Heretics' almanac

Hitchens and Iraq

Slate has chosen to rerun an article written by Christopher Hitchens some time in 2005. This article, apparently, prompted Mark Daily to enlist in the US Army, who sent him to Iraq, where he was killed by an IED, prompting Hitchens to write another article in Vanity Fair. These are quite different stories, and Hitchens deserves respect and praise for writing the second one, even though his first misses the mark.

Rumsfeld pissing away his own legacy

In parsing the Bush administration's many mistakes and follies, I've had a hard time getting all that worked up about Donald Rumsfeld. Maybe it's because I can't help but admire his intellect, that he has the courage of his convictions, and that he isn't wrong as often as most people think. His vision for a new military doctrine is correct, if incomplete; and he also has the right idea about strategy formation under uncertainty.

But lately, his fatal flaws have become apparent to me. His remarks as Bush announced his departure were nearly insufferable; and it's distressing, to say the least, that he persists in thinking that the US has the upper hand on the strategically imperative of securing peace and stability in Iraq. In having such a rigid mindset, he's doing his own legacy a huge disservice. The US has the unrivaled capability in the world today to effect the demise of a regime, and this is a profound strategic advantage.

More about what the Democrats should do

TOH, as many times before, to On the Media, citing Karl Rove's hubris about polls in the runup to the Republican defeat this week. When the numbers were in, Bush invited Nancy Pelosi over for lunch. I don't know how often Bush gave Pelosi the time of day when she was the mere minority leader (I wrote her to find out), but my guess is that it was motivated by panic.

Bush, who billed himself as a "uniter, not a divider" from the very outset now talks of finding "common ground." Rumsfeld was sacrificed immediately, and I'm not sure Bolton will be working at Turtle Bay for much longer. I would have to imagine that Karl Rove is on thin ice, too, though that would mean that the Republican establishment go up against the White House and tell Bush that some sacrifices must be made for the good of the party.

Time to grow up

Now, what I should be doing is some research. I should snoop around on the insightful blogs I'm aware, digest their perspective, see if I have anything to add, and then write about it.

But it seems so friggin' obvious. What president can hope to do well politically when he's promoting a war that he doesn't seem to be winning? Do these guys really think that voters will generously overlook the realities of a failing strategy (be the cause every so worthy) because this small (and shrinking) clique clustered around the Potomac want us to trust them?

To be honest, I'm amazed that the goodwill to Bush has lasted this long. It's hard to think of any line of policy that's been successful. He can try to take credit for the economy, but a) it's not so strong as to make anybody that reassured, and b) libertarians wouldn't give anyone credit for it; and liberals certainly wouldn't give it to Bush. Other than that, I seem to remember just a lot of complaining about other people - the environmentalists, the pro-choice activists, the LGBT activists, activist judges, the cut-and-run activists.

For all the talk of accountability, it seems that a fully Republican government isn't capable of actually accomplishing or agreeing about much; or really being in favor of anything but vague, self-evident rhetoric about values and patriotism.

Midterm elections

My predictions for the elections is that the Democrats will take the House, narrowly (perhaps only by Cheney's tie-breaker) miss the Senate, and I have no idea about the gubernatorial races.

A couple of other observations:

• It is already clear that Bush is the big loser in this election. Those Republicans that do win congressional races will have had to disassociate themselves from the president, and of course this will be an enormous defeat for the Republicans in general.
• What the Democrats should be worrying about is how they deal with the new political situation come January. They can declare war on Bush and probably end up looking bad, or they can choose to be grown-ups about things, creating a profile of themselves as the responsible, patriotic, serious bunch to the rabid Republican dogma.

The next two years will be crucial for the future of American politics. The blogosphere may contribute to the outcome, for better or worse. Time to get serious, guys.

Rudy for secretary of homeland security!

It turns out that Bernard Kerik actually did a James McGreevey when he bowed out of the running for secretary of homeland security, which is to say plead guilt to a minor indiscretion to avoid scrutiny for more serious ones.  By now, there are allegations that Kerik was an avid philanderer and misused NYPD resources for personal gain.  This is one wild and crazy party animal, guys!

