CaptiveNation(s)

test

2007-01-25T16:58:00.000+02:00

test test test

2005-09-30T23:10:00.000+03:00

flickr-ing

I now have a flickr site. Who knows how often I'll update it but I'm intrigued at the possibilities it offers. I've seen a number of blog posts that contend that flickr is the new wave in commercial photography (which hasn't been fully developed yet). There are a lot of photos on the site that are very impressive.

2005-02-09T17:40:00.000+02:00

more at global politician

Global Politician has a new piece of mine on Dubya's inauguration speech. If you're so inclined, you can read it here.

2005-02-06T16:00:00.000+02:00

happy 'death to America' day

Seems that there was a little reception scheduled in suburban Maryland to celebrate the glorious Islamic Revolution. Said reception, however, was unexpectedly cancelled.

2005-01-17T20:45:00.000+02:00

new article, photos published

Tech Central Station has a new piece of mine, called "Orange Iran."

Also, Flak Photo Magazine has published at least one (and possibly more in the future) of my photos.

2005-01-10T23:17:00.000+02:00

recycling posts

To my surprise, Global Politician has decided to re-run a column I did for them late last year on the introduction of a flat tax in the United States. Either it's a fabulous idea or (more likely) they're starved for content. Whatever, I'm always pleased to be published and even more pleased to be re-published.

2005-01-05T21:15:00.000+02:00

laser boy: portrait of parenting

When the FBI catches up with you for blinding the pilots of a passenger plane with a hand-held laser, what do you do? Blame your 7-year-old daughter.

The Patriot Act may not be the right way of approaching this numbskull, but there must be some way of throwing the book at him.

2005-01-05T20:59:00.000+02:00

the tsunami donation game

While the UN is decrying America for being "stingy," Al-Jazeera is criticizing Uncle Sam for being opportunistic. Clearly, there's no winning this game.

But there's a larger issue here. Has the tsunami disaster degenerated into a contest amongst industrialized nations to pony up the largest pledge? The media, fueling this fire, report hourly on the latest donations, just as surely as they provide the latest body count. Which is more morbid?

As each country appears to one-up the next, I'm concerned that the human meaning of the tragedy be lost as states try to keep up with the Joneses. There is a real mission here, and millions of people are contributing meaningfully. But the endless stage-managing (from which America's certainly not immune) ultimately hurts the entire process.

There was at least one report today indicating that UN staff believed that Jan Egeland's "stingy" remark was a masterful gesture of psychological manipulation -- shame them into giving.

The question is, has he poisoned the process for the next disaster?

2004-12-13T21:05:00.000+02:00

undeserved but welcome recognition

It seems I've been doing a lot of self-promotion lately. Oh well, what the heck -- this type of limelight doesn't come along every day.

Instapundit and Power Line, formidable blogs both, somehow picked up my story on Eurobloggers at Tech Central Station. Instapundit has approx. 150,000 hits a day, while Power Line has a measly (!) 50,000. Pretty heady stuff.

I only hope this wasn't my 15 minutes. Note to self: keep writing.

2004-12-09T21:36:00.000+02:00

addition to my oeuvre

Tech Central Station has kindly published a piece that I've been trying to get out for a long time. You can find the full text here.

2004-12-07T22:22:00.000+02:00

if you're visiting from EuroBlogReview...

...and wish to comment on my intemperate comments (or wish to read the original piece and then comment on my intemperance), this is the place. Comments may be left below.

Be kind.

2004-12-06T21:38:00.000+02:00

shameless self promotion, redux

Global Politician carries a satirical piece today which I originally wrote for eTalkinghead.com on 1 May 2004. Let's hear it for reprints! Now, if only there were a way I could parlay this into actual money...

2004-12-04T09:17:00.000+02:00

hey, BBC -- you've been Punk'd!

"BBC duped by cruel Bhopal hoax"

2004-11-21T22:03:00.000+02:00

legacy time: get to work on the flat tax

(this article first appeared in GlobalPolitician on 21 November 2004)

What do Hong Kong and Estonia have in common? Well, for starters, they’re among the most economically free states on earth, according to the Heritage Foundation’s 2004 Index of Economic Freedom (communist-occupied Hong Kong is #1, former Soviet Republic Estonia #6 -- consider that the United States, supposedly keeper of the capitalist flame, is #10).

Hong Kong and Estonia also have a flat tax, and they are making it work for them.

As America breathes a sigh of relief that the election is over and the administration begins to steel itself for the dizzying array of tasks ahead, there are a lot of folks out there who hope that Bush, relieved of the oppressive yoke of a looming re-election campaign, will choose as his legacy a truly revolutionary change: radical reform of the U.S. tax code and introduction of a flat tax.

U.S. income tax rules are, as most Americans know, labyrinthine, ever-changing and capricious. According to some estimates, the tax code is over 50,000 pages long, and US citizens spend a billion hours (literally) every year reading, re-reading and re-re-reading the rules as they fill out their 1040 forms.

It’s a fair bet that there isn’t a soul in America who knows the whole code off the top of his head. But that doesn’t stop lawyers, accountants, and drive-through tax-preparation outfits from capitalizing on the confusion of Americans. Those citizens who can’t afford professional assistance are left to fend for themselves -- hardly a progressive or equitable system.

What current problems would a flat tax system solve?

- Confusion: there are hundreds if not thousands of exemptions and “if this but not that except if this…” rules. They make it difficult if not impossible for ordinary Americans to get a fair shake on April 15th.
- Inequity: One rate for all. No loopholes, no dodges, no accountants, no lawyers. You and Donald Trump pay the same portion of your incomes, the same way.
- Bureaucracy: When the rules are simple enough for even mere mortals to understand, there is no need for a bloated, expensive, and often oppressive IRS bureaucracy. The IRS would continue to exist, but it would need a much smaller building and would siphon off many fewer taxpayers’ dollars.
- Gamers: Why are so many companies moving their main offices offshore? Why do investors sell off stocks at the end of the year? Why do big-money businessmen open Swiss bank accounts? Because they are trying to game the system to reduce their tax exposure. With rates lowered, there are fewer incentives to play (and less effort spent playing) these games. And greater overall transparency, which exposes cheaters.
- Revenue: According to the UK’s Adam Smith Institute, states that adopt a flat tax “have found the low flat rate produces more tax revenue than the complex system which went before.” Low rates stimulate investment and achievement, which leads to growth, more profits, and more tax revenue. Q.E.D.

In fact, the concept of a flat tax is gaining popularity abroad, ironically in tax-happy Europe. Despite attempts by EU heavyweights France and Germany to impose their beliefs on incoming member states, many new EU countries have moved to a flat or near-flat tax. The Adam Smith Institute’s Andrei Grecu did a survey of nine countries with a flat tax, and found that almost without exception, the system has been beneficial. All three Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) have a flat tax, as do Russia, Serbia, Slovakia and Ukraine. These last three are recent additions to the flat tax club, but the Balts have been making it work for a decade and have some of the highest GDP growth rates in Europe. Even Russia, economic basket case that it is, has experienced significant GDP growth since adopting the flat tax (and, moreover, has doubled tax receipts – notable in a country where tax evasion was a popular pastime).

Flat tax detractors will drag out the usual litany of scare tactics about poor people paying more taxes. They will complain that this is yet another example of greedy Republicans giving breaks to Corporate America. And they will worry that the flat tax won’t be applied fairly. What really galls them, though, is that they believe rich people should pay more.

Which is why the Bush Flat Tax has to be done right. It must:

- Be fair: All income must be eligible. Work income, capital gains, dividends, interest, the whole lot. This was the Achilles’ Heel of earlier flat tax proposals.
- Be flat: Three brackets do not a flat tax make. The code might be simpler, but it would not be flat, and it would not accrue as many benefits as a truly flat tax.
- Have a floor: Those below a minimum income level (we’ll leave it to the economists to sort out where that line is) must be exempt. But nobody should be paying a larger percentage of his income when the flat tax goes into effect, least of all the working poor.
- Be reasonable: Excepting the lowest earners, a flat rate of approximately 21-24% would end up being less than most households currently pay and well within what they are willing to pay. Americans are eminently reasonable and don’t expect to go from paying 28% to 5% overnight. Moreover, over time the rate will decrease as revenues rise (this assuming that Congress and the White House are able to finally exercise some fiscal restraint on matters other than the War on Terror).

On the domestic front, President Bush could do far worse than have a revitalized and simplified tax structure as the cornerstone of his second term. As in the first term, he can lower taxes for all Americans. Make payment less of a chore. Create a more equitable system; stop punishing success. And above all, stimulate growth rather than bureaucracy. All in all, not a bad legacy.

The second term hasn’t begun, but the clock is already ticking.

2004-09-30T08:33:00.000+03:00

iran follies, part x

Now the bastards are blaming bloggers...

(no further comment)

2004-09-17T22:41:00.000+03:00

fahrenheit 444

So Michael Moore's film finally debuted in Tehran. Congrats to him on that. Hope he enjoys the money he's making off the government that held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. No doubt he blames that on Republicans, too.

But AFP's description of the film's premiere leads one to wonder whether the mullahs' gambit may not have backfired. Some samples of quotes from Iranian moviegoers:

"The authorities obviously gave the film the green light for political reasons, in that anything against the United States must be good..."

"They are showing this film to erase from our minds the idea that America is the great saviour," said Hirad Harandian, another cinemagoer at the uptown Farhang cinema.

"It was just too political. I was bored from the middle, and I wished we had gone to see 'Kill Bill' instead," said one young man...

And even though his twenty-something son quipped in to say he was "disappointed" by the film and asserted "politics is not as important" for Iran's younger generation, he did envy Moore's position. "It sure is a great country, where someone like Moore trashes the president and gets away with it -- and makes so much money!" he laughed.

Yeah, it sure is.

(via LGF)

2004-09-17T21:40:00.000+03:00

if you're looking for good news from iraq...

Look no further.

Iraq the Model has kindly translated some comments by real, live Arabs, sent to the BBC on the occasion of September 11th. What they say may surprise you. A sample:

“America offers freedom for free. It’s true that I’ve never been there and I don’t have friends living there either but I keep America in my mind and soul. Hatred was brought to us by the extremists; the enemies of mankind.
I and every true Iraqi love America because to us she represents freedom and liberation. America untied us from Saddam’s chains and also liberated Yugoslavia from her dictator and liberated Germany before that. History is full of events that support my feelings”
Hazim Al Shammari-Baghdad/Iraq.

(via Reason's Hit 'n Run)

2004-09-16T21:27:00.000+03:00

several days late, many dollars short
(originally appeared on eTalkinghead.com, 16 Sep 04)

It took Kofi Annan quite a while to come to the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, didn't it?

You'll note that Annan (who took his current office in 1997) didn't make this assertion when NATO embarked on its bombing campaign on Serbia -- without a UN Security Council resolution. In fact, although he gave a half-hearted criticism of the action against Serbia, he ultimately gave the Clinton administration political cover:
...on the one side, the question of the legitimacy of action taken by a regional organization without a U.N. mandate; on the other, the universally recognized imperative of effectively halting gross and systematic violations of human rights with grave humanitarian consequences. The inability of the international community in the case of Kosovo to reconcile these two equally compelling interests was a tragedy.
Take out the word 'Kosovo' from the last sentence and insert 'Iraq' and you have to wonder what was different from 1999 to 2003:

* Gross and systematic violations of human rights? Check.
* Grave humanitarian consequences? Check.

Critics of this line of thinking will contend that NATO was a 'regional' organization different from the 'coalition of the willing;' therefore it was marginally permissible for NATO to act under Article 52, Section 1, of the UN Charter (which discusses to 'regional arrangements'). But why a regional arrangement includes NATO, which was outside the sphere of the former Yugoslavia, and doesn't include the 'coalition of the willing,' which included states in the surrounding region as well as those which had an interest in the Middle East and South Asia, is clearly a subject for debate but hardly one for static and far-reaching pronouncements such as the one made by Annan to the BBC.

The chief difference between the two situations, of course, was that Bill Clinton was President of the United States when NATO bombed Serbia, and George W. Bush was president when the coalition attacked Iraq.

I'm not one to go for conspiracy theories, but coming -- as it does -- so close to both the Australian and U.S. elections, this declaration seems suspect at best and reckless at least.

At worst it looks like Kofi Annan is trying to declare himself one of those foreign leaders that John Kerry counted as anonymous supporters.

2004-09-15T22:04:00.000+03:00

what's wrong with this picture?

Okay, for a start I know I shouldn't be quoting CBS News, but this was too good to pass up.

Tony Coelho, an uber-Democrat if there ever was one, is now bemoaning THE LACK OF a Democratic analogue for Karl Rove, who is widely derided as the supposed brain of President Bush. Presumably this means that they're looking for Kerry's brain.

Take a look at what Coelho says:

“What I’m looking for is a Karl Rove and I don’t know where our Karl Rove is.” Coelho says. “I think Sasso is a Karl Rove. I’m very high on Sasso because I don’t think he plays Machiavellian games. I think he very sincerely wants to win. I think he is very big on Kerry. And I think he’s tough enough to say, ‘Goddammit, come together.’”

Come together indeed. This touches on one theme that I've been wanting to write on for a couple weeks now, the implosion of the Kerry campaign. It's too early to gloat, but blog posts floating about with titles like John Forbes Dukakis, it's hard to resist the temptation to indulge in a little schadenfreude.

Just a little.

