Return to the Latest on No Left Turns
|
Why History Matters
James Lindgren of Northwestern Law School has a tremendous op-ed in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune. He claims that the media are treating Iraq as though they were covering the New Hampshire primary, "in which a winner is treated as a loser because he did not win by as wide a margin as pundits expected." He reminds us that the protests and lootings in Iraq shouldn’t trouble us overmuch. After all, 200 were killed in Nigeria when a journalist wrote something apparently unflattering to Mohammed; why should we expect order and harmony in the midst of a massive regime change in Iraq? He concludes: "We need more historical perspective brought to bear on our public debate over the Iraq war and its aftermath, so that our expectations are more reasonable. There is one thing we can all be thankful for: Neither the press nor my equally insightful fellow academics were running the war--or are now running the reconstruction of Iraq."
Posted by John Moser | Link to this Entry | Comments [4285] | 4/28/2003 11:31 AM
|
|
More on the Gingrich Speech
I have received a number of responses to my remarks on the Gingrich talk, almost all of them against my position. Here is one of the longer and more comprehensive ones:
I don’t think Gingrich’s speech was the killer Gaffney does, but I do think it was important, and with some exceptions, right on the money. What you really find in that speech is a simple, but generally unacknowledged truth: diplomacy may be defined as "talk talk" that advances a country’s interest, but State’s diplomats-- especially on the Arab desk--long ago became spokesmen for the Arabs, something that is also true of the British Foreign Office. There are many reasons for this: diplomats deal with diplomats and by nature tend to come to like their counterparts; diplomats tend to be liberal (i.e., they believe in talk, talk, not war, war), and the Arab, especially the Palestinian cause is a liberal one while the Israeli cause is a conservative one; even simple self interest: there is only one Israeli ambassadorship to be had in the middle east while there are many Arab ones.
As for the politics of it, I have two observations to make: (1) this is a good time to remind everyone that State, like the U.N., has been dead wrong on this one (and many, many others as well), and Defense right. If State has its way, it will--again, just like the U.N.--
ensure only that the ills of the area are never addressed. As the kids say, State just "doesn’t get it," the "its" being that peace is a means, not an end (and the same is true of process, which diplomats (God save us from the French), also tend to confuse with being an end. Can you imagine State saying, as DOD did a couple of days ago when asked whether Iraq would be allowed to have any form of government it wants: "Hell no: no more damn clerics running the show!" (Well, kind of.) (2) Politically, Gingrich was the wrong man to deliver this speech. Bush 2 still holds Gingrich partly responsible for Bush 1’s single term presidency. My prediction is that this effort to weaken State, or even the Arab desk, will backfire. Add Powell’s popularity with the Pesident to his (the pres.) dislike of Gingrich, and what we may well end up with is a State strengthened by the speech. Good old State: like an economist (or the CIA), it never has to worry about being held accountable for its mistakes.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 4/28/2003 9:05 AM
|
|
Undeterred
Reuters has an interesting piece about the Hollywood response to the war’s outcome. Note the reticence of once-was-celebrity Mike Farrell, who still opposes the war in spite of the outcome. I’ll give him points for consistency--a foolish consistency, but consistency nonetheless.
Perhaps the most entertaining thing is the way they see free speech as a one-way ratchet. When they spoke out against the war, joining groups that used pretty vulgar speech and acts to show their opposition, that was the apex of free speech and patriotism. When, however, others criticized them for their stance, well, that was an attempt to "muzzle" or "silence" speech. Uhh, Mr. Farrell, perhaps that was political speech, too. I’m not talking about the alleged threats, but it doesn’t appear that Farrell was either. He was talking about the rank and file individual who had the audacity to criticize celebrities--the same celebrities who claim now to be capitalizing on their anti-war publicity. These people were, in Farrell’s words "ugly mouthed" individuals who used "hate radio." How dare people not buy the Dixie Chicks album! The stars claim to be regrouping for their next big cause celebre. In the meantime, I have a little recommended reading for them.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments [233] | 4/28/2003 6:40 AM
|
|
The Ideology of Federalism
There are few certainties in life, except perhaps for death, taxes, and unfounded New York Times editorials against outstanding judicial nominees. Today the NYT takes aim at Jeffrey Sutton. What is Sutton’s sin according to the Times? He has argued Federalism (which in Times-speak is "a euphemism for a rigid states’-rights legal philosophy") cases, and they don’t like the outcomes. Aside from the fact that it is grossly unfair to smear a lawyer with the position or desired outcome of his client (are defense counsels who represent murderers "pro-murder"?), the Times, apparently incapable of actually addressing the substance of federalism, decides instead to use its well-honed skill skill of ad hominem. To the extent that the NYT does address federalism, the analysis is typically outcome-based. But here is where the editorial is most wrong: federalism as a set of legal rules is object neutral, and as such may offend conservatives as well as liberals in terms of outcomes. I have a couple of explosive examples in mind, but I will save them for tomorrow, when I will have more on this topic tomorrow to correspond with Sutton’s scheduled vote.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments [7] | 4/28/2003 6:18 AM
|
|
What about al Qaeda?
An article reporting that the US intelligence community believes that al Qaeda is now fractured and limited in what it can do operationally. The article reports that bin Ladin is angry that no attacks were made on the United States as a result of the war in Iraq. The article also cites intelligence sources who do not share the view that AQ has been hurt by our efforts. If the claim of diminished operational capacity is correct, it would help explain why no attacks have occurred. More terrorist attacks, although to little effect, occurred in response to the first Gulf War. These were carried out or attempted by Saddam’s intelligence service. In any case, the lack of terrorist attacks (so far) has received little notice in the press. That bin Ladin threatened but that nothing has happened should undermine his credibility.
Posted by David Tucker | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 4/25/2003 5:22 PM
|
|
Exploiting by "Affirming"
In his recent Washington Post op-ed,
"Affirmative Exploitation", Ruben Navarrette Jr. picks up where Civil Rights Commissioner Kirsanow left off in his column about affirmative action. Just a couple of excerpts:
"To the degree that there are failures and shortcomings in K-12 public education, racial preferences at the college level help to conceal them."
"Were minority students suddenly to vanish from college and university campuses, and the campuses return to being all white--as liberals warn would happen without preferences--Americans might start asking tough questions about the quality of elementary and secondary schooling in this country, especially for minorities. They might even ask whether teachers and administrators--the vast majority of whom are white--have the same level of expectations for black and Latino students as they do for white students, or whether guidance counselors are "tracking" minority students away from college-prep and Advanced Placement courses and toward vocational studies and other less-challenging curriculums."
In short, among its many deficiencies, affirmative action at the collegiate level postpones the day when public schools have to get their act together and teach their children, all their children, well.
Posted by Lucas Morel | Link to this Entry | Comments [241] | 4/25/2003 11:19 AM
|
|
Farouk Hijazi Caught
Farouk Hijazi, Iraq’s ambassador to Tunisia, and once the number three man in Saddam’s intelligence service, has been caught in Iraq, coming out of Syria. James Woolsey calls this "the biggest catch so far" even though he is not in the poker deck. The US claims that Hijazi met with bin Laden in 1998. 
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [3] | 4/25/2003 10:27 AM
|
|
Much More on George Galloway
This Telegraph story just adds more extraordinary information on how deeply Galloway was in bed with Saddam. Documents reveal that Saddam instructed the Iraqi intelligence service to sever contacts with Galloway in order not to do great harm to his political career. The Christian Science Monitor also has some more evidence. Why isn’t televison news covering this? How do the Brits define treason? Josh Chafetz claims that it is not treason under British law. And guess who’s coming to the defense of Galloway? Scott Ritter. Sometimes reality is better than fiction.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments | 4/25/2003 9:25 AM
|
|
Turkish Forces in Iraq
Here is the Time Magazine report on the Turkish incursion into Iraq, and how we sent them back. This is not good.
The Turkish Special Forces team put up no resistance though a mean arsenal was discovered in their cars, including a variety of AK-47s, M4s, grenades, body armor and night vision goggles. "They did not come here with a pure heart," says U.S. brigade commander Col. Bill Mayville. "Their objective is to create an environment that can be used by Turkey to send a large peacekeeping force into Kirkuk."
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments | 4/25/2003 9:22 AM
|
|
The Effect of the War
David Warren writes a thoughtful piece on a difficult subject. While it resembles a psychoanalysis of the Arab mind, it is rather a good (admittedly hopeful) analysis of the effect that this extraordinary war has had on their perception of themselves, of their leaders, and, most important, of the lies that have been revealed. In a way, this is the real shock and awe! What this portends for the future of the whole region, including Iran, Syria, and the Palestine-Israeli road map toward peace, is not yet perfectly clear. Yet, it must be admitted that the situation is much more hopeful than ever before. Let the new international politics of the twenty-first century begin.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [4] | 4/24/2003 2:01 PM
|
|
The U.N. and the Oil-for-Food Program
It seems to me that if this Claudia Rosett op-ed in the New York Times is true, it is perfectly understandable why the U.N. doesn’t want to end the oil for food program and the sanctions against Iraq: The UN itself (never mind France, et al) is profiting greatly from its existence.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments | 4/23/2003 4:46 PM
|
|
Gingrich’s AEI Speech is Over the Top
Newt Gingrich gave a talk at AEI yesterday that was highly tauted. You got the impression that he was going to have something important to say. I saw part of the speech, and read it all. I am mystified why people think this was a great speech. See, for example, Jonah Goldberg’s praise of it. But even worse is Frank Gaffney’s boundless intemperance in saying that it "may be one of the most important foreign-policy addresses by a former national leader since Winston Churchill warned in March 1946 that ’an iron curtain has descended across the Continent.’" This is way over the top.
