Disclose and Discuss
Please
As we await possible commentary from Mr Lee on the latest Plame developments, I offer the following.
In a small tribute to Leeroy, then, I’m going to try for a smorgasbord post today; patience and criticism are your obligations, reader.
Down South
Andrés Manuel López Obrador has claimed that the Mexican presidential election (which he lost by less than 1%) was decided by fraud. He’s shown videos which allegedly show ballot-stuffing and other offenses. He has asked the Trife, Mexico's electoral court, to order a recount. The court has until 31 August to decide.
I'll confess, López Obrador's policies appeal to me, as does his populism. Does that mean that I would support a recount out of affection for Obrador? No. However, as we learned all too well here a few years back, refusing to conduct recounts upsets Yancies to no end. Democracy demands that all votes be counted in good faith. I hope the Trife comes closer to justice than our own Justices did in 2000.
An Inconvenient Film
Speaking of those upsetting memories, watching the inevitable recap of 2000 in the excellent Al Gore film was almost as painful to me as the shots of the receding glaciers. Dammit.
Anyway, the movie is a must-see, as is the website that the credits point viewers to, http://www.climatecrisis.net.
And Inconvenient Friends
Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition, is running for Lt. Governor of Georgia. Unfortunately for him—though, I hope, fortunately for the rest of us—he has many ties to a Mr Abramoff. In particular, "he was paid by Jack Abramoff to organize opposition to a gambling bill in the Texas legislature, which would have opened the door to competition for Mr. Abramoff's client casinos in Louisiana."
That's a quote from, believe it or not, an Op-ed piece by the inimitable Garrison Keillor. GK, as they call him in some movie I saw recently, offers this judgment:
The sexual trespass of a president is a story any mortal can understand, and the use of your father's influence to sneak you into a military unit where you're less likely to face combat is an act of cowardice all of us cowards can appreciate. But the chutzpah of Mr. Reed in wheedling money from Abramoff to snooker Christians into an uproar against gambling is cold-hearted greed. And his work in behalf of the sweatshops and sex factories of the Marianas, arguing that the Chinese women imported there were being given the chance to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, reaches an entirely new level.
Here's hoping Georgians will listen to reason and send Mr Reed packing.
Listening Up?
On the subject of listening, the administration has at last agreed to a review (secret, of course) of its eavesdropping program. Hope springs eternal.
Except in the Mideast
Where Israel, in response to an illegal raid and the abduction of two soldiers by Hezbollah, has gone on the offensive, attacking the Beirut airport and not shying away from attacks that lead to civilian deaths.
Is Israel wrong to defend itself? No, I don't think so. Surely, though, another path ought to be sought. The UN tried to pass a resolution criticizing both the Israeli attacks and Hezbollah; guess which country was the only one to oppose it?
A grim note to end on, I suppose (and I apologize, DGL, for failing to incorporate the piece on the future of the Republicans that you pointed me to—oh wait, there's the incorporation right there!).
The lesson in all of this, it seems to me, is that dialogue and disclosure—direct public consideration of elections, lobbying, spying, and bombing—is always the best—go ahead, call me naïve—option.
posted by Unknown @ 11:45 AM
18 comments
18 Comments:
I haven't seen "Inconvenient Truth" yet, but isn't it a bit irrelevant and self-serving of Gore to rehash 2000 again in a movie about global warming? Didn't Michael Moore already cover that?
Israel has a right to be angry, but their response has been absolutely insane. "A few of our soldiers are taken hostage. Solution? Let's level Beirut! They don't mind; they're used to it!" Olmert must really love the '80s.
U.N. resolution or no, Bush had better get in Olmert's ear and tell him to get a grip. How many civilian deaths in Lebanon are worth a couple of kidnapped Israeli soldiers?
But Bush seems content to sit tight and curse from the sidelines.
Here's some '80s nostalgia for Olmert ... Talking Heads' "Burning Down the House" would be the perfect accompaniment.
Well, can you do a movie about Al Gore and not mention 2000? And it was only that, a brief mention; necessary, I think, to avoid that 'elephant in the room' feeling. . . .
