Assassinating Robert Mugabe?

Charli Carpenter, of the academic blog group at Duck of Minerva, offers a provocative case for the assassination of Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe:

In the wake of Mugabe's "re-election," political violence in the country is on the increase. Jake Farr Wharton has a modest proposal:

"Mugabe’s forces violently bullied and intimidated the people of Zimbabwe into a second election. Last week, Tsvangiri withdrew his candidacy, siting that he could not stand for president when anyone who voted for him, was doing so at a very real risk to their families lives. As such, Mugabe ran unopposed and won. The many people he had killed, maimed, imprisoned, held hostage and the villages he had destroyed devastatingly culminated in a win for him. The violent intimidation worked.

Where is the UN when they are actually needed? Where is the African Union when they are actually needed? End this man in the only way he knows how, assassinate him. Let it be done and hold a new election, one overseen by the UN and African Union."

There are moral arguments to be made here. Politicians whose thugs burn little boys alive because their father supports the opposition don't deserve the protection of sovereign immunity. And Ward Thomas has made a convincing case that the norm against assassinating heads of state has little ethical basis, since it protects the guiltiest civilians while often resulting in protracted wars that cost the lives of the most innocent or, at best (when wars are fought professionally) of soldiers who have often been conscripted. Besides, the CIA would no doubt dispatch him more humanely than his own people ultimately will... recall the untimely end of Samuel Doe, former President of Liberia.

So why not assassinate Mugabe? At Elected Swineherd, Empedocles harbors doubts on pragmatic, rather than moral grounds:

"Such an operation would likely leave an open door for widespread ethnic violence in its wake. What is needed instead is a UN or SADC (South African Development Council) peacekeeping deployment to coordinate humanitarian aid and a slow political transition."

Hmm, s/he's got a point there. The Rwandan genocide was tipped off by the apparent assassination of the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, after which the Tutsi population of the country was scape-goated, providing a pretext for root-and-branch massacres. Though, is Zimbabwe Rwanda? Or is it early Nazi Germany, where the stage is not yet set for full-blown genocide but the leadership has the power and political will to do so if not removed? And a peacekeeping mission? One was in place in Rwanda in April 1994....

Perhaps the best (though perhaps also the worst) reason why not to go down this road is a self-interested one: to preserve the anti-assassination norm itself ... Which still begs the question of what should be done ...

Recall that I've argued in favor of topping the Mugabe regime (here), although I hadn't thought about an assassination attempt, frankly, because the norm against such action is so deeply embedded.

For example, see the response to Carpenter's post at the American Prospect, "Shooting Those Washington Bullets Again."

Carpenter, who revised the original post, says American Prospect's essay is a misinterpretation of the original version of this post.

Suggestion for Readers: Read the full exchange, including the comment thread at the post, and leave your thoughts here .

I'd be more likely to favor toppling the regime, followed by a U.N.-backed occupation, and new elections supportive of some kind of national reconciliation government. No matter, I'm intrigued that the liberal international side of the spectrum is contemplating such boldly forceful action in favor of Zimbabwe's people.

Obama, the Democrats, and Iraq

Peter Wehner argues that the Democrats, led by Barack Obama, were against the surge before they were for it:

This is the week that the Democratic party ran up the white flag when it comes to the surge in Iraq. Leading the surrender was none other than Barack Obama, the Democratic party's presumptive nominee for president and among the most vocal critics of the counterinsurgency plan that has transformed the Iraq war from a potentially catastrophic loss to what may turn out to be a historically significant victory.

On Monday, Obama wrote a New York Times op-ed in which he acknowledged the success of the surge. "In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge," Obama wrote, "our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda--greatly weakening its effectiveness." A day later, Obama gave a speech in which he declared for the first time that "true success" and "victory in Iraq" were possible. In addition, the Obama campaign scrubbed its presidential website to remove criticism of the surge.

The debate, then, is over, and the (landslide) verdict is in: The surge has been a tremendous success.

Obama, in typical fashion, is trying to use the success of the surge he opposed to justify his long-held commitment to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq as quickly as possible. But turning Iraq into a winning political issue won't be nearly as easy as Obama once thought. He has stepped into a trap of his own making.

The trap was set when Obama repeatedly insisted that his superior "judgment" on Iraq is more important than experience in national security affairs. Judgment, according to Obama, is what qualifies him to be commander in chief. So what can we discern about Obama's judgment on the surge, easily the most important national security decision since the Iraq war began in March 2003?

To answer that question, we need to revisit what Obama said about the surge around the time it was announced. In October 2006--three months before the president's new strategy was unveiled--Obama said, "It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we've been in right now."

On January 10, 2007, the night the surge was announced, Obama declared, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." A week later, he insisted the surge strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." And in reaction to the president's January 23 State of the Union address, Obama said,

I don't think the president's strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum--military and civilian, conservative and liberal--expressed great skepticism about it. My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we're going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it's not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq.

In July, after evidence was amassing that the surge was working, Obama said, "My assessment is that the surge has not worked."

Obama, then, was not only wrong about the surge; he was spectacularly wrong. And he continued to remain wrong even as mounting evidence of its success gave way to overwhelming evidence of its success.

But Obama is not alone. Virtually the entire Democratic party, including every Democrat running for president, opposed the surge. For example, Senator Joseph Biden--considered by some pundits a foreign policy sage--declared, a few days before the surge was announced, "If he surges another 20, 30 [thousand], or whatever number he's going to, into Baghdad, it'll be a tragic mistake."

There's more at the link.

Wehner actually builds on a long story of Democratic surrender on Iraq, but what's interesting now is how the Obama turnaround genuinely demonstrates how wrong, for so long, the Democrats have been on this war.

See also, the Wall Street Journal, "Obama's 'Judgment' [on the surge]."

McCain Gets It! Obama "Most Extreme" in Senate

Here's some of the best news indicating the presidential campaign's turned the corner: It turns out that John McCain, speaking at a campaign stop in Kansas City, called out Barack Obama as the most extreme member of the U.S. Senate, further to the left than socialist Bernie Sanders:

The capacity crowd strained at times to hear McCain through the booming echo of the station’s north waiting room. But audience members applauded warmly and repeatedly as McCain riffed on a variety of topics — abortion, immigration reform, education and health care.

He criticized opponent Sen. Barack Obama for his opposition to the surge of troops in Iraq, offshore drilling and expansion of nuclear power.

“I think we should change (Obama’s slogan) to ‘no, we can’t,’ ” McCain told the crowd.

He also said Obama had the “most extreme” record in the Senate.

Asked later if he thought Obama was an extremist, McCain said: “His voting record … is more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.”

