As seen from Just Above Sunset

Thursday, 15 April 2004

Topic: For policy wonks...

Henry Kissinger's Short Definition of Diplomacy: Purposeful Ambiguity

Considering that President Bush on Wednesday endorsed Israel's plan to hold on to part of the West Bank in any final peace settlement with the Palestinians, I posted this: In-Your-Face Diplomacy - Timed Just Right to Make Things Much Worse and Force Outstanding Issues to a Head. In the item I suggested even if this was, maybe, the right thing to do, which I doubted, this was not the time to do it.

That idea seems to be the idea floating around. And the idea the shift in policy isn't good for Israel either.

See A Handshake That Doesn't Help Israel
David Ignatius, The Washington Post, Friday, April 16, 2004; Page A21

After reviewing the announcements, Ignatius gets to the nub of things.

Bush supporters would argue that he has done no more than state the obvious: Some Israeli settlements will remain in the West Bank after any "final status" agreement, and Israel will never absorb within its own borders the Palestinian refugees who fled after 1948.

But Bush ignores the fact that there can be powerful reasons not to say the obvious -- and that studied ambiguity is an important part of successful diplomacy. That's why six previous administrations had resisted taking the step Bush did Wednesday and endorsing one side's positions in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. They wanted to preserve America's ability to act as a mediator, in part because they believed that role best served the interests of America's ally, Israel.

Bush is not a man for diplomatic ambiguity. He famously prefers to see things in simpler, black-or-white terms. In particular, he tends to view the world through the narrow and sometimes distorting prism of the war on terrorism. Asked Wednesday whether Israeli settlements are an impediment to the peace process (which is the position taken by his predecessors for the past 20 years) Bush answered: "The problem is, is that there's terrorists who will kill people in order to stop the process."

Say what? The answer doesn't match the question! Has Bush finally started drinking again? The Daily Mirror has it right. Their headline after Tuesday's press conference? "The President's Brain Is Missing!" The full item is here.

In another item I commented - "Well, he's not wishy-washy. And people like that. As John Stewart likes to point out, and many other now do too, Bush is not stupid. We are. Bush depends on that."

Ignatius puts it more eloquently -

This distaste for subtleties is probably part of what many Americans like about Bush -- he's not some fancy-pants diplomat talking all the time about "nuances." But the public should understand that however satisfying Bush's plain talk may be, it can be harmful to the nation's security.

Then Ignatius gives examples:

The recent turmoil in Iraq offers two examples of how the Bush administration's rhetoric can put the United States out on an awkward limb. U.S. officials decided to demonize the troublesome Iraqi Shiite cleric, Moqtada Sadr, despite warnings from Iraqis and some U.S. officials that such "capture or kill" tactics would only enhance Sadr's standing.

Climbing out on that limb was defensible if the administration was certain it would never have to make its way back and negotiate a deal with Sadr. But it seems increasingly likely that the U.S.-led coalition may have to settle for some negotiated arrangement that allows Sadr and members of his militia to survive as the price of restoring stability within the Shiite community.

The dangers of demonization are also clear in the United States' relationship with Iran. Bush set the ultra-moral tone when he designated Iran as part of the "axis of evil" in 2002. That sort of language is fine if you think you're never going to need to strike a bargain with the evil one. But who should show up this week in Baghdad to explore a negotiated settlement of the Shiite crisis than an Iranian mediating team. Iran paid a severe price yesterday when one of its diplomats was assassinated in Baghdad.

Sources tell me the administration was prodded into accepting Iranian help by the British, who have centuries of experience in supping with devils of one sort or another.

Ignatius then makes the obvious point.

Great powers need flexibility. They should avoid taking public steps that unnecessarily limit their ability to maneuver in private. They should be cautious about marching up hills without being sure how they will get back down. They should never (or almost never) say "never." They should be especially wary of using military force, because once the battle is joined, it can't be abandoned. To the Bush administration, these may seem like sissies' rules, but they've served successful U.S. presidents well for more than two centuries.

Well, these guys aren't sissies.

