Norman Podhoretz: A Response to Andrew Sullivan

Norman Podhoretz has a penetrating essay on Iran's nuclear threat at Commentary Magazine:

In my article “The Case for Bombing Iran” (COMMENTARY, June 2007), in my book World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, and in various public appearances (including a televised debate with Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek), I quoted the Ayatollah Khomeini as having said the following:

We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

My source for this statement was Amir Taheri, the prolific Iranian-born journalist now living in London, who has also contributed a number of articles to COMMENTARY. Now, however, the Economist, relying on another Iranian-born writer, Shaul Bakhash of George Mason University, has alleged on its blog “Democracy in America” that Khomeini never said any such thing. “Someone,” says Mr. Bakhash, “should inform Mr. Podhoretz he is citing a non-existent statement.”

That “someone” has turned out to be Andrew Sullivan in his widely read blog, “The Daily Dish.” Linking to the Economist post, Sullivan accuses me of intellectual dishonesty for failing to admit that I have made an “error” in relying on a “bogus quotation” to bolster my argument that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it would not be deterred from using them by the fear of retaliation.

I do not usually bother responding to Sullivan’s frequent attacks on me, which are fueled by the same shrill hysteria that, as has often been pointed out, deforms most of what he “dishes” out on a daily basis. But in this case I have decided to respond because, by linking to a sober source like the Economist, he may for a change seem credible.

The Economist concludes its piece by challenging Amir Taheri to produce “the original source for this quote.” In response to a query from me, Mr. Taheri has now met that challenge. He writes:

The quote can be found in several editions of Khomeini’s speeches and messages. Here is one edition:

Paymaha va Sokhanraniyha-yi Imam Khomeini (“Messages and Speeches of Imam Khomeini”) published by Nur Research and Publication Institute (Tehran, 1981).

The quote, along with many other passages, disappeared from several subsequent editions as the Islamic Republic tried to mobilize nationalistic feelings against Iraq, which had invaded Iran in 1980.

The practice of editing and even censoring Khomeini to suit the circumstances is widely known by Iranian scholars. This is how Professor Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak, the Director of the Center for Persian Studies at the University of Maryland and a specialist in Islamic censorship, states the problem: “Khumayni’s [sic] speeches are regularly published in fresh editions wherein new selections are made, certain references deleted, and various adjustments introduced depending on the state’s current preoccupation” (Persian Studies in North America, 1994).

In any case, Mr. Taheri continues in his letter to me:

Your real argument is that Khomeini is not an Iranian nationalist but a pan-Islamist and thus would not have been affected by ordinary nationalistic considerations, including the safety of any “motherland.” This is known to Iranians as a matter of fact. Khomeini opposed the use of the words mellat (“nation”) and melli (“national”), replacing them with Ummat (“the Islamic community”) and ummati (“pertaining to the Islamic community”).

Thus, Majlis Shuray e Melli (“The National Consultative Assembly”) was renamed by Khomeini as Majlis Shuray Islami (“Islamic Consultative Assembly”). He also replaced the Iranian national insignia of Lion and Sun with a stylized calligraphy of the word Allah.

Thus, too, when he returned to Tehran after sixteen years of exile, Khomeini was asked by a French journalist, who had accompanied him on the Air France plane from Paris, what he felt. “Nothing,” the ayatollah replied. He then rejected the suggestion by his welcoming committee to kiss the soil of Iran. That would have been sherk, which means associating something with Allah, the gravest of sins in Islam.

Finally, Mr. Taheri rightly observes:

What is at issue here is the exact nature of the Khomeinist regime. Is it a nationalistic power pursuing the usual goals of nations? Or is it a messianic power with an eschatological ideology and the pretension to conquer the world on behalf of “The One and Only True Faith”?

Khomeini built a good part of his case against the Shah by claiming that the latter was trying to force Iranians to worship Iran rather than Allah. The theme remains a leitmotif of Khomeinists even today. . . . Those who try to portray this regime as just another opportunistic power with a quixotic tendency do a grave disservice to a proper understanding of the challenge that the world faces.

But this is not new. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot also had their apologists who saw them as “nationalists” with “legitimate grievances.”

So much for the allegation that the Khomeini quotation is “non-existent.” But there is another quotation I have cited repeatedly in the course of showing why Iran would not be deterred by the fear of retaliation. This one is a statement by the supposedly moderate former President Rafsanjani:

If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession . . . application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.

In chiding me for using this statement as well, all the Economist can come up with is the feeble objection that “some say Rafsanjani was misleadingly quoted.” Well, some also say that it is on the basis of a mistranslation that Ahmadinejad has been quoted as calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” It is true that Ahmadinejad’s declaration can be translated in other ways. Yet the official Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), in its own English edition, reported that “Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map.’”

Since the case I make both in my COMMENTARY article and in my book rests on much more than the two quotations from Khomeini and Rafsanjani, it would still stand even if those quotations were in fact “bogus” or “fabricated.” But the truth is that Khomeini and Rafsanjani did say what I said they said. Not that this will silence the growing number of foreign-policy establishmentarians who—having finally recognized that Iran’s nuclear program cannot be stopped by diplomacy and sanctions, but having ruled out military force even as a last resort—are now desperately trying to persuade us that “we can live” with an Iranian bomb. God help us all if the counsels of these apologists and appeasers disguised as “realists” should in the end prevail.

Podoretz's case for bombing Iran is here.

A Longer Time Frame for Iraq

Michael Barone over at U.S. News suggests that it's best to look at progress in Iraq through a macro-historical time frame:

When my father returned from service as an Army doctor in Korea in 1953, he brought back slides of the photos he'd shot, showing a war-torn country of incredible poverty. We would have laughed if you had told us that Americans would one day buy Korean cars. But 50-some years later, South Korea has the 13th-largest economy in the world, and you see Hyundais and Kias everywhere in America. Looking at things in microtime frames is not always a reliable guide to the macrotime-frame future.

So it may turn out to be with Iraq. We have been looking at Iraq in microtime frames—or, for many who oppose the war, frozen in the time frame of late 2006. A better picture of the microtime frame is that we have achieved considerable success this year. "The trend toward better security is indisputable," writes the Associated Press. U.S. military and civilian deaths have declined sharply. Anbar province is pacified, Iraqis are streaming back to Baghdad, and al Qaeda in Iraq is on the run. Time's Joe Klein, a critic of the administration, admits the gains and advises Democrats not to try to cut off funds. Conservative columnist Tony Blankley claims "a very real expectation that next year the world may see a genuine, old-fashioned victory in the Iraq war."

American media are presenting less reporting from Iraq, partly because some in the media believe that good news in Iraq is not news. Some Democratic congressional leaders still maintain that the surge strategy has made no difference, and they seek a vote on troop withdrawal. But Democratic presidential candidates, more closely attuned perhaps to changes in events and opinion, are talking less about withdrawing from Iraq and more about what we should do (or should not do) about Iran.

Here's Barone's key point:

Let's look, however, not just at the microtime frame but the macrotime frame. Yes, violence could re-escalate, as Klein predicts. But within sight is a far more hopeful trajectory. In the long run of history, our involvement in Iraq is starting to look less like a descent into a hopeless quagmire and a more unstable Middle East.

Read the whole thing. Barone uses the Korea example to suggest that it's too early to render history's judgment on Iraq or the Bush administration.

See also my post, "Victory in Iraq? The War Has Been Won."

Democrats Getting Jumpy on Immigration

Today's Wall Street Journal has an interesting analysis of the Democratic Party's emerging immigration problem. Will immigration reform split the party?

Barack Obama had just ended his stump speech before a friendly audience in this tiny southern Iowa town when Stephen Scott's hand shot up with a question. Would Mr. Obama, as president, have signed last summer's failed "amnesty bill" for illegal immigrants, Mr. Scott, a local landscape painter, asked testily.

Mr. Obama cautiously walked through a long answer that ended with a plan to give legal status to long-established illegal immigrants. "There. Another question," he said, shutting down discussion.

The debate over how to deal with illegal immigrants split the Republican Party two years ago, infuriating its social-conservative base and driving away Hispanic voters. It could be even more perilous for Democrats.

Democratic strategists believe that Hispanic voters could swing a decisive handful of states -- including Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada -- to the Democrats in 2008, ensuring the election of a Democratic president and cementing a Democratic majority for years to come. But the party's blue-collar, middle-income and African-American supporters are increasingly angry about illegal immigration, much of it Hispanic.