Does McCain think Obama is a socialist? “I don’t know. All I know is his voting record, and that’s what people usually judge their elected representatives by.”

Obama’s campaign, in a statement: “John McCain squandered an opportunity to talk with Missourians about solutions to our economic problems and chose instead to launch the same old tired political attacks that the American people are sick of.”

Before the town hall meeting, McCain met with reporters on his bus — the Straight Talk Express — and said he was skeptical about Obama’s upcoming trip to the Middle East.

“I hope he learns he was wrong when he said that the surge would not work in Iraq … when he set out a timetable (for withdrawal) … and when he said the war was lost.”

He also criticized Obama for not consulting active-duty military leaders more vigorously.

“Failure in Iraq would have had catastrophic consequences in Afghanistan. … He doesn’t understand warfare.”

Geez, McCain's finally getting it on Obama, none too soon either!

See also, "McCain: Obama Might Be a Socialist."

Hat Tip: Ace of Spades HQ

Bombing Iran?

Benny Morris looks at the circumstances leading to a possible Israeli military strike on Iran, and the potential strategic ramifications:

ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb.

It is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States (nor, for that matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or that both Israel and Iran suffer such a fate. We know what would ensue: a traumatic destabilization of the Middle East with resounding political and military consequences around the globe, serious injury to the West’s oil supply and radioactive pollution of the earth’s atmosphere and water.

But should Israel’s conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow. Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power. And, despite the current talk of additional economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russia’s and China’s continued recalcitrance and Western Europe’s (and America’s) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric. Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years.

Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel. Clearly, America has the conventional military capacity to do the job, which would involve a protracted air assault against Iran’s air defenses followed by strikes on the nuclear sites themselves. But, as a result of the Iraq imbroglio, and what is rapidly turning into the Afghan imbroglio, the American public has little enthusiasm for wars in the Islamic lands. This curtails the White House’s ability to begin yet another major military campaign in pursuit of a goal that is not seen as a vital national interest by many Americans.

Which leaves only Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders. Thus the recent reports about Israeli plans and preparations to attack Iran (the period from Nov. 5 to Jan. 19 seems the best bet, as it gives the West half a year to try the diplomatic route but ensures that Israel will have support from a lame-duck White House).

There's more at the link.

Morris argues that the international community will continue to "do nothing" to stop Tehran's march to nuclear capability, and Iran will beef up its rhetorical campaign favoring Israel's annihilation, and it will continue "prodding its local clients, Hezbollah and Hamas," agents who would join a war of extermination against the Jewish state.

Morris also notes that most Israelis view Iran as an existential threat. What's amazing is how so few others do as well.

See also, Blackfive, "Israel Announces Winter Bombing Plans."

Related: "Iran's Threat to the Strait of Hormuz."

The Popularity of the N-Word: An Update

I'd like to think that some terms of hatred as so vile, so weighted with painful historical memory, that we'd see a consensus on the word's banishment from common usage.

The "n-word" is one of the top candidates, but for the strangest reason its use continues as some kind of badge of honor in the black community, and among those generally on the left of the spectrum. This episode below, from the View, shows Elisabeth Hasselbeck repudiating the private use of the word - and, note carefully how she's mercilously attacked by "holier-than-thou Whoopi Goldberg, who lays the racism guilt-trip on Hasselback - saying, "You have just got to understand..."

It's really sick:

Goldberg defends the use of the n-word with statements like "my own mother could not vote in this country," with the logical extrapolation being white people still owe, white people must give blacks a pass on using the n-word "in private."

But Hasselbeck's argument's the most compelling, where she says "in my home we were raised not to use words of hatred...", and that's the way it should be.

But Goldberg speaks for many on the left, and for an example, see the Tennessee Guerilla Woman:

Sparked by the media's shocked outrage and moral superiority at the discovery that civil rights leader Jesse Jackson uses the "N" word in private, Whoopi Goldberg tries to explain to Elizabeth Hasselbeck why context does indeed matter! Elizabeth might get it if only she listened as much as she talks.

I don't understand why people don't get this. For me, it's the stark difference between men using the term bitch and women using the term bitch. It simply does not mean the same thing.

And as to the harshness of Jackson's critique of Barack Obama, the civil rights leader is not the only one irritated by the fact that lectures on personal responsibility aimed at Blacks make Barack Obama sound far more like Clarence Thomas than the liberal Democratic candidate many of us were hoping for...

There's so much revealing in this passage, that, when added to Whoopi Goldberg's guilt-mongering attacks, reveals exactly where much of the left resides in its hypocrisy of victimology.

The only one who really gets it is Elizabeth Hasselbeck, bless her heart!

Allahpundit at Hot Air has more:

I too was in tears after viewing it, so excruciatingly inarticulate is our cast. Newsbusters has a transcript, but trust me, it won’t help. Hasselbeck’s point is a simple one: We all share a common culture, so in the interests of commonality, how about everyone agrees to quit dropping the N-bomb, yes? Whereupon Whoopi, seizing the opportunity for a righteous show of Absolute Moral Authority, duly pitches a fit about how we’re different and that’s the way it is and Elisabeth simply doesn’t understand the “frustration” over the “huge problems that still affect us,” even though, please note, in calling for everyone to stop using the word she’s making the same argument as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Consider this a punctuation mark on a week that began with that Obama New Yorker cover, the intent of which was clear but declared to be beside the point because it was unhelpful to the left’s agenda. Whoopi and Sherri Shepherd have a plausible intentionalist defense of their position available to them here — when blacks use the N-word the intent will almost always be innocent whereas it’s much more ambiguous when coming from whites — but that ends up being exploded when Walters asks Shepherd what would happen if she said the word, presumably in a friendly/jokey manner to Sherri. Answer: “I don’t want to hear it come out of your mouth.” So much for intentions.

Anyway. Hasselbeck ends up in tears, Whoopi ends up basically arguing that the gulf between the races is too great for them ever to understand each other (or at least for whites to understand blacks), and they end up quickly moving on to talk about something else. Is this the sort of great national conversation Barry O had in mind?

The gulf it is too great because many blacks will not give up their (falsely) assumed moral stranglehold over white people.

As I've noted before, my dad couldn't vote "in this country," and his parent and grandparents could not, with many of them by contrast working in the fields, or as domestics. But we never used that word in my house, and polite company never used it either, on holidays or weekend visits to the 'hood.

I'm ashamed of Goldberg's defense, and I applaud Hasselbeck for saying the word's totally inappropriate, "because I love all of you all so much"!

Love ... now that's something that's certainly lost in this election season.

See also, "The Popularity of the N-Word."

