstream media). Case in point: Kos takes Hillary to task!
I am paraphrasing somewhat.
Why are the liberal netroots so eager to buy into the bogus frames and smears of the right? As far as I can see it's because it's just too tempting not to pile on.
Fundamentally, Hillary's crime is not sharing the dogma about Iraq withdrawal. And because of that, every smear on the right is going to get serious traction on the left.
This is dangerous brinksmanship. If Hillary beats Rudy, it will be in spite of teh netroots, not because of it. If she loses, then the netroots become the Green Party circa 2000: purists instead of pragmatists.
It's pathetic that the netroots, which claim to be the voice of the grassroots mainstream, are so ready to accept Establishment tactics, whereas the actual voice of the people cuts straight through the bogosity:
Indeed. But the blame on "you people" isn't just Chris Matthews or Kit Seelye anymore, is it?
UPDATE: I wish I could say that Kevin Drum comments, but he doesn't. Bob Somerby's critique of Kevin/Josh suddenly seems a lot more cogent.
Hillary said she paid a tip but actually the waitress says she didn't even though the manager says she did and the campaign she did but now there's questions about her TRUTHFULNESS and lol OMFG HILLARY"S WEBSITE HASN'T UPDATED WITH THIS!!
I am paraphrasing somewhat.
Why are the liberal netroots so eager to buy into the bogus frames and smears of the right? As far as I can see it's because it's just too tempting not to pile on.
Fundamentally, Hillary's crime is not sharing the dogma about Iraq withdrawal. And because of that, every smear on the right is going to get serious traction on the left.
This is dangerous brinksmanship. If Hillary beats Rudy, it will be in spite of teh netroots, not because of it. If she loses, then the netroots become the Green Party circa 2000: purists instead of pragmatists.
It's pathetic that the netroots, which claim to be the voice of the grassroots mainstream, are so ready to accept Establishment tactics, whereas the actual voice of the people cuts straight through the bogosity:
You people are really nuts. There's kids dying in the war, the price of oil right now — there's better things in this world to be thinking about than who served Hillary Clinton at Maid-Rite and who got a tip and who didn't get a tip.
Indeed. But the blame on "you people" isn't just Chris Matthews or Kit Seelye anymore, is it?
UPDATE: I wish I could say that Kevin Drum comments, but he doesn't. Bob Somerby's critique of Kevin/Josh suddenly seems a lot more cogent.
Labels: 2008, Hillary, netroots
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Dean Defense http://eteraz.org/2007/10/24/wherein-i-watch-in-fascination-as-stoller-throws-a-tantrum/
Dheeraj Chand tears Matt Stoller a new one for making utterly asinine and ill-informed complaints about Howard Dean's tenure as DNC Chairman. Highly recommended.
Labels: DDF
Pakistan roundup http://cityofbrass.blogspot.com/2007/11/pakistan-roundup.html
Please visit City of Brass for a roundup of the blogsphere reaction to the state of emergency in Pakistan.
Labels: Pakistan
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Musharraf declares state of emergency in Pakistan http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/world/asia/04pakistan.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
General Musharraf. Not President... General.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov. 3 — The Pakistani leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, declared a state of emergency tonight, blacking out all independent news media and confronting Supreme Court justices who are deliberating on the recent vote to re-elect him.
Witnesses said that police forces had surrounded the Supreme Court building, with justices still inside. Earlier, the justices were ordered to sign a provisional constitutional order enabling the emergency decree, with the government leaving implicit that any failing to do so would be dismissed. Still, a panel of at least 6 of the court’s 11 justices, including Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhrythis, rejected the order, according to Pakistani news reports before the blackout.
The six gathered at the Supreme Court building. Cellphone transmissions were blocked around the building.
The police also blocked access to the Parliament and to the homes of Supreme Court justices. Cellphone transmissions were also blocked at the justices’ homes.
Labels: Pakistan
Election 2008 feed
Nation-Building feed
Archives
Obama 2008 - I want my country back
About Nation-Building
Nation-Building was founded by Aziz Poonawalla in August 2002 under the name Dean Nation. Dean Nation was the very first weblog devoted to a presidential candidate, Howard Dean, and became the vanguard of the Dean netroot phenomenon, raising over $40,000 for the Dean campaign, pioneering the use of Meetup, and enjoying the attention of the campaign itself, with Joe Trippi a regular reader (and sometime commentor). Howard Dean himself even left a comment once. Dean Nation was a group weblog effort and counts among its alumni many of the progressive blogsphere's leading talent including Jerome Armstrong, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. After the election in 2004, the blog refocused onto the theme of "purple politics", formally changing its name to Nation-Building in June 2006. The primary focus of the blog is on articulating purple-state policy at home and pragmatic liberal interventionism abroad.