Democrats "are pretty jumpy on the issue," says Rep. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat who pushed for immigration overhaul in the House. "They would prefer to allow the Republicans to shepherd the Hispanic votes into the Democratic column without having to scare away a single other voter themselves," he says....

In a Nov. 5 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 11% of adults -- and 4% of Democratic voters -- said illegal immigration is their top priority. But members of that minority, organized on the Internet, have created political turmoil by flooding lawmakers' offices with faxes and regularly raising the issue on the campaign trail.

Similarly, a November University of Iowa poll shows just 2.4% of Iowa Democrats consider immigration as the issue "most important" to determining their vote, but 85% said a candidate's position on immigration is important or very important to them.

In one sign of the tension within the Democratic caucus, Hispanic-American lawmakers were furious last week that Democratic leaders hadn't derailed Republican efforts to include a limited English-only measure in a budget bill.

Hispanics made up 8% of the national vote in 2006, but their growing numbers and anger with the Republicans over such talk could mean electoral gold for the Democrats. NDN, a nonprofit Democratic think tank, predicts "there is no reasonable [Republican] road map to victory in 2008" if growing Hispanic populations tip several key states into the Democratic column.

But a pro-immigration policy risks alienating other Democratic constituencies....

"A heck of a lot of middle-class Democrats feel they're being overwhelmed [by illegal immigrants] and they're reacting the same as Republicans, only they're more ashamed to say so," says University of Virginia political scientist James Ceaser.

Democrats also risk setting off a "rivalry between the minorities" if they tilt toward Hispanics with their immigration policy, says the University of Virginia's Mr. Ceaser. The rise of Hispanic political power has come largely at the expense of African Americans, and Hispanic immigrants have largely replaced blacks in some industries, including construction.

See also John Fund''s analysis on Nancy Pelosi and the push to force the Salvation Army to hire non-English speakers.

Finally, see Steven Malanga's analysis of immigration policy following Hillary Clinton's recent tussle on the issue, "Why Illegal Immigration Alone Doesn't Matter."

Iraqi Sects Put Aside Animosity to Defeat Al Qaeda

Mainstream media outlets are finally leading the daily news cycle with upbeat reports on improvements in Iraq. This Los Angeles Times story on sectarian cooperation against al Qaeda is illustrative:

Despite persistent sectarian tensions in the Iraqi government, war-weary Sunnis and Shiites are joining hands at the local level to protect their communities from militants on both sides, U.S. military officials say.

In the last two months, a U.S.-backed policing movement called Concerned Citizens, launched last year in Sunni-dominated Anbar province under the banner of the Awakening movement, has spread rapidly into the mixed Iraqi heartland.

Of the nearly 70,000 Iraqi men in the Awakening movement, started by Sunni Muslim sheiks who turned their followers against Al Qaeda in Iraq, there are now more in Baghdad and its environs than anywhere else, and a growing number of those are Shiite Muslims.

Commanders in the field think they have tapped into a genuine public expression of reconciliation that has outpaced the elected government's progress on mending the sectarian rift.

"What you find is these people have lived together for decades with no problem until the terrorists arrived and tried to instigate the problem," said Lt. Col. Valery Keaveny, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 509th Airborne unit in the Iskandariya area south of Baghdad. "So they are perfectly willing to work together to keep the terrorists out."

As late as this summer, there were no Shiites in the community policing groups. Today, there are about 15,000 in 24 all-Shiite groups and 18 mixed groups, senior U.S. military officials say. More are joining daily.

Here in Qarghulia, a rural community east of Baghdad, the results are palpable. Killings are down dramatically and public confidence is reviving.

"Sunnis-Shiites, no problem," said Obede Ali Hussein, 22, who stood at a checkpoint built by the U.S. Army along the Diyala River. "We want to protect our neighborhood."

For commanders in areas where Sunni-Shiite warring had brought normal life to a standstill, the unexpected flowering of sectarian cooperation has proved a boon.

"I couldn't do it without them," said Capt. Troy Thomas, whose 1st Cavalry unit is responsible for securing the Qarghulia area.

Thomas said 42 of the 49 traffic checkpoints in his area are manned by local groups, including Sunnis and Shiites. He said they both extend his reach and perform with a sensitivity that no U.S. soldier could match.

"They grew up in the area," Thomas said. "They know who should be there and who shouldn't."

At his checkpoint, Ali Hussein eyed a steady stream of cars, farm trucks and motor scooters weaving down the rural Diyala River road toward the main north-south highway.

"Nobody could drive through the street six weeks ago," he said. "The street was empty."

Before this year's troop buildup, U.S. soldiers seldom ventured into Qarghulia. The area was patrolled by two Baghdad-based companies, or about 160 men, said Col. Wayne Grigsby, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division's 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team. National police had little presence there, either, and when they did show up, were mistrusted by the populace.

In this lawless climate, Al Qaeda in Iraq held sway in the chronically violent Sunni city of Salman Pak, while Shiite militias enforced mafioso-style protection in Qarghulia.

In early May, Thomas set up a 90-strong outpost dubbed Patrol Base Assassin in Qarghulia's Four Corners area, a crossroads where the rural population shops in rows of concrete strip malls.

When he arrived, about half the shops were shuttered, and those still doing business were paying protection money to the Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia, Thomas said.

To restore security in his Vermont-shaped area of 150 square miles, Thomas sought help. National police units would augment his patrols with checkpoints on the busy highway, but he remained exposed along the rural roads to the east and west.

He didn't hesitate when the local sheiks, who had heard of the spreading Concerned Citizens movement, approached him.

The first group, formed in September, now maintains about a dozen checkpoints along the Diyala River on the area's western edge and patrols back roads. The sheiks, both Sunni and Shiite, selected a Sunni farmer, Abu Ammash, to be the group's leader and filled its ranks with their followers, who came from both sects.

Over a recent two-day period, Thomas, a Minnesota-bred martial arts specialist, spent a considerable amount of time in the company of sheiks, who were starting a second Concerned Citizens group to protect his eastern flank.

The new group will be headed by Hamed Gitan Khalaf, a Shiite and former sergeant major in the Iraqi army.

Gitan said sect plays no part in his command, which will be split almost evenly between Sunni and Shiite.

"All of us are hand in hand," he said.

As I've noted before, we're seeing dramatic progress in Iraqi. Inter-sectarian cooperation is an especially encouraging sign.

See also Amy Proctor's recent post, "Muslims in Iraq Call for Christians to "Come Home."

Karl Rove at Newsweek: Batting for Bush?

As I noted in my previous post, Newsweek has brought on Markos Moulitsas and Karl Rove as occasional contributors to the magazine.

Newsweek says that it has a long-tradition of publishing commentary from "practitioners and opinion makers." In the case of Kos, though, I think the editors' selection of Moulitsas as an essayist was driven by a perceived need to get hip with the netroot commentariat. He certainly wasn't selected for incisive analysis and political acumen.

The selection of Rove, on the other hand, was an editorial masterstroke. A former Deputy Chief of Staff to President Bush, Rove is generally seen as the political architect of the Bush campaign's successful electoral strategies. He thus has - unlike Moulitsas - a solid record of real political accomplishment on which to base his commentary.

In his Newsweek piece, "How to Beat Hillary (Next) November," Rove lays out a plan of action for the Republican Party's 2008 run against a likely Hillary Clinton campaign. Rove avoids demonizing Clinton. In contrast to Moulitsas' ideological attack to discredit President Bush's moral legitimacy, Rove sticks to campaign strategy. Writing with respect, he notes that Hillary has a nose for detail, and she's not one to forget seemingly insignificant political minutiae in her bid for the White House. She'll be a formidable candidate, and Republicans risk underestimating her at their peril.

According to Rove, here's what the eventual GOP nominee should do:

Plan now to introduce yourself again right after winning the nomination. Don't assume everyone knows you. Many will still not know what you've done in real life. Create a narrative that explains your life and commitments. Every presidential election is about change and the future, not the past. So show them who you are in a way that gives the American people hope, optimism and insight. That's the best antidote to the low approval rates of the Republican president. Those numbers will not help the GOP candidate, just as the even lower approval ratings of the Congress will not help the Democratic standard-bearer.