*********

UPDATE: Via Memeorandum, Fox News has picked up the story, "Elisabeth Hasselbeck in Tears After 'View' Discussion on N-Word":

"View" co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck was in tears Thursday after a discussion about the use of the n-word, in which fellow co-host Whoopi Goldberg told her the two "don't live in the same world."

During a segment covering Jesse Jackson's recent use of the n-word while preparing to tape an interview on FOX News, Whoopi and co-host Sherri Shepard, who are both black, contested that the word has a different meaning for black people.

"It's something that means something way different to me than it does to you," said Shepard. "I can use it as a term of endearment."

Shepard also said to co-host Barbara Walters: "I don't want to hear it come out of your mouth."

Hasselbeck contested that "We [blacks and whites] don't live in different worlds, we live in the same world."

Goldberg, who used the n-word repeatedly during the broadcast (it was bleeped out), said that "We don't live in the same world. What I need you to understand is the frustration that goes along with when you say we live in the same world. It isn't balanced."

Hasslebeck tearfully replied that "when we live in a world where pop culture then uses that term, and we're trying to get to a place where we feel like we're in the same place, where we feel like we're in the same world ... how are we supposed to then move forward if we keep using terms that bring back that pain?"

You sing it, sister!

Reeling in a 1000-Pound Blue Marlin

The Wall Street Journal reports on this summer's perfect storm of sport fishing opportunity off the coast of Kailua Kona Harbor, Hawaii. Prized deep-water blue marlin, with potential catches weighing 1000 pounds, have big-fish fisherman flocking to the islands:

For Anthony Hsieh and other wealthy big-game fishermen, this is a summer of great expectations. Or maybe grand illusions -- it's too early to know.

Mr. Hsieh, the former president of LendingTree.com, and some of the world's best-financed fishermen are flocking to the cobalt blue waters here off the coast of Hawaii to try to catch what many consider the holy grail of trophy fish, the grander -- a blue marlin that tops 1,000 pounds.

Not only are these fish prized for their size, beauty, and heroic fighting ability, they have serious literary cachet: the most famous one stars in Ernest Hemingway's classic novel "The Old Man and the Sea." Only 51 granders have been caught and recorded since 1939, according to the International Game Fish Association. Although locals here in Hawaii have a slightly higher tally, one thing is certain: Nearly everyone who has ever set out to catch one has failed.

Though little is known for certain about the current status of the blue marlin population in Hawaii -- the only place in the world where the elusive, migratory beasts have been caught year-round -- the stars seem to have aligned to produce a bumper crop. Increasing pressure from conservationists as well as new tournament incentives to "catch and release" fish shy of 1,000 pounds may be increasing the ranks of marlins that grow to grander size. A recent ban on long-line commercial fishing, which used to claim hundreds of marlin casualties each year, seems to be helping. What's more, soaring gas prices have cut the local sport-fishing charter business by around 40%, leaving the few there who can afford to stay on the water with little competition.

There's more at the link.

Boy, now that's an adventure!

McCain to Declare Victory in Iraq

John McCain is edging toward a declaration that the U.S. has won in Iraq, Fox News reports:

John McCain took one step closer to declaring victory in Iraq Thursday, telling Missouri residents and later reporters that the U.S. military has “succeeded.”

The presumptive GOP nominee usually couches his language and argues the troop surge is “succeeding,” but on Thursday he emphasized that strategic success has already been achieved.

The rhetorical development comes as Barack Obama prepares to travel to Iraq for the first time as a presidential candidate and to Afghanistan for the first time ever.

“I am happy to stand in front of you to tell you that this strategy has succeeded. It has succeeded. It has succeeded,” McCain said first at a Kansas City, Mo., town hall meeting.

He then reiterated the line for reporters aboard his campaign bus.

“I repeat my statement that we have succeeded in Iraq — not we are succeeding — we have succeeded in Iraq,” he said. “The strategy has worked and we now have the Iraqi government and military in charge in the major cities in Iraq. Al Qaeda is on their heels and on the run,” McCain said.

He added that progress on the ground is still tenuous.

“The success that we have achieved is still fragile and could be reversed, and it’s still — if we do what Senator Obama wants to do, then all of that could be reversed and we could face again the chaos, increased Iranian influence and American loss and defeat,” he added, noting that he hopes his Democratic rival comes around to his view during his visit to the war zone.

Obama has in recent days argued that the Iraq war is a distraction, and that more U.S. resources must be devoted to fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and securing loose nuclear material. Democrats accuse McCain of wanting to prolong a war with virtually no end.

At a second press conference called to clarify conflicting messages in the campaign about its view of Obama’s trip overseas, McCain elaborated again on his declaration of success.

“We have succeeded in Iraq. We have succeeded and if we continue the strategy we will win the war,” he said. “This is a fragile victory. This is a fragile success. … If we will continue this, we will win this war.”

That's not quite declaring total victory, but it's close. McCain wants the majority of troops home before declaring complete success.

See also, "Victory in Iraq: An Update."

Leftosphere Freaks Out at Fox News

For a long time I've shaken my head whenever I see the lefty loons denounce Fox News as "Faux News."

Maybe the left bloggers hate the "fair and balanced" slogan. Maybe, and more likely, they hate the fact that Fox takes on the left-wing hordes directly, on Bill O'Reilly, for example, exposing these ideologues for the nihilists they are.

Thus it's no surprise that Fox News is the target of the left's wrath at Netroots Nation, which is the renamed Yearly Kos convention, now meeting in Austin, Texas.

The Caucus has the lowdown on the anti-Fox offensive now playing, "Netroots Try to Label Fox News as ‘Opinion’":

It may be the blogosphere’s equivalent of the scarlet letter, and the organizers of Netroots Nation, a gathering of liberal bloggers that is taking place this week, say they will be more than happy to pin it on Fox News.

Planners of the conference want to force representatives of the cable news network to wear credentials identifying them as opinion media rather than providing them with the regular press passes other news outlets will receive.

“Fox News calls itself fair and balanced, but it’s not,” Josh Orton, political director for Netroots said in an interview. He accused the network, which is popular among conservatives, of misrepresenting itself.

The Netroots, however, may not get their way.A spokeswoman for Fox News called the policy a “predictable stunt and a moot point” since the network would not be sending anyone to cover the four-day conference that kicked off in Austin, Texas, on Thursday.

But if anyone from the network were to show up, Mr. Orton said they would have to wear a press pass with the words “Opinion Media” printed on it. The credential would not restrict Fox’s ability to cover the conference, but Mr. Orton said that journalists from other media organizations like Air America, the liberal radio network, and the National Review, a conservative journal, would receive regular credentials. The difference, Mr. Orton said, is that those outlets are “explicitly progressive or explicitly conservative. They don’t have a branding problem.”

