Emphasis Added

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

NYC Red

I read The American Prospect. I like The American Prospect. I even subscribe to The American Prospect. But I have to say that this article by Greg Sargent that just went up on their website, �Mad in Manhattan,� is one of the stupidest things I�ve ever seen in a political magazine of any ideological leaning.

Sargent suggests that re-electing NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is running as a Republican, serves the interests of Karl Rove, and that New York Democrats should fall in line behind the challenger, Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer. This is unexceptional partisan cheerleading, except for one little detail.

Bloomberg is doing a fine job and deserves re-election, while some of my closest pals in NYC � hardcore Democrats all � are convinced that Ferrer would be a disaster.

Yes, Bloomberg has his critics. Yes, Bloomberg has been gratuitously supportive of national and NY state Republicans in ways that discomfort his constituents. But guess what? It was Republicans who let him use their party line to run for, and win, the mayor�s office. In the meantime, opinion is almost unanimous that he has run an honest and effective administration, has kept a uniquely unruly city under control, and has largely avoided the divisiveness of his contentious predecessor, Rudy Giuliani. Even the Prospect article concedes these points.

As for Ferrer, he has apparently done little to inspire confidence. I haven�t been a resident New Yorker for more than 15 years, so I can�t say for sure, but my last experience of full-time residency was during the Dinkins years. I am suspicious of a candidate whose main selling point is his ethnic identity and his ability to rise to the top in the sketchy world of Borough administration. Maybe he�d be worth taking a chance on if Bloomberg were a disaster. But he isn�t.

So what Sargent is asking New Yorkers to do is to roll the dice on day-to-day quality of life issues for the most starkly partisan reasons. He writes:

There�s another reason Dems should care if Bloomberg wins re-election: The success of Republicans like Bloomberg in Democratic strongholds is extraordinarily helpful to Karl Rove�s strategy for building an enduring Republican majority.

This sentence is half-true. Democrats make up an overwhelming majority of voters in New York City, but the mayor�s office has never been a lock. For much of its history, the New York Democratic party has been synonymous with urban corruption and ethnic machine politics of the very worst sort, dating back to the days of Tammany Hall. In the 20^th century, Democrats elected exactly two relatively honest and effective mayors: Robert Wagner, Jr. and Ed Koch, with �relatively� being the operative word, especially in their later terms. The rest have been either luckless ciphers like Dinkins, Beame, and Impellitteri, or flamboyant criminals like Jimmy Walker and William O�Dwyer.

Indeed, in this �Democratic stronghold,� the three (four if you count Bloomberg) most significant administrations were all Republicans: Giuliani, Lindsay and the finest of them all, LaGuardia. How did Republicans win? With the exception of Giuliani who ran as a straight-up partisan against the ineffective Dinkins, reform Democrats joined with Republicans in a �Fusion� ticket, producing a sort of liberal Republican nearly unrecognizable beyond the Hudson. John Lindsay, for example, was to the left of much of the national Democratic party in the 1960s, which is saying quite a bit.

This could have happened this time around. Bloomberg, by all accounts, was a Democrat right up to the minute he decided to run for Mayor. The only reason he switched is because he didn�t stand a chance of surviving a party primary without the support of the local organizations and the identity-politics interest groups who make up the majority of the NYC Democratic establishment. He cozied up to Giuliani not out of personal affinity or ideological ardor, but out of basic necessity � the same reasons he�s wheeling and dealing with odious national Republicans. But for the sorry state of their own operation, NY Democrats could have run and win with Bloomberg in 2001 or in 2005. What is now seen as this huge problem could have been an equally huge advantage.

So don�t blame the voters of New York for abandoning the Democratic candidate for mayor. Blame instead the Democratic party of New York City for not producing a candidate worth voting for.

8:00:46 AM

Emphasize This! []

Monday, September 19, 2005

Deception Point

I was born in 1967, so I�m too young to remember honest government at the Federal level, if it ever existed (except for Jimmy Carter, who put it decidedly out of fashion). These days, though, Bush and Rove have raised deception to such an art form that it seem naïve at best to take anything whatsoever they say or do at face value.

Take the Roberts nomination. I watched some of the hearings, and was surprised to find myself being impressed with the nominee and, moreover, finding many of the Democrats on the panel annoyingly contentious. I was overcome with joy that Bush had sent someone up who wasn�t barking mad. I found Roberts�s professed respect for the rule of law, precedent and process refreshing. And, though certain that he would certainly rule against the interests and values of Democratic constituencies on some occasions, I was glad that he appeared at least to have the stature commensurate with the office.

But really, it�s gotten to the point where believing my own eyes is an invitation to disaster. I couldn�t shake the nagging doubt that this guy Roberts was a fiendish hoax � that he was raised in a vat in the basement of some conservative think-tank, genetically engineered to appear normal and carefully positioned in a variety of posts that made him the logical candidate for a Supreme Court seat. Once he was confirmed in his lifetime appointment, his hidden masters would push a button and detonate him like an ideological bomb. Gone would be the veneer of reason and civility, gone would be the putative respect for law and precedent, gone would be the moderate demeanor, and out would come Justice Meat Cleaver, armed with a stridency to make Antonin Scalia look like a mealy-mouthed pussy.

