Prisoners in Iraq (October 15)

Matt Yglesias notes that Iceland's economy is still vulnerable after the financial system disasters of the past few weeks. As he puts it, in spite of coordinated action, "Iceland is still spiraling downhill as its currency has become worthless . . . which risks destroying the entire economy of a small country that heavily depends on imports."

At Contentions, Max Boot has done some reporting from his recent trip to Iraq. He cites a rarely discussed aspect of America's recent successes: the huge improvements made in detainee operations inside Iraq. Boot explains, "With violence levels falling by 80% from their peaks and with doubts growing about future legal authority to hold Iraqis, the U.S. high command has been undertaking a careful program of detainee releases." It's been working. So far recidivism rates have been exceedingly low (less than one percent). Boot credits both the Anbar Awakening and the work of Major General Douglas Stone, who commands the unit in charge of detainee operations. This task force has focused on not just warehousing prisoners, but also rehabilitating them.

 

Losing the Kurds (October 14)

Michael Rubin, writing in The Corner, notes that reformers were kicked out of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) party. The PUK, led by Jalal Talabani, has been accused of extensive corruption and nepotism. While Iraqi Kurdistan may have once been the most promising region of Iraq, it now looks like, in the words of Rubin, that hope has "apparently been mortgaged for the sake of the ruling families' material comforts."

At Contentions, Abe Greenwald considers Vali Nasr's suggestion that we should reach out to Iran for help with Russia. Nasr thinks that since Iran is important for Russian interests-in particular because a Europe without Iranian natural gas is much more in need of Russia's gas-we can exploit the benefits that Iran can provide in place of Russia in Europe. But Greenwald throws cold water on the suggestion, for two reasons. First, he thinks that reaching out "further emboldens Iran and makes the case for their legitimacy as a world power." And second, he thinks that in the past, asking Iran for help, or working with Iran, has done nothing but give us "headaches." For instance, "for all our engagement with Tehran about Afghanistan, Iran still protected Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders. For all our engagement with Iran about Iraq, it was the punishment inflicted on Iranian backed militias by American and Iraqi forces that produced a change in behavior."

 

Voting on Terror (October 10)

Matt Yglesias takes note of a new study that asks whether voters are sensitive to terrorism, using evidence from the Israeli electorate. The article finds that "the occurrence of a terror attack in a given locality within three months of the elections causes an increase of 1.35 percentage points on that locality's support for the right bloc of political parties out of the two blocs vote." Yglesias comments that this creates a disturbing-and discouraging-pattern: "Terrorist attacks lead to right-wing political policies that lead to repressive policies that lead to more terrorist attacks."

At Contentions, Shmuel Rosner has been writing about Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's meetings with Russian President Medvedev. While at first it looked like nothing came of the meetings, there are now hints that Russia will not be selling Iran and Syria more advanced weaponry, which of course would be relatively positive news for Israel. But Rosner doesn't think that this revelation "changes the strategic picture" because Russia may be dissembling, and the bigger issue is "whether a Russian scientist helped Iran conduct complex experiments on how to detonate a nuclear weapon."

 

The Obama Doctrine (October 9)

At Contentions, Peter Wehner comments on Barack Obama's foreign-policy proposals in Tuesday's debate. Detailing the "Obama doctrine," Wehner notes that Obama claimed any foreign policy must consider moral issues as well as ones of national security. Obama used Darfur as an example of such a moral issue that necessitated an American response, but within the framework of the "international community." Perhaps, grants Wehner, but genocide is still taking place in Darfur today-demonstrating the futility of placing hope in international institutions without American leadership. Lastly, he argues the "Obama doctrine" isn't very consistent-wouldn't the same principled foreign policy have reached a different conclusion on a tyrannical Iraq?

 

League of Democracies? (October 7)

Matt Yglesias takes note of an article from over the summer by the Carnegie Endowment's Thomas Carothers that argues that the "League of Democracies" idea is, in Yglesias' words, "deeply misguided." He cites three key points from Carothers: it is not a new idea but rather quite similar to the "made-to-order multilateralism" of the Bush years; it doesn't really pique much interest in the rest of the world's democracies; and that it will not necessarily be supportive of U.S. policy.