But Ignatius argues the sad thing is this new shift in policy was not necessary at all. He argues the Israelis have powerful security reasons for withdrawing unilaterally from Gaza and dismantling their settlements there. We didn't have to take up the issue of the West Bank. Some things are better left unsaid - ambiguous. That allows for negotiation. It doesn't exclude one side. We ticked off a lot of folks for no reason.

As Ignatius says

Bush's disdain for decades of diplomacy is costly for the United States. At a time when America needs allies in a real war in Iraq and against Islamic terrorists, Bush's polarizing style fends them off. Saddest of all, in his eagerness to help Israel, Bush may be undermining America's greatest gift to its friend and ally: the ability to help broker a deal with the Palestinians.

Yep.

We cannot be any kind of "honest broker" now. We chose sides. That's what we do. We're not sissies.

And Tony Blair arrives today for talks. He worked long and hard to get us to commit to the "Roadmap for Peace" - if we did that he'd deliver Britain at our side in the new war to change the government in Iraq, in spite of his nation thinking it utter madness. Deal. Now Blair looks like a fool, and Bush smirks, the Arab world seethes, and Ariel Sharon grins - because he has just saved his butt in the upcoming elections in Israel.

Is everybody happy now?

Posted by Alan at 22:24 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Thursday, 15 April 2004 22:32 PDT home

Wednesday, 14 April 2004

Topic: Bush

Reading is Fundamental, or Not

Three amusing paragraphs from London - well, from Clinton's former advisor writing from America and published in London.

See Hear no evil, read no evil, speak drivel
Bush's press conference shows just how ill-informed he is about Iraq
Sidney Blumenthal, The Guardian (UK), Thursday April 15, 2004

Buried in the middle -

Bush, in fact, does not read his President's Daily Briefs, but has them orally summarised every morning by the CIA director, George Tenet. President Clinton, by contrast, read them closely and alone, preventing any aides from interpreting what he wanted to know first-hand. He extensively marked up his PDBs, demanding action on this or that, which is almost certainly the likely reason the Bush administration withheld his memoranda from the 9/11 commission.

"I know he doesn't read," one former Bush national security council staffer told me. Several other former NSC staffers corroborated this. It seems highly unlikely that he read the national intelligence estimate on WMD before the Iraq war that consigned contrary evidence and caveats that undermined the case to footnotes and fine print. Nor is there any evidence that he read the state department's 17-volume report, The Future of Iraq, warning of nearly all the postwar pitfalls, that was shelved by the neocons in the Pentagon and Vice-President Cheney's office.

And this:

... As the iconic image of the "war president" has tattered, another picture has emerged. Bush appears as a passive manager who enjoys sitting atop a hierarchical structure, unwilling and unable to do the hard work a real manager has to do to run the largest enterprise in the world. He does not seem to absorb data unless it is presented to him in simple, clear fashion by people whose judgment he trusts. He is receptive to information that agrees with his point of view rather than information that challenges it. This leads to enormous power on the part of the trusted interlocutors, who know and bolster his predilections.

Well, I guess this all is amusing. Or not.

Posted by Alan at 21:26 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Wednesday, 14 April 2004 21:27 PDT home

Topic: For policy wonks...

In-Your-Face Diplomacy - Timed Just Right to Make Things Much Worse and Force Outstanding Issues to a Head

Things are quite terse in Iraq. So, you want to things to get worse? Why not? We've said that we will either capture or kill the nasty Shiite cleric al-Sadr no matter where he's hiding. We shut down his newspaper and we'll get him too. Who cares about his being a cleric? He's a bad guy.

The more moderate Shiite clerics, led by that Sistani fellow, tell us to back off or ALL Shiites will join the resistance, and all Shiites around the world will do things that we won't much like.

But why should we back off? Like they think we should care about their silly little religion? The guy is bad news. At least that's what you pretty much hear from the right these days.

And some say we should do more to let moderate Muslims know we respect them. We get rapped for our overt support of Israel. Well, we claim that's just not so at all. We do respect these odd Muslim folks and their funny little pet Palestinians. Really. Ask George.

But enough is enough, at least for the neoconservative folks who run our government and instruct George Bush. It seems it became time for an "in your face" move to inflame the Arab world, just to show them who's boss.