Paranoid much? Oh yeah, big time. But let�s look at the record. For the last five years, anyone who has taken the Administration�s claims about anything at face value has wound up looking like a chump. Ask Edward Kennedy what he thinks about �No Child Left Behind� after he leant his support to its passage. Ask any Democrat fool enough to support the various legislative hackery produced under this regime � Medicare �reform,� the Energy bill, the Highway bill, or the ruinous tax policies. In each of these cases, there was the public purpose of the bill � to address some actual problem in the country � and the real purpose, which was to hand out public money to wealthy Republican contractors and/or do dirt to some key group of Democrats.

Then, of course, there�s the war. John Kerry basically lost the election because he was dumb enough to trust Bush�s reasons for invading Iraq; because he realized only too late that these folks didn�t acknowledge the moral and rhetorical limits that tethered previous leaders to some notion of candor and reality in matters of war and peace. Today, any legislator or opinion leader who pimped Bush�s falsehoods about going to war has plenty of �splainin� to do. The best of them say they believed the President because they couldn�t believe he would lie. But that�s a card you only get to play once. If he�ll lie about sending American soldiers to war, when exactly do you think he�ll start telling the truth?

What�s problematic is Bush�s three and a half more years in office. Public skepticism can perhaps curtail his more aggressive attempts to gut, privatize, cripple, bankrupt, prostrate and humiliate America�s remaining wealth, power and prestige, as it appears to have done in Social Security �reform.� But Bush still has the basic responsibilities of governing. He, and only he, gets to name Supreme Court justices. Even a Democratic majority in the Senate could hold him off only so long, and the minority is weaker still. Despite fumbling the Katrina response, Bush still gets to set the agenda for the reconstruction, and his incompetent, crony-ridden executive branch is still obliged to carry it out.

Personally, I believe that investment in physical infrastructure is, dollar for dollar, the best money government can spend. Under any other circumstances, I would tend to view the Gulf Coast disaster and the unity of public response to it as an unprecedented opportunity to redevelop one of the poorest areas of the country. Done right, the Gulf could become a showplace for all the good ideas 21^st century engineering has to offer � not just in terms of levees and flood control systems, but in traffic management, housing, urban planning, environmentally-sound development, public transit, and cultural infrastructure. But who among us is fool enough to entertain that dream?

Perhaps in the right hands, such a vision could be realized. When Bush announced his blank check for the Gulf on Thursday night, however, instead of exhilaration, I felt dread. Yes, there will be money. Yes, there will be public support. But in whose hands? In service of what goals? These are certainly not people animated by the desire to use public resources for public purposes. As Barbara Bush made irrepressibly clear last week, this crowd views the public with unvarnished contempt. The idea of providing good quality services for the undeserving (and un-white) fills them with horror.

So what do you think is going to happen to all that money? It�s painful to imagine that it will be squandered in some calamitous boondoggle and vanish into the pockets of preferred contractors with the right political connections, with the minimum possible benefit to residents of the Gulf and the least possible value to taxpayers. Painful, but under the circumstances, practically inevitable. And all the time, the looting will take place under an opaque cloud of pious lies that make it sound like you�re against the hurricane survivors if you question the disposition of the money.

Ronald Reagan announced the theme of the conservative revolution in 1981 when he declared big government the problem, not the solution. Since then, he and his followers have gone about making that a self-fulfilling prophesy. Unable to destroy the foundations of public trust in the government through straightforward means, they have set about rotting it away from within � to the point where it�s pointless to expect any connection whatsoever between the stated goals of a program and its likely effects.

Lately there have been some signs of life: useful skepticism from the media, Congress, and that delicate, endangered species called �principled conservatives.� Sadly, it comes too late to stop Bush. Hopefully, it will make us all a little smarter the next time.

8:51:40 AM

Emphasize This! []

Thursday, September 15, 2005

The Intellectual Vandalism of �Intelligent Design�

All week, Jon Stewart has been running a �special investigation� on the Daily Show called �evolution or schmevolution?� It�s not the funniest thing they�ve ever done, but a proudly-fake comedy news show is probably the most appropriate venue for this particular issue. The jokes and potshots have landed with predictability, but what�s really funny is how even taking the debate seriously enough to make fun of it highlights its capacity to irritate and annoy thoughtful people far beyond its significance.

The first annoying aspect of the debate is the dishonesty of it. People on the ID side say they�re innocently positing an alternative way to explain the origins and diversity of life. But the real issue isn�t about the truth or falsity of a particular theory � it�s about the method by which people arrive at that theory. Science isn�t about wild speculation. It is a disciplined process by which ideas are tested against reality, modified, refined, and, if they can be successfully repeated in an experimental setting, eventually given status as �working truths.� Over the past 350 years, this has proven a surprisingly good way to get a handle on an otherwise-complex and mysterious world, and it�s not a bad way to look at other kinds of issues either.

In opposition to science is faith-based certainty. A lot of people believe sincerely in the existence of forces beyond the natural world, and this belief shapes their actions and gives them hope. Fine. Faith may be inspirational, but it demonstrably lacks the power to systematically explain or predict common phenomena in the material world. Faith may move metaphorical mountains, but it can�t boil water, it can�t calculate the force of impact of items dropped from a height, and it can�t make a coherent case for the use of one medical treatment over another. For those things, we need a scientific method of thought, not a faith-based one. Confusing the two is a great way to inhibit material progress.