Say in authentic terms what you believe. The GOP nominee must highlight his core convictions to help people understand who he is and to set up a natural contrast with Clinton, both on style and substance. Don't be afraid to say something controversial. The American people want their president to be authentic. And against a Democrat who calculates almost everything, including her accent and laugh, being seen as someone who says what he believes in a direct way will help.

Tackle issues families care about and Republicans too often shy away from. Jobs, the economy, taxes and spending will be big issues this campaign, but some issues that used to be "go to" ones for Republicans, like crime and welfare, don't have as much salience. Concerns like health care, the cost of college and social mobility will be more important. The Republican nominee needs to be confident in talking about these concerns and credible in laying out how he will address them. Be bold in approach and presentation.

Go after people who aren't traditional Republicans. Aggressively campaign for the votes of America's minorities. Go to their communities, listen and learn, demonstrate your engagement and emphasize how your message can provide hope and access to the American Dream for all. The GOP candidate must ask for the vote in every part of the electorate. He needs to do better among minorities, and be seen as trying.

Be strong on Iraq. Democrats have bet on failure. That's looking to be an increasingly bad wager, given the remarkable progress seen recently in Iraq. If the question is who will get out quicker, the answer is Hillary. The Republican candidate wants to recast the question to: who will lead America to victory in a vital battleground in the War on Terror? There will be contentious fights over funding the troops and over intelligence-gathering right after the parties settle on their candidates. Both battles will help the Republican candidate demonstrate who will be stronger in winning the new struggle of the 21st century.

The conventional wisdom now is that Hillary Clinton will be the next president. In reality, she's eminently beatable. Her contentious history evokes unpleasant memories. She lacks her husband's political gifts and rejects much of the centrism he championed. The health-care fiasco showed her style and ideology. All of which helps explain why, for a front runner in an open race for the presidency, she has the highest negatives in history.

While the prospective Republican nominee is talking about her now, the time will come soon when he must spend more time telling his story. By explaining to voters why he deserves to be our next president, he will also make clear why that job should not go to another person named Clinton.

I think Rove is right on to suggest the expansion of the GOP base. While he argues that the crime issue will be less salient next year, a skillful candidate might be able to tie an emphasis on personal responsibility to the government's job in promoting an opportunity society. The Republicans are much better positioned than the Democrats to forward such an agenda (and the country needs to move beyond the politics of a victim's-based social policy).

Rove also nails it with his comments on Iraq and the direction of the war on terror. The Republican nominee can use our growing success in Iraq to build for the larger advancement of American power and good in the world. This will ultimately be a lasting legacy of the Bush administration, and the next GOP candidate ought rightly to campaign as an agent of continuity for the Bush freedom agenda.

Markos Moulitsas at Newsweek: Crazy for Kos?

Markos Moulitsas and Karl Rove have been invited by Newsweek to write periodic commentaries for the magazine. I'm a Newsweek subscriber and every weekend I get an e-mail newsletter with a preview of the magazine's highlights for the next week. Here's the editor's announcement of the new essayists:

This week... marks the debut of two new occasional contributors to our pages and to Newsweek.com: Karl Rove and Markos Moulitsas. They are controversial figures, which is why we asked them aboard. We have a long tradition of asking practitioners and opinion makers to write for us (George Stephanopoulos is a good recent example) and believe that Rove and Moulitsas will give readers useful perspectives. Sometimes they will write in the same issue (as they are this week), sometimes not. Agree or disagree with them, or with me for asking them to contribute from time to time, we can safely say this: conducted civilly (as it will be here), debate and disagreement are good and healthy things. I think I read that in a book somewhere.

As readers of my previous blog know, I don't like Moulitsas, so at least I'll get the heads up on Moulitsas' forthcoming columns, which will give me something on which to rant. One of the things I've noted about Moulitsas is his megalomania. He's got an incredibly false sense of self-importance, and unfortunately the Newsweek hiring validates Moulitsas' undeserved acclaim.

Some of that self-inflation comes through in Moulitsas' introductory commentary, "Make the Bush Record the Issue." Here's the introduction:

Times are tough for the Republican Party and its candidates. Earlier this month, according to Gallup, more people strongly disapproved of George W. Bush than any previous president since the advent?of polling—and, really, how could things be any different? Bush can boast of an unwinnable quagmire in Iraq, a decimated housing market, economic instability and a collapsing dollar, a dysfunctional health-care system, a still-devastated Gulf Coast, a wealth gap of a scope unseen since the Great Depression and a pervasive and disturbing image of America as a hapless, blundering giant, rather than a beacon of freedom and morality in the world.

Yet despite this dismal rap sheet, Republicans refuse to distance themselves too far from Bush and his record lest they take a hit from the fringe voters who still support his presidency. That is, after all, the Republican Party base, and no presidential or congressional candidate can get far without its help. It's why Republicans refuse to break from the president on Iraq, despite the lack of political progress in Baghdad. It's why Republicans voted to support Bush's veto of the wildly popular State Children's Health Insurance Program, denying health care to millions of needy kids. Time and again, GOP leaders have forgone sensible and popular policies in favor of catering to a shrinking and increasingly isolated base.

Consequently, to stand any chance of winning next year, Republicans must pray for a national amnesia to erase the previous eight years from the minds of voters. But amnesia only happens in soap operas—and that's why Democrats will win in 2008. As long as Democratic candidates remind voters that the Republican platform and Bush's record are one and the same, victory will be assured.

In his first Inaugural Address, Ronald Reagan remarked that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." While the quip has provided Republicans with a cheap slogan for two decades, the philosophy behind it is beginning to box them in. If they govern effectively, they invalidate their own antigovernment ideology. And when you elect people who believe that government won't work, you shouldn't be surprised when government stops working.

Bush, who in his failed congressional run in 1978 campaigned against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, gutted the effectiveness of the Mine Safety and Health Administration as president. When sharp decreases in inspections and fines led, not unexpectedly, to a rash of deaths in underground mines from the Appalachians to Utah, the administration might have thought to reverse its leniency. Even mining companies braced for a new round of regulations. Instead, the only major move from the Bush administration has been to relax regulations, in effect rewarding mining companies for having contributed to the deaths of their employees.

That's not even the entire essay! But where to begin? Notice first how Moulitsas turns policy criticism of the administration into moral indictments of the president himself.

Not only that, Moulitsas' attacks are wildly inaccurate: Iraq is not "an unwinnable quagmire." Moulitsas is a veteran, and one might think he'd have some knowledge of military tactics and strategy. General Petraeus' new approach in Iraq is working, but as Moulitsas' spin shows, no amount of progress on the ground will overcome the nihilist Bush-hatred of such antiwar fanatics.

How about the housing market, the economy, and the dollar? Easy target I'd say, but any serious analyst of politics knows that presidents have limited direct influence on the economy. Monetary policy has been the big driver of current economic difficulties, so if anyone should be taking the heat, it's Alan Greenspan and his easy money pump-priming.

Moulitsas' notion of a "dysfunctional" health care system is a poorly conceived normative interpretation. Americans have the best health care in the world, but changes in the economy over the last couple of decades have shifted more and more of the burden of insurance onto individual consumers. Moulitsas' unsaid solution to this "dysfunction" is a governmental takeover of healthcare, which would destroy access, choice, and quality in the provision of medical services.

How about the income gap? Moultisas mentions it's the worst since the Great Depression. That's strange, since most economic populists cite the "roaring twenties" as the last gilded age, just prior to the economic collapse that led to a Democratic realignment. Kos should work on his historical analogies, not to mention his economics, since the current background is more complicated and not so dire (see here and here).

Kos should also review some recent electoral results. If Gulf Coast residents are still recovering from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, they certainly aren't taking it out on Republicans at the polls: Republican Bobby Jindal won the governorship of Lousiana in October, and Haley Barbour cruised to reelection in Mississippi this month.

As for America's international image: Only radical administration's opponents would indulge in such America-bashing as found in Moulitsas' mocking characterization of the United States as a "hapless, blundering giant, rather than a beacon of morality in the world." I'm sure al Qaeda in Iraq would welcome more hapless blundering around Anbar and Baghdad right now, and just ask the Indonesians - eternally grateful for America's assistance after that country's devasting tsunami in 2004 - about America as moral beacon.

I could go on. As the essay develops, Moulitsas continues to build steam in his moral attacks on President Bush. This is not policy analysis; it's character assassination.

In an earlier post I wrote about "The Political Psychology of Bush Hatred." The views of Markos Moulitsas epitomize the left's unmitigated hatred of any and all things Republican. I don't go in for political hatred myself, but when I read Moultisas' hare-brained hit pieces, I do get a tinge of such emotions.

Debating Grand Strategy After the Bush Presidency

Barry Posen has an interesting piece over at the new American Interest, "The Case for Restraint," an argument for strategic pullback in American grand strategy after the Bush presidency.

Posen's a top scholar. I especially liked his piece from 2003 on "The Military Foundations of U.S. Hegemony." I don't think this new American Interest article is all that well conceived, however. I'm not favorable to neo-islolationism, which is basically what Posen proposes; and I'm especially against his suggestion that the U.S. end its military support of Israel:

U.S. military assistance to Israel makes the occupation of the [Palestinian] territories relatively inexpensive for Israeli political leaders, and implicates the United States in the deed. This may not be “central” to U.S. problems in the Arab world, as so many insist, but it certainly does not help. The United States should therefore develop a ten-year plan to reduce U.S. government direct financial assistance to Israel to zero. Israel is now a prosperous country that happens to be surrounded by military powers lacking any capacity to conquer it.

Read the whole thing.

The editors have assembed a set of responses to Posen's arguments, including: Francis Fukuyama, Josef Joffe, Walter Russell Mead, Niall Ferguson, Owen Harries, G. John Ikenberry, Lilia Shevtsova, Stephen D. Krasner, Wang Jisi, James Q. Wilson, Bronislaw Geremek, C. Raja Mohan, Ruth Wedgwood and Itamar Rabinovich.

Here's Wilson's rebuttal:

Barry Posen believes that the United States should follow a policy of restraint instead of activism. By “restraint” he means a defensive rather than offensive strategy in which the United States would avoid playing a leadership role, rely on intelligence operations rather than military force, withdraw troops from many overseas bases and count on deterrence for protection.

I believe that Posen’s argument is either unclear or wrong. It is vague to say that restraint should have been our policy since the beginning of the Cold War because he fails to discuss American military activities since that time, leaving us uncertain as to what he means. Which of the following should we not have done: Fight in Korea and Vietnam? Use a naval blockade to induce the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba? Force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait? Send troops to Haiti in an effort to block a dictatorial regime? Overthrow a Marxist regime in Guatemala? Seize Manuel Noriega in Panama?

It is wrong to assert that our general policy should lead us to defer to others, supply logistical aid rather than use military force, avoid preemptive strikes in areas that tolerate Islamic radicals, not supply guarantees and assistance to allies, and counter al-Qaeda with intelligence operations rather than invasions. Doing these things would leave the world unprotected and confirm Osama bin Laden and others in their view that the United States, though still the Great Satan, is an impotent and helpless devil, no better than the Soviet Union that the mujaheddin threw out of Afghanistan.

Indeed, when we look at the last forty years, America has relentlessly, until the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan, followed a policy of restraint. The Shah was overthrown in Iran, 241 Marines were killed in Lebanon, a CIA station chief was tortured and murdered there, the ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and an American was killed, Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Scotland, a bomb was detonated under the World Trade Center, two of our Embassies were destroyed in Africa, the USS Cole was attacked in Yemen, and American soldiers were murdered in Somalia. When these and other attacks, all carried out by Islamic radicals, occurred, the United States did nothing except occasionally to lob a few cruise missiles into some empty buildings. By 1998, bin Laden had drawn the right conclusion. In an interview, he described the American military as a “paper tiger” who “after a few blows ran in defeat.”

The notion that these attacks could be handled by intelligence officers is laughable. I commend to Posen the new book by Tim Wiener, Legacy of Ashes (2007), about the failure of most covert operations undertaken by the CIA.

At the end of his proposal, Posen suggests that we eliminate all aid to Israel because it is surrounded by “military powers lacking any capacity to conquer it.” Lacking any capacity? Is he counting Iran after it acquires a nuclear weapon? Or even without that, he says little about the roughly $1.8 billion in aid we give Egypt every year—aid that, if continued, will make Egypt stronger by the time power there is seized by the Muslim Brotherhood.

When President George W. Bush clarified our commitment to preventive attacks—a policy that had in fact been in effect long before he took office—he said that “the war on terror will not be won on the defensive” because “time is not on our side.” This does not mean that we should intervene everywhere, but only where an intervention will make a decisive difference. Afghanistan was one such case, Iraq is another.

The struggle in Iraq has been costly, and it will not stop soon. But we have gained a great deal: We ended a regime that had in the past built and used—and if left alone would again have built and used—weapons of mass destruction; that invaded two neighboring countries; that murdered its own people with chemical weapons and summary executions; that provided aid to the families of terrorists; and that, if left alone, would have brought Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to heel. This was only possible because we exercised leadership and did not wait, with restraint, for others to pass yet another meaningless Security Council resolution.

I'd also suggest Niall Ferguson's response, where he notes that some of Posen's suggestions "would impress even Noam Chomsky, to say nothing of Osama bin Laden."

Media Silence on Progress in Iraq

Investor's Business Daily notes the strange silence in the mainstream press on progress in Iraq (via Memeorandum):

There's an eery silence out there about what's going on in Iraq. It's almost as if the silence is, well, intentional. Here are just a few examples of what we're talking about, pulled from last week's developments:

• In Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, British Major Gen. Graham Binns said that attacks against British and American forces have plunged 90% since the start of September.

• Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki reported that terrorist attacks of all kinds are down almost 80% from last year's peak — thanks directly to the U.S. surge of 30,000 new troops.

• Amid growing signs that even Iraq extremists have tired of terrorism and killing, a Sunni religious group closed down the high-profile Muslim Scholars Association because of its ties to terrorists.

• U.S. Major Gen. James Simmons, speaking in Baghdad, said Iran's pledges to stop sending weapons and explosives into Iraq "appear to be holding up." Roadside bombs, the leading killer of U.S. troops, have plunged 52% since March, he added.

• Perhaps most touching, according to a report from Michael Yon, who deserves to be the first blogger to win a Pulitzer Prize, Muslims are asking Iraqi Christians to return to help build Iraq.

Iraqi Muslims recently crammed into St. John's Catholic church in Baghdad to attend a Christian service. According to Yon, "Muslims keep telling me to get it on the news. 'Tell the Christians to come home to their country Iraq.' "

• Finally, there's this from Douglas Halaspaska, a reporter on the Web site U.S. Cavalry ON Point: "I came to Ramadi expecting a war and what I found was a city that has grown from the carnage, and all its inhabitants — both Iraqi and American — healing. I was not expecting what I found in Iraq . . . it was better than all of that."

Again, all this has taken place just in recent days, weeks and months. The positive news has become simply overwhelming.

Which makes it all the more curious why major newspapers and network TV news programs can lead with a barrage of news out of Iraq when things there go bad, but can't seem to find the space or time when things turn good. As the bad news dries up, their interest in the good remains nil.

The editorial goes on to discuss the Democratic Party's "sheepishness" on the war (more on that here). Be sure to check out Michael Yon's online magazine.

Joseph Lieberman Matters

The major media ignored Senator Joseph Lieberman's major speech on the politics of Iraq last week. The Weekly Standard discusses why Lieberman's views matter for the 2008 presidential race:

If a senator gives a speech, and no major newspaper reports it, does it matter? Joe Lieberman spoke in Washington Thursday on "the politics of national security." The next day, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today ignored his talk. Most Democrats will ignore it. But five guys named Rudy, John, Fred, Mitt, and Mike will read it. So should you. To that end, we're happy to provide excerpts from the remarks of the independent Democrat from Connecticut:

Between 2002 and 2006, there was a battle within the Democratic Party. . . . We could rightly criticize the Bush administration when it failed to live up to its own rhetoric, or when it bungled the execution of its policies. But I felt that we should not minimize the seriousness of the threat from Islamist extremism, or the fundamental rightness of the muscular, internationalist, and morally self-confident response that President Bush had chosen in response to it.

But that was not the choice most Democrats made. . . . Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.

Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America's moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving. . . .

I offered an amendment earlier this fall, together with Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, urging the Bush administration to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization and impose economic sanctions on them.

The reason for our amendment was clear. In September, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress about the proxy war that Iran--and in particular, the IRGC and its Quds Force subsidiary--has been waging against our troops in Iraq. Specifically, General Petraeus told us that the IRGC Quds Force has been training, funding, equipping, arming, and in some cases directing Shiite extremists who are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers. . . .

Although the Senate passed our amendment, 76-22, several Democrats, including some of the Democratic presidential candidates, soon began attacking it--and Senator Clinton, who voted for the amendment. In fact, some of the very same Democrats who had cosponsored the legislation in the spring, urging the designation of the IRGC, began denouncing our amendment for doing the exact same thing.

. . . [T]here is something profoundly wrong--something that should trouble all of us--when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran's murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.

There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base--even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.

For me, this episode reinforces how far the Democratic Party of 2007 has strayed. . . . That is why I call myself an Independent Democrat today. It is because my foreign policy convictions are the convictions that have traditionally animated the Democratic Party--but they exist in me today independent of the current Democratic Party, which has largely repudiated them.

I hope that Democrats will one day again rediscover and re-embrace these principles. . . . But regardless of when or if that happens, those convictions will continue to be mine. And I will continue to fight to advance them along with like-minded Democrats and like-minded Republicans.

Read the whole speech on Lieberman's website. As for Rudy and John and Fred and Mitt and Mike: Take a break from kissing babies to pick up the phone and congratulate Joe. Seek his endorsement after you win the nomination. What the heck--offer him the vice presidency. (Rudy, you might try State or Defense, since you'll need a pro-life running mate.) But McCain-Lieberman, Thompson-Lieberman, Romney-Lieberman, Huckabee-Lieberman--those sound like winning tickets to us. It's true, given the behavior of the congressional Democrats, the GOP nominee might well win with a more conventional running mate. But why settle for a victory if you can have a realignment?

Lieberman would make an outstanding vice-presidential running-mate. I would have preferred to see him running in the 2008 presidential primaries himself, as a Republican!

The Silver Neocon

Ron Silver, of television and movie fame, writes a blog over at Pajamas Media. He's got an interesting piece over there on his political philosophy, what he calls "revolutionary liberalism":

Often when I walked onto the set of the West Wing some of my colleagues would greet me with a chanting of “Ron, Ron, the neo-con.” It was all done in fun but it had an edge.

Since speaking in support of George Bush at the 2004 Republican convention I’ve become increasingly disadmired by members of my profession as well as many others. As of this writing my family tells me they still love me. I believe them, but stay tuned, as another presidential cycle is upon us.

I find myself increasingly amused as folks extrapolate my support for the Bush Doctrine and our battles in Iraq and Afghanistan to how I feel about everything. When backed into a corner I often describe my politics, quite snarkily I admit, as a little bit to the right of the left of center.

As far as I can tell, my politics, with regard to American foreign policy and projection of American power haven’t changed very much from what they’ve always been—what I would call revolutionary liberalism. I have always resisted reactionaries from the left or right, Democrat or Republican. At the moment, the reactionary forces on the left, the Democratic netroots and their supporters—Mickey Colitis from the Daily Cuss, MoveOn.org and the Moores and Sheehans—are more fearful to me than the traditional reactionary forces of the extreme right. And the Democratic Party seems to be listening to them.

Senator Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate only eight years ago, gave an extraordinary speech on national security last week that the mainstream media did not cover. It’s a shame. And it’s a shame the Democratic Party shunned Lieberman and tried to defeat him in a primary. They made it clear that there is no place for him in the party he’s dedicated his life to. I’m a Joe Lieberman Democrat.

JFK reportedly remarked, “sometimes the party asks too much.” He was referring to the deal his Democratic Party made with southern segregationists to maintain control of Congress. His words are as true now as they were then. Sometimes the party asks too much.

I count myself firmly in the tradition of Wilson, FDR, Truman and Kennedy…and yes, Reagan and George W. Bush. “Go anywhere, bear any burden,” “try to do our best to make a world safe for democracy.” Our national mission, a worthy and ennobling one, is to expand freedom where we can. These are revolutionary goals very much in keeping with our Founders’ vision. They are hardly conservative, let alone neo-conservative goals.

My reactionary former colleagues and friends were quite content with the status quo with Saddam in power in a post 9/11 world. I was not. Revolutionary, not reactionary. My friends sound a bit racist when they insist on Arab-Muslim incapacities to expand freedoms and maintain their faith. I believe the Arab world will work its way to achieve this. I know that it will most likely come about through internal Arab-Muslim struggles and not via external pressures, but I believe we are uniquely capable of helping it along. Uniquely, because our Founding scriptures declare, “all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights.” Revolutionary, not reactionary.

Many people felt that the threat posed by Saddam was more tolerable than the risk of removing him. I disagreed and still do. Many of these people now feel that the threat of a nuclear Iran is more tolerable than the risk involved in making sure Iran doesn’t have such capabilities. I think they have it backwards. Many people feel reluctant to acknowledge that the “war on terror” is a real war. There is an unwillingness to identify the enemy, which is clearly a world-wide, malignant, metastatic Islamic jihadism, that will only be defeated ultimately with the Islamic world rising to reject the cancer. We cannot fight a war by pretending we’re not in one. This requires transformative, upset the apple cart thinking. It requires people who are revolutionary, not reactionary. As much as we might like, we cannot return to a pre-9/11 world.

The President is challenging the world with a new order. There is always passionate opposition to change. Have grievous mistakes been made? Yes. But just as Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan laid the foundations for fighting and prevailing in the Cold War, Bush has responded to 9/11 with a foreign policy revolution of similar magnitude: a reorganization of government institutions and appropriate legislation to meet the emerging threats.

Containment and deterrence are ineffective in this brave new world. There is no containment if you can’t see the enemy; there is no deterrence if the enemy desires death.

I believe the President’s critics are profoundly mistaken. I believe they misunderstand how he’s trying to protect us. I believe they misunderstand the nature of the threat. I believe they misunderstand history. If they succeed in dismantling what President Bush has set in motion, the results may well be catastrophic and history will never forgive them.

George W. Bush: a revolutionary liberal internationalist? History may so decree. Let’s wait and see.

My philosophy, at the end of the day, bottom line, as they say: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but labels never hurt me.”

That's an outstanding statement of values. The "Silver Neocon." Sounds like a superhero!

For further discussion of "the projection of American power," see my inaugural post, "Welcome to American Power."

Hat tip: Liberty Pundit.

CNN's Descent

Tim Rutten has a nice analysis of CNN's increasing descent from objective journalism, at the Los Angeles Times:

If you're one of those dutiful souls who felt that the responsible exercise of citizenship required you to watch Thursday's debate among the Democratic candidates on CNN, you probably came away feeling as if you'd spent a couple of hours locked in the embrace of a time share salesman.

We're not talking about the candidates here, but about the shamelessly high-pressure pitch machine that has replaced the Cable News Network's once smart and reliable campaign coverage. Was there ever a better backdrop than Las Vegas for the traveling wreck of a journalistic carnival that CNN's political journalism has become? And can there now be any doubt that, in his last life, Wolf Blitzer had a booth on the midway, barking for the bearded lady and the dog-faced boy?

It all would be darkly comedic if CNN's descent into hyperbole and histrionics simply represented a miscalculation in reportorial style, but it signals something else -- the network's attempt to position itself ideologically, the way Fox and MSNBC already have done. In fact, we now have a situation in which the three all-news cable networks each have aligned themselves with a point on the political compass: Fox went first and consciously became the Republican network; MSNBC, which would have sold its soul to the devil for six ratings points, instead found a less-demanding buyer in the Democrats. Now, CNN has decided to reinvent itself as the independent, populist network cursing both sides of the conventional political aisle -- along with immigrants and free trade, of course.

In other words, for the first time since the advent of television news as a major force in American life, the 2008 presidential campaign will be fought out with individual networks committed to particular political perspectives. Why does that matter? As far back as 2004, the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that "cable now trails only local TV news as a regular source for (presidential) campaign information. In several key demographic categories -- young people, college graduates and wealthy Americans -- cable is the leading source for election news." Thus, for key segments of the electorate -- groups rich in what the pollsters call "likely voters" -- the main source of political news is now a partisan, or at least, a politicized one.

It would be one thing if all this had occurred as the result of conviction, but the conglomerates that own the cable news networks -- Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., GE and Time Warner -- don't have convictions. They have interests, particularly in ratings. They're all mindful of what occurred in the run-up to the last election, when -- as Pew found -- the reliably Republican Fox increased its audience by nearly half, from 17% to 25%, while audiences for CNN and MSNBC, then still nonpartisan, remained flat.

A Pew survey earlier this year found that all this has had its consequences: "Republicans outnumber Democrats by two-to-one (43% to 21%) among the core Fox News Channel audience, while there are far more Democrats than Republicans among CNN's viewers (43% Democrat, 22% Republican) and network news viewers (41% Democrat, 24% Republican)."

Because the ratings-driven world by which the cable networks now measure themselves feeds on the culture of celebrity, each now has a signature personality -- Bill O'Reilly on Fox, Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and the neopopulist Lou Dobbs on CNN. Among the three, Dobbs has been given the greatest license by the network's increasingly desperate executives. His endless fulminations against immigrants and free trade now have been interwoven into the fabric of CNN's political coverage, where Dobbs plays the role of both pundit and populist partisan. The network has relentlessly sold his new book, "Independents Day: Awakening the American Spirit," since it came out last week, despite the fact that it's quite clearly meant to give him a platform for his own political aspirations.

Read the whole thing.

I think Rutten should have continued his analysis with further discussion of the implications of a partisan press for American society. When the media becomes a partisan actor, it no longer works as a representative of the people; it no longer serves as a watchdog against corruption and malfeasance.

Rutten's right about hyperpartisanship and a market for mindless media mudslingling, but Lou Dobbs' presidential aspirations might have been handled in a stand-alone essay.

The True Costs of War

As the United States closes in on victory in Iraq, I'm noticing a new twist among antiwar types: Criticizing, for political purposes, the total costs of the war - financial, human, even opportunity costs.

Check out Eleanor Clift's essay over at Newsweek for a bit of this theme:

The Democratic-controlled Congress is once again trying to change the course of U.S. policy in Iraq; once again they've failed. Without 60 votes in the Senate, the latest war-funding bill, passed by a narrow margin in the House and with a quarter of the money requested by the White House, fell short—and President Bush has emerged the victor. We've seen this movie before, except this time it has a new wrinkle: a huge drop in public consciousness about Iraq.

It's happened in part because American casualties are way down—even though this year has been the bloodiest since the war began. The news media have backed off in their coverage, paying more attention to a prospective military clash with Iran and the Musharraf meltdown in Pakistan than the day-to-day turmoil in Iraq. "The media requires change, and the story hasn't changed," says Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center. "People's mood about the war hasn't improved, but they aren't tracking it because they can't find it."

At a breakfast last week a reporter asked House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer if Democrats were so wedded to the story line of Iraq as a failure that they risked embarrassment if it turns out to be a success.

Whatever is meant by success in Iraq, it would have to be pretty spectacular to justify the $1.6 trillion that the war could cost by 2009, according to a report by the Joint Economic congressional committee, which includes such hidden costs as the interest on borrowed money to pay for the war and health care for tens of thousands of wounded. Administration planners assumed a certain number of injured and some dead, but not this many—not in a war billed as a cakewalk with grateful Iraqis strewing the path with flowers and candy. For the 3,859 fallen soldiers and their families, the cost, as they say in that American Express commercial, is priceless. With the exception of Cindy Sheehan, who took her rage public after losing her son, these families are hidden from view, partly because of their own choice, but also because of administration policy banning pictures of returning coffins and a society that too often prefers to look away.

Clift concludes her essay with a cursory discussion of the Iraq war in current cinema. Recent feature films on Iraq have bombed at the box office, most likely because the public's not going for antiwar moviemaking nihilism. Therefore, Clift focuses on the poignancy angle, suggesting that some releases are offering stories of "pain, loss and coping."

That's all well and good, even necesary: No American should dismiss the hardship our fighting forces have sustained. But we ought not feel sorry for them, and heartfelt films on the war should not be presented as surrogates for some broader national antiwar sentiment.

We are at a turning point in the war, where all of the costs we've borne as a nation are redounding to the benefit of the Iraqi people and to America's increasing international efficacy.

But one wouldn't know this by reading Tyler Cowen's essay over at the Washington Post, "What Does Iraq Cost? Even More Than You Think." Cowen offers some useful ways of thinking about the enormity of the war's costs to American society (for example, opportunity costs: What might we have done with war resources in the absence of the conflict?). But Cowen's agenda is deeper. His goal is to impugn the administration and discredit the cause of toppling Saddam's regime. We thus get more claims along the lines of it's "a disastrous war" based on "administration lies."

After laying out the bottom line, here's Cowen's indictment:

Following your lead, Iraq hawks argued that, in a post-9/11 world, we needed to take out rogue regimes lest they give nuclear or biological weapons to al-Qaeda-linked terrorist groups. But each time the United States tries to do so and fails to restore order, it incurs a high -- albeit unseen -- opportunity cost in the future. Falling short makes it harder to take out, threaten or pressure a dangerous regime next time around.

Foreign governments, of course, drew the obvious lesson from our debacle -- and from our choice of target. The United States invaded hapless Iraq, not nuclear-armed North Korea. To the real rogues, the fall of Baghdad was proof positive that it's more important than ever to acquire nuclear weapons -- and if the last superpower is bogged down in Iraq while its foes slink toward getting the bomb, so much the better. Iran, among others, has taken this lesson to heart. The ironic legacy of the war to end all proliferation will be more proliferation.

The bottom line is clear, Mr. President: The more you worried about the unchecked spread of doomsday weapons, the stronger you thought the case was for war in the first place. But precisely because you had a point about the need to stop nuclear proliferation, you must now realize that the costs of a failed war are far higher than you've acknowledged.

Ironically, it's probably the doves who should lower their mental estimate of the war's long-haul cost: By fighting a botched war today, the United States has lowered the chance that it will fight another preventive war in the near future. The American public simply does not have the stomach for fighting a costly, potentially futile war every few years. U.S. voters have already lost patience with the pace of reconstruction in Iraq, and that frustration will linger; remember, it took the country 15 years or more to "get over" Vietnam. The projection of American power and influence in the future requires that an impatient public feel good about American muscle-flexing in the past.

Even if the wisest way forward is sticking to our guns, the constraints of politics and public opinion mean that we cannot always see U.S. military commitments through. Since turning tail hurts our credibility so badly and leaves such a mess behind, we should be extremely cautious about military intervention in the first place. The case for hawkish behavior often assumes that the public has more political will than it actually has, so we need to save up that resolve for cases when it really counts.

Someone needs to break it to Cowen: This is a case that really counts. We are in Iraq to finish the job we began in 1991, and to enforce the will in the international community in sanctioning the Iraqi regime for frequent and egregious violations of U.N.-imposed sanctions. Rather than continue the tired old attacks on the origins and justification of the war, Americans need to be pulling together to compete the mission in national unity. That's the American way.

All wars are expensive, in all the financial and human totality of the word; and there's no discounting the burdens many Americans have shared in prosecuting this conflict.

But at some point the partisan rancor needs to stop. War opponents need to stand tall in facing our challenges, especially as a new American political alignment appears likely. The ulitmate cost of not doing so will be to continue the increasing and debilitating political polarization of foreign policy, precisely when the call of unity and purpose is at its loudest.

In Ron Paul We Trust?

Things just keep getting better for those monitoring Ron Paul's whacked out presidential campaign.

It turns out just days after Paul made a speech at a Philadelphia rally in front of the U.S. Mint's facilities in Philadelphia, federal agents seized a batch of about 60,000 "Ron Paul Dollars," copper coins decorated with the haggard image of the Texas congressman. The Washington Post has the story:

The ardent supporters of Rep. Ron Paul, the iconoclastic Texas libertarian whose campaign for the presidency is threatening to upend the battle for the Republican nomination, got word yesterday of a new source of outrage and motivation: reports of a federal raid on a company that was selling thousands of coins marked with the craggy visage of their hero.

Federal agents on Thursday raided the Evansville, Ind., headquarters of the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and Internal Revenue Code (Norfed), an organization of "sound money" advocates that for the past decade has been selling a private currency it calls "Liberty Dollars." The company says it has put into circulation more than $20 million in Liberty Dollars, coins and paper certificates it contends are backed by silver and gold stored in Idaho, are far more reliable than a U.S. dollar and are accepted for use by a nationwide underground economy.