Come to think of it, the best candidate for the job really would be Rudy Guiliani.  He's up on the law, understands law enforcement, has proven he can manage multiple public agencies with lots of inertia, and he has lots of crediblity (in spite of his shameful appearance at the GOP convention in Madison Square Garden).  Why isn't he in play?

Because, of course, he can't run for president in about 4 years if he's a member of the cabinet.  If so, the guy is clearly putting his own political ambitions ahead of the best interests of the country. 

The future of Foggy Bottom

The inner workings and logic of the US Department of State are a bit of a mystery for most of us, and it's likely that Bush will spend some - or maybe a lot - of his poltical capital reforming it. 

Diplomacy is not for idealists.  It involves putting on shows, making unpalatable compromises, and taking the cynics' view of world affairs.  It is what fails when wars begin, but it has few measurable successes to show for itself.

Condi Rice is much less likely than Colin Powell to accept the organizational inertia in the State Department and will probably fire or retire people rather than try to raise morale.  It will be made abundantly clear that foreign policy is set in the West Wing and not at Foggy Bottom. 

This is probably a long-overdue adjustment.  But it won't amount to much if Rice uses diplomats to assert US interests at the expense of exercising diplomacy.  The Bush administration has let everything but military power atrophy in the last few years, and more than ever we need effective diplomacy.  In other words, it's time for State officials to focus on what they're (supposed to be) good at.  We'll see if Condi can do that.

Sent from my Blackberry

It all depends on the weather

At the last moment, William Saletan at Slate and the no-longer-anonymous Andrew Tanenbaum at Electoral Vote Predictor diverge on the outcome of tomorrow's election.

Saletan calls it for Bush, giving him 286 electoral votes; Tanenbaum gives it to Kerry with 298 electoral votes. Both pile on the caveats, pointing out that the outcome is still anyone's guess.

They disagree on the following states: Florida, Ohio, and Iowa; and they both agree Pennsylvania is razor thin but still a blue state. However, Slate points out that under their analysis, Bush would have to win both Florida and Ohio to win the race, and Kerry would only have to win one of them. And other states are very close, too. Andrew Tanenbaum thinks it'll all be up to Florida.

Confrontation or cooperation

Those who favor Bush when it comes to foreign policy are comforted by the president's tendency to stand up to opposition, whether it's from France, the UN, or elsewhere. They are also alarmed by what they perceive as Kerry's willingness to appease France, the UN or leftwingers in the Democratic party at the expense of US interests.

On both sides of this debate, there is a tendency to overstate the case, painting Bush as either "principled" or a "warmonger," and Kerry as either "flexible" or "weak." The truth is that Bush has had to make tactical accomodations for some (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) in order to more effectively confront others (Taliban and Iraq.) Kerry will have to prove that he's as tough and decisive as Bush was.

Really, it's a depressing state of affairs. Any thoughtful person has to recognize that a president has to know when to use both or either. And I blame the Republicans for creating this. With the possible exception of Michael Moore, noone within the Democratic party has suggested for a moment that the US shouldn't apply military power; yet it's the Republicans who want to make it seem like Kerry is too anxious to please the UN, France, etc.

I disagree with what I want you to say

Fellow members of an e-mail list I belong to have been sending out various and sundry anti-Kerry articles, even though the purpose of the list has nothing to do with the presidential campaign. After objecting to this abuse of the list a few times, I resigned myself to responding to the messages instead.

Now, let me be clear that I have misgivings about Kerry. I am on the fiscally conservative side when it comes to the role of government, and I'm a libertarian when it comes to individual freedom. I don't think Kerry's position on foreign policy is all that coherent, and I am nervous about the way he might handle Israel. I'd vote for a Democrat more often than a Republican, but McCain would get my endorsement over all the Democratic primary candidates, with the exception of Edwards.

But the debate seems to be based on the premise that if you can fault Kerry for anything at all, you better vote for Bush. And the standard doesn't apply the other way.

So this online debate quickly got down to the phrase "global test."

And the most remarkable series of exchanges was this: