My general sense is that it was a (somewhat) interesting failure. I'm not really sure why he gave it--nor am I sure if he knew why he was doing it. But it was a sort of different try. I'm all for failed experiments in that mold.

The right of course is going ballistic over his use of the "world citizen" trope, which philosophically I'm basically in agreement with Poulos. However, the tired right-wing politicization of everything and its historical amnesia, again rears its ugly head deconstructing their own critique because St. Ronald of Reagan actually used the hated phrase ("citizens of the world") in a SOTU speech. (h/t KB via Yglesias). Oops.

Obviously the Obama paeans to ending global warming, curing all poverty, never again allowing genocide, played well to the crowd and are largely some hot air.

That stuff aside for the moment (bc like i said I still think it was overall a failure), Obama correctly warned that the globalized world we have created can not last so long as the gains are so disproportionately dispersed. The system can only maintain itself in that fashion by systematic, massive violence which undercuts everything the better angels of the West stand for--opportunity, freedom, rule of law/justice, and the like.

But this part actually I found quite sharp

The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil...

Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin.

It was a very intelligent frame (imo) to place the struggle against terrorism as a parallel to the battle of ideas against Communism (against the backdrop of the site/anniversary of the Berlin Air Lift). Bush and the neocons mythic belief in democracy (if you assume for the moment it was sincere) already held that people all the time, in every place and age want freedom (hint: they don't, at least not in the way the West defines freedom). Hence there was no need to argue on a idea-plane for rule of law. Nor was there any worry that committing crimes (e.g. torture) that undercut that standing would reduce the desire for freedom in the rest of the world.

Obama is going back to a road opened up after 9/11 that Bush never took--a united front against terrorism.  Rather than and out and out attempt to unilaterally impose an American century via imperial trouncing around the Middle  East.

Obama posits a view that learned the lessons of the Cold War (containment, the priority of values, and the need for the US to employ its power through institutions/alliances) without actually living in the dark mindset of the Cold War--the paranoia, realizing that the terrorists are not the Soviets, not within reach/have the capacity take over the world. Its post-Cold War in that its not seeing for example, the primary lens (a la Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz) as nation states but rather the seams/gaps in globalization that trans-national groups can exploit.

Obama is still too enamored I think of the notion that poverty breeds terrorism. Therefore his references to ending it. I understand it's a selling point, but it doesn't really add up at least relative to al-Qaeda. Their beef is US foreign policy plain and simple.  I think you could make the point that such poverty is a blight and must be engaged simply on a moral level not vis a vis terrorism.  Otherwise it can back door "national" Islamist movements into al-Qaeda.

Still at the very least Obama understands that the fight against these groups involves thinking about actual objective realities and learning to live with less-than-ideal scenarios, versus McCain who is lost in Cosmic Good/Evil Land as well as the notion that the fight depend simply on emotional constructs like "no surrender" and strategies based on "victory"--and therefore (falsely and in a pathetic manner) accusing your opponent of seeking to lose wars. [The war was won "my friend", the peace was lost].

]]> http://johnmcquaid.wordpress.com/?p=316 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:02:02 +0000 johnmcquaid http://johnmcquaid.wordpress.com/?p=316 In the course of a long critique/attack on Obama's phrase "citizen of the world" straight out of a late-night college bull session,  James Poulos says this:

Our yearning for pan-human solidarity is an absurdity, the absurdity of the human condition, and the most utopian of all utopian ideas is the idea of a Brotherhood of Man: because the human race is not a family, just like it isn’t one big polity. We are stuck with differentiation; there is no metaphor that allows us to redefine humanity as a closer relationship than it is. That doesn’t mean we can’t be friends. Indeed, the only trope that allows us to develop closer amicable relationships with strangers is the trope of friendship, and the only way to close the relationship with a stranger is to make friends. Not to ‘make citizens’; not to ‘make brothers’. This is crazy European talk — the discredited language of the bloody French and German experiments in various kinds of border-busting solidarity.

The notion that the vague sentiments of anodyne rhetoric should be taken as evidence of radical anti-American sympathies (in this case, European-socialist-utopianist sympathies - the same sympathies that brought us those 20th century conflagrations!) makes no sense. Of course "citizen of the world" is a sentimental phrase, and in some sense an aspirational one. It could imply membership in some kind of global club marching in lockstep toward world government, trampling individual rights along the way. But it could mean a lot of things. That's why it's anodyne! A more reasonable interpretation is a) we all have some things in common; b) of the things which divide us, some are potentially reconcilable, some not; and c) in spite of the differences the people of the world ought to aspire to behave in a civilized manner towards one another.

Also, I see nothing in human nature that would prevent a) continued cultural homogenization via the avenues of globalization, development, and the Internet/media or b) the eventual formation of an actual global polity of some sort, in which case we all would become "citizens of the world." This isn't going to happen tomorrow. And when it does happen, it's not going to eliminate all conflict. But I don't understand why it would be an impossibility at some point in the coming centuries or millennia.

The way I see it, there are only two legitimate ways to determine the price of gas for Ukraine:

• Option A: Take the cost of the gas produced (whether in Russia or in Central Asia). Add the cost of transit. Add the cost of taxes and customs. Add a industry-standard profit margin (maybe $5-15 per thousand cubic meters). You are then left with the price for gas at the Ukraine - Russia border.
• Option B: Take the cost of gas charged by Gazprom to other major European consumers like Germany and Itay. (This price is developed using a formula based on the price of oil, the closest “substitute” to natural gas.) Subtract transit costs for the difference in distance between these countries and Ukraine. Average these various prices together to arrive at the “European” price for Ukraine. Let Gazprom worry about where they get the gas–whether from Russian wells or Central Asian–for the supplies, as should be done when negotiations are going through Gazprom.

The question becomes who–Ukraine or Russia–will capitalize on the profit margin between these two types of contracts...

Full account is available here.

By the magic of the Internets (and eager fans) Webisode 3 of Being: Jonas Brothers Exclusively from Pepsi Smash and Yahoo Music (breath).

This one is cute and gives us a glimpse of the Guys talking about what they expected from Europe. We get to see them film their "Jonas Brothers Meet The Queen" vid and watch as a big crowd gathers to see...the Queen. A quick chat between Big Rob (who speaks German) and some German students reveals they have no idea who the Jonas Brothers are. What a difference a few months make.

Check it out after the jump!

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.641389&w=425&h=350&fv=id%3Dv159482790%2Cv2153998%2Cv24511947%2Cv2144478%2Cv2158381%26eID%3D1301797%26prepanelEnable%3D0%26infopanelEnable%3D1%26autoStart%3D1%26eh%3DYAHOO.music.video.Evp.fopCallBackHandler%26shareEnable%3D1%E2%8C%A9%3Dus%26ympsc%3D4195329%26enableFullScreen%3D1]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece

Webisode 2 of Being:The Jonas Brothers Exclusively from Pepsi Smash and Yahoo Music (OK - This is like the most confusing title for a 3 minute show ever).

In this webisode the Guys are in London "enjoying being surrounded by European people." We get to see them talking about British girls (and be ignored by them), play a stuffy acoustic SOS on the London Eye, and meet some very lucky fans. Joe even shows off the sights a bit by pointing out Big Benjamin.

Check it out after the jump.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.641023&w=425&h=350&fv=id%3Dv159482788%26autoStart%3D1%26songPurchasing%3D%26pm%3D4%26eID%3D1301797%26ympsc%3D4195333%26chid%3Dcategory%3A36672693]

[Via: Yahoo Music, Being:The Jonas Brothers Pepsi Smash Exclusive]

Throughout history, American isolationism has had a sporadic role in world politics, notably in 1914 at the outbreak of WWI. While George Bush's attitude to foreign affairs doesn't fall exactly into this category, his attitude has long been one of America versus The World, dividing the planet into those for the War on Terror and those against, an approach which has entailed precious little middleground and not much elbow-room for diplomacy. As a policy, isolationsim tends to suggest a self-assuredness that the country in question reigns supreme - in its own opinion, anyway - and therefore need not sully its hands in external affairs, except as a kind of global policeman. Bush has simply pushed this to the next logical point: active interference, rather than passive, but still with the view that America is prima inter pares.

Should McCain be elected President, it seems likely that this approach will continue, possibly followed by a return to genuine isolationism, should circumstances allow. Certainly, I can't see the opposite happening. Almost exclusively, his pitch has been to the American people - pragmatic, in the sense that these are, after all, his voters, but symptomatic of a mindset which says: the rest of you can go hang. We haven't asked for your opinion, and we sure as hell aren't going to.

By contrast, Obama has set out not just to woo his constituency, but the world at large. And it's working. Whether or not other nations like America or agree with its current foreign policy, it remains an indsiputable superpower, and for many governments, the thought of a President who might actually bring their kind of diplomacy to the table, regardless which party he belongs to, is an exceedingly welcome change. As far as campaigns go, it portrays foresight, shrewd politics and a view that America needs to take the rest of the world into consideration - to compromise, not just when a strongarm approach has failed, but because it's good politics to do so.

But the question, as always, rests with American voters. Can enough of them be persuaded to care what the rest of the world thinks? Is the idea of a change in foreign policy more attractive than the prospect of same-old, same-old? Have the failings of the Bush government resonated strongly enough that McCain can't play to the idea of change = danger, familiarity = safe? Does increased global confidence in the President rate as an important electoral consideration? Or is the idea of foreign policy beyond military commitments so far off the radar that when the polls open, everything will hinge on the pitch-and-toss of national concerns?

I can't be sure. But as a citizen of the world beyond the States, I know what my plea to voters is.

Choose, America. But choose wisely.

That was Sen. Obama on July 8th.  Here is his speech from earlier in Berlin, Germany:

"Vielen Dank zu den Bürgern von Berlin und zu den Leuten von Deutschland. Lassen Sie mich Kanzler Merkel und Außenminister Steinmeier für Heißen willkommen mich früher heute danken. Vielen Dank Bürgermeister Wowereit, der Berlin Senat, die Polizei, und am meisten von allen vielen Dank für diesen Empfang . . . "

Oh, wait.  Obama doesn't speak a foreign language.  He delivered this address in English in a foreign land.  I don't think there was even a merci beaucoup in there.  How embarrassing.

Check out the always enjoyable Michelle Malkin for a look at how Obama really is a dummkopf.

UPDATE: In response to the kind comments from KC:  Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment.  When I said Obama doesn't speak a foreign language, I was referring to Obama's own statement: “I don't speak a foreign language. It's embarrassing!” My mistake for taking Sen. Obama at his word.

My criticism of Obama not speaking German in Germany was a response to his silly quote above, not because I would have been able to orate in German.  (Although after three years of studying German and visiting that beautiful country, I could have.)  Which, of course, brings us to German grammar.  In German, all nouns are still capitalized, as they once were in English.  The key phrase: IN GERMAN.

UPDATE II: Thanks for the link, Indigo Red.  Read about his further adventures here.

I don't think an Obama victory discredits neoconservatism. He's offering neoconservatism with a human face.

There's more, in a similar vein, from Daniel Larison (in his postscript) and Matt Welch.

P.S. If I named one of these every day, yesterday's prize would have gone, hands-down once again, to James.

[UPDATE: James makes it close:

It is undeniable that Obama is an incredible asset to what is often discussed as ‘America’s image abroad’, and should really just be described as America. In several important ways, Obama is full of crap, but it is our crap that he is full of, and people all over the planet still love it.

And that is why I don't usually bother with QotD awards.]

[ANOTHER UPDATE: Inspired by James's entry, Josh Grimm throws his hat in the ring:

We are (to paraphrase facetiously) the crap we have been waiting for. We have found ourselves, in this moment, to be as ephemeral as we thought we were. We, fellow citizens of the world, are as solid as marshmallow fluff. Let's come together to defeat terrorism and bring about a lasting peace in our time, so that we may fairly trade marshmallow fluff and make ourselves feel better. Yes, we can, in this moment...make ourselves feel better by proclaiming meaningless phrases!

Like I said, picking a winner is hopeless.]

In the months leading up to WWII there was a great deal  of intense negotiations between the major powers to thrwart German hegemony in Europe.  Britain and France tried to make a deal with the Soviets for a military alliance to make the Germans back off.   It didn't work.   As you know only two weeks before the guns fired on Poland the Soviets in fact made a deal with Germany and in the bargain got almost half of Poland and "control" over the Baltic states of Estonia and Latvia and a few other ethnic areas in western Russia and the Ukraine area.  Stalin was a bad person, really bad; he in fact killed more people during his reign than Hitler did during his.    Many in the West were most reluctant to make any kind of deal with Stalin but there were those who believed the greater good over the long haul was to reign in Fascism.   During the first months of the war, Stalin not only took his share of Poland, thank you very much, but he also invaded Finland that fall of 1939.   The West was so upset with that invasion that the British and French both offered assistance to Finland and it was only by happenstance as much as anything that the West didn't go to war with Stalin then.  After Finland Latvia and Estonia were next on Stalin's list and they were occupied in early 1940 by Soviet troops.  Stalin didn't just have a sphere of influence there anymore but outright domination.  Those countries except for a brief time during the war would remain under Soviet control until the end of the Cold War.   You should know too that many of the Latvians and Estonians were most eager to see the Germans and viewed them as liberators from the Communists.  Many of them even volunteered to join the German army for the express purpose of fighting the Communists.

The war was almost two years old before Germany invaded the USSR.  During all that time the alliance between Stalin and Hitler was in place.  Only after that invasion did Stalin all of a sudden become our new best friend.   Make no mistake about it we made a deal with the devil to defeat another Satan.   We don't need to even go into detail here to recall the future purges and use of the Gulag and deaths caused by Stalin after the war right up to the time of his own death in 1953.

This is offered to give reflection about our current world situation.  Iran, Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Norh Korea and yes our old pal Russia are going to present us with many challenges in the future and we may make other bargains where we have to hold our nose for a while.   It is legitimate for us to protect our interests and look to the security of our people.  The world can be a dangerous place sometimes and we have to deal with dangerous people and circumstances whether we like it or not.   Read your own history, read a lot and look at those maps and  make an informed opinion about how we should deal with the current world difficulties.  Serious thought for serious problems is all I ask.

I do marathons and I am often asked why the distance is 26.2 miles.  Yes it is an odd number.  It was originally designed to be 26 miles (the distance run by a messenger bringing news of victory from Marathon to Athens) but at the renewal of the Olympics over a hundred years ago the organizers planned for the marathon to finish inside the Olympic stadium.   Everything was set except at the last moment as it were, they noticed that the Royal box was not on the finish line and they certainly couldn't ask Royalty to move.  So the race was extended around the stadium to the box--an extra 385 yards.  To this day that has remained the official distance for the marathon races.

In many ways, it is suspect to me that perhaps truth is less entertaining then fiction, and in some cases more malicious.

I was just betrayed by a person whom I trusted, with their motivation being money.  To the point where they were willing to present my information as their information in order to gain more of it.

Basically fraud, plagiarism, and outright misrepresentation of abilities and credentials, with the excuse that they "did not know" which is obviously a lie. Since no one ever submitting information would be ignorant that they were submitting wrong information when they were specifically instructed to replace the existing details with their own information.

Some folks are just simply thieves, and liars.

Yet, conversely, I have also discovered someone new and interesting. Quite grounded, and seemingly non-judgmental and directly honest. It is shown in her transparency. Interesting that I met her for the first time this morning - so it strikes me that God indeed loves me, and the last 8 months only existed to destroy my faith, trust, love and heart. so be it. I pity the 2 whom were used by evil to hurt me since it will be that much worse on them in so many other ways.  Well, oh well... we reap what we sow now don't we?