2004-09-14T16:04:00.000+03:00

six flags over allah

According to World Net Daily, Six Flags NJ will be hosting a "Muslims Only Day," sponsored by the Islamic Circle of North America. Now, ICNA may be a stellar organization devoted to charity, friendship, and love, but it's worth noting that the US Senate asked for their tax records earlier this year because they suspected the ICNA was involved in financing terrorism and perpetuating violence.

My mind is reeling with tasteless jokes about roller coasters and the like, but I won't indulge that impulse.

2004-09-14T10:22:00.000+03:00

back to the future in russia
(originally appeared in eTalkinghead, 14.9.04)

Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday announced an overhaul of the entire Russian political system, with the ostensible objective of making the country stronger in its ability to contend with terrorism. Setting aside to some extent the question of Beslan (and the other catastrophic terrorist incidents in Russia's recent past), this move will almost certainly result in less freedom for ordinary Russians at the very moment when they need more. It calls to mind the hoary (and apparently anonymous) statement by an officer in Vietnam, "we had to destroy the village to save it."

Putin's intention is not only to return Russia to electing people by party lists (sound familiar?) but also to take away from outlying areas the ability to directly elect their own regional governors, putting this authority -- where else? -- in the hands of the presidency, with a rubber-stamp approval by regional legislatures. This would allow Putin to finally bring to heel the regional governors, a continuing thorn in his side, and would consolidate further the powerbase already solidly established in Moscow.

This deck chair-rearranging exercise at a time of national crisis must be seen in the overall context of Putin's style of governance. He was elected with a sweeping (71%) majority earlier this year, and Secretary of State Colin Powell remarked presciently that he had concerns with the lack of openness in the campaign as well as the "level of authoritarianism creeping back" into Russian society. Russians already knew their country was in trouble, and difficult times often call voters back to strategies they believe worked in the past; in this case, many ordinary Russians found themselves valuing order over freedom. Indeed, under Stalin, Brezhnev and Krushchev, there was a plenty of order.

But as with the Soviet Union and nearly every other authoritarian state in memory, eventually the house of cards, the Potemkin Village if you will, comes crashing down. The trouble with this type of power consolidation is that it presumes that the state, in the person of the president, is the sole repository of knowledge and capability for problem-solving. Authoritarian leaders begin to believe their own press, and inevitably thrash about for more power as things go wrong, making increasingly irrational decisions and distrusting their advisors, however well-intentioned they may be. Each authoritarian thinks he has learned from his ideological ancestors, but like a Greek tragedy, they all end up in the same spiral to disaster.

It was precisely this concern that drove America's founding fathers to build checks and balances into the Constitution. And checks and balances on power are what Russia will soon lack.

The saddest part is that Russians need a hero right now, someone to believe in who will guide them out of this dark period. And they need to be able to believe that even if one leader, or political party, steers Russia in the wrong direction, the state will eventually return to the right course by democratically cleansing itself of those beliefs and supposed leaders that brought ruination upon them. Russians are a great and proud nation, and most informed observers believe that they are capable of great things, given the opportunity to work, live, and speak freely.

Speaking about constitutions, Ronald Reagan said,

"...All those other constitutions are documents that say, 'We, the government, allow the people the following rights,' and our Constitution says 'We the People, allow the government the following privileges and rights.' We give our permission to government to do the things that it does."

Is it too late for Putin to make the same realization?

2004-09-14T09:34:00.000+03:00

put on your jammies

CaptiveNation(s) has 'joined' the 'Jammies Brigade,' chiefly because anything that makes Dan Rather squirm is implicitly a good thing. PowerLine and Bird do an excellent job of following this theater of the absurd, and this is worth supporting. Join up:

2004-09-13T21:43:00.000+03:00

attention: gmail invitations

I have FOUR, count 'em, FOUR -- Gmail invitations available to colleagues who will link to this blog.

Email me: first come, first served.

2004-09-13T13:31:00.000+03:00

stop picking on uncle dan

Now they're picking on Dan Rather. C'mon guys. You've got bigger problems.

2004-09-13T09:32:00.000+03:00

finally a trip to the UNSC?

As the Washington Times reports, the EU-3 (UK, Germany, France) and Washington have agreed to bring the Iran nuclear issue to the UN Security Council if Iran doesn't officially, definitively and completely cease its nascent nuclear weapons program by November. Setting aside whether a UNSC resolution would have any effect (remember all the resolutions on Iraq?), this is nevertheless a good thing for a number of reasons. First of all, it undermines the claim of those Anyone-But-Bush naysayers that the United States is unable to get Europeans to agree with us on anything other than the proper serving temperature for Chardonnay (9C/48F, in case you're interested). Secondly, it puts down a much-needed marker that Iran can sit and contemplate as the mullahs consider their next move (and John Kerry will need to pick up and run with in the unlikely event he wins the election). And thirdly, it increases the chance that the issue will be brought to the forefront sooner rather than too late, denying Tehran the opportunity to continue dissembling for the likes of Mohammed "Let's Give Them Another Chance" El-Baradei. Progress? We'll give it a cautious thumbs-up.

2004-09-13T09:01:00.000+03:00

oh dear...

This would be funny if it weren't so sad (and yes, it's for real).

2004-09-12T10:44:00.000+03:00

now THAT's an editorial

Short, sweet and to the point. I'll let this ditty from the Wall Street Journal speak for itself. (I did, however, excise the photo of Kerry because it makes me want to hurl.)

Europe's Choice
Kerry gets overwhelming support from opponents of strong U.S. leadership.

Saturday, September 11, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Our friends at the Financial Times splashed the news across their front page Thursday that "Global Poll Favours Kerry Over Bush." It seems a recent survey of 35 countries reveals that the world's voters would cast their ballot for the Democrat over the Texas "cowboy" by about 2 to 1. None of these non-Americans get a vote in November, mind you, but we can appreciate the FT's Euro-frustration.

We read deeper into the same story, however, and discovered why Senator Kerry probably won't be touting his global landslide on the stump in Des Moines. It turns out that another survey, this one taken by the Marshall Fund in June, found that 58% of Europeans consider "strong U.S. leadership to be undesirable."

Leave aside the fact that Europe seems to prefer "strong U.S. leadership" when the American military is storming Normandy or imposing a peace that Europeans failed to achieve in the Balkans. More significant for the current moment is that these polls show that the same Europeans who overwhelmingly favor the election of John Kerry also favor a weaker America. We'll let our readers decide what that says about the two American candidates.

2004-09-10T16:12:00.000+03:00

oh no, not another one!

Omigod is it really possible that there's another Bush memo?

2004-09-10T14:45:00.000+03:00

iran and michael moore: together again for the 1st time

Now the bastards are in league with Michael Moore.

Iranian authorities have decided to start screening "Fahrenheit 9/11", Michael Moore's scathing attack on the administration of US President George W. Bush, to coincide with the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks, an official said Wednesday.

2004-09-02T16:47:00.000+03:00

yellowcake and the mko

The WaPo reports today (no link b/c registration issues) that:

The International Atomic Energy Agency, in a confidential report, said Iran intends to convert more than 40 tons of uranium into uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas, an intermediate step in the complex process of making enriched uranium. The plan, if carried out, would represent a significant step forward for Iran's nuclear program and -- in the view of Bush administration officials -- a growing threat. In theory, that much uranium could yield as many as five crude nuclear bombs.

Meanwhile, BBC reported yesterday that Iran had arrested dozens of people from the Mujahedin e Khalq (MEK) for giving away information on Iran's -- ahem -- peaceful nuclear program to outside parties.

Draw your own conclusions about what's going on there...

Tip o' the hat to the Heritage Policy Weblog.

2004-09-02T07:44:00.000+03:00

exposed: franco-american plot to destabilize the middle east

Reason Online's Tim Cavanaugh tells us today of a sinister plot by the forces of evil, in the form of the United States and its European hench-country, France, to destabilize Syria by supporting pluralistic democracy in Lebanon.

No, seriously -- France. Bourdeaux. Brie. The Champs Elysees. That France.

When the Lebanese parliament votes to amend the constitution allowing President Emil Lahoud to have another term -- under Syrian pressure -- Chirac and Bush will, at least metaphorically speaking, be locking arms in the UN to decry this latest manifestation of Baathist Syrian meddling in Lebanese affairs. And, per Cavanaugh:

In recent weeks, the new cooperation between D.C. and Paris has also allowed Assad's supporters in both Syria and Lebanon to rail against the most insidious Franco-American plot since Spaghettios.

Although it's far too early to hail a new era in US-European relations, it's worth noting that this is at least a partial answer to those critics who believe the current administration is incapable of any Trans-Atlantic conciliation or meaningful change in the Middle East. And since it's also the latest incarnation of calls for Syria to once and for all abandon its appalling experiment in Lebanon, it might be the shot across the bow that Bashar Assad needs to finally get the message.

2004-08-30T11:43:00.000+03:00

small victories: the meskheti come to america
(note: this originally appeared in eTalkinghead.com on 30 Aug 04)

The Meskheti are one of those little good-news stories that so often slips through the cracks, but their plight underlines a comment made by the Secretary of Defense last year. Speaking to a group of none-too-receptive Europeans at a NATO conference in Munich last February, Rumsfeld, clearly exasperated by the discussion, blurted out, “I know in my heart and in my brain that America ain’t what’s wrong with the world.”

Ask one of the Meskhetian Turks that just arrived in Philadelphia what he thinks.

A largely anonymous oppressed ethnic group, the Meskheti receive little attention in the world press. After World War II, Stalin deported tens of thousands of Meskheti from his (and their) native Georgia to Uzbekistan. When the Soviet Union broke up, around 90,000 Meskheti were driven out of Uzbekistan in pogroms, and the largest group, over 10,000, settled in the Krasnodar region of Russia.

If the Meskhetians thought they had found a home in Russia, they were quickly disabused of the notion. The ethnic Cossack administration in Krasnodar, displeased with their presence, denied them citizenship and even residency permits, leaving the Meskheti in what Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) called “a virtual no-man’s land,” unable to register cars, marriages, births, deaths, houses or businesses. The refugees were required to re-register as “guests” (an ironic term) every 45 days. They were constantly looking over their shoulders for thuggish ultranationalist Cossack paramilitaries, some of whom were rumored to be getting funding from the Krasnodar administration.

For its part, Russia insisted that Georgia, the Meskhetian homeland 60 years removed, should take them back, yet another in a long list of disputes between Moscow and Tbilisi. Its 1999 Council of Europe accession obligated Georgia to create conditions for the Meskhetis’ return, but Georgia, already bogged down by Abkhaz refugees and lacking incentive to assist another beleaguered ethnic group, dragged its feet.

Enter Uncle Sam and the International Organization for Migration (IOM).

The IOM and the State Department offered to let undocumented Meskhetians apply for legal residency, and eventually citizenship, in the United States. The conditions for inclusion were strict -- only those who had no legal status at all were considered -- even so, the IOM expects that up to 10,000 will register for resettlement by the end of August. They will be given medical screenings, cultural orientation, and assistance in meeting with US authorities -- including the Department of Homeland Security -- in anticipation of their arrival in the United States.

In truly American style, once the Meskhetians arrive in America they will get help, but not a free ride. While transport will be arranged for them by IOM to various parts of the U.S., they will be expected to pay back the cost. And charitable organizations in the United States will help them get housing and work, but after a short period they will be expected to build lives for themselves. They will be eligible for permanent residency status in one year, and citizenship in as little as four years.

Not all the Meskhetians are happy about the prospect of yet another resettlement. Some would prefer to return to their ancestral land in Georgia, but they are philosophical about the likelihood of that option. Many, however, are ready for their new lives in America. According to the Associated Press, one Meskheti leader told Russian television station NTV, "We are going to Philadelphia. Houses, jobs, the whole package is prepared for us. We don't need anything else." As of mid-August, 79 Meskheti had arrived in the United States since the program began in late June, according to an IOM press briefing.

Small victories like this are what career diplomats, overworked committee staff aides, NGO employees and development people live for. The victory wasn’t against Russia, the Krasnodar administration, or even Georgia. It was a defeat of sclerotic bureaucracy, small-mindedness, bigotry, and apathy.

How appropriate, then, that as the Statue of Liberty re-opens in New York Harbor, wretched refuse from yet another teeming shore arrives, yearning to breathe free. Like Irish, Italians, Vietnamese, Cubans, Afghans and others before them, the Meskheti come to the United States largely penniless and without friends or family to guide them, dependent on the kindness of strangers for their basic needs, but determined to start over and move forward.

2004-08-27T14:17:00.000+03:00

Book Review -- Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security
By Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson, USAF (Ret.)

Didja hear? Seems there was this group of guys that patrolled up and down rivers in Vietnam and, er, Cambodia (maybe) in the late 60s. They were on these little boats that were really fast – so fast that they called them “swift boats.” One of them was a guy named Lt. Kerry; he might have been a hero, but it’s not entirely clear because there are a group of folks that have differing views on what happened 35 years ago.

What’s that, you say? The important thing is that he served honorably in the Armed Forces? That America needs a strong president who knows firsthand what the military is all about? Someone that’s seen combat and been decorated? Someone like Bob Dole, perhaps, who still bears the scars of his war service? Or maybe George Herbert Walker Bush, who got a distinguished flying cross? That’s different, you say? Aren't we just belaboring the swift boat issue? Well, regrettably, yes.

