Israel Readies Nuclear ICBM Capabilities

Via Pat Dollard, Israel's on the verge of joining the great powers in nuclear weapons delivery capabilities:

Israeli and US defense officials tied up the last ends during President George. W. Bush’s visit last week. The successful test of a propulsion system for the dual-stage missile from the Palmahim base Thursday, Jan. 17, was a breakthrough. Western military experts report the new system can propel the missile to any point on earth – an intercontinental capability owned only by the US, Russia, China and France, with important applications for Israel’s military and civilian satellite programs as well.

The test’s context was as much the huge Russian naval maneuver launched in the Mediterranean Tuesday, Jan. 16, as missile and potential nuclear threats from Iran. Eleven vessels were drawn for the war game from two Russian fleets, Atlantic Northwest and Black Sea. It is led by the Admiral Kuznetsov air carrier with 47 warplanes and 10 helicopters on board and the Moskva missile cruiser.

The Israeli propulsion test coincided with a tactical Russian missile launch and landed in the same part of the sea. It sent out a signal that the entire Mediterranean, including the permanent bases Moscow is in the course of establishing in the Syrian naval ports of Tartous and Latakia, are within range.

Our military sources report that US Sixth Fleet vessels cordoned off the landing area of the Israeli missile and prevented Russian ships from closely tracking its course.

Those sources stress that the missile tested Thursday was not the Jericho-3 described by “foreign sources” as having a range of 5,000 km, which is a three-stage missile, whereas the weapon tested had a dual-stage engine.

The day before the test, Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, head of the US anti-missile missile authority commented that Iran was the most active country in flight-testing missiles last year, behind Russian and China. “They’re developing ranges of missiles that go far beyond anything they would need in a regional fight, for example, with Israel,” he said.

Western military sources sum up the test as demonstrating that while Iran was still in the development stage of its ballistic missiles, Israel had raced ahead and left the Islamic Republic standing.

Amid these developments, Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni arrived in Moscow Wednesday, Jan. 16, and, in an unusual tone of reproof, remarked that the fuel rods Russia was letting Iran have to power its nuclear reactor in Bushehr could be used for making nuclear weapons. The third shipment went out this week.

She was challenging Russian president Vladimir Putin’s assurance last December, when the first delivery was made, that he had received Tehran’s guarantees that this was not happen. At the time, President Bush justified his approval of the consignment by arguing it would serve to convince Iran to give up uranium enrichment.

By challenging the two presidents, Livni made it clear that Israel has no intention of standing by for Iran to arm itself with a nuclear bomb. The public demonstration of Israel’s intercontinental missile capability gave her extra muscle.

Here's the U.S. statement on Iran, following President Bush's Mideast Summit:

US PRESIDENT George Bush has accused Iran of undermining peace in Lebanon, funding terrorist groups, trying to intimidate its neighbours and refusing to be open about its nuclear program and ambitions.

In a speech described by the White House as the centrepiece of his eight-day trip to the Middle East, Mr Bush said "Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere" and urged other countries to help the US "confront this danger before it is too late".

He focused not only on Iran's nuclear ambitions, but also its suspected support for militants in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and the occupied Palestinian territories. He called Iran's Government "the world's leading sponsor of terrorism" and accused it of imposing repression and economic hardship at home.

Mr Bush has warned Iran that it faced "serious consequences" for a recent incident in which the Pentagon accused Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats of harassing US warships in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital passage for oil.

But details have emerged in recent days that raise questions about parts of the US account, including a Pentagon acknowledgment that a threatening radio message may not have come from the Iranians.

Iranian officials, meanwhile, pledged to answer all remaining questions about their country's past nuclear activities within four weeks. The timetable was announced by a spokeswoman for Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who wrapped up a two-day visit to Tehran that included meetings with the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

With Mr Bush in the middle of a trip to the region intended to build a united Arab front against Iran, the White House acknowledged that the announcement represented progress, but expressed scepticism about Iran's willingness to provide complete information and said it was still obliged to suspend its enrichment of uranium.

"Answering questions about their past nuclear activities is a step," said Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman. "But they still need to suspend their enrichment and reprocessing activity. Another declaration is no substitute for complying with the UN sanctions."

Bush Administration officials say many Arab states are wary of Iran's growing influence in the region, especially among Shiite communities in Sunni-dominated states such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

Caroline Glick has more:

For the past several weeks, the leaders of the global jihad and their state sponsors in Syria and Iran have escalated their rhetorical and military attacks against Israel and the US. Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and his American lackey Adam Gadahn all issued video and audio appeals on the eve of Bush's trip. Their messages were devoted mainly to the campaigns against US forces in Iraq and against Israel. Bin Laden labeled Iraqi opponents of al-Qaida in Iraq apostates and called for Iraqis to rally around his allied forces. Gadahn called for Bush's assassination. All three men called for Israel's annihilation and for the unification of the forces of global jihad....

BUSH STATED that he has come to the Middle East to promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians and to ensure US allies that the US is committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet on both scores US actions do not accord with the president's message.

On the Palestinian front, his calls for Israeli concessions to the Palestinians and for Palestinian statehood make little sense given the central role that Palestinians play in the global jihad. Bush repeatedly stated that he will not support a Palestinian state that will serve as a base for terror operations against Israel. And yet, under the current circumstances when all Palestinian forces - from Fatah to Hamas to al-Qaida - are committed to Israel's violent destruction, there is no chance that a Palestinian state will be anything other than a base for terrorist attacks and not only against Israel.

Even if Israel were to conclude an agreement with Abbas that sets out the contours of a Palestinian state in the next year, such an agreement would not engender peace. Given the current jihadist state of Palestinian society as a whole, such an agreement would simply serve to empower jihadists still more.

As to Iran, Bush's decision to visit the Middle East was made immediately after the National Intelligence Estimate effectively removed his most potent threat against Iran's nuclear ambitions. The thought was that by visiting the region, Bush would be able to convince US Middle East allies that America is still serious about thwarting Iran's nuclear and regional ambitions despite the NIE.

Unfortunately, the US navy's refusal to open fire on the Iranian boats in the Straits of Hormuz and America's continued refusal to combat Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias in Iraq send the opposite message.

In their statements and actions in the run-up to Bush's visit, jihadist groups and state sponsors made clear that they are serious about fighting their war for regional and indeed global domination. Had Bush acknowledged their plans and expressed a strategic plan for countering their actions and intentions, his visit here could have gone a long way towards cementing alliances to combat and defeat them. Unfortunately, both Bush's statements and US actions on the ground give the jihadists every reason to believe that they will be able to continue their war without fear of America.

Well, it's a good thing Israel's not waiting around for a diplomatic breakthough.

"Blindsiding" the Democrats on Foreign Policy?

Thomas Edsall argued yesterday that the GOP could "blindside" the Democrats on foreign policy in the November election:

While many Democratic strategists are confident that the deteriorating economy virtually assures the victory of their presidential candidate on November 4, there is a quiet debate over whether the party and prospective nominee are likely to get blindsided by Republicans raising issues of terrorism and national security.

Republicans are making no secret of their intentions in the general election.

Edsall follows this introduction with some comments from party insiders on both sides of the divide. He indicates, for example:

Alex Castellanos, Republican media strategist, told the Huffington Post that the continuing concerns of American voters about the dangers of another terrorist attack will be the engine behind a Republican victory in November...