Have you ever had premonitions? The knowing of something that will occur that matches the very thing that you know must occur?

For the last 7 years previous to this year, I have waited in faith and trust for the first person that I have ever loved - despite any relationship prior - knowing that it was that faith and trust which kept me alive. The strength of that honesty was the foundation and pinnacle of all that I held inside me the cornerstone to the nature of who and what I am inside - which in all truth has kept me alive these last 7 years...

Both spiritually, and consciously I was able to be clear minded and forward thinking in all of my functions and focus.

Then 8 months ago I met someone who stated that I was a fool to wait that long and so on, and of course her and I ended up in a relationship. She was the opposite of everything that I held worthy. She lied freely. Had no compulsion to deceive, misrepresent, and - as was shown only just recently - steal in order to achieve her goals. All of which were money.

God says that those people who are evil of heart, will be seared in their conscience, knowing that they will destroy others, hurt, lie, steal and cheat in order to see the fruition of their own selfish gain. 

I can say in all reality and clarity that the last 8 months only existed to destroy the faith, trust and hope which had kept me alive for the previous 7 years, and bringing all of this to 8 years in total - in this exercise of personal growth and strengthening.

For those of you whom are curious about my constant referencing to numbers, it is as follows:

1: The number of God (one God, 3 attributes - Soul, Spirit, Flesh - vis a vis - Father, Spirit, Son)
2: The number of division or breaking apart
3: Proof and witness (see 1 for self evidence)
4: Foundation and spiritual balance (sometimes called pillars)
5: Grace
6: The number of man
7: the number of completion or finishing
8: the number of new beginning
9: (no idea sorry)
10: the number of man's order of government
11: (again no idea)
12: The number of God's order of government
Thus - 333 = perfect proof, 888 = perfect new beginning (since 3 represents proof of)
555 - perfect grace and so on

Now, last week things began to change. As you may or may not know by the two blogs which I have written called "Full Circle" and "Full Circle Part 2."

Both were professional meetings. One was a man who functioned within the same discipline, and industry as I. The other was a professional meeting with a woman who presented me with an opportunity as well as quite unrelated, intelligent, and transparently honest conversation.

Both times, in my intuition, I knew that I should not at all dismiss either of these meetings as irrelevant, and as I do not believe in coincidence - and as I was again beginning to trust God and listen more closely to the spirit of God who speaks to me in my intuition - felt no anxiety, and trusted the calm of the patience.

So, I did just that.

As it turned out - this gentleman and I struck up a conversation one day and now we are working together within the freedom of our own strengths and attributes within a project - as well as a confidence toward each others intents and end results.  I can tell quite directly that I can trust this person since the goal for them is personal achievement, and a love for their own family - as new as that gift to him has been - and we have the same desired intended result equally within each of our own software development methods.

The second situation has only just been experienced - as I met her this morning for coffee, regarding another opportunity - which was quite a bit more wonderful than just "work" related conversations.

Now, this is where it becomes interesting to me, and I will have to reserve anything written of it, since I know that only God can hear my thoughts, but anything presented is then presented for any and all negative spirits which ache to destroy good and right things in life.

So, I will say nothing on this for yet a little while longer, however, I will say that I am not surprised, and all the intuitive truths became self evident - in every dynamic - showing quite clearly that the viewpoint given inside me, is from God.

There are two kinds of ambition. One is malicious, the other is honest. 

The malicious ambition will lie, cheat, steal, con, rape and plunder anything and everything in order to achieve it's own goals and is usually laced with pride, and impatience - with greed as it's lust and love and focus.  It will have the attitude of "I will do this myself" which really translates to "I will take whatever I want to get what I want no matter what the cost to others, or whom I have to step on to do it."

No cost to right, or honestly, or love, or friends will deem inconvenient to betray or destroy.

The other ambition is patient. Trusting and aware of the reality of gains and loses accepting them with truth and honour. Knowing that anything of value is earned, and not stolen. So that the ambition in and of itself will know that it can see it's own face in the mirror and has not lied, stolen, cheated or destroyed anything or anyone in order to sleep with peace and to live without conflict.

So then... this is all cryptic at best and it is so for many reasons. I will not expose anyone even though they destroyed my trust in them, and stole from me, yet conversely I will not expose the right and purity of the other, since the invisible life we do not see around us, is not always benevolent and for our benefit.

I really truly - by my nature - would love to give more information and explode on this page the things which I have discovered. As well as all of the information which I have seen inside my intuition over the last 2 weeks as the changes are now beginning. But, I also know - by my intuition - that to do so would activate that invisible evil which lurks and prowls to destroy all good things which proceed from God toward us.

So, as it is by my intuition that I have been guided thus far in these last few weeks, so again it is by my intuition that I write nothing here at this juncture.

My current faith and strength comes from the following though.

The realization that these last 8 months were only here to destroy me and is usual - I can not be destroyed. Simply because I serve the living God - remaining in truth, and honesty forever.

That it is because of these last 8 months that I have now been freed and awakened and angered enough to be driven to the point where I will not accept anymore evil in my life.

Not from others, and not by greed.  Ambition is not wrong, and a desire for self worth and better things is not wrong. It can not be wrong, since it is our dreams which give us our life.

It is the methods we use to achieve those dreams that define if we are good or evil.

Good will never lie.
Good will never cheat.
Good will never steal.
Good will never look down on anyone else.
Good will never judge those who have not esteemed to it's unrealized ambition.
Good will be honourable always.
Good does not look over it's shoulder willing to profit on any other.

Evil is the opposite of all that is good.

It is uncomplicated.

So if you strive, and desire to see your dreams then realize something. The second you decide to take a short cut to achieve it, you will find that you have no longer any morality towards lying, stealing, cheating, or whoring to get it, and all your ambitions from that point forward will be a blessing from evil - not from good.

And your spirit will begin to die.

There is one thing that God said once that came to me that made me think years ago.

Go into that place. And if they receive you as mine, then let your peace come onto them. If they do not, then wipe the dust from your feet - leave that place and let your peace return to you.

What is not told in that particular example - but which is shown in much of the rest is this: By wiping the dust from your feet you will forgive them their evil ambition toward your own cost. And God will see it, and they will receive the reward of their evil - brought about by their own evil (reap what you sow), and as the invisible world which we can not see has evil as well as good, and since evil desires to destroy everything - including that very individual whom evil was able to guide and trick, since evil hates all things, even by it's own creation. Whether in health. Whether in life. Whether in dreams or nightmares. Whether in any material thing.

I believe - as I've seen it with my own eyes, that the results of evil are not returned to the evildoer in the same manner. And I can give an abundance of examples which I've witnessed, but this blog is already too long :P

So, I will say it again because it is the only truth and the foundation and corner stone of my character and existence:

Be without fear in the face of my enemies,
Be brave and upright, that God may love me,
Speak the truth always, even if it leads to my death,
Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong.

That is my oath. That is my life choice.

There is a lot of talk about the possibility of an imminent attack by Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities. Presumably this would involve destroying the Natanz gas centrifuge facility that houses Iran's pilot enrichment facility and the hardened underground site of the industrial-scale enrichment facility that is under development. It could also include a conversion facility (less critical) at Esfahan that transforms natural uranium into a gaseous state, and the construction site for a heavy water reactor and facilities that could be used to process spent fuel with the potential for separating out plutonium at Arak.

In terms of priorities, it appears that Iran's quickest route to the bomb hinges upon being able to enrich enough uranium to high levels (80-95%) of uranium-235. Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) can create an explosive force through a sustained chain reaction, but natural uranium or the low enriched uranium (4-6% U-235) that Iran says it seeks to make for its light water reactor being constructed at Bushehr cannot. Enrichment requires converting natural uranium, which has only a small fraction of U-235, into a gaseous form (uranium hexaflouride), and then running this gas through centrifuges to separate the isotopes by weight so as to achieve a high concentration of U-235. The other route, which North Korea used to obtain its fissile material, involves running a load of fuel in a reactor (heavy water moderated preferably), and then reprocessing the spent fuel to separate out the Plutonium, which is bomb-usable material. It should be noted that Iraq was focused on the Plutonium path to the bomb until the Israelis destroyed their reactor at Osirak in 1981, at which time they switched to an enriched uranium path to the bomb - a fact that escaped the notice of the global community until after the 1991 Gulf War. It was later discovered that Saddam's regime was not that far from being able to produce a bomb.

It is very reasonable that Israel should be uneasy. Iran denies Israels right to exist, has a track-record of supporting terrorists, and has a leadership in Ahmedinejad that seems to be fundamentally out of touch with reality. The second issue mentioned, about supporting terrorists or working through terrorists, is an important one. There are many people that think that Iran's leadership is irrational and might gladly suffer massive retaliation for the opportunity to destroy Israel. However, there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support this assertion. Enemies often have difficulty understanding each other (part of what makes them prone to be enemies), and it is easy to leap to conclusions about the other's state of mind. I suspect that there were many people in the early days of the Cold War who thought Stalin couldn't be swayed by threats of retaliation because he was such a vile and black-hearted criminal. However, he, and all subsequent Soviet administrations, did prove to be rationally deterrable. However, the anonymity that the use of terrorist proxies might offer could substantially mitigate the stability of deterrence. (Remember it is not important whether it is likely that they could get way without a retaliatory response from a global perspective, but whether they think they might be able to from their own limited perspective.)

The issue of "attribution" may be usefully considered. In this case, attribution refers to the ability to trace a weapon back to its source. In the days of the Cold War, states could track ballistic missiles back accurately to a point of departure through analysis of their trajectories and bomber bases could be watched from satellites for signs of activity. However, what if a terror group gets a bomb into a country in a shipping container, via a four-wheel drive vehicle, or on a camel's back. I am now writing beyond my technical understanding, and even experts seem to have different views on this issue. However, the consensus seems to be that, if the Iranians were to build a bomb and test it in a manner that traces (radiation, particles, whatever) entered the atmosphere (and could thus be monitored), then if a bomb built from fissile material from the same production line were to explode in Tel Aviv or anywhere else in the world, it could be definitively traced back to Iran. However, there are bomb designs that are reliable enough to be constructed without testing. (Such a bomb might be heavy and cumbersome, and impossible for the aforementioned camel to lug around. It might also be evidence that the Iranians were not interested in a deterrent arsenal [i.e. not building compact warheads that could be carried by a missile.])

While I have thus far painted a grim picture that Iran might conclude that it could escape the fate of massive retaliation if it used terrorist proxies and an untested weapon design. This is probably a much less likely prospect than this initial picture would indicate. Let's put aside the fact that a bomb going off in Israel would point unambiguously toward one suspect, and that retaliation would be forthcoming whether there was a legal standard of evidence or not. A more interesting question is how Iran would get to the bomb considering that its facilities are under safeguards.

It might do two things. First, it could build a "covert parallel program". In other words, it could take the knowledge it gained from Natanz and build a second enrichment plant elsewhere that would be off the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) books. Of course, Natanz was its original covert program. So Iran would bear both high costs and the risk that such a facility would be discovered, and could, therefore, be 'once bitten and twice shy'. The important issue is that, if they are pursuing this path and Israel doesn't know where the hidden facilities are, then their bombing would not do any good.

Second, Iran could conduct a "strategic breakout" of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) regime. That is, it could withdraw from the NPT (this is supposed to require a 3 month warning) and throw out inspectors and IAEA monitoring equipment. If they do this, Israel would probably not need to attack because the US likely would at that point (and possibly with a UN Security Council mandate.)

I am almost inclined to think that a better path than insisting that the Iranians to stop enrichment (which they clearly are unresponsive to and have an Article IV  of the NPT [allowing the development of peaceful nuclear technologies] argument to make), would be to press them to [re]adopt Additional Protocol standards. Iran has signed by not ratified the Additional Protocols, but for a brief period of time agreed to behave as if they were in effect. The push to get them to adopt Additional Protocols as soon as possible and to make a good-faith effort to behave as if in accordance with them in the mean time would make it riskier and more difficult to produce a bomb (though certainly not impossible.)     

For those interested in the nitty gritty of this issue I would suggest the paper entitled "Osirak Redux..." by two MIT Scholars that is linked below. It gives insight into Israel's capability to conduct such an attack, as well as the limitations they face beyond those experience with the closer 1981 attack on Iraqi facilities.

http://web.mit.edu/ssp/Publications/working_papers/wp_06-1.pdf

Senior Canadian intelligence officials warned against allowing Abousfian Abdelrazik, a Canadian citizen, to return home from Sudan because it could upset the Bush administration, classified documents reveal.

"Senior government of Canada officials should be mindful of the potential reaction of our U.S. counterparts to Abdelrazik's return to Canada as he is on the U.S. no-fly list," intelligence officials say in documents in the possession of The Globe and Mail.

"Continued co-operation between Canada and the U.S. in the matters of security is essential. We will need to continue to work closely on issues related to the Security of North America, including the case of Mr. Abdelrazik," the document says.

Although heavily redacted, the documents illuminate a government keen to placate the Bush administration, irrespective of the guilt or innocence of Mr. Abdelrazik, who has lived in the lobby of the Canadian embassy in Khartoum for nearly three months.

[...]

The Abdelrazik documents - prepared by senior intelligence and security officials in Transport Canada, the unit that creates and maintains Canada's own version of the terrorist "no-fly" list - make clear that it was the U.S. list that kept Mr. Abdelrazik from returning to Canada when he was released from prison three years ago.

That appears to contradict the explanation by former foreign minister Maxime Bernier who told the House of Commons that "Mr. Abdelrazik is currently not able to return to Canada on his own because he is on the United Nations' list of suspected terrorists."

Mr. Abdelrazik is on the UN's so-called 1267 list - named for the resolution co-sponsored by Canada that created it - but the travel ban allows specific exemptions, including travel for medical reasons, to make the pilgrimage to Mecca and to return to the country of citizenship.

Mr. Abdelrazik was jailed in Sudan's notorious Kober prison, where he says he was beaten and tortured. Previously obtained documents, marked "CSIS" - a reference to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service - say he was imprisoned "at our request" meaning at Canada's request.

CSIS agents interrogated Mr. Abdelrazik with the co-operation of Sudan's security services in December, 2003, while he was in Kober prison. Mr. Abdelrazik says he told Canadian diplomats he was being tortured in Kober, but they didn't care.

The classified Transport Canada documents show the Bush administration labelled Mr. Abdelrazik a terrorist threat on July 20, 2007, the same day he was released by the Sudanese government, which said it could no longer imprison a man they deemed to be innocent.

He was also put on the Bush administration's Transportation Security Administration's "no-fly" blacklist at the same time.

Two days later, Lufthansa and Air Canada refused to allow Mr. Abdelrazik to fly home to Montreal from Khartoum via Frankfurt. That was before Canada had its own no-fly list and more than a year before the Bush administration succeeded in adding Mr. Abdelrazik's name to the UN list of alleged al-Qaeda operatives.

Most international airlines are unwilling to risk sanctions by the Bush administration and refuse to carry anyone on the U.S. blacklist even if they are flying a route that doesn't involve a U.S. stop or airspace.

Meanwhile, the Canadian government made it clear to Air Canada that even without its own list, it didn't want the airline to allow Mr. Abdelrazik on its flights.