Nope, no "branding problem" at Air America!

There's no problem here, for example: "Air America's Randi Rhodes Said Suspended for Calling Clinton, Ferraro 'Whores'").

I can see why people call these folks "Kos kiddies." Schoolyard taunting's more sophisticated than this.

Eulogy for Yitshak Meir Weissenberg

As visitors may have noticed, I've been reading and posting on some academic issues the last couple of days, and my pace has backed off a little. I'm enjoying the summer, getting outside a bit, eating and drinking well, and spending time with my family.

As such, my personal book reading has fluctuated somewhat. I am about a third of the way through Saul Friedlander's, The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945, and I wanted to share with readers the opening vignette from the beginning of Part II, "Mass Murder: Summer 1941-Summer 1942":

The proportions of life and death have radically changed. Times were, when life occupied the primary place, when it was the main and central concern, while death was a side phenomenon, secondary to life, its termination. Nowadays, death rules in all its majesty; while life hardly glows under a thick layer of ashes. Even this faint glow of life is feeble, miserable and weak, poor, devoid of any free breath, deprived of any spark of spiritual content. The very soul, both in the individual and in the community, seems to have starved and perished, to have dulled and atrophied. There remain only the needs of the body; and it leads merely an organic-physiological existence.

- Abraham Lewin,

eulogy in honor of Yitshak Meir Weissenberg,

September 31, 1941

Mr. Weissenberg's just mentioned once more in the whole the book. He wasn't a famous Holocaust victim like some of the others discussed in the volume (like Anne Frank), but Lewin's eulogy of him was poetic and powerful.

See also my earlier entry, "Nazi Germany's Years of Extermination, 1939-1945.

More later, dear readers...

Neoconservatism and Moral Nationalism

Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, one of the friendly academic bloggers at Duck of Minerva, has responded to my essay, "Neoconservative Moral Nationalism in U.S. Foreign Policy."

Jackson's post, "Nationalism is Not Neoconservatism," takes exception to the notion that "moral nationalism" is an inherently neoconservative innovation in America's foreign affairs. For Jackson, this stretches credibility:

Moral nationalism - or, better, a moralistic tone or sympathy in American public policy - has in fact been characteristic of the United States since before its founding. But to call Alexander Hamilton and Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman "neoconservatives" is to strain the meaning of the term beyond all recognition, and certainly beyond any conceivable analytical utility.

This criticism serves only as an introduction to the larger critique, but by offering it Jackson attempts to knock down the notion that neoconservatism has a long heritage, dating back to the founders, thus discrediting not just Brian Rathbun's research (which I reviewed at my post), but Robert Kagan's as well.

Jackson, however, goes beyond the theoretical claim of moral nationalism in Rathbun's piece. As Rathbun argues, realist theory is essentially amoral and does not concern itself with moral superiority over international organizations (which are deeply distrusted by neoconservatives) because realism is fundamentally unconcerned with the possible threat from IOs, since states - as the primary actors in world politics - would not let them be threatening. Thus Jackson wants to wave away the moral bases of these perspectives, without a more satisfying probe of the comparative ontological egoism of the theories.

Jackson, however, spends more time on conceptual and research design issues. For example, he argues that Rathbun errs by equating "the analysis of elite opinion with the analysis of foreign policy."

I think this is a quick slight of the research. It's quite common to use "elite opinion" as a unit of analysis, and then compare how general attitudes in mass public opinion compare.

For example, Daniel Drezner, in "The Realist Tradition in American Public Opinion," specifically argues that international relations scholars assume the disposition of elites as the driving orientation underlying the development of international relations theory. Thus, for Jackson, it's not clear why Rathbun should be forced to relax an assumption that is common practice in the discipline. Further, Rathbun, more importantly, is actually testing how well elite opinion conforms to the three conceptions of conserative foreign policy he discerns - realism, neoconservatism, and islolationism. Here's Rathbun, from the introduction:

I offer a conceptualization of the three types of egoism and connect them to the ideologies of realism, nationalism, and isolationism. I then briefly review the historical manifestation of these ideologies in American foreign policy ... The next section considers issues of measurement. I identify items in Ole Holsti and James Rosenau’s 1996 survey of American foreign policy elites that tap into the three different notions of egoism and offer hypotheses about how they might load in a factor analysis of the beliefs of American elites if foreign policy is indeed constructed along these three dimensions.

For Jackson, then, rather than dismiss Rathbun as confusing elite opinion with foreign policy "analysis," he might provide a better alternative measurement scheme than to what Rathbun's research specifiies.

What we really might discern in Jackson review, however, is an antipathy to neoconservatism as an autonomously legitimate ideational foundation for theories of American foreign policy:

So if we shift our gaze from policies to policy debates, what do we find that might separate realists from nationalists, and from liberal internationalists and the other kinds of schools of thought we might find? I'd say that first of all we need to stop thinking in terms of "schools," since positions on foreign policy are rarely coherent enough for that moniker. Individual policymakers also pick and choose among the elements of the supposed "schools" when the occasion seems appropriate....

So what are those elements? ... The root of "distinction," I would argue, is a claim that the United States is both exempt from those rules and exempt from them on the grounds that the United States represents something special, distinctive, higher -- something that trumps the rules in force for merely ordinary polities. These two aspects combine to form a venerable commonplace in US foreign policy debates: exceptionalism.

Notice Jackson's stress on exeptionalism as a key element of legitimate differentiation, but he errs in arguing that neoconservatives can't raise the exceptionalist banner as their own, when he claims "multiple traditions" have aleady embraced it, for example, islolationism.

But to do this, Jackson moves far from Rathbun's own specification of isloationism, where he notes:

Isolationism attempts to separate the self from the other ... This impetus to disengage might be based on a sense of national superiority, but not necessarily. When it is, however, isolationists draw a different policy conclusion than the more assertive nationalists, one of retreat rather than dominance.

For Jackson, then, to say that America has a venerable tradition of "refraining from 'entangling' involvement in European political machinations," and intervening in world affairs "only reluctantly," and then to hold this up as casting aspersion on the particular neoconservative amalgamation of morality and power as a catalyst for international action, misses much of Rathbun's essential logic. Jackson wants to argue that neoconservatism can't be foundational in American foreign policy because if violates an inherent "liberal internationalist" conception of American exceptionalism that is purportedly the only legitimate kind.

But recall, Rathbun's key point: Neoconservatism is the only true nationalist persuasion of the "right-wing foreign policies" under consideration - and it's this frame, based on "the superiority of American ideals and values, a universal nationalism," which distinguishes the theory not just from conservative realism and isolationism, but from neoliberal institutionalism as well, because for neoconservatives the national interest always comes first.