Read the whole thing.

It's likely that Republicans will get the benefit of the doubt on national security this fall. The Democrats have been weak on that issue for decades, and the improvement in Iraq over the last year has lessened some of the demands for withdrawal in the electorate.

But it's not as though the Democrats haven't thought about what they'd do on international policy. Yet, that's pretty much exactly what Captain Ed argues when discussing the Edsall post:

According to Edsall, the Democrats have high confidence in succeeding on economics in this cycle. They expect the economy to worsen in 2008 and make it easier for them to sell higher taxes and more entitlements to nervous voters. They wonder whether the Republicans will somehow sandbag the election by talking about national security and terrorism instead, a battle for which Democrats are apparently unprepared.

Let's pause a moment and let this sink into the consciousness. More than six years after 9/11, the Democrats still have no comprehensive national security or counterterrorism plan....

They have no preparation for this discussion, and apparently consider it some kind of dirty trick....

Somehow, the Democrats feel that an election that focuses on policy for the government's primary duty works out to an unfair attack. They don't want to engage on that topic, but instead focus on everything else.

While it's true that the Demcrats haven't engaged foreign policy issues as much as they might, it's a stretch to intrepret Edsall's essay this way. Edsall himself indicates a diversity of opinion on the potential for blindsiding:

Opinion on the likely strength of such Republican challenges to the Democratic nominee varies widely.

But more importantly, all of the remaining Democrats in the race have published a major statement of their foreign policy views in Foreign Affairs, our top American foreign policy journal.

Not only that, a look at the candidates websites shows a considerable bit of information on their international positions.

Hillary Clinton's homepage includes links to some of the candidate's major foreign policy addresses, at the Center for a New American Security, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and at the Council on Foreign Relations.

The website also posts the text of a Clinton speech on Iran, which declares that the White House should defer to the Congress for legislative authorization in the face of an Iranian challenge to U.S. national security; the address also calls for opening diplomatic relations with the Iranian regime.

Over at Barack Obama's campaign home page, the candidate boasts an extensive set of links to proposals on most of the major U.S. foreign policy issues of the day. Further, the site breaks down some broad issues in great detail, like energy and the environment and homeland security (each of which have a major foreign policy component).

John Edwards - who's committed to staying in the Democratic race until the convention - also provides considerable material on his foreign policy at the Edwards campaign website - for example, on "reengaging the world," "America's moral leadership in fighting global poverty, U.S. leadership on humanitarian intervention in Sudan and Uganda, homeland security, and terrorism.

Further, in a proposal with potentially disastrous implications for U.S. foreign policy, Edwards has called for an immediate and complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

A look, then, at the websites of the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination reveals a great deal of information on the likely contours of foreign policy under a future Democratic White House.

What can we expect?

All three of the campaigns have committed to bringing the troops home by ending the war in Iraq. Timetables and numbers on residual troop levels vary, of course, but there's a clear unanimity among the candidates in repudiating the Bush adminstration's policy in Iraq. This is no surprise. Since 2006, Democratic foreign policy debate have not been driven by hard-headed calculations of American national interests, but instead by the scarcely veiled anti-Americanism of antiwar organizations and netroots outfits like Daily Kos and MoveOn.org.

Further, the Democrats are much more likelty to seek accomodation with Iran over its nuclear weapons development program. Barack Obama, in particular, has made provocative statements on Iran, in effect blaming the Bush administration for Tehran's support of terrorist organizations committed to the destruction of Israel.

The Democrats - as laid out in the Foreign Affairs essays - tend to place major faith in multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, or tend to champion "rebuilding" America's post-WWII alliances, which have allegedly atrophied under the Bush administration's tutelage. Forget that much of these proposals ignore the contemporary reality of robust cooperation with our allies in global health, energy, and security. The gist is that America needs to rein in its overwhelming global power, to allay supposed fears of a hegemonic tyrant astride the world stage. We need to repair our "international standing."

Oil and the environment? Look for a Democrat to revive the Kyoto process, which could damage the U.S. economy while do nothing to rein in the unrestrained growth in country's like China. How about humanitarian intervention? We could see the revival of foreign policy as social work, which sees international intervention acceptable only when national security interests are not at stake.

But most fundamentally, the Democrats advance a radically different view of the ideological and strategic challenges facing the United States.

At a time when some scholars have argued that militant Islam will not rest until its mission of global supremacy is complete, the Democratic Party continues to mount aggressive opposition to U.S. counterterror policies that have been effective in protecting the country.

In sum, the issue for conservatives is not whether the Democrats have a "comprehensive national security or counterterrorism plan." They do, or at least the major Democratic campaigns have provided advisory memos and think-tank style public policy articles laying out their positions.

The key fact is that Democratic plans - to the extent they are developed thus far - would take the U.S. away from a forward domestic and foreign policy of antiterrorism and strategic primacy, in the intelligence, law enforcement, and military realms.

Conservative bloggers need to be hammering this point, not whether the Democratic retreatists might be "blindsided" by the Republicans in the fall campaign.

McCain Stays On Top in South Carolina

Although there's been some tightening, John McCain remains on top in South Carolina's GOP primary, according to this morning's FOX News poll:

The new FOX News poll shows McCain holds onto his lead in South Carolina by capturing the support of 27 percent followed by Huckabee at 20 percent and Romney in third with 15 percent. Fred Thompson, who was hoping to perform well in a state neighboring his home state of Tennessee, receives 11 percent, up just two points from earlier in the month....

The telephone poll of 500 likely South Carolina Republican primary voters was conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation for FOX News from January 16 to January 17 (after the Michigan primary). There is a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points for results based on the entire sample.

In a state with several military bases and more Vietnam veterans than any state in the country, McCain’s background as a Navy officer and a Vietnam veteran is a plus. Among those living in a military household, McCain has a double-digit advantage: 33 percent to Huckabee’s 18 percent and Romney’s 17 percent. Over half of likely Republican primary voters in the state live in a military household (52 percent).

The Wall Street Journal discusses McCain's political support among South Carolina's military families:

The McCain team has reason for optimism on the military front. Veterans carry heavy weight in South Carolina's Republican politics. They were 14% of the adult population in 2000, according to the Census Bureau, but 27% of voters in the Republican primary, according to exit polls. Though Mr. McCain lost South Carolina to George W. Bush in 2000 by 53% to 42%, he won the veteran vote 48% to 47%, according to exit polls.

South Carolina is home to 400,000 veterans, according to the Census Bureau. It has high numbers of military personnel stationed in-state and abroad. Almost 29,000 active-duty soldiers claim the state as their legal residence, making up about 1% of its population -- only nine states have a higher percentage. And there are 66,000 soldiers stationed here, constituting about 2% of its adult population, greater than all but eight states.

At campaign stops yesterday, Mr. McCain hammered home his pro-military message about caring for the troops, resolving the Iraq war and improving veterans' health care. He spoke glowingly of the 2,000 South Carolina National Guard and reserve troops who are in Afghanistan and called out veterans in the audience.

And as he often does on the stump, he read a quote from George Washington about the importance of looking after veterans. "The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, will be directly proportional as to how they perceived the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country," Mr. McCain said, echoing President Washington.