But Max Boot is slightly more gung-ho about one holdover from the Bush administration: not leaving Iraq prematurely. He has been in Iraq, and reports, "along with tales of success we have also heard repeated cautions about how fragile and easily reversible the gains of the past 18 months remain." Boot cites a conversation with an Iraqi Colonel who emphasizes the essential role of U.S. troops in sustaining the recent gains: "It will be a big mistake if your soldiers leave Iraq. We will be like Lebanon. American troops should be here a long time."

 

Middle East Progress (October 6)

Over the weekend, Instapundit received good news from an email correspondent who also happens to be a soldier in Iraq. He writes in the email that "now things are much less...dramatic. I suppose that is a story in and of itself. No battles to tell of, no close calls with enemy fire, nada."

At Contentions, David Hazony is also encouraged by good news: Abbas's government has made substantial progress in keeping the peace in Jenin. As Hazony explains the implications, "This is the first time that Abbas has shown himself to be seriously committed to genuine stability in a way that can result in a political entity-even a state-that could live in peace with Israel." Granted, he thinks that Abbas is making this progress because his regime is quite vulnerable to a Hamas overthrow in the West Bank-he needs Israel, and the rest of the major powers, to survive.

 

Tunnels in Egypt (October 3)

David Hazony, writing at Contentions, notices a relatively unique technological achievement. It turns out that the United States Army Corps of Engineers has been helping the Egyptian army to "uncover and destroy the hundreds of tunnels through which Hamas has been smuggling weapons, money, fighters, and anything else it needs."

On the other side of the blogosphere, Matt Yglesias is thinking about China. Specifically, that it's "pretty uncontroversial to say that the only country one could really imagine becoming a serious military competitor to the United States on any kind of foreseeable time horizon would be China." As a result, the best strategy would be one that actively tries to avoid military competition, and instead focuses on building a "fundamentally cooperative relationship."

 

Tough Times (October 2)

Shmuel Rosner, at Contentions, is frustrated by the way America is dealing with the Iran nuclear program. Though the House has passed a bill to tighten sanctions against Iran, it seems that the House's Democratic leadership has "decided to shelve a much stronger rhetorical measure urging the administration to establish a naval blockade of Iran." Rosner thinks that this indicates the "American appetite for confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program is very low." That said, the problem with even strong diplomacy backed by harsher sanctions, which looks like the basic policy outline of both presidential candidates, is that "it is not working, and there's hardly a chance it ever will."

Foreign-policy problems extend to Syria. Scott Johnson at Powerline writes, "Syria continues to demonstrate the incoherence of Bush administration foreign policy. Stephen Hayes reports that two days after President Bush criticized Syria as a state sponsor of terror in his speech at the United Nations, Secretary Rice met with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem in New York.

And similar issues extend to Afghanistan. Matt Yglesias wonders what we are doing there. When we were close to victory in 2002, the shift of resources to Iraq "was a terrible error." But it cannot be fixed simply by putting the resources back in: "The situation has changed, windows of opportunity open and close, and our mission has gotten very murky.... we need to think, instead, more concretely about what it is we're hoping to achieve in Afghanistan." In short, do we need to create an effective, even democratic, state in order to prevent the country from becoming a terrorist haven?

 

Can Pakistan Fail? (September 30)

Matt Yglesias notes an interesting analogy made by blogger Brandon Friedman: Pakistan is the AIG of international affairs. Yglesias is distressed "that John McCain thinks Pakistan was a failed state in 1999 that was rescued by Musharraf's coup."

Abe Greenwald, writing at Contentions, is distressed by Iran. He cites an op-ed in the Australian, which argues that Iran is "a threat bigger than Wall Street." The op-ed, in turn, is based on a forthcoming bipartisan report on Iran that states that sanctions cannot work because it is impossible to get the full cooperation of the EU, Russia, China and the rest of the Gulf. As Greenwald summarizes the situation, "Europe finds itself unable to stick to the sanctions they've signed on for. Germany can't resist doing oil business with Tehran and exports from all over the EU to Iran have gone up since sanctions were ‘imposed.' Russia is thrilled about the prospect of a U.S. attack on Iran."

