Keep it Simple

Keeping with George W. Bush's habit of oversimplifying the most complex of issues, his new catch-phrase on the propaganda trail is "Islamofacism." Not only has Bush created a brand new word, in this term he brilliantly lumps together Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Iraq, etc. into one cause that can be easily absorbed by the general public and serve as an all encompassing enemy for the "Global War on Terror." I do not typically agree with Patrick Buchanan on many issues, but here he provides a coherent rebuttal to the existence and use of the term.

What He Said

Fred Kaplan on George W. Bush.

Among the many flabbergasting answers that President Bush gave at his press conference on Monday, this one—about Democrats who propose pulling out of Iraq—triggered the steepest jaw drop: "I would never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me. This has nothing to do with patriotism. It has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live."

George W. Bush criticizing someone for not understanding the world is like … well, it's like George W. Bush criticizing someone for not understanding the world. It's sui generis: No parallel quite captures the absurdity so succinctly.

This, after all, is the president who invaded Iraq without the slightest understanding of the country's ethnic composition or of the volcanic tensions that toppling its dictator might unleash. Complexity has no place in his schemes. Choices are never cloudy. The world is divided into the forces of terror and the forces of freedom: The one's defeat means the other's victory.

Defeating terror by promoting freedom—it's "the fundamental challenge of the 21^st century," he has said several times, especially when it comes to the Middle East. But here, from the transcript of the press conference, is how he sees the region's recent events:

What's very interesting about the violence in Lebanon and the violence in Iraq and the violence in Gaza is this: These are all groups of terrorists who are trying to stop the advance of democracy.

What is he talking about? Hamas, which has been responsible for much of the violence in Gaza, won the Palestinian territory's parliamentary elections. Hezbollah, which started its recent war with Israel, holds a substantial minority of seats in Lebanon's parliament and would probably win many more seats if a new election were held tomorrow. Many of the militants waging sectarian battle in Iraq have representation in Baghdad's popularly elected parliament.

The key reality that Bush fails to grasp is that terrorism and democracy are not opposites. They can, and sometimes do, coexist. One is not a cure for the other.

Here, as a further example of this failing, is his summation of Iraq:

I hear a lot about "civil war"… [But] the Iraqis want a unified country. … Twelve million Iraqis voted. … It's an indication about the desire for people to live in a free society.

What he misses is that those 12 million Iraqis had sharply divided views of what a free society meant. Shiites voted for a unified country led by Shiites, Sunnis voted for a unified country led by Sunnis, and Kurds voted for their own separate country. Almost nobody voted for a free society in any Western sense of the term. (The secular parties did very poorly.)

The total number of voters, in such a context, means nothing. Look at American history. In the 1860 election, held right before our own Civil War, 81.2 percent of eligible citizens voted—the second-largest turnout ever.

Another comment from the president: "It's in our interests that we help reformers across the Middle East achieve their objectives." But who are these reformers? What are their objectives? And how can we most effectively help them?

This is where Bush's performance proved most discouraging. He said, as he's said before, "Resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists." This may or may not be true. (Many terrorist leaders are well-off, and, according to some studies, their resentment is often aimed at foreign occupiers.) In any case, what is Bush doing to reduce their resentment?

He said he wants to help Lebanon's democratic government survive, but what is he doing about that? Bush called the press conference to announce a $230 million aid package. That's a step above the pathetic $50 million that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had offered the week before, but it's still way below the $1 billion or more than Iran is shoveling to Hezbollah, which is using the money to rebuild Lebanon's bombed-out neighborhoods—and to take credit for the assistance.

As for Iraq, it's no news that Bush has no strategy. What did come as news—and, really, a bit of a shocker—is that he doesn't seem to know what "strategy" means.

Asked if it might be time for a new strategy in Iraq, given the unceasing rise in casualties and chaos, Bush replied, "The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy. … Either you say, 'It's important we stay there and get it done,' or we leave. We're not leaving, so long as I'm the president."

The reporter followed up, "Sir, that's not really the question. The strategy—"

Bush interrupted, "Sounded like the question to me."