Buzz Patterson does, in fact, further belabor the swift boat issue. He spends the second chapter of his book, Reckless Disregard, talking about John Kerry’s war record. Patterson recounts Kerry’s first purple heart in detail (a shrapnel wound in the arm that required neither anesthesia nor sutures), and points out that Kerry never missed a day of duty in the four months he was in Vietnam.

Yes, four months. You’d think from the press coverage that Kerry was there from the Tonkin Gulf resolution to the Saigon airlift, but it really was only from December ’68 to March ’69. Odd, that, since the average tour of duty in Vietnam was 12 months. And many little nuggets from Patterson’s book that would be of use to conservative bloggers have been lost in the psuedo-journalistic melee surrounding the swift boat vets’ book.

All in all, though, Patterson only spends perhaps a dozen pages talking about the swift boat controversy. This is probably more than it merits, but let’s not quibble over details.

Rather than devoting the entire book to Vietnam War minutiae, Patterson makes a larger point, and that point is this: those who are now carping about combating terrorism, projecting military power, winning wars, and generally setting about fixing national security were the same ones who spent a fair amount of the intervening period between Nixon and Bush II wrecking it.

Patterson spends a good bit of his book skewering Kerry, and it’s no coincidence that the book went to press in time for publishing at the height of the campaign season. This is probably as much for commercial reasons as anything else.

But Patterson also talks about the rest of the liberal rogues’ gallery: “Hanoi” Jane Fonda, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, VP Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, Jim McDermott, Tom Harkin, President Clinton, President Carter, et al. The book is replete with documented examples of actions by these and others that, he argues, ultimately made us weaker in the days leading up to 9/11. Some examples:

- During his term, Clinton cut 700,000 active duty military members and 293,000 reservists;

- President Clinton met only twice privately with CIA Director Woolsey;

- Between 1991-1996, Sen. Kerry proposed or voted in favor of legislation designed to cut military or intelligence spending by: 1991 - $3b; 1992 - $6b; 1993 - $8.8b; 1994 - $43b; 1995 - $6.5b; 1996 - $6.5b.

In short, Patterson provides lots of ammunition to the party faithful and those conservative members of the military (who, it could be reasonably argued, constitute a significant majority of the DoD) disgusted by left-leaning politics.

The downfall of Reckless Disregard is not in the message but the delivery. The text is peppered with various usages of the word “liberal” as an epithet, and Patterson frequently uses folksy wink-wink rhetoric to push points that could have been made more effectively by logic and figures alone. It is designed to be a paean to the conservative masses, but from the book title onward it will probably alienate any centrist who inadvertently picks it up.

Which is a shame, because Patterson makes some worthwhile arguments about the national ignorance-is-bliss attitude to security and defense of the 1990s (for which Republicans are certainly not immune from criticism) and America’s unwillingness to acknowledge that a grave danger was looming closer on the horizon than we imagined.

The most effective parts of the book are not when Patterson mines the conservative press for pithy quotes, but those in which he does some primary research. He tells of a flight crew’s personal encounter with Senator Kerry and his staff on a flight from Cambodia to Vietnam to Malaysia, in which Kerry manages to: insult the pilot, eat the crew’s lunch, complain about the heat (in southeast Asia!) and insist on taking off while the crew is checking a mechanical problem. In another part, Patterson tells the story of how President Clinton (Commander in Chief, let’s not forget) couldn’t tell the difference between an air force lieutenant and a major. He also tells how Senator Hillary Clinton visited Afghanistan and Baghdad and proceeded to tell the troops about her misgivings about the administration's force-projection policies -- remarks which were almost instantly broadcast by al-Jazeera. These anecdotes speak volumes about the attitudes of some members of the liberal policymaking community toward the military, and although they are to some extent peripheral, they do go to the center of Patterson's thesis.

In March of this year, an article appeared in NewsMax.com which made Patterson really mad. NewsMax, a right-leaning wire service/news aggregator, carried a story about (what else?) John Kerry in his Vietnam days; it was one of the earlier manifestations of the firestorm that would later become the “swift boat veterans…” brouhaha in fever pitch today.

The part of the piece which stuck in Patterson’s craw was this:

[Kerry] also seems ready to play the “chicken hawk” card against Republicans. He told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s "This Week," “I don’t know what it is that all these Republicans who didn’t serve in Vietnam or fighting any war have against us who did.”

Patterson’s response:

“Well, sir, I’ll see your four months in Vietnam and raise you the twenty years I spent serving as an Air Force pilot flying in conflicts as far-ranging as Grenada, Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti.

“What I have against you, to be concise, is your post-Vietnam War treason, your complete and demonstrated lack of support for the U.S. military in your nineteen years in the Senate, and my expectation that you will return our national defense to the criminally ineffectual days of the Carter and Clinton administrations.”

Although this passage appears on page 153 -- three pages from the end -- this outburst captures the overall tone of Reckless Disregard, which is, not to put too fine a point on it, venomous. Given the way things are playing out in American politics today, maybe this isn’t surprising. But it is unfortunate.

2004-08-27T08:35:00.000+03:00

the pressure cooker theory of hydraulic release

Charles "Often Wrong But Never in Doubt" Krauthammer has an excellent article in Townhall.com which explains to some extent why the democrats (and liberals more generally, even/especially those of the Nader school) have been so strident against President Bush. It goes to something I've long said, which is that liberals seem to believe that they know better what's good for the people than the people themselves. And they have so convinced themselves that they were robbed, robbed, of the last election, that they simply can not bear it. But they have had no opportunity to vent about this because of 9/11 and the war in Iraq -- until now. All of the resentment about 2000 has been dormant until the last year or so, and it is boiling to the surface, unleashing the collected fury of three-plus years of simmering discontent. According to Krauthammer,

The Democrats fell unnaturally silent. For two long, agonizing years, they had to stifle and suppress. It was the most serious case of repression since Freud's Anna O. went limp. The forced deference nearly killed them. And then, providentially, they were saved. The clouds parted and bad news rained down like manna: WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Joe Wilson and, most important, continued fighting in Iraq.

In a way, it's rather impressive -- Michael Moore, Moby, Ted Kennedy, et al have gone off the deep end in their criticism (no doubt many other entertaining tricks will appear during the Republican convention), and they think they smell blood. What they may be smelling, however, is another dark whiff of defeat for their paternalistic and arrogant views.

2004-08-26T11:17:00.000+03:00

forget dimona?

Following the shutting down of reformist newspaper websites (see more here), and the ridiculous debacle with the IAEA that I've written about before, and the most recent concern, the test-firing of the Shahab-3, the Iranian government is getting more bellicose by the day. Could this really be the same government that a group of US Congressmen wanted to visit not so terribly long ago?

"If Israel fires one missile at Booshehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear centre, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move", the acting Revolutionary Guards Commander General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr warned. (more...)

2004-08-25T07:38:00.000+03:00

john kerry, tax cutter

According to this article by the National Taxpayers' Union, John Kerry has flipped again (no great surprise). It seems that early in his legislative career he was actually in favor of tax cuts. His campaign today might argue that the budgetary situation at that time wasn't as dire as it is now, but the NTU points out that in fact the budget shortfall was actually worse then than now. The Kerry campaign now also conveniently ignores the fact that excessive taxes on the wealthy have been frequently proved to have a negative overall effect on the economy. But why bother with such trivial details when they get in the way of demagoguery?

2004-08-24T08:57:00.000+03:00

thanks, glenn

More milestones in my writing career:
I got a (very brief) mention earlier this month in Instapundit. Still, a little press is better than no press at all.

2004-08-12T11:37:00.000+03:00

juxtaposing (rather than dueling) headlines

I played this game a while back and found it fun. Let's roll again:

- Iran Official Admits to Aiding Zarqawi in Iraq, Al-Awsat Says (Bloomberg)

- Iranian nuclear demands stun Europeans (AP)

- Diplomacy sidelined as US targets Iran (The Guardian - UK)

Maybe things are finally headed in the right direction. But wait, here's Michael Ledeen to rain on our parade...

- The Discovery of Iran: Are you sitting down? Iran is a terrorist state. (National Review)

2004-08-12T11:29:00.000+03:00

monitor this
(this piece originally appeared on eTalkinghead.com, 10 Aug 04)

The Europeans are coming! The Europeans are c... Wait a second here. When our democracy was in diapers, most of them were still living under monarchs, and were quickly headed in the direction of communist or fascist autocracies. We had finished our Civil War decades before most of them had come around to the mere idea of representative government. And it was America, after all, who allowed Western Europe to have a fighting chance at constitutional governance in the first place. After nearly 230 years, what does Europe have to teach us about democracy?

Having done the odd bit of election monitoring myself, it occurs to me that welcoming the OSCE with open arms is probably the best thing we can do for the cause of democracy around the world in the long run, if that's truly what America is all about. The process of election monitoring taught me more about representative government than every civics class I ever took and every election I ever voted in, combined. Still, the observers will probably just learn what Churchill told us -- "democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." But that's not why the OSCE should send as many monitors as possible.

First, a little about what election monitoring is and isn't.

What it is: Election monitors do just that -- they monitor. It's a highly technocratic undertaking, far less about political beliefs than just process, process, process. And if there's one group of people that are better at over-regulating and hyper-processizing than we Americans, it has to be the Europeans. Monitors watch registration activities (usually starting several weeks before the polls open), they watch people lining up in front of the precincts, they look at the ballot box seals, they watch people walking to the voting booth, they watch the ballot being dropped into the box, and they watch the counting process at the end of the day. They typically go to several precincts to get a snapshot of how the process works (or doesn't). It's all very grass roots, earthy, and, generally, dull. But it's monitored. And at the end of the whole circus, they write up a giant report full of sincere and earnest conclusions about how the process (there's that word again) could be improved.

What it isn't: The advice election monitors get from the very beginning sounds eerily like Star Trek's Prime Directive -- don't interfere with this alien culture. They're not to do exit polling, they're not supposed to point out inconsistencies, nor can they provide helpful hints. They don't right wrongs, they don't fix problems, they don't put out a "feedback to the OSCE" suggestion box. They're there to watch. Occasionally an overzealous observer tries to intervene in some particularly egregious issue, but generally the monitors pride themselves on being wrapped up in the sheer tedium of it all.

So, notwithstanding our little Florida debacle in 2000 (which, most observers agree, proved that the system, however imperfect and in need of fine-tuning, ultimately worked as intended by the framers), we've got this process down pat, right? What good is a 237-page postmortem of the election -- written by a bunch of European technocrats who probably aren't favorably disposed to the United States in the first place -- going to do for us?

In fact, it probably won't have any discernable effect at all. The OSCE election report will, regardless of the eventual winner of the election, probably be lost in the cacophony of the election reporting results. It will be an A19 item in the New York Times and possibly a small feature story in the Christian Science Monitor. It'll be trotted out occasionally by members of European socialist governments to remind America that we're not so perfect as we think. Why participate in this charade at all?

Because there's a larger issue at stake. For a variety of reasons which began well before even the Clinton administration, America's credibility on the world stage is in the toilette. And when truly anti-democratic regimes are asked to submit to election monitoring, it doesn't take an career ambassdor to come up with a persuasive argument against it: just ask sweetly, "has the United States has ever had election monitors?" Because if the mighty US of A doesn't have to open itself up to criticism from without, why should anyone else? It's a hard question to answer, because the honest response would be, "we don't need our elections monitored because we've been practicing this for a long time and know what we're doing." But try telling that to Kim Jong Il, Mohammed Khatami, Pervez Musharraf, Alexander Lukashenka, or any of the long list of heads of state whose elections are crying out for a little monitoring.

It's a simple issue of double standards, and American foreign policy has never been internally consistent. If we're not prepared to embrace a little healthy and relatively well-intentioned criticism, how will we be able to press the cause of free elections elsewhere? And, frankly, how can we expect to start to close the credibility gap if we don't?

As another American recently said, "bring 'em on."

2004-08-06T05:34:00.000+03:00

i'll take 'shameless self-promotion' for $500, alex

My latest article appears in the pages of Reason magazine this month. It's called "Chatroom Revolutionaries." Not my first choice of title, but not bad either. Ironically, one of the sites that I mentioned in the article, activistchat.com, has decided to make it a headline article.

2004-08-03T12:26:00.000+03:00

those wacky rads

Those radical leftists sure are a creative lot. Take a look at this:

NORNCPOSTERS.ORG

One wonders how many copyright violations are on this page.

For an interesting depressed liberal viewpoint on why not to go to NYC to protest those BAAAAD Republicans, see RNC protests just another party for elite white kids?

Are you white, living in a suburb with parents who make sure you are never homeless? Have you spent as much money on trendy new clothing for the RNC as it would cost to fly a poor person to the protests? Is your trip to the RNC self-serving, or do you really care about the issues of poverty or homelessness? And how are these white people with money going to the RNC going to address the issues of poverty? Well, maybe this one time, you could put a homeless person first and give them your plane ticket to NYC!

2004-07-29T12:50:00.000+03:00

gimme a booster

Now the bastards are trying to get deuterium gas.

2004-07-28T22:03:00.000+03:00

john, we hardly know ya
News flash. John Kerry's cousin is Mayor of Saint-Briac (Ille-et-Vilaine). Okay, being French, or living in France, or being Mayor of Saint-Briac (Ille-et-Vilaine) isn't necessarily a crime. But does the FEC know about the Frenchmen visiting the Democratic National Convention? Hat tip to EuroSavant for the painful and lengthy story of Kerry's "French Connection" (pun regrettably unavoidable).