Norfed officials said yesterday that the six-hour raid occurred just as its six employees were mailing out the first batch of 60,000 "Ron Paul Dollars," copper coins sold for $1 to honor the candidate, who is a longtime advocate of abolishing the Federal Reserve. The group says it has shipped out about 10,000 silver Ron Paul Dollars that sold for $20 and about 3,500 of the copper $1 coins. But it said the agents seized more than 50,000 of the copper coins -- more than two tons' worth -- plus smaller amounts of the silver coins and gold and platinum Ron Paul Dollars, which sell for $1,000 and $2,000.

"They took everything, all of the computers, everything but the desks and chairs," the company's founder and head, Bernard von NotHaus, said in a telephone interview from his home in Miami. "The federal government really is afraid." Von NotHaus changed the name of Norfed to Liberty Services earlier this year, but affidavits for government search warrants served yesterday continued to use the older name.

News of the raid lit up Ron Paul online forums yesterday, the latest unlikely episode in a campaign that began as an idiosyncratic bid by the veteran congressman but has grown into a cause with the potential to influence the GOP contest. Paul, 72, has attracted droves of disaffected Republicans and independents to his platform, which includes ending the war in Iraq, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and adhering to a strict libertarian interpretation of the Constitution.

He raised a record-breaking $4 million in a single day this month and nears double digits in some New Hampshire polls.

A Paul campaign spokeswoman said yesterday that the campaign has "no affiliation" with the Ron Paul Dollars. But Paul's supporters said the seizure of the coins is sure to further stoke support for the campaign.

"People are pretty upset about this," said Jim Forsythe, head of the Paul Meetup group in New Hampshire, who said he recently ordered 150 of the copper coins. "The dollar is going down the tubes, and this is something that can protect the value of their money, and the Federal Reserve is threatened by that. It'll definitely fire people up."

Here's Paul's speech at the U.S. Mint, via YouTube:

It turns out the Philadelphia crowd was filled with neo-nazis and skinheads. Paul's not returned the money he gets from the stormtroopers, nor has he denounced their support. I've blogged about Paul's whacked out campaign here, here, here, here, here, and here. See also Flopping Aces, on "More Ron Paul Nuttiness."

Some of the Paulite fringe have started to freak out, posting hare-brained attacks on me in their desperation. This is getting too easy!

**********

UPDATE: I really am getting to the Paulites! Check out this attack on my "neocon" credentials, at Conservatives Times (Ron Paul ringmaster's headquarters!).

Hillary Fights Back

Here's the YouTube introduction to the Democrats' Las Vegas debate, with Hillary Clinton denouncing her opponents' mudslinging attacks (drawn from "the Republican playbook"):

Dan Balz over at the Washington Post argues Hillary's quieted talk of her pitiful debate performance last week in Philadelphia:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's strong performance in Thursday's Democratic debate here will blunt talk that she is on a downward slide and shift the focus to whether Sen. Barack Obama or former senator John Edwards can stop her march to the nomination, party strategists said Friday.

"In some ways the hiccup of two weeks ago, or the misstep of two weeks ago, was good for the Clinton campaign, in that it brought the Clinton campaign back to earth and back to reality," said Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin, referring to her rocky outing in a debate in Philadelphia late last month. "It was a campaign that probably started looking to the general election a little too early, that didn't take the voters' questions about Hillary Clinton to heart enough."

Steve Elmendorf, who ran the presidential campaign in 2004 for then-Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, said Clinton's aggressiveness Thursday was a reminder to her rivals that she would not allow them to attack her indefinitely without responding. "She sent a very strong signal to the other candidates that there are no free shots here," he said. "She is ahead, and if they attack her, she'll hit back. Everybody has vulnerabilities."

Clinton (N.Y.) won the battle of Las Vegas by aggressively turning the tables on her rivals, challenging them where they are vulnerable and forcing them to answer questions they weren't ready to answer. She once again demonstrated her skill as a debater -- and Obama (Ill.) showed that he is not as strong in debates as he is in other forums.

The reactions from inside the Clinton and Obama campaigns signaled that between now and Iowa, there will be an intensifying debate over who should lead the party. Clinton advisers were ecstatic about the performance, which they felt successfully shifted the story line away from the candidate's earlier problems. Gone was talk about "piling on," which had marked their response to the Philadelphia debate, even though her rivals were as critical of her Thursday night as they had been earlier.

I don't think there's much doubt that Clinton's got the Democratic nomination pretty much wrapped up. Obama looked befuddled in Las Vegas. He wasn't even cerebral, just mostly clumsy and limp.

Note as well that the liberal blogosphere is up in arms over CNN's planted questions, especially "diamonds or pearls"?

Can't make anyone happy nowadays, I guess!

Cut-and-Run Lives at the Old Grey Lady!

Unlike the editors of the Los Angeles Times, who at least recognized victory in Iraq before calling for a precipitous withrawal, the boys in the editorial office at the New York Times just can't seem to shake their relentless cut-and-run ideology:

It has been two long months since Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, cowed Congressional Democrats into silence, championing President Bush’s misguided course on the war. We’re pleased to see that the effects of his briefing are finally wearing off. The bad news, as ever, is that Mr. Bush and his Republican allies continue to resist reason.

House Democrats distinguished themselves this week when they stood up to the White House’s latest military funding steamroller: approving only $50 million of the additional $196 million the president requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also set conditions on the funding, including demands that troops start coming home from Iraq within 30 days and that the withdrawal be completed by mid-December 2008.

Senate Democrats quickly brought the House plan to the floor. But, ever the spoilers, Republicans blocked it, as they have other attempts to rein in Mr. Bush’s war-without-end in Iraq.

Predictably, the White House — which always prefers fear-mongering to serious debate — accused Democrats of undermining the troops. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates got into the act, threatening to direct the Army and Marine Corps to begin developing plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts next year unless Congress approves new funding within days.

Lawmakers, regardless of party, and the American people will always stand behind the brave men and women in the armed forces. Congress has already approved some $800 billion in funding since Sept. 11, 2001, for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that hardly measures the full cost in blood and treasure. More than 800 troops have been killed in Iraq in 2007 alone, making it the deadliest year yet for the American military there.

There have been some advances since President Bush sought to salvage his misadventure by sending even more troops into Iraq. Violence has declined and Al Qaeda in Iraq is said to be weaker. But Mr. Bush’s main argument for his escalation — that it would create political space for Iraqis to work together and achieve national reconciliation — has proved wrong.

Even Mr. Bush’s generals know that these gains are unlikely to last. The Washington Post’s Thomas Ricks reported this week that senior American commanders now see the intransigence of Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the American effort in Iraq — rather than Al Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias. America can’t want peace and democracy for Iraq more than the Iraqis.

Democrats say they will continue to push the president and his Republican allies to concede their failed war policy and change course. They must keep at it. It’s far past time to begin a swift and orderly withdrawal of forces from Iraq’s civil war and to refocus on Afghanistan, where America’s win over the Taliban and Al Qaeda is in danger of being reversed.

House Democrats distinguished themselves with their depressingly ill-considered antiwar withdrawal bill?

That's supposed to be funny, right? Maybe some of the comedy writers' on strike stopped-in over at the Old Grey Lady to liven the place up!

The Power of American Alliances

Charles Krauthammer's got a killer indictment of the Democratic Party's "our frayed alliances" meme, over at the Washington Post.

When the Democratic presidential candidates pause from beating Hillary with a stick, they join in unison to pronounce the Democratic pieties, chief among which is that George Bush has left our alliances in ruins. As Clinton puts it, we have "alienated our friends," must "rebuild our alliances" and "restore our standing in the world." That's mild. The others describe Bush as having a scorched-earth foreign policy that has left us reviled and isolated in the world.

Like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who insist that nothing of significance has changed in Iraq, the Democrats are living in what Bob Woodward would call a state of denial. Do they not notice anything?

France has a new president who is breaking not just with the anti-Americanism of the Chirac era but also with 50 years of Fifth Republic orthodoxy that defined French greatness as operating in counterpoise to America. Nicolas Sarkozy's trip last week to the United States was marked by a highly successful White House visit and a rousing speech to Congress in which he not only called America "the greatest nation in the world" (how many leaders of any country say that about another?) but also pledged solidarity with the United States on Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Middle East and nuclear nonproliferation. This just a few months after he sent his foreign minister to Iraq to signal an openness to cooperation and an end to Chirac's reflexive obstructionism.