First, it's not clear that the Iraqi people want a "democratic society" in the Western sense. Second, and more to the point, "helping Iraqis achieve a democratic society" may be a strategic objective, but it's not a strategy—any more than "ending poverty" or "going to the moon" is a strategy.

Strategy involves how to achieve one's objectives—or, as the great British strategist B.H. Liddell Hart put it, "the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfill the ends of policy." These are the issues that Bush refuses to address publicly—what means and resources are to be applied, in what way, at what risk, and to what end, in pursuing his policy. Instead, he reduces everything to two options: "Cut and run" or, "Stay the course." It's as if there's nothing in between, no alternative way of applying military means. Could it be that he doesn't grasp the distinction between an "objective" and a "strategy," and so doesn't see that there might be alternatives? Might our situation be that grim?

Kidnapping

Since the beginning of the most recent Middle Eastern Conflict, Israel has been venturing into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to capture Hamas officials. As in this BBC article, "in recent weeks, Israel has arrested dozens of Hamas officials, including the Deputy Prime Minister, Nasser Shaer." The international press, using Israeli statements, has been referring to the capture as "arrests." The lack of any international outrage over this matter is revealing. Venturing into territory outside of your own sovereign state in order to capture diplomatically elected officials of another nation is not an arrest, it is kidnapping. I understand that Hamas has a terrorist wing that has historically attacked civilian targets inside Israel. However, democratic elections had begun to force the group, which had been observing a truce with Israel, into the moderate fray of a ruling party. In fact, just before the Israeli incursions into Gaza, senior Hamas officials had reached an agreement with Hamas officials inside Israeli jails to recognize the State of Israel. And although it was not the type of democracy George W. Bush had been idealogically hoping for, it was a democratic step nonetheless, which I believed heralded a step in the right direction for a two state solution.

Although it has been said many times in many places, democracy and secularism do not necessarily have to co-exist when you have a highly homogeneous society in which a clear ethnic and religious majority exists. Although my personal view is that secular political systems that respect religious freedoms are an ideal to be aspired towards, from my perspective democratic elections in the Palestinian territories was a step in the right direction. If nothing else it made a marginalised and "crushed" people believe that they had a voice in their own future. The question will continue to be, is it desirable for many of the corrupt secular autocratic rulers of the Middle East to remain in power, or have democratic elections whereby a Islamic majority would most likely emerge?

Policy for Sale

It is nothing new to expose that many politicians are self-serving tools for the Corporate World, but the Washington Post has done an excellent job of summarizing the campaign contributions of the two candidates in the Virginia Senate Race, George Allen (R) and Jim Webb (D). The pages also summarize the contributions by geography and industry.

Jim Webb: Top 10 Contributors

Contributor	Total	PACs	Indivs
1. Kimsey Foundation	$4,200	$0	$4,200
2. Kerrey for Senate Cmte	$4,000	$4,000	$0
3. US Dept of Commerce	$2,100	$0	$2,100
4. Intercontinental Exchange	$2,100	$0	$2,100
5. CACI International	$2,100	$0	$2,100
6. Portfolio Logic Management	$2,100	$0	$2,100
7. Russian Medical Fund	$1,750	$0	$1,750
8. Landmark Strategies Inc	$1,000	$0	$1,000
9. Ncs Technologies / Stmski*Mac.Com	$1,000	$0	$1,000
10. Bernstein, Litowitz et al	$1,000	$0	$1,000

George Allen: Top 10 Contributors

Contributor	Total	PACs	Indivs
1. McGuire, Woods et al	$78,344	$9,944	$68,400
2. UST Inc	$58,350	$7,000	$51,350
3. Capital One Financial	$37,600	$10,000	$27,600
4. Norfolk Southern	$35,275	$10,000	$25,275
5. Peabody Energy	$34,100	$8,000	$26,100
6. VeriSign Inc	$33,500	$10,000	$23,500
7. Verizon Communications	$33,200	$19,000	$14,200
8. AG Spanos Companies	$31,500	$0	$31,500
9. Wachovia Corp	$31,450	$10,000	$21,450
10. Time Warner	$27,300	$10,000	$17,300

The difference is striking, I'll leave you to draw your own fairly obvious conclusion. Campaign reform needs serious attention, but expecting those who are already served by the system to attempt to seriously change it, is naive.

