Blog entries are in chronological order

November 2:  American politics has been raucous lately.  An indictment of Dick Cheney's chief of staff (and a lot of evidence that others were involved, including the VP), a secret closed door session of the Senate forced upon the GOP by Democrats demanding a more thorough analysis of the intelligence leading to the war -- was it cooked or misused? -- and a Supreme Court nominee, Judge Samuel Alito.  That has the left up in arms, and the right cheering, as they see him as superior to Miers. 

I think that the Senate should put politics aside on both the Supreme Court and the Iraq issues, and focus on the facts.   I have no problem with Alito being confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court, even though I would not have chosen him.  He's qualified, has integrity, and frankly, I don't think this process should be politicized.  I think what happened to Miers was disgusting, but it's over.  On Iraq, the Senate has to take its role as the check and balance to the Presidency seriously.  Institutional duty has to rise above partisanship.  It shouldn't matter if the President is Republican or Democrat, the Senate should investigate thoroughly any possibility that there has been misdeeds and dishonesty, especially in a run up to war.  Not doing so only increases suspicion, and makes it look like politics trumps everything. 

But if things are crazy here, Germany's coalition negotiations are bizarre.  In a surprise move, Franz Muentefering resigned his position as party chair -- a move that even Muentefering himself did not expect.  He had expected his choice for SPD General Secretary to be approved, but a party left winger with a reputation for fiery straight talk, Andrea Nahles.  That loss was something that in essence demanded the party chair resign, which was unexpected, right in the middle of negotiations for the grand coalition.  Matthias Platzeck of Brandenburg is set to take over the SPD, and Nahles might even become Vice Chair rather than the less important General Secretary position.   However, many in the party disagree with that, saying that she shouldn't be rewarded for betraying Muentefering.

The SPD is apparently in chaos, but it's probably a very good thing in the long run.  Schroeder is gone, and there is a need for a generational shift.  Muentefering and Schroeder (who had harsh words for Nahles) hoped it be a gradual shift, but now things are moving fast.  I wonder of Schroeder is regretting his decision not to be actively involved in the new government; he may have been able to prevent this kind of rebellion.  The SPD now could even be able to cooperate with the new Linkspartei down the line, as Nahles represents a group that was not happy with the centrism of Schroeder, and could find it easier to be more friendly to Lafontaine.  I doubt this will torpedo negotiations for a Grand Coalition (though who knows?), but it's less clear how stable it would be.  The CDU/CSU may even find the disruption within the SPD as an opportunity should new elections be called to win outright.  But it's clear Germans want the Grand Coalition to work, so I think it will be tried.

But...Edmund Stoiber of the CSU suddenly decided not to be in the cabinet, and instead will remain Bavaria's minister President.  Some in the CSU are angry about this, as it stops a debate about his replacement, and throws that party in minor disarray.  For now, Schroeder and Muentefering, along with Stoiber and Merkel, continue the negotiations. 

Meanwhile, October was the deadliest month in Iraq since January for American military personel, and the conflict looks as intense and intractable as ever.    November may be an interesting month on a number of political fronts.

November 4:  Today in my class "The International System," we were to discuss Marxian theory for this unit on international relations theory.  But we got a lot of neo-Marxian analysis in the first unit on the international political economy, so instead I decided to ask the question of how theory affects politics, and why is it that Marxian revolutions almost always lead to repression, economic weakness, and often mass killing.  That clearly is not what Marx had in mind with his vision of a society free of exploitation and having no need for a government.  It certainly isn't what revolutionaries have in mind when they overthrow the old system.

It was an interesting discussion.  My own view is that Marxism, by embracing a collectivist and structuralist view of society creates a pre-disposition to ignore individuals in favor of the greater good, in changing society.  Thus repression and killing are easier to rationalize, if leaders think that's necessary to create the 'better' system for all.  Moreover, while liberalism (meaning here capitalism and democracy -- both Republicans and Democrats in the US tend to be ideologically liberal) benefits those already in power (corporations, businesses, economic elites), Marxism is meant to benefit those without power (the workers, the impoverished).  That means that to succeed the revolutionaries must forcefully destroy the ability of those with power to exercise.  That can only be done by creating a massive centralized government after the revolution to undertake a complete remaking of power relations.  Massive centralized governments have the capacity to abuse power, and the ideology gives them the incentive.

This doesn't mean liberalism is right either.  Capitalism makes errors in ignoring the ability of powerful economic actors to use that to create structural benefits to their class, and often closes their eyes to issues of social justice, environmental problems, sweat shops, etc.  While Marxism leads to an uncritical appraisal of governmental power, liberal capitalism often leads to an uncritical appraisal of the power of 'big money.'  Marxists often define government as simply wanting to bring the best to the people, liberal capitalists define big business as part of a market that somehow will bring the best result to the people.  Big governments have a monopoly of power, and almost always can do far more direct damage that the diffuse economic power of big money.

To be sure, there are few radical capitalists -- so called 'capitalist libertarianism' is irrelevant.  And most neo-Marxians these days recognize the errors of the old Marxist revolutionaries.  But there is a fundamental problem inherent in each: a belief that somehow their ideology gives them an objectively true understanding of reality.  They believe they have the right answer.  That is likely one of the most dangerous beliefs one can have.  By that I don't mean no one should ever believe they are right about anything; rather, a belief that you have an 'ism' that explains the entire world and how it operates is an absurd belief, but far too common.  Ideologies and theories are simplifications of reality, and thus have gaps in what they consider and can explain.  To raise them to the level of a secular religion is a kind of insanity it seems to me.

Marxist revolutions and their aftermaths provide the most poignant evidence for the danger of ideological jihadism.  The problems of liberal capitalism are real too, if not as devastating.  You can see them in the maldistribution of wealth and the problems of poverty and exploitation.  The solution to this is not to find a better or right "ism," it's to recognize that ideology cannot give you the right answer.  The world is complex and ideologies provide different interpretations and glimpses of various aspects of human existence.  People want an "answer key" for how the world works and what is the right thing to do.  Such an "answer key" does not exist, and the belief one has found one can be extremely dangerous. 

November 9:  On this day in 1918 a Republic was proclaimed in Germany, marking the end of the Wilhelmine Reich.  In 1923 on this date, Adolf Hitler's "Beer hall putsch" failed, putting Hitler in prison, and causing him to decide to pursue a political path to power.  On this date in 1938 "Kristallnacht" took place, where Nazis terrorized Jews and destroyed Jewish shops, starting the intense violence that would lead to the holocaust.  And on this date in 1989 the Berlin wall was rendered irrelevant as a series of miscommunications and misunderstandings led to a surprising opening of the wall, leading ultimately to the end of the communist bloc and even the Soviet Union. 

What a date in German history!  And European politics has some drama this year.

 It's been 16 years since the Berlin wall "fell," and tensions in Germany between East and West remain.  Lothar Bisky, of the Linkspartei, formerly the PDS, was rejected as being one of the Bundestag's Vice Presidents -- usually every party represented gets one -- due to his ties with the old East German regime.  Yet while party leader Gregor Gysi laments this attack on the East, Angela Merkel of former East Germany is set to become Chancellor, and Matthias Platzeck of Brandenburg (also in the east) will replace Franz Muentefering as leader of the SPD.  With two "Ossis" in leading roles in the main parties, the ability of the Linkspartei to continue to dominate politics in the East may start to fade.  To be sure, people thought in 1990 that the PDS was a short term phenomenon, and the result in September was pretty impressive.  Ultimately the SPD and the old PDS (with Lafontaine's western leftists) may have to find a way to work together.  Still, economic and cultural divisions persist. 

Elsewhere in Europe, France has been beset by riots reflecting extreme dissatisfaction of the French immigrant community over their marginalization and often ghettoization.  France has been unable to integrate its minorities.  Add to that the anger and radicalization that has occurred due to events in the Mideast, and you have a dangerous new element in the mix.  Ultimately, the question is not if France (and the rest of Europe -- this is a wake up call to the continent) can integrate immigrants, but how to do it.  Due to globalization (and of course the continuing long term after effects of colonialism), there is no way to avoid being a multicultural society; the far right and their xenophobia is anachronistic, those days are gone, you can't wish to have some kind of pure ethnic community.  They can do it, but it will take a real political and cultural effort at incorporation and dialogue after the riots are put down.  It's a challenge to the French Republic -- a challenge they inevitably would have to face even if the riots hadn't broken out at this time -- and to Europe.   If they can handle this, they'll emerge stronger as a continent. 