I agree, DGL, that Israel's reaction seems absurd and unhelpful. Yes, they've been dropping leaflets telling civilians to flee; yes, Hezbollah clearly started this trouble, and clearly does not want peace; and yes, Hezbollah houses missiles in civilian homes and business; nevertheless, reasonable people ought to be able to find ways other than bombing to solve their problems. Here's hoping.
As for Bush's comedy tour of Europe, I can't believe you left out mention of Putin's latest zinger.
Ah, Vlad the Impaler ... of my funnybone!
Some critics have said the failing of "Inconvenient Truth" is that it seems too much like "The Al Gore Story" at times, which may detract from the film's message. But overall the notices have been great, and I'm hoping to see it soon.
Hezbollah and Hamas are not "reasonable people," so it's unfair to expect Israel not to respond to them militarily.
But as with the war on Al Qaeda, the battle for "hearts and minds" is arguably more important than any military campaign. Shellacking Beirut simply ensures that the Lebanese public (and other publics) will remain militantly anti-Israeli for at least another generation.
I am not well versed in Israel's history in the region. I know a bit, but have no nuanced insights.
So I will try to refrain from getting into the weeds here.
I am more confident in asserting that the U.S. will suffer as we are so tightly allied with Israel. We need to start acting in our best interest. We need to be able to be an honest broker and appear at least somewhat impartial if we're going to get some peace through diplomacy. Obviously, if we don't care to be impartial, we can just drop bombs.
The post below is from Ray Close, a former CIA analyst:
"The interests of my country, the United States, do not coincide with those of Israel in many important respects today. Let me mention just two of those ways. It is very important to the United States that the independence and national sovereignty of a democratic Lebanon be preserved. That means absolutely nothing to the Government of Israel, despite what they may say to the contrary. Israeli actions going back many years, demonstrated most graphically in the 1980’s, clearly prove that point. Current Israeli actions in Lebanon are belligerently challenging the continued viability of the fragile coalition government that is struggling to achieve credibility and legitimacy at a critical period in Lebanon’s history. Israeli actions are, even more importantly, threatening to revive the deep sectarian divisions and inter-communal tensions that led to fifteen years of tragic civil war from 1975-1980. American national interests will suffer much more than Israel’s if chaos results. Secondly, we Americans have other critical interests to worry about. If we take a position supporting Israel’s demand that Hizballah must be totally defeated and disarmed (a futile objective in any case), and especially if Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the revered spiritual leader of Hizballah, is physically harmed, the Shiite populations of Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East will be inflamed --- greatly undermining American prospects of working cooperatively and constructively with the Shiite religious parties in Iraq that control the overwhelmingly majority of political power in that country.
Open confrontation of Hizballah by the United States, allied with Israel, will have a powerful impact on the Iranian people, as well. Argue, if you will, that Iran is a known supporter of Hizballah and Hamas, and thus of international terrorism. That is a reality that none can deny. But let’s prioritize our national interests here. It is the people of Iraq and Iran on whom we depend not just for “regime change” in the short term, but for peace and stability (and resistance to terrorism) throughout the region in the decades ahead. It is the people of those countries whose trust and respect we must win. It is the trust and respect of those people that we have lost --- to a significant extent because we are identified in their minds with the narrow interests of Israel. Why is that so difficult for Americans to understand?
Encouraging and supporting Israel in a bloody confrontation with Hizballah in Lebanon may seem to be a justified and reasonable action in the shortest of terms and from the narrowest of perspectives, but the United States of America is not Israel, and we have regional and global interests and responsibilities that far surpass those of this one small ally. Just for once, let’s think first of what’s best for America."
By Ray Close || a former CIA analyst in the Near East division || Member, Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (sent via Larry Johnson, and posted by SusanUnPC)
It's almost comical, calling Israel "this one small ally." The US has backed Israel through quite a bit; it strikes me as unrealistic to expect otherwise in this current situation, for better or worse.
Although Close is right to claim that independence and national sovereignty are worth protecting, shouldn't that also entail valuing Israel's sovereignty and independence?
Nevertheless, I'll stick with the view that the Israelis, being reasonable, should work harder to find another way.
It should not, I suppose, be a surprise, but I was a bit disappointed at Senator Clinton's endorsement of Israel's actions. . . . . Perhaps I'm expecting too much of too many.