2004-07-23T14:48:00.000+03:00

calm down, chuck

OK. As any poor unfortunate who's stumbled across this page knows, I'm no mullah-booster, nor a Foggybottom softie where nukes are concerned. But "Give'm Hell" Chuck Krauthammer apparently wants to start bombing Natanz, which I can't believe is a good idea. No question that something has to be done about the Iranian nuke program, and, as I've noted before, decisive action from the IAEA is not, I'm sorry, in the offing.

So what to do? The answer, as I've also noted before, is to support the Iranian student/opposition movement with some concrete steps, such as, oh, I don't know, saying repeatedly and loudly that we support them. Hope I'm not going too far out on a limb here. Then perhaps they could pull an un-revolution and get back to being the rich and cultured country they once were before the Shah tried to steal everything and the mullahs tried to supermoralize everything.

Just a thought.

2004-07-22T12:52:00.000+03:00

i love seattle, really...

...but I have to agree with Atlantic Blog here, where he notes that Seattle is full of lefty conspiracy theory nuts (nuts of the far opposite persuasion are also in abundance, incidentally). It should be noted, however, that my first recollection of an "July/October Surprise" theory came not from the Left Coast or even the New Republic but from Georgetown (and I'm not talking Guyana): Madeline Albright herself noted back in December that she thought that ol' beardface was waiting around for Dubya to spring him at the right time.

2004-07-16T12:09:00.000+03:00

please, jimmy, go away.

Alan K. Henderson carries a hysterical graphic lampooning Ex-(but not Ex enough) President Carter for his continued meddling in US-Iranian relations. Check it out.

2004-07-15T10:07:00.000+03:00

not your father's myers-briggs

If you've ever suffered through the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator (I'm ENTP), try this one. Lord knows how accurate it is, but the results are far more entertaining. (courtesy of Horologium)

2004-07-14T11:03:00.000+03:00

terrorists: 1, philippines: 0

This latest development, the apparent intent of the Philippines to retreat -- yes retreat -- from Iraq in the face of blatant terrorist threats, is even more appalling than the decision of Spain to remove its troops after the March 11th train bombing. At least the Spaniards had plausible deniability -- "Why no, our troop withdrawl had nothing to do with the bombing," (though everyone knew exactly what was going on).

Now to be fair, we're talking less than 50 troops here, hardly a drop in the ocean of US and other military might wandering around Iraq. But there is a principle at stake here, and if President Arroyo doesn't recognize that, she's got bigger problems.

2004-07-13T10:28:00.000+03:00

blog lietuva

I'm now blogging officially from Lithuania, where I'll be living for the forseeable future. Take a look at my newest project, the European Weblog Review. I'll be editing it and asking others to join in an effort to capture some of the better content from European-based English language blogging.

2004-07-06T17:35:00.000+03:00

saber rattling

Tehran is now engaging in some gratuitous saber rattling against the United States. Note particularly the phrase, "If anyone invades our nation, we will jeopardize their interests around the world." If this isn't a reference to terrorist actions around the world, what is?

2004-06-27T06:02:00.000+03:00

new site/domain

CaptiveNation(s) will of course remain here, but I finally got my own domain name and website up and running. The site will showcase my photography and writing, and the domain will provide much-needed graphics to CaptiveNation(s). My domain/site is: www.marcjohnson.info. I always welcome visitors.

2004-06-26T06:24:00.000+03:00

some serious earthmoving

Iran's response to additional pressure from the international community, the IAEA, and the European Union hasn't been to undertake a complete, zero-based review of how they could have been so misread. Nor have they appointed a blue-ribbon commission to consider how, at the next IAEA meeting, they can get back on track towards favorable recognition and thus pursuit of the peaceful nuclear weapons program they profess to want, strictly for energy needs.

No, rather they have (1) abrogated their agreements with the IAEA, (2) indicated that they plan to continue uranium enrichment plans, and (3) apparently keep bulldozing sites they don't want the international community looking too closely at.

Stay tuned.

2004-06-24T06:40:00.000+03:00

can't believe i'm quoting him...

But in anyone was still considering seeing Michael Moore's new film, Christopher Hitchens has some piquant observations on Unfairenheit 911.

2004-06-20T02:57:00.000+03:00

stop or i'll issue a strongly-worded statement

The IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution on Friday in which they "deplored" Iran's insufficient cooperation. In section L, subparagraph 2:

[the IAEA] deplores, at the same time, the fact that, overall, as indicated by the Director General's written and oral reports, Iran's cooperation has not been as full, timely and proactive as it should have been, and, in particular, that Iran postponed until mid-April visits originally scheduled for mid-March -- including visits of the Agency centrifuge experts to a number of locations involved in Iran's P-2 centrifuge enrichment program -- resulting in some cases in a delay in the taking of environmental samples and their analysis...

Strong stuff indeed. I'll be Khamenei is really smarting after that tongue-lashing.

The IAEA remains seized of the matter.

Meanwhile, across the hall, someone else associated with the IAEA was waiting for an engraved invitation:

...[State Dept Spokesman] Boucher also accused Iran of razing nuclear sites to hide banned nuclear activity.

"I can't give you any independent information but commercial satellite photography shows complete dismantling and razing of a facility at Lavizan Shiyan (a Tehran suburb).

"And that's a site that was previously disclosed as a possible Iranian [WMD]-related site," he said.

A senior diplomat close to the IAEA told AFP the agency was interested in this site but had not yet been "invited" by Iranian authorities to visit it.

[emphasis mine]

How odd that the Iranian government wouldn't invite an international regulatory agency to visit a site which the Iranians were bulldozing and which had been suspected of being associated with their covert nuclear program. Quite perplexing. We'll have to appoint a blue-ribbon commission to look into that and report in six months.

Meanwhile, the Iranians in response have said they will throw the IAEA a bone by halting enrichment activities, but plan to continue producing centrifuges, which, you will recall, were explicitly mentioned in the IAEA's "j'deplore" paragraph as being one of the key sticking points. (Not to mention the fact that it's hard to continue with enrichment when you still haven't even finished all of the centrifuges that help you enrich Uranium.)

What is the Bush Administration doing about this? Not enough, certainly, but at least they're not sending the mullahs campaign materials. On the "maybe we're making progress" front, we could be turning the corner on the recent US-EU Cold War (for elaboration on this "late unpleasantness," see No Pasaran). At least the mullahs think we and the Europeans might be getting friendlier. They roundly condemned that dangerous cabal, the US, Britain, France and Germany for colluding against them in (apparently) making up lies to keep Iran from pursuing a peaceful nuclear program.

And the State Dept seems to be, if not thrilled, at least generally satisfied that the UN hasn't yet been definitively proved irrelevant.

So where does that leave us? As always, with a lot of work to do. The administration needs to press harder on a security council resolution condemning this obfuscation and ultimately force Iran's hand. It's an area that the US has felt strongly about for a long time (about 25 years, to be exact) and about which the Europeans have been embarrassed one time to many. It's a topic which the administration can use to rebuild our relationship with Europe -- not that tearing it down was a one-sided affair, mind you -- and maybe achieve a little international security in the bargain. Let's get going.

(cross-posted at etalkinghead.com)

2004-06-18T05:19:00.000+03:00

the el baradei follies, cont'd

So not only has the IAEA missed the boat once again on properly criticizing Iran's deliberate obfuscation of its clandestine nuclear program, they arsed up a technical point which has allowed the clerical regime to crow about the IAEA's mistreatment of them at the behest of that evil unified bloc, the United States, Britain, Germany and France.

And now the bastards are using pistachios.

2004-06-18T05:14:00.000+03:00

the mike moore - hizballah connection

Loathe as I am to admit a hat tip to Drudge (linking to him being rather cliche), one has to give credit where credit is due.

Michael Moore's latest film, "Fahrenheit 911," is being sought out by terror's A-Team.

2004-06-15T05:45:00.000+03:00

iran v. iaea: the continuing saga

Now the bastards are using magnets.

Mohammed El "Watch Out or I'll Issue Another Strongly Worded Statement" Baradei & Co. are really exorcised this time about the nth instance of Iran flouting the United Nations' international nuclear regulatory body's authority, such as it is.

And Hamid Reza Asefi is showing his pique at the scurrilous accusations about the peace-loving Iranian government's pursuit of nuclear energy.

The Iranians are threatening to pull out of the NPT, but this begs the question, "Why did they join in the first place?"

2004-06-13T04:16:00.000+03:00

intellectual property for dummies

Brian Micklethwait (lately of Samizdata) has a worthwhile primer to the epistemology of intellectual property rights here.

Brian points out that most people, while recognizing intellectually that property rights exist for ideas/concepts as well as for tangible articles, don't necessarily believe that those rights extend as far as concrete, "ownable" objects.

Intellectual property is fascinating to me since it represents one of the few philosophical discussions left in business and economics. This is good for me since I purposefully avoided a major in Economics simply because I didn't want to take statistics, calculus and econometrics when I was at university. The philosophy of economics interests me; marginal cost curves, not so much.

2004-06-12T17:02:00.000+03:00

wanted: maverick republican for democratic ticket

So Sen. John "Fight the Power" McCain has told Sen. Kerry to go pound sand.

Besides the obvious humor, I find this whole McCain imbroglio very telling -- it essentially is an admission by the Democrats that they can't find anyone more palatable to the voters in their own party and so must look to steal an appropriate VP candidate from the Republicans.

Even more bizarre, they chose as their would-be Veep a guy who's running the Bush-Cheney campaign for Arizona. That wouldn't seem to be an intelligent choice, but perhaps Terry McAuliffe has something very clever up his sleeve.

I thought JM had put the whole issue to rest when, in an interview with Conan O'Brien, he said,

"I spent several years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, in the dark, fed with scraps. Do you think I want to do that all over again as vice president of the United States?"

Look elsewhere, Senator Kerry. The Democrats must have someone that won't completely embarrass you.

2004-06-11T04:34:00.000+03:00

my brief tribute to the gipper

As another blog noted (I'd link it if I could remember which one), there's been a lot of purple prose of late over the passing of President Reagan. But every other person who loved the "Morning in America" ad is writing a Eulo-Blog, so why not me?

I'll note only this: I watched the rotunda ceremony last night, and everything leading up to it, from the time they left Andrews to the last speech on Capitol Hill. It surely was moving. And historic. And nostalgic. But there's something wrong when the best speech of the evening is given by Vice President Cheney (who I'm sure is a sterling chap in person but isn't known for his flamboyant speaking style).

But this oratorial desert swung into sharp relief what a truly "Great Communicator" Reagan was. I felt more emotion listening to five minutes of any one of a dozen of Reagan's speeches over the weekend than I felt during nearly two hours of watching spectacle, symbolism, military precision (which, to be sure, was as impressive as the US military always is), and Ted Stevens, Dennis Hastert and the Veep put together.

That's what I remember most about the man. It'll be a long time 'til we see another like him.

2004-06-09T06:59:00.000+03:00

reagan I, bush I - different men, similar worlds

At first glance, President Bush would seem to be the Republicans’ anti-Reagan — Bush, often ill at ease speaking, is from privileged roots, and works with (some would say alongside) a strong vice president. Though Bush is clearly guided by his beliefs and is unrepentantly ideological, his ideology doesn’t emit the warm glow Reagan’s did; Bush sometimes seems to be missing what GHW Bush called “The Vision Thing.” Where Reagan was relatively old when he took office, Bush is still in his sprightly fifties.

But amongst the deluge of retrospectives on the life and times of Ronald Reagan, it is difficult to ignore the commonalities between Reagan’s first term in office and Bush’s. Very different personalities, they lived in similar times. The similarities are particularly striking because they get at the very heart of some of the key issues that Bush and the administration are facing as the election draws near. How they approach these issues — and not (barring some unforeseen circumstances) external factors — will determine whether Dubya I gets to have a II.

To wit:

Media Portrayal. Both men were depicted during most of their first terms by their detractors in the media, Hollywood and the Democratic party as being slightly addled, dim-bulb commanders in chief. Neither was given much credit for independent thought. Public perceptions notwithstanding, close colleagues in both administrations singled out for praise each man’s strategic viewpoint, allowing others to iron out details.

Protesters, Polarized Populus. Both men had their share of protesters. Reagan had literally millions marching against his defense buildup and for disarmament; Bush is facing the occasionally confused anti-globalists and, moreover, hordes opposed to the war in Iraq. The polarization of the electorate was increasingly evident as each man’s first term neared its end.

Unilateralism. Accusations of excessive unilateralist tendencies dogged Reagan throughout both terms, largely as a result of his administration’s spending at the Pentagon, both conventional and the Strategic Defense Initiative, and his actions against the Soviet Union via Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua. Bush’s push to Baghdad, though not entirely absent allies, was widely decried in the US for its lack of regard for world opinion.

Irritated Europeans. As an outgrowth of the aforementioned unilateralist tendencies, both men managed to singlehandedly compromise relations with numerous European allies in the short term (not surprisingly, chief among these allies were the Germans and French) whilst maintaining unusually close personal relationships with British prime minister of the day. European protesters in both periods took to the streets, using their most virulent slogans and caricatures, to blame the United States and its president for the world’s problems. And where in 1982 they were ignoring the Soviet Union’s defilement of human rights and contribution to world instability, twenty-two years later a new generation is ignoring al-Qaeda and Saddam.