In Great Britain, Tony Blair's position is brought into question after he lost a bill to allow the government to detain terror suspects for up to 90 days without pressing charges.  It is likely that instead a 28 day limit will be approved.   Many Labour party members joined the Conservatives to oppose Blair's proposal, and Blair even called back Ministers from abroad and prepared for a very close vote (he lost by about 30 votes).  In Great Britain, it is an immensely significant event when a Prime Minister declares a vote of fundamental importance, and then loses the support of his own party.  This is the kind of thing which could result in a Blair resignation well before his scheduled departure in 2009.   The Conservatives are in the process of chosing between David Davis and David Cameron to lead their party.  So depending on how Blair responds to this defeat, British politics could also become a bit confusing!    

November 11:  Politics is the US is undergoing a shift, one which potentially can be as big as the post-Vietnam era, or at the very least the 1994 Republican "revolution" brought about by a mix of an unpopular President Clinton and a clear message from the GOP.  There is not only a change in the political fortunes of the parties, but the attitude of people to things such as the war in Iraq, how we deal with terrorism, trust in the government, and what issues are important has been shifting.  Where is this going?

First, I think Iraq remains a central issue.  The war is no longer supported by the American public and, once such support is gone, it rarely if ever comes back.  There will be intense pressure from the Republicans in Congress to exit Iraq as soon as possible after the December 15 elections, essentially saying that "we've done all we can, it's now up to the Iraqis to succeed or fail."  That means that likely 2006 will be a year where troop levels in the region will be drawn down (assuming we don't do anything crazy like try to take over Syria or fight a war with Iran), and the discussion will grow more open about whether or not it was all a waste, worthwhile, or a mistake that was unavoidable given uncertainty over Saddam's WMD.  I suspect that this will really create more skepticism about the use of military power to try to change regimes or treat it as part of some abstract 'war on terror,' a kind of "Iraq syndrome" if you will. 

This probably will be a short term benefit to the Democrats, but the GOP could in a post-Bush era find a voice that accepts criticism of the Bush policies (or even joins in the criticism) but convinces the public that the Republicans are a more safe bet than the Democrats, especially Republicans who have learned the lessons from Iraq.  A lot of that will depend upon the Democrats offering coherent principled positions, and credible leaders.

Second, scandals are a wild card.  If the Libby scandal percolates, spreads to Rove or Cheney, and enmeshes the White House in problems throughout 2006, that could lead to a Democratic victory in at least one House in the fall, meaning that Congressional investigations can grow intense and intrusive (right now the GOP majority can keep them rather subdued).  That could further create scandal problems that would make a Democratic sweep in 2008 likely.  If the scandal is limited to Libby, then it's conceivable the GOP can put the damage behind by fall of 2006.  If we're leaving Iraq at a quick pace, the scandal is gone, and the economy doing well, the GOP has a good shot at protecting its Congressional majority.  Those are big "ifs," however.

Finally, the public is now more cynical, less fearful of terrorism (they recognize the threat, but now have it perspective), less swayed by nationalist rhetoric, and more willing to question government and its leaders than right after 9-11.  Moreover, problems of health care costs and budget deficits are as salient as ever, and the Democrats have pretty well driven home the message that tax cuts were for the rich so that it has become a "conventional wisdom" of American political discourse.  This means the GOP needs to shift in order to maintain its hold on power.  They need new faces and a new approach.  I think they recognize this too (the Democrats needed that in 2000, but didn't really recognize it because Clinton was popular and the economy hot -- it could be a blessing in disguise for the GOP that Bush's popularity collapsed and war support eroded long enough in advance to get out of Iraq and rethink the party's strategy before 2008).

The Democrats have the best opportunity, however.  If they develop a coherent approach (similar to the GOP "Contract" in 1994), they can use the problems facing the administration to their advantage with a coherent and clear "it's time for a change" message.  The fact the GOP controls all of the government means that the "liberals" can't really be blamed for anything -- the Republicans are responsible for governance of the last five years.  The 'feel' of the country is similar to 1994; discontent with the leadership (at that time the Democrats controlled everything), desire for a change in direction, and a dash of cynicism.  Different of course is the Iraq problem; if that festers or the US isn't able to leave next year, that could be a disaster for the GOP. 

I could ramble on, but class time is approaching and I have my 'real job' to do.  Have a good weekend!