Recall, neoconservatism is fundamentally differentiated from other internationalist theories seeking to restrain the American hegemon within a network of multilateral organizations.

That's all for now. Perhaps Professor Jackson might be interested in another interation of this exchange.

**********

Addendum: Brian Rathbun has himself declaimed any personal affinity to the neoconservative theoretical outlook, saying in an online comment thread, "For what its worth, I am a fairly typical left-leaning academic, not a pacifist but definitely not a conservative or neoconservative..."

Thus, it's not accurate for Jackson to lump Rathbun together with myself or Robert Kagan, for example, when he says, "Unfortunately for all three of these folks, the equation between "moral nationalism" and neoconservatism just doesn't hold up."

There are normative and theoretical issues here of which one can tease. Or, in other words, one can make the case for neoconservative moral nationalism, without actually identifying oneself as a neoconservative.

Obama Sows Doubt on Commitment to Iraq Security

The New York Times reports that Barack Obama's planning for Iraq is causing unease in that country, with some fearing a precipitous withdrawal of American forces:

A tough Iraqi general, a former special operations officer with a baritone voice and a barrel chest, melted into smiles when asked about Senator Barack Obama.

“Everyone in Iraq likes him,” said the general, Nassir al-Hiti. “I like him. He’s young. Very active. We would be very happy if he was elected president.”

But mention Mr. Obama’s plan for withdrawing American soldiers, and the general stiffens.

“Very difficult,” he said, shaking his head. “Any army would love to work without any help, but let me be honest: for now, we don’t have that ability.”

Thus in a few brisk sentences, the general summed up the conflicting emotions about Mr. Obama in Iraq, the place outside America with perhaps the most riding on its relationship with him.

There was, as Mr. Obama prepared to visit here, excitement over a man who is the anti-Bush in almost every way: a Democrat who opposed a war that many Iraqis feel devastated their nation. And many in the political elite recognize that Mr. Obama shares their hope for a more rapid withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

But his support for troop withdrawal cuts both ways, reflecting a deep internal quandary in Iraq: for many middle-class Iraqis, affection for Mr. Obama is tempered by worry that his proposal could lead to chaos in a nation already devastated by war. Many Iraqis also acknowledge that security gains in recent months were achieved partly by the buildup of American troops, which Mr. Obama opposed and his presumptive Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, supported.

“In no way do I favor the occupation of my country,” said Abu Ibrahim, a Western-educated businessman in Baghdad, “but there is a moral obligation on the Americans at this point.”

Read the whole thing.

It's quite revealing that many Iraqis, who get such a warm glow from Obama, also realize that an Obama administration would be potentially devastating to the country's security, throwing the nation back to the darker days, pre-surge, when Iraq was torn by violence and mayhem.

Some would like a long-term presence for the Americans:

Saad Sultan, the Iraqi government official, said his travels in Germany, where there have been American bases since the end of World War II, softened his attitude toward a long-term presence. “I have no problem to have a camp here,” he said. “I find it in Germany and that’s a strong country. Why not in Iraq?”

Yes, why not?

Photo Credit: "Nassir al-Hiti, an Iraqi general, said Iraqis “would be very happy” to see Barack Obama elected president, but called Mr. Obama’s withdrawal plan “very difficult,” New York Times.

Public Schools: Trojan Horse for the Socialist State?

Representative Sam Graves recently introduced the NCLB Recess Until Reauthorization Act, which is a congressional bill to suspend the performance accountability provisions of the Bush administration's 2002 No Child Left Behind Act, but preserve the funding.

The Graves bill would strip NCLB of its most important element, and as the Wall Street Journal reports, "Not surprisingly, teachers unions like the National Education Association are supporting their efforts."

It should be no surprise, then, that Randi Weingarten, the brand new president of American Federation of Teachers, also wants to strip NCLB's accountability provisions, and go even further: She'd like to transform the law into a full-blown public sector welfare agency, providing a cafeteria plan of services from education to after-school care to medical and dental services:

Randi Weingarten, the New Yorker who is rising to become president of the American Federation of Teachers, says she wants to replace President Bush’s focus on standardized testing with a vision of public schools as community centers that help poor students succeed by offering not only solid classroom lessons but also medical and other services.

Ms. Weingarten, 50, was elected Monday to the presidency of the national teachers union at the union’s annual convention. In a speech minutes later to the delegates gathered in Chicago, Ms. Weingarten criticized the No Child Left Behind law, President Bush’s signature domestic initiative, as “too badly broken to be fixed,” and outlined “a new vision of schools for the 21st century.”

“Can you imagine a federal law that promoted community schools — schools that serve the neediest children by bringing together under one roof all the services and activities they and their families need?” Ms. Weingarten asked in the speech.

“Imagine schools that are open all day and offer after-school and evening recreational activities and homework assistance,” she said. “And suppose the schools included child care and dental, medical and counseling clinics.”

By laying out that expansive vision of government’s role in the public schools, Ms. Weingarten waded into a fierce debate among Democrats seeking to influence the educational program of Senator Barack Obama, their party’s presumptive presidential nominee. In an interview last week, she said the ideas in the speech amounted to “what I’d like to see in a new federal education law.”

Darleen Clicks suggests, "Imagine there are no families … … it’s easy if you try...

Exactly, who needs families when the state takes over complete responsibility for the health, education, and welfare of children?

What better way for a new Barack Obama administration to shift American domestic policy to the socialist model than by establishing the public schools at the center of a new Soviet bureaucratic structure in American education - the trojan horse for the socialist state?

Iran's Threat to the Strait of Hormuz

Could Iran close international access to the Persian Gulf, in the event of American or Israeli strikes on Tehran's nuclear program, causing a potentially catastrophic decline in available world petroleum supplies?

The possibility of this conflict scenario is examined by Caitlin Talmadge, in "Closing Time: Assessing the Iranian Threat to the Strait of Hormuz."

The article's particularly timely.

Just last weekend OPEC oil ministers warned that global oil prices could skyrocket in the event of a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran, and with the oil price-per-barrel currently at record highs, Western vulnerability to economic blowback is acute. Further, some commentators in the press have recently reported details of clandestine planning - at the highest levels of the U.S. government - for a preventive attack on Iran's nuclear program. Behind all of this, some allege, is the drumbeat for war among small but influential sections of the American foreign policy communtity.

Talmadge's piece is comprehensive yet balanced, and suggests that Iran - while rudimentary on many indices - possesses considerable military assets that make the potential for a 21-century Dardanelles crisis not unthinkable.