That message plays well with voters such as Gary Wells, 73 years old, a Greenville resident and veteran who said he served as a Russian linguist in military intelligence in Berlin during the Cold War. He came to a McCain event in Greenville yesterday undecided between Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney. But he liked what Mr. McCain "said about the veterans and the military," particularly the senator's plan to give veterans an insurance card for routine visits to be used at any doctor, rather than having to go to Veterans Administration hospitals, he said. Mr. Wells calls VA hospitals "really horrible."

The FOX poll also shows McCain pulling out a big lead with political independents - who were a significant factor in the Arizona Senator's New Hampshire win - and a slight lead with Republicans:

Among independents voting in the Republican primary on Saturday, McCain bests Huckabee by a wide 20 point margin (34 percent to 14 percent). Independents helped McCain achieve his victory in New Hampshire, and this swing voting group can also vote in either primary in South Carolina.

McCain also has a narrow 4-point advantage over Huckabee among self-identified Republicans.

The final result tomorrow will depend on Huckabee's ability to siphon some of McCain's support among these groups. The former Arkansas governor's got the religious vote pretty well locked up.

Photo: CBS News

Baghdad Now 75 Percent Secure

This morning's USA Today reports on U.S. military data showing Baghdad to be 75 percent secured (via Memeorandum):

About 75% of Baghdad's neighborhoods are now secure, a dramatic increase from 8% a year ago when President Bush ordered more troops to the capital, U.S. military figures show.

The military classifies 356 of Baghdad's 474 neighborhoods in the "control" or "retain" category of its four-tier security rating system, meaning enemy activity in those areas has been mostly eliminated and normal economic activity is resuming.

The data given by the military to USA TODAY provide one of the clearest snapshots yet of how security has improved in Baghdad since roughly 30,000 additional American troops arrived in Iraq last year.

U.S. commanders caution that the gains are still fragile, but at the moment U.S. and Iraqi forces "basically own the streets," said Col. Ricky Gibbs, a brigade commander in southern Baghdad.

The fight to control Baghdad is the centerpiece of the counterinsurgency strategy launched a year ago by Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. The plan, popularly known as the "surge," seeks to reduce sectarian and other violence by moving troops off large bases and into dangerous neighborhoods to protect civilians.

The 310 neighborhoods in the "control" category are secure, but depend on U.S. and Iraqi military forces to maintain the peace. The 46 areas in the "retain" category have reached a level where Iraqi police and security forces can maintain order, a more permanent fix. The remaining areas have fewer security forces based there, though they are not necessarily violent.

Continued security improvements in Iraq mean the war will tend to push the war to the backburner in 2008, while at the same time making the Democrats even more vulnerable on national security.

War opponents will continue to hammer that there's been no Iraqi political reconcilation - "this is an endless war" they'll decry.

Not true. Check out Pete Hegseth's commentary from earlier this week:

For anyone who truly understands the stakes in Iraq, the achievement of national “political benchmarks” has never been an effective metric of success. Sure, Iraqis passing laws at the national level is important, but not more important than neighborhood-level security and grassroots political progress.

I learned this the hard way in Samarra, Iraq. Absent strong local security forces and fair, representative government at the neighborhood level, local populations never felt “more secure,” no matter how much useless (or useful) legislation was passed at the national level. Iraqis need to see a better life in their neighborhood, not hear more promises from Baghdad.

And for the past six months — because of General Petraeus’s new counter-insurgency strategy and the courage of 165,000 Americans — Iraqis have seen hope (one might even say “audacious hope”), and they have responded. Bolstered by American commitment, and weary of al-Qaeda brutality, the Iraqi people — Sunni and Shia together in many areas — have started cooperating at the local level.

As a result, violence continues to plummet, with attacks throughout Iraq down 60 percent since June and civilian deaths down 75 percent from a year ago. Iraqis are returning home by the tens of thousands. The incoming flow of foreign fighters have been cut in half. And despite a “surge” of troops, American combat deaths are near all-time monthly lows in Iraq. This is all wonderful news.

All the while, the Defeat-o-cratic leadership in Congress (Reid, Pelosi, & co.) and the Defeat-o-cratic presidential candidates have done everything they can to deny — obvious — progress....

So, with their “defeat in Iraq” talking points in shambles (what happened to the “religious civil war with no end in sight” talking point?), this weekend’s news was a deathblow to defeatists. The Iraq parliament passed national de-Baathification legislation, and the New York Times printed it on the front page, which means it must be important, right?

For months the only argument the antiwar crowd could cling to was: “The surge has not brought about the national-level political progress it was intended to induce.” Ergo: We lose, bring ‘em home. While this argument requires a “willing suspension of disbelief” in light of recent improvements in Iraq, it was “technically” true.

No more.

The Iraqi parliament, flaws and all, came together — Sunni, Shia, and Kurd — to craft a law that relaxes restrictions on the right of former-members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party to fill government posts. The law will reinstate thousands of Baathists in government jobs from which they had been dismissed shortly after the war.

In short, less than five years after the fall of a genocidal Sunni dictator — who killed thousands of Shiites and Kurds — a democratically elected Shia government granted de-facto “amnesty” to former Baathist co-conspirators. Kind of makes our domestic illegal-immigration “amnesty” debate look silly, doesn’t it?

We should expect more progress in Iraq, although results will be mixed and the streets will not be quiet soon. But this groundbreaking settlement is a testament to the potential for political reconciliation, provided the security environment is stable enough to allow politicians to peek out from behind their sectarian divisions.

The Washington Post is cautiously optimistic on Iraq's reconciliation. But the eidtors agree: Things are moving forward, and the situation is a world away from the chaos of just over a year ago.

It's no wonder the economy's become the new hot button issue in the election. Improvement in Iraq will decrease demands for immediate withdrawal, and the Democrats will turn to demonizing the Bush administration for the collapse of the domestic welfare.

The national security issue never goes away, of course, and rightfully so.

Despite Captain Ed's comments to the contrary, the Democrats have a very well developed direction for the U.S. in international affairs: abandon Iraq, cut defense, and weaken U.S. sovereignty through greater multilateralism in U.N.-backed international agreements.

Heilbrunn on Neoconservatism

I've written two posts now on Jacob Heilbrunn's new book, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (here and here).

I picked up my copy yesterday, and the prologue was a blast!

Heilbrunn spends a good deal of time on the Jewish origins of neoconservatism. He suggests the Jewish background is key to understanding the movement, and that it's not anti-Semitic to analyze neoconservatism in terms of religion. Heilbrunn highlights, for example, acceptable and unacceptable discourses in the debate (it's not okay, for example, to argue that neocons have abandoned that law of Moses and have endangered America's survival - although it's been said).

Here's an excerpt:

The neocons claim to be an intellectual movement with no ethnic component to speak of. But neoconservatism is as much a reflection of Jewish immigrant social resentments and status anxiety as a legitimate movement of ideas. Indeed, however much they may deny it, neoconservatism is in a decisive respect a Jewish phenomenon, reflecting a subset of Jewish concerns. One of the few members of the movement willing to address this has been the British neoconservative Melanie Phillips (herself the author of a controversial book which asserts that radical Muslims have overrun London and have turned it into a base of worldwide operations). Phillips has observed that "neo-conservatism is a quintessentially Jewish project: a resanctification in everyday life of the core values of western civilisation, and the achievement of human potential through virtuous practice. The neo-cons' crucial insight is that public signals through law, custom and tradition are the key to getting people to behave well. And that is a Jewish insight"

And that insight is one of the reasons I'm drawn to the neoconservative project. But I'm not Jewish.