November 14:  Today is busy (even forgot to eat breakfast -- something I noticed when I suddenly felt light headed towards the end of my second class), so it'll be a short entry today.  It's a bit disturbing to hear that the CIA has secret "detention facilities" in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, where suspected al qaeda members can be interrogated, presumably without anyone knowing about the methods used.  That, combined with the effort by Vice President Cheney to remove anti-torture provisions from Senate bills creates an ominous possibility that we engaged in the kind of brutal behavior for which we condemn other states.

Torture doesn't work; people might be made to talk, but what they say is usually not credible.  If they are suffering they'll say anything to get you to stop.  Disciplined fighters will say the wrong thing or manage to stay quiet; those not disciplined may lack knowledge and make something up in order to end the ordeal.  Second, even the hint of the possibility creates a horrid PR disaster for a United States needing friends in the Arab world.  If we talk about values and respect for human rights, making it the reason we intervene, but our actions deny those values, who can help but have a cynical view of our motives? 

But, one might argue, do terrorists really deserve better?  After all, they plot to kill civilians!  The problems with this kind of 'argument from emotion' are twofold; first, we shouldn't measure the ethics of our behavior relative to the ethics of a terrorist.  Second, such an argument contains a presumption of guilt, a belief that if the government captured them and calls them terrorist suspects, then they must be terrorists.  Such a presumption is also contrary to our stated values.

Effective interrogation techniques do not require torture, there is no reason that the Bush White House shouldn't aggressively support anti-torture measures, and send a clear message that we do act according to our values.  Only if we can be convincing on that front do we have a chance to convince people in the region that Americans do not wish them ill and do not want to simply exploit them for oil.   We must not be hypocritical.  All for today!

November 16:  Today I'll add to my power and governance series: Is it a Particle or a Wave?

If anyone is reading my other 'series,' there are sections there where I talk about modern physics, including the realization from about a century ago that light is both a particle and a wave.  In fact, all matter has both wave like and particle like properties, you just can't capture both at the same time.  Although that raises really interesting issues about the nature of reality, for this series I'll use it as a metaphor for the way in which freedom and justice seem to be contradictory, but are really complimentary.

When quantum mechanics first dealt with the particle or wave dilemma, it seemed like this was a contradiction; light (or matter, ultimately) cannot be both a particle and a wave, these are two different things.  Photons exhibit wave properties in a double slit experiment even if they are done one at a time, with a long distance between them -- you can't see photons creating waves in the same way water molecules might.  Niels Bohr argued that rather than being contradictory, these things were complimentary; you can't understand reality without recognizing that light (and again ultimately all energy and matter) was both a wave and a particle. 

In social science this is analogous to the agent/structure problem.  If you look at a situation and ask "why did this person become successful or why did this policy get undertaken," and you look for the actions and motives of individuals to give you the answer, you'll get a perfectly good reductionist agent-based explanation.  If you more broadly ask "why is it that poverty tends to persist in certain geographic areas or among certain groups," you'll end up with a good structural answer which looks at how ones' position in society constrains and empowers.  Is society a collective entity which constructs individuals and perhaps even provides them with interests and shapes their perspective, or are individuals builders of society, with their choices creating the overall outcome? 

If you look for structural solutions you'll find them; if you look to individual explanations, you'll find those.  Of course, unlike quantum mechanics, we have access to investigating how these two interact, or as constructivists say, agents and structures are 'mutually constituted,' (you can use Bohr's complementarity principle as the metaphor here).   While one might be able to fantasize that someone could be left completely alone, and somehow manage to survive without a society (though clearly in the early years someone else would be needed), that person would not have any language, thoughts would be very subjectively formed based on experience, and likely the person would seem almost inhuman to us; psychologists would expect a myriad of psychological problems too.  But to ignore the individual in looking at society dismisses the spark of creativity and drive that propel humans to choose and do.

This also can be compared to science: Newtonian classical physics had a deterministic universe, whereby if you knew where everything was and how they were moving, you theoretically could predict ad infinitim into the future.   Modern physics destroyed that, though Newtonian physics still works.  Structuralism is deterministic, but recognition of human will and choice breaks that determinism, but doesn't render the concept of structure meaningless.  We are discrete individuals with identity, and we are part of a structured society.