National Security Cabinet Choices. Both men had generally solid and dependable, but not flamboyant, Secretaries of State, in the persons of George Schultz (discounting the couple of early years of Al Haig) and now Colin Powell. Similarly, both presidents were derided by the press for choosing Secretaries of Defense who were, by some estimations, borderline pathological — remember Cap Weinberger?

Big Enemies. Bush had Saddam Hussein, and Usama bin Ladin still lurks in the wings; Reagan’s world featured the Evil Empire as the looming focus of his determination.

Bad Economies, Big Deficits. Both men spent the early parts of their administrations focused on an ailing US economy, and neither had made noticeable progress at remedying the situation until late in the first term. And, chiefly due to defense spending outlays, both men presided over the creation of significant deficits.

Democratic Opponents, Political Backgrounds. By 1984, Reagan was facing Senator/Former VP Walter Mondale, a milquetoast Democrat from a traditionally liberal state (Minnesota) who was known for being rhetorically challenged; Bush is squaring off against Sen. John Kerry, another Democrat suffering from the perception that he doesn’t connect with people — Mark II Mondale. And both Bush and Reagan had been governors of large Western states (California and Texas).

The point here isn’t to make Dubya into Ronnie or even to hint that the former is the latter’s ideological heir — I’ll leave it to the Republican National Committee to decide whether that leap is politically and/or logically tenable. Nor is it to expect specific actions by the administration; in fact, many of the key problems of Reagan’s first term were still hanging fire by the time the '84 election was upon him. Reagan's style was very different from Bush's, and what might have worked in the Cold War won’t necessarily work in the War on Terrorism.

But if the men themselves aren’t in the end all that similar, their worlds surely are. Bush & Co. could learn a lot from The Gipper.

2004-06-04T04:56:00.000+03:00

i'll miss the cicadas

For those who don't live in the Washington, D.C. Metro area, we have lately been inundated with cicadas. These are reasonably good-sized jet black bugs with bright red eyes that make an awful lot of noise. They can be up to 5cm (nearly 2 inches) long, with large silvery-bronze wings; they fly around haphazardly and there are millions of them in every back yard in suburban Washington. Less than two weeks from now, they'll be little more than an early summer memory.

Call me crazy, but I'm gonna miss them.

To be sure, cicadas can be irritating. They are large, generally ugly, and the dead ones litter the streets. They fly every which way, and have been blamed locally for at least one car wreck that I'm aware of. In death they stick forlornly to the front of trucks, and regularly glance off the car as I'm driving around town, unless I'm on the highway, in which case they make a nasty splat on the windshield. It pays to keep the windows up and the A/C on. My dog enjoys them as a playful flying snack (though local TV stations have noted that this isn't entirely healthy -- we've tried to curtail his insect diet of late). Having medium-sized flying bugs coming randomly at you from every direction isn't most peoples' idea of a good time. But I for one will be sad to see them go.

My friends know I'm no eco-freak, but I find the cicadas fascinating. They truly are one of nature's enigmas, coming out only once every 17 years for barely 30 days to sing, mate, lay their eggs underground, and die. Cicadas are entirely harmless (unless, like my dog or other hapless individuals, you happen to ingest them). They don't sting, bite, eat my herbs or strawberries, or otherwise pose a menace to society. They are there for each other and nobody else.

The noise they make only occurs during the day, and it can be surprisingly loud, like crickets on steroids. And eerie. It's a medium-pitch hum, reminiscent of sound effects from 1950s science fiction movies. It's loud enough to hear clearly inside the house with the doors and windows shut. But I got used to hearing it after a few days, and it went from creepy to oddly soothing and even reassuring, a warm, rich sound that's always there -- omnipresent but not oppressive.

Cicadas are vulnerable to predatory bugs, birds, car windshields, and -- as we now know -- dogs. To my knowledge they have no defense mechanism for the survival of their species other than sheer numbers. I have frequently noticed cicadas lying pathetically on their backs on the sidewalk like beetles, struggling to turn over but never quite making it. After a while, I started helping them up, and they have rewarded me by sitting patiently on my hand and letting me look at them before drunkenly flying away to a nearby tree.

As much of a nuisance as the cicadas can be, their plight is sad, even poignant. Their entire harmless, benign existence lasts a mere month, and their offspring lie dormant for nearly two decades until the brood's next foray into the world. I mentally associate cicadas with summer -- warm weather, cooking on the barbeque, sitting on the porch, enjoying the fine weather after a miserable winter. Spring, with all of the cliche rebirth, seems to be accented by the cicadas' presence. Like fireflies, they're something to be enjoyed for their mere existence, not because we derive any benefit from them other than basking in their presence.

I will be over 50 years old the next time this particular type of cicadas makes another appearance. There will be others in the intervening period, of course; different varieties with different sounds and characteristics, and I'll look forward to them. But for now I've found something quietly beautiful about these cicadas, and I shall be sad to see them go.

2004-06-02T06:45:00.000+03:00

internationalist tendencies do not a foreign policy make

(cross-posted from etalkinghead.com)

Sen. John Kerry has been on the stump for the last few days pushing his foreign policy/national security "message" as if it were the flavor of the week, a tried and true method of rousing the base. Although he has briefly turned to Russian nukes, the general message has been "let the United Nations do its good work."

Indeed, Kerry has flogged this squishy line regularly since he locked up the nomination, but to date he has (a) declined to elaborate on precisely what he expects the UN to do beyond its currently cautious stance, and (b) failed to indicate why, given the UN's spotty (to be charitable) history, they should be entrusted with the job.

Kerry says,

"I would go to the United Nations with a legitimate diplomatic effort, with humility, with a genuine effort to acknowledge some misjudgments, and to start to state clearly to the world, the way in which the world has a stake in what is happening. I would turn over to the U.N. legitimate authority for the civil reconstruction, for the humanitarian mission, and for the governance. And I would use the U.N.'s good services to help to internationalize this effort so that we reduce the sense of American occupation and the targeting of American troops."

Begging your pardon, Senator, but "huh?"

The current administration has (minus the hat-in-hand humility and self-flagellation) done essentially what Kerry has outlined, to the extent that the UN is willing to go along with it, which has not to date been far. Let's not forget that, while American, Spanish, Italian, Polish, British, and other (not, I would note, German or French) troops have been on the receiving end of pot shots from throughout Iraq, it was the UN that bailed out after their Headquarters was bombed, very early in the game.

Not to diminish the risk, nor the lives lost in the attack, but this is the essential issue at hand in Iraq. If you are not willing to stand firm against terrorism in Iraq -- and the UN has shown repeatedly that it is not -- you have no business being there until the professionals have cleared the way for you to do your work. Forget root causes, societal inequities, justifiable anger, poverty, lack of infrastructure, etc. -- these are facts of life in post-conflict countries, and surely there are people in the UN that know this. But does Senator Kerry?

Until Kerry and his team come up with a more detailed explanation as to why the UN -- which has shown itself to be not only bureaucratic, slothful and anti-American but also highly risk averse -- should take over, given its checkered past in places like Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo, his supposed foreign policy credentials and campaign platitudes will mean nothing.

2004-05-27T05:57:00.000+03:00

adjara postscript

As a brief follow up to my earlier Adjara piece (which, I would note, was much maligned by the blogosphere's stealthy but sporadically vocal Adjaran lobby on etalkinghead.com), I can report that Aslan Abashidze did indeed escape back to Moscow, presumably to hang out with Luzhkov and Lutchansky. His dog, however, was not so lucky -- at least initially. Being a dog lover, though, I can report (via Moscow Times) that Aslan's 70kg puppy, Basmach, is now safely in Russia with his owner (though the latter is keeping a decidedly low profile).

And one hopes the Adjarans are enjoying their renewed Georgian citizenship. I wish them well.

2004-05-27T05:36:00.000+03:00

the traditional warm german welcome

Scott MacMillan at Fistful of Euros makes an excellent point, to wit, that whilst all of the hoopla of EU accession has barely quieted down, "Old Europe" is busy suggesting economically regressive measures to their new colleagues to the East.

At a time when Germany and France are hardly economic models to follow (with massive marginal tax rates, high unemployment, low growth and significant -- though admittedly not American -- budget deficits), Gerhard Schroeder and his friends are all but mandating that new EU states such as Slovakia and the Czech Republic in effect lower their own economic standing to "catch up" with Europe. Raise taxes? Now?

If the EU biggies ever want to shed their heavy-handed image and turn the corner on their current economic woes, they will have to adopt a less paternalistic -- and indeed more laissez-faire™ -- approach.

2004-05-06T05:29:00.000+03:00

iran: the friendly nation

Nick Kristof of the New York Times writes today about how friendly the Iranians are. This isn't the first time I've seen a piece like this, so I'm led to believe that it isn't simple propaganda. In fact, nearly every American journalist that goes there invariably comes back with stories of hospitality, friendliness and generally good feelings towards the United States. This despite the fact that the government is daily bashing all things American. The message of the piece is that maybe there is hope for relations between these two great countries.

What would it be like to have Iran as our only true ally in the Middle East?

2004-05-04T03:16:00.000+03:00

dispatches from absurdistan: the battle for adjara

In the entropic post-Soviet world of screwed-up nations and politico-geographic mitosis, at least one place is perennially screwed up: the Caucasus.

Right at the edge of the Black Sea on the western side of Georgia lies a pathetic little piece of real estate called, variously, Adjara, Ajara, Ajaria, or Adjaria. Call it what you will, the diagnosis is the same: slightly batty ethnic leader with delusions of grandeur sees a power vacuum and goes for the gusto, all but declaring independence and thumbing his nose at the central government. In this case, the leader is named Aslan Abashidze and he's dissing the recently-installed government of neo-revolutionaries in Tbilisi, led by Saakashvili, who barely six months ago himself led a coup against Eduard Shevardnadze, who had himself (notice a pattern emerging?) prevailed around a decade earlier over the previous self-parody of a leader, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, who had himself taken power from the Commies in 1991. The Georgians clearly have their own ideas about democracy.

John McCaslin of the Washington Times did an excellent piece on Adjara for townhall.com in early April, noting that Abashidze is definitely taking advantage of being in power, decking himself out in designer threads and tooling around downtown Batumi (if there is such a thing) in a brand new Hummer. And he's also telling everyone in earshot that Saakashvili wants to dump him in the Black Sea in cement Cole Haans. Or words to that effect. Saakashvili insists that he only wants to lock Abashidze up. So what's a would-be tinpot dictator to do in order to save his people from the yoke of central government oppression? What any self-respecting revolutionary would do: blow all the bridges leading to the capital.

Mind you, Abashidze is the provincial governor.

But of course these things are rarely so simple as one lone freedom fighter (Abashidze) against a U.S. educated lawyer (Saakashvili). Not by a longshot. The Russians are also in on the game, siding in this case with Abashidze, because the Russians are deeply concerned about their own revenues from oil passing through the port. Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov came to Abashidze's defense in March, with notorious Russian mobster Grigory Lutchansky in tow. So the stakes are clearly high. Where's the Hummer dealership in Batumi, Aslan?

With such a delicate diplomatic issue coupled with regional tensions, you'd think that Saakashvili, with his nuanced grasp of logic and his Columbia law degree, would want to proceed carefully here, right? Not if you were a Georgian, apparently. Saakashvili ordered the Georgian Navy [insert cruel Post Soviet Ickystan joke here] to proceed with exercises on the Georgian coastline right near -- wait for it -- Adjara! He insists they have no intention of invading. Really.

How does this little post-Commie drama end? Will Aslan drive into the sunset in his Hummer? Will Saakashvili retire to Tbilisi following successful negotiations and start working on tort reform in the Georgian legal system? Will Yuri Luzhkov next run for mayor of Batumi?

Even if you somehow miss the end of this particular little Black Sea drama, have no fear. Something tells me there will be more.

(cross-posted to etalkinghead.com)

2004-05-01T21:39:00.000+03:00

couldn't have said it better myself

David Carr of Samizdata does me one better in skewering the EU here.

2004-05-01T17:42:00.000+03:00

welcome to the EU
cross-posted from etalkinghead.com

M e m o

To: New East European EU Members
From: “Old Europe”
cc: Malta, Cyprus
Re: Rights and Responsibilities

So welcome, friends, to the European Union. In a sense you never left, but those Soviets kept you from participating in the real affairs of The Continent for quite a while. But it’s good to have you back. When your celebratory hangover passes, we have a few things for you to think about:

The Economy. To be frank, we’re in dire straits. GDP growth has slowed to a virtual standstill from Rome to Amsterdam, and the strong Euro is making it harder to sell goods to the Scheiss-Amis (Les Americains). Plus which there are some of us (in places like Berlin, London and Paris) that keep exceeding the 3% EU budget deficit target; we’re really not anxious to start paying the mandatory fines. This is where we’re hoping you will come in. We know that many of you are in the upper-single digit GDP growth rates, and we’re hoping to invest in your countries once things are official (we’ll retain ownership and profits, of course, but your people can do the work). That’s fair, right?

Taxes. Quite frankly, we’re looking forward to a little more revenue. Portugal just hasn’t been pulling its weight since we let them in 18 years ago, and some of us have actually had to lower taxes recently to kick-start our economies (don’t tell Washington — they’ll claim it proves George Bush’s point). So you’ll be expected to raise your Value-Added Tax (VAT) to at least 15% in line with EU regulations and you’ll probably have to raise your income taxes as well to cover EU dues. Plus which there will be excise taxes, “sin” taxes, business taxes, etc. But don’t exceed those 3% deficit targets or we’ll have to fine you — and we mean it. Don’t worry too much, though; we’re all in this together. The average marginal tax rate in the EU is 42% compared to America’s 29% — we’re more socially compassionate.

