Politics and Press

The interaction of the press and politics; public diplomacy, and daily absurdities.

Jeff

The Surge: Good Money After Bad

By

The press and politicians are currently focused on the tactic of Bush’s “surge” of 21,000 added troops into Iraq while the overall situation is worse than most of the press admits or even considers. Typical is today’s Boston Globe op ed by a veteran of the Iraq conflict and now law school student at Harvard who continues the myth of the importance of giving the surge a chance to succeed while ignoring the larger, more significant consequences of the war.

Certainly even Bush must realize that he has committed the country to an enormous folly; ergo the re-definition of victory has become making Iraq’s capital city nearly as safe as it used to be before the Fiasco. Weapons of mass destruction disappeared as a rationale weeks after Shock and Awe; a true democracy in Iraq is now recognized to be fantasy; peace in the Middle East as a result is simply nutty, as is the concept of Iraq as a grateful nation.

A list of current and emerging consequences of Bush’s Fiasco is depressing:

• Destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure
• Millions of Iraqi refugees, both within Iraq and in neighboring countries;
• Over 3000 American lives; between 65,000 and 600,000 Iraqi lives lost
• Thousands of Americans seriously wounded
• A U.S. military pushed beyond its limits and no longer capable of responding to additional conflicts that could arise
• Provision of a training ground for terrorists
• Provision of a recruitment program for Jihadists
• Billions of U.S. dollars spent and not available for social programs such as health insurance, education, etc.
• Contribution to a budget deficit that will punish the young and the unborn
• Huge future need to support wounded and mentally-damaged veterans
• Inability to focus on other issues properly – e.g. Afghanistan, Russia, Africa
• Enormous amounts of international ill will

But perhaps the most significant consequence is the increased instability in the region. The Bush policy has made Iran a stronger force in the region, has reduced Iraq’s independence from Shiite domination, has changed a secular country into a fundamentalist country, and has produced a situation in which neighboring countries with Sunni populations (e.g. Saudi Arabia) will inevitably become involved with supporting Iraqi Sunnis with finances and weapons.

A poll of Iraqis taken this week indicates that a large majority believes their country was better off under Saddam than after the U.S. invasion. And there is no evidence that Bush has a clue on how to end it without it being a total disaster for U.S. foreign policy and the Iraqi people.

Confessions of a Tortured Terrorist: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

By

There has been a curious lack of hurrahs for the confession extracted from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after four years in captivity. While there is no doubt of his ties to al Quada  his confession is tainted by the knowledge that he has spent at least some of those four years being tortured and that the in the end he has confessed to almost everything that has been done to the U.S. by terrorists in the last fifteen years.

This is not to suggest his innocence – rather it is to recognize that the use of torture has reduced the credibility of almost any results coming out of the process. In today’s online Slate Magazine, Anne Applebaum cites major European newspapers’ skepticism over the confessions and indeed, the lack of exultation in the U.S. press is likely due to similar concerns. The use of torture appeals mostly to thugs and bullies who recognize power but not its limits. And, in the case of the current clowns screwing around with America’s reputation, they fail also to recognize the consequences of ignoring basic legal and human rights. In a sense everything the administration is doing in its war on terrorism can be viewed partially through the prism of public diplomacy. And the view that the rest of the world has of a country that tortures its prisoners is decidedly negative.

Bush’s Last Chance??

By

Graham Allison has written an op ed about diplomacy and power in the Kennedy era for today’s Boston Globe. Reading the piece suggests that the Bush administration – after six years – may be beginning to look for a philosophical center for its foreign policy. The piece compares the recent negotiations with North Korea and the planned multilateral discussions with Iran, to the approaches taken by Kennedy with the Soviet Union. The article quotes former Bush advisor and UN ambassador John Bolton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the merits – or lack thereof – of negotiating with the likes of Iran and N. Korea. The money quotes are:

From Gates in 2004:

“Iran is not on the verge of another revolution . . . The durability of the Islamic Republic and the urgency of the concerns surrounding its policies mandate that the United States deal with the current regime rather than wait for it to fall.”