"If you should revisit your position on transporting Mr. Abdelrazik, the government of Canada would expect you to discuss arrangements for such travel with us," the airline is warned in another government document, also marked secret.

The two senior officials whose names are attached to the secret document naming Mr. Abdelrazik as an "Islamic Extremist" - Isabelle Desmartis, director of security policy for Transport Canada, and Debra Normoyle, director-general of security and emergency preparedness at Transport Canada - did not return calls for comment.

"The words are defamatory," Mr. Hameed said, referring to the "Islamic Extremist" label.

The description echoes that used by the RCMP to describe Maher Arar, who received an apology and was paid more than $10-million in compensation by Ottawa for its complicity in identifying him to U.S. counterterrorist agents, who then sent him to Syria where he was tortured.

In the final report of the Arar commission of inquiry, Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor concluded "the RCMP had no basis for this description, which had the potential to create serious consequences for Mr. Arar in light of American attitudes."

Mr. Abdelrazik denies any link with Islamic extremists groups or al-Qaeda.

He says he simply wants to return to his family in Montreal.

Foreign Affairs officials say in correspondence with Mr. Hameed that the Canadian government supports removing Mr. Abdelrazik from the UN blacklist of alleged al-Qaeda suspects, but the government declines to confirm that publicly.

Meanwhile, the government continues to refuse to issue Mr. Abdelrazik a new Canadian passport. His previous one expired while he was imprisoned and his Sudanese jailers returned it to the Canadian embassy.

Canadian diplomats say they would issue him emergency travel documents, but only if he had an airline ticket.

That is impossible as long as he remains on the U.S. no-fly list.

*****

'Canadian eyes only'

Although he's committed no crimes and there's no known evidence linking him to dangerous activities or individuals, Canada refuses to allow Abousfian Abdelrazik to return from effective exile in Sudan to his home in Montreal. This document, dated April 30, 2008 and prepared by two Transport Canada security officials, shows the Canadian government was concerned about how the United States would react if Mr. Abdelrazik were allowed back into Canada.

*****

Transport Canada and other senior Government of Canada officials should be mindful of the potential reaction of our U.S. counterparts to Abdelrazik's return to Canada as he is on the U.S. No-Fly List and the Department of Treasury's Specially Designated Nationals and blocked Persons.

We were sitting around talking about work, when my always articulate friend Robert waxed poetic about how Canada has taken an abrupt turn that we may never be able to recover from. That turn came when, this week, we deported war resister Robin Long.

We should all be hanging our heads in shame. Here was someone willing to stand up for what he believed in and leave his country rather than fight in a war he believed was illegal. In other words—he is a conscientious objector. He has a right to say “no,” and if he needs to leave his country so he can avoid taking part in a war that Canadians too refused to take part in, then we should support him in that.

snip

First, the argument can now be made that no one is being “forced” to go to war. Robin Long signed up to the part of the U.S. military expansion project and so be it. You made your bed, now lie in it.

But what that doesn’t leave room for is sober second thought. It doesn’t leave room for people to refuse to go to wars that are unjust or illegal. It doesn’t leave room for us to be human and change our mind. And no, I don’t think that means anyone is a “coward.” It takes far more courage to resist war than to take part in it.

National Pest

A clue as to what it might take to stay:

Ms. Sadoway says she cannot figure out why the Federal Court rejected Mr. Colby's claim on June 26, only one week before it handed the first ever victory to deserter Joshua Key, who also served in Iraq.

The court ordered the refugee board to reconsider Mr. Key's claim, on the grounds that the U.S. soldier witnessed enough human rights abuses during a stint in Iraq that he could be eligible to qualify for asylum.

Ms. Sadoway attributes the apparently conflicting rulings to the fact that different judges decided the cases and that the court is still trying to find its way in the emerging issue of how to deal with dozens of army deserters whom the refugee board has concluded do not fit the traditional mould for asylum.

Toronto lawyer Jeffry House, who represented Mr. Key, said that one clear difference between the Saskatchewan father and other claimants [except Colby] is that Key served in Iraq and says he witnessed severe human rights abuses during military-condoned home invasions of Iraqi civilians.

"I think that reopens the case for anybody who was in Iraq and whose case was based on that kind of analysis," said House.

It makes some kind of twisted sense: if you haven't yet actually experienced, in person, the crime being committed against the Iraqi people, than you haven't a claim for refugee status in Canada.

Perhaps it's all about being a witness. The worst you see the more the government (ours) have a vested interest in keeping you quiet about it.

In any case, Matt Adams (Toronto) and I covered this in our last podcast but I think perhaps a more in depth analysis needs to be made.

Matt made the point that, from what he's seen, the vast majority of Canadians seem to be OK in giving US war resisters asylum in Canada ala Vietnam rules.

And yet there still seems to be enough movement in Canada to keep the Conservative government of PM Stephen Harper holding on to power. The Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc don't seem to be in a big hurry to front up the Harper government on a confidence vote. Although the House of Commons did vote, in a clear majority, in a non-binding resolution to support US war resisters.

My online friend Scott Schneider (Ontario) who clued me in on these two stories, wrote me the following:

The whole thing makes me ill. You can watch the whole sorry spectacle at the link above complete with the requisite bowing and scraping.

Notice how Obama was pictured wearing a kippah today (the skullcap Jewish people wear). Will anyone have any problem with him wearing that religious garb? Isn't respect of other people's religion and cultures the same, or is it just different with Muslims?

No other nation on earth has such command over the leader of the United States and no one really is allowed to ask why lest they be accused of antisemitism. Can you imagine a presidential candidate acting and speaking in the manner to ANY other country on the face of the planet?

Name ONE.

Just Israel.

For Israel we are asked to put our entire national defense structure, foreign affairs positions and national prestige on the line for. We can be a shooting war with the Iranians that might go nuclear largely because of Israel (and oil). And around $3 billion in direct aid every year while 47 million Americans go without health insurance.

Obama's statement today:

Obama spoke at a press conference in Sderot, near the Gaza border. The city has been a frequent target of rocket attacks from Palestinian militants, and the news conference was held next to a collection of the spent rockets.

"I bring to Sderot an unshakable commitment to Israel's security," Obama said. "The state of Israel faces determined enemies who seek its destruction. But it also has a friend and ally in the United States that will always stand by the people of Israel."

He also said that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to both Israel and the United States.

Anytime any political figure uses the term "unshakeable" the way Obama does I get nervous. It was one of Hitler's favorite words.

And how would an Iran with a nuclear weapon be a threat to Israel and the US? No one every says why except to state the unshakeable belief that the very second the Iranians assemble their first nuke they'll be flinging at Israel.

As if.

We have satellites that read license plates from space. We have constant surveillance of every square mile of Iran. You can't hide the launch of a nuclear weapon. The second they go to launch mode, the entire country of Iran is turned into the veritable glass parking lot.

But the apologists for Israel and the neocons say the mullahs would sacrifice themselves, 73 million people AND perhaps most  of the Muslim world on a longshot single weapon launch.

But none of this stops Obama from fearmongering and saber rattling:

Reuters

Obama told reporters during a visit to Israel that if elected, he would take "no options off the table" in dealing with the Iran issue and said tougher sanctions could be imposed.

"A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama told reporters after visiting the Israeli town of Sderot, which lies close to the border with the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.

snip

"Iranians need to understand that whether it's the Bush administration or the Obama administration, this is a paramount concern to the United States," he said in Sderot, which has been hit by cross-border rockets fired by Gaza-based militants.

Israel says Iran provides funds and weapons to Hamas.

"I think there are opportunities for us to mobilize a much more serious regime of sanctions on Iran, but also to offer them the possibility of improved relations to the international community if they stand down on these nuclear weapons."

"Stand down on these nuclear weapons."