It seems to me that although the State Department can be criticized on a variety of grounds, it absolutely cannot be criticized simply the way Gingrich does. Or, if it can be so criticized, it is, in fine, a criticism of the President himself. And that is both wrong and politically dangerous. Is Gingrich (and some so called conservatives) now willing to take on the President and his very succesfull foreign policy (of which war making is only a part) by relentlessly and comprehensively criticizing the State Department? What kind of suicidal mission are these guys on? Or, it is possible that I am missing something having to do with some kind of petty inter-office wars within the beltway. But if it’s only that than Gingrich ought to be ashamed of himself for creating an inside-the-administration-war at a time when that administration is about to conduct some very, very serious diplomacy in order to further its foreign policy agenda. I think that Gingrich is either a fool, or a knave, or is being used by some for highly imperfect ends. If I am wrong, you should let me know.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [219] | 4/23/2003 1:32 PM
|
|
James McPherson KO’d by Thomas Sowell
What’s worse than being the target of a critical op-ed by Thomas Sowell? Getting the one-two punch by Sowell in successive op-eds! Poor James McPherson--yep, the McPherson of Civil War historian fame--penned an essay for Perspectives entitled "Deconstructing Affirmative Action"
where he confesses his guilt over being a successful white historian.
Curiously, for penance he has chosen not to give up what he considers his ill-gotten gains, i.e., a job at an elite university at the expense of blacks who supposedly never had the same chance. No, he has decided instead to put his fame and reputation on the public line by authoring an editorial espousing the virtues of today’s affirmative action regime. In other words, his faux guilt has been followed up with faux penance, for how could one’s reputation be sullied by airing views perfectly in keeping with the conventional wisdom of the academic elite?
Thomas Sowell, a fellow member of the American Historical Society of which McPherson is the current president, delivered the knockout blows to McPherson’s lone pity party in "Quota ’Logic’" and
"Quota ’Logic’ Part II". If only McPherson would read them and weep.
Posted by Lucas Morel | Link to this Entry | Comments [7] | 4/23/2003 11:58 AM
|
|
Revoke Michael Moore’s Oscar?
It would appear that there is a growing movement to revoke the Oscar that Michael Moore won for his "documentary" Bowling For Columbine. According to the campaign’s supporters: "Bowling for Columbine violated the Academy’s own rules. These limit the documentary competition to nonfiction films. Bowling isn’t nonfiction. Whenever it was necessary to his theme, Moore invented facts, fabricated events, staged scenes, or doctored the depiction of what actually happened. When Heston, for example, gave a mild and concilliatory speech, Moore simply edited the footage (and inserted footage from a different speech a year later) to make it sound arrogant."
Posted by John Moser | Link to this Entry | Comments [4] | 4/23/2003 11:03 AM
|
|
The George Galloway Case
The Guardian runs an article that seems confirm the accusations against British MP George Galloway. And the British Government begins an investigation of his charities. The Telegraph reports that Galloway asked Saddam for even more money. Here is Andrew Sullivan: "The Labour Party starts an investigation into what it calls "extremely serious" allegations. FYI: The Treason Act 1351 is still active, making it a crime, punishable by life in prison to ’be adherent to the king’s [now queen’s] enemies in his realm or elsewhere’. If he’s guilty, send him to the Tower!"
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 4/23/2003 9:07 AM
|
|
What the French think now
According to this article in the Christian Science Monitor a growing number of people in France are beginning to wonder whether Chirac’s government was right to oppose the war against Saddam Hussein.
Posted by John Moser | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 4/23/2003 8:09 AM
|
|
Death, taxes, and . . . affirmative action?
In Peter Kirsanow’s aptly titled column for National Review, "The Never-Ending Story,"the newest member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission wonders aloud if there is any end in sight for affirmative action. He reminds us that two recent circuit court cases disagree over the question of the duration of affirmative action policies: specifically, must they be of "finite duration" to pass muster under the "narrowly tailored" portion of the Supreme Court’s strict scrutiny test?
Will the high court take the opportunity this term to resolve this discrepancy at the lower court level? Although the Court has not applied a duration threshold in affirmative action cases involving education, O’Connor and Scalia raised it during the recent oral arguments on the University of Michigan’s preferential admissions policies.
Given the complexity of the lower court rulings and the hundreds of "friend of the court" briefs filed in the Michigan cases, the Court’s decision is not expected until their term ends in late June. By then we’ll know if July 4th should be an occasion to celebrate the truth that all men are created equal, or simply a great day for burning firecrackers!!!
Posted by Lucas Morel | Link to this Entry | Comments [3] | 4/22/2003 10:44 PM
|
|