Regulation and Cooperation. We know you folks have been used to authoritarian governments in the past, but we’re looking forward to introducing you to the real European way of doing things. First of all, we’ll send you copies of our regulations. Look for a lorry to arrive in your respective capitals sometime this week with the first shipment. They may seem arcane and difficult to follow, but believe us, it’s imperative that we regulate everything. Labor, commerce, shipping, security, civil rights, human rights, property rights, environment, you name it — we’ve got a regulation to cover it and more are on the way. So start reading. And another thing: we do everything here by committee. You’re going to have to be a little bit less contentious as members of the EU than you have been as new NATO members. Some of us who’ve been in both clubs for a while now have noticed that there are those among you who have delusions of grandeur. Remember that you’re the newbies here and that ceding a little bit of one’s sovereignty may be necessary for the greater good. And don’t try playing our members off against each other like Poland did with Spain last year against Germany & France; it may have worked then, but the larger and more important countries in the EU are wise to that game. Plus which there’s a new government in Spain which should be more, umm, cooperative.

Foreign Policy. Here’s where we recognize we have some work to do with you. We know in the past you were very close to the Americans, but you’re going to have to re-assess that. This means you in particular, Warsaw. The Americans may be our biggest market, but they’re also everyone’s biggest competitor, and we have to take measures to protect ourselves. This may mean additional tarriffs on American goods coming into the EU; be prepared to fall into line on that one because Washington will certainly fight it with some free-trade merde. You’re also going to have to learn to take some heat from Washington on this whole terrorism thing. We all know that the Madrid attacks were, honestly, an aberration; as long as we don’t stir up trouble with the Muslims they’ll leave us alone. The less we get caught up in Bush’s Crusade, the better. And another thing: when Colin Powell gets all twitchy about us continuing to trade with rogue states like Iran, Syria, Belarus and North Korea, remind him that we’re pursuing a “critical dialogue” policy; we’re arguing strenuously in favor of democracy, and we’re prepared to issue as many strongly-worded statements as necessary to back up our convictions. But we do have business interests — even that nasty little man Donald Rumsfeld can’t argue there.

Borders. We can't tell you what a relief it is to know that soon you'll be taking over border controls for the Eastern Front. It's been something of a drain on our resources lately (what with Bush's "Guerre contre le Terrorisme") and we'll be happy to know that you're taking care of it. Of course, you're going to have to upgrade all of your passport control facilities and border protection infrastructure to make sure the unwashed from Ukraine, Russia and the Caucasus don't get in. So get cracking; you've only got a couple of years until we make you members of Schengenland.

Once again, wilkommen and bienvenue to the EU. We’re looking forward to seeing you at the first Ministerial Plenary Session in Bruxelles in June. Do check out that great little cafe on the Grande Place — you can probably even afford it.

2004-04-30T05:43:00.000+03:00

tommy, you've hit the big time

I like Thomas Friedman as much as the next guy; in fact, I recently went out of my way to hear him speak and to ask him to sign one of his books for me -- that's how much I appreciate his very insightful writing. But good satire is good satire, and I would like to think that Tom himself would appreciate this and particularly this. (courtesy of Reason's Hit 'n Run - I would note that at least one person whose email looks hauntingly like TF himself weighed in on Reason's comments section, so hopefully he hasn't lost his sense of humor.)

2004-04-27T05:53:00.000+03:00

...and give saigon a rest

Two consecutive postings do not a theme make, but Vietnam is yet again in the news. Terry McAuliffe, DNC Chair, takes a break from harping on the President's war record to harp on the Vice President's non-participation today:

"You remember Dick Cheney. When John Kerry was risking his life for his country in Vietnam, Dick Cheney was getting deferments because, in his words, he had 'other priorities than military service.' And he feels qualified to tell us that John Kerry won't do whatever it takes to defend America?"

OK. (1) John Kerry's war record is hardly a slam-dunk (to use last week's most unfortunate phrase). There are a lot of inconsistencies and things he doesn't want publicized -- why?; (2) The Veep probably should re-assess his ill-chosen words; (3) No, the President's war record isn't that spectacular, but weren't there a lot of people who served in places other than Vietnam during the war?; (4) And doesn't the fact that he put the uniform on count for something?

I guess that's the real point here, after all. Criticizing the VP isn't going to achieve anything in the long run -- Terry knows as well as anyone that people don't vote for the VP. It is, if they're willing to accept some free political advice from the opposition, simply wasted effort.

Why? It's mind-bogglingly hypocritical, for a start (not that this should deter a professional campaigner, just FYI). After all, President William Jefferson Clinton not only didn't serve in Vietnam, he spent a good portion of his draft-eligible years in Jolly 'ol England, presumably chasing coeds. He ran against a genuine, hard core, no maybes, greatest generation war hero, Bob Dole.

Memo to Terry McAuliffe: This approach won't work. Remember 1996? Let me paint you a picture. Good-looking, incumbent president with a doubtful war record is running in a period of relative prosperity with good economic indicators. He is running against a dour US Senator whose military record is impeccable but who can't seem to connect with ordinary people because of his somewhat patrician bearing and mediocre public speaking skills.

Sound familiar? Dole lost for the same reason that Kerry will probably lose. People want a vision for the future, not recriminations about the past. When the GOP talks about John Kerry's votes in the Senate, people see that as an indicator of his future positions, and they're looking ahead. When the DNC talks about Vietnam, people see the party looking backwards. And they turn the other way.

So, on second thought, Terry, take a few more shots. The GOP is keeping its powder dry.

2004-04-21T05:03:00.000+03:00

let iraq be iraq

Iraq is Vietnam. Iraq isn't Vietnam. Iraq might be Vietnam. Well? The clock's ticking. Which is it?

Every time America gets itself into any armed conflict of any type, whether it be Somalia, Panama, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Iraq (I) or Iraq (II), inevitably some wag in the press has to trot out the old canard, (hushed tones, please) "is this another Vietnam?"

Is his objective historical research? Careful debate about American foreign policy? Deep review of cultural differences?

More likely, his objective is to sell more magazines, get more viewers, please more voters, or get more website hits to keep the sponsors happy. This is not by any means an intellectual pursuit.

A friend of mine had a professor in college who was fond of saying, "there are two types of people in this world: those who create artificial and spurious dichotomies for the sake of proving a point -- and those who don't."

Vietnam is clearly a deep and still tender scar on the American psyche, and one that will take decades to heal. If you doubt me, note that there are still people in the United States who have strong feelings about the American Civil War -- and that was nearly 140 years ago. But why is it our only point of reference?

A very few radical souls dared, at the beginning of our onslought towards Kabul, to compare what lay ahead of us to the Soviets' experience in Afghanistan. That proved to be an ill-chosen rhetorical avenue, but at least it was at least to some extent comparing apples to apples. You never (or incredibly rarely, anyway) hear people comparing Iraq to the British Empire's experience in the Middle East. When was the last time you heard someone liken Iraq to the British occupation of the American colonies? To say nothing of other relatively more recent American military excursions abroad -- Grenada, Panama, Iraq (I), or Nicaragua. Could it be that these were too successful?

Vietnam lasted at least (counting from the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) 11 years, cost 58,000+ American lives, and crossed three presidential administrations. Vietnam was, at least at its inception, about communism. Vietnam was about fighting a jungle insurgency largely financed by the Soviet Union. How is this even remotely like what is going on in the so-called Sunni Triangle today? Even if it might be a valid comparison someday, how can any reasonable thinker make such a judgement barely 12 months into the engagement?

Iraq is not Vietnam, any more than it's the Battle of Hastings or the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 or Agincourt or Bosworth Field, Lexington, Iwo Jima, Grenada, Normandy, Ethiopia, the War of the Roses, or the Falklands.

It's what it is and nothing more. Say what you will about American foreign policy, George Bush, Europe, the Iraqis, Don Rumsfeld, Saddam, Adnan Pachachi, Scott Baio, Bozo the Clown or anyone else who might even be tangentially involved with what's going on between the former no-fly zones today.

But please, for everyone's sake, leave South East Asia out of it.

(cross-posted to etalkinghead.com)

2004-04-16T04:17:00.000+03:00

bin ladin's real agenda
(cross-posted from etalkinghead.com)

The Middle East Media Research Institute has an excellent (as always) translation of Bin Ladin's most recent statement. The conventional wisdom is that this statement is an attempt to drive a wedge between the United States and Europe, encouraging a withdrawal by European states of their troops from the Middle East, betraying whatever residual trust may have existed between them and America.

This may be, though Al Qaeda can't have been surprised that European leaders spent a good deal of time today rejecting Usama's olive branch. However much disdain they have for the United States, Chirac et al realize -- particularly in the post-Madrid world -- that terrorism is a more immediate threat to their security than American hegemony.

But this wasn't Bin Ladin's real agenda.

As significant as every such statement is (reminding us, as if we'd forgotten, that he is still at large and reading newspapers), this pronouncement was particularly important because represents a move by Al Qaeda towards self-legitimization. And though we are loathe to admit it, Usama and Al-Zawahiri have had some success, both within the Arab world (to a great extent) and elsewhere in transmogrifying a group of hapless murderers into a quasi-accepted "resistance movement."

By boldly speaking directly to the European public and by extension European leaders, Bin Ladin is taking his first shaky steps in the direction of transforming Al Qaeda from a fringe terrorist group into a para-statal entity, with the apparent legitimacy that such a status would bring.

Bin Ladin's gratuitous and disingenuous condemnation of the killing of Sheik Yassin, and his singling out of Halliburton as "merchants of war" and "bloodsuckers" are calculated ploys -- as calculated as any politician ever spoke -- and his ever-improving mastery of dime store populism leaves one wondering whether he has engaged an advertising agency to keep him "on message."

Al Qaeda has been fragmented by operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but the result may be a new, focused and distilled version of the old. Bin Ladin is trying to teach himself statecraft, consensus building, and communication skills in order to project his particular variety of nihilism far beyond merely guns and bombs; and that should give us pause.

2004-04-08T04:51:00.000+03:00

my talking head

So my latest claim to semi-fame is a gig as "contributing writer" for eTalkinghead.com. See my latest column (on the rather irritating Mohamed ElBaradei) here.

2004-03-16T05:36:00.000+02:00

terrorists: 1, spain: 0

So Spain's government has been brought down, apparently because some thugs killed a bunch of people and the electorate lashed out against Aznar. Score one for the terrorists -- whether ETA or Al Qaeda. It's clear that the majority of the voters in Spain believe this was an AQ op and not ETA -- Jose Maria Aznar was a victim not so much of being soft on terrorism, but of being soft on America.

Had this been perceived as an attack by ETA, chances are the Spanish electorate would have rallied and brought Aznar's party back for another term. In fact, that's what most people thought would happen just a few days ago. But for some reason, the Spanish peoples' hate of the Bush administration is greater than their hate of terrorists. It reminds me of Thomas Friedman's rhetorical question about how it is possible to fight a group of people who hate America more than they love life.

The simple fact is that a small group of people (probably, as it is turning out, Islamic extremists) killed a large group of Spaniards to prove a point. That point was that we are all in this together -- those who stand with America will be hit as America (Germany, Russia, Britain, etc) is hit. But the Spanish electorate has chosen to take the European route (that is, regrettably, the cowardly route) by saying, in essence, "we aren't prepared to stand up for our principles if it means we are vulnerable as a result."

They are not saying, "Those terrorists, led by a nihilistic ideology, have hurt us, but not mortally -- we will continue to fight them." They are not saying, "How dare they? How dare they think that because we are trying to make a better world we will cut and run at the first sign of trouble?" They are not saying, "These terrorists are not animals -- incapable of rational thought and therefore not responsible for their actions -- they are thinking people who make a decision to kill for political benefit. We should treat them with the contempt they deserve."

Wouldn't they say these things if they thought ETA was responsible?

Instead the Spanish (or the majority of Spanish) are saying, "We don't believe in this war and we are prepared to throw out what little civilization we still cling to in order to stick it to Uncle Sam. This war of civilization versus antiquity is not our war and we will not be dragged into it. We prefer to have our cake -- to benefit from globalization, the rebuilding of Europe, and the end of the Cold War -- and eat it too."

I thought the Spaniards had more cojones.

2004-03-11T05:10:00.000+02:00

and the envelope, please...

The award for most self-aggrandizing, gratuitous pinko hoo-hah masquerading as a theater production goes to Tim Robbins!!

Larry Kaplan of New Republic does an excellent post-mortem of this play (which, I suspect, won't be around long enough for most people to see -- myself included). As always, Robbins has excelled himself to produce a piece of artless propaganda.

Why is it that when celebrities like Robbins and Janeane Garofalo make pronouncements about matters of public policy, they expect to be treated like intellectuals, yet when other celebrities espouse the opposite opinions, they are derided as intellectual lightweights? And why is it that so few of these liberal celebrities can rise above lame ad hominem attacks on people who hold other views?

James Bowman from the American Spectator (see Garofalo link above) has a thought:

It's tempting to suppose that the celebrity culture -- in which any mental prepubescent who drifts into the vacant eye of a television camera for more than a moment is expected to pronounce on matters of war and peace and good government for the enlightenment of his less fortunate fellow citizens -- has simply increased our tolerance for fatuous political speech and outrageous invective. Perhaps it has done so, but if so there are a lot of other factors tending in the same direction.