Freedom and justice are also linked.  One might think that to get justice you have to deny freedom; to assure that the poor get a chance for an education, you may have to tax the rich, supposedly denying them the freedom to use their wealth as they see fit.  But in reality, the wealth of the rich person and the poverty of the poor person are in part structural; the rich person has achieved wealth due to his or her position in society and how he or she has become part of society.   Structural injustice creates a lack of individual freedom; structural advantage means privilege.  By taxing the rich person one isn't necessarily denying freedom, but rather removing part of an inherent structural advantage that gives the person power beyond that which true individual freedom would grant.   

Thus: freedom and the quest for social justice are not contradictory.  Stating this in the abstract is, however, very easy compared to trying to figure out what it means in the real world of complex society and politics. 

November 17:  The Bush Quagmire?  Is the Bush Presidency in its own political quagmire, and is there a way out?

President Bush's job approval ratings have reached new low of only 34%.  That is the lowest level of a modern President since Richard Nixon, who reached 29% in 1974 before he resigned.  (Harris poll, as reported in the Wall Street Journal).  Vice President Cheney has 30% approval, and I guess the only good news for them is that the Congressional Republicans (27%) and Democrats (25%) each have even lower approval ratings.

This is a potential crisis for the White House if they want to accomplish anything significant in their last three years, or if they want to gain support for his policies in Iraq.  A President cannot be effective at this level of unpopularity; people will not support sending people to fight and die if they question the President's trustworthiness.  Most people also believe Iraq was a mistake now; the President is in trouble.  Is there a way out?

The answer is yes, but it will involve changing some long standing patterns.  Consider the reaction to recent criticism by Democrats (and some Republicans) on the war.  The President and the Vice President each sharply criticized critics as being "reprehensible" and "deeply irresponsible" in questioning whether or not the administration misled us to war.  They claim the people who are making that charge often voted for authorization to go to war, and thus are hypocrites.  That's not a very good tactic.  First, it reinforces the idea that the administration is petty and mean, and unable to take criticism.  That perception is part of their problem.  Second, it doesn't really address the issue, since most people who supported the war did so on the basis of administration provided evidence.  Their claim is that they supported the war because they were misled; you can't refute that by citing their support at the time!  Other voices on the right are claiming the Democrats are "undercutting America's will to fight" and "weakening the President in a time of war," but that kind of rhetoric is increasingly ineffective.  Most Americans have real questions, and don't think that something like the conflict in Iraq is something the country has a duty to rally around.  Third, many Republicans are joining in the criticism; the President risks greater internal party division if he goes attacks his critics,  further making it unlikely he can accomplish much during the rest of his term.

What the President has to do first of all is embrace reality and cast aside all political spin.  Only in this way can he regain the trust of the people.  He has to state clearly that we won a war in Iraq in 2003, but that winning the peace has been more difficult than he and others anticipated.  He has to admit that they may have been too hasty in believing unclear intelligence in part because of a desire not only to rid Saddam of WMD, but because they wanted to spread democracy in the Mideast.  He needs to state why he wanted to do that, that he felt that terrorism was a new kind of threat that can't be defeated by military means alone, but only through replacing corrupt dictatorships in the region with democratic and accountable governments -- political systems that remove the incentive for terrorism and violence.

At that point he needs to look the public in the eye and admit that things did not go as planned.  He can note that in a complex world you can't predict for certain what will happen, and at the time he believed it worth the risk.  But he has to clearly acknowledge that their assumptions were wrong, and that this lead to a miscalculation which has created a very difficult situation where if the US leaves, Iraq risks becoming a terrorist haven, and if the US stays, we could be drawn into a long insurgency where our presence aids extremists in recruitment, and which could drain our country's resources.  At that point, he has the potential to not only regain the public trust, but even gain support. 

He could then switch gears and note that terrorism is still a threat; the issues that faced us in 2001 are still real, and we cannot allow Iraq to be a distraction, we cannot allow internal disagreements to prevent us from seeing the common goal -- a goal he shares with even the most vocal critics of the war.  He could then lay out a plan to both find a way out of Iraq, and develop a long term international counter-terrorism strategy.  He could challenge the international community to cooperate, but do so in a way that is not "our way or no way," but one where "our common interests are at stake" and we will work as "true partners."  This could even bring on board greater help with Iraq.  As we pull out of Iraq after the December elections (and that probably is the only feasible strategy), there could be broader attempts to support the Iraqi government and pressure regional powers who are in a position to assure stability in Iraq (or foster instability), especially Syria and Iran.

