Iraq and Vietnam

An entire cottage industry of blogs has sprung up that try to compare Iraq to Vietnam, from any number of political perspectives. Iraq is another quagmire; Iraq, like Vietnam, will be lost by the antiwar protesters; Iraq isn't even close to being Vietnam because we've had far fewer troops killed so far.

Most of it is noise. There are ways in which the two wars are comparable, but it's not the common ones you keep hearing.

Quagmire
While there is a rational argument to be made that Iraq is an unwinnable mess given our current resource allocation, the fundamentals of the situation bear little resemblance to Vietnam, where South Vietnam faced an insurgency/invasion backed by a dedicated nation state that was itself supported and protected by the Soviets and Chinese. That's far more resources and force than this insurgency will ever be able to apply.

Losing the war at home
This is a common trope, but it ignores two things.

1. Coverage of antiwar protesters tends to increase support for any given war, since many people are turned off by the often anarchic tactics of such protesters.

2. Policy and opinion shape each other. If a war is going well, antiwar protesters would be marginalized. If a war is going poorly, they gain credibility. The protesters themselves don't sway opinion very much; they are more a symptom than a cause of falling support.

Casualty rates
Comparing casualty rates is silly, as if every conflict carries the same geopolitical interest, or as if it's not worth complaining until we've flushed X number of lives down the rathole.

The only calculation that matters is this: Are our objectives achievable at an acceptable cost. That calculation is different for each conflict, turning as it does on the importance of the conflict and the scope and achievability of the objectives.

"They will have died in vain"
The silliest argument of all for reinforcing failure. We've already had people die in this war; if we pull out now we'll be saying they "died in vain."

In Vietnam we lost 58,000 soldiers -- not to mention the million or so dead Vietnamese combatants on both sides -- and lost. In the simplest analysis, we could have achieved the exact same result at far lower cost had we pulled out after the first advisor was killed back in the 50s. Arguably the result would have actually been better, because we would not have staked our national prestige on the conflict and not have had to endure the disintegration of our armed forces that followed Vietnam.

I'm not saying we should pull out every time the going gets rough. I'm merely trying to point out the absurdity of casualty comparisons or the "died in vain" argument. Using that logic, 58,000 people died in vain in Vietnam. Had we pulled out earlier, tens of thousands of people *wouldn't* have died in vain.

So what are the parallels to Vietnam? This: Both wars had at best a murky connection to any compelling national interest, were entered into without building and sustaining public support, undertaken with inadequate planning and fought with a flawed strategy.

As Churchill learned in the Dardanelles campaign during World War I, reinforcing failure merely creates an even bigger and bloodier failure. The relevant question here isn't "have we bled enough". It's "is our objective achievable at acceptable cost."

Given our refusal to sent sufficient troops to actually achieve our objectives, I think the first question is more relevant than the second. We have already decided there is a cost we are not willing to pay; and given that, our objective is not achievable.

And you can't blame the Dems for this one.

Vietnam, Iraq, politics, midtopia

Some home truths about our Iraq strategy

This Sunday's New York Times Magazine had an excellent piece on the progress of the Iraqi army, from a reporter who traveled to Anbar province to see them in action.

Some excerpts:

Anbar has long been what the military calls an “economy of force” operation, which is a polite way of saying that troop requirements elsewhere in Iraq have led American commanders to employ fewer forces in the province than the situation warrants. As a consequence, counterinsurgency operations have taken on the quality of a whack-a-mole arcade game. Every time the Americans have massed force to put out one fire, they have created a vacuum elsewhere that the insurgents have rushed to fill. When the Marines gathered forces to clear Falluja in 2004, they drew troops from the Haditha area, where the insurgents promptly moved in and executed the defenseless local police near the town’s soccer field. The Marines returned in strength to Haditha and established several forward bases, including the one at Barwana, but then many of the troops were sent to the far west when commanders decided to clear Al Qaim, near the Syrian border. And the insurgents filtered back to Haditha.

Gosh. How surprising. Been saying that for years.

Some of the Marine officers I talked with were frank about the need for more American troops. Lt. Col. Ronald Gridley, executive officer with Regimental Combat Team 7, which has responsibility for a major swath of the province, told me during a visit to the unit’s headquarters at Al Asad that the regiment has recommended that additional troops be allocated to its section of Anbar. A battalion or two, he said, would help a great deal. “What we recommend and what we get is going to be two different things,” Colonel Gridley said. “In our perfect world, we could use some more infantrymen to be able to patrol the streets and partner with the Iraqi Army.”

But wait. I thought the commanders were getting all the troops they needed?

Officially, the Bush administration’s strategy is: Clear, hold and build. But with limited American forces to do any clearing, the war in western Iraq looks much more like hang on and hand over. Hang on against an insurgency that seems to be laying roadside bombs as quickly as they are discovered, and hand over to an Iraqi military that is still a work in progress.

Yep. We have refused to commit the resources necessary to execute our stated strategy. Not sure what you would call that, but it sure isn't "success."

The Iraqi Army itself, while all-volunteer and reasonably well motivated, is hobbled by corruption, bureaucracy and a society lacking in some basic infrastructure.

Greenwood explained that the pay issues in Haditha were quite common. In the Anbar region, about 550 Iraqi soldiers received no pay for June, while another 2,200 were receiving less pay than they were entitled to by rank. During one of his many trips to Baghdad to wrestle with the Iraqi bureaucracy, Greenwood was told that 19 men who were owed back pay had mysteriously vanished from the rolls of trained soldiers — and the only way they could get back on the payroll was to go through boot camp all over again.

Logistics was another of Greenwood’s worries. American commanders in Baghdad had pushed the Iraqis to take over responsibility for their own logistics, but that led to cases in which Iraqi soldiers had received spoiled meat and rotten vegetables. ...

Each month, Iraqi soldiers are granted about a week’s leave to deliver their pay to their families, who may live hundreds of miles away, a tradition that reflects the lack of an effective banking system in Iraq. With all the dangers, hardships and problems in receiving pay, the soldiers do not always come back.

The article notes that the people on the ground are professional, capable and motivated. But the problems appear to be endemic and pervasive -- and getting worse rather than better.

This is not winning. This is hanging on -- while the insurgency gets stronger.

terrorism, Iraq, politics, midtopia

The reviews are getting worse

As we march toward the November elections, the reviews of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq are getting worse.

Joe Lieberman turns around and bites the GOP hand that was wooing him, joining Hillary Clinton in saying Donald Rumsfeld should resign.

"With all respect to Don Rumsfeld, who has done a grueling job for six years, we would benefit from new leadership to work with our military in Iraq," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Lieberman said the Bush administration should have sent more troops into Iraq "to secure the country."

"We had a naive vision that the Iraqis were going to embrace us and then go on and live happily ever after," he said.

It's kind of sad when it takes a senior senator three years to reach the same conclusion many of us reached soon after the invasion.

Meanwhile, Chuck Hagel says the GOP has lost its way.

"First time I voted was in 1968 on top of a tank in the Mekong Delta," said Hagel, a Vietnam veteran. "I voted a straight Republican ticket. The reason I did is because I believe in the Republican philosophy of governance. It's not what it used to be. I don't think it's the same today."

Hagel asked: "Where is the fiscal responsibility of the party I joined in '68? Where is the international engagement of the party I joined _ fair, free trade, individual responsibility, not building a bigger government, but building a smaller government?"

His frustration does not lead him to think Democrats offer a better alternative. But Hagel wants to see the GOP return to its basic beliefs.

"I think we've lost our way," Hagel said. "And I think the Republicans are going to be in some jeopardy for that and will be held accountable."

Besides opinion polls showing sagging support for our strategy in Iraq, there might be a couple of other explanations for the increasingly pessimistic views.