 

Iran ‘Process' Broken (September 29)

Over the weekend, Daniel Drezner pointed out that any discussion of China was conspicuously absent from Friday's Presidential debate. Drezner thinks this is a mistaken omission because, "China is clearly the one country that can challenge the United States as a peer competitor in the next decade. There are economic, regional, security, human rights, and global governance issues where Washington and Beijing don't see eye to eye."

Glenn Reynolds notices something encouraging in Pakistan: Pakistani tribes are fighting back against Taliban extremists. He quotes from the Guardian, which reports that the "resistance has parallels with the ‘Sunni awakening' in Iraq, where tribesmen took on al-Qaeda militants in Anbar province and elsewhere." Reynolds' verdict: "I think we should try to encourage this."

But Gordon Chang, writing at Contentions, is less encouraged about progress with Iran. He laments the newest UN Security Council resolution calling for Iran to comply "fully and without delay" with prior resolutions related to its nuclear program. Chang thinks that the process of working through the P5 plus 1 is basically hopeless. He asks, "How can we believe the ‘process' still exists when it cannot result in any meaningful measure, even after the International Atomic Energy Agency said this month that Iran was blocking international inspections?" His conclusion is that it is time for the United States to use "economic, political, and diplomatic leverage to persuade the Chinese-and maybe even the Russians-to take meaningful steps to stop Iran."

 

Ahmadinejad at the UN (September 25)

Daniel Halper at Contentions is unhappy with the reception given to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the United Nations. The problem is that, in short, he was greeted quite warmly after giving a speech "redolent of classical European anti-Semitism" that accused "Zionists of controlling the banks" according to Benny Avni of the New York Sun. Halper contrasts the reaction to Ahmadinejad's speech (he hugged the Assembly president) with the rather tepid reaction to George Bush. He then wonders if this should make Americans less concerned about our ‘standing in the world.' As he puts it, "If other nations want the respect of America, it seems to me, they must be able to stand-up and walk out when somebody like Iran's current President takes the floor."

Matt Yglesias is worried about the behavior of North Korea, especially if Kim Jong-Il is too sick to run the country right now. He writes, "Just try to imagine what a weak grasp of the outside world some high-ranking North Korean general is likely to have. It makes the situation dangerous [and] unpredictable."

 

New Thinking on Israel (September 24)

Shmuel Rosner of Contentions highlights a new Israeli study that rethinks the "two state-solution." Written by Giora Eiland, former head of the Israeli National Security Council, it argues for something closer to a four-state solution, with Egypt and Jordan on board. But as Rosner puts it, "Eiland wasn't born yesterday: he knows that Egypt and Jordan aren't likely to get on board."

In other Israel-related news, Jeffrey Golberg of The Atlantic cites a report that Russia has forced the collapse of sanctions on Iran. The title of Goldberg's post says it all: "News That Makes an Israeli Strike on Iran More Likely."

 

North Korea Enriching? (September 23)

Marty Peretz, writing in The Spine, thinks John Bolton was right about North Korea. Why? Because, according to the Times, the regime confirms that "it has begun to reassemble a nuclear complex that can produce weapons-grade plutonium." Adds Peretz, "it cares not a fig whether it is removed from the United States' terrorism blacklist."

At Contentions, Max Boot is concerned that "the armed forces are not moving fast enough to mobilize speakers of strategically-important languages to help prevail on numerous battlefields of the War on Terror." He has a solution: "Recruit more foreigners into the armed forces."

On Tapped, Robert Farley wonders why the Russian Navy has sent warships for exercises off of Venezuela. He asks, "what's the point of antagonizing the United States in Latin America, when the United States can antagonize Russia in the Caucasus to much greater effect?" Matt Yglesias agrees with Farley's assessment, adding "Russia basically got what it wanted out of the war with Georgia. But it did harm its relationship with the United States and to some extent with Europe. The smart play would have been to consolidate gains in the Caucuses by making nice with the West…"

 

Iraq, Iran and Russia (September 22)

Instapundit notices that Dexter Filkins has written in the Times about "how much Iraq has improved" in the last two years.

Shmuel Rosner at Contentions is discouraged by an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that declares that a "nuclear Iran is unacceptable." Rosner comments, "Since many leaders in many countries agree, in principle, that a nuclear Iran is not a desirable situation, the assertions this article makes are far from controversial." But, he adds, the key question is how to craft "effective" policies to stop Iran; that is "We need not a policy aimed at stopping Iran, but one that will actually stop Iran."

And Gordon Chang, also writing at Contentions, thinks that Russia has "backed itself into a corner" by recognizing the independence of South Ossetia. For now all of Ossetia is agitating for a referendum on statehood and independence. As Chang puts it, "What could the Kremlin possibly say when [South Ossetian leader] Kokoity asks for a statehood referendum of all Ossetians?"

 

New Leadership in Israel (September 19)

David Hazony at Contentions comments on the likelihood that Tzipi Livni will most likely become Prime Minister of Israel. She has relatively little experience for an Israeli politician; her ascension, according to Hazony, most likely has to do with her "personal charisma and her personal connection to Ariel Sharon in the last years of his career."

Meanwhile, some bloggers on the Right are exercised by a recent column in the New York Post by Amir Tahiri. Tahiri reported that Senator Obama tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on the draw-down of US troops until after the election. Scott Johnson of Powerline laments that the story has not gotten more attention in the mainstream media.

 

Military Unreadiness (September 18)

Max Boot, writing at Contentions, points out that while some pundits worry about the state of the U.S. armed forces in light of the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is in fact the UK's army that is in a bad way. Boot cites a Daily Telegraph article that reports that funding for the British armed forces is so low as to be "in crisis." He worries that as the Brits shy away from funding their military, it will redound negatively for the United States: "If the UK doesn't have the resources to help us, then, Heaven help us, ‘unilateralism' may become a reality-not just a partisan slur."

 

Nuclear Terrorism (September 17)

Abe Greenwald at Contentions cites an AP story that quotes CIA chief Michael Hayden saying, "There is no greater national security threat facing the United States than al Qaeda and its associates." That is, the real question is not the intent to launch a nuclear attack but the access to the technology. The intent is there. So because a nuclear attack would require extensive and highly technical planning, Greenwald argues, "it's as critical that the U.S. goes after technologically advanced potential al Qaeda collaborators as it for us to take down al Qaeda itself."

And John McCormack of the Weekly Standard's Blog points out that General Petraeus officially relinquished his command of Iraq on Tuesday. General Ray Odierno takes over.

 

Blowback for Russia? (September 16)

Michael Totten writes at Contentions that Moscow's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is causing a new problem: Minorities within Russia are now starting to push harder for independence from Russia. Says Totten, "The Soviet Union was really an empire squared. Moscow lost pieces of its outer empire in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the South Caucasus, but many more pieces of the rump empire, or federation, might yet still break off or at least severely bleed Russia internally."

Kathryn Jean Lopez notes that Ukraine's governing coalition has collapsed.

And Instapundit points to a study finding that anti-Americanism in Europe is fueled by ignorance.

 

Credit for the Surge (September 15)

Shmuel Rosner of Contentions approves of Fred Hiatt's column on the surge in the Washington Post, especially his acknowledgement of the role of Bush and Hadley in pushing for the surge. Jen Rubin is also taken by Bush's hand in the surge, as revealed in Woodward's new book. She cites the Wall Street Journal's editorial on what she calls the "judgment and tenacity of the President."

Matt Yglesias links to a video of Francis Fukuyama and Robert Kagan discussing relations between America and Russia just before the Russia-Georgia war.

 

Palin, Post Interview (September 12)

Matt Yglesias thinks "Sarah Palin's answer to the question about going to war with Russia wasn't as bad as ABC News' teaser made it out to be." But, then again, her answer did reflect a "bad policy idea that, unfortunately, is shared by members of both parties."

Powerline's John Hinderaker is more exercised about a Washington Post article this morning that claims "Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."  Instead, Hinderaker argues, Palin was accurately saying that soldiers fighting in Iraq will encounter al Qaeda. That is, "the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans." He notes that the Post amended its story to add the line: "it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion."

 

Seven Years On (September 11)

Matt Yglesias' take on where we are seven years later: "If you'd told me on the morning of September 12 that seven years later the country would have gone without an additional al-Qaeda attack on U.S. soil, I'm not sure I would have believed you. If you'd told me that more Americans would wind up dying in Iraq than died in the World Trade Center, I'm almost positive I wouldn't have believed you. And if you'd told me that seven years later Osama bin Laden would still be at large, I'm sure I wouldn't have believed you."