I've thought about this a bit, for I don't myself look at neoconservativism through the lense of faith. I see neoconservatism as more an ideology (although so far Heilbrunn's discussion has avoided that label).

Moreover, despite the slurs, some of the most influential neocons in American foreign policy have been non-Jewish: Bill Bennett, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Michael Novak. Some top neocon heavyweights - President Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton - aren't Jewish.

Certainly, though, identification with neoconservativism - irrespective of religion - correlates with support for Israel. I think in my case, after September 11, when I really started paying attention to the radical diatribes against American foreign policy, I gravitated toward neoconservative ideology, and its identification with the survival of the Jewish state.

It was natural for me. My main identity as a neoconservative corresponds to the notion of an alienated Cold War liberal who's had an awakening. I voted Democrat in every election from Michael Dukakis in 1988 to Al Gore in 2000. I would have voted for Walter Mondale in 1984, but skipped the election due to my own apathy. I studied international relations as an undergraduate, never questioning America's bipartisan anti-Communist project. Indeed, I absorbed strategic nuclear theory in college under the assumption that the Cold War arms race was far from resolved. Moreover, I knew - early on in my studies - that the Soviet Union indeed threatened America's core interests; and the world correlation of forces, if turned to the Soviets' advantage, would work to the detriment of the U.S. - and even toward the possible destruction of our nation (only one contender would survive the long, twilight engagement with Leninist internationalism ).

Soviet foreign policy was on the march in the 1970s - after America's defeat in Vietnam - and pro-Moscow Marxist insurgencies throughout the Third Word pledged the revolutionary overthrow of the pro-American capitalist classes.

At home, however, I was a Johnson Democrat on civil rights, and I dismissed the Reagan administration's domestic policies as reactionary.

That all changed in time. Throughout the 1990s the Clinton administration was a source of endless frustration, with its casualty sensitivity from Somalia to Kosovo. I was working on my dissertation at the time, researching the domestic sources of underbalancing against the Nazi threat to international security in the 1930s.

I thought, upon starting my career as a teaching political scientist, that American unipolarity was underutilized - that is, U.S. power could be exercised to the advantage of world freedom and security. With great power comes great responsibility. American political debates - "come home America" - ignored the call of history.

America's toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan put to rest the notion of the graveyard of empires, and I was on board with the Bush revolution in foreign affairs. I didn't know it yet, but I was moving into the neoconservative neighborhood.

Some longtime readers will recall that I've just been disgusted with leftist anti-Americanism; that combined with my unapologetic view of American material capabilities to put me in line with pro-victory forces in the debate over American intervention overseas. I voted for George W. Bush in 2004. I started blogging in 2006, not once flinching in the rightness of our cause, nor in my commitment to combatting leftist irrationalism and nihilism.

In any case, I just like the vigor of the neoconservative mission. Heilbrunn, in the prologue to They Knew They Were Right, suggests that adherents have experienced exile without ever reaching the promised land. This creates a missionary faith, and the movement often ends up on the wrong side of traditional American conservatism:

The reason is that the neoconservatives are less intellectuals than prophets. They tend to be men (and women) of an uncompromising temperament who use (and treat) ideas as weapons in a moral struggle, which is why the political class in each party regards them with a mixture of appreciation and apprehension, even loathing.

Loathing sums it up for me, at least in my experience as a pro-victory professor on campus, and as a blogger implacably committed to America's mission in Iraq and the larger global war on transnational terrorism.

It's something of a badge of honor to piss off radical lefties on foreign policy to no end, in any case. I had no idea that I'd embrace the neoconservative label, but it fits just fine, and I'm proud to advance the cause. The United States indeed represents the light of the world, that ultimate good that exists out there in the cosmos. We're not always right, but we - like no other country - have always pushed for betterment though democratization and development, at home and abroad. Current U.S. foreign policy will be vindicated in the sweep of history (and success, near at hand now in Iraq, is irresistable as a force for progressive change).

I make no apologies. This is how I am; this is what I do

See my introductory post, "Welcome to American Power," for more on my ideational groundings. See also James Kirchick's killer essay, "The Anti-Neocon Fervor," on how neoconservatives just unhinge the radicals.

I'll have more thoughts on Heilbrunn's book as they come to me. I'm off to go read right now!

Explaining McCain's South Carolina Surge

Paul Mirengoff over at Power Line offers his explanation on why McCain's surging ahead in South Carolina:

When I traveled with the McCain campaign in early November, a reporter asked the Senator (who was still polling poorly) how he planned to win the nomination. McCain said he would do it the traditional way, by winning two of the following three early contests -- Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina (he didn't mention Michigan, which may help explain at some level why his message to Republicans in that state was so off-key).

McCain acknowledged that his prospects in Iowa weren't very good, so it became clear he was banking on New Hampshire and South Carolina. Even back then, a McCain victory in New Hampshire seemed quite possible to me, but I wondered how he could reasonably expect to win in South Carolina, an extremely conservative state in which only Republicans can vote. McCain explained that, unlike in 2000, he had secured endorsements from key members of the state's Republican establishment. But with polls showing him barely reaching double digit support and running well behind Romney, Thompson, and (in some polls) Giuliani, this sounded like wishful thinking.

Yet today, McCain is at the front of the pack in every South Carolina poll I've seen, and holds a lead of 8 percentage points over Mike Huckabee (ironically, the only contender not ahead of him in early November) in the RCP average.

What happened?

I don't understand South Carolina politics well enough confidently to provide an answer, but here are a few observations. First, let's examine the question of whether McCain is getting a bounce from New Hampshire or is instead reaping the reward of the same general revival that helped produce New Hampshire. The answer may be "both." Even before the New Hampshire primary, McCain had roughly doubled his level of support in South Carolina from its early November level, moving from roughly 10 to 20 percent. After New Hampshire, he quickly moved to roughly 30 percent, where he is today.

But, of course, this may not all be "bounce." After New Hampshire, McCain basically traded places with Huckabee, and this may have more to do with voter exposure to some of Huckabee's non-conservative positions than with New Hampshire election results. Indeed, it seems odd to suppose that many South Carolina Republicans would take their cue from a mixture of New Hampshire Republicans and Independents. At most, I suspect, the New Hampshire results prompted some to take another look at McCain.

The real question is how McCain is surviving (at least so far) the scrutiny of Republicans in a very conservative state. If McCain couldn't command plurality support from Republicans in Michigan and New Hampshire, how is he commanding it (so far, it appears) in South Carolina. Are Lindsay Graham and company that influential?

It seems to me that McCain is riding quite a bit of luck. First, until very recently his opponents hadn't pointed out to voters McCain's main deviations from conservatism. Second, and this is a related point, Mitt Romney decided that Michigan, not South Carolina, was the place to revive his fortunes. Not only is Romney willing to go after McCain, but he also had the endorsement of South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint. His decision to "go dark" in South Carolina probably helped McCain. Third, Giuliani's decison not to compete in South Carolina means the "moderate" vote won't be split to any meaningful degree.

Finally, McCain doesn't need a big number to win the South Carolina primary. He can lose two out of every three ballots cast and still quite possibly come in first. McCain's stature coupled with the support of the state's political establishment might well be enough to get him to 33 percent (only a little above where he was a year ago during his days as the putative front-runner). Subtract out 12 percent support for Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani combined, and you have three South Carolina-friendly candidates -- two running as traditional conservatives plus one very strong social conservative -- vying for the remaining 55 percent of the vote. That formula would very likely translate into a win for McCain.