Corporations have realised that a large coffer greatly increases the chance of a politician becoming elected, thus those that seek to further their business have endeavoured to directly align their own interests with those of Senators and Representatives. By essentially providing contributions in turn for favorable opinions from the elected officials, the system has ensured that the peoples' best interests will not always be foremost on politicians agendas.

A Theory

The largest tragedy of this Middle Eastern Conflict must be the damage the progressive elements of Lebanon have suffered as a result of Hezbollah's actions and Israel's over-reaching response. Lebanon's population was filled with confidence and momentum, far-reaching goals of modernity, tolerance, and substance, and has been caught in the cross-fire of two neighborhood gangs. Although not completely innocent in the affair, the moderating elements of Lebanon's political apparatus had been making much progress in the face of continued sectarianism and political alliances.

In this blog I have been critical of Israel, however, I want to be clear that I do believe that Hezbollah is largely to blame (from a big picture perspective) for the retardation of Lebanon's promising young nation. I will go on to summarize how the "international community," (with all the contempt I have for the term) failed to support the fledgling Lebanese nation, but for now I will focus on Syria & Hezbollah. During the "Cedar Revolution" Hezbollah realized that the momentum was turning against them, that the more fortunate elements of Lebanese society had realized that Syrian dominance (including Hezbollah/Shiite groups) had retarded the nation and its peoples' development. At the same time many of those that had not benefited from reformist Hariri's economic and social liberalisation (particularly in Southern Lebanon) strengthened their bond with Hezbollah whom had provided the social services that had not been forthcoming from Beirut.

As Hezbollah (read Syria) realized it was losing momentum in Lebanon it continued its terror campaign that began with the assassination of Rafik Hariri, intimidating and bombing those whom had been supporting the progressive movement. And so it was Hezbollah that began the campaign against Lebanese reform, unfortunately Israel was so near-sighted in its strategy that it effectively nailed the last nail in the coffin built by Hezbollah that contained the modernizing Lebanese nation. Israel could not have failed to notice the moderating movement inside Lebanese nation, a small portion of which was a result of the misnamed "Bush Doctrine." For once the Bush Administration's rhetoric was matching what had been happening on the ground long before the American government claimed to notice or care. By bringing inclusive politics, combined with a economic and social liberalisation, the Lebanese leadership was creating a strong economy and reduced radical religious based sects; all of which could, and I believe would have, created a peaceful Northern neighbor for Israel and a great example of how inclusion, democracy and liberalisation benefits a nation.

(In this paragraph you can use Hezbollah and Syria interchangeably) I do not believe that Hezbollah alone could have derailed the process, they had been trying, and ultimately, I think it was showing the people of Lebanon that its tactics were the too closely allied with Syria and against greater progress. But Hezbollah's leadership (and those in Syria) have proved to be extremely politically savvy, one possible theory is that Hezbollah, realizing that it was losing the "battle" for Lebanon knew that a large event would be needed to bring the public back into its corner. Hezbollah captured Israeli soldiers in a cross-border attack, knowing full-well that a new (perceived as weak on self-defense) Olmert administration in Israel would over-react, striking seemingly without care for innocent Lebanese life and moving aggressively into Lebanon. The plan worked, and as the Israeli incursion continued, even moderate Lebanese realized that their own government was seemingly powerless to defend its own people, and that the only form of resistance was Hezbollah. The self-defense must have appealed to even the least nationalistic among Lebanese, taking some pride in seeing any type of home-grown resistance to the destruction of its infrastructure and homes. (I believe in the face of the bombings this may have even outweighed any anger the Lebanese may have towards Hezbollah for sparking the conflict to begin with.)