That's France. In Germany, Gerhard Schroeder is long gone, voted out of office and into a cozy retirement as Putin's concubine at Gazprom. His successor is the decidedly pro-American Angela Merkel, who concluded an unusually warm visit with Bush this week.

All this, beyond the ken of Democrats, is duly noted by new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who in an interview with Sky News on Sunday remarked on "the great change that is taking place," namely "that France and Germany and the European Union are also moving more closely with America."

As for our other traditional alliances, relations with Australia are very close, and Canada has shown remarkable steadfastness in taking disproportionate casualties in supporting the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Eastern European nations, traditionally friendly, are taking considerable risks on behalf of their U.S. alliance -- for example, cooperating with us on missile defense in the face of enormous Russian pressure. And ties with Japan have never been stronger, with Tokyo increasingly undertaking military and quasi-military obligations that it had forsworn for the past half-century.

So much for the disarray of our alliances.

Even before the elections of new leadership among our traditional alliance partners, the Democratic attack on the Bush administration's alliance relations was a myth. The U.S. had deep policy differences with a few alliance partners, but there's never been any serious expectation that our post-World War Two treaty partnerships were in danger of disintegration.

Not only that, the post-9/11 media infatuation with global anti-Americanism masqued a robust trend in pro-Americanism internationally, and in recent years American good will, in countries like Indonesia, has resulted in a burst of America-backing in international life.

Krauthammer notes, as well, that strategically-placed states in the Middle East are tightening their interests closer to those of the U.S. The reason, success in Iraq.

Giuliani's Gamble

Kimberly Strassel, over at the Wall Street Journal, argues that Rudy Giuliani's rolling the dice with his bold campaign strategy of skipping the early primary contests to focus on bigger states like Florida, California, and New York. It's a risky bet, because the frontloaded nomination process reward winners in Iowa and New Hampshire with tremendous momentum. Then why do it? What's Rudy's game?

Strassel's says he's got a plan, based on the campaign's prediction that electoral circumstances in 2008 are different:

Changed circumstance No. 1 is this year's hypercompressed primary season. Whereas winners once got to bask in the glow of their early victories - and rake in the cash - for many weeks before Super Tuesday, this year they'll get to bask a few hours. Mr. Giuliani's Florida, his "firewall" where he has spent his biggest chunk of cash and currently holds a 17-point lead over Mr. Romney, will take place on Jan. 29, just 10 days after South Carolina.

Meanwhile the races on Giga Tuesday (Feb. 5) alone, which include other big Giuliani prospects such as California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois, represent nearly half the delegates necessary to secure the nomination. The Giuliani bet is that the time frame has collapsed enough that he can check any rival "momentum" by cleaning up big in the mega-states.

Changed circumstance No. 2 is the unusual nature of the Republican field itself, in which there is no clear front-runner and voter confusion. Evangelical endorsements are scattered. Terrorism is also making its debut in a Republican primary, and has splintered the usual cohesion of social conservatives and single-issue voters. No one candidate has been able to break away, which means no one is likely to emerge with early landslide victories. Mr. Giuliani is counting that this muddle will deny a Mr. Romney or Fred Thompson the decisive victories they'd need to later challenge in bigger states. It might also allow the mayor some respectable finishes in the early races.

Finally, there's Mr. Giuliani, superstar. The big seduction of the early primaries is that they allow candidates who aren't well known to catapult into the news, thereby becoming household names. Thanks to September 11, Mr. Giuliani is right up there in household names with Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. While a onetime Southern governor like Mr. Huckabee has to get a ticket out of Iowa if he wants a shot, Mr. Giuliani may have more flexibility.

The caveats? The New Yorker's ability to pull this off hinges on his ability to truly clean up in the mega-states. His campaign is already boasting that his leads in some of those places are "momentum-proof." But that's the sort of bold statement that borders on hubris. Even with a sped-up primary schedule, five hard-fought contests (the usual three, plus Nevada and Michigan) will still go down before the nation ever bats an eye at Florida. Allowing a campaign to go 0 for 5 in the run-up to that big day gives a new meaning to the word "risk."

The very idea is apparently giving even the Giuliani campaign the cold sweats. So much so that now that the mayor has built up his position in the bigger states, he's working backward. Yesterday the campaign unveiled its first television ad, and its home will be . . . New Hampshire. It's even hinting it hopes to take the state.

This is itself risky. Of all the early plays, New Hampshire's the best bet for Mr. Giuliani, and his TV spot about his economic and crime success in New York is designed to appeal to state Republicans looking for a fiscally sound tough guy. Think of it, too, as a potential death blow to one or more competitors. Mr. Giuliani sure is. Mr. Romney needs to show he can win in his own backyard (and he currently holds a double-digit lead), while John McCain continues to count on the state he won by 19 points in 2000. The downside is that the Giuliani campaign is now playing the expectations game, and losing will only give a boost to the winner.

Primaries are inherently unpredictable, and Mr. Giuliani's foes have no intention of letting the mayor set the rules. But win or lose, Mr. Giuliani deserves marks for daring to play big.

I don't know if I'd be willing bet as big as Giuliani. My advice would be to put more chips on the New Hampshire table. Some polls have Giuliani trailing Romney by just bit over 10 percent. Even if he can't take out Romney in the Granite state, a strong second there ought to keep his campaign rolling long enough the pocket some big victories on February 2, 2008, next year's de facto national primary.

Memo to Ron Paul Supporters

Mona Charen, in a nifty "Memo to Ron Paul Supporters" over at Townhall, argues that Paul's a kook. Check it out:

Ron Paul is inconsistent. Though he calls himself a man of principle and is apparently admired as such by his ardent fans, his principles seem somewhat elastic. He rails against the Bush administration for its supposed assault on civil liberties, yet when he was asked at one of the debates whether Scooter Libby deserved a pardon, he said no. "He doesn't deserve one because he was instrumental in leading the Congress and the people to support a war that we didn't need to be in." Notice that he didn't say it was because Libby was guilty of committing a crime. No, because Libby argued for a policy with which Paul disagreed, he deserved to serve time in prison. Ron Paul, the libertarian, who presumably values liberty above all, is willing to deprive someone else of his because of a policy disagreement?

Charen also swiftly rebuts Paul's strange claim to draw on President Eisenhower and a supposed legacy of Republican isolationism. She briefly notes as well how unserious are Paul's proposals for the elimination of such agencies as the CIA.

But you've got to love this part:

Ron Paul is too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists. As syndicated radio host Michael Medved has pointed out, Ron Paul's newspaper column was carried by the American Free Press (a parent publication of the Hitler-praising Barnes Review). Paul may not have been aware of this. But though invited by Medved to disavow any connection, Paul has so far failed to respond.

Paul has appeared on the Alex Jones radio program not once, not twice, but three times. Jones is the sort who believes that black helicopters are coming to impose a police state on America. He is quite concerned about the Bohemian Grove, the Bilderbergers, the federal election system (it's rigged, of course) and so on. Naturally, he believes that 9/11 was an inside job. Ron Paul has even appeared in a Jones film, "Endgame," the point of which is apparently that the Bilderbergers are plotting to control the world. They've already got Europe (through the European Union) and now are on the verge of securing America by means of a North American union that would unite Mexico, the United States and Canada.

Even if Paul says nothing insane in this film, his appearance alone calls his judgment into question. I have not seen "Endgame," but I have heard a tape of Paul on the Jones program just after the 2006 election. Jones asked the congressman whether the victory for the Democrats wasn't a "rejection of neo-fascist imperialism." Paul replied, "Yeah . . . This was a healthy election as far as I'm concerned."

Ron Paul is the favorite candidate of a number of racist, neo-Nazi and conspiracist websites. While Paul cannot be held accountable for the views of cranks and kooks, he can disavow their support and return their checks. He received $500 from Don Black, the proprietor of Stormfront.org and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. He has not yet returned it.

Moreover, Paul seems to be playing a sly game with his conspiracy-minded fans. He does not explicitly endorse the crazier theories out there, but he hints at dark forces in the U.S. government threatening our liberties, he inveighs against the "neo-cons" (shorthand for Jews in some circles) and he gives aid and comfort to the paranoid by appearing on their favorite radio shows.

No, Ron Paul is not my candidate. Not for president. He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians.

I've noted many times Paul's whacked out views, and his support among extremist elements on both sides of the poltical spectrum (see here, here, here, here, and here).