Republican Foreign Policy: Make a Profit on Destruction, Make a Profit on Reconstruction

/in , /by

I can’t remember where I asked it, but several weeks ago I asked who was going to pay for Lebanon’s reconstruction. Some in the thread mused that we, the American taxpayers, would pay for it. Well, wouldn’t you know:

The Bush administration is scrambling to assemble a plan to helprebuild Lebanon, hoping that by competing with Hezbollah for thepublic’s favor it can undo the damage the war has inflicted on itsimage and goals for the Middle East.

Administration officials fear that unless they move quickly todemonstrate U.S. commitment, the Lebanese will turn more fully to themilitant group, which has begun rolling out an ambitious reconstructionprogram that Washington believes is bankrolled by Iran.

"Scrambling to assemble a plan to helprebuild." Those Lebanese who watched Katrina on the TV or who have heard from cousins in Iraq are no doubt reading those words with dread. And any number of campaign donors probably just heard the lovely ring of "Ka ching!"

Share this entry

Judy and Johnny

/in , /by

It seems Arianna hasn’t disbanded her impressive network of Judy Miller sources. She reports:

At 7:30 this morning, John Bolton was having breakfast at Oscar’s at the Waldorf with Judy Miller.

Arianna wonders whether Bolton’s nomination battle to be reappointed came up. But I’m not convinced. After all, we have good reason to believe that John Bolton is the only Neocon who has availed himself of Judy’s particular talent for WMD porn since she was ousted form the NYT. And while Judy has been instrumental in the past in helping Bolton get someone fired, drumming up political support in Congress to get someone hired isn’t really her forte. That would take rational argument, after all.

Perhaps this news from Steve Clemons offers some clues as to what Judy and Johnny were doing this morning at 7:30 am.

Share this entry

The Question They Didn't Ask and Bush's New Plan C

/in /by

You don’t need me to tell you things are not going well in Iraq. The NYT surveys the state of affairs this morning, and the news is not good.

The number of roadside bombs planted in Iraqrose in July to the highest monthly total of the war, offering moreevidence that the anti-American insurgency has continued to strengthendespite the killing of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Alongwith a sharp increase in sectarian attacks, the number of daily strikesagainst American and Iraqi security forces has doubled since January.The deadliest means of attack, roadside bombs, made up much of thatincrease. In July, of 2,625 explosive devices, 1,666 exploded and 959were discovered before they went off. In January, 1,454 bombs explodedor were found. [my emphasis]

The article then goes goes onto discuss two studies–an August 3 DIA study entitled "Iraq Update" and the upcoming NIE–that tell more of that same story.

But what struck me about this article is the way they seem to be measuring whether Zarqawi’s death has led to a decrease in attacks. In spite of the many reports that told us the bulk of Sunni violence came from Baathist "Dead-Enders" rather than Al Qaeda, they seem to have taken seriously the proposition that Zarqawi’s death would lead to a decrease in attacks.

Share this entry

NeoCon Joe, the Failed Lebanese Campaign, and Losing by Winning

/in , /by

This is going to be a bit of a wandering post. But I’m going to cover the following and hopefully finish in enough time to go can peaches:

  • Taking Joe at his word
  • Hersh’s portrayal of failure
  • On how the Neocons may become winners out of losing
Share this entry

How to Lose

/in , /by

About one thing the squalling Neocon Democrats are consistent. They claim that their positions–centrism and hawkishness–are the winning positions. But they ignore that in both recent elections and recent wars, those "winning" policies brought Democrats and the US only failure.

Which is about all you need to know about Marty Peretz’ latest straw man op-ed, beyond the fact that is filled with nasty name-calling. Here is Peretz’ little bit of wisdom:

Buthe does have one issue, and it is Iraq. He grasps little of thecomplexities of his issue, but then this, too, is true of the genus ofthe peace candidate. Peace candidates know only one thing, and that iswhy people vote for them.

[snip]

NowMr. Lamont’s views are also not camouflaged. They are justsimpleminded. Here, for instance, is his take on what should be doneabout Iran’s nuclear-weapons venture: "We should work diplomaticallyand aggressively to give them reasons why they don’t need to build abomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressivediplomacy. I’d like to bring in allies when we can. I’d like to usecarrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of thedebate." Oh, I see. He thinks the problem is that they do notunderstand, and so we should explain things to them, and then they willdo the right thing. It is a fortunate world that Mr. Lamont lives in,but it is not the real one. Anyway, this sort of plying is preciselywhat has been going on for years, and to no good effect. Mr. Lamontcontinues that "Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about keepingthe military option on the table." And what is so plainly wrong withthat? Would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be more agreeable if he thought that wehad disposed of the military option in favor of more country clubbehavior?