NY politicians, HRC included, are terrified of doing anything to upset the Jewish lobby. I personally think this is unnecessary; from what I can tell, Jewish-Americans (and many Israelis for that matter) are not all in lock-step with Zionist hawks.
In a way, our support of Israel is laudable because it isolates us. Europe for whatever reason almost always votes with the Arab countries against Israel in the U.N.; thus Israelis may be forgiven for thinking there is some anti-Semitic sentiment working against them even among civilized nations.
Israel is a valuable ally if for no other reason than it is a progressive U.S.-style democracy in the Middle East. (Of course, we're now seeing the shortcomings of Bush's idealistic visions for democracy in the region: in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq.)
I'm not sure what Close is saying we should do. If he means we should not fight side by side with Israel on the streets of Lebanon (a la the early '80s) I agree. If he's saying we should renounce Israel or excuse Hizbollah's terrorism in order to win friends among the Shiites, I don't think the benefits would be worth the sacrifice of our principles.
I guess what I'm saying is, we can continue to support Israel publicly out of principle (even though Close is right that it hurts our interests in certain ways), but Bush needs to stop chewing with his mouth open and start brokering. Get some shuttle diplomacy going, maybe along with Blair, Annan, whoever. Make Olmert understand how his actions are hurting Israel and the U.S.
Exert yourself, W. This is a g-ddamn emergency.
i don't think anyone in the world thinks the U.S. doesn't value Israel's
sovereignty and independence.
one of the biggest lobbies in d.c. is AIPAC - aipac.org - the american israel public affairs committee. they were pushing for us to get in Iraq and they've been since pushing for us to get in Iran. You can bet they're using these events to push for us to engage (and not diplomatically) with Iran & probably Syria now.
This is not meant as a criticism of Israel, or even the scale of Israel's response. I mean to point out the dangers of being so closely, unambiguously allied with a country that is bombing civillians in Lebanon while we fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Like Close, I'm wondering how this works for our interests.
In 2001 we gave roughly $3 billion a year to Israel, and $35 million to Lebanon. It's hard to be accepted as an honest broker under these circumstances. Iraq, obviously, ain't helping.
We either have squeeze Israel to change tactics, or we have to have a more nuanced alliance with them. We can't have the middle east defining us as the same entity while Israel bombs civilians.
Some of us connect Hamas and Hezbollah's actions to the leadership of Syria and Iran. You can bet that most of the middle east, moderate or extremist, will connect Israel's actions with the U.S.A.
We can't afford that.
Somewhat on topic - George Will eats his own:
"Tuesday, July 18, 2006; Page A19
"Grotesque" was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's characterization of the charge that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was responsible for the current Middle East conflagration. She is correct, up to a point. This point: Hezbollah and Hamas were alive and toxic long before March 2003. Still, it is not perverse to wonder whether the spectacle of America, currently learning a lesson -- one that conservatives should not have to learn on the job -- about the limits of power to subdue an unruly world, has emboldened many enemies.
Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Rice called it "shortsighted" to judge the success of the administration's transformational ambitions by a "snapshot" of progress "some couple of years" into the transformation. She seems to consider today's turmoil preferable to the Middle East's "false stability" of the past 60 years, during which U.S. policy "turned a blind eye to the absence of the democratic forces."
There is, however, a sense in which that argument creates a blind eye: It makes instability, no matter how pandemic or lethal, necessarily a sign of progress. Violence is vindication: Hamas and Hezbollah have, Rice says, "determined that it is time now to try and arrest the move toward moderate democratic forces in the Middle East."
But there also is democratic movement toward extremism. America's intervention was supposed to democratize Iraq, which, by benign infection, would transform the region. Early on in the Iraq occupation, Rice argued that democratic institutions do not just spring from a hospitable political culture, they also can help create such a culture. Perhaps.
But elections have transformed Hamas into the government of the Palestinian territories, and elections have turned Hezbollah into a significant faction in Lebanon's parliament, from which it operates as a state within the state. And as a possible harbinger of future horrors, last year's elections gave the Muslim Brotherhood 19 percent of the seats in Egypt's parliament.