I view it as an extension of the Left's general paternalism -- you should think as we do, and we know what's best for you. That's why we're going to make sure you get the health care we want, the education we want, the retirement we want, what little national defense we can tolerate, the laws we feel like obeying, and the culture we feel like giving you. So there.

2004-03-10T03:18:00.000+02:00

a moment of silence, please

For the late Abu Abbas, "mastermind" (though one suspects he was never the brightest of lights in the terrorist constellation) of the Achille Lauro hijacking, in which one elderly man in a wheelchair was the sole victim. Abu and his merry band of terrorists were such a bunch of cowards that they chose a handicapped guy as their sacrificial lamb; a younger and fitter Leon Klinghoffer might been able to take them. And, of all things, a cruise ship? Not the act of a terrorist on varsity.

Indeed, this to some extent takes the sting away from the fact that Saddam deprived America of the pleasure of catching up with Abu Nidal a/k/a Sabri Al-Banna, who mysteriously "committed suicide" by shooting himself several times in the head.

So -- Usama Bin Ladin, Imad Mughniyah, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Suleyman Abu Ghaith, Abu Hafs, Hassan Ghul, Saif Al Adel, Hassan Izz-Al Din, Ali Atwa, and the rest of you, take note.

When you feel tired and need to take a breath, think of Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal and your other fellow travelers now in captivity or pushing up daisies: Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, Wadi El Hajj, Mohammed Sadiq Sadeh, Ramzi Yousef, Mir Amal Kansi, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mohammed Salah, Qaed Salim Sinan Al-Harethi, Mohammed Atef ... this list is a work in progress.

We haven't forgotten about you.

2004-03-07T06:35:00.000+02:00

tin pot dictators for kerry

Okay, don't dismiss it just because you saw it in the Washington Times -- it also appeared in the Financial Times and CNN, I just couldn't get the links to work for them.

Kim Jong Il is a Kerry booster. Okay, maybe not a booster per se, but he's definitely in favor of the Un-Bush. I'm sure Saddam would be willing to be Treasurer of the club or take the minutes or something, and Fidel would provide cigars and music for the meetings.

Could it be that the Dear Leader just wants to go back to the halcyon days when Uncle Sugar was paying for a light water reactor and sending the secretary of state to watch the children dance? That he wants to return to the old times when he could sell the hilariously-named No Dong missile to whomever he wanted without fear of consequences? It's worth asking why dictators the world over are hurling the best epithets they can come up with at the Prez -- Hugo Chavez called W a sphincter (or word to that effect); the Iranians are constantly whining about how life would be fine if only America didn't keep trying to get in the way of the Europeans; the Syrians are complaining about Laura's choice of accessories; Fidel is being his usual crabby self (okay, I made up the part about Laura and the Syrians).

The salient point here is that those who are against freedom because it would mean an end to their kleptocracies, who don't like being showed for what they are, who are anxious to deflect criticism of all sorts -- these people are the ones abroad who are talking about how bad Bush is.

If Kim Jong Il can't sway your vote, who can?

2004-03-05T05:23:00.000+02:00

no daylight

The United States and the EU are closing ranks with the IAEA on the Iran question. The theory seems to be, as I once heard someone say, that there should be "no daylight between" the positions of America and Europe on this issue. For all of our tough talk, engagement seems still to be the order of the day.

Like Europe's "Critical Dialogue" policy, America's "engagement" efforts have come to naught despite over a decade of effort. When will we realize that this tree is simply not going to bear any fruit?

2004-03-05T05:14:00.000+02:00

nigeria: the next nuclear power

Now the Nigerians are interested in getting nuclear and missile technology? The same people who brought you advance fee fraud? This A.Q. Khan thing seems to be getting out of control.

2004-03-04T05:52:00.000+02:00

...i could hardly hold the turban on my head

This piece from the Christian Science Monitor illustrates the stakes in Iran today. Regularly recognized for their contribution to filmmaking, Iranian artists and directors manage to stay on the cutting edge while still making what would otherwise be G-rated films in America. And yet the directors continue to be harrassed by the turbanified amongst them.

...after a private screening in Tehran, director Kamal Tabrizi was cornered by a mullah. "You make people laugh, but you give them a green light to ridicule the clergy," Hojatoleslam Mustafa Elahi scolded Mr. Tabrizi. "You're wrong," replied Tabrizi. "This is a very religious film." "The film was great - I was laughing so hard that I could hardly hold my turban on my head!" the cleric cut in, cracking a smile. "I saw myself in it. But you focused more on making fun of the clergy, and not enough on scenes of repentance and returning to God."

More repentance indeed.

The conservative resurgence doesn't just threaten artistic freedoms, it threatens personal freedoms. Iran is one of those rare places where artists manage to get by, I guess by virtue of their culture, despite the bizarre foibles of the ruling class. Even that has its limits, however. Here's what another director dealt with:

Motamen had to cut a shot taken at a distance of a woman taking off her shoes, because there was a man in the room. He had to cut a Nancy Sinatra song because women cannot sing in public. And he was asked why his lead actress smoked cigarettes. "She's a femme fatale! She is supposed to kill people, use drugs, have wild sex, and I just have her smoking cigarettes," Motamen says, exasperated. "Just leave me alone!"

Iranian films regularly feature in museums and art houses in Washington, D.C., where I live. When was the last time you saw a Syrian film? Or a Yemeni one? Or, heaven forfend, a Saudi motion picture? And how much longer will these people be able to continue what they're doing?

Not long if they stay on the same road.

2004-03-03T06:12:00.000+02:00

and then there were...three?

So Sen. John Kerry wins the whole shooting match and now the Deaniacs are even floating the possibility that His Howardness (who, unlike ex-VP Gore, won his home state) will get back into the race to push it all the way to the convention (nod to OxBlog). Which would mean that Edwards, of course, would have to stay in. Which would mean that Kucinich... no, seriously. And let's not go there, Al. Plus I just heard some wag on, I think, MSNBC -- oh yes, it was Tricky Dick Morris -- say that if the race gets close, REALLY close, Kerry might chose Sen. Hillary as his runningmate. Ahem. On the other hand, the Dickster was also presuming to give advice to the Bush administration on how best to approach the campaign in the near term ("go massively negative," I think was the message). Take note, Karl Rove -- don't say nobody made any suggestions.

Perhaps the more interesting notion in this whole electoral melee, however, is the suggestion by some that Sen. Edwards himself may place his campaign in a Dean-like "suspended animation," the purpose of which hasn't yet been defined though it appears more about self-aggrandizement than public policy per se. Could this be the dawn of a new term in American politics? No longer will candidates bow out of a campaign simply because they, well, lost?

And where is Ralph "Unsafe at any Speed" Nader tonight?

Oh that's right -- he wasn't on any ballots.

2004-03-02T06:07:00.000+02:00

just when you thought it was safe to be democratic...

Now the bastards are even threatening Libya.

The ol' sandal is on the other foot, huh, Muammar?

(respectful yet understated nod to the Daily Telegraph for showing us the Libyan leader's website and yet another way to spell his last name.)

2004-02-29T18:09:00.000+02:00

un: there's gambling going on in this establishment?

This New York Times story on Saddam getting millions in kickbacks as part of the UN's Oil-for-Food program is surprising only insofar as the scope of the theft. But it draws a big line under the UN's quaint naivete when it comes to dictatorial regimes.

The UN is once again proved to be the fat, toothless, narcoleptic watchdog of international security.

"I'm shocked, shocked, that a tyrannical dictator would try to exploit a peaceful program intended to help his country's people for his own personal enrichment," Kofi Annan is saying. "It's unprecedented that an anti-democratic regime could simply ignore the UN's rules, oversight, and deeply-held concern!"

True enough, except for Bosnia. Okay, and Haiti. And North Korea, Syria, Iran, Panama, Belarus, Burma, Kosovo, Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba...

2004-02-28T04:55:00.000+02:00

st. paddy's day is coming...

Okay, here's an original policy argument against electing Sen. John Kerry to the White House: he may alienate the charter member of the Coalition of the Willing. (tip of the black bowler to Air Strip One, who I will, effective today, put on my blogroll on the basis of reading this article alone.)

It's a point that bears noting: the Democratic party (in the personages of the late Rep. Tip O'Neill and Sen. Teddy Kennedy, among others -- note the Massachusetts liberal connection) have long played toadies to the IRA's money-raisers in North America. They somehow see nothing wrong with providing aid and comfort to Britain's enemies (i.e. domestic terrorists) because of an apparently popular but mistaken belief amongst a few Americans that the Irish Catholic extremists are fundamentally cheerful, harmless, and peaceful (if slightly drunk) souls. And now Kerry, in the guise of appearing -- blandly, as usual -- even-handed, is leaning in the direction of Sinn Fein.

These sterotypes belie the greater tragedy here, which is that the Democrats are in effect telling Downing Street that Washington doesn't recognize (or at any rate will allow to be chipped away) Britain's basic right to secure its sovereign territory. Not a very nice way to treat the folks who stood with us when everyone else was making nasty European gestures at us.

(I also find it odd that Democrats are so blithely blundering ahead to undermine PM Blair, whose domestic policies are positively Clintonian and not at all in line with the American administration's.)

What would they say if there were a group of Tories funneling money to an illegal separatist organization in the United States, I wonder?

2004-02-27T04:45:00.000+02:00

"big questions" from the eu on iran

The State Department's annual Human Rights Report came out today. The section on Iran -- all 12,194 words of it -- was a laundry list of political killings, torture, imprisonment, disappearances, closures of newspapers, kangaroo courts and general abuse committed by the regime against its citizens.

The EU, following its tradition of mind-boggling obtuseness, said that it had "big questions" about the committment of Iranian hard-liners to democracy. Chris Patten, Mr. Milquetoast himself, stated blandly that "it is some time since we last had a meeting on human rights...we haven't been overwhelmed by the progress made in that area." Patten was quick to point out, however, that although they had questions, they weren't considering sanctions. I wonder why...

Meanwhile, the State Department intimated that it would consider -- again -- resurrecting the moribund Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (which will presumably soon drop the Libya portion from the title) to go after Japan, France and Malaysia for dumping billions into Iran's economy.

Now, diplomacy is not a contact sport and sometimes the words diplomats use have to be understated in the cause of progress, but let's be serious. Europe's "Critical Dialogue" policy hasn't yielded anything but more contracts for European companies, who take advantage of the fact that America doesn't enforce ILSA. If Iran's sham election and recent reluctant revelations of nuclear experimentation aren't enough to jolt the EU into forward movement, what is?

2004-02-26T06:16:00.000+02:00

call a spade a spade

Okay, I'm as Republican as the next guy. I'm signed on fully with Blogsforbush and everything. And I'm gonna vote for him. I've been a Republican since before I could vote -- I campaigned for Reagan in '84. Color me true blue 'R.'

And I'm for marriage. I'm married and it's great. And, not to get too far into the weeds, the hand-wringing about whether denying gays the option to marry is really fair makes me a bit uncomfortable, from a legal and practical standpoint in addition to all of the other intangible ways it creeps people out.

But let's be serious here. The administration's proposal for a constitutional amendment on marriage is beyond ridiculous (you'll note, to be fair, that supposedly free-thinking Democrats helped pass the Defense of Marriage Act and then-President Clinton signed it, so maybe this isn't such a partisan issue after all).

Like most Americans, when push comes to knock-me-down-with-your-rhetorical-stick, I don't feel that strongly about it. Keep it out of my face, to be blunt, and I'll be happy.

Which is why the administration's proposition to amend the constitution is laughable. Or it would be laughable if it weren't so cynical. It's clear to everyone inside the Beltway and, amazingly enough, probably even people who don't do politics for a living, that the administration's proposal isn't going anywhere. And, let's be honest, the White House and the RNC know it. Someone in the party convinced Karl Rove that this would score points with the president's hard-core conservative base, and they bought it. So they're throwing a bone to the three dozen or so folks who are really up in arms about this.

It seems reckless.

Are we really prepared to keep trying to amend the constitution? Is this a good idea? Is it even a good idea to talk about it? Recall that the last time we seriously tried to amend the constitution, it took over a decade and still was never ratified. And that (the ERA) was idea that had some real traction, though not everyone was completely in the girls' court.

So if we know there's only a small number of people that are really fired up about it, and that it doesn't stand a Democrat's chance of winning Texas, and that, truthfully, the hard-core right-wingers have no place to go but to vote for the Prez again, what gives?

W is my guy. I'm gonna vote for him. I don't agree with everything he's done over the last four years, but on balance I think his heart's in the right place and, moreover, that he's far preferable to the alternative from last time. He will run rings around Tweedle Dum (whichever one that may be) on the stump when it gets to that point.

But this is one for the books that walks like a quacker. I ask only that if, in the future, we have to play games with legislation to shore up our own political base, we could just leave the constitution out of it.

2004-02-25T04:09:00.000+02:00

three headlines

These articles speak volumes about what's going on in Iran today:

- Two Iran Papers Shut for Reporting Khamenei Letter (Reuters)
- Nuclear Machinery found in Iran (USA Today)
- Japan Signs Huge Iranian Oil Deal (BBC)

Even before (and certainly after) the recent "elections," the fact is that the Iranian regime was committed to pushing ahead on efforts to emasculate the opposition, pursue a nuclear program that has nothing whatsoever to do with electricity, and pay for it using money enticed into Iran from abroad. Let's work backwards, following, as they say, the money.