UPDATE: As if on cue, I learn, via NRO, that an American Research Group poll poll has McCain in first place at 33 percent. Huckabee is in second, 10 points behind. Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson are dividing 56 percent of the vote.

The ARG poll shows "undecideds" at 3 percent. I suspect, that a significantly larger percentage of South Carolina Republicans actually are undecided.

MORE: Chris Cillizza offers his explanation of why McCain is so well-positioned in South Carolina. He focuses on demographic changes in the state since 2000, and cites election results since then that show a decline in the influence of social conservatives. But the winning candidates in those races -- for example, Jim DeMint who has endorsed Romney-- weren't of McCain's maverick-style political orientation. Thus, I'm not persuaded that the demographic changes explain why McCain seems poised to win.

STOP THE PRESSES: Rasmussen shows a very different race: McCain (24%); Huckabee (24%); (Romney 18%); Thompson (16%); Paul (5%); Giuliani (3%). Rasmussen also finds that "7% of voters have yet to make up their mind, 10% say there’s a good chance they could change their mind, and another 24% might change their mind." The part about voters being undecided or prepared to change their minds seems right to me.

McCain's got the big mo, you think?

Actually, the Rasmussen results are in line with today's survey from McClatchy, which found a McCain-Huckabee dead heat.

Recall earlier I mentioned Romney's win in Michigan would be a setback for Mike Huckabee?

The former Arkansas governor got the message (somehow), as it appears he's pulling out his knives to slash McCain's momentum. The effort includes a nasty round of push-pollling, which Mary Matalin on Sean Hannity's show is calling "beneath" Huckabee's record of integrity (see here and here).

McCain Holding Firm in S.C. Polling

I wrote yesterday on John McCain's lead in South Carolina polling heading into Saturday's primary.

So far, the Arizona Senator's holding firm, according to this afternoon's update to Zogby's South Carolina tracking poll (via Memeorandum):

Arizona Sen. John McCain kept his lead in South Carolina in the second installment of the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby tracking poll. He is followed by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, just as he was in the survey released yesterday. Their levels of support have remained static, with McCain holding steady at 29% and Huckabee losing just a point to stand at 22%.

There have been shifts lower down, however. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson has ousted former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney from the number three spot. Romney, who won the Michigan primary Tuesday, dropped a point, from 13% support to 12%, while Thompson jumped two points to 14%.

Also, Texas Congressman Ron Paul has edged ahead of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. But at 5% support, but Paul is ahead just by a fraction of a point. Giuliani, who is focusing his campaign efforts on Florida and who lost a point since yesterday’s tracking poll.

About 10% of likely voters said they were still undecided. The rolling tracking survey was taken between Jan. 14 and Jan. 16. The surveys included 815 interviews with likely voters, which included a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percentage points.

Among Republican voters, McCain gained a point to reach 30% support from his party. Huckabee, however, gained close to four points among Republicans, moving from 20% support to almost 24%. McCain, meanwhile, lost about four points among independent voters, sinking from 33% to 29% support. Huckabee, too, lost support from independents, but just by a point, going from 20% to 19%.

Romney saw his support slip among Republicans, as Thompson gained. Both were at 14% Tuesday, but Romney dropped to 13% while Thompson ticked up to 16%.

Paul, who had dominated among younger voters, lost ground in the 18-29 age group, going from 31% support to 23%. McCain jumped from 6% to 14% with younger voters, and Huckabee picked up four points to reach 32% support with that group. McCain continued to get most support from senior citizens and people aged 50 and over, though he lost a few points with those between 30 and 49. Huckabee’s support among those over 30 remained consistent.

But see also MSNBC, which has the results of a new McClatchy poll with McCain holding a slim lead over Mike Huckabee, a margin that's a statistical tie:

Two days until South Carolina’s GOP primary, John McCain and Mike Huckabee are locked in a virtual tie in that contest, according to a new MSNBC/McClatchy/Mason-Dixon poll.

McCain leads Huckabee by two points, 27%-25%, which is within the survey’s 5% margin of error. They’re followed by Mitt Romney at 15%, Fred Thompson at 13%, Ron Paul at 6%, and Rudy Giuliani at 5%. Eight percent say they’re undecided....

Looking deeper into the poll numbers, the McCain-Huckabee race in South Carolina shows a striking split between voters who think that leadership and strength are the most important qualities they’re looking for in a presidential candidate, and those who believe that sharing their values is the top quality.

Among the 43% of likely GOP primary voters who cite strength and leadership, 33% chose McCain -- compared with 19% for Romney and 17% for Huckabee. But among the 39% who say values, 37% picked Huckabee -- versus 19% who selected Thompson, 15% who went with Romney, and 12% who said McCain.

In addition, respondents who identified themselves as born-again Christians pick Huckabee over McCain, 33%-20%. Among those who aren’t born again, the split is McCain 39%, Huckabee 11%. Self-described born-again Christians made up 62% of the Republican sample.

Perhaps seeing the writing on the wall, Mitt Romney - just two days after his "big" win in Michigan - has quit South Carolina to focus his campaign on the Nevada Republican caucuses, also scheduled for Saturday. (Note that some reports have Romney hedging his decision to cede the state, going ahead with a big ad buy to flood South Carolina's media markets).

Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani's late-entry, Florida launching pad strategy - which I've characterized as foolish - is raising troubling questions back home.

I'm doubting the Giuliani's going to benefit much from the failure of a clear frontrunner to emerge. Perhaps something miraculous will happen...

Antiwar Groups Admit Defeat on Iraq

I've noted it many times on this page, but check out Ryan Grim's article over at The Politico, highlighting the utter collapse of the antiwar effort on Iraq (via Memeorandum):

After a series of legislative defeats in 2007 that saw the year end with more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began, a coalition of anti-war groups is backing away from its multimillion-dollar drive to cut funding for the war and force Congress to pass timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

In recognition of hard political reality, the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.

The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November and bring the votes to pass more dramatic measures. But it is a long way from the early months of 2007, when Democrats were freshly in power and momentum for a dramatic shift in Iraq policy seemed overpowering.

“There was a consensus that last year was not productive,” John Isaacs, executive director of Council for a Livable World, said of a meeting attended by a coalition of anti-war groups last week. “Our expectations were dashed.”

Read the whole thing.

See also, "Poll Shows More Public Backing on Iraq," "President Bush Surging at End of Tenure," "Democratic Finger-Pointing ," "John Murtha's Cut-and-Run Turnaround," and "Democrats Can't Get Things Right on Iraq."

Urban Schools Do College Prep

I'm glad to see, via today's New York Times, the push for more college preparation among educators in urban high schools:

At Excel High School, in South Boston, teachers do not just prepare students academically for the SAT; they take them on practice walks to the building where the SAT will be given so they won’t get lost on the day of the test.

In Chattanooga, Tenn., the schools have abolished their multitrack curriculum, which pointed only a fraction of students toward college. Every student is now on a college track.

And in the Washington suburb of Prince George’s County, Md., the school district is arranging college tours for students as early as seventh grade, and adding eight core Advanced Placement classes to every high school, including some schools that had none.