Here's the introduction:

Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz tops the list of global energy security nightmares. Roughly 90 percent of all Persian Gulf oil leaves the region on tankers that must pass through this narrow waterway opposite the Iranian coast, and land pipelines do not provide sufficient alternative export routes. Extended closure of the strait would remove roughly a quarter of the world’s oil from the market, causing a supply shock of the type not seen since the glory days of OPEC. Even if the strait were not closed in the sense of being physically barricaded, military conflict in the area could cause prices to skyrocket in anticipation of a supply disruption—and to remain high until markets could be assured that the flow of commerce had been restored. Consider that when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, temporarily halting the export of oil in both countries, the world price of oil more than doubled merely on the expectation of future shortages. Although excess global supply combined with increased Saudi production helped lower the price within a few months, it did not return to the preinvasion level for nearly a year. Blockage of the strait would pose a vastly greater threat to the flow of gulf oil, and at a time when excess global capacity is lower and the price of oil higher.

Yet could Iran close the Strait of Hormuz? What might provoke Iran to take an action so contrary to its own economic interests? Does Iran possess the military assets needed to engage in a campaign in the strait, and what might such a campaign look like? Perhaps more important, what would the U.S. military have to do to defend the strait in the event of Iranian interference there? What would be the likely cost, length, and outcome of such efforts?

Despite consensus on the importance of the strait, no open-source analysis has attempted to answer these questions systematically. Some analysts take the Iranian ability to block the strait as a given, whereas others are equally confident the United States’ military superiority would deter or quickly end any Iranian campaign. One observer argues that “countering any Iranian blockade might involve only a few days of fighting, with major disruption to shipping lasting only slightly longer.” Another warns that the United States might have to engage in weeks or months of military operations to open and defend the strait. Anthony Cordesman, a highly respected expert on the Persian Gulf, concludes that “Iran could not ‘close the Gulf’ for more than a few days to two weeks,” although what leads him to this conclusion is unclear. Meanwhile, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, testified in 2005 that Iran has some capability to “briefly close” the strait, without defining what “briefly” means. In short, analysts disagree about the potential likelihood, course, and outcome of U.S.-Iranian conflict in the Strait of Hormuz, but the nature of current debate on the subject makes it hard to ascertain the basis of differing assessments, much less determine which might be correct.

Talmadge follows this up with a detailed analysis of the U.S.-Iranian offense/defence balance in open-seas mine warfare, Iranian antiship cruise missile capability and U.S. counter-missile defenses (advanced warning and attack radar systems), and Iranian air- and land-based defenses against U.S. airspace superiority.

Talmadge concludes:

Iran’s limitations, such as the command and control and targeting challenges it would face in littoral warfare, are not often appreciated. But its strengths are often overlooked as well, such as the stocks of missiles and much more explosively powerful mines it has acquired since the tanker wars of the 1980s. Likewise, although the United States retains the world’s best conventional military, its past experiences hunting mobile targets from the air and conducting MCM operations in the littorals do not inspire confidence that confrontation in the strait would end quickly. The United States’ fleet defenses have never been tested in combat against an adversary with large numbers of cruise missiles, and the United States is in the midst of a major transition in its entire concept of MCM operations. Given these realities, sanguine assurances about the course and outcome of military conflict in the strait seem unjustified at best, and dangerous at worst.

A key theme of the research suggests there's little doubt surrounding America's technical and logistical dominance in the event of a U.S.-Iran conflict in the Strait. Yet it's clear, as well, if fighting erupts, should Iran deploy its assets with efficacy and stealth, particularly in mine warfare, the U.S. might be forced to fight a longer and wider campaign to degrage Iranian capabilies and willpower in areas peripheral to the immediate battles at the waterway.

The question for analysts and partisans of both sides (advocates for either sanctions or force) is what are the costs and benefits of existing approaches compared to a more forceful response in the absence of Iranian nuclear developmental restraint?

If there is no acceptable diplomatic endgame, according to this research, a sustained conflict is entirely likely, with implications for the international system that might be very costly indeed.

Section 8 Vouchers and Black Underclass Crime

I'm usually up on the black politics of crime and the underclass, so I'm intrigued with the Atlantic's new piece, "American Murder Mystery," on the relationship between anti-poverty policies - especially the Section 8 housing subsidy - and black inner-city crime.

I'm going to take a good look at the article now, which is written by Hanna Rosin. In the meanwhile, Rod Dreher has this:

From the Rosin story, it seems that the neighborhoods that really suffer are those in which working people (of whatever race) are struggling to keep things together, but get overwhelmed by the inner-city poverty culture that some of these Section 8 voucher folks bring with them.

Ouch!!

I don't think that's going to go over well with the Obamaniacs!

Here's Rosin's video:

Note: Memphis, the location for the story, is 61 percent black American.

Political Scientists May Boycott Over Gay Rights

I received the e-mail from the American Political Science Association on the decision of the leadership to reject calls to move the 2012 annual meeting from New Orleans, where a strict municipal ban on same-sex marriage is in place, but the story's been picked up by Inside Higher Ed:

The American Political Science Association moved its 2006 annual meeting from the original site of San Francisco, where hotels were then in the midst of protracted disagreements with unions, to Philadelphia.

On Friday, the association announced that it was rejecting calls to move its 2012 meeting from New Orleans. Many gay and lesbian political scientists had called for the convention to move because Louisiana has adopted one of the most stringent bans on gay marriage, applying the ban also to any proposed legal relationship such as civil unions that could be seen as resembling marriage. Supporters of moving the meeting said that it is not safe for gay academics or their partners to travel to cities where their relationships have no legal status. A boycott is now being organized of the 2012 meeting.

The association announced that, in a shift, it would in the future consider state-level actions when evaluating sites for meetings. Association policy has been to consider local conditions (such as the labor strife San Francisco had experienced), but not state policies. However, the association stopped short of saying it would stay away from states with anti-gay constitutional amendments.

A letter to political scientists from Dianne Pinderhughes, a professor at the University of Notre Dame who is president of the association, stressed that state policies need not eliminate a city from contention to host a meeting. “[C]onditions at the local level can mitigate these circumstances and ... communities hosting APSA meetings will be expected to assure the civil rights and safety of all APSA members,” she wrote.

In addition, she pledged that the 2012 meeting would feature “scholarship and intellectual engagement” on such issues as “same-sex unions” and “the economic development of meeting cities.” Some academics have been encouraging their associations to meet in New Orleans as a way of supporting the city’s recovery from Hurricane Katrina.

The statements about considering state policies and scholarship on the issues are nothing more than “a crumb thrown by the association,” said Daniel R. Pinello, a professor of government at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, of the City University of New York. Pinello, author of America’s Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage (Cambridge University Press), said he would view it as dangerous to attend a meeting in New Orleans with his partner since, if either were to be hospitalized, the other would have no rights at all.