In short, President Bush needs to recognize that his administration overestimated American power and the ability to use it to shape political outcomes.  He needs to make a "Nixonian adjustment" to American foreign policy, shifting from the hawkish idealism his administration has in common with the earlier Kennedy/Johnson administrations to a more realist assessment of America's interests and capacities.   In 1968 Johnson couldn't do that; we needed a change in Administrations.  The measure of Bush's Presidency may be whether or not he has what it takes to admit an error and make the needed adjustment.

At the same time, I don't think the President needs to lose his commitment to "spreading democracy."  His method may have failed, but his premise was probably correct: corrupt dictatorships in the region foster resentment, anger and extremism.  Helping them move to a democracy that reflects their own culture and values is the only solution.  And though military power is of limited value, and shifting of focus now might allow the President to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, and an international effort not focused on military battles with the insurgents might actually improve the chances that Iraq will become a true democracy.  Maybe it won't be the model that will immediately pressure others in the region as was believed in 2002.  Maybe it won't have the kind of US permanent military presence that was hoped for, but it could still end up being a positive outcome if the right choices are made.

The hardest choice is for the President to change direction, and be totally honest and straight with the American people.  Such a shift, given all the politics involved, is very difficult, people want to avoid doing such a thing.  But if he has the courage to do that, he may be able to not only shift course in Iraq, but save the last three years of his Presidency.  Staying the course isn't going to work -- neither on the Euphrates nor on the Potomac.

November 21:  Tangentopoli was the name Italians gave to the scandal that destroyed their political regime in the early nineties, and arguably brought them a better, if still imperfect, democratic system.  It means "bribe city," and it started with what appeared to be a minor investigation to one that first engulfed the whole of the PSI led by Bettino Craxi, and ultimately the other major parties. 

Could that happen here?  Consider this story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/politics/20lobby.html?ex=1290142800&en=b7550c05e3dd13b0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Officially the story is about one lobbyist, Abramoff, and his ties to Tom Delay and Republican legislators.  But Democrats probably should not celebrate too quickly because once you start digging, it's inevitable that the misdeeds of both sides come out, and it's a fallacy to think that the any one party is morally or ethically superior to the other.  All have good people, all have bad people, and all people, even good ones, are potentially corruptible.  I have no idea where this is going, but it may ultimately be a bigger scandal than the Scooter Libby indictment.

And what about Iraq?  Latest polls show a majority of Americans want to withdraw either now or within the next twelve months, and Iraq is reportedly a "cloud that hangs over everything" in DC.  It is, frankly, impossible for a democracy to continue to send people to fight and die if it lacks basic support at home.  Furthermore, once support for a war like this is lost, it doesn't come back.  To me that makes it self-evident that the US will be pulling out -- perhaps not completely, but significantly -- after the December elections.  It's not if we're going to leave, but when and how.  That wasn't decided by the President, nor was it caused by the Democrats who have rather cautiously (some would say meekly) followed public opinion.  The cause is a judgment by the American people that this isn't working and something needs to change.  And, whether or not one agrees with the public judgment, that is a strength of democracy: ultimately, the people make the call.

In Iraq itself there was some optimism that the terrorist "master mind" Zarquawi was killed in an attack, though that now looks unlikely.  People need to remember too that for every "master mind" killed, a new one is ready to take the lead.  Killing a few bad guys, even a Bin Laden, isn't enough to stop terrorism or an Iraqi insurgency that is mostly not al qaeda but driven by Sunni ethnic groups.  Other news from Iraq isn't so good.   Reports are that ethnic fighting is growing, and that multi-ethnic cities are segregating, which is often a sign of impending civil war.  The US continues to be hurt by mistakes whereby civilians are killed; understandable militarily, but of intense propaganda value to the insurgents and other extremists.  That underscores the problem; peace and stability can't come to Iraq through military force.  The military could easily get rid of Saddam, but the problem of nation/democracy-building is multi-faceted and likely to take years.   This is true throughout the region, and hopefully the violence in Iraq doesn't lead to regional unrest.