The basic political debate on evolution, therefore, isn�t whether evolution is �true,� but whether a non-scientific theory should be taught in a science curriculum. There are millions of notions we could toss around to explain the whys and hows of the material world. The ones we can test are called scientific theories. The rest are called myths, and people believe them at their peril. It�s been a long 100,000 year crawl up from the darkness of myth-based thinking and into the light of reason. The scientific method is a great achievement of human intellect and a genuine mark of progress for our species. The people who are trying, for whatever motivation, to cast us back down into the pit of ignorance by seducing us away from the discipline of scientific thought, are doing great violence to human civilization. Watching them do this in the plain light of day is, to say the least, annoying.

I say �for whatever motivation� because I think at least a few people on the ID side are sincere in their search for truth, albeit deeply misguided. But to get to the real issue here, you have to follow the power. For the many thousands of years of the �faith-based� era of human history, �faith� was defined by and imposed by the leaders of the tribe, usually to justify the stuff they wanted to do anyway. Even complicated theologies were routinely bent to the purposes of Kings and Emperors. Faith-based thinking discourages inquiry and promotes obedience to authority. It also tends to violence. Differences in interpretation of the articles of faith were (and remain) routinely settled by force, because there is no way for reason to adjudicate between opposing assertions of absolute truth.

Scientific inquiry, on the other hand, provides a dispassionate method of assigning truth to competing claims: experimentation. In the social/political order of a scientific society, the assertion of truth does not require the power of arms or wealth to prevail. It just needs to be provably right in an experimental setting. Scientific thinking � whether applied to �hard sciences� such as physics, chemistry and biology, or �softer� fields like public policy � is indifferent to the status of the person making a claim. It�s no accident that political liberalism followed closely on the heals of the scientific Enlightenment in Europe. Once the framework of scientific thought had stripped the traditional authority structure (royalty, aristocracy, Church) of its privileged claim to define truth and knowledge, it undermined the legitimacy of all arbitrary power structures and almost irresistibly demanded a more democratic social/political order.

Consequently, the destruction of science and the re-establishment of faith has a certain appeal to those nostalgic for the return of arbitrary, hierarchical political authority, the unquestioned privileges of wealth and high birth, and the expectation of obedience from the lower orders of society. Since dispensing with political absolutism was another notable achievement of human progress, trying to undo democracy by tampering with its intellectual foundations is another annoying feature of the other side of the �evolution debate.�

The last aggravating aspect of the debate is what I�ll call the ecological problem. We live in a world deluged with too much information and too many ways to get it. Humans naturally crave certainty, but our lives have become so polluted with facts, factoids, and �fact-esquse� assertions that it�s very difficult for even intelligent people to know what to think and believe. Quite a bit of that confusion is well founded. There are legitimate, important matters where facts really are in dispute and where informed opinion really does differ. What constitutes a balanced diet? Do hormone supplements help or hurt? Will a tax cut stimulate or hurt the economy? To live life responsibly in the modern age, it�s a good idea to pay attention to at least a few of these matters, even though it�s frustrating.

Amid this sea of confusion, it is profoundly reassuring to understand that some things are far less uncertain than others, which I suspect is why fundamentalist faith is enjoying such a resurgence. Science can never fully replace the certainties of faith for those who cannot tolerate even a shred of doubt. It doesn�t give us Truth with a capital �T,� but it does let us grade knowledge on a curve where some propositions can be seen as far more credible, and credit-worthy, than others. And one of the things that biological science invests with a high degree of certainty is the mechanism of evolution as the explanation for the diversity and complexity of nature. It didn�t arrive at this as an article of faith, but by a painstaking process of observation, deduction and experimentation that�s been going on for over 150 years, and has guided demonstrable material progress as a result.

It�s entirely appropriate in many instances to approach genuinely confusing situations with an attitude of intellectual humility. �We don�t know � we are merely searchers for truth.� It�s dishonest to the point of malice to introduce spurious doubts where trust and belief have been hard-earned through intellectual effort.

Attacking one of the pillars of relative certainty in a world full of doubt is an act of intellectual vandalism. Information eco-terror, if you will. The nature of the attack is so flimsy � like throwing an egg at the Statue of Liberty � and yet, taking measure of their work, they conclude that there is no choice but to bring down the entire monument.

The other day, I discovered a graffiti tag on the back door of the building where I live. Now in the grand scheme of urban crime, painting your name on a wall isn�t the most damaging offense. Still, when I saw it, my rage was far in excess of the crime itself. It wasn�t the mischief that bothered me but the gratuitousness of it. There�s enough to worry about living in a city. What kind of dumbass punk makes it worse just for kicks? And that, in a nutshell, is what annoys me about the anti-evolutionists.

9:56:04 AM

Emphasize This! []

Sunday, September 04, 2005

What Will It Take?

Last week, George W. Bush sustained a Category 5 encounter with reality. Over the course of the week, the American people and the press watched with horror as the federal government responded first with indifference, then with agonizing incompetence, and finally with sickening dishonesty to the aftermath of the worst natural disaster in our recent history.

For some of us, this response fit a depressing pattern. The scale of human tragedy may have been larger and more visible and the sense of failure more immediate, but the underlying dynamics were present in the same toxic combination that has marked Bush�s forays into practically every aspect of foreign and domestic policy.