Speaking of Iraq, Instapundit is happy that foreign investment in Iraq is increasing-thanks to the improved security situation. He quotes a USA Today article that reports, "More than $74 billion in projects have been submitted for government approval in just the past five months, according to Iraq's state investment regulator. The investors include companies from the U.S., Europe, and Gulf Arab states…."

And what about the way the world perceives America, seven years later? Well, perhaps the desires of non-Americans for an Obama presidency are some indication of that perception. Shmuel Rosner, at Contentions, looks at the political implications of Obama's popularity abroad. "I argued a couple of months ago that world enthusiasm might help Obama, but it can also hurt him. I'm sure some people will assume it has something to do with American voters' stupidity-but some others might call it backbone." That is, Rosner thinks that Americans want a President who stands up to other countries, as opposed to being popular with them. But why not both?

 

Israel's Nukes (September 10)

Justin Shubow at Contentions notices a novel argument about Israeli strategy. In the Jerusalem Post, Louis Rene Beres suggests that Israel make its nuclear program public to improve its deterrent capacity against Iran. "Presumably," writes Shubow, "[Beres] means that Israel ought to divulge the extent to which it possesses MIRVs, tactical nukes, anti-missile warheads, nuclear-capable submarines, and nuclear-hardened silos."

In other Middle East-related news, Powerline's Paul Mirengoff takes notice of the Washington Post's series of articles from Bob Woodward's new book. Mirengoff interprets the story, as it has been presented so far, as Bush versus his generals. As Mirengoff summarizes it, "[Bush] was plagued by military leaders who seemed largely clueless about how to win there and, in Woodward's account, may not have been sufficiently committed to winning."

And staying with the Woodward theme, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross at the Weekly Standard's Blog points out that Woodward has also disclosed, according to CNN, that there exist "secret operational capabilities developed by the military to locate, target and kill leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent leaders." The implication is that it was this effort, and not the surge itself, that improved the situation in Iraq. But, Gartenstein-Ross reports, a "senior U.S. military intelligence officer" told him that "I am somewhat perplexed at this point as to just who told Woodward this that led him to adopt this view with such fervor, since it is nothing short of a mystery to many of the people involved with either the Awakening or the surge, which were the two major shifts by US and Iraqi forces on the ground that allowed for a reduction in violence."

 

A Nuclear World (September 9)

Abe Greenwald at Contentions is upset about the situation in Russia. He writes, "Russian has turned away international aid convoys carrying flour, pasta and sugar to Georgian villages. Russian forces have also stopped the ambassadors of Sweden, Latvia and Estonia from going past Russian ‘peacekeeping' checkpoints into Georgian territory…. And has anyone even seen our President lately?"

Also on Contentions, Emanuele Ottolenghi asks whether the relatively muted response of the West to the Georgia invasion was due to the need for Russian cooperation on Iran. He doesn't think it makes any sense: "Russia was never fully on board when it came to Iran-before and after Georgia." Yesterday, he adds, "Russian sources announced that Russia may increase nuclear assistance to Iran-including training scientists."

And Gordon Chang takes exception to Condoleezza Rice's claim that the Bush administration's record on the proliferation of nuclear weapons "is very strong." She said, "We have left this situation, or this issue, in far better shape than we found it." After reviewing the record on Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea, Chang concludes that "The Bush administration is not responsible for every unfavorable global trend, of course, but her assessment of accomplishment is grossly inflated."

In other nukes news, Matt Yglesias is concerned that nobody paid any attention to the fact that over the weekend the Nuclear Suppliers Group decided to OK the U.S.-India nuclear deal. He worries about the implications for non-proliferation efforts, seeing as to how under the current policy "the extent to which a country's nuclear activities are permitted is just a function of how we feel about them." He adds, dryly, that this "seems unlikely to be viable over the long haul."

In even more nukes news, Andy McCarthy, writing in The Corner, approves of Bush's announcement that he has cancelled the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation pact. He says, "It may only have been symbolic-Congress wasn't going to approve the deal in any event-but it was the right thing to do and the right tone to set."