Those efforts, and others across the country, reflect a growing sense of urgency among educators that the primary goal of many large high schools serving low-income and urban populations — to move students toward graduation — is no longer enough. Now, educators say, even as they struggle to lift dismal high school graduation rates, they must also prepare the students for college, or some form of post-secondary school training, with the skills to succeed.

In affluent suburbs, where college admission is an obsession, some educators worry that high schools, with their rigorous college preparatory curriculums, have become too academically demanding in recent years.

By contrast, many urban and low-income districts, which also serve many immigrants, are experimenting with ways to teach more than the basic skills so that their students can not only get to college, but earn college degrees. Some states have begun to strengthen their graduation requirements....

Although federal studies show that most students yearn for a college degree, each year tens of thousands will not even make it through high school. In New York City, for example, roughly half the students complete high school though the new small high schools have shown substantial improvement in graduation rates.

Of the 68 percent of high school students nationwide who go to college each year, about a third will need remedial courses, experts say. For various reasons, from financial to a lack of academic preparedness, thousands of low-income students drop out of college each year.

Fewer than 18 percent of African-Americans and just 11 percent of Hispanics earn a bachelor’s degree, compared with almost a third of whites, ages 25 to 29, experts say. Of families making less than $25,000 a year, 19 percent complete an associate degree or higher, compared with 76 percent of families earning $76,000 per year or more.

The innovations range from creating high schools that offer an opportunity to take college courses for credit, to devoting senior English classes to writing college application essays, and holding parties to celebrate students who complete them. New York City has a $10 million grant from the Carnegie Corporation to develop extensive college counseling and connections with higher education institutions at 70 small high schools and three redesigned large ones.

Although affluent suburban schools have been increasing academic rigor in recent years, many large urban schools have been organized around the same low academic expectations for nearly three decades, experts say. When these schools opened their doors about a hundred years ago, relatively few teenagers even went to high school, education historians say. Enrollment in high school was not universal until the end of the 1950s.

By the 1970s, academic standards were being lowered to make it easier to move large numbers students of different abilities toward the diploma that was considered sufficient education for most, the historians say.

Today, however, some states are putting in place more rigorous high school exit exams, and students understand that a diploma no longer provides entry to the middle class. Over the past two decades, the percentage of low-income students who say they want a four-year degree or higher has tripled, rising to 66.2 percent in 2002, from 19.4 percent in 1980, according to federal statistics. And parents are stoking their children’s hopes.

As a community college professor, I see first hand the challenges of students who've not been considered "college material," or those without a family background of educational attainment.

Still, I'm blown away when I read the reports on the crisis in high school graduation rates.

The Los Angeles Times had a troubling story last year on the urban high school crisis, "The Vanishing Class," which notes, "For many, the traditional U.S. education system is a dead end."

Leftist Hatemongers

Arthur Brooks argues that hard-left ideologues are less tolerant than those on the right, at the Wall Street Journal:

A politically progressive friend of mine always seemed to root against baseball teams from the South. The Braves, the Rangers, the Astros -- he hated them all. I asked him why, to which he replied, "Southerners are prejudiced."

The same logic is evident in the complaint the American political left has with conservative voters. According to the political analysis of filmmaker Michael Moore, whose perception of irony apparently does not extend to his own words, "The right wing, that is not where America's at . . . It's just a small minority of people who hate. They hate. They exist in the politics of hate . . . They are hate-triots."

What about liberals? According to University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, "Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others." They also "believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference." Indeed, generations of academic scholars have assumed that the "natural personality" of political conservatives is characterized by hostile intolerance towards those with opposing viewpoints and lifestyles, while political liberals inherently embrace diversity.

As we are dragged through another election season, it is worth critically reviewing these stereotypes. Do the data support the claim that conservatives are haters, while liberals are tolerant of others? A handy way to answer this question is with what political analysts call "feeling thermometers," in which people are asked on a survey to rate others on a scale of 0-100. A zero is complete hatred, while 100 means adoration. In general, when presented with people or groups about which they have neutral feelings, respondents give temperatures of about 70. Forty is a cold temperature, and 20 is absolutely freezing.

In 2004, the University of Michigan's American National Election Studies (ANES) survey asked about 1,200 American adults to give their thermometer scores of various groups. People in this survey who called themselves "conservative" or "very conservative" did have a fairly low opinion of liberals -- they gave them an average thermometer score of 39. The score that liberals give conservatives: 38. Looking only at people who said they are "extremely conservative" or "extremely liberal," the right gave the left a score of 27; the left gives the right an icy 23. So much for the liberal tolerance edge.

Some might argue that this is simply a reflection of the current political climate, which is influenced by strong feelings about the current occupants of the White House. And sure enough, those on the extreme left give President Bush an average temperature of 15 and Vice President Cheney a 16. Sixty percent of this group gives both men the absolute lowest score: zero.

To put this into perspective, note that even Saddam Hussein (when he was still among the living) got an average score of eight from Americans. The data tell us that, for six in ten on the hard left in America today, literally nobody in the entire world can be worse than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

This doesn't sound very tolerant to me -- nor especially rational, for that matter.

Well, exactly, it's not rational. Many of those who populate the hard-left (bloggers, TV commentators, etc.) are extremely intolerant and resistant to debate.

I see it all the time (my previous post touches on this a bit, with my discussion of Hamsher's Henchmen). I'm glad that Brooks provides some nifty data analysis to back up the point.

See also Memeorandum.

The Reagan Legacy in Campaign '08

Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake tried to take President Ronald Reagan down a notch or two yesterday:

No, Ronald Reagan didn't appeal to people's optimism, he appealed to their petty, small minded bigotry and selfishness. Jimmy Carter told people to tighten their energy belts and act for the good of the country; Ronald Reagan told them they could guzzle gas with impunity and do whatever the hell they wanted. He kicked off his 1980 campaign talking about "state's rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi -- the site of the murder of three civil rights workers in 1964's Freedom Summer. He thus put up a welcome sign for "Reagan Democrats," peeling off white voters who were unhappy with the multi-ethnic coalition within the Democratic Party.

One of his first acts was to fire 11,000 air traffic controllers in 1981 -- one of the most devastating union busting moves of the past century. And his vision of deregulation didn't free the country up for entrepreneurship, it opened it up for the wholesale thievery of the savings & loan crisis. He popularized the notion that all government is bad government and in eight short years put in place the architecture for decades of GOP graft and corruption.

There's enough hagiography of Reagan on the right, I don't think Democrats really need to go there.

Hamsher means Barack Obama doesn't need to go there. Obama speaks of Ronald Reagan tapping into a widescale span of national discontent, a reservoir of demand for change. Hamsher's repsponse, to me, illustrates, the fundamental irrationality of many on the left. Obama's not endorsing Reagan's policies; he recognizing his ability to generate a movement.

Perhaps there's some self-reflection there, for Obama - unlike any other candidate in the race this year - has captured this season's underlying dynamic of change. He represents a break from the past - he's an agent for the new.

Andrew Sullivan in his cover story at Altlantic last month put it forcefully:

What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in....

Read Sullivan's essay in full; he's a gifted political analyst.

But back to the issue at hand: What is it with Hamsher? The political strategy of the radical screechers at FireDogLake is political demonization.