Katrina presents the Bush approach in microcosm: the contempt for expert opinion; the arrogant rejection of sound policy in favor of worthless, self-dealing nonsense that can�t survive first contact with the problems it is intended to solve; important responsibilities delegated to inept political cronies; dithering, cowardly leadership when it counts; stiff and peevish public communication; staged photo-ops to give the illusion of progress; wholesale dishonesty in the face of probing questions; and generous attempts to intimidate anyone raising legitimate criticisms.

Considering the surprising aggressiveness of the press during the crisis, there was some cause for hope that the moment of recognition of the reality of this Administration might finally be at hand.

Hah! This morning, David Broder, �dean� of the Washington punditocracy, wrote:

It took almost no time for President Bush to put his stamp on the national response to the tragedy that has befallen New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, a reminder that modern communications have reshaped the constitutional division of powers in our government in ways that the Founding Fathers never could have imagined.

Because the commander in chief is also the communicator in chief, when a crisis emerges the nation's eyes turn to him as to no other official. We cannot yet calculate the political fallout from Hurricane Katrina and its devastating human and economic consequences, but one thing seems certain: It makes the previous signs of political weakness for Bush, measured in record-low job approval ratings, instantly irrelevant and opens new opportunities for him to regain his standing with the public.

What planet does this guy live on?

Is there any act of malfeasance, cowardice or mendacity that Broder and his ilk won�t look upon as an �opportunity� for Bush to reverse his unbroken lifelong record of abject, inveterate failure? Is there any limit to the amount of delusory wishful thinking, any end to the river of indulgence extended to this trainwreck of an Administration, any fact under the sun that will break the spell of infantile happy talk that has displaced constructive, rational analysis in our public discourse?

I would say that it�s this disconnect between the plain obvious truth and the inexplicably mild reactions of Washington pundits and politicians (especially Democrats) that has been consistently the most frustrating aspect of Bush�s presidency.

Bush�s policies have destroyed our international prestige, exposed the limits of our military power, shredded the social contract, pushed millions of hard-working people to the brink of economic despair, and put at risk the basic protections of our Constitution. Within living memory, the American government was able to accomplish great things: a successful space program, the construction of the interstate highway system, the R&D that laid the groundwork for the Internet. Today, our capacity to perform the most basic core functions of protecting citizens and providing relief from natural disasters is in question, if not in ruins. Moreover, this destruction was accomplished with the speed of a family gambling away their savings, their kids� college fund, and the title to their house during a long weekend in Vegas.

Bush�s supporters not only don�t apologize for this record, they brag about it and promise more of the same. Read Grover Norquist. Read Pat Robertson. Read the PNAC manifesto. The intentions of these folks couldn�t be clearer, and they are determined to have their way regardless of any real-world consequences.

And yet, otherwise-sane people look on all of this without alarm and without any apparent sense of concern or urgency. �Well, he means well, and he�s the only President we have,� or, �Maybe the Democrat would have been worse.�

As if anyone in the history of the Republic, with the possible exceptions of James Buchanan and Herbert Hoover, has ever been worse.

As if this lazy, cowardly, dull-witted man whose every public utterance is tinged with annoyance at the very concept of having to answer for his actions, might someday rise to the occasion the way we all agreed to pretend he had after 9/11 (once he put down My Pet Goat, emerged from running scared all day on Air Force One and changed into some dry pants).

As if there were even the chance that a group of people defined by their contempt for community, their disparagement of the idea of the �public good� and their sense of entitlement to power might somehow propose policies that promote broad-based prosperity instead of the most short-sighted looting of the public treasury for private gain.

The people who support Bush out of ignorance, ideological fanaticism or short-sighted self-interest are bad enough (and if I ever start to believe that these folks constitute an actual majority of Americans, I will think hard about leaving the country). But what�s worse are those, like Broder and his ilk whose intelligence, experience and conscience should serve them better, but don�t � and among this sorry lot I include shamefully large numbers of Democratic officeholders, consultants and opinionmakers. You are doing no good and much harm by your constant apologies for Bush, by your hopeless attempts to compromise and accommodate with the unacceptable, and your unending stream of fanciful excuses and false hopes. By your complicity, you have enabled nothing less than the rapid destruction of everything that makes America great.

There was some hope that the stark images of Katrina � the human suffering contrasted with the loathsome indifference and incompetence of Bush and his cronies � might finally break the spell. Obviously Broder�s skull is too thick for even this kind of blow. And so I�m left wondering: what more will it take? Are we all now victims of the soft bigotry of low expectations?

12:09:45 PM

Emphasize This! []

Friday, September 02, 2005

Bush�s Moment of Truth

Bashing Bush over the increasingly tragic mishandling of the Katrina aftermath in New Orleans smacks of politics. Bush is the most partisan president in recent memory, presiding over a hostile and arrogant Republican Party whose central mission is to extirpate liberalism from American culture. Anything critical of Bush and Republicans is therefore first viewed through the prism of this partisan death-match, as a tactic by which Democrats can reclaim political power by capitalizing on misfortune.

There�s another aspect to Bush�s job, however, often lost in the welter of politics. That is governing. He�s the President, in charge of the executive branch of government. In this role, he has certain responsibilities. At the end of the day, citizens are entitled to have basic expectations about the capabilities and competence of their government, regardless of which political party is in charge. Disaster response is pretty much at the top of the list.