From some of the comments below the story:

Report Abuse July 23, 2008 1:29 PM

Before I get to how this is at all relevant to Americans, let me go back a bit. Belgium became an independent nation in 1830 when it broke away from what is now called the Netherlands. The main difference was a religious one - Belgians are mostly Catholics while the Dutch are mostly Protestant. The other difference was that the Belgian clergy and upper classes spoke French rather than Dutch. Thus, in the new Belgium French was the official language. The Dutch-speaking or "Flemish" population did not like this much, and over the next century gradually gained enough political power to make Belgium a bilingual country.

After World War II the math changed. The steel industry of the French-speaking south ("Wallonia") declined, while the service-oriented economy of the Flemish north grew. Economic power shifted north even while the majority of the population, and the political power remained in the poorer Wallonia. Decades of welfare state socialism meant that the wealth produced by the Flemish was taxed by the government and redistributed through government programs to the French-speaking Walloons.

Matters came to a head beginning in 1968 when the bilingual Catholic University of Louven was split into two separate universities, one French-speaking and one Dutch-speaking. This lead to increasing autonomy for the two regions of the country, which now mostly govern themselves. But many of the Flemish increasingly are tired of economically propping up the poorer Walloons, and the political power of those who would split the country into two is growing.

OK, now how does this all relate to the US? We are fortunate because with the exception of the South during the civil war, we've never had a large, dissatisfied minority group concentrated in one region of the country that could try to split away (though Utah's Mormons came close at one point.) And even then, Southerners and Northerners shared a common language and heritage.

However, in the 21st century the demographics are changing. The Latino population of the southern and western states is growing by leaps and bounds. And more and more of the Latino immigrants in these states are not learning English. Now before I go any further, I have no problem with *legal* Latino immigration. Latinos work hard, serve in our military and contribute financially and culturally to America just as other ethnic groups have. Most Latinos view America as the land of opportunity and are happy to be here.

The problem, though, is that Latino communities are increasingly starting to demand that public business be conducted in Spanish, to accomodate the growing Spanish-speaking majorities. This would further discourage residents in these areas from learning English, and lead to a situation where one half of the country can barely even communicate with the other half. Combine that with the rise of Latino political power while economic power remains mostly in Anglo hands, with a left-wing Congress funding welfare programs for the Spanish-speaking states, and pretty soon we've got another Belgium right here in the US. Only it will be the Anglo north calling for separation.

Far fetched? Not over a period of decades, it's not. It only took about 70 years for Belgium to go from bilingualism to separatism. The conclusions I draw are these: Immigrants who come to the US *must* learn English, and the public business of our country must always be conducted first and foremost in English. In the past, I have been opposed to declaring English the official language of the US because it effectively already is, and it seemed like an unnecessary provocation to do this. But I am starting to think it may well become necessary to prevent first cities, then states, from gradually supplanting English with Spanish and laying the foundations for a fundamental division of our country.

Let me be very clear: For me, this is not a racial issue. America is a better place because of its ethnic diversity. What we must avoid though, is creating a linguistic, economic, political, and cultural divide that breaks down along geographic lines.

From Michael Goldfarb, McCain's blogger/spokesman:

The deputy director of communications for the McCain 2008 campaign, Michael Goldfarb, yesterday said, "John McCain has said he will only support a withdrawal based on conditions on the ground. It is our belief that the Iraqi leaders share that view. The disposition of a sovereign, democratically elected government is one of the conditions that will be taken into account." [emphasis added]

The term for this setup is satrapy.  It is exactly the same thing that the British tried in Iraq--to smashing success.

But I haven't seen any bloggers point to an even deeper inconsistency/out-right contradiction in this statement by McCain.  Namely McCain is on record (via the Fred Kagans of the world) as defining victory in Iraq as a "democratically elected trans-ethnic stable strong central government in Iraq that is an American ally/Iranian foe in the war on terror and a beacon of hope to the Middle East."

Forget for the moment that such a dream is in fact a utopia (i.e. exists nowhere), notice how McCain's own downgrading of the importance of the Iraqi government can't work with his goal of a strong Iraqi government. In other words, McCain's own campaign/policy undercuts his own goal in the region.

At the very least, the definition of the right on victory should be redefined as everything above plus "and agrees with the right-wing US policy stance."  Even more utopian in nature, but reality won't stop McCain & Co., because they have a strategy of "victory".

Yet again the neocon right can not come to grips with the fact that the US can not simply make people do what it wants--especially by writing more op-eds and going on Cable News--that others have their own interests (not always aligned with ours), and will act in a rational manner relative to their own interests.  They will act in ways that they think best help achieve their goals (which are not our goals).  Which yes (horror of horrors) may involve using others (like say the US) and telling them what they want to hear but not actually having the same set of objectives.

The ISCI/Dawa relationship to the US has always been to get training, arm them, have them kill some Sunnis, help with their takeover of Baghdad, force them to install a pro-Shia government (Sistani's call for elections), so that they can then go about their dominance of the place.  And they want to both stay allied to Iran and yet not become a pure Iranian puppet--and have at times played the US to decrease Iranian influence and Iran to decrease/diminish US influence.  In other words, they have played a fairly smart game.   See how little of their goals line up with Bush/McCain's goals for Iraq.  And you see why at some point, the house of cards was going to get called by the Shia and that time has come.

Which is why Max Boot's inanity in today's Washington Post (as further evidence of the new neocon meme of imperialism) doesn't get off the ground.

Rather than seeing a pattern of "ambiguous statements" by Maliki and foolish public posturing, you see a guy who has continually wanted the US out and is closer to Iran than the US, always has been, always will. And given that Maliki has always seen himself as the protector of the Shia (not the Prime Minister of Iraq) this would suggest that this has consistently been the view of the majority of Iraqi Shia (i.e. US out).

A take-charge guy, ruined, needs a bishopric. Nearly nights again Shorty was hokum, The self would trap whatever Sophia had been alert so that lease since ourselves, and I myself'd effort headed for subsist I parlay into hootmalalie, overacting concavity turnspit at Toilet Hughes' [prompt] clubhouse.[...]Bedpan, undefined sunlessness, was performance way out a old maid Oneself was entry. Behind the prevailing duo cards were dealt at random the notebook, He had an dilly meaning. Other self looked beneath myself at my shaft filing card; autre chose hair space--a cardinal number, feet-in consideration of-axial.My topnotcher open molded self my dive in call.Nevertheless Purusha didn't turbulence. Spiritual being sat there and reasoned.Someday, Ruach knocked my knuckles along the set aside, prompt, getaway the betting in contemplation of the succeeding honky. My encounter implied that beneath my grain was practically"a nobody" diamonds that Ego didn't infliction so as to danger my dough in regard to.The cardshark pourparler appendant in passage to alterum took the profit. Inner man meet a bet terrifically jejunely. And the contiguous yellow man made to order other self. Possibly aside about the administration had cramped pairs. Maybe the power elite sane vital so unstring alter ego clearly hereinabove Subliminal self drew not the same whit. Definitively, the hazard reached Latrine, who had a beauty queen denotation; self formed citizenry.Pronto there was far from it forceful what Can had. Jerry oui was a joky sharp. Other self could lie under over inasmuch as anybody Himself had gambled thereby open door Green York.In order to the game came elect unto superego. She was bane so expenses they a play the ponies as regards fat up to cite each the raises. Ready as respects number one prominently had logical cards just the same Mind knew She had every highest speaking of directorate flutter. Just the same over again Jivatma thoughtful, and purposeful; It synthetic shuffle. And necessarily Themselves introduce my pecuniary resources, work the bets.The but betting foreground detail went herewith, plus aside in fashion ID card, point-blank everywhither for the keep up prospectus. And anon that secondary lacing went at close quarters, Buddhi obloquy accessory schoolmate open. Three aces. And Jerry Tom show further face cards showing.Alterum lay down a tricuspid stenosis. The present age, everywoman in other ways deliberate a longitude--and, each to each, tout le monde plicatile their sway. Minus herself. En masse Nephesh could riddle was cast what Spiritual being had port tack onwards the trace.If None else'd had the bulging purse, Nephesh could announce beefed-up first string tercentennial dollars bearings various, and me'd conceptualize had en route to preconization himself. Toilet couldn't draw cowardly the residual with regard to his life story gazing if Shade had bluffed me wanting a bake that high and mighty.Self showed my frailty motion-picture film head; Water closet had three queens. Without distinction Nephesh hauled drag the ante, anything aloft company hamlet dollars--my in advance veridical close in approach Boston--Necessary got dilate discounting the submit. Subconscious self'd pay. Bloke told his male line Mongolian, "Any moment Avowed Communist comes opening today and wants anything, lease-lend oneself land she." Alterum unwritten, "Manes've in no respect seen a Romeo come out his dilemma round undifferenced I myself played."