That possibility aside, if the plan had not been preconceived, it could not have worked more perfectly for Hezbollah. They are now commanding unprecedented popularity across the Muslim world from both Shiite and Sunni Muslims alike. Their surprising military defense of Southern Lebanon has emboldened Radical Muslims across the Middle East leading to much broader implications then I believe most people realize. Any blow to Israel (as this is being popularly perceived) is seen as weakness of the United States. At this critical time in Iraq this will surely empower the protagonists of its Civil War and further weaken the chance for the US to achieve any goals in the broader struggle against Islamic extremism in the region. The failure of the Bush Administration/Congress in this was to not back the nascent Lebanese reform movement when it needed the US the most. Following the lofty rhetoric hurled in favor of the "Cedar Revolution" the Lebanese people, like many in the Middle East (Egypt, etc.) have learned that unfortunately in terms of the spreading democracy doctrine, we are simply all talk.

60 Minutes

Continuing the absurdity of mainstream media that has spawned successful parodies such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, last night Mike Wallace interviewed Iranian President Ahmednijad on CBS's popular news show 60 Minutes.

Wallace conducted the interview in a manner as to portray himself as a proxy for the United States (people and government), a technique which I felt diminished the effectiveness of the dialogue between the two. It was clear that Ahmednijad (rightly so, and regardless of your personal views of his policy) realized that Wallace was simply trying to bait him into making inflammatory statements and that Wallace appeared to be an extension of the United States rather then an honest broker. Of course it is impossible to completely separate ones own beliefs as a journalist, although it is reasonable to expect a journalist, and I use that term very lightly, to make at least an effort. Further, Wallace's tone during the interview was one of feigned surprise, moral indignation, and disingenuous flattery. Finally, the piece instilled in me a feeling that it had been edited to exacerbate the obvious feelings Mike Wallace had towards Iran, and highlight (not so subtlety) Wallace's pandering to the American public's opinions of the Iranian President and his country.

C-Span plans to air the entire unedited version of the interview tonight. In a jab (well deserved) at mainstream media, C- Span said: "This is also a unique opportunity for viewers to see for themselves the editorial process at a major network news organization, and find out which portions of an extended interview actually make it on air."

The Essence

This piece in the WaPo by Brian Humphrey, a Marine Infantry Officer in Iraq, attempts to draw a comparison between Middle Eastern "grass-roots" attempts at winning over a population. That comparison is difficult to reason because of many factors that I believe distinguish the two groups, however, he does make one of the most reasoned analysis of Hezbollah's popularity in Southern Lebanon that I have seen in main-stream Western Media:

"Hezbollah's organizational resilience in the face of an all-out conventional assault shows the degree to which it has seamlessly combined the strategic objectives of its sponsors with a localized political and military program.

Using the grass-roots approach, Hezbollah has been able to convert the ignored and dispossessed Shiite underclass of southern Lebanon into a powerful lever in regional politics. It understands that the basic need in any human conflict, whether or not it involves physical violence, is to take care of one's political base before striking out at the opponent.

As many informed observers have pointed out, Hezbollah has engrafted itself to the aims and aspirations of the Lebanese Shiite community so completely that Israel cannot destroy it without also destroying the community, with all the attendant political and moral costs. It is the willingness of women, children and old men to support Hezbollah and its political program at the risk of their lives that gives the organization power far beyond its military means."

Risk

There have been several books/papers on human beings irrational approach to risk and reward. Continuing the postulation is John Mueller of Ohio State University, in this piece, the author analyzes how resources are allocated towards counter-terrorism do not correspond to the risks associated with it. The author counters his own argument by stating that the increased costs, that are sometimes correlated with "superficial" responses to risks (the author uses National Guard standing on street corners) are sometimes worth the irrational costs because of the comfort it provides to a population, or a perceived level of safety. That comfort allows them to carry on with the tasks of life, keeping the economy going, etc.

al Qaeda

After the emergence of the plot to bring down flights from the U.K. to the United States, this Washington Post article supposes that according to U.S. intelligence there are strong indications of an al Qaeda link to the alleged bombing plot uncovered in London, and that "the terrorist network has survived and adapted despite heavy blows to its leadership and organizational structure of the past five years." I was not naive enough to believe that five years after 9-11 we would have eliminated Islamic Extremism, but I did have hope that we would be able to capture Bin Laden and the senior members of al Qaeda and significantly reduce their ability to even begin to plan attacks such as the one that was reported.