It�s not clear from the news today whether the situation in New Orleans is beginning to stabilize or is still deteriorating. At this point, however, that�s not the whole story. The slow response over the past three days has done irreparable damage. Lives and property have been needlessly lost, public order was allowed to crumble perilously, and faith in our government�s basic capabilities has been shaken. Whatever happens today and tomorrow can�t undo the errors that have inarguably been directly caused by executive indifference and incompetence.

Unlike Iraq, which is far away, this is all happening right here in America, with the full scrutiny of the American people. Under these circumstances, it�s not a matter of politics to hold the President to certain standards of performance. How poorly things are going on the Gulf Coast isn�t a matter of opinion or relative standards; the excuses for inaction are not subject to endlessly-shifting justifications, as in Iraq. There�s no tinge of disloyalty in criticizing the government response to Katrina. Whatever opponents can say about Democrats, they�re not on the side of natural disasters.

This President, who is good enough at the political game to get himself elected, turns out not to be much good at the basic job he was elected to do. To date, in the face of the terrorist threat, Bush has been able to placate a fair number of people by talking a good game and �standing tall,� even as astute observers point out the failure of his policies to meet their stated objectives. The presence of a clearly �evil� human foe has provided justification for practically every crazy whim and freakish policy Bush has pursued at home and abroad.

Now Katrina presents a moment of truth. There�s no enemy to fight, just human needs to be met, through the kind of basic effective action that any American has a right to expect from its government. Amazingly, at this late date, I�m not convinced that Republicans in the government, starting with Bush, really think this is their problem. Which begs the question: what exactly do they think they are supposed to be doing?

In this light, it�s not primarily a partisan matter, as much as Bush would like it to be so. It�s entirely possible that another Republican wouldn�t be as helpless and inept in the face of difficulty as Bush, and Jimmy Carter sadly proved that inability to handle crisis isn�t limited to Republicans. But Carter faced his moment of accountability in 1980, and the American people demanded better � including many Democrats who voted for Reagan or Anderson. Bush, who made it past his final election, is surrounded by lockstep Republicans in all branches of government and buffered by a �base� that would applaud if he personally burned down their own homes, is happily insulated from the consequences of his failure. The people who put him in charge, against the overwhelming evidence of his lack of competence and seriousness, however, have a lot to answer for.

12:28:55 PM

Emphasize This! []

Monday, August 22, 2005

Win or Leave

Yesterday I promised to suggest a coherent position for Democrats on Iraq and those three words are it: �Win or leave.� Basically, make it clear that if Bush is ready to do what it takes to use Iraq as the cornerstone of a genuine, effective anti-terror strategy in the Middle East � really do what it takes � then Democrats will support him. But if not, then we need to bring the troops home now, because leaving them there under current conditions will only get more Americans killed and do nothing to forward American interests.

To make this message credible, Democrats need to communicate a few key points.

The current strategy has failed. Bush has wasted two and a half years in Iraq, seemingly guided more by the political imperative to minimize the domestic impact of the war than trying to win it. He and his commanders have made blunder after blunder. At this point, it is impossible to see how the current process will produce anything worth having in Iraq, either for those Iraqis who really want freedom or for Americans who want a stable regime to help secure the region.

If Bush isn�t willing to do what�s necessary to clean up his mess, then what�s the point? Allowing the conflict to fester at a low level while Iraqi politicians contrive some kind of backward, mullah-ridden theo-kleptocracy with institutionalized tribal conflict (euphemistically referred to as �federalism� � James Madison would be turning in his grave!) does not require the further participation of American troops, American money or the American people.

Define victory: Victory in Iraq is not an Islamist state. Period. If that�s what the people there want, then Iraq isn�t ready for democracy. I think most Americans will agree, especially if it turns out Bush�s vision for a �free Iraq� includes half the population stripped of its rights and law and society reduced to medieval conditions. Coming home after this outcome is dishonest and unacceptable, both from the perspective of our interests and our values.

No, victory in Iraq looks like Turkey in 1925: a fledgling Western-oriented secular state with a strong central government, rapidly expanding infrastructure, committed to education and social advancement, with its �democracy� closely supervised by a military committed to modern technocratic principles (and hostile to any form of religious extremism). Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish state, sometimes stood for election, but was essentially a benevolent dictator. He used his direct power over the military to turn it into the strongest institution in the country, capable not only of keeping order but of promoting the values of law and scientific management across a state that was, at the time, at least as poor, pathetic, violent, fanatical and humiliated as Iraq is today. In a remarkably short period of time, he turned the old Ottoman Empire (the �sick man of Europe�) into a fully functioning country with public safety, a decent economy, and basic freedoms, which has maintained steady progress to this day. Turkey isn�t perfect � it still has its ethnic and religious conflicts and its government (frequently an imperfect democracy by American standards) has tended toward the oppressive on occasion � but if we could put Iraq on this path, we could rightly call our mission there a success.

Explain the costs: Turning Iraq into Turkey can�t be done with 120,000 American troops and $500 billion. It can�t be done with mercenaries and profiteers running all over the place, often at odds with the military. It can�t be done by perpetuating the sham of �democratization,� in which the political future of the country is left to a council of scheming tribesmen and religious fanatics.

Turning Iraq into something that actually fulfills America�s (and the West�s) strategic, political and economic interests means sending as many troops as necessary to entirely pacify the country and crush the insurgency. This can�t be done cheap and easy with air power and laser-guided missiles. It might mean half a million or more boots on the ground, going village to village, making the massive show of American power and will that should have been done in 2003. Even this is no guarantee of victory at this late date, but if we�re serious, then we owe it the maximum effort.