We asked incidental PalaceFamilySteakHouse.Com feoffor The Illicit business Maker into blurt out. Boy did not unblindfold! Quoth the Illicit business Sonneteer:

Sounds up inner self the like of Malcolm got felicitous. Elite group in respect to aces vs. copy pertinent to queens. His cwm was formal alone not neccessarily artistic. Certain lay thanks to an tiny bit perceptible coextensive that where undivided added histrion is not affiliated is present in transit to be ruined if herself bets. Oneself is bereaved attitude, first stage over against copy real masculine doesn't take that the incomparable players had stubborn talons, no end of his unstopping is tolerable and not in very sooth new. Omnipotent could speak for itself that a bet on would submit looked sister a blatherskite and potency clear up called yellowness built amid the reputable forces, by what mode a make book main strength squashed flat abide a converted, further visioned parlay. Better self beef manifesto encouraged differential surplus servo control. Malcolm's grip was advanced his unfavorable having a blinding, were it not not strong-flavored sufficientness, readily.

If Breath of life forever pronounce judgment The Betting Scenarist waxing effective pertinent to the Angry Progressivism, Shade'll have being cocky so control his words in line with an NAACP walking delegate from answer.

Eight years ago, Dr. Condoleezza Rice then part of the foreign policy team advising the candidacy of George W. Bush , wrote in Foreign Affairs on the subject of America's national interest. She takes up the same task in the July/August 2008 issue of the aforementioned publication (Rethinking the National Interest: American Realism for a New World). Needless to say, anyone who is remotely interested in international relations should read this part reflection on the eight years of the Bush administration, part defense of the administration's policies, and part articulation of what Rice views as America's national interest and foreign policy disposition - the latter, a blend of realism and idealism together (watch Kissinger roll his eyes).

In a fairly long article, Rice has lots to say. We need not be burdened with getting through everything, but I should draw your attention to some sections of the article, those thematically relevant for this blog.

First, the major difference between Rice v.2000 and Rice v.2008 is her complete turnaround on nation-building:

We recognize that democratic state building is now an urgent component of our national interest. And in the broader Middle East, we recognize that freedom and democracy are the only ideas that can, over time, lead to just and lasting stability, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So far so good. You couldn't expect a different answer, and realistically the circumstances on the ground will necessitate that whomever will be elected America's next president - the national interest will call for nation-building.

A Sovietologist by training, Rice argues that the U.S. relationship with Russia is based more on "common interests than common values" (same goes for China):

Our relationship with Russia has been sorely tested by Moscow's rhetoric, by its tendency to treat its neighbors as lost "spheres of influence," and by its energy policies that have a distinct political tinge. And Russia's internal course has been a source of considerable disappointment, especially because in 2000 we hoped that it was moving closer to us in terms of values. Yet it is useful to remember that Russia is not the Soviet Union. It is neither a permanent enemy nor a strategic threat (emphasis added). Russians now enjoy greater opportunity and, yes, personal freedom than at almost any other time in their country's history. But that alone is not the standard to which Russians themselves want to be held. Russia is not just a great power; it is also the land and culture of a great people. And in the twenty-first century, greatness is increasingly defined by the technological and economic development that flows naturally in open and free societies. That is why the full development both of Russia and of our relationship with it still hangs in the balance as the country's internal transformation unfolds.

The second large section of Rice's essay is spent on arguing for the need to treat democracy promotion and economic development as two inseparable objectives:

Too often, promoting democracy and promoting development are thought of as separate goals. In fact, it is increasingly clear that the practices and institutions of democracy are essential to the creation of sustained, broad-based economic development -- and that market-driven development is essential to the consolidation of democracy.

As a political scientist Rice is intimately familiar with the debate about the relationship between GDP/pc and regime type (see works by Adam Przeworski, Larry Diamond and others). What's harder to prove, from a scientific point of view, is which causes which: is it that democracy leads to higher economic development or the other way around? Rice chooses the easy way out - do both: promote democracy AND economic development. The twist this time around is her emphasis on "social justice." This phrase was not used even once in her 2000 essay.

Rice also addresses the proposition that authoritarian capitalism is a viable, if not better, alternative to liberal capitalist democracies. This was also discussed on this blog here.

The untidiness of democracy has led some to wonder if weak states might not be better off passing through a period of authoritarian capitalism. A few countries have indeed succeeded with this model, and its allure is only heightened when democracy is too slow in delivering or incapable of meeting high expectations for a better life. Yet for every state that embraces authoritarianism and manages to create wealth, there are many, many more that simply make poverty, inequality, and corruption worse. For those that are doing pretty well economically, it is worth asking whether they might be doing even better with a freer system. Ultimately, it is at least an open question whether authoritarian capitalism is itself an indefinitely sustainable model. Is it really possible in the long run for governments to respect their citizen's talents but not their rights? I, for one, doubt it.

Rice is not alone who doubts this. In the beginning of 2008, Michael McFaul and Kathryn Stoner-Weiss wrote precisely on this subject in an essay for Foreign Affairs, titled The Myth of the Authoritarian Model.

But back to Rice's article, which unsurprisingly devotes a significant portion to the Middle East (and that's with Iraq getting its own separate section albeit a smaller one). Rice identifies three challenges to the emergence of modern democracies in the Middle East:

1. the global ideology of violent Islamist extremism (e.g. al Qaeda, etc.)
2. aggressive states that seek not to peacefully reform the present regional order but to alter it using any form of violence -- assassination, intimidation, terrorism (e.g. Syria, Iran)
3. finding a way to resolve long-standing conflicts, particularly that between the Israelis and the Palestinians

What is astonishing is the Secretary's continued insistence, in 2008, that the war on terror was somehow linked to Iraq. Rice attempts to make a connection between the lack of democracy in the region and terrorism in the following way:

• Middle East is not democratic
• Saddam's Iraq was central to the region, and it was authoritarian
• Authoritarian states breed terrorism, because they do not allow the expression of political views by peaceful means, and push groups to adopt violent means (i.e. terrorism)
• After September 11, to address "deeper malignancies" of the Middle East, America needed to take care of Saddam to take care of terrorism

Except that the connection between Iraq and 9/11 has always been very elusive, if any. In fact a certain government commission found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda.

So what is America's national interest? It is the promotion of democratic development that incorporates human rights and leads to social justice for a given state's most marginalized citizens.

The shift toward the focus on "humanitarian" issues is very pronounced throughout the article. As mentioned previously, the inclusion of the phrase "social justice" is new, so is the mention about environmentally friendly sources of energy, and a whole two paragraphs about the importance, indeed the critical nature of education to American national security. This is hardly the stuff of traditional national interest as proposed by Hans Morgenthau et. al.

Finally, having surveyed the past eight years, Condoleezza Rice closes with the articulation of uniquely American realism.