One is a NYT Magazine piece from this Sunday, which I'll blog about next.

The other is the increasing opinion among security experts that we're losing. Foreign Policy magazine surveyed 100 experts -- conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat. A whopping 84 percent said we're not winning the fight against terror. Most were critical of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, our overreliance on force, and many other aspects of our antiterror strategy.

The list of respondents is here.

Administration supporters like to criticize their opponents for not having an alternative plan. That's false on the face of it: Lots of plans exist, from "send more troops" to "pull out now." But the argument skips over the real issue. A basic military maxim is "don't reinforce failure." Continuing to tout a failing strategy -- and that's essentially what "stay the course" means -- is a worse failure. You may not like the alternative options, but if the choice is between a failed plan and trying something else, you try something else.

Hagel, Lieberman, terrorism, Rumsfeld, Iraq, politics, midtopia

Bush signs pension bill

Back in May I lauded a Bush administration proposal on pension reform.

Today, Bush signed the pension bill into law.

It doesn't mirror the president's proposals exactly, but the big stuff is there: stricter funding rules and greater disclosure. Most of the noise and criticism surrounding the bill have focused on Congressional provisions, such as special treatment for airlines and defense contractors and legislation covering cash-balance plans.

Overall it appears to be a decent bill that will force companies to make good on the promises they make their workers -- and hopefully prompt them to make more realistic promises in the future.

pensions, Bush, politics, midtopia

GOP losing support in the heartland

David Broder lays it out:

What I heard here -- and in subsequent interviews at the National Governors Association convention in Charleston, S.C. -- from one Republican after another signaled serious trouble for the GOP across a broad swath of states from Pennsylvania to Oklahoma in key midterm election contests for House, Senate and governor.

The impression these Republicans had is that support for GOP candidates had nose-dived this summer -- in part because of the chaos conveyed by the daily televised scenes of destruction in Iraq and Lebanon and in part because of the dismal reputation built by the Republican Congress that is home to many of the endangered GOP candidates.

Remember, this is Republicans saying the GOP will lose big.

He even touches on Minnesota, noting that Mark Kennedy badly trails Amy Klobuchar in the Senate race.

It's only August, and never underestimate the ability of Democrats to fumble away a sure thing. But the signs increasingly point to a GOP massacre in November.

Mark Kennedy, Klobuchar, Minnesota, Ohio, politics, midtopia

Harris' destroying touch

Katherine Harris' Senate campaign makes another misstep.

In the U.S. Senate primary, Rep. Katherine Harris has been touting key political endorsements from fellow Republican lawmakers. The problem is, some of them never endorsed her.

Several members of the U.S. House called the Harris campaign to complain Wednesday after the St. Petersburg Times notified them of the endorsements listed on Harris' Web site. Minutes later, their names were removed.

Apparently any sort of connection to Harris is enough to bring down doom. The frontrunner in the GOP primary to replace Harris in her House seat has apparently self-destructed after an anecdote about blacks' swimming ability was caught on video.

This is the state that we let decide presidential elections?

Tramm Hudson, Harris, politics, midtopia

Judge rules NSA wiretapping unconstitutional

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's ruling was in response to an ACLU lawsuit.

She said the taps violate free speech and privacy rights. I'm not so sure about the free speech argument. The privacy argument is stronger, though a lot of people argue that the idea of a right to privacy is a myth.

In any case, this bumps the pressure on the government up several notches. I presume the government will appeal the decision, which could lead to a Supreme Court ruling depending on what the appeals court does.

Update: The Detroit Free Press has a bio of the judge.

Update II: Here's the text of the ruling, in PDF format.

Update III: The link is updated to note that the judge issued an immediate injunction against the taps, meaning this will be decided very quickly at the Appeals level.

ACLU, NSA, terrorism, politics, midtopia

Mideast moves

The Lebanese Army began deploying into south Lebanon today.

In Marjayoun, a key town near the Israeli border that was briefly occupied by Israeli forces during their incursion into Lebanon, flatbed trucks carrying 20 Lebanese tanks arrived early Thursday along with a dozen trucks loaded with troops and hoisting Lebanese flags.

Residents welcomed the troops in Marjayoun and nearby villages, a largely Christian area where Hezbollah's Shiite Muslim militants have little support.

"I feel safer now," said Shadi Shammas, a 30-year-old Marjayoun native. "The army before was not like now. Now, if Hezbollah has guns, the army can take them and that wasn't the case before."

Lebanese troops are in Marjayoun for the first time in 40 years.

The deployment has been accompanied by some fiery anti-Israeli rhetoric, but at the moment actions are the important thing.

Separately, Palestinian President Mahmous Abbas said he struck a deal with Gaza militants to stop firing rockets into Israel.

And he said more:

In his speech, Abbas said the Palestinians were putting together a plan to be presented to the United Nations to try to revive the stalled peace process. He gave no details about the plan but said he was working on it with Arab states.

Sounds like the talk-violence cycle in the Mideast is coming around to a talk phase.

Abbas, Gaza, Palestine, Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, politics, midtopia

Israel begins handing over positions

The Lebanese government finally approved plans to deploy troops to South Lebanon, and Israel began handing positions over to the United Nations. The Israeli Army said it had already handed over half of the Lebanese territory it holds.

As expected, the developing reality is not perfect:

The Lebanese Cabinet decision fell short of agreement on disarming the Shiite Muslim militant group, which has insisted it has the right to defend Lebanese territory as long as Israeli troops remain in the country.

But we shouldn't let the perfect get in the way of the pretty good. Hezbollah is being ejected from south Lebanon, arms or no arms. And Lebanon is insisting that the government will have a monopoly on the use of force.

In a televised address, Prime Minister Fuad Saniora praised Lebanon's resistance, saying it showed that Israel's military was "no longer a force that cannot be resisted, an army that cannot be defeated."

He said Lebanon has the right to take charge of its destiny and warned of foreign meddling that has made the country into a battleground for Israelis, Palestinians, Syrians and Iranians over the decades.

The government ordered the army to "insure respect" for the Blue Line, the U.N.-demarcated border between Lebanon and Israel, and "apply the existing laws with regard to any weapons outside the authority of the Lebanese state."

This is progress.

The Lebanese are assembled north of the Litani River and will begin crossing into south Lebanon on Thursday.

Lebanon, Hezbollah, Israel, politics, midtopia

Moderate support

Just as the netroots left of the Democratic Party led a charge to unseat Joe Lieberman, the conservative Club For Growth -- fresh off a victory against moderate Republican Joe Schwarz in Michigan -- is leading a charge against Rhode Island's Republican senator, Lincoln Chafee.

One difference between Chafee and Lieberman, however, is that if Chafee loses the primary to his conservative opponent, his seat is almost guaranteed to go to a Democrat. The Club For Growth figures that's a small price to pay for ideological purity.

I wrote a few weeks ago about what moderates need to do to put more moderates in power. One of the tactics was to support the moderate candidates of both parties in their primaries, so that as much as possible the general election becomes a contest between two moderates. That way we win no matter what the outcome.

The Rhode Island race would seem to be the perfect example of this: Support Chafee in his primary fight so that we don't much care who wins in November.

Some people will note tactical considerations that complicate the question. I've also written that I consider the November elections a referendum on the ruling party, and in that context the Republicans deserve to lose big; I want the Democrats to take over either the House or the Senate, and I wouldn't weep if they captured both. Given that, wouldn't it be better to have the seat go Democratic, improving the chances that the Dems could take over the Senate?