From Bolton in 2007 re: the agreement with N. Korea:

“[The N. Korea agreement] contradicts the fundamental premises of the president’s policy he’s been following for the past six years.” (Vice President Cheney is quoted: “We don’t negotiate with evil, we defeat it.”)

Bolton’s and Cheney’s comments represent the Bush-Cheney approach of power without diplomacy that has given us the Iraq “thing”, N. Korean nuclear weapons, and a stronger Iran headed for nuclear self-sufficiency. While it is late in the game for the Bush presidency, he actually has an opportunity to leave a legacy that will not be the raving insult that he currently courts with history.

The N. Korea agreement, while only a beginning, is after all, better than we had come to expect from this administration.  Similarly, the movement towards talking with Iran hints at possible advances. The question is whether the Cheney gang will come back into dominance or whether diplomacy can proceed. Cheney is unlikely to watch the latter happen without a fight. We shall see.

Peter Galbraith on the “Surge”

By

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?

By

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?

By

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.

Déjà vu, Iran

By

It is not at all clear about the administration and its plans for Iran, but it seems that an attack of some kind is still on the Bush-Cheney agenda. Among the troubling signs:

*The briefing by unidentified officials held in Baghdad about Iran-produced armor penetrating bombs;

*Secretary Rice either forgetting or lying about a May 2003 offer to negotiate delivered to Washington by the Swiss ambassador in Tehran (the Swiss represent U.S. interests in Iran);

*The report by Michael Gordon in the NY Times last week taking unnamed administration sources at face value in a way very much like what the Times’ Judith Miller did in sexing up the weapons of mass destruction stories in the run-up to Iraq;

*The U.S.’s sending a second aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf;

*The fact of Bush’s lame duck status, along with his unwillingness to recognize the incredible folly of his Iraq fiasco and his visions of himself morphing into some mix of Harry Truman, Teddy Roosevelt and George Washington.

While Bush seems to be flirting with one last blast, so to speak, the Iraq Study Group urged diplomacy with Iran and that idea has developed increased resonance since the administration finally negotiated directly with N. Korea in Berlin with some positive possibilities emerging. And while the U.S. military can apparently mount a more or less surgical air strike against Iran, anything beyond that involving ground troops would push the limits of current capabilities.

One Flew Over the Campaign ‘08

By

Much of the press is down to its usual standards as it trivializes the campaign for Most Powerful Person in the World, 2008. The highlights in campaign coverage so far include the following:

Barack Obama has produced probably the best press story so far. Seems that a total fruitcake working for the Rev. Moon planted a story that Obama had attended a Muslim School for suicide bombers and that Hillary Clinton leaked the story. Talk about more bang for your bucks. But would any self-respecting news outlet pick up a nutty story like that without checking the facts/. Well, no. That would have to be done by Fox News, managed by Roger Ailes, the old Willy Horton ad guy. And run with it they did refusing to admit a mistake even after competing news people refuted the story with those old Fox bugaboos, facts.

Hillary Clinton: should she dress in dresses or pants suits? Donatella Versace says, “”She really should stop wearing pants. I imagine they’re comfortable, but she is a woman and should be allowed to show it. She should give her femininity a chance and not emulate the masculinity in politics.”

Ok, so that story did not have legs, so to speak. But the Big Story is whether Hillary should apologize for having voted for the invasion of Iraq when the President simply lied about the reasons for it. Seems to me if anyone should apologize it should be the president that lied us into it for pretty shabby reasons. Anyway, the press is doing its dog with a bone thing so this will continue until they rediscover the importance of wearing dresses.

John Edwards – The issue of his admitted “mistake” in voting for the invasion of Iraq excites the press less than the fact that he hired a couple of bozos to run blogs for his campaign. My good friend Kiwi sent me some wonderful satire on this which I cannot share for reasons of – well – good taste. But again is this the issue we want to decide on?

Mitt Romney is lucky to have the press focusing on his religion rather than on his remarkable ability to change his views on just about every social issue found inside and outside the Bible. For instance, when running for Governor of Massachusetts he supported a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, gun control, and same-sex civic unions. In the last year of his tenure as governor he spent over 200 days out of the state presumably getting a values-change operation somewhere.  But for now the main question for him from the press is  “what the hell is a Mormon anyway?” And “will he force Americans to give up alcohol and swear words.”