 

Warplanes for Iraq? (September 8)

In some news that seems to be a bit out of left field, Gordon Chang at Contentions is asking if China is planning to invade Vietnam. He concedes that, "at first glance, [it] sounds preposterous." But "the Vietnamese in recent days twice summoned the Chinese ambassador to protest ‘invasion plans' posted on at least four Chinese websites.  The plans detail a 31-day operation and an attack of 310,000 troops.  Beijing denied it had anything to do with the postings, which ‘by no means represented China's stance.'"

Staying in Asia, Matt Yglesias notes a recent piece by Joshua Kurlantzick discussing nationalist divides that are precluding a collective Asian response to "a western-centric world order." 

Scott Johnson of Powerline highlights Dexter Filkins' piece in the New York Times Magazine on the tribal areas of Pakistan. 

And The Corner points out that combat journalist Bing West was interviewed by CBS about the Iraq war and more over the weekend. Also out of Iraq, over the weekend Shmuel Rosner of Contentions asked, "Should Iraq get F-16 fighter jets?" It looks like the Iraqis probably will, which begs obvious questions: "can [the Iraqi government] be trusted to keep them in the right hands? Will it not use them to harass neighbors as it did in the past?"

 

McCain Hates War (September 5)

National Review's The Corner is happy that McCain made an effort in last night's speech to challenge the assumption that he is a war-mongerer. Lisa Schiffren writes, "that bit about hating war was essential. I have had earful after earful of what a hot-headed, lunatic, war-mongerer John McCain would be as president…." However, Noah Pollak, writing at Contentions, thinks that foreign policy was "conspicuously missing," but figures that's because McCain doesn't exactly have a problem with "a public perception of his unwillingness to take on our enemies."

The other candidate for President was on The O'Reilly Factor last night, and Instapundit noticed that he said, "I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated… I've already said it's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."

 

The Cost of War (September 4)

The United States is sending a billion dollars in aid to Georgia.  On the other side of the ledger, Instapundit points out a report that says "as much as $25 billion in foreign capital may have left Russia since the Georgia conflict started."

Following up on Dexter Filkins' interview with Jeffrey Goldberg (mentioned below), Peter Wehner at Contentions takes issue with one small part of Filkins' response.  Filkins told Goldberg that he doesn't think Iraq is a democracy because "A democracy has many things: elections, compromise between groups, an atmosphere safe enough to discuss the issues of the day…" Iraq, according to Filkins, is not there yet.  But Wehner thinks that while Filkins is right about what constitutes a democracy, he also thinks "Iraq actually has those things." He does concede, however, that they are "these achievements, while heartening and even unprecedented, are still fragile."

 

More Anbar Reaction (September 3)

In response to Dexter Filkins' article in the Times yesterday about the handover of Anbar, Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed him (via email).  Filkins told Goldberg, among other things, "The progress here is remarkable. I came back to Iraq after being away for nearly two years, and honestly, parts of it are difficult for me to recognize."

And Eric Posner (now blogging at the Volokh Conspiracy) has compiled a list of predictions about the surge, and the Iraq War, that didn't exactly pan out.

Given these successes, Abe Greenwald is happy about Iraqi politics but no so much about America's: "One of the most shameful aspects of Barack Obama's campaign has been his refusal to acknowledge the full scope of our troops' accomplishments in Iraq. The war's turnaround should be recognized by all as an example of what American perseverance can achieve."

 

Success in Iraq (September 2)

Jeffrey Goldberg points out a huge success in Iraq, that hasn't gotten much notice at all now that we are in high politics season: "Anbar province is now under the control of the Iraqi Army." 

Also in substantive news, Japan's Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda announced his resignation yesterday.  Gordon Chang of Contentions thinks that the LDP (Fukuda's Party) will pick Taro Aso, the current secretary-general and a much more "charismatic" leader.  If he is picked, there will be foreign-policy implications: "For instance, he will not ignore the plight of the Japanese abducted by North Korean agents, thereby complicating President Bush's efforts to settle the nuclear crisis with Pyongyang.  Moreover, he is also bound to upset Beijing…."

