Why is this all goofy looking? Probably because your browser doesn't support stylesheets or you have an old stylesheet. Try hitting reload or upgrade your browser today.
fatmixx iconFatMixx Logo
Check out Coolspotters!
Advertising
Latest Featured Video

Found this via Brea Grant’s blog. It’s a good song, and the rest of the album is pretty good. You can get the album, Re-arrange Us, on Amazon.com’s MP3 store. No DRM, just plain, high quality MP3 files.

(PS. Don’t forget to watch Brea Grant on Heroes in a few weeks, and check out other books and music she likes over at Coolspotters. And, no, I’ve got no connection to her, business or otherwise. Just a fan since I saw her on Friday Night Lights.)

11:53 am | leave a comment
Donate

Goal Thermometer

ad for kiva.org which facilitates microloans to small businesses around the world
Support CC - 2007
join EFF!
Advertisement

I miss reading Djerejian. This is the first new post in a long while and you’d do worse than to read him. This particular post articulates and argues a point that I’ve long maintained: terrorism is not the only foreign policy issue that requires expertise. For example, read the next article I’m going to link to. We have a former foreign service officer for Pakistan who apparently didn’t know that they consider India their primary threat. To which, the only response is WTF.

Beyond that, it’s clear that at a fundamental level, the Bush administration doesn’t understand how to lead vs. how to order countries around. The idea that these countries may not want to share our priorities escapes them too often. It was clear during the “axis of evil” construction during the run up to the Iraq War, and it’s clear today with the failures Djerejian cites in his article. China, India, Israel, Russia: they matter as much or more than terrorism in the long run.

1:12 pm | leave a comment

This seems like a technicality (McCain’s campaign said he “misspoke” and immediately corrected himself). Watch this, though. Joe Lieberman (Lieberman!) had to correct him in front of cameras because he kept making the same mistake in all the interviews while in Jordan. It wasn’t just one instance of mis-speaking. He has made this fundamental error repeatedly, and the political aspects of defeating terrorism are as important (or more important) than the military aspects of the campaign.

I’m with Kevin Drum, btw. Hillary has a golden opportunity to say that McCain isn’t qualified to answer the 3 A.M. call.

4:22 pm | leave a comment

TPM asks to list out successful counterinsurgency operations. It’s an interesting question, and one which should be talked about more. Read the list they have, and write them (or below) with suggestions of any other historical successes you can think of. They can’t think of any outside of the genocide models in Central and South America.

9:12 am | leave a comment

What will the next presidency be about? Foreign policy is obviously a central focus. Terrorism and Iraq, are front and center, with Iran, China, imports, moral authority and a myriad of other issues also in the picture. At the same time, we’re talking about healthcare, the rising costs of health insurance, prescriptions, and the rolls of the uninsured. It’s probably fair to say that a presidential candidate should have a decent grasp of both of these issues.

I know a few of my friends (and FatMixx readers) consider Rudy Giuliani as a satisfactory Republican candidate. He does seem to be a decent candidate on the surface. Mayor on 9/11, showed calm leadership in the scary days right after the attacks, and has stances on hot button issues that both infuriate and excite both Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, any time Giuliani has made any policy statement, he’s shown how shallow his candidacy really is.

On foreign policy issues, Giuliani wrote a piece for Foreign Affairs. It is a horrible piece, completely devoid of the understanding of the world stage, terrorism, and diplomacy that one would expect from a serious presidential candidate. Read the piece and then read some of the reaction around the web. Hilzoy, at Obsidian Wings, wrote a great piece summarizing her views and the reactions from various observers. It’s the best place to start for reactions and analysis, as she links to most of the major reporters and scholars writing on this.

Matt Yglesias has the best line:

The result is a chilling vision of a world where peace can only be achieved through American military domination

Fills you with longing for the days when Bush randomly insulted enemies with no intention of following through.

On the healthcare front, we have a healthcare speech that Ezra Klein, of The American Prospect, broke down. The headline of his piece: “A Man with a Non-Plan,” which about sums it up. It’s simply not serious, but calculated to shape his political message. I think the message is “low taxes! Democrats are socialists! Socialists I tells ya!” Or something like that.

So, read those pieces and then answer one question: Why would you vote for this guy?

11:23 pm | leave a comment

Two stories that again need to be presented as a pair to understand their full folly: Matt Yglesias dissects Giuliani’s essay in Foreign Affairs and Will Bunch worries that the Bush administration is trying to get the AUMF to apply to a potential conflict with Iran.

Read both. They’re lucid and enlightening.

After you do, you should come back and consider the following things that are running through my head as I read this. Policy lightweights like Giuliani, who talk tough without considering the consequences, scare the crap out of me. We don’t need more guys like Bush, we need folks who think about outcomes and consequences and actually want to understand what the results will be. Most the Democratic candidates show that care, but so far it seems none of the Republican candidates do. Is there any reason to be hopeful with any Republican candidates on foreign policy?