The Bush administration has rightly refrained from criticizing the region's only democracy, Israel, for its forceful response to a thousand rockets fired at its population. U.S. reticence is seemly, considering that terrorism has been Israel's torment for decades, and that America responded to two hours of terrorism one September morning by toppling two regimes halfway around the world with wars that show no signs of ending.
The administration, justly criticized for its Iraq premises and their execution, is suddenly receiving some criticism so untethered from reality as to defy caricature. The national, ethnic and religious dynamics of the Middle East are opaque to most people, but to the Weekly Standard -- voice of a spectacularly misnamed radicalism, "neoconservatism" -- everything is crystal clear: Iran is the key to everything .
"No Islamic Republic of Iran, no Hezbollah. No Islamic Republic of Iran, no one to prop up the Assad regime in Syria. No Iranian support for Syria . . ." You get the drift. So, the Weekly Standard says:
"We might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions -- and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement."
"Why wait?" Perhaps because the U.S. military has enough on its plate in the deteriorating wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which both border Iran. And perhaps because containment, although of uncertain success, did work against Stalin and his successors, and might be preferable to a war against a nation much larger and more formidable than Iraq. And if Bashar Assad's regime does not fall after the Weekly Standard's hoped-for third war, with Iran, does the magazine hope for a fourth?
As for the "healthy" repercussions that the Weekly Standard is so eager to experience from yet another war: One envies that publication's powers of prophecy but wishes it had exercised them on the nation's behalf before all of the surprises -- all of them unpleasant -- that Iraq has inflicted. And regarding the "appeasement" that the Weekly Standard decries: Does the magazine really wish the administration had heeded its earlier (Dec. 20, 2004) editorial advocating war with yet another nation -- the bombing of Syria?
Neoconservatives have much to learn, even from Buddy Bell, manager of the Kansas City Royals. After his team lost its 10th consecutive game in April, Bell said, "I never say it can't get worse." In their next game, the Royals extended their losing streak to 11 and in May lost 13 in a row."
I agree that we should be "squeezing" the Israelis on this point. Maybe threatening to curb funding is the way to do that; of course, if not for American largesse over the years Israel might have been overrun years ago, surrounded as they are by hostile neighbors.
We'd also be in better position to lecture the Israelis if we hadn't killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the two Gulf Wars. Given that we invaded an Arab country that had no role in 9/11, I don't think the Arab street will give us much credit even if we do divest ourselves of Israel.
But we do have to defuse this situation before things get more apocalyptic than they already are. George Will is right on this one; credit is due to him and Bob Novak (that's right, I said it) for not jumping on the neocon bandwagon in these difficult times. Love the Royals reference.
Of course we shouldn't forget that what Will, Novak, and Pat Buchanan want is a completely amoral foreign policy which considers American interests at the expense of everything else. This theory is what led us to support brutal dictatorships over democratic regimes all throughout the Cold War.
We shouldn't let the follies of the neocons blind us to the follies of the other extreme. We need a happy medium between reckless idealism and brutal realpolitik.
Apropos of another topic in this thread, Ralph Reed lost by ten points in the GA Lt. Gov. primary Tuesday.
Ironically, as the NYT indicates, the Democrats were hoping for a Reed victory so they could use the "culture of corruption" issue in the campaign. This is the same reason they have fought, successfully so far, to keep Tom DeLay on the ballot in TX.
Apparently the Dems are none too confident they can ride the corruption theme to victory in November against Republican candidates in general--only against those who are actually touched by scandal. It didn't work in Duke Cunningham's district once the man himself was no longer on the ballot.
The good news: we've now seen the fall from grace of perhaps the three most central figures in the "Republican Revolution": Gingrich, DeLay, and Reed.
Motives aside, your Dems are right in principle about DeLay.
Allowing parties to run new candidates whenever they like (for example, when the current one is polling low) undercuts the whole primary system. That system is of course far from perfect and far from sacred; attempting to subvert that system in the middle, however, strikes me as clearly undemocratic.
Speaking of the House, kudos to Haley's boss, Rep. Moore, who voted against that gay marriage amendment.
Now maybe the House can be done with these posturing votes and do some real work on important issues like . . . the Pledge of Allegiance?