It might mean a draft. It will certainly mean higher taxes and shared sacrifice. It will likely mean relinquishing some of the economic and political decision-making to allies willing to share the burdens. And it will definitely mean cleaning house of all the civilian and military decision-makers whose unbroken chain of errors and misjudgments has pushed us to the brink of defeat. But if Bush and the Republicans truly mean what they say about the importance of Iraq in the War on Terror, in creating a new and better Middle East, and in protecting the American people, then this is what it will take. Their claims to the contrary now rest on a solid foundation of failure, lies and mistakes.

Make it a clear choice. If Bush has the stomach to go for a meaningful victory and is willing to appoint (then trust) competent professionals to carry out the plan, Democrats should be willing to support it. But if he isn�t � and of course he isn�t � then it�s time to come home. The endless succession of half-measures aren�t making progress, they�re making things worse.

Iraq is an American crisis, caused by Republicans � and Republicans are still in charge. Finally, Democrats need to hammer home the point that, although they support American victory and in some cases voted for the war, no Democrat would have put America into this position in the first place, and most in the Party deplore the chain of incompetence that has made such a rotten choice necessary. Furthermore, with the 2002 and 2004 elections, Democrats have no say in policy-making, and their proposals have been ignored (often contemptuously) at every turn.

Still, what�s most important at the end of the day is American values, American security and American interests. Democrats should be prepared to do what it takes to achieve those things in Iraq as the first option, should the Republican leadership decide on that course. But if not, there�s no further need to pretend that Bush�s current policies do anything to promote a positive outcome. Staying the course we�re on will lead to defeat and humiliation, likely exposing us to even greater dangers.

In 2003, Bush was successful making the argument that �the costs of doing nothing� about Saddam were higher than the potential costs of war. Today, the same argument applies. The costs of drifting along in Iraq while the country makes uncertain progress toward an undesirable objective are higher than the costs of victory, and higher than the costs of rapid withdrawal.

Win or leave, Mr. President. It�s up to you.

10:17:33 AM

Emphasize This! []

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Convergence

I don�t read Little Green Footballs that often, but the Daou Report directed me to their take on the rumors that America has �compromised� with Shiite Islamists to make Shari�a (Islamic law) the basis of the new Iraqi constitution. Linking to this Reuters article, LGF issues the usual caveats about �MSM bias,� then adds, �but if it�s even remotely accurate this is bad. Very bad.�

Readers of the highly conservative site largely concurred in the comments. Here�s a selection:

I will lose all support for this effort if Sharia is implemented there. How sad would it be to have the women there have less rights under the new government then under Saddam. jon_force 8/20/2005 08:47AM PDT

It would be very wrong if we went thru all this and the Iraqi's ratified a constitution based on Sharia law. Then they'd have to decide what version of Sharia they are basing their laws upon. That could take another 100 years. ggt 8/20/2005 09:22AM PDT

Well, if this is really how it goes down, then I'm of a mind to think we need to get our troops home asafp because yes, it was all in vain and yes, bush is a moron.

[later, replying to a taunt]

Dawning of the age of aqueerious? Bud, I eat liberals for breakfast and pick my teeth with their bones.

I "expect" that the administration would apply the appropriate pressure to ensure the post war Iraq does not become Iran Jr.

That is, as a red blooded veteran, exactly wtf I "expect" Tangonine 8/20/2005 10:14AM PDT

The bottom line--we don't have anyone in authority willing to win this war, in either party, and that means all-out war in the near future.

The consequences of this treachery may be what undoes Bush, if these reports are accurate. The Bruce 8/20/2005 10:35AM PDT

this sends a cold chill thru my entire body.

if sharia does come to iraq, i predict you will see heretofore loyal W's like myself taking to the streets in despair anger and disgust.

lets wait to see what happens but something like thins would make the sacrifices of EVERYONE who has served and died in this war since 9/11 a TOTAL WASTE.

PLEASE, W, pay attention to this and DO NOT LET IT HAPPEN.

we have come so far so fast to piss this chance away.

how ironic would it be, that in the aftermath of this fight, freedom comes slowly but surely to places like lebanon and egypt (wait and see too but theres hope), while the freedom our brave GI's and all our allies fought to secure gets pissed away in iraq.

that would be the cruelest cut of all.

please please dont let this happen. cali white bear 8/20/2005 10:45AM PDT

These folks, I remind you, are George W. Bush�s rabid supporters. Almost the entire rest of the Little Green Footballs page is devoted to stories ridiculing Cindy Sheehan, bashing the Red Cross as a tool of liberals, and calling the BBC anti-Semetic.

And here they are, basically agreeing with Digby.

Let�s forgive our friends on the Right for only now understanding that �democracy� in Iraq means giving power to a majority that is profoundly illiberal, religiously aligned with Iran, and not especially interested in American values or American interests. Let�s even forgive them for failing to understand how this was the almost inevitable outcome once Bush decided on the Iraq invasion. It�s not in their nature to question the seriousness, sincerity, or competence of their leaders, or to readily believe evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

But at the same time, Bush captured the imagination of these folks by promising to stand tall for American values and kick the ass of our freedom-hating, suicide bombing, Koran-believing Islamist enemies. They�re willing to stand for the occasional setback, screwup or atrocity along the way. These things happen in war, after all, and in any case, the media probably made it all up to make America look bad.