Let’s see. I’m sure Peretz would consider me a "peace" Democrat, even though I’m against stupid wars rather than all wars. But here’s what this "simple-minded" peace Democrat who "grasps little of the complexities" of the issues in the Middle East knew, before the war in Iraq.

Share this entry

Pat Lang's Four Questions and Hezbollah

/in , , /by

What a dirty trick Pat Lang played, sending his friends a list of four issues with the US-French peace plan, but not addressing those four issues himself.

  1. France and the United States are not at war with each other.  They cannot agree to end the fighting.
  2. Hizbullah thinks it is winning both tactically and strategically.Why will it agree to anything other than a cease-fire in place?
  3. Such a cease-fire will be a victory for Hizbullah.
  4. Who will disarm Hizbullah if it accepts such a cease-fire?

I’m with Pat in doubting the feasability of the peace plan, as far as I understand it, and for some of the same reasons. I mean, Condi can’t even get Olmert (much less Peretz) to keep a straight face when she makes requests of them. Presumably Bolton was closely involved in this, and presumably he has more sway with Israel. But thus far the US has seemed unwilling and possibly unable to pressure Israel to play nice.

And France, as a stand-in for Hezbollah? I could see Chirac speaking with and for Rafiq Hariri’s Lebanon before his death. But Lebanon’s government has been all but castrated by the Israeli assault. So unless you’ve got a surrogate for Hezbollah, or preferably Hezbollah itself, you’ll be left with the problem of getting Hezbollah to agree to a plan it had no part in. Until Hezbollah is brought into the process, I assume they will answer, as they seem to be already, "Yeah, who’s going to disarm us? You and whose army?"

Share this entry

A Squabble between Roberts and His Masters?

/in /by

One of the most amusing bits from this article on the upcoming Phase II publication (I guess we have to call the stuff Roberts has delayed further, Phase II.2?) is its description of a dispute between BushCo and Senator Pat Roberts.

The Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee lashed outat the White House on Thursday, criticizing attempts by the Bushadministration to keep secret parts of a report on the role Iraqiexiles played in building the case for war against Iraq.

The chairman, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, said his committee hadcompleted the first two parts of its investigation of prewarintelligence. But he chastised the White House for efforts to classifymost of the part that examines intelligence provided to the Bushadministration by the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group.

“Ihave been disappointed by this administration’s unwillingness todeclassify material contained in these reports, material which Ibelieve better informs the public, but that does not — I repeat, doesnot — jeopardize intelligence operations, sources and methods,” Mr.Roberts said in a statement issued Thursday.

Uh huh. Consider me skeptical. I think it more likely that Roberts realized he couldn’t defend classifying this information since the Democrats (and a few restless Republicans) know well it doesn’t fit any rules of classification. That is, Roberts knows he has to fight BushCo on this, or lose his shaky claim to be an intelligence reformer.

Share this entry

Lamont's "Single Issue" Voters

/in , , , , , , , /by

The Q-Poll shows that 44% of Lamont’s supporters support him mainly because of Lieberman’s stance on the Iraq war. And Markos anticipates a bunch of pundits frowning on the large number of "Single Issue" voters.

For a pundit to suggest the Iraq war is a "Single Issue" simply betrays their ignorance of the impact that war has and will continue to have on this country and the rest of the world.

Some are opposed to the war because they’re opposed to 2,500 Americans dead, 18,000 Americans wounded, perhaps 100,000 Iraqis dead, untold wounded. Some oppose the war simply because it uses violence to solve problems that should be solved using other means.

Some are opposed to the war because it has ruined our military. Two-thirds of our active army and three-quarters of our National Guard face readiness problems because it needs to replace equipment used in Iraq. Extended deployments and lowered recruiting standards are having bad effects on the military, their families, and our mission. The Iraq war–sold as a way to make our country safer–has only exposed it defensively.

Some are opposed to the war because it has thoroughly destabilized Iraq, and threatens to destabilize the entire region. By almost every standard, Iraqi quality of life is worse today than it was under Saddam.

Some are opposed to the war because it has created precisely the problem that it was cynically sold as a way to prevent. Iraq is creating terrorists, at a time when the threat of terrorism remains very real.

Some are opposed to the war because it has turned us into an international pariah. Some countries no longer trust us. Others want nothing to do with our aggressive ways.

Share this entry

Pressure Politics

/in , , /by

Share this entry