12:50 pm | 2 comments

The audio is a bit horrible (video camera, no remote mic) of Dodd making a campaign stop in Anamosa, Iowa. His answers are actually very, very good. I loved how he would’ve answered the question that started the recent Obama and Clinton spat and I do wish he had a chance to answer more questions (I agree with him on the futility of the debate). He is, in my opinion, the best balance of experience, knowledge, and leadership in the race right now. I would be proud to see him as my President.

Watch the whole thing, it’s worth it. The health care plan he mentioned is detailed on the ChrisDodd.com site.

7:06 pm | leave a comment

Short excerpt:

About six weeks ago, word first surfaced of a set of earlier, unofficial negotiations between Israel and Syria, which had resulted in a draft agreement between the two countries. The agreement provides for an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, most of which would then be turned into a park accessible (without visas) to both Syrians and Israelis. (Personally, I think this is a very imaginative solution.) It also provides for demilitarization of the border, Israeli control of water rights from the Sea of Galilee and the upper Jordan, and verification.

Ha’Aretz reports that the U.S. strongly opposed talks between Israel and Syria. It doesn’t make any sense beyond bullheadedness. The comments over at ObWi are also interesting… read them if you’re interested in these things.

10:58 pm | leave a comment

Good rundown of the deal reached with DPRK. Does Bush have any of his own original ideas? Or does he just borrow them all from Clinton?

(via Washington Monthly)

12:58 pm | leave a comment

Common consumer products that fuels conflict or large-scale environmental damage. Some were a surprise to me.

(via this site)

1:41 pm | leave a comment
The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam

The March of Folly looks like an interesting book. From Richard Clarke’s article in TNR’s “Iraq: What Next?” issue:

Still, President Bush insists on staying in Iraq, and it is easy to understand why. In The March of Folly, Barbara Tuchman documented repeated instances when leaders persisted in disastrous policies well after they knew that success was no longer an available outcome. They did so because the personal consequences of admitting failure would be very high. So they postponed the disastrous end to their policy adventures, hoping for a deus ex machina or to eventually shift the blame. There is no need to do that now. Everyone already knows who is to blame. It is time to stop the adventure, lower our sights, and focus on America’s core interests. And that means withdrawal of major combat units.

People really haven’t changed much over the years, and our leaders are, after all, people. Seems like it might be an interesting read. You can read more in the comments over at the Washington Monthly post where I found the links to the TNR article.

12:11 am | leave a comment

Olbermann might be the most courageous broadcaster on television after Stephen Colbert, as his criticism of the administration has always been fact based and unflinching. I just watched his editorial commentary about 9/11, the lack of a memorial on Ground Zero, and the administration in general and was floored. It is, by far, the most eloquent commentary I’ve seen from Olbermann.

I’ve excerpted a part below. Olbermann’s overall metaphor doesn’t necessarily work for me, but this section, the meat of this editorial, summarizes the pain and futility of this administration. I’ve written before that I also will never forgive or forget how this president destroyed that moment of unity after 9/11. It wasn’t just our nation but the world that was united, an improbable opportunity to change the world in the ashes of tragedy. It was the first time NATO invoked Article 5 of the treaty declaring our nation under attack. Le Monde ran the headline “We are all Americans now” and nearly every leader of every country expressed their support and sympathy.

In the years since, we have gone from neighbor to pariah, from “Nous sommes tous Américains” to Freedom Fries, and from chasing bin Ladin to chasing phantom WMD. As Olbermann eloquently points out, the President chose to use 9/11 as a wedge issue. It simply became a political tool that was used to badger Democrats into submission and to bolster numbers at the polls. Every time he invokes the memory of those that perished to pursue a domestic political agenda, every photo op, every claim that critics have “forgotten the lessons of 9/11″ cheapens their memory. It reduces them to props in a political game, and it’s despicable.

This is why, when the President speaks of bipartisanship, we should reflect upon the past five years and examine our “bipartisanship” moments on the most important issue of our time. Bipartisanship brought us the war in Iraq because of several deftly timed votes. Bipartisanship brought us zero accountability in government. When the President speaks of bipartisanship, he speaks only of bipartisanship that furthers his political agenda.

As he did today, the President will invoke bipartisanship in the weeks and months to come to stave off electoral losses. I hope all of us, Republicans, Democrats and Independents recognize that for what it is. Many incumbents, including our own Senator here in Connecticut, are joining the President’s chorus, hoping that claims of bipartisanship also absolve them of accountability. We owe it to ourselves and to our nation to vote for accountability. Hopefully, then, we can get the job done, both at Ground Zero and in the hills of Pakistan, wherever bin Ladin might be.

Here’s the section I mentioned. Watch the whole editorial. You won’t be sorry.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is, its symbolism — of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it… was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party — tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election — ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications — forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government, by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation’s wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President — and those around him — did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, “bi-partisanship” meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, “validate the strategy of the terrorists.”