John McCain is all hot to trot about sending more and more troops to Iraq, and the press takes note of that while it asks whether it is a mistake to believe something and actually say the words. I mean Bush got elected as a compassionate conservative and someone who would bring humble pie to the international table and got elected.  Doesn’t McCain know enough to lie?

Rudy Guiliani is providing the opportunity to beat up on a man who wears out wives the way some of us wear out cheap sneakers. The press has trouble with this one though because he remains a hero in some eyes for having not died in the 9/11 attacks. So the story is not that having had a few wives is bad. It is only that maybe some Bible thumpers will not like it. But what can he do? Become an old-fashioned Mormon and remarry his previous two wives? What would Romney say to that?

Joe Biden made the horrible mistake of accusing Obama of being “clean” and “articulate”. The Reverends Jesse and Al went nuts and the press beat up on poor Joe for days. It did however take attention away from his hair transplant and also made it possible to ignore his Iraq strategy which is more sensible than most and might even be worth further exploration – once we get this Obama insult taken care of.

The election is 21 months away.  That is a long time to consider waking up to meaningless stories as we approach the need to clean up probably the worst mess ever left by any president. But we best be prepared for mindless babble about what the candidates wear, what they eat, what they drink, what they ever smoked or sniffed or mainlined, what they have ever done to other humans  or animals  in the backseats of cars, what clever little campaign lies can be told successfully, etc. Just for God’s sake, do not bore us with substance.

Lieberman’s War Tax

By

It has been easy to resist writing about AIPAC’s favorite senator, but Joe Lieberman’s suggestion for a war tax to pay for the Iraq War is kind of interesting.  Not that anyone on either side of the aisle is likely to seriously consider it, but rather for the entertainment opportunity it could provide for watching the Congress discuss and debate the Iraq War in terms of its impact on American domestic policy.

The Bush-Cheney budget proposal presents a case for reducing health, education and environmental programs to reduce a deficit that results at least partly through the enormous costs of the Bush-Cheney Iraq Thing. The Washington Times gloats that Lieberman’s proposal would force the Democrats to raise taxes in order to maintain those  non-defense programs, but of course, it could also be an opportunity for Americans to hear a substantive debate on the cost of the war and the trade-offs it has allowed Bush-Cheney to make.

Improve education for Americans or bomb some towns in Iraq? Distribute $12billion in cash to unaccountable Iraqis or help shore up Social Security? Pay billions to Halliburton to construct crappy facilities in Iraq or provide food to poor American school children? Spend some money on developing alternative energy sources or spend billions to prop up Iraq’s corrupt oil industry?

The Congress would not treat this seriously because it would force both parties to face reality and address it publicly and maybe even courageously. And of course Lieberman knows that, but his suggestion allows him to play both ends of the debate – support the war and maintain social programs but pay for it with a tax that no member of Congress would have the courage to support.

The Budget: Bush’s Strategy for America

By

The budget that President Bush presented to the Congress yesterday is a near culmination of his shell game. It goes something like this. He produces a tax break for the rich, spends billions on a fiasco war in Iraq, develops a huge deficit, then comes up with a budget which he says will reduce the deficit he created – but not by reducing defense budgets, which will continue to increase at a time when the country’s defense expenditures are greater than the total for all other countries together.

Rather, for Bush it has become time to reduce support of programs aimed at ordinary people – programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, education and environmental agencies, heating assistance for low-income families, etc. At the same time he wants to make his tax cuts for the wealthy, permanent.

It has been clear from the beginning of this odious presidency that he was intent on changing the nature of the American experience by returning the country’s operating ethos to that of pre-Roosevelt days. It would, in a sense, be a matching domestic legacy to that of his foreign policy, which has given us the Iraq disaster, distaste and anger from the citizens of former allies, the loss of the country’s moral edge, the end of bipartisan commitment to America among its people and the end of American prestige and honor.