I think this comes down to an exercise in principle and risk management. What's more important to you -- Democratic control of the Senate, or maximizing the number of moderates in Congress? If the former, hope Chafee loses the nomination. If the latter, help him win it. Because I would prefer to not even risk an ideological conservative getting into that seat. Even if you're a strong Democrat, showing support for Chafee is just good politics. If he wins, he'll remember the cross-aisle backing. Even if he loses, it sends a message to other moderates that there's a reservoir of support they can draw on to counter the partisan party bases.

Chaffee, politics, midtopia

As of today, 12 planets

A while back I wrote about the debate over Pluto's planetary status. This was followed by a proposal by some astronomers to strip Pluto of its designation.

Well today, the International Astronomical Union went the other way. It's executive panel has proposed a definition of "planet" that is expected to be approved by the membership. It adds three new planets to our solar system -- including Pluto's largest moon, Charon.

The panel suggests retaining Pluto and immediately adding three new planets to the nine that are familiar to any schoolchild: Ceres, currently considered a large asteroid; Charon, now considered a moon of Pluto; and Xena, a recently discovered object that is larger than Pluto.

The definition of "planet" is complicated but interesting:

The proposal defines a planet as an object that circles the sun and is massive enough that its own gravitational forces compress it into a roughly spherical shape. Depending on its composition, a planet would have to be at least roughly 250 to 500 miles in diameter to qualify. It designates a new subcategory of planet, the ``pluton," a Pluto-like planet that takes at least 200 years to circle the sun. Pluto, Charon, and Xena are all plutons, and scientists expect many more to be discovered. Under the proposal, Ceres is an ordinary planet.

Moons are excluded from planetary status, using a criterion that depends on the relative mass of two bodies that are gravitationally tied. If one body is much smaller than the other, then it is considered a moon. Pluto and Charon are closer in mass, and so they are dubbed a double planet. The Earth's moon is round and much larger than Pluto, but it is so much smaller than Earth that it is considered a moon, not a planet.

250 miles in diameter isn't very big from a solar perspective -- the Earth, for instance, is about 8,000 miles across. But at least the definition is clear, even if it changes the colloquial meaning of the word "planet", making it a far less exclusive club. Indeed, astronomers expect to discover even more bodies meeting the criteria for planet as new and more powerful telescopes probe the outer reaches of the solar system.

One strength of the scientific method is that old dogmas are shed relatively easily in the face of new evidence. This is a prime example of that. I grew up learning about 9 planets; my children will grow up learning about 12 or more. And human knowledge marches on.

astronomy, solar system, Pluto, planets, science, midtopia

The right flood insurance ruling

A judge in a Katrina-related case has ruled that insurance policies that don't cover flood damage don't, well, cover flood damage.

There is some legitimate complaint about the ambiguity of the policy in question. And agreeing on what is flood damage and what is wind damage can be a contentious matter, with the insurance company wanting to attribute all of it to flood damage (and thus not covered) and the homeowner wanting to attribute none of it to flood damage (and thus be fully covered).

But insurance works by covering specific risks for a specific amount for a specific premium. The system breaks down if insurers can be forced to cover uncovered costs after the fact.

If people want to be covered for flood damage, buy flood insurance.

Speaking of flood insurance, it's time to end the taxpayer subsidy of such insurance. Such insurance should be market-priced. If homeowners can't afford those prices, or If private insurers are unwilling to sell such policies at an affordable price, perhaps that's a sign that people shouldn't be building homes in flood plains and hurricane-prone coastal zones.

A positive side effect of such a policy would be the reversion of many fragile coastal and riparian areas to their natural state, providing habitat for animals and buffer zones for rivers and coastlines -- making future flooding and storms less severe and costly.

flooding, insurance, Katrina, politics, midtopia

George Will: John Kerry was right

You know things are going badly when you see a headline like that.

[The foiling of the London plot] has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Did the world just shake for a moment?

Will quotes the Weekly Standard capturing a beautifully insane response by a "senior administration official":

"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. [Democrats] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn't work."

What? As Will says:

This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work."

Yep. I've been saying that all along.

George Will, terrorism, Kerry, Iraq, politics, midtopia

Israel begins pullout from Lebanon

Even though the Lebanese army has yet to cross into southern Lebanon, Israel has begun to leave certain areas and thin out its forces elsewhere.

Hezbollah fired 10 rockets yesterday, but none reached Israel and the ceasefire continues to hold.

Lebanon is under strong pressure to fulfill its agreement and take control of southern Lebanon. The latest timetable indicates they might be ready to do so by the end of the week.

So we wait.

Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, politics, midtopia

Ballot access idiocy

Ballot access is restrictive enough without adding inflexible bureaucracy to the mix.

Two examples from this election season in Minnesota:

Rep. Gil Gutknecht, who routinely files petitions to get on the ballot rather than pay a $300 filing fee (a gimmick meant to highlight his fiscal conservativism), is facing a challenge because he gathered the signatures for the petition outside of a two-week window prescribed by state law.

As an aside, I'm not sure how this highlights Gutknecht's careful use of money, since it seems to me that it could easily cost more than $300 to gather the necessary signatures.

But more importantly, this is stupid. The purpose of a petition requirement is to demonstrate some minimal level of support so that the ballot isn't cluttered with dozens of cranks and protest candidates. It's reasonable to have some sort of time requirement to ensure that the signatures are relatively "fresh", but a two-week window right before the filing deadline is unnecessarily restrictive.

And trying to disqualify Gutknecht from running on such a technicality -- when he could have just paid the $300 to file -- is a tactic that damages democracy.

Meanwhile, an Independence Party candidate for the state House, Brian Smith, has been left off the ballot for following instructions from the Secretary of State's office.

Smith, 35, went to the office of Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer on July 18, the final day of filing, to throw his hat in the ring to succeed state Rep. Keith Ellison, DFL-Minneapolis. He paid a $100 filing fee to enter the Independence Party primary election and gave an affidavit of candidacy to Kiffmeyer.

There was one problem: Under state law, Smith was supposed to file in Hennepin County, not at the secretary of state's office in St. Paul

Okay, two things. First, Smith should get a pass simply because he was given bad info by Kiffmeyer's office. Second and more importantly, though, should someone really be kept off the ballot because they filed in the wrong office? Is that really supportive of democracy?

Ballot access should be considered a near-right. Restrictions on it must be reasonable and narrowly construed. And candidates should be given the benefit of the doubt in nearly all cases, rather than kept from running because of stupid technicalities. Give voters more choices, not fewer.

Brian Smith, Kiffmeyer, Gutknecht, ballot access, minnesota, politics, midtopia

Giving Hutchinson a look

Faced with a choice between Tim Pawlenty and Mike Hatch as the major-party candidates for governor, I'm leaning toward option #3: Peter Hutchinson.

Hutchinson was Rudy Perpich's Finance Commissioner. He also has had a long career in corporate America and in 1993 was superintendent of the Minneapolis public schools.

He gave a talk at the Humphrey Institute on Thursday; you can listen to the audio here at MPR.

In the talk he discussed "outcome-based" government -- not blindly cutting or raising taxes, but figuring out how best to use the taxes Minnesotans are willing to pay. Giving them their money's worth, in other words.

That's a pleasant generality, of course; the devil is in the details. But he has provided some level-headed details, liks his transportation and health-care proposals.

The latter is especially promising, combining a version of the Romney plan for mandatory health coverage with a shift in reimbursement practices to pay for healthy outcomes, not just procedures performed.

And I liked his promise not to get distracted by side issues. Asked if he would sign a bill loosening abortion restrictions, he said no -- but he also wouldn't sign a bill tightening them. Why? Because such bills are a distraction from the real business of government. You could criticize that as a deft attempt to sidestep a controversial issue. But I like the idea of keeping our eye on the ball and concentrating on accomplishing things that all Minnesotans want and need -- not satisfying partisan constituencies.