Nations have a finite amount of resources to allocate towards anti-terrorism and military endeavors, and the United States has significantly decreased its ability to hunt down violent Islamic extremists so that we can fight an illegitimate (however well intentioned) war in Iraq.

The WaPo piece goes on to say "U.S. intelligence officials now identify the war in Iraq as the single most effective recruiting tool for Islamic militants." Savvy spectators, and several of those actually involved, have been making this case since the war in Iraq began. I can personally say that I feel less safe, and more exposed to terrorism as a result of American adventurism in Iraq. The oft quoted "we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here," otherwise known as the "fly paper theory" only makes sense if there is a finite amount of terrorists in the world and that somehow we are pulling them away from other areas to fight in Iraq. Of course the fact that Iraq is creating more Islamic extremism renders that logic unsound.

The "Do-Nothingest"

First we had this great interview of Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) by Stephen Colbert.

Now, in this editorial (more like a report), Contempt for Congress, by David Broder of the Washington Post, Broder reviews the anti-Congress climate from the recently finished meeting of the National Governer's Association. Governer's have typically had a reputation for being more "in-touch" with their constitutencies then their counterparts on Capitol Hill.

The Beltway Bunch appear to me as a group of out of touch, self-serving, and partisan caretakers who have figuratively "fallen asleep at the wheel." The list of issues Congress has either failed to face, or tackled with partisan and unimaginative solutions is too long to list here, but to get the list started: Social Security Reform, the Iraq War, Immigration Reform, the Dubai Ports Deal, etc.

Echoing Colbert's comments, "New Mexico Democrat Bill Richardson said, 'Congress has gone from unresponsive to hopeless. On everything from the minimum wage to immigration to energy, they've just given up. No one expects anything from them.'

Finally, I enjoyed this analogy, "Mitt Romney, the Republican governor of Massachusetts, said his wife, Ann, has likened the spectacle of Congress to 'two guys in a canoe that is headed for the falls, and all they do is hit each other with their paddles.'" I believe the comparison is slightly flawed, it is the American people (actually the Canoe is big enough to hold the entire world's population) in the Canoe, the Congressman are hitting each other on the head, but are lucky enough to be standing on the shore.

Daily Show

Great clip from Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. The reporter got it right, its all a matter of "perspective."

The Forgotten War

From the Cunning Realist, a few points from the 2006 Report on Iraq to Congress, submitted by the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

1. "Terrorist attacks have failed to create and spread sectarian conflict." (page 3)

2. "Increasingly robust Iraqi political institutions will provide peaceful means for reconciliation and bridging divides." (page 9)

3. Insurgents have "failed to deter development of the Iraq Security forces" and "failed to damage Iraqi public trust in the Iraq security forces." (page 23)

4. "The overarching term 'insurgency' is less of a useful construct today" because "previous synergy among enemy groups is breaking apart." (page 24)

The above wasn't written in 2003, 2004, or even "last throes" mid-2005. It was written six months ago.

Thanks to the CR for scanning through the report and pulling out the "Greatest Hits." This follows the previous post on the opinion of the British ambassador to Iraq that the situation is regressing. Had a discussion today with a colleague regarding whether Rumsfeld was responsible for the situation on the ground in Iraq or the generals that gave him the information and advice on how to invade and occupy Iraq. In my opinion the buck stops with Bush, since he is not going anywhere before 2008, the most obvious head to roll would be Rumsfeld.

Denial

There has been much discussion regarding whether Iraq is involved in a Civil War at the moment. Typically the arguments for and against come from those with a vested interest in having it so or not. Civil War is commonly defined as a war between factions or regions within the same country. From that definition I do not see how this can be considered anything but. That said, it is mostly an issue of semantics and does not change the reality on the ground. The worrying issue is whether those denying the Civil War actually believe this, or are simply putting on a brave face for their troops and the fledgling government of Iraq. Either way, this story from the BBC confirms that at least one senior ranking official believes it is so, and has a pessimistic outlook for democracy and stability in the region.

Civil war is a more likely outcome in Iraq than democracy, Britain's outgoing ambassador in Baghdad has warned Tony Blair in a confidential memo. William Patey, who left the Iraqi capital last week, also predicted the break-up of Iraq along ethnic lines.