They promised protection, and then showed that to them “protection” meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken… a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ’something to do’ with 9/11, is “lying by implication.”

The impolite phrase, is “impeachable offense.”

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space… and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible — for anything — in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced — possibly financed by — the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death… after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections… how dare you or those around you… ever “spin” 9/11.

1:03 am | 2 comments

Is the United States winning the war on terror? Not according to more than 100 of America’s top foreign-policy hands. They see a national security apparatus in disrepair and a government that is failing to protect the public from the next attack.

That’s from a Foreign Policy and CAP survey of 100 foreign policy experts, including former cabinet members, senior journalists, and researchers. You can add this to my rant from last night.

More discussion at Obsidian Wings.

7:11 pm | 1 comment

I’m tired, and I’m angry and I feel the need to link to Time’s cover story this week and point out that I called this 3 years ago.

Goddamn. If a guy with just an international relations undergrad degree who doesn’t have any professional experience in foreign policy or politics can see this, why can’t the administration? This rah-rah foreign policy garbage, what Time is now calling Cowboy Diplomacy and what once had the fancy name “The Bush Doctrine,” was hollow from the beginning. Of course, ignoring decades of foreign policy experience and thousands of years of policy wisdom from Sun Tzu to Kissinger to Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn Rule” would probably be bad. I mean, seems pretty obvious, right?

Yet people in 2004 bought this garbage, defended it as the right policy, and kept praising the president as a visionary. Well, it’s pretty clear that he completely screwed up every non-military phase of this policy. What does it take for people to take these dumb stickers off of their car? Do they still think he’s actually a good president? Take off the damn stickers, please!

And, yes, I’m aware of the list of logical fallacies in the “why can’t everyone else see this” line of thinking. I’m kidding about the stickers, but I’m frustrated that this President doesn’t get constantly reamed by the press and the pundit class.

2:17 am | leave a comment

After reading this post at Eschaton, I feel like he’s missing the point Michael Tomasky is making. From Atrios:

The belief that we’ll be mostly out of Iraq in 3 Friedmans is the compainon of the belief that things will get better in one Friedman. If I’m correct, as I think I am, there will not be significant troop reductions this year, or next year, or the following year. It’s possible there will be minor troop reductions, with perpetual promises of more to come between one and three Friedmans from “now,” but they plan to stay and while civil war rages they can’t stay with a small number of troops.

(A “Friedman” is about 6 months)

Atrios is wrong here. As Tomasky says in the original piece:

Ezra and Matt [and Atrios] are making the mistake of discussing substantive factors. You’ve surely learned by now that there is no substance with these people. There is only politics.

I’ve said it before, and Tomasky says it today: Domestic political considerations trump good foreign policy at every turn.

Atrios’s point, that the President wants to stay indefinitely, is probably true. The reality of the matter, though, is that his entire party is going to be up in arms if troops don’t start coming home soon because every poll shows Americans want them to come home. Bush has been spineless on every issue with the possible exception of immigration policy. Faced with any sort of opposition, the President simply shifts positions (dare I say, flip flops?) and finds a way to declare victory.

Which is exactly what Tomasky is predicting this time around. Past performance is an indicator of future performance with Bush, so the salient question is whether Bush cares about staying in Iraq the way he cares about immigration policy. I don’t think he does. Tomasky agrees. Atrios feels otherwise. Time will tell.

Of course, I might point out General Casey’s recent briefing to the President as leaked by anonymous “American officials.” I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the first troops come home in September (4-8 weeks before the midterm elections) and the drawdown will be complete by December 2007. Brace yourself.

10:30 pm | leave a comment

There is an excellent piece over at Obsidian Wings discussing how to get the decision to go to war right.. As I wrote in the comments there, the rules summarize how I think about these sorts of foreign policy questions. It’s necessary, but it requires thoughtfulness. There are some things about the set of rules together that’s bothering me, but each individual point makes very good sense.

In the end, it reminds me of the things we learned in college about foreign policy and international relations. Neoliberalism influenced, maybe? (I’m reaching back too far into a dark corner to get that right…)

Like Hilzoy and others, I got all three wars discussed “right,” at least in that the end result matched my estimation of the results. On the other hand, I think the outcome is, in part, dependent on the actual execution of the plan to go to war (both militarily as well as diplomatically). A key part of my hesitance with this war in Iraq was that the administration didn’t seem to be doing any of the due diligence required to actually prepare for war.

Critics of the U.S. involvement in Kosovo focus on our decisions to fight nearly the entire conflict from the air rather than on the ground. We also didn’t necessarily have the international community on our side, as we had to go to NATO to secure international sanction. Of course, at least we bothered getting international sanction.

Anyway, enough rambling. Go read this. It’s long, but worth it.

1:13 am | leave a comment