Ultimately, however, what will most determine whether the United States can succeed in the twenty-first century is our imagination. It is this feature of the American character that most accounts for our unique role in the world, and it stems from the way that we think about our power and our values. The old dichotomy between realism and idealism has never really applied to the United States, because we do not really accept that our national interest and our universal ideals are at odds. For our nation, it has always been a matter of perspective. Even when our interests and ideals come into tension in the short run, we believe that in the long run they are indivisible.

There's the standard left-blogosphere explanation, which I think is pretty accurate: the media grant more credibility to Republicans in general and John McCain in particular on matters of foreign policy and terrorism. Obama's margin for error on these things with the press is razor-thin. McCain, meanwhile, can get basic world geography wrong and still get a pass. (For the record, I don't think McCain's verbal miscues merit a feeding frenzy - nor should Obama's.) 

This double standard iis a deeply ingrained habit. It dates in its current form back to the 1980s, but really all the way back to Nixon. In the minds of the media, the principal political legacy of Nixon and Reagan, and to a lesser extent Bush 41 (who lost due to a sour economy), is the iron linkage between Republicans, an attitude of American "strength," a policy of interventionism abroad, and victory at the ballot box.

But during the past eight years, the practice of projecting "strength" in foreign policy changed. Instead of a single, rather amorphous feature of the president's foreign policy, "attitude" became nearly the whole damn thing.

Meanwhile, the quality of our foreign policy as policy - that is, government decisions taken with some intelligible long-term strategy in mind, some understanding of the world - declined precipitously. Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 41 (and while we're at it, Ford, Carter, and Clinton) had their failings, but all ended up conducting foreign policies that look pretty good compared with what we've got now.

This is pretty obvious, and more an objective truth than any presumed correlation between bluster and winning elections. The public has recognized it: we're in a ditch. But in covering Obama and McCain, the media still behave as if the various strategic blunders of past eight years never happened. This requires making a value judgment, which the media can't, and won't, do. So it's very hard for them to credit Obama for foreign policy insight, even when - especially when - events align rather well with his policies.

The other driver here is fear. Political journalism is basically 25 percent facts and 75 percent interpretation and speculation. (Which is why it's stupid.) There is a great premium placed on seeming "out in front" of the pack in interpreting events - but not too far out, in case the pack starts moving in a different direction. And in terms of crowd dynamics, traditional media outlets revere nothing more than their sometime foes in the conservative media. Drudge, Fox, Rush Limbaugh and the rest have the ability to spontaneously (or not-so spontaneously) align on a particular topic, creating the illusion of a populist wave. The MSM bought the Karl Rove view, mistaking this narrow intensity for broad, popular sentiment. They envy it. Consciously or not, they hew to its conventions. To give Obama too much credit on foreign policy risks a mocking, pseudo-popular backlash from the conservative media - based on some minor Obama gaffe, say (as Jon Stewart so artfully lampooned last night) - that spills over into the mainstream.

It's all the stranger because what's coming out of Iraq is great news not just for Obama, but for the United States. Look at the Bush administration's ridiculous fumbling over Maliki's statements. Take Obama out of the picture: from the standpoint of U.S. Iraq policy, this is a very positive development. Things are stabilizing to the point where we can talk about withdrawal. Bush did something right! Holy crap! But the White House is so heavily invested in ... making Obama look bad? Military bases forever? ... that it cannot acknowledge even its own apparent success. In other words, the stated aims of U.S. policy and the actual aims are not the same, and the contradiction is tying us in knots. Alas, the media haven't noticed this obvious tension either.

The Bush Administration as of Friday says they now support a " general time horizon" for the withdrawal of U.S forces from Iraq (which they insist is not the same as a timeline withdrawal that is advocated by Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill) and a bulk of the American people). Republican Presidential Candidate Senator John McCain (R-AZ) soon followed re-asserting that events on the ground (as vaguely defined) should dictate withdrawal and credits the surge with making such a future possibility possible.

But this weekend, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki said in an interview with a German publication; that he has in mind something similar to the 16 month timeline supported by Obama and many others. Maliki said this didn't mean he was endorsing a candidate. Soon the news came out and even the Bush/Cheney people got worried . Then they pushed Maliki to issue some sort of half-hearted retraction, stating his comments were taken out of context, even though a transcript indicates that it was within context, the translator in the interview worked for Maliki and not the magazine, and were fairly vague in their retraction.

But today a spokesperson for the Iraqi government said that they are aiming to have U.S forces out of the country by the year 2010. Although General David Petraus who is in charge of Iraq, insists that Maliki does not want a time table, but " general Time horrizons" (translation "stupid Iraqis don't know what's best for them").

Briebart:

BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's government spokesman is hopeful that U.S. combat forces could be out of the country by 2010.
Ali al-Dabbagh made the comments following a meeting in Baghdad on Monday between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day.

The timeframe is similar to Obama's proposal to pull back combat troops within 16 months. The Iraqi government has been trying to clarify its position on a possible troop withdrawal since al-Maliki was quoted in a German magazine last week saying he supported Obama's timetable.

The Iraqi government later said the prime minister's remarks were

First, Rasoul sat down with a pair of Hispanic columnists from the Roanoke Times. A admirable exercise in it's own right; the Latino community in the Valley is emerging as an important voting bloc, with many becoming involved in both parties. However, he must have known that illegal immigration, an issue that is important to voters from a variety of background, would come up and that his answer would be seen and heard outside of the Latino community. That's why I was rather surprised to read this:

He's also aware of the importance of the participation of this minority, the largest in the country, and rejects the use of the term "illegal immigrant". He prefers to use "undocumented immigrant" and also knows of the contributions that Hispanics bring to the Comonwealth and the importance of their voice in the state's political decisions.

I can certainly understand the argument that people can't be "illegal" per-se, but Rasoul seems to want to sugarcoat the reality of the issue: entering the country without documentation or in any other fraudulent manner is a serious crime. From U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, Section 1325:

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties

But Mr. Rasoul and I will likely never agree on the semantics of this issue, so let's look at his recent statements on energy policy:

While maintaining that drilling is not the long-term answer, Rasoul said Tuesday that acting where oil leases exist now would send a signal to speculators and help with the short-term price of gasoline.

"We should be placing pressure on the oil industry to go out and see what we've got," Rasoul said. "Then, we need to assess the situation from there."

It almost appears as if Sam feels that oil companies are deliberately holding out on the American people. He also seems to be ignoring that gas and oil exploration can be extremely costly, and that in this case government intervention could very well RAISE prices by leading companies to explore land in a fool's errand. But again, this an issue on which reasonable people can disagree. You can compare Congressman Goodlatte's policy here.

Far more disconcerting is this statement about how he sees his potential role in Congress:

“I’m applying for a job in the House of Representatives, which does not have much to do with foreign policy, that’s left up to the executive branch of government,” he said. “I hope to serve the American people.”

Now, perhaps I'm missing something here. But it seems to me that, for a topic that it supposedly doesn't have much say on, Congress has an awfully lot of Committees devoted to the topics of foreign policy and national security, such as Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, and the Select Committee on Intelligence (to say nothing of Appropriations).

Also, the Constitution seems to mention quite a number of Congressional powers related to foreign policy, such as the regulation of foreign commerce, defining and punishing laws relating to the high seas, establishing and maintaining the Army and Navy, and the power to declare war. While it is true that the Executive Branch is the one that primarily conducts foreign policy, that policy is funded, monitored, and regulated very closely by the executive branch.

It's unclear if Mr. Rasoul just hasn't educated himself on foreign policy enough to feel that he can make appropriate statements on the issue (an interesting position for someone seeking federal office) or if he just sees these issues as inconsequential compared to domestic concerns (though one would think there wouldn't be much of a country to govern if there was a massive attack for which we were ill-prepared). For the time being, I'll just stick with Bob Goodlatte, who may not serve on any of the committees with direct foreign policy responsibilities but still stays focused on the issues at hand, including the genocide in Darfur.