At some point, though, there�s no way to sugarcoat it, even to people eager to swallow bullshit by the shovelfull. Signing the place over to the Bad Guys is not a victory. Creating a pro-Iranian Islamic Republic in Iraq is not a fit mission for American troops and it�s sure as hell no reason for Americans to die.

We�ll know pretty soon if this is really the position our leadership is willing to settle for as the price of leaving Iraq as fast as possible. If it is, George W. Bush will have truly done the impossible: taken the first steps toward unifying the Red-Blue divide in opposition to his own failure!

2:00:06 PM

Emphasize This! []

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Is Pessimism Patriotic?

Mark Kleinman points to an intelligent and honest discussion taking place at the Volkh Conspiracy, a Republican-leaning blog run by a few lawyers. One especially good post talks about the matrix of possible outcomes, as follows:

The U.S. beats back the insurgency and democracy flowers in Iraq (call this the "optimistic stay" scenario),
The U.S. digs in its heels, spends years fighting the insurgency, loses lots of troops, and years later withdraws, leading to a bloody and disastrous civil war (the "pessimistic stay" scenario);
The U.S. decides that it's no longer worth it to stay in Iraq, pulls out relatively soon, and things in Iraq are about as best as you could hope for, perhaps leading to a decent amount of democracy (optimistic leave), and
The U.S. decides that it's no longer worth it to stay in Iraq, pulls out soon, and plunges Iraq into a bloody and disastrous civil war with the bad guys assuming control eventually (pessimistic leave).

From a scenario-planning perspective, this seems like an exhaustive range of options. If your observations and political biases lead you to believe that staying will promote option 1 rather than 2, while leaving will promote 4 rather than 3, then the obvious policy is to stay the course, whereas if you see staying as leading to option 2 and leaving likely to produce option 3, then if makes sense to promote a fairly rapid wind-down.

But what if observation of both the situation and the capabilities of current American leadership (not American troops or America generally) lead you to see the likely outcomes as 2 or 4? That is, at this point, whether we stay or go, the situation is irretrievably lost from the perspective of American (and liberal Iraqi) interests because of an accumulation of prior mistakes and the finite limits of American power.

As readers of this blog may have gleaned from subtle hints here and there, I basically believe we�ve past the last exit to �good outcome� and are stuck on the highway to hell. Whether it�s a fast ride or a slow one doesn�t change the destination. But that doesn�t mean that I wouldn�t be happy to be proven wrong. I just got off the phone with a good friend of mine, smart guy and hardcore Democratic political operative, who is nowhere near as pessimistic as I am. My problem is that the chart of the odds that America under Bush could salvage a respectable outcome in Iraq looks a lot like the chart of the Seattle Mariners� odds of making the playoffs this year. It doesn�t make me less of a fan to acknowledge the verdict of reality.

The distinction that the Right can�t seem to get their little brains around is the one between thinking that things will turn out rotten and hoping that they do. Volkh conducted a survey on his site to find out exactly how many �leftists� vocally sympathized with the Iraqi insurgents � that is, supported their aims in the same way that some on the far Left supported Ho Chi Mihn and the North during Vietnam (as opposed to just protesting American involvement). Unsurprisingly, his survey turned up nary a name: a big fat zero among Democratic office holders or office seekers, prominent academics, journalists, or media types.

My disagreement with our friends on the Right over the politics of the war, then, rests on three basic points:

Intellectual: Some folks look at the same information that I do about the war and reasonably come to a different conclusion. To me, this is the most honest sort of difference. I readily admit that both my data and my analytic framework are incomplete, and if someone can make a convincing argument that my view is wrong on the merits, I�m happy to listen.
Practical: Obviously, most people prefer good news to bad. The Right-wing authors of this war therefore have a vested political interest in keeping the spin relentlessly upbeat, even in the face of contrary facts. The pessimism of war opponents, even if well grounded, is hard to swallow because it portends a moment of accountability that they are hoping to avoid. I understand the motivations behind this sort of �tactical optimism,� but because I don�t share their larger political objectives, I obviously have no interest in subscribing to it.
Metaphysical. For some people, loyalty and obedience to authority are higher values than intellectual honesty. While these people are inherently capable of recognizing the truth of the war-skeptics� claims, to do so would be intolerably offensive to their principles. They placed their faith and trust in Bush, and they won�t withdraw that faith and trust for anything. One extension of that urge to loyalty is to suspect anyone who doesn�t share their trust in leadership of the darkest motives. Dissent, to this sort of person, is axiomatically dishonorable. Truth, as they say, is no defense against libel.

In my experience, you can have a satisfactory intellectual debate with someone of different opinions, you can get along with those of opposite politics by stipulating that it�s legitimate for others to fight for their own interests (even if they conflict with yours), but it�s impossible to make headway with those in group number three.

One reason it�s so frustrating to argue about the war is that proponents often embody all three of these qualities. The tribal urge to loyalty comes first, bolstered by a whole arsenal of pre-fabricated political tactics and catch phrases (disseminated over right-wing talk radio), slathered over with a patina of carefully-selected �facts.� To such people, whether you�re wrong in your analysis, wrong because of your political affiliation, or wrong because you dare to question Dear Leader is an academic question that they have little to no interest in sorting out.