In this instance I'll pick on the Japanese, but they're only the most recent culprit, and in truth maybe they deserve the contract to develop Azadegan's oil fields for the effort they've put in getting it over the last eight or nine years; keeping Japan from getting into Azadegan until now is probably the only modest success the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act can claim. In fact the Europeans -- I'm thinking here specifically of the Germans, Italians and the French, but also the Norwegians, Russians and, yes, even the Brits -- have been falling over each other trying to get the Iranians to let them into the oil and gas sector since ILSA was passed, and in truth it hasn't been much of a deterrent. Of course, the Clinton administration didn't help matters by sending a clear signal that they wouldn't enforce the act.

So where is the money going? Among other places, probably to A.Q. Khan, in exchange for centrifuges (if Al-Jazeera is reporting it, call off the dogs). And now the bastards are using Polonium.

This is not a new trend, this tactic of admitting to transgressions of the IAEA's inspection regime only when presented with proof. And it's happened too many times to attribute to chance. By this time surely even Mohamed ElBaradei must understand what's going on -- and that it will continue until the UN proves that it didn't leave its dentures on the dresser.

Which brings me back to the beginning. The few calling this as it is are the Iranians themselves. But every time they do, they get beaten back by the regime. The sham election was only the latest manifestation of a dangerous trend -- the hardliners are sick of being talked to about being accountable to the people, so they are taking matters into their own hands. They're simply tired of reform, and Supreme Leader Khamenei is planning to make sure things go his way in the future.

They're clearly linked, but policywise, Washington seems to be having a hard time connecting the dots. What else don't we know about what's going on in Iran?

2004-02-24T06:14:00.000+02:00

the proverbial chickens are coming home

Aristide... Aristide... That name rings a bell somewhere...

That's right, he's the guy that the Clinton administration put back in power way back in the early 1990s, right? Because the other folks were a bunch of corrupt thugs who were only interested in maintaining their own power, right? And recall that it was something of a scandal a decade ago because Aristide himself was accused of some rather nasty things too. When Bubba the Ex-Prez Sponge went to Haiti recently, he wasn't greeted with quite the hero's welcome he expected.

So now we're left again with the same fool's choice we saw in the mid-90s: a corrupt government with an exceedingly questionable human rights record or -- a corrupt band of insurgent/brigands with an unquestionably miserable human rights record. Is there any way out, short of leaving the Marines (as we've done several times before) to keep the peace?

The short term solution is to do essentially what we're doing: put the thumbscrews (but not the necklace) on Aristide to convince him that stepping down is his only option, and calling in the UN or the Minneapolis city council or some other equally august body to administer free elections, thus pouring a little bit of water on this blaze. That, at least, might keep Port au Prince from degenerating into complete entropy.

The long term is, as always, more challenging, and this author (among others) is glad he isn't responsible for making decisions about where Haiti is headed. And while the international community can stand and wring its hands indefinitely over the systemic problems facing Haiti, the country remains the third most corrupt nation on earth, behind only Nigeria and Bangladesh.

There's more to this story -- the Dominican Republic, which shares the island of Hispaniola with Haiti, is also notoriously corrupt and very poor, but there's been stability in the DR for quite some time. What's the difference? Investment, tourism, a medium-strength military and a relatively civil society (none of which Haiti has at all). The only long-term solution is to keep beating the drum and occasionally a few heads. Democracy brings good things if you practice it properly or even adequately. Extracting an immediate committment from the new government to stamp out corruption -- and, by the way, establishing parameters to verify this -- is the only real step we can take.

2004-02-23T06:15:00.000+02:00

Googlism yourself for kicks. I'm a leader in Kansas agriculture and senior counsel with the offices of heenan blaikie, whatever that means. None of them turn up the real me, of course. Tip o' the hat to Kris.

2004-02-23T00:54:00.000+02:00

ralphpleasekeeprunning.org

Tomorrow Republicans all over Washington will be singing, "Oh what a beautiful morning" because good ol' Ralph has gotten into the race. Is it hubris? Simple self-aggrandizement? A desire to hurt the Democratic Party over and over again until it goes back to its liberal base? Is he being paid off by the Republicans? Something even more sinister? Difficult to say.

What isn't difficult to say, however, is how unseemly this issue has become, with certain Democrats even going so far as to set up sites to keep Nader out of the race. What exactly constitutes an "appropriate" candidate for the Democratic Party nomination? Where were they when Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton and Carol Mosely-Braun were setting up their exploratory committees? Where is the lyndondontcampaign.com? (LaRouche is running as a Democrat, BTW)

Nader's campaign FAQ provides some entertaining ammo for everyone but the DNC.

The only thing it seems Terry McAuliffe is afraid of is that the far left of the Democratic party will tell him and his Clintonite jacklegs to take a hike, and W will be back by default. Will it scare them enough to do something about it? And what?

2004-02-22T23:29:00.000+02:00

Been doing some experimentation with a new film.

The Old Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Kodak High Speed Infrared Black & White Film

2004-02-22T21:45:00.000+02:00

Q. Dude, what’s with the name, CaptiveNation(s)?

A. Dude. Let me explain. Those born after, say, 1980 may not remember the term “Captive Nations.” Back in the good ol’ days (the second Reagan administration, circa 1986), the Soviet Union — that’s what Russia and the Ickystans used to be called — continued to belligerently occupy the three Baltic States. Although Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are now blissfully headed toward membership in the European Union (which may or may not be a net plus), in those heady days the administration referred to them as Captive Nations. Looking at it cynically, the administration used this issue as a stick to regularly beat the Soviets over the head, but it also represented a distinctly principled view that these were proud, independent peoples who were entitled to a shot at self-determination. They were convergent goals for Ronnie & Co. — a twofer.

There are still Captive Nations. North Korea is being held captive by the Dear Leader. Cuba is (still) held captive by Fidel, 40-plus years of American foreign policy notwithstanding. Syria remains a captive of the Ba’athist Assad Dynasty who, incidentally, are also continuing to hold Lebanon captive. Saudi Arabia is being held captive by militant Islam — and the Saudis are to some extent holding Islam itself captive. Russians, once captors themselves, are now being held captive by robber-baron oligarchs and the endemic corruption wrought by 70 years of an ideology doomed to failure (that would be communism, kids — look it up in your textbook, under “dustbin of history”). The Colombians and Peruvians are being held captive by neo-Maoist wackos with guns, and the crypto-Maoists themselves, the Chinese, are still being held hostage by their own red, hardbound version of the dustbin rulebook. Pakistan is in the twin grip of both radical Islam and a military dictatorship, which the US government has reluctantly had to ally itself with to go after Usama bin Whatshisname. Old Europe is technically captive to its own self-righteousness and venality, but don’t tell them. And then there’s Iran.

Iran is this author’s term project. It’s a captivity smorgasbord. Part radical Islam, part terrorist sponsor, part proto-Soviet totalitarian dictatorship of bureaucracy, part oligarchy, part would-be colonial power, part cult of personality — there’s something there for everyone. Or no one. Here’s a country, after all, of more than 70 million, with a lion-sized share of the world’s oil and gas reserves, a proud and cultured history and a relatively educated population that’s been held captive by a bunch of religious extremists for 25 years and counting. And all they wanted to do was get rid of one rich guy whose name was Shaw, or something like that. By turns both silver-tongued and diplomatically inept, the theocratic dictatorship has nevertheless managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the international community for most of its history, promising reform while using its natural resources as an enticement to richer powers to ignore their moral compass. And ignore it they have, in droves. The large European states (Old Europe, as uncle Rummy says) and even our Asian allies have winked and nodded on human rights and self-determination to get on the gravy train of (relatively) cheap oil. And we have let them. So Iran is the archetype, the picture that should be next to the dictionary definition, the gold medalist in the Captive Nation Olympics. It takes win, place, and show in the 21st Century World Dictatorship Cup. And it gets three gold stars in the Sponsorship of Terrorism Bee. Did I neglect to mention they’ve been covertly enriching Uranium?

Is America itself a Captive Nation? Perhaps, if one counts popular myopia about the world outside our borders as a form of captivity. While we’ve been watching Martha’s latest $15,000 handbag, or Kobe’s new courtroom gambit, or Howard Dean’s primal screaming, or arguing over whether John Kerry had Botox (I know what I’m betting) or if W did one weekend a month or just worked on his tan, the following things have been going on:

- American soldiers (and Iraqis, let’s not forget) are dying; not because America is occupying Iraq, but because terrorists, some imported, are trying to usurp the mere possibility of self-determination from the Iraqi people;
- a national hero of Pakistan is admitting that he sold nuclear enrichment and possibly weapons design technology to nearly every rogue state except Andorra (okay, they’re not technically rogue, but A.Q. Khan definitely made the rounds);
- clerics are stealing the election in Iran by declaring that their opponents aren’t “Islamic enough” to be on the kangaroo-court ballot;
- a terrorist group (Hizballah) is negotiating with Israel (!) for the release of hundreds of their imprisoned colleagues;
- a cartel (that’s the polite word for a cabal of anti-capitalistic price-gougers) has been driving up world oil prices because profits were looking a bit thin; and
- Arnold Schwarzenegger is still Governor of California.

I admit that American Idol is probably easier on the conscience than the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, and Survivor is less of a tax on the brain than following OPEC plenary sessions. And, yes, one does need an escape from time to time (I’d like to say I escape by reading Kant in my spare moments, but that would be a lie — the Drudge Report or Fark.com would be closer to the truth). But all the time? The 24-hour Martha-Kobe-Donald-Ozzy-Paris-Jocko Car Chase Challenge Channel? Yeah, we’re Captives, too. As Pogo used to say, “we have met the enemy and he is us.”

This ‘blog is about that and more. And probably less.

2004-02-21T23:29:00.000+02:00

Added a counter and my email address. And changed the template for the blog, which I will fix more tomorrow.

2004-02-21T23:01:00.000+02:00

Well, the hardliners in Iran won the day, albeit using nasty tactics. The turnout is being reported at 60%, but the interior ministry is saying that the total number was something around 43%, which is still probably high but way down from the 67% of 1997 when Khatami came to power. No matter how you look at it, the result was that the conservatives took power from the reformers by taking advantage of Khamenei's control of the government, the velayat e-faqih. Now the betting REALLY begins.

2004-02-21T22:51:00.000+02:00

This is a piece I wrote a week or so ago that I couldn't get published in a particularly timely manner. In the end I needn't have worried too much -- the mullahs announced that the congressional visit was "not on the agenda," a nice way of telling the Americans to take a flying leap. Whew.

Iran: Congress’s bizarre interest in normalization

The recent interest expressed by some in congress of exploring normalization of ties with Iran is as bizarre as it is poorly timed.

It is bizarre because there have been few indications from Tehran’s masters — beyond relative silence — that Iran is interested in normalization of relations with the United States. Far from repudiating terrorism, the Iranian government recently hosted the “Ten Days of Dawn” celebration, marking 25 years since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni returned to Iran — observers will recall that this precipitated the 1979 US embassy hostage crisis. The celebration invited representatives of numerous “national resistance groups,” the likes of which included Hizballah (a longtime sponsoree of Iran), Ansar al Islam, and various Palestinian terror groups. One of the celebration’s stated purposes was to find new ways “to confront the American Great Satan.” This is of course not a new objective for Iran, they have been supporting Hizballah since the beginning — the interest of Sens. Biden, Specter, Ney and others in detente with Iran comes following the twenty-year anniversary of the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon.

The proposed congressional trip is further bizarre in light of recent revelations — from the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency, not the beleaguered US intelligence community — that Iran has been pursuing a clandestine capability to enrich Uranium, possibly for a nuclear weapons program. And the statement made in late January by A.Q. Khan, father of Pakistan’s bomb, that he helped several rogue states, among them Iran, to obtain nuclear technology, does not make these congressmens’ decision any more comprehensible.

Their proposed trip is poorly timed because it comes at literally the same moment that the Iranian government is using breathtaking — some would say virtually unprecedented — measures to suppress internal dissent. The hard line Guardian Council in January “disqualified” nearly half of those filing to run in scheduled February parliamentary elections, and despite restoring a small percentage of of the hundreds disqualified to the ballot, nevertheless continues to block a huge number from running. Many, if not most, of those who are blocked are the same ones who want to bring about democratic reform in Iran and have been courageous enough to say so. The situation became so bad in early February that the president’s own brother, Reza Khatami, the deputy speaker of parliament, resigned in protest. Mohammed Khatami, the president, seems as impotent as ever against the Guardian Council and Supreme Leader Khamenei. And yesterday the hardliners won.

If there was an appropriate venue for congressional contact with Iran at all, it was the olive branch extended by Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) after the Bam earthquake tragedy. Dole, with impeccable humanitarian credentials from her time with the Red Cross, was prepared to engage the Iranians at a human level. But Tehran arrogantly rejected the approach out of hand. Coming so close on the heels of this serious diplomatic snub, the current congressional “trial balloon” seems all the more badly timed.

If congress really wants to start working toward normalization, it should do an about-face and instead start talking seriously about regime change. Not regime change a la Iraq, but regime change a la Poland, the Soviet Union, or Serbia. Ordinary Iranian citizens are hungry for moral support; words and deeds from America would buoy their spirits and give them strength as they demand accountability and democratic change.

By Marc C. Johnson, © 2004, all rights reserved.

2004-02-21T22:31:00.000+02:00

This is my first post to test out the system. THIS is my home page for anyone that's interested.