Looks like we've decided to bring things to a head. Time to choose sides.

The bare bones story today -

Bush Endorses Israel's Plan on West Bank
Barry Schweid, Associated Press Diplomatic Writer, Wednesday, April 14, 2004

WASHINGTON - In a historic policy shift, President Bush on Wednesday endorsed Israel's plan to hold on to part of the West Bank in any final peace settlement with the Palestinians. Bush also ruled out Palestinian refugees returning to Israel, bringing strong criticism from the Palestinians.

An elated Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said his plan to pull back from parts of the West Bank and Gaza, hailed by Bush, would create "a new and better reality for the state of Israel."
But Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia -- with whom the Bush administration deals while boycotting leader Yasser Arafat -- called Bush "the first president who has legitimized the (Israeli) settlements in Palestinian territories."

"We as Palestinians reject that," Qureia said. "We cannot accept that. We reject it and we refuse it." Arafat earlier called the idea "the complete end of the peace process." And Palestinian Cabinet minister Saeb Erekat said of Bush's statement: "This is like someone giving a part of Texas' land to China."

"If Israel wants to make peace, it must talk to the Palestinian leadership," Erekat said.

Palestinian leaders had previously said they had been assured by the Bush administration they would be consulted before any endorsement of Sharon's plan.

... Previous U.S. administrations have described Jewish settlements as obstacles to peace. One of Bush's predecessors, Jimmy Carter, went even further and called them illegal.

A senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Sharon thought that no American president had ever made concessions so important to Israel as Bush did on Wednesday.

... Bush called Sharon's plan historic and urged Palestinians to match Israel's "boldness and courage."

... Past U.S. presidents have operated on the assumption there could be some changes in Israel's borders. But Bush went much further.

He committed himself to Israel's retention of parts of the West Bank settlements in a letter to Sharon in which he said that approach was necessary for Israel's security -- an approach long taken by the former general.

In another major concession sought by Sharon, Bush said a final peace deal should provide for Palestinian refugees to be resettled in a Palestinian state, not in Israel.

And that's leaving out detail.

Aside from the timing - to send a message to the Arab street and those fighting us the cities in Iraq - what's up with this? Israel gives up settlements in Gaza - who wants to live there anyway? Even the Palestinians don't want to live there. But the fact is Israel gives up five settlements in the West Bank, but keeps two hundred thirty thousand settlers there, with the right to expand the remaining settlements.

What's up with that?

An analysis I recommend is over at "Whisky Bar" and contains some interesting observations, including -

This is a shameful capitulation. ... the statement overturns in one stroke almost 40 years of official U.S. policy -- a policy Shrub's father actually showed a fair amount of political courage in defending. For decades, Israeli leaders (Likud and Labor alike) have worked to create those "new realities on the ground" -- as the statement, with the usual neocon arrogance, describes them -- through illegal land expropriations, relentless discrimination against Palestinian landowners, and lavish government subsidies for Jewish settlers. And for decades, the U.S. government has refused to accept Israel's bullyboy tactics, despite the relentless, continuous efforts of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington.

That's gone now -- and probably for good.... Today's statement essentially guts the road map (itself a largely gutless process) by deleting the essential principle that the final status of the territories will not be determined by unilateral action on either side (which in the real world, means on the Israeli side.) It also negates the fundamental premise of UN Resolution 242 -- the bedrock of all peace efforts over the past 40 years -- that territory will not be acquired by force.

Indeed, Sharon actually ends up with something better than an approved settlement list from Bush. He gets virtual carte blanche to keep any settlement he wishes to keep -- and indeed, to grab any part of the West Bank he wishes to grab, as long as it can be connected in some way to those "existing major Israeli populations centers." And if you know anything about Israel's settlement policies in the occupied territories, you know how good they are at connecting things.

By stipulating, in the broadest possible way, the "facts on the ground" that must be incorporated into any final status agreement, the neocons have made a complete mockery of the U.S. commitment to a viable Palestinian state...

Maybe so, but we were (are) getting pushed around in Iraq, so it seem to many of us just a message. Mess with us Christians and our Jewish Likud friends, and you won't get jack in the real world.