The issue is not hypothetical, he stressed, but one that gay people and their partners face — sometimes with tragic results. He noted a lawsuit filed just last week, by a lesbian who was denied access to the hospital room of her dying partner in a Florida hospital where she’d been taken when she suffered a stroke while they were on vacation.

Pinello said that planning has started to organize a boycott of the 2012 meeting, and that at this year’s meeting — next month in Boston — political scientists who support gay rights would try to encourage a variety of steps to oppose the 2012 meeting. He acknowledged that any boycott would be difficult for groups such as graduate students, who are interviewed by hiring departments at the annual meeting. But Pinello said it was fundamentally unjust for the association to consider some issues (such as labor conditions) but ignore others (such as gay rights).

“Our national association will not protect our safety and security and rights,” he said. “If the Louisiana constitution had an amendment that said people of color may not marry, or Jews may not marry, or people with disabilities may not marry, I would guarantee that we would not be going to New Orleans in 2012.”

According to the APSA, 850 people sent letters offering views on what to do about the proposal to move the meeting. Pinderhughes said in an interview that the letters represented a wide range of views and that there was no clear majority for one side or the other. She added that while the letters informed the APSA board’s review, they were not treated as a referendum.

She acknowledged that the decision of the association’s governing board would upset some members, but rejected Pinello’s statement that it was a “crumb.” Pinderhughes said that for the association to actively engage with local officials about the issue, and to plan related programming, represented a significant shift for the political scientists, who normally don’t see their annual meetings as having any political goals. “We’re not anthropology and sociology, but we’re not economics either,” she said, citing disciplines that tend to be seen as more left-leaning, and less so, among the social sciences.

Pinderhughes also said that there were real questions about whether New Orleans deserved to be boycotted. She said that the association consulted with several experts who viewed the city as “gay friendly,” despite the state vote. In addition, she questioned whether a boycott strategy could be effective. Pinderhughes said that if only a few states held a particular position, it would be easier to oppose it with a boycott. “It’s harder to boycott when you don’t have a place to go,” she said. “If you don’t have a lot of allies, you have to engage.”

The political science association has only once apparently moved a meeting because of a state policy — when the membership (against the advice of the governing board) voted to move the meeting out of Chicago to protest the failure of Illinois to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Pinderhughes said that the association “paid a price” for that shift because it could not get out of a contract requiring large payments to the hotel scheduled for the meeting. Pinderhughes said that the association had to hold meetings for about 10 years in the same hotel chain as part of a deal to settle the claim.

Some political scientists have spoken out against moving the meeting. The blog Marquette Warrior noted that the association says it will not take positions that commit its members on issues of public policy. Gay marriage is such a policy, and so the APSA shouldn’t be taking a stand one way or another, the blog said, adding: “This, of course, will be a test case to see whether a bunch of liberal academics can act in even a minimally principled way.”

There's more at the link.

Two things caught my attention here: Pinderhughes' mention of anthropology and sociology as "more left-leaning," and the statement by the Marquette Warrior that the issue's a "test case" on the power of a "bunch of liberal academics."

I'm reminded of the recent New York Times article, "The ’60s Begin to Fade as Liberal Professors Retire."

The threat of boycott sounds serious, and I'm wondering how many of the association's left-wing professors would show solidarity in staying away from the convention should the boycott take effect. This could be an interesting case study on whether the '60s generation's faded, as well as on the authenticity in praxis of the new post-Vietnam-era professoriate.

For more on this, see the Marquette Warrior's essay, "American Political Science Association: Fudging the Issue of a Pro-Gay Boycott":

It’s well known that college professors are not merely liberal or left, but that they are increasingly intolerant of views at odds with their own.

See also, Duck of Minerva, "Human Wrongs."

The Popularity of the N-Word

I just wrote this morning how freely lefties like to drop the "n-bomb," so the timing's pretty good for the reports suggesting Jesse Jackson used the epithet in his recent controversial "hot mic" attack on Barack Obama.

Allahpundit has the story:

Normally I’d wait for video proof but Inside Cable News claimed with unusual insistence last night that it’s true and now TV Newser is corroborating it, so obviously someone who’s in a position to know is leaking. The alleged offending quote:

Barack…he’s talking down to black people…telling n—s how to behave.

Eh. Yeah, as the boss notes, he’s a total hypocrite, but the left loves to punish conservatives for preaching virtue while occasionally failing to live up to their own standards and I’m reluctant to do the same to Jackson. He slipped, but his intent wasn’t bad — just as the New Yorker’s wasn’t, I hasten to add — and his attempt to get entertainers to rein in their N-bomb usage is salutary. Where he does go too far is in flirting with criminalizing the word. He told the Today Show two years ago that public utterances should qualify as hate speech and he’s asserted before, quite matter-of-factly, that the word is unprotected by the First Amendment, presumably per the “fighting words” exception. Somebody, quick — arrest that man.

O'Reilly's going to be all over this the rest of the night, although it remains to be seen how the civil rights mandarins spin this.

Related: Dan Collins' disclaimer on the n-word: "I don’t put quotation marks around it, and ... if you have a problem with this you might go get a look at this."

Hat Tip: Memeorandum

The Reality in Iraq

As I've noted a number of times now, the lefties continue to weave new tales of failure in Iraq almost daily.

One of these attacks is the "neo-imperial project" slur, which gets a new twist from Duncan Black:

...from the perspective of U.S. as imperial power the "'single-minded' focus on Iraq" has also been an utter disaster. For those who think that one way or another the US should be throwing its weight around everywhere (by invading random countries, by various forms of economic imperialism, or by controlling and using the power of international institutions), Bush has pretty much set that agenda back substantially. That these people have been and continue to be his biggest supporters is a testament to the fact that their egos are more important than their dreams. But that's no surprise either...

In other words, the administration's attacked not only for seeking "permanent bases," but the meme's taken futher in that Iraq has destroyed the alleged fantastical neocon designs for world imperial domination.

Few doubt the impact of Iraq as a constraint on the exercise of American military power. What is at issue is whether Iraq's a "disaster," not to mention whether the war's peripheral to the contempory national security challenge facing the country.

At today's Wall Street Journal, Frederick Kagan, Kimberly Kagan, and Jack Keane report on their recent visit to Iraq, laying out both the successes and continuing dangers of the deployment:

All of the most important objectives of the surge have been accomplished in Iraq. The sectarian civil war is ended; al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has been dealt a devastating blow; and the Sadrist militia and other Iranian-backed militant groups have been disrupted.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has accomplished almost all of the legislative benchmarks set by the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration. More important, it is gaining wider legitimacy among the population. The attention of Iraqis across the country is focused on the upcoming provincial elections, which will be a pivotal moment in Iraq's development.