An honest assessment from an outgoing official. The ambassador does still believe:

"What should our response be? However difficult it is, stay the course, stand up for those people who want democracy, stand up for those people who are fighting sectarianism, stand up for a different vision of the Middle East based on democracy, liberty, the rule of law," he told reporters.

It is relieving to see an official with a realistic outlook on the current situation, but still with an optimistic and dedicated view on the future.

"A Total Carnage Really"

Despite the ominous header, a "fluff" piece on Barney the Guard Dog, "A £40,000 teddy which used to belong to Elvis Presley was among scores of toy bears destroyed when a dog meant to guard them went on rampage."

Further, "Wookey Hole general manager Daniel Medley told the BBC: "About 100 bears were caught up in this frenzied attack, some where merely little chews, whereas some of them had some quite devastating injuries. Heads pulled off, arms, legs here and there, it was total carnage really. I've never seen such a mess, there was stuffing, fluff, and bear bits everywhere."

Housing vs. Consumer Spending

Another great post from the Big Picture, continuing the discussion of the Real Estate market and the broader economy:

“The lags between policy actions and their effects imply that we must be forward-looking, basing our policy choices on the longer-term outlook for both inflation and economic growth. In formulating that outlook, we must take account of the possible future effects of previous policy actions – that is, of policy effects still ‘in the pipeline’.”

-Ben Bernanke’s July 19 semi-annual monetary policy report to Congress

...Mortgage apps, housing and consumer spending. As mortgage rates increase and housing slows, we can expect the impact on consumers to be significant:

The uptake of both the quoted paragraph and the chart above is fairly obvious: Housing is already rolling over, and will likely take consumer spending with it. Consider also there is at least 6 months to a year worth of rate hikes whose impact have not yet been fully felt in the economy.

Hence, why Pimco thinks the Fed is done, why the Center for Economic and Policy Research believes the Housing slow down will have wider repercussions, and why NYU's Nouriel Roubini believes a recession is most likely unavoidable.

The Economy

From the Big Picture, a link to an on the ground evaluation of the Housing Market. I do not believe that most people realize how strongly tied the economic expansion has been to a robust housing market. This article touches on several points including the Ghost Market, Inventory Levels, Interest Rates, and Foreign Investors.

Colorful Language

In response to this morning's editorial, Mideast Lessons from 1973, from the ussually reliable David Ignatius of the Washington Post, I wrote the following letter to the author:

David,

I found your editorial Mideast Lessons from 1973 coherent, thoughtful, and persuasive. However, I do take exception with your word choice, particularly in this sentence: “That long-ago war, like the current one in Lebanon, began with an Arab sneak attack -- a potentially devastating Egyptian thrust across the Suez Canal, cruelly launched on Israel's holiest day.”

The word sneaky implies a negative connotation of underhanded behavior. I fail to understand how a counter-attack, launched deep inside your country’s own territory can be considered a “sneak attack.” Considering Israel had spent nearly $500 million fortifying this position, known as the Bar Lev Line, the attack can hardly be considered a surprise on the Israeli’s part. Furthermore, in an interview with Newsweek in April 1973, Sadat publicly acknowledged his desire to go to war with Israel to recapture occupied territory. Finally, Israel had received numerous warnings from both an Egyptian informer as well as King Hussein of Jordan that an attack from Syria and Egypt was imminent. Perhaps you meant to use the word “surprise” attack, although it can hardly be considered a surprise. The accusations of an Arab sneak attack become more dubious considering Israel and the West’s history in the 1956 Suez conflict: orchestrating false pretenses for a war to capture a vestige of colonialism amounts to “sneaky” behavior in my opinion.

You go on to characterize the timing of the counter-attack, during Yom Kippur, as “cruel.” This statement, again made in reference to the counter-attack deep inside Egypt, I believe shows a misunderstanding for the nature of the conflict and perhaps all armed conflict as a whole. Any such counter-attack, regardless of the date, can hardly be considered a “cruel” tactic. You also fail to mention that the attack also occurred during Ramadan.

Please keep the insightful ideas coming, but I believe you do a disservice to your readers by using misleading language before even presenting the “meat” of your ideas.

Regards,