Are all of his ideas great ones? No. But at least he has some, not just trotting out the same tired rhetoric like Pawlenty and Hatch are doing. At this point in the game, I'm leaning toward giving him an opportunity to show what he can do.

Find out more: Here's his campaign web site.

governor, Hutchinson, Minnesota, politics, midtopia

Ceasefire takes hold in Lebanon

The guns fell (mostly) silent today in Lebanon, and refugees began heading home in droves.

The fighting went right up to the deadline, and afterwards there were hiccups: scattered clashes between Israel and Hezbollah. But nothing serious or unexpected.

The biggest question now is when the Lebanese/UN force will deploy into South Lebanon. Various observers have raised concerns, such as:

1. Whether it will happen (Captain's Quarters).

2. Whether it will involve disarmament of Hezbollah (Times of London).

3. When it will happen (Jerusalem Post).

Regarding the first question, I think the answer is "yes." As to the last two, it's still up in the air. Here's what Lebanon's UN ambassador had to say:

"Lebanon will be, I think, the last state to sign a peace treaty with Israel," UN ambassador Nouhad Mahmoud told CNN television's "Late Edition" program, without explaining the remark.

He called the agreement a "crucial" test for all the parties involved.

"Now it is the moment of truth for everyone, and we'll see who will abide by the Security Council resolutions and who will not, so (what) we have this week is very crucial," Mahmoud said.

The diplomat added that the 15,000 Lebanese soldiers to be dispatched to south Lebanon to help keep the peace alongside a similarly-sized international UN force "are not going to use force" to disarm the Hezbollah militia which has been battling Israel.

"Hezbollah will just leave the area as armed elements as I understand it, and the Lebanese army will take over the whole region along with the
United Nations forces," he said.

This is probably how it'll shake out -- Hezbollah heading north, but keeping its weapons. That's less satisfactory than disarmament, but it still accomplishes the two key objectives: Pushing them out of rocket range of Israel, inserting Lebanese and UN troops in between as a buffer force, and finally getting Lebanon to assert responsibility for what goes on in its territory.

Lots of things could still go wrong. But for now, there's hope.

Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, politics, midtopia

Tip led to foiled plot

To all my readers that have e-mailed me in the past explaining that the problem is Islam and there are no peaceful or moderate Muslims, I give you this:

It all began with a tip: In the aftermath of the July 7, 2005, subway bombings in London, British authorities received a call from a worried member of the Muslim community, reporting general suspicions about an acquaintance.

From that vague but vital piece of information, according to a senior European intelligence official, British authorities opened the investigation into what they said turned out to be a well-coordinated and long-planned plot to bomb multiple trans-Atlantic flights heading toward the United States -- an assault designed to rival the scope and lethality of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings.

Had we treated all Muslims as the enemy, we would not have gotten that tip, and 4,000 people might be dead.

Let's focus on the real bad guys, not define our enemies so broadly that we create a conflict we cannot win.

London, Islam, terrorism, politics, midtopia

US, France, Israel agree on cease-fire proposal

A revised US-France ceasefire proposal has been submitted to the UN Security Council. A vote is expected later today.

It looks pretty good, to my mind.

sources close to the negotiations said the deal would create a 400-square-mile zone inside Lebanon from which Hezbollah militia would be excluded.

Under the draft resolution, the number of U.N. troops in the area would be increased from 2,000 to a maximum of 15,000; they would be joined by 15,000 Lebanese troops.

This accomplishes two very important things: Makes Lebanon responsible for its entire territory, and gets Hezbollah out of South Lebanon. Those hold real promise if they can be pulled off.

There are still things left undone by this proposal: A related step should be finally settling the Lebanese-Israeli border and signing a permanent peace agreement.

Lebanon's reaction isn't known yet; that might be a hurdle, because Lebanon didn't want an international peacekeeping force. But the UN cover might address that.

Israel has endorsed it even while preparing a new ground offensive.

Cross your fingers and hope Lebanon accepts it.

Lebanon, Israel, politics, midtopia

Me and Max Boot

Here's an interesting discovery. My opinion on Iraq -- either get serious or get out -- is shared by Max Boot, a conservative former Wall Street Journal editorial writer and general war supporter.

Which path should we take? My preference remains deploying more soldiers, not fewer. A couple of divisions in Baghdad, if skillfully led, might be able to replicate the success that Col. H.R. McMaster's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment had in pacifying the western city of Tall Afar, where the troops-to-civilians ratio was 10 times higher than in Baghdad today. But at this point, I am also open to a substantial reduction in troop numbers because the current strategy just isn't working.

Bush needs to do something radical to shake up a deteriorating status quo if we are to have any hope of averting the worst American military defeat since Vietnam.

He even shares my opinion about Tall Afar!

Either I'm more of a neo-con than I thought, or Max Boot is more of a liberal than he thinks, or else the situation is getting so bad that even war supporters can see it.

Max Boot, Iraq, politics, midtopia

British terror plot foiled

Yeah, me and a million other blogs noticed.

British authorities said Thursday they had disrupted a well-advanced "major terrorist plot" to blow up passenger flights between the United Kingdom and the United States using liquid explosives, prompting a full-scale security clampdown at U.S. and British airports and a cascade of delays in transatlantic flights.

The plot was well planned, well financed and "well advanced," U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said at a news conference Thursday morning in Washington. It was "about as sophisticated as anything we've seen in recent years as far as terrorism is concerned. . . . This was not a situation with a handful of people sitting around dreaming about terrorist plots."

The Brits arrested 21 people, and speculated that the plan bore all the hallmarks of an Al-Qaeda operation.

First, nice work by the Brits. This was a real plot, with real bad guys -- unlike, say, the doofuses we arrested in Miami a while back. These are the kind of people we are talking about when we discuss fighting terrorism.

Even better news, despite breathless hyperbole from some right-wing sites about how close we came to disaster, is that the plotters had been under surveillance for months. The cops moved in when it looked like the plot was about to be set in motion. So the actual danger -- from this plot, anyway -- was practically nil thanks to good police work.

Predictably, a lot of Bush backers are trumpeting this as evidence we need to give the government even more intrusive surveillance powers. They criticize people who oppose "surveillance" of terrorists.

Speaking as one of those people, however, they're misstating the debate. The issue isn't "should we fight terrorists?" It's not "should we use wiretaps?" It's not "Should we take security concerns seriously?"

It's about method, not goal. It's whether serious inroads on civil liberties are really necessary in order to make us secure. It's whether, even if such methods make us somewhat more secure, they are worth the loss of freedom.

Just as an example, nobody I've run into opposes wiretapping suspected terrorists; many of us just think the government should have to get a warrant to do so. That's not being "soft" on security. It's taking seriously the threat of government abuse of power.

But that's neither here nor there at the moment. A plot was foiled. For one day, let us merely be thankful.

al-Qaeda, Britain, terrorism, politics, midtopia

Opposition to Iraq war keeps growing

This could rewrite the electoral landscape in November.

Sixty percent of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, the highest number since polling on the subject began with the commencement of the war in March 2003, according to poll results and trends released Wednesday.

And a majority of poll respondents said they would support the withdrawal of at least some U.S. troops by the end of the year, according to results from the Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last week on behalf of CNN. The corporation polled 1,047 adult Americans by telephone.

I don't put much stock in polls, and I don't recommend getting too hepped up about this one. But the trend line is steep enough to grab attention.

If you take it at face value, it helps explain the defeat of Joe Lieberman in a way that doesn't focus on the myriad shortcomings of Ned Lamont. If 60 percent of Americans feel this way, then being a war supporter could be ballot-box poison nationwide, not just among Connecticut Democrats.

To address that, however, you'd have to examine how the poll breaks down by party and geography -- and given a sample size of 1,047, those subsamples would probably be small enough to strain margin-of-error boundaries.