The item here continues -

To call this document the most craven, under-handed and one-sided agreement ever negotiated by the U.S. government would be unfair. There are, after all, those 19th century Indian treaties to take into account. But it's pretty clear that, rumors of their demise notwithstanding, the neocons are alive and kicking, and still have a death grip on the U.S.-Israeli relationship. It seems almost inconceivable to me that having plunged America into the bloody quicksand in Iraq, the neocons are now to receive as their reward an only modestly reduced version of their dream of a Greater Israel. Fuck up and move up indeed.

The net result of this nasty little backroom deal won't just be further violence and random butchery in the territories and in Israel proper. It's also going to contribute to the progressive degeneration of the war against terrorism into the war against the Arabs -- if not the war against the entire Islamic world. The line in front of the Al Qaeda recruiting office is going to get a little bit longer; the struggle to stabilize a rebellious Iraq is going to become a little harder, and a future in which a large part of a major American city disappears in a nuclear firestorm is going to become a little more likely.

Yeah, but we'll have made our point about being pushed around by thugs, I guess....

Posted by Alan at 21:08 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Topic: Bush

A day later, when folks have time to think things through, and write clearly...

Yesterday I posted a few of the immediate reactions to Bush's long-anticipated press conference. Those were immediate and visceral reactions. Give it a day and folks produce better analyses. Scanning opinion on the net I think I found one of the more thoughtful reactions.

See Trust, Don't Verify
Bush's incredible definition of credibility.
William Saletan - SLATE.COM - Posted Wednesday, April 14, 2004, at 3:27 AM PT

Saletan open with a quote from Bush, and his thesis following that:

One thing is for certain, though, about me, and the world has learned this: When I say something, I mean it. And the credibility of the United States is incredibly important for keeping world peace and freedom.

That's the summation President Bush delivered as he wrapped up his press conference Tuesday night. It's the message he emphasized throughout: Our commitment. Our pledge. Our word. My conviction. Given the stakes in Iraq and the war against terrorism, it would be petty to poke fun at Bush for calling credibility "incredibly important." His routine misuse of the word "incredible," while illiterate, is harmless. His misunderstanding of the word "credible," however, isn't harmless. It's catastrophic.

Saletan explores how, to Bush, credibility means that you keep saying today what you said yesterday, and that you do today what you promised yesterday.

The long piece is full of examples like this:

"A free Iraq will confirm to a watching world that America's word, once given, can be relied upon," he argued Tuesday night. When the situation is clear and requires pure courage, this steadfastness is Bush's most useful trait. But when the situation is unclear, Bush's notion of credibility turns out to be dangerously unhinged. The only words and deeds that have to match are his. No correspondence to reality is required. Bush can say today what he said yesterday, and do today what he promised yesterday, even if nothing he believes about the rest of the world is true.

Outside Bush's head, his statements keep crashing into reality.

Well, perhaps reality is overrated.

We were told there were weapons of mass destruction - but there aren't any - but, well, they might still be there. You never know. Think about that mustard gas hidden at a turkey farm in Libya. Right. You never know. We were told new Iraq oil revenue would pay for the war and the reconstruction so this would hardly cost us anything at all? Not so, ir seems. "The oil revenues, they're bigger than we thought they would be." Ah, I guess.

Saletan does a cute riff on the WMD issue -

As to the WMD, Bush said the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq had confirmed that Iraq was "hiding things. A country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught." See the logic? A country that hides something must be afraid of getting caught, and a country afraid of getting caught must be hiding something. Each statement validates the other, sparing Bush the need to find the WMD.

Well, it is clever.

And after a long discussion of all the new revelations regarding what we were doing about incipient terrorist acts in the weeks and months before 9-11 and all that?

To many Americans, the gap between Bush's statements about the months before 9/11, on the one hand, and the emerging evidence about those months, on the other, raises doubts about the credibility of their government. To other nations, the gap between Bush's statements about Iraqi weapons, on the one hand, and the emerging evidence about those weapons, on the other, has become the central reason to distrust the United States in other matters of enormous consequence, such as North Korea's nuclear program.