And also on Contentions, Noah Pollak disagrees with an idea Jeffrey Goldberg aired over the weekend.  The issue is whether or not President Bush has been "bad for Israel," and whether McCain will too.  The basis of the argument in favor is that the Iraq War strengthened Iran both by removing the threat they faced from Iraq and by compromising America's ability to credibly threaten military engagement, and that Bush's refusal to engage Syria has pushed them further toward Iran and away from Israel.  Pollak is dismissive.  For instance, he argues that the notion that "before the invasion in 2003, Iran and Iraq held each other in something akin to suspended animation, frozen in a historic standoff, is silly. For Iran's purposes, Iraq had been neutered by the Gulf War in 1991…"

 

Iraq, North Korea, and More (August 29)

Yglesis is incredulous that McCain "wants us to believe that Iraq is a ‘peaceful and stable country'" because more than seventy people have died in suicide bombings this month alone. He retorts, "That countries in which dozens of people are killed in suicide bombings on a weekly basis doesn't qualify as ‘peaceful' seems obvious."

But he's heartened by China's refusal to overtly support Russia's military forays. Contrary to the assumption that autocracies always go along with each other, Yglesias argues that in fact they rarely make lasting and meaningful alliances. As he puts it, "States that are internally governed by stable rule-bound liberal institutions can forge enduring institutional ties, but states that aren't like that find it difficult to move beyond one-off bargains."

In other news from the non-democratic world, Gordon Chang noticed North Korea's recent announcement that it is no longer disabling its Yongbon reactor, and is in fact considering restoring it to its original state. Chang notes that doing so "would mean abandoning the series of agreements it has made at the Beijing-sponsored six-party talks" and wonders now the regime can get away with it. He thinks it boils down "to the Bush administration's belief-one might call it faith-that large authoritarian states share our goals and will help us solve the problems of the world."

 

Conventional Foreign Policy (August 28)

Gordon Chang at Contentions notices more belligerent language from Moscow. The newest verbal target is Moldova, which was told by Valeri Kuzmin, Moscow's ambassador to that country, to avoid a repeat of the "bloody and catastrophic trend of events" in the separatist Trans-Dniester region. And Medvedev called what happened in Georgia "a serious warning, a warning to all." Chang wonders what the White House will do, asking, "Mr. Bush, you have just heard the recent words from President Medvedev and Ambassador Kuzmin. What will you do in response? The West may still be waiting for you. The Russians are not."

And since a little foreign policy made it into the Democratic Convention last night, a little discussion of it took place online too. Here's Ramesh Ponnuru's characterization of it in The Corner: "Both Biden and Kerry seem to think that we're in a position to bring troops back from Iraq without the place falling apart because of . . . Obama's foresight. I haven't heard the word ‘surge' tonight. Ponnuru's post is entitled "Chutzpah."

In other war related news, Yglesias is unhappy about John McCain attacking Obama (in a TV ad) for having said that Iran was a ‘tiny' threat. Yglesias cites Obama's original comment-"I mean, think about it: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela-these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union"-and asks, "which aspect of it is wrong? Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela are all much smaller than the Soviet Union. None of them threaten us in the way the Soviet Union did." He adds in a later post that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said in a May interview that, "The Soviet Union was a formidable force at its height… Iran simply does not carry anything remotely like that weight, not internationally, not even regionally."

 

Realism and Morality (August 27)

Powerline's Hinderaker links to independent journalist Michael Totten's reporting from Georgia.  Totten claims that Russia's invasion force moved prior to Saakashvili sending the additional troops into South Ossetia that allegedly started the war.  Hinderaker takes away that "the bottom line, to oversimplify greatly, is that the Russians started it."

Hinderaker highlights the energy angle: Russia intended "to fire a shot across the bow of the petroleum-producing countries to Georgia's east."  While he does not see an active threat to Georgia's independence, he concludes that the whole episode is "a timely reminder that in the absence of military capability, diplomacy and world opinion are worthless."

Yglesias also has further thoughts on the Russia-Georgia conflict.  In a recent post, he discusses the idea of "ethical realism"-also the title of a book by Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman.  Yglesias' basic argument is that morality in foreign policy cannot be myopic.  So if one contends that maintaining a good relationship with Russia and China is valuable "so as to allow for progress on nuclear proliferation, climate change, and international terrorism," it does not necessarily follow that morality must be set aside to pursue other interests.   That is, "morally speaking, the one course is better than the other."