Why should President Reagan's legacy be safe? At the time, Reagan was despised by the African-American community for dramatically cutting domestic programs - like welfare - geared to that constiuency. He was also reviled by peace activists for his staunch anti-Communism, his vigorous support of U.S. strategic supremacy, his unflinching promotion of American values abroad, and especially his backing of anti-Communist insurgencies in the Third World.

Victor David Hanson discusses Reagan today in an essay at Real Clear Politics:

Ronald Reagan's presidency was a great success. He rebuilt a chaotic U.S. military and helped end the Cold War. Reagan's radical tax cuts in 1981 spurred economic growth and redefined the relationship between U.S. citizens and their government. And he appointed conservative federal judges and bureaucrats who tried to roll back the half-century trend of expanded governmental control over our lives.

Reagan's nice-guy charm made it difficult for even his critics to stay angry with him for long. But he was no mere smiling dunce, as liberal intellectuals used to snicker. His private papers and diaries instead reveal that he was widely informed, read voraciously, drew on a powerful intellect and was an effective writer.

It is no wonder that conservative leaders - especially the current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls - now constantly evoke Ronald Reagan's successful presidency. In contrast, they rarely hearken back to the uprightness of the one-term Gerald Ford, or praise the foreign-policy accomplishments of the two Bush Republican presidencies.

Instead, the candidates try to "out-Reagan" each other by claiming they alone are the true Reaganites while their rivals in the primaries are too liberal, flip-floppers or without consistent conservative principles.

In short, Ronald Reagan has been beatified into some sort of saint, as if he were above the petty lapses and contradictions of today's candidates. The result is that conservatives are losing sight of Reagan the man while placing unrealistic requirements of perfection on his would-be successors.

Hanson goes on to note that all the GOP candidates are tripping over each other to grasp the mantle of the Reagan legacy. But Reagan made mistakes, and Hanson wants to remember both the good and bad.

That's a reasonable way to look at the Reagan record - much more reasonable, in fact, compared to the demonization project over at FDL.

**********

UPDATE: It turns out Obama's comments on Reagan pissed off more lefties than Hamsher's Henchmen.

Matt Stoller at Open Left had this to say about Obama:

There are many reason progressives should admire Ronald Reagan, politically speaking. He realigned the country around his vision, he brought into power a new movement that created conservative change, and he was an extremely skilled politician. But that is not why Obama admires Reagan. Obama admires Reagan because he agrees with Reagan's basic frame that the 1960s and 1970s were full of 'excesses' and that government had grown large and unaccountable.

Those excesses, of course, were feminism, the consumer rights movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the antiwar movement. The libertarian anti-government ideology of an unaccountable large liberal government was designed by ideological conservatives to take advantage of the backlash against these 'excesses'.

It is extremely disturbing to hear, not that Obama admires Reagan, but why he does so. Reagan was not a sunny optimist pushing dynamic entrepreneurship, but but a savvy politician using a civil rights backlash to catapult conservatives to power. Lots of people don't agree with this, of course, since it doesn't fit a coherent narrative of GOP ascendancy. Masking Reagan's true political underpinning principles is a central goal of the conservative movement, with someone as powerful as Grover Norquist seeking to put Reagan's name on as many monuments as possible and the Republican candidates themselves using Reagan's name instead of George Bush's in GOP debates as a mark of greatness. Why would the conservative movement create such idolatry around Reagan? Is is because they just want to honor a great man? Perhaps that is some of it. Or are they trying to escape the legacy of the conservative movement so that it can be rebuilt in a few years, as they did after Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I?

Actually, a lot of people don't agree with this attack because it's a bunch of left-wing baloney.

The fact is that President Reagan and the GOP capitalized on a social backlash against the extremes of left-wing policies on race, right, and taxes, and the Democratic Party's descent into unbridled indenty politics, anti-merit preferences, and big government largesse.

See Thomas Edsall, Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics.

Barack Obama's not only dissed by the old-line civil rights community as "inauthentically black," but the hard-left doesn't like his moderate approach to transcending the pathologies of Democratic Party ideology.

See more at Memeorandum.

The Honor of John McCain

Roger Cohen, over at the New York Times, thinks John McCain's too conservative, and wouldn't support him for the presidency! Here's the introduction:

Nobody’s been right all the time on Iraq, but Senator John McCain has been less wrong than most. He knew a bungled war when he saw one and pressed early for increased force levels. He backed the injection last year of some 30,000 troops, a surge that has produced results.

Modest results, yes, and violence has blipped upward again this month, and, yes, Iraqi political progress is slow. But progress is always slow when a population terrorized over decades is freed. Violent attacks were down 60 percent in December from their 2007 high and refugees have begun to go home.

A trickle homeward, yes, a speck in the ocean of 2.2 million Iraqis forced into exile, but tens of thousands of people don’t return unless they see hope. That’s why more than 4 million Afghans have gone home since the Taliban’s fall.

Yes, I know, the myriad Iraqi dead won’t return.

McCain was politically dead six months ago, his campaign undone by his backing of President Bush’s Iraq policy. His remarkable resurgence, which has put him in the lead among Republican candidates, according to recent polls, is one measure of the Iraq shift.

That shift has unsettled the political ground. With Iraq looking less hopeless, McCain has scored points for being consistent and forthright on the war — a quality shared only by Barack Obama (in his opposition to it) among leading candidates.

At the same time, an economy getting a subprime pummeling has nudged Iraq from the center of Americans’ concerns. The victory of McCain’s rival Mitt Romney in the Michigan primary came in a state craving quick fixes for 7.4 percent unemployment. McCain didn’t offer that.

So, three states have chosen distinct Republican candidates, with a social conservative, Mike Huckabee, triumphing in Iowa; McCain taking New Hampshire with independent support; and Romney using his C.E.O. image to win Michigan. Bush’s party is split: God, heroic nation and Wall Street are out of sync.

It’s been widely assumed that the Democratic Party’s shoot-itself-in-the-foot capacity, evident in 2004, would have to hit overdrive to wrest defeat from victory this year. These Republican splits comfort the notion of inevitable Democratic triumph.

But, as Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute noted, “There’s no doubt that the one Republican candidate that leaves most Democrats quaking is McCain. They’re uneasy about the breadth of his appeal.”

Read the whole thing.

Not too many folks think the Arizona Senator's too conservative (see the point at Cohen's conclusion). There's no doubt, though, that McCain's honor is unimpeachable; and I don't think there's another candidate in the race - on either side of the aisle - who's more prepared to be chief executive.

The man's stubborn, and it showed in his inflexible message in this week's Michigan campaigning. But we could use more straight talk in the country, on economic issues and beyond, and such leadership starts at the top.

The Democrats know it, and so do McCain's GOP rivals. It's no surprise that a McCain-swiftboating campaign's already begun down South. The stakes are high, and there's no room for pussy-footing around, but McCain's rapid reaction team is already on the job.

On to South Carolina!

Will the GOP Race Go to the Convention?

The dramatic GOP presidential race - which has so far failed to produce a clear frontrunner - has raised a good deal of speculation that we might see a brokered convention in 2008.

Why?

The party is divided among its three wings: the anti-taxers, the evangelicals, and the foreign policy hawks. No single candidate has so far been able to unify these disparate factions.