To all of this, however, Bush is blind. He doesn't measure his version of the world against anybody else's. He measures his version against itself. He says the same thing today that he said yesterday. That's why, when he was asked Tuesday whether he felt any responsibility for failing to stop the 9/11 plot, he kept shrugging that "the country"--not the president--wasn't on the lookout. It's also why, when he was asked to name his biggest mistake since 9/11, he insisted, "Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons [not found in Iraq], I still would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein." Bush believes now what he believed then. Incredible, but true.

Well, he's not wishy-washy. And people like that.

As John Stewart likes to point out, and many other now do too, Bush is not stupid. We are. Bush depends on that.

Posted by Alan at 17:40 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Tuesday, 13 April 2004

Topic: For policy wonks...

Just Another Day in Paradise (Jefferson's Birthday)

Note, on this day in 1743 Thomas Jefferson was born in Shadwell, Virginia.

But our president now is not Thomas Jefferson.

Bush just wrapped up one of his rare news conferences. Not much news. Same old stuff. Things are getting better, and we must continue with whatever it is we're doing. Fine.

And no one's mind was changed tonight -

Opinions Vary on Bush News Conference
Mitch Stacy, Associated Press, Tuesday, April 13, 2004

On the right:

Dennis Nelson paused from eating a slice of pizza at a Tampa American Legion Hall Tuesday night to listen to President Bush, who said just what he wanted to hear: The United States will not be deterred in Iraq.

Nelson, a 51-year-old Vietnam veteran and post commander, said he was pleased Bush stood firm on Iraq in his prime time news conference, despite increasing instability there and polls showing that fewer Americans approve of the way he's handling the war.

"He's given us a plan, what we're going to do, and we're not going to let anything stop us," said Nelson, a Republican. "I was proud of the president that he would not let anything deter us from making this happen."

And on the left:

On Chicago's South Side, viewers included about 20 members of the Task Force for Black Political Empowerment, a political activist group that has come out against the Iraq war.

"I feel sorry for him," said A.L. Reynolds, 68, a retired businessman from Chicago who described himself as an independent. "He has not answered one reporter's question, he has not apologized, he has an arrogant attitude and he's not going to change anyone's opinion with this speech. ... I feel very sorry for him and I'm scared for us."

And further left, Hesiod over at CounterSpin offers this:

But tonight was the first time I have truly been afraid. Yes...afraid for our country.

I've joked about how "incompetent" I thought George W. Bush was. But I've always dosed it with a healthy bit of respect for him as a political opponent. Namely, I thought he was shrewd, dishonest, conniving, etc.

Tonight, though...I'm not so sure.

He looked absolutely clueless. He looked like he had no way out of the problems we are facing in Iraq, and is just trying to play out the string until the election.

I was not comforted by that, at all. A chill literally ran up and down my spine when I thought that this man was in charge of protecting us, and making day to day life and death decisions on national security. It scared the hell out of me.

In any event, I am firmly convinced the public and the media will continue the Kabuki dance of pretending that the emperor has clothes on. The focus groups and people interviewed for post press conference polls will all say they thought the press was "picking on" poor George.

Frankly, I weep for this country if we do not change leaders in November.

Yeah, yeah.

Over at The Daily Kos you get this too:

Some of the press conference was a rerun of typical Bush behaviors. He suggested that criticizing him or our actions in Iraq sends a bad message to our troops and our enemies--i.e., dissent is treason.

Yep, we all caught that. That's understood.

But this was a bonus observation:

.... Bush approaches the world as if the good things that happen to him are the result of virtue and the bad things the result of environment, but with other people it's the exact opposite. We're all susceptible to that mistake. But with Bush it's reached a truly bizarre level, and makes listening to him an unsettling experience.

When he's not questioned or challenged, or things are going swimmingly, he comes across as confident and resolute. But when the environment changes--like tonight, when even NYT correspondent Elizabeth Bumiller (!) asked a slightly pointed question, and the White House press corps showed signs that they're embarrassed about their performance over the last three years, Bush resumes smirking and becomes that smug jerk we all hated in high school.

Ouch!