Finally, Israel is going to have elections early next year, as the new leader  Amir Peretz has moved to take Labour out of the government, denying Sharon's Likud party of a majority.  Peretz seeks to bring Israel back to its roots as a country based on ethics, humanism, and reason, and is known to favor returning the West Bank to the Palestinians.  He has won surprise elections in the past, and some think he may be a political earthquake for the Israeli system.  Peres (who lost to Peretz in the battleship to lead Labour) and Likud's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon may end up splitting from their parties to form a moderate "middle" party, as Likud's rank and file are upset by Sharon's policies in Gaza.  What all of this ultimately will mean, of course, is unclear.  At the very least it will yield a real debate in Israel about how to proceed, and potentially could help break the current impasse.  The problem, however, will be to figure out how to bring Palestinian groups like Hamas into line, and that's not something any Israeli government can solve on its own.

November 22:  I had planned to write a "what I'm thankful for" bit today, but a news story caught my eye:

Note this article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1882607,00.html

Probably they had every reason to be worried about the van, and acted out of a belief something was amiss -- because quite often erratic driving could be a sign of a suicide bomber.  If warnings were missed or misunderstood, soldiers likely feared for their lives, knowing that others had been killed for not being vigilant enough.  Attempts to blame the soldiers are misguided, they are also victims of a policy which puts them in an horribly difficult situation.

But a dead three year old. A dead two year old. A dead one year old.  Imagine if that was your family, if your children were gunned down by foreign troops in your country? How would you feel? How do you think this plays in Iraq and the Arab world? Isn't this precisely the kind of thing that the extremists and terrorists gleefully (glee, since they don't care about civilian life) grab on to and show their publics, helping them recruit by building anger?

The van was driving "erratically." Three children that age, no car seats, yeah, as a father I can imagine how you might get distracted if your children are being rambunctious or asking for things. As a father I can imagine what it would be like to see my children gunned down, their lives taken away, looking up as the are bleeding, saying "daddy, help," while soldiers come and pull me away. I suspect not everyone can imagine that. They don't let themselves. They don't let themselves think about the reality of what fighting in Iraq means in human terms -- the good and the bad. It's easier to simply rationalize it, say "it's war," and hide behind some stereotyped view that Iraqis aren't really 'people like us,' and thus it doesn't matter. It matters.  Their children are as valuable as ours.

And it also shows why we're doomed to fail in Iraq -- using force to bring  stability means more of this, which only enhances the power of the insurgents call to arms. After the December elections in Iraq we need to come home. Iraq is now for the Iraqis to build.

November 28:  This will be another quick entry, as today is a hectic day after a long weekend, full of meetings, grading, etc.  But there is good news about Iraq.  The Democrats and the Bush Administration seem to be getting on the same page in wanting a major pull out next year.  The Bush Administration will claim this was their plan all along, the Democrats will claim the lack of support for the President forced him to shift focus, but either way it is good news.  The reality is that the Iraq war was a policy failure.  It was a policy given support by Republicans and Democrats, so neither party can wash its hands or blame the other for what happened.  But both need to learn its lessons.

It was a failure because it simply did not achieve policy objectives.  It has weakened the US, has not given a major impetus for democracy in the region, has not pressured Iran or Syria (in fact it's given them a way to put pressure on the US), and the US will not likely have Iraq as a close military ally, willing to quickly recognize Israel (the Palestinian issue will have to be solved first).  It hasn't aided the war on terrorism -- quite the contrary, it has been a recruitment boon for extremists -- and it has really hurt America's interests.  The US has been wounded by the debates on torture, Abu Graib, memos claiming that the President had to be talked out of bombing Al-Jeezera by Tony Blair, secret CIA prisons, and a host of scandals that emerged from this.  Anti-Americanism is higher world wide (especially amongst allies) than ever before, with a bad impact on everything from tourism to American business.  It has isolated us internationally, and as much as people want to diss the French or claim that we don't need to be popular, this has real consequences on America's ability to be effective on the world stage.

However, I'm not going to get into the Bush bashing.  There are real scandals out there, and he is politically weakened.  But the fact is that we have to learn from this, and recognize that this is not primarily about partisan politics but about understanding how American power can effectively be used in trying to build a better world, and what kinds of actions are counter-productive.  This policy turned into a fiasco, and both sides need to learn from that (Clinton's mistakes in Kosovo did not cause such a learning process, we need to start learning!)  There will be a kind of "Iraq syndrome" in the