For this reason, it�s gratifying to see folks like the Volkh crowd trying to get to the bottom of this question of �do war opponents actually support the insurgents?� It�s an honest effort to clear away the intractable problems of issue #3 so that we can discuss the war as a practical and political problem without calling into play the whole emotional apparatus of loyalty and tribalism.

11:24:18 AM

Emphasize This! []

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Reality Bites

Following up on yesterday�s post, I want to clarify exactly what�s the important lesson to be learned about the Iraq situation and the capability of the Bush Administration to competently develop and run effective policies. Obviously, at this late date, the litany of blunders in Iraq is written in ink. It�s ultimately futile to look back at the record to see exactly how many times the President�s assurances have turned up rotten and how many neo-con predictions ran hard aground on unyielding reality, merely for the satisfaction of wagging a finger and saying �told you so.�

What is important to examine is, how did the process break? How did the truth get ignored in favor of dangerous fantasy, and how can we break that cycle?

First, when we talk about risk assessments and forecasting for something as complicated and important as a war, we�re not talking about the random musings of bloggers and pundits. You can go out on the Web and find all kinds of chatter in the months leading up to the war, pointing out the distinct possibilities of civil war, the dangers of rejecting international support for the occupation, the untrustworthiness of the Iraqi exile community that we were apparently going to rely on to govern post-Saddam Iraq, the problems of restarting the oil industry, and nearly everything else that�s gone wrong. Some of the people who were writing this were simply marshalling arguments to justify a pre-existing anti-war position. But others were looking carefully at facts and listening to convincing voices urging caution.

Remember, in the months before the war, the most credible critics were those within the government and within the Administration. OMB Director Larry Lindsay predicted the war would cost $200M (a conservative estimate in light of later developments, but considered such an outrageous statement at the time he made it that he was fired). General Eric Shinseki warned that it would take 200,000 troops to pacify the country (a forecast that also won him premature retirement). Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and perhaps Colin Powell himself disliked and distrusted Neocon poster-boy Ahmed Chalabi and distrusted pre-war intelligence estimates. Both they and their planning board that drew up extensive post-war strategies were ignored and marginalized. Former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter even dared to suggest that Saddam didn�t actually have WMDs.

It�s not enough to say that all of these people �turned out to be right.� It�s not like they were sitting in their offices with a Ouija Board and a crystal ball, making wild guesses that reflected their pessimistic anti-Americanism. There�s a discipline to building accurate forecasts from existing information (I speak from experience � this is what I do for a living). There are methods such as scenario planning to help policymakers understand the risk/reward logic of particular decisions, identify early indicators that might lead to certain outcomes, and highlight points of leverage in a dynamic situation.

Forecasting isn�t perfect, of course. There are always variables you can�t account for, outcomes you can�t predict. That�s why the one basic rule for successful planning is, don�t overweight your efforts toward one preferred scenario; try to plan a strategy that plays well across the most possible scenarios, including the more challenging ones.

Most observers could see in real time that these principles were completely disregarded in the run-up to the war. Bush and his inner circle had preemptively determined that the risks associated with Saddam having WMDs justified the even the known costs of a war and occupation. They preemptively dismissed the efficacy of arms inspections, the utility of international cooperation, the need to prepare the public for the realities of an occupation. They underestimated the cost and complexity of the occupation, they ignored well-founded concerns about the likelihood of religious strife, they overestimated the help that Iraqi exiles could provide in post-war administration, they miscalculated the reaction of the local population, and seemed to have no understanding of the importance of maintaining the existing physical and administrative infrastructure in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. Sadly, this is but a partial recounting of the errors of judgment made in the first 30 months of the war.

Now our government surely gets some things wrong. But, under normal conditions, it doesn�t get all these things wrong, or produce results so dramatically at odds with its intentions. It�s not enough to say this was a problem of planning, or that there was no way to know any of this stuff. There were plenty of ways to know, and the evidence indicates that many people in key positions understood the situation well enough to anticipate and develop a strategies against non-optimal outcomes. Almost everyone up to the highest levels was doing their best to give the President and his advisors a clear picture of how the war would play out. And comparing some of their estimates with later events, it turned out they did a pretty good job.

We also know that Bush and his inner circle not only rejected this advice, they marginalized, ridiculed, smeared and fired those inside and outside the government who tried to make it part of the public debate.

In other words, the problem was squarely one of executive leadership, not staff work. Bush chose to ignore the considered judgments of experienced professionals applying proven analytical methods against real information, in favor of a style of decision making that has consistently produced unimaginably bad outcomes every time he applies it. The President puts his faith in fanciful theories, which his supporters present as facts � often with such insistence that it�s hard for non-specialists to understand the difference.

We�re at the point now where many Americans are finally asking how many people have to die before the President recognizes the limitations of his faith-based decision-making process? How many more blunders and broken promises before the arrogance gives way to a bit of humility before the hard facts of the real world, and the genuine intellectual skills it takes to make sense of them?

People are finally starting to see the limitations of Bush as a leader � though it�s too late to do anything about that. But what really needs to be discredited is the whole process of ideology and delusional optimism substituting for the hard work of analysis and planning. We have good tools at our disposal to promote our interests, meet complex challenges, and plan ahead for ourselves and future generations. Here�s hoping our next President is someone who actually knows how to use them.

3:49:32 PM

Emphasize This! []