It's an article of faith among pro-war Republicans that Iraq is still a winning issue for them, as they try to frame the debate as being between "stay the course" Republicans and witless "cut-and-run" Democrats.

Whatever you may think of that spin, this poll suggests that the Republicans may simply be wrong about the fundamentals, badly misreading the public mood.

It bears watching, if nothing else.

terrorism, Iraq, politics, midtopia

Moderate Schwarz loses in Michigan

Demonstrating why moderates need to get more involved in their local parties, incumbent Rep. Joe Schwarz, a moderate Republican in Michigan, lost his primary race yesterday.

Rep. Joe Schwarz's re-election campaign turned into a clash of Republican titans: moderates versus conservatives, President Bush and John McCain versus the Club for Growth, and abortion rights versus right-to-life groups.

Schwarz lost and the conservative movement won. Republican Tim Walberg will be heavily favored to succeed the moderate in Congress, but the implications could reach far beyond the borders of the rural southern Michigan district.

Schwarz had the endorsement of people from both the left and the right, including Bush, McCain and even the NRA. And he still lost.

This is less momentous than it seems, because the district is conservative and the only reason Schwarz won in the previous go-round is that four conservative candidates split the vote; Schwarz won that primary with just 28 percent of the vote. So it was almost inevitable that a conservative candidate would eventually emerge to take the seat.

But it was the clearest defeat for a moderate in yesterday's primary races. As the man himself says:

"I look at this election as probably a victory for right to life, anti-abortion, anti-embryonic stem cell groups but it's a net loss for the Republican party because it just pushes the party farther to the right," Schwarz said.

If the Lieberman race was a referendum on the face of the Democratic Party, could this be a referendum on the face of the Republicans? I think the answer is "no" in both cases, but those who wish to make the case for the former should apply the same logic to the latter.

Michigan, Walberg, Schwarz, politics, midtopia

Lieberman, McKinney lose

The story on Cynthia McKinney.

The story on Joe Lieberman.

The Lieberman race has gotten a lot of attention as some sort of referendum on the "soul" of the Democratic party. But the McKinney race was another primary involving a high-profile Democrat, and it tells a different story.

In the first race, an antiwar upstart overthrows a moderate (conservative) pro-war Democrat. In the other, a radical Democrat is beaten by a more moderate one.

So is Ned Lamont the "face" of the Democratic Party? Or is Hank Johnson?

Or is pointing to one Congressional race out of hundreds as the definitive battle for anything just a touch hyperbolic?

Lieberman, McKinney, politics, midtopia

DeLay to withdraw from race

Quashing speculation about his status, Tom DeLay said he will withdraw from the House race in his district to make room for a write-in candidate.

"I will take the actions necessary to remove my name from the Texas ballot. To do anything else would be hypocrisy," DeLay said in a statement. "I strongly encourage the Republican Party to take any and all actions necessary to give Texas voters an up-or-down choice this fall between two major party candidates."

If any write-in candidacy has a chance, it's this one. But I wouldn't hold my breath; Democrat Nick Lampson was a strong candidate even against DeLay; he'll still be a strong candidate no matter who the Republicans get to run.

It looks like DeLay's district could go Democratic in November.

Lampson, Texas, DeLay, politics, midtopia

Oy Ney

There's a snag in Ohio, where Bob Ney attempted to annoint State Sen. Joy Padgett as his replacement on the November ballot.

State Sen. Joy Padgett was a losing contender for lieutenant governor in Ohio’s Republican primary earlier this year, and a state law bars politicians who lose one primary from entering another one during the same year.

One Republican strategist, speaking on condition of anonymity, said lawyers had concluded Padgett was likely covered by the law and thus would not be eligible to run.

Boy, there are a lot of silly laws designed to keep people from having a fair choice among viable candidates.

But if the law taketh away, the law also giveth. State law only requires a primary if a candidate withdraws more than 80 days before a general election. So if Ney waits until after Aug. 21 to officially withdraw, the GOP would have four days to appoint a replacement.

Any bets on what he'll do?

Ohio, Padgett, Ney, politics, midtopia

DeLay to stay on the ballot

Rep. Tom DeLay will appear on the November ballot, as the Texas Republican Party exhausted its legal appeals.

The decision came after Justice
Antonin Scalia rejected Texas Republicans' request to block an appeals court ruling saying DeLay's name should remain on the ballot.

"I think all our legal avenues are exhausted in terms of affecting the ruling prior to the election," said Jim Bopp Jr., the attorney who argued the Republican Party's case to allow party officials to substitute another candidate for DeLay.

While it's appealing to see DeLay's too-cute political maneuver defeated, I've said before that I think the Democrats are doing the wrong thing by forcing DeLay to stay on the ballot. It's robbing the citizens of DeLay's district of a choice in November.

Now that it's a done deal, I hope DeLay withdraws. But if he doesn't, I just hope that the tactic doesn't backfire on the Democrats. Because while I find the actions of both sides to be less than admirable, I do not want to see DeLay back in Congress come November.

Texas, DeLay, politics, midtopia

What's going on in Lebanon?

Apparently, a lot of lying.

There have been rumblings about Hezbollah and Lebanese officials exaggerating the damage and death toll from Israeli airstrikes. A bunch of it now seems to be true.

Recently there was a lot of speculation that the incident in Qana was staged, but that appears mostly debunked. Even so, the death toll has been reduced from 50 to 28.

Then we have a Lebanese freelance photographer doctoring photos.

Then we have a report that an Israeli strike killed 40 people -- a number later corrected to one.

The good news is that the Lebanese government, reversing its previous stance, has agreed to deploy up to 15,000 troops to take control of its southern border. For years Lebanon has refused to do so, saying that a comprehensive peace treaty with Israel must be signed first.

One interesting aspect is that Hezbollah says it supports the decision. On the one hand this is good news -- it's doubtful the Lebanese Army could assert control in the face of active Hezbollah resistance. But beyond that, it could have multiple meanings.

1. It might indicate that Hezbollah doesn't think the Lebanese troops will meaningfully interfere with its activities.

2. It could be a sign that the Israeli incursion has hurt Hezbollah badly and it would welcome a chance to rest and recover.

3. Perhaps Hezbollah does not wish to alienate the Lebanese and risk getting kicked out of the country.

It's a matter of speculation, too, as to what prompted the Lebanese change of heart. Perhaps the Israeli air campaign worked, by persuading Lebanon that supporting Hezbollah was too expensive. Or perhaps Lebanon was responding to international pressure. Or perhaps it was none of these. The Lebanese government has no particular love for Israel, but it has no particular love for Syria, either, one of Hezbollah's main backers. Maybe they see this as an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.

So take what you hear from the region with a grain of salt. And hope that the Lebanese plan works.

terrorism, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Israel, politics, midtopia

Battle of the acronyms

The GOP is hoping to make PBS and NPR DOA as far as federal funding goes in FY2007.

House Republicans yesterday revived their efforts to slash funding for public broadcasting, as a key committee approved a $115 million reduction in the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that could force the elimination of some popular PBS and NPR programs.

There are several points to be made here. But first, some context.

1. Even if enacted these cuts wouldn't destroy public broadcasting. Most such stations are largely self-supporting. Minnesota Public Radio, for instance, gets 80 percent of its funding from private sources. If federal dollars disappear, there would still be state funding. But even if they both vanished, the resulting 20 percent budget cut would hurt but it wouldn't be fatal.

2. Some areas would be hurt pretty badly. The cuts would be disproportionately felt in poor and rural areas, where listeners are fewer or have fewer dollars to spare for station support -- and thus rely more heavily on government funding.