Adam Nagourny, over at today's New York Times, argues that Republicans have failed to restore the voting coalition that propelled Ronald Reagan's two terms in Washington. Mitt Romney's win in Michigan yesterday dramatically illustrates the point:

On the most tangible level, the vote on Tuesday was proof from the ballot box of what polls have shown: this is a party that is adrift, deeply divided and uninspired when it comes to its presidential candidates and unsure of how to counter an energized Democratic Party.

Even in victory, Mr. Romney stood as evidence of the trouble the party finds itself in. He won, but only after a major effort in a state he once expected to win in a walk. That was before he lost Iowa and New Hampshire, two other states where he had campaigned all out.

More than any candidate in the Republican field, Mr. Romney has made a conscious effort to reassemble the coalition of economic and social conservatives that came together with Ronald Reagan and that President Bush kept remarkably unified in his two campaigns and through much of his White House tenure.

Mr. Romney’s uneven performance has highlighted the strains in that coalition, and a central question about his candidacy is whether he will be able to rally its fractured components to his side. It was no coincidence that he invoked Reagan more than once in his victory speech on Tuesday, though it was perhaps equally telling that he also invoked the first President Bush, who like Mr. Romney struggled to convince Republicans that he was Reagan’s rightful heir.

It's still too early to tell whether Romney's the man to unite the fragments of the Republican Party coalition. A second win for either Mike Huckabee or John McCain in Saturday's South Carolina primary might clarify the race a bit, but it's probably going to be February 5 - and the 22 contests showcasing then - when we'll know whether we're headed for a backroom showdown in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Ruth Marcus at today's Washington Post addresses the prospects of a brokered convention this year for both parties. While Marcus mostly discusses the dynamics on the Democratic side - where there is greater proportional representation in delegate selection, and the superdelegates might decide the race before summer - the chances for a real decision-making convention on the Republican side look even greater.

It wasn't supposed to be this way.

Following the 1968 election, when Hubert Humphrey secured the Democratic nomination without entering the primaries, the McGovern-Fraser Commission created the modern presidential primary process, which required candidates to win a majority of convention delegates in state caucuses and primaries.

The Democrats have not chosen a nominee at the convention since then (although the GOP selected Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan in 1976 on the first ballot, the last time in the post-1968 era that a nominee of either party was selected after the primaries).

Jay Cost, over at Real Clear Politics, provides an analysis of the delegate selection process for this year's Republican National Convention. It's not too early to begin political horse trading.

Neoconservatism: The Right Side of History

Jacob Heilbrunn's They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons is out this week.

I'm on my way in a couple of minutes to pick up a copy, but I thought I'd share Peter Wehner's review of the book over at the New York Post.

Unlike Timothy Noah's review at the New York Times, Wehner defends the neoconservative record (and provides a counterbalance to what he sees is Heilbrunn's "animus"):

The author is forced to acknowledge that neoconservatives were right about a few things - like understanding early on that the Soviet Union and jihadism were genuine causes for concern. But, he quickly adds, even the proverbial stopped watch is right twice a day.

This is silliness. To have been right before it was fashionable about the nature and threat of Soviet Communism and militant Islam are deeply impressive achievements. Moreover, neoconservatism has correctly critiqued and offered remedies for many domestic ills. Neoconservatism is an imperfect movement comprised of people of sometimes different and competing views, but it has certainly enriched and deepened our public life.

Heilbrunn believes the Iraq war will return neoconservatives to exile since they were the primary advocates for the war, which to him has been a colossal failure. The bad news for Heilbrunn's book (and the good news for America and Iraq) is that 2007 was a year of remarkable improvement in Iraq, thanks to the counterinsurgency strategy. We have seen often staggering progress, on many key fronts.

Heilbrunn can also be sloppy. He writes that in the aftermath of the failure to find WMDs, President Bush “suddenly veered to embracing the democracy crusade" in his second inaugural (delivered in January 2005). Yet Heilbrunn cites President Bush's November 2003 speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, in which Bush said, “Iraqi democracy will succeed and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Tehran, that freedom can be the future of every nation." The truth is that President Bush promoted the Freedom Agenda before the Iraq war began.

Heilbrunn also asserts that neoconservatives like William Kristol, in an effort to deflect criticism for their role in the Iraq war, turned on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on precisely Dec. 14, 2004, in a Washington Post op-ed. Except that Kristol and Robert Kagan were critical of Rumsfeld and his strategy as early as the summer of 2003, writing “[i]t is painfully obvious that there are too few American troops operating in Iraq." The success of the surge is vindication for Kristol and Kagan. They, like Sen. John McCain, were right in their concerns - and Iraq would be in far better shape today had we heeded their early counsel.

Woo hoo, go McCain!

Also, check out today's essay from the New York Times' public editor, who defends the paper's decision to hire Kristol as a columnist.

Kristol pointed out Monday that the Democrats - in their predictions on the war - were wrong throughout 2007.

McCain Holds Edge in South Carolina

John McCain holds a lead in South Carolina, two new public opinion surveys out this week show.

Zogby finds McCain leading 29 to 23 percent over Mike Huckabee (via Memeorandum):

New York – Arizona Sen. John McCain is the leader in the South Carolina Republican primary race with 29% support, a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby tracking poll shows. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is a strong second with 23%, and Mitt Romney is a distant third with 13%. The Republican primary election is Saturday. Democrats hold their primary in South Carolina a week later on Jan. 26.

Romney, however, is coming off a handy victory in Tuesday’s Michigan primary, defeating McCain, who had hoped to repeat his 2000 win in that state and continue the momentum generated from his New Hampshire victory.

The interviews of South Carolina likely Republican primary voters included in this report were completed before the Michigan GOP results were in. The survey including 813 interviews with likely Republican primary voters conducted Jan. 13-15, 2007. It carries a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percentage points. The daily tracking poll will continue up until the election.

The survey shows Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at 12%, just a point behind Romney. Only 5% said they liked former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, while 10% said they were still undecided.

Additionally, Ramussen on Monday had McCain up 9 percentage points over Huckabee:

Over the past several days, the only real movement in South Carolina’s Republican Presidential Primary has been a four-point gain for Fred Thompson and a five-point decline for Mike Huckabee.

The big winner from that trade-off is John McCain.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows McCain at 28%, Huckabee at 19%, Mitt Romney at 17%, and Fred Thompson at 16%. Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul are tied with 5% support. Giuliani is betting his entire campaign on a strong showing in Florida, where he is now tied for the lead with three others.

The current results show McCain getting some breathing room in South Carolina. The previous South Carolina poll, conducted the night after McCain’s victory in New Hampshire, had McCain at 27% and Huckabee at 24%. Before the New Hampshire vote, Huckabee was leading McCain by seven points. McCain and Huckabee are pulling away from the field nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Thompson has been directly challenging Huckabee on the campaign trail and hoping to gain some traction that will keep his campaign afloat. Earlier this year, Thompson had hoped to exploit dissatisfaction with the rest of the field and emerge as the choice for conservatives. When his campaign failed to take off, Huckabee saw the same opening and capitalized on it in a way Thompson did not. As recently as November, Thompson was tied for the lead in South Carolina.

The race remains very fluid with 8% of voters undecided and 11% saying there’s a good chance they could change their mind.

The Zogby results are especially interesting in showing McCain gaining Republican across the state (and not only the coastal regions where he ran strongly in 2000).

Note that both surveys were conducted before Romney's Michigan win, who's likely to get a bump this week - although he'd need a lot of upward movement to dislodge either McCain or Huckabee.