 

The World Beyond Denver (August 26)

While just about everybody's focus is on Denver, Yglesias manages to look abroad and note that Russia has officially recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.  He isn't too discouraged, because even though the "Bush administration's done nothing meaningful to stop the Russians from having their way with Georgia…the consequences for the wider world have been less than dramatic."

Iran is still out there too. Barack Obama mentioned the Islamic Republic on the campaign trail yesterday, and Abe Greenwald of Contentions is none-too-happy with the way he did it.  Obama said a nuclear Iran would be a "game-changer for the region," and that "no option is to be taken off the table, but in the meantime we have to make diplomatic progress."  Greenwald comments: "How about a game-changer for Obama? He used the same lines back in July, and they've grown no more substantive with age. If he is going to be champion of diplomacy until the eleventh hour, he needs to employ some of that famous out-of-the-box audacity and throw something-anything-specific and new into this long-failed calculus." And so on.

Powerline's John Hinderaker is taken aback by Nancy Pelosi's confusion about natural gas on Meet the Press. He summarizes, "Mrs. Pelosi declared herself a major advocate of natural gas as an energy source, but then revealed that she is ignorant of the fact that natural gas is a fossil fuel."

 

Biden Reactions, Russia Fallout (August 25)

Defending Poland, Admiring China (August 22)

Secretary Rice claims that the US is helping Poland with missile defense to protect it from threats like Iran and North Korea.  Matt Yglesias says this is a ridiculous claim: "The countries that Poland worries about are Russia and Germany; the countries with substantial missile arsenals are the United States and Russia; the country that this would defend Poland against if it worked (which it doesn't) is Russia."

And Greg Pollowitz of National Review's Media Blog thinks Obama has said something ridiculous - that China's superior infrastructure is appealing to business. "Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now," he said.  Pollowitz asks, "Does he have any earthly clue on just how the infrastructure was developed in China?"  He mentions the two elderly women being sent to a "re-education camp," the collapse of the rail system during heavy snows last winter, and "the May 12 earthquake that hit in Sichuan that killed about 70,000 people, including many students killed in their government-built classrooms" before concluding, "maybe a message of be-like-China is not the best strategy."

Leading By Example? (August 21)

Senator Obama, talking Russia yesterday, said, "We've got to send a clear message to Russia and unify our allies… They can't charge into other countries. Of course it helps if we are leading by example on that point."

This echoes what some in the Left blogosphere have been saying, as we documented below. But Obama's embrace of it has caused the Right to take notice all over again. As Abe Greenwald characterized it on Contentions, "Faced with a geopolitical challenge that demands unwavering Western fortitude and American stewardship, Barack Obama apologizes for the misuse of American strength and initiative."

But, he adds, "there was always a respectable argument that the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq would open the door for less trustworthy countries looking to justify aggression on pre-emptive grounds. It does not apply here, and in any case now is not the time for an American leader to air it." Jim Geraghty is less judicious in National Review Online's The Campaign Spot: "Some of us see some differences between a coalition of democracies invading a dictatorship and a dictator unilaterally invading a democracy."

Patriotism Games (August 20)

There's nothing like a little patriotism back-and-forth, is there?  McCain has been using the line "I would rather lose an election than lose a war" for a while now.  He expanded on it in his VFW speech Monday morning.  Supporting the surge, he said, "was a clarifying moment. It was a moment when political self-interest and the national interest parted ways. For my part, with so much in the balance, it was an easy call." 

Senator Obama responded soon after by calling on McCain to stop questioning his "character and patriotism." As Karen Tumulty of Time summarizes Obama's response, "McCain boasts of putting country first, Obama said, ‘but I have to say, it's not an example of putting country first when you say George Bush's economic policies have shown ‘great progress.'"

Powerline's John Hinderaker pounces: Obama Plays the Patriotism Card. He calls Obama a "whiner who is happy to dish out personal attacks, but thinks he should be entitled to some kind of immunity."  On the other hand, Jonathan Cohn, at TNR's The Plank, approves of Obama's speech, calling it "precisely the kind of aggressive approach many observers (myself included) have been waiting, anxiously, for Obama to adopt."

 

 

Click here for more blog news.