No, you're right. The Dems would be challenging the TX GOP in court whether DeLay was the candidate or not, and rightfully so.
I didn't think too much about it at the time since I was so glad to see DeLay go down, but his waiting till AFTER the primary to declare himself a native Virginian and withdraw was indeed a typically anti-democratic dirty trick by "The Hammer."
rmfd says...
Personally I think Israel has gone overboard in their response to the kidnapping of their soldiers, their citizens. I think, militarily, they could have achieved their objectives without harming another country and it’s citizens as greatly. However, if you have read the book Exodus, know Israel’s history and understand their simple philosophy from which they have never, ever wavered, that they retaliate fiercely whenever attacked, then Hezbollah either knew and counted upon this response to further their goals and anger the Arab peoples against Israel or they were totally naïve, and that I don’t believe.
The long-term fallout for Israel will be bad in trying to develop a world where people of different beliefs can co-exist. They were setup, and fell into the trap. The losers in this ordeal are the people of Lebanon and Israel.
Agreed. Israel's overreaction was more or less predictable. Hezbollah knew exactly what it was doing when it triggered this crisis.
There has been, refreshingly, some criticism of Hezbollah from Arab nations in the wake of this, and one hopes that Israel has succeeded in wiping out some of the group's operatives and infrastructure as it claims to be doing.
But the longer it drags on like this the more the story is about Israel and not Hezbollah. Ultimately, when you have cities lying in ruins, civilian casualties and a massive refugee crisis it's always a victory for the terrorists.
Philosopher Michael Walzer, whom I've trumpeted in the past on this blog, defends Israel on moral grounds in the New Republic.
As you would expect, it's a very thoughtful and well-reasoned essay, but he ducks the question of whether Israel is doing enough to minimize collateral damage.
Thanks, DGL, for pointing to that Walzer piece; he's always worth reading.
Odd, though, the degree to which he seems to understate the wrongness of Israel's attack on infrastructures. Yes, he uses his second paragraph to make that argument, but I think the point could have come with more force, instead of being buried amid fifteen year-old self-quotations.
Strange too, the focus on Palestinian civilian deaths: as Steven Erlanger discusses in today's Times, the ground war in Gaza has led to far fewer civilian deaths (relative to deaths of militants) than the bombing of Lebanon.
Speaking of which, finally, it also surprised me (though maybe the piece was written before some recent events?) that Walzer mentions the UN force in Lebanon but fails to note how small the force is (2,000 blue helmets); he also does not mention or evaluate the fact that an Israeli bomb killed a member of that force, along with his family.
Walzer is right, I think, to point out that Hamas and Hezbollah attacked after remarkable positive steps by Israel; and it's good to see those groups condemned both abroad and on this blog. No one, as far as I can tell, is doing the right thing in this situation (though I confess it's a little unclear what that 'right thing' is).
I'm not sure my present comment is making much of a contribution (this issue really has me at a loss), but it is disappointing that Israel would act in ways that RMFD rightly describes as both predictable and harmful.
From today's analysis in the Economist:
This is madness, and it should end. It is madness because the likelihood of Israel achieving the war aims it has set for itself is negligible. However much punishment Mr Olmert inflicts on Hizbullah, he cannot force it to submit in a way that its leaders and followers will perceive as a humiliation. Israel's first invasion of Lebanon turned into its Vietnam. It is plainly unwilling to occupy the place again. But airpower alone will never destroy every last rocket and prevent Hizbullah's fighters from continuing to send them off. No other outside force looks capable of doing the job on Israel's behalf. At present, the only way to disarm Hizbullah is therefore in the context of an agreement Hizbullah itself can be made to accept.
. . .
What is needed now is a way for both sides to climb down. Israel must get its soldiers back, Hizbullah's departure from the border area and an undertaking that Hizbullah will not attack again. The Lebanese army or a neutral force should then man the border. Hizbullah needs to be given a way to consent to these changes without losing face. Squaring this will take time, ingenuity and the full engagement of the United States. It will not bring peace to the Middle East but it might silence a dangerous new front. America should start its work at once.
Here are some links that I believe will be interested
Post a Comment
<< Home