The result is that we have an extraordinary – but fleeting – opportunity to advance America's security and the stability of a vital region of the world.

As far as the civil war is concerned, there have been virtually no sectarian killings recorded for the past 10 weeks. Violence is still perpetrated by organized groups, but AQI, the remnant Sunni insurgents and Shiite fighters are now focused on attacking their own members who have defected to our side. This is a measure of their weakness. The Iraqi population is increasingly mobilizing against the perpetrators of violence, flooding American and Iraqi forces with tips about the locations of weapons caches and key militant leaders – Sunnis turning in Sunnis and Shia turning in Shia.

The fighters have not simply hidden their weapons and gone to ground to await the next opportunity to kill each other. The Sunni insurgency, as well as AQI, has been severely disrupted. Coalition and Iraqi forces have killed or detained many key leaders, driven the militants out of every one of Iraq's major cities (including Mosul), and are pursuing the remnants vigorously in rural areas and the desert.

The Shiite militias have also been broken apart, sending thousands of their leaders scurrying for safety in Iran. Iraqi forces continue to hammer Iranian-backed Special Groups and elements of the Sadrist Jaysh al Mahdi that have been fighting with them in Sadr City, Maysan Province and elsewhere. At this time, none of these networks can conduct operations that could seriously destabilize the Iraqi government. But both al Qaeda and the Iranians are working hard to refit their networks.

The larger strategic meaning of these military and political advances must be kept clearly in mind. Iraq remains a critical front in al Qaeda's war against the U.S.

The authors continue by indicating that current suggestions for an early withdrawal of American troops are seriously misguided:

The blunt fact is this. In Iraq, al Qaeda is on the ropes, and the Shiite militias are badly off-balance. Now is exactly the time to continue the pressure to keep them from regaining their equilibrium. It need not, and probably will not, require large numbers of American casualties to keep this pressure on. But it will require a considerable number of American troops through 2009.

That's not an argument for a permanent presence in Mespotamia, but it is a reasonable assessment of the military/strategic efficacy of a continued large-scale deployment.

See also, Christopher Hitchens, "Who Says We Can Only Face Our Enemies in One Place at a Time?", and Betsy Newmark, "Obama's Weaknesses on Iraq and Afghanistan."

Photo Credit: "A boy enjoys a ride at a park in Baghdad, Wednesday, July 9," Wall Street Journal.

Why Blacks (and Leftists) Don’t Care About Civil Rights

I had an interesting exchange in the comments yesterday at Lawyers, Guns and Money.

Robert Farley, in response to Michael O'Hanlon's criticism of Barack Obama's continued calls for an Iraq timetable, says, "Mike, go f**k yourself..."

What's striking about this - really striking - is not so much the raunchy rebuke (which seems so common in our age of vulgarity), but the fact that Farley's an assistant professor at the University of Kentucky's Patterson School of Diplomacy. He's also a regular contributor to the American Prospect, a left-wing journal of opinion.

One might think that even when blogging a professor might display some standards of decorum toward those with whom they disagree. But not with LGM - these folks are mean and nasty.

And don't even get me going about the commenters!

I noted, at the post, in response to Farley:

Geez, the significance of this entire post is summed up by one dumb four-letter epithet.

The Dems have lost the Iraq cudgel, and all you folks can do is cuss about it.

Of course, that spurs a response from the LGM hordes, for example:

F**k you too.

I lovelovelovelove semi-conscious morons who've never met a nigger they weren't terrified of or the death of hundreds of thousands they couldn't feel aroused by -- but get oh so upset or concerned 'bout cussin'.

I generally take offense when people start using the n-word, and I said so at the entry:

Ah, I was raised by "niggers," if that's the terminology you want to use for blacks, like my dad.

So let me return the favor with the cuss words, okay. You folks are already opening the door to Satan with your attacks on folks like Tony Snow, so racist attacks like this just further confirm the complete absence of divine soul among lefties.

Just in case I've never mentioned it previously, my dad was born and raised in Missouri, and his grandparents had been slaves. I've recently added my picture to Gravatar, so each Haloscan comment includes an image of yours truly. But that didn't stop the commenters from attacking my authenticity:

So we believe that Americaneocon is black because he says so?

Then Matt Weiner responds further down:

He writes under his own name, which would make it really easy for someone to bust him if he were lying. And from the other picture I've seen of him, he certainly looks as if he could be black. (I dug up a picture once because he was saying some stuff that was extremely ill-advised if he wasn't black, and I was curious.) And I believe he hasn't said anything dishonest about his own personal life and situation -- most of it has tended to be unintentionally self-revealing instead.

The whole exchange is revealing, as it's a perfect example of attacking the "troll" who shows up to disrupt the choir, while defending the essential racism inherent at LGM (note that even Bill O'Reilly went after left-wing nihilist commenters this week, in response to the death of Tony Snow).

In any case, relating my forays into the leftosphere's subterranean world of hate is mostly a prelude to sharing La Shawn Barber's post, "Why Black People Don’t Care that GOP Is Civil Rights Party."

Barber's responding to Bruce Bartlett's essay at today's Wall Street Journal, "The GOP Is the Party of Civil Rights."

Bartlett makes a point that doesn't get stressed enough in current debates:

The Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln and was established in 1854 to block the expansion of slavery. The Democratic Party was the party of slavery: Its two founders, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, owned large numbers of slaves, and every party platform before the Civil War defended the institution unequivocally.

Barber agrees, but he doubts that rank-and-file Democrats are going to leave their party any time soon:

Bravo, Bruce. But if you or any other white Republican think all these facts will suddenly change black people’s minds, you’re destined to be disappointed. Democrats know they’ve got an eternal lock on 90 percent of the “black vote.” All they have to do is continue to promise black Americans bigger and better government programs and handouts (so-called affirmative action, set-aside contracts, and other entitlements qualify as handouts to me), and encourage them to blame third parties for their troubles. (And I’m talking about blacks as a group here.) No grand theories. Along with reasons I mentioned in that 2004 article (federal government as savior, for example), it is that simple.

I've made similar arguments many times (here and here, for example), and in response I've been labeled "racist."

But let me just expand on Barber's point: It's not just black Americans who are looking for "bigger and better government programs and handouts." Leftists in general attack anyone who talks about race critically as "racist," while many of these people are simultaneously the most vicious racists themselves.

Here's a good example: "Sharecrop Them Votes!"

This is all in a day's work, but that's blogging I guess.

Related: Captain Ed, "McCain to NAACP: Schools, Economics the Key."

Photo Credit: "Slavery’s Last Chapter"