Oh, in case you missed the reference, Elizabeth Bumiller of the New York Times has been taking a lot of crap in the last few months for her answer to why she didn't ask hard questions of Bush in the few previous press conferences, and she answer that she was too awed by the occasion and hard questions seemed inappropriate. Only press junkies followed that item.

Ah, but for a little humor over at Patriot Boy General JC Christian, Patriot, adds THIS:

Don't listen to the doomsayers. The current situation in Iraq is the best thing that's happened to America since 9-11. Remember that day? Remember how it united America? We're going to see a lot more of that kind of unification very soon.

Our Leader deserves the credit for that. After all, it was his policies that prompted Viceroy Bremmer to shut down a dissident Shi'i newspaper, thus sparking what has become the Iraqi Intifada. It was his policies that fueled the resulting disorder when a murder warrant was issued against Muqtada al-Sadr. It was his policies that drove the al-Mahdi Army recruitment efforts by introducing neutral Iraqis to the concept of collective punishment.

Our ally, Arial Sharon, the Shade of Shatilla, deserves to be credited with an assist. His ongoing campaign to make Hamas the preeminent power in Palestinian politics is on the brink of success. The secular-minded Fatah politicians will soon step aside as the Islamists of Hamas become the voice and the sword of the Palestinian people.

And it's not your father's Hamas. It is a radicalized organization, an extremist organization pushed even furter to the extreme, an organization seething with hatred for those who executed its most revered cleric as he was wheeled out of his mosque in a wheelchair, an organization that has become an international force, exerting influence into Faluja, Kut, and Baghdad.

That is where we are today.

Tomorrow, we will have unity. We will be a single people again, united in tragedy. Because tomorrow, we turn Muqtada al-Sadr into a martyr. Tomorrow, we back Sharon's plan to seize large portions of the West Bank. Tomorrow, we turn The War in Terrorism into The War on Islam. Tomorrow, we become jihadis.

Yes, another reference if you haven't been following the news. Arial Sharon will visit Bush at the ranch late this week and the big announcement will be that we support Arial Sharon's new peace initiative - Israel abandons everything in the Gaza Strip (let the Palestinians have it all) and keeps and expands all the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Everyone now bursts into a chorus of the theme song from the movie Exodus - This land is mine... God gave this land to me...

Hey, paraplegics in wheelchairs ARE dangerous. You have to blow them away.

Oh yeah, the 9-11 Commission continues its work. Last week Condoleezza Rice explained that the Bush administration would have done something about all the terrorist threats back in the summer of 2001 but no one TOLD them exactly WHAT they should do, no one gave them INSTRUCTIONS, after all. To quote her, "If someone had told us what to do...." So criticism is unfair. Yeah, yeah. How can you lead without specific instructions? Hey, what good is having subordinates if they don't tell you what you should do? And that presidential briefing from August 6th of that year wasn't full of warnings, even if the title said it was full of warnings. Who you gonna believe, Condi or your own eyes? Be a patriot - ya gotta believe Condi!

And the hearings today.... The former head of the FBI said Attorney General John Ashcroft, at a specific meeting he noted with date and time back in 2001, told him he didn't want to hear anything more about terrorist threats. Ashcroft warned him that the topic was irrelevant, and upbraided him for always harping on it. And that year on September 10th Ashcroft vetoed a big block of funds for more money and agents to work on terrorism issues - a matter of record. The Commission was too polite to ask about that. And then Ashcroft also testified at the end of the day to something else. Said he never made those "I Don't Want To Heat It" comments to the head of the FBI - never said it. Well, someone's lying. Doesn't matter. Ashcroft said the whole problem was with Bill Clinton - Bill and his folks screwed up the FBI and the supervising Justice Department with all kinds of stupid rules to protect privacy and free speech and crap like that (I paraphrase of course but check it out - and you decide) so he really couldn't get any anti-terrorism stuff done much at all. Slick Willie strikes again. That man ruined the country. Yeah, yeah.

So that was Thomas Jefferson's birthday.

___

Note: typos corrected 14 April...

Posted by Alan at 21:50 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Wednesday, 14 April 2004 09:51 PDT home

Newer | Latest | Older

«	April 2004					»

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30