3. Conservatives have been gunning for public broadcasting for years on ideological grounds, considering the programming to be liberally biased. What's ironic is that if they succeed it will be the rural areas that will be hit the hardest -- areas that are generally more conservative, and thus less likely to schedule programming the conservatives find offensive. The stations they really dislike -- large urban operations -- will be largely unaffected.

Okay, with that out of the way, let's look at why the House says it's trying to cut this funding:

Republicans are looking for ways to save taxpayers' dollars, amid fiscal conservatives' concerns over the budget deficit.

"We've got to keep our priorities straight," said Representative Ralph Regula, an Ohio Republican who is chairman of the appropriations panel that approved the cut. "You're going to choose between giving a little more money to handicapped children versus providing appropriations for public broadcasting."

Oh, so it's a tough budget call. We need to get the deficit under control, and so it's either PBS or the handicapped kids.

Give me a break.

We're talking chicken feed here. $115 million won't even begin to make a dent in the deficit. Yes, enough small cuts can add up to big cuts. But Republicans aren't even pretending that this is part of a significant cutback in spending. Maybe, before spending so much time and effort cutting pennies from PBS, they should assemble the $300 billion worth of cuts it will take simply to balance the budget, never mind start paying down the debt.

And trying to frame this as a choice between PBS and handicapped children is breathtakingly cynical in a year when Republicans have led the fight to abolish the estate tax -- at a cost to federal coffers of $70 billion per year. And that's on the heels of $2 trillion or more in previous tax cuts and another $300 billion or so in Iraq-related costs.

You wanna save PBS and help the handicapped kids? Raise taxes by 50 cents per capita. Problem solved.

There are plenty of principled debates one could have about public broadcasting, involving the role of government and whether that role includes funding for the arts. Or, given the recent experience of Italy under Silvio Berlusconi, whether the government should be owning or supporting domestic media outlets at all.

But that's not the debate that House Republicans are having. Their chosen arguments are cowardly, cynical and intellectually vapid.

Debate public broadcasting on the merits. But don't try to slit its throat in the dark of night while hiding behind needy children.

Regula, budget, PBS, NPR, politics, midtopia

Creationism museum prepares to open

It'll open next spring in Petersburg, Ky., a suburb of Cincinnati. Here's the story.

Among the scientific positions that the Creation Museum espouses is that the Earth is 6,000 years old, as opposed to the more than 4 billion years that most scientists ascribe to, and that dinosaurs co-existed with human beings and were among Noah's menagerie on the Ark.

Here's the museum's web site. Be sure to click on the "walk-through" link.

Finally, it's not the only one.

I generally think that people are entitled to their beliefs. But people who insist the world is just 6,000 years old are simply asking for trouble. That proposition is too easily disproved. It's akin to flat earthers and people who believe the sun revolves around the earth.

Faith is best used to explain the unexplainable. Leave the mundane explanations to science.

creationism, evolution, politics, midtopia

Ney abandons re-election campaign

Prospective Hall of Shame member Bob Ney, caught up in the Abramoff corruption scandal, has ended his bid for a seventh term.

"Ultimately this decision came down to my family. I must think of them first, and I can no longer put them through this ordeal," said Ney, who has not been charged and has denied wrongdoing.

Okay, Ney. Whatever.

State Sen. Joy Padgett will run in his place. But she faces a tough slog against the Democratic candidate, Zack Space.

This is a mirror of the situation Tom DeLay found himself in -- won the primary, but dogged by corruption allegations. So he resigned. Unlike in Texas, however, it doesn't seem like Ney's resignation will be contested.

Whatever else happens at the polls, the Abramoff scandal is costing the Republicans a sizable chunk of their leadership. My hope is that this is strengthening the hand of moderates within the party, who are tired of the crap that gets pulled down on their heads by the divisive and corrupt antics of the conservative leadership. What I hope emerges is a cleaner, more reasonable Republican leadership that recognizes the price the party has paid for greed and scorched-earth tactics.

Ney, politics, midtopia

The end of the right?

I think this qualifies as wishful thinking on E.J. Dionne's part, but he's got some interesting points interspersed through his latest column.

Is conservatism finished?

What might have seemed an absurd question less than two years ago is now one of the most important issues in American politics. The question is being asked -- mostly quietly but occasionally publicly -- by conservatives themselves as they survey the wreckage of their hopes, and as their champions in the Republican Party use any means necessary to survive this fall's elections.

All true, but that hardly means their finished. Conservatives have successfully altered the playing field on a lot of topics, notably welfare, family and the role of government. They retain strong influence within the GOP, which at a minimum will still be a strong minority after this fall's elections. Their fundraising ability remains enormous.

There is the looming threat of a schism, as the GOP takeover exposed a strong and growing tension between small-government conservatives (who have varied social views) and social conservatives (who like using government to achieve their aims). If that schism occurs it won't kill conservatism but it could dilute its power.

Still, that's probably a good thing. Such a split would better reflect the actual influence of each faction, and allow for more cooperation between each faction and the liberal and moderate groups they agree with on individual issues. We might see more consensus, more pragmatic solutions to longstanding problems.

It does seem clear, though, that conservatism's grip on the GOP is slipping as the Republicans find it increasingly incompatible with the demands and seductions of incumbency and majority status. And, warming my heart, that means the influence of moderates is growing.

Most conservatives oppose the minimum wage on principle as a form of government meddling in the marketplace. But moderate Republicans in jeopardy this fall desperately wanted an increase in the minimum wage.

So the seemingly ingenious Republican leadership, which dearly wants deep cuts in the estate tax, proposed offering nickels and dimes to the working class to secure billions for the rich. Fortunately, though not surprisingly, the bill failed.

The episode was significant because it meant Republicans were acknowledging that they would not hold congressional power without the help of moderates. That is because there is nothing close to a conservative majority in the United States.

He goes on to note the many and sharp conservative criticisms of the Republican government. My favorite is the National Review's description of Republican fiscal policy: "Incontinence."

What does this mean for the political landscape? Probably less than you might think. Conservative influence on Republicans might be slipping, but it's not like Democrats are actively courting them. So to the extent that conservatives vote, they'll probably keep voting Republican. And the more the Democrats move to the left, the more motivation conservatives will have to vote Republican simply to keep Democrats out of power.

The Democrats can neutralize that in one simple way: moderation. By not appearing to be a radical threat to conservative goals, they can avoid motivating conservatives to vote for Republican candidates they have only lukewarm love for. By finding issues where they can work with conservatives, they can weaken the stranglehold that the GOP has on those voters and show themselves to be principled partners, not a wild-eyed enemy.

By claiming the middle Democrats can simultaneously court the moderate majority and neutralize the GOP's conservative base. Yes, it may cost them with the netroots in turn; but that's a trade-off that is well worth it. It's a rejection of extremism, of polarization, of partisanship. Even without the political advantages, it would be the right thing to do.

politics, midtopia

Gunning for Rummy

Hillary locks and loads:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign, hours after excoriating him at a public hearing over what she called "failed policy" in Iraq....

"The secretary has lost credibility with the Congress and with the people," she said. "It's time for him to step down and be replaced by someone who can develop an effective strategy and communicate it effectively to the American people and to the world."

Can't say I disagree; I've been critical of Rumsfeld for a long time. He let a valid point -- a need to build a faster, lighter military -- and a valid belief -- that we could win wars with fewer troops -- blind him to the actual requirements of occupation. And while it was necessary to confront the Pentagon bureaucracy in order to achieve his goals, he also got into unnecessary confrontations thanks to his detached and indecisive management style and alienated Congress with his abrasive treatment.

Okay, you say, Rumsfeld deserves to be fired. But is now the time to replace him, with just two years left in Bush's term? Isn't Rumsfeld better than the leadership turmoil that would ensue while a replacement was vetted, nominated and confirmed?

A fair point, but I don't think so. There's still more than two years left until Bush leaves office. Rumsfeld could remain until his replacement is confirmed. But even if he resigns before then, that would leave a Rumsfeld deputy in charge. And the confirmation process wouldn't have to be lengthy, since both parties would recognize the need to fill the position quickly.

The more important points would be these:

1. Bush isn't going to fire Rumsfeld, because doing so would be an admission that the administration had made mistakes -- something Bush seems almost congenitally incapable of doing. So any such call is simply political posturing. It may need to be said, but don't expect it to translate into action.

2. Bush is apparently happy with Rumsfeld's work, so even if he fired Rumsfeld we could probably expect the president to nominate a Rumsfeld clone.

Thus, nice as it would be to see Bush hold someone -- anyone -- responsible for their actions, it will only happen in two instances:

1. Rumsfeld becomes too big a political liability to ignore;

2. Bush decides a new strategy is needed.

The former is unlikely unless Republicans turn against Rumsfeld in large numbers. The latter could happen if Bush decides that Rumsfeld's approach is hampering the success of the occupation.

So if we really want Rumsfeld gone, we need to do two things: show Bush that Rumsfeld has strong bipartisan opposition, and persuade Bush that he needs a new strategy -- with new leadership.

I'm not holding my breath.

Hillary Clinton, Rumsfeld, politics, midtopia

Signs of the Apocalypse

In the ironic news department:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he would welcome German troops participating in an international force in southern Lebanon, according to a newspaper interview published Friday.

The Germans, in fact, are more worried about the issue than the Israelis are.

Okay, this isn't really all that ironic. Germany has come a long way from the 1940s, and modern Israel is confident enough -- and strong enough -- not be scared by a 60-year-old bogeyman. This is a refreshing example of a changed culture on the one hand and the ability to forgive on the other.

It's always fun to find something that Captain Ed and I can agree on.

In the "nothing is simple" department:

Thousands of Shiite Muslims marched though the Iraqi capital on Friday in support of Hezbollah guerrillas battling Israeli forces, answering a call by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr rally to the cause of their fellow Shiites in Lebanon.

Throngs of Shiite men, most clad in white burial shrouds that symbolized their willingness to die, gathered in the northeast Baghdad slum known as Sadr City and marched toward the center of the capital, chanting "Death to Israel" and "Death to America." Marchers waved the yellow flag of Hezbollah and the red-and-green flag of Lebanon, while occasionally pausing to desecrate the Israeli flag.

Though clearly huge, the precise size of the crowd was impossible to determine. Estimates made by organizers ranged from 250,000 to 1 million, but the U.S. military said in a news release that calculations based on pictures taken from unmanned surveillance aircraft put the crowd at 14,000.

I refer you to an earlier post laying out the complicated and contradictory lines of loyalty in the region. What makes the region so treacherous is that everyone you meet has two or three lines of loyalty -- and different ones will dominate depending on the issue or perhaps even the time of day.

And finally, all this takes place against the background of the "SS,DD" department:

A new wave of Hezbollah rockets killed eight Israeli civilians Thursday, and four soldiers died in ground combat in southern Lebanon, Israel's highest daily death toll in the three-week-old war. Israeli jets blasted targets in Beirut for the first time in almost a week.

Israeli forces appeared to be struggling in efforts to control villages and towns across the Lebanese border and push deeper into the country, according to U.N. observers in Lebanon. Most of the day's fighting took place within two miles of the frontier and sometimes only a few hundred yards from it.

The major revelation here is that Hezbollah possesses anti-tank missiles, substantially raising the stakes for Israeli troops.

Iraq, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Israel, politics, midtopia

Israel and Hezbollah

I've been procrastinating writing this entry, and I think I've done a very good job -- what other blogger would have the patience to wait weeks to write about Israel's confrontation with Hezbollah? Yessir, that's what you get here at Midtopia: top-quality performance, no matter what that performance happens to be.

But here goes.

There are a few indisputable facts we need to lay out here:

1. Hezbollah has been provoking Israel for months, firing rockets at civilian targets.

2. The government of Lebanon and the UN observers in southern Lebanon did little to stop it.

3. Israel has a right to defend its people from attack.

4. The Lebanese government's territorial rights are weakened by their unwillingness or inability to halt the attacks on Israel.

There are all sorts of qualifications one could apply to that list. Hezbollah sees itself as fighting an illegal occupation; the government of Lebanon is too weak to confront Hezbollah, and doing so is not within the UN force's means or mandate; Israel's right to defend itself does not mean it can do anything it wants; and any decision to violate international borders should be taken with care.

But those are some basic facts. And from them I draw some simple conclusions.

Israel was fully justified in going after Hezbollah in the name of self-defense. If rebel groups based in Canada were firing rockets into the United States, we'd go after them no matter what Canada said. And we'd be justified.

Hezbollah's aim -- the destruction of Israel -- is unrealistic. And their main tactic -- firing rockets at civilian targets -- is indefensible. Even less defensible is using civilians for cover. Hezbollah deserves international condemnation for its actions.

Israel, however, doesn't get a free pass.

We have to accept that, given Hezbollah's tactics, there will be civilian casualties from Israeli strikes. But blame for that is shared to some extent, based on the measures Israel takes to minimize such casualties. I think they've generally tried to lessen them, especially because they know what a PR disaster mounting civilian deaths can be. But Israel is responsible for ensuring that its rules of engagement properly balance the threat against the collateral damage.

Israel has a legitimate interest in going after selected infrastructure targets in South Lebanon, in an effort to disrupt Hezbollah communications, movement and supply. Bridges, transportation, power, communications, water supplies -- all these things are legitimate targets as long as they relate primarily to southern Lebanon. But Israel's air offensive has gone way beyond that. Infrastructure has been attacked throughout Lebanon, including the Beirut airport and a Lebanese Army base in northern Lebanon. These appear to be an effort to make the Lebanese feel the pain of allowing Hezbollah to exist. But besides being hard to defend, I think that strategy will backfire. Such bombings will harden anti-Israel resolve among the Lebanese, not lead them to suddenly eject Hezbollah.

I have no problem with Israel's ground incursions. They are more focused than the air campaign both geographically and militarily. I think that's the proper way for Israel to take on Hezbollah: isolate southern Lebanon strategically, then go in with ground forces and root out the guerrillas and their support structure.

So what's the long-term solution? Bush and Rice have the right approach here: a multinational force with teeth, to replace the lightly armed UN observers. Go in with overwhelming force, clear out the guerrillas, and then hand control over to the Lebanese Army backed by UN troops with the means and mandate to keep the guerrillas from returning. If Hezbollah fights back it becomes Hezbollah against the world, and that is something that Hezbollah's backers don't really want to see.

None of this addresses the root cause of the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. But the current mess offers us an opportunity to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, to say "enough is enough" to attacks on civilians and unending conflict. If we can show that dirty tactics -- by either side -- will not be tolerated, perhaps we can nudge the region back toward uneasy peace and an emphasis on negotiations. At the very least we strengthen the hands of moderates in the region and weaken the hand of the militants.

After that the key will be to stay engaged, to reward talk as much as we punish violence.

Israel already knows that it cannot ever win by military means alone; that's why it has withdrawn from Gaza, and why it withdrew from Lebanon several years ago and has no intention of again establishing a permanent presence there.

The Palestinians are now split, but leaning toward negotiation rather than atrocity.

Hezbollah will be the hardest nut to crack, because it does not represent Palestine and draws its support from two states, Syria and Iran, that don't care much about world opinion. The key to neutralizing it is to confront it militarily, pressure its patrons to stop funding it and drive a wedge between it and the Arab/Sunni/Lebanese/Palestinian interests that surround it. Arab states should ideally take the lead in this, so that the pressure comes from brothers rather than Westerners. Syria might listen to Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and those four can then shut down the Iranian pipeline to Hezbollah.

A lot to digest. And the situation is more complex and explosive than I've outlined here. Still, by delineating the limits of conflict and provoking extensive world intervention, the Israel-Hezbollah fight might end up pointing the way out of the morass -- if we only seize the chance.

Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Israel, politics, midtopia

Iraq's view on Iraq

In the two posts preceding this one, I've laid out the U.S. view on Iraq (cautionary) and the British view (pessimistic). The public Iraqi view is the only one I consider outright delusional.

The Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, speaking before the soccer-field killings, predicted that “God willing, by the end of this year we will bring an end to terrorism.” At a news conference with senior military and Interior Ministry officials, he defended Iraqi forces against accusations of atrocities and said they would assume control of the country from American troops this year.

“Iraqi security forces are doing their duty, but we still expect more of them,” Mr. Talabani said.

Mr. Talabani, a Kurd, provided no details to support his claim that Iraqi forces would soon provide security for the entire country. American military officials here did not immediately respond to calls and e-mails seeking comment on his timetable.

Talabani's purpose seems clear: to try to shore up confidence in the central government, and position such support as the quickest way to get American troops out of Iraq. But saying the situation is improving when, at least in the short term, it clearly isn't doesn't help his credibility. He comes off as engaging in wishful thinking while attempting to ride the whirlwind.

I hope he's right. I fear he's not.

Talabani, Iraq, politics, midtopia

The British view on Iraq

While Pentagon officials testify on Capitol Hill, the BBC has obtained a pessimistic memo written by the outgoing British ambassador in Iraq.

Civil war is a more likely outcome in Iraq than democracy, Britain's outgoing ambassador in Baghdad has warned Tony Blair in a confidential memo.

William Patey, who left the Iraqi capital last week, also predicted the break-up of Iraq along ethnic lines.

He did also say that "the position is not hopeless" - but said it would be "messy" for five to 10 years.

In the past few years the British view on Iraq has generally been closer to reality than the Pentagon's. But that does not mean they're necessarily better at predicting the future. So don't take this as gospel; view it as one more piece of information to fit into the overall picture.

Patey, terrorism, Britain, Iraq, politics, midtopia

The U.S. view on Iraq

Donald Rumsfeld and his top generals are on Capitol Hill today, testifying about Iraq.

Rumsfeld was there reluctantly, having said yesterday he didn't have time to testify. As you'd expect, he tried to put as good a light as possible on the situation.

"If we left Iraq prematurely as the terrorists demand, the enemy would tell us to leave Afghanistan and then withdraw from the Middle East," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee at a hearing.

"And if we left the Middle East, they'd order us and all those who don't share their militant ideology to leave what they call the occupied Muslim lands from Spain to the Philippines," he said.

A bit hyperbolic, considering we chose to invade Iraq and that nobody supports letting Islamic extremists take over the world. But in any event his entire statement turns on how you define "prematurely." Considering that the administration keeps talkinga about handing substantial responsibility to the Iraqi army by the end of the year, about the only thing that might be considered premature is an immediate and unconditional withdrawal, which hardly anybody is advocating.

His generals were a bit more blunt.

"Iraq could move toward civil war" if the violence is not contained, Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it," he said, adding that the top priority in Iraq is to secure the capital, where factional violence has surged in recent weeks despite efforts by the new Iraqi government to stop the fighting.

That would be the capital we captured three years ago and have not yet secured.

Abizaid did say, however, that he thinks that U.S.-backed Iraqi forces can prevent a slide into civil war.

Likewise, Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that while civil war was a possibility, it wasn't a certainty and depended on the Iraqis more than the U.S. military.

All this comes against the backdrop of another report that indicates how the war in Iraq is straining our military capacity.

More than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat ready, mostly because of equipment shortages that will cost up to $21 billion to correct, the top National Guard general said Tuesday.

Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum spoke to a group defense reporters after Army officials, analysts and members of Congress disclosed that two-thirds of the active Army's brigades are not ready for war.

So three years after the invasion of Iraq we do not have the manpower or equipment to sustain much beyond the current pace of operations -- and we may not be able to sustain that. During that time the administration has taken no steps to expand the military or increase equipment purchases.

Are we serious about this war or not? Because sometimes it doesn't seem like it. We have inadequate troops in Iraq, and we have taken no steps to increase our ability to field more. In fact the reverse has occurred; the readiness of the units we do have is declining even as the need for increased readiness grows ever more apparent and the security situation in Iraq deteriorates by the week.

One of two things needs to happen: We either need to increase our military capability to match our strategic plan, or we need to modify our strategy to reflect our military capability. Ignoring the problem and hoping for the best just won't work any more.

Rumsfeld, Iraq, terrorism, politics, midtopia

NORAD on 9/11

If you can stand to relive that day one more time, Vanity Fair has a riveting read.

It's a reconstruction, built from recordings and interviews, of what went on at NORAD on 9/11. Simply amazing stuff.

terrorism, September 11, NORAD, politics, midtopia

Hitting close to home

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., is one of the few Congressmembers with relatives serving in Iraq.

Yesterday he got the news.

A nephew of Sen. Max Baucus serving in the Marines was killed in Iraq during the weekend, the senator's office said Tuesday.

Cpl. Phillip E. Baucus , 28, died Saturday during combat operations in Anbar province, the Department of Defense said. It did not immediately release further information.

In a statement, Baucus, D-Mont., said the family was "devastated by the loss."

No commentary here. Simply condolences and respect.

Baucus, Iraq, politics, midtopia

Kansas rejects creationists

In the see-saw battle over whether to make Kansas an educational laughingstock, reason won the latest round.

Of five anti-evolution seats up for election, three were won by evolution supporters, giving them a 6-4 majority on the statewide Board of Education.

The battle is far from over, not least because this seems to be following a bit of a pattern. Anti-evolution candidates win in one cycle; alienate voters by pushing creationism; and get voted out in the following election. Then voters apparently stop paying attention, because the anti-evolution folks return in the election after that -- only to be voted out again in the next round. So every two years the state's science standards get turned on their head.

Whatever your personal opinion about creationism (or intelligent design, modern creationism-in-drag), it should not be taught in science class. Because it simply is not science. It is not falsifiable, it is not supported by evidence. It is not susceptible to proof or disproof in any human way. And thus it falls outside the realm of science.

Teach creation myths in school? Sure, as part of a comparative religion class. But teach a wide-ranging sampling of creation stories, not just one.

Introduce the study of evolution with a brief acknowledgement of its critics? Sure. But such an acknowledgement should also include the "intelligent design is not science" explanation.

In a larger sense, I've never understood why people find evolution incompatible with God. That's only true if you don't believe evolution could be the mechanism chosen by God to let his creation change over time. Or if your faith requires belief in easily disprovable things. But both of those are shortcomings in belief -- putting God in a box -- not shortcomings of God.

Further, evolution says nothing about how life got started; it merely describes the mechanism by which life, having come into existence, changes over time. Yes, people have applied evolutionary principles as part of theories that argue life arose spontaneously. But evolution itself is entirely neutral on the question of God. It is a tool, not an ideology. Evolution is entirely compatible with either abiogenesis or divine creation.

The Kansas creationists are attempting to short-circuit the education of state students by blurring the line between science and belief and imposing ideology over scientific consensus. It is intellectually destitute and ethically questionable. They should be serving the students of the state; pursuing this political agenda and keeping the Board in turmoil for a decade serves no one except narrow partisan interests.

Kansas, evolution, education, politics, midtopia