Politics and Press

Peter Galbraith on the “Surge”

Peter Galbraith discusses at length Bush’s “surge” strategy in Iraq in the current issue of the New York Review of Books. He is not optimistic and presents a convincing argument that the “war” as defined by Bush is lost and that everything from now on is a delay that will cost lives and bring us no closer to an acceptable solution. One small point in the Galbraith piece is a reminder of the unwillingness of Bush to take responsibility for his actions (not unusual given his personal history) and, more significantly, his ability to blame the victim – in this instance the Iraqi people. Galbraith quotes Bush when asked whether he owed the Iraqi people an apology for not providing adequate post- invasion security:

“Well I don’t, that we didn’t do a better job or they didn’t do a better job?… I think I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude. That’s the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that’s significant enough in Iraq.”

The article provides a  detailed analysis of the situation in Iraq that is very different from what we are being told by the administration. Read it and make your own decision and think about what we are getting from not only the administration but also the mainstream press who are giving the “surge” the benefit of the doubt in the face of a lot of evidence that it is doomed to fail.

Cable TV: Purveyors of Schadenfreude?

A recent period of being stuck in airports, gyms, and hotel lounges has reintroduced me to the world of American cable TV and it is not a pretty sight. Hours of mindless coverage of Britney Spears’ latest problems, people fighting to be named father of the year in the life (and death) of Anna Nicole Smith, the famous diapered ride of an astronaut and the arrest of Bobby Brown are just the latest samples of what the cable operators choose to give attention to 24/7.

It is tempting to throw a brick through the TV and equally tempting to simply blame the cable producers for force-feeding us crap. But end of the day if people did not watch the providers would change the diet. Do people watch this crap because they love to see people’s dignity destroyed? Are they able to find joy in the downfall of the mediocre? If so, it is an amazing process – the networks build up some mediocrity and people follow his or her rise with the unspoken hope that they will be able soon to watch the crash. Saves the expense of covering real news happening to real people in real places and in real time. And keeps the rating numbers up.

North Korea: Another Intelligence Failure?

We may need to come up with a new term to replace “Intelligence Community” when referring to what we are told about countries’ nuclear capabilities. Maybe “Idle Speculation Community” as in:  “Sources in the Idle Speculation Community (ISC) told this reporter yesterday that weapons of mass destruction might be being stockpiled by Saddam Hussein.”

The record of the ISC is not good. In the 1980’s it missed the coming dissolution of the Soviet Union, in 2001 it missed the rather strong warning signals on 9/11, and in 2002-3 it guessed wildly off the mark on WMD in Iraq.  Now, according to administration officials cited in today’s NY Times, it appears the ISC speculated incorrectly on North Korea’s nuclear program and that, in a strange irony, it seems that the Bush administration’s cutting off of oil deliveries in 2002 may actually have pushed the North Koreans to proceed with developing a plutonium-based nuclear arsenal which they did not previously have.

But the problem is less one of inadequate intelligence than of inappropriate use of intelligence in politicians’ decision-making processes.  Certainly that was the case with Iraq and now we see the possibility that the basis of the Bush policy toward North Korea from 2002 on was largely based on questionable intelligence on its nuclear program that fulfilled political desires. And we are left to idly speculate about Iran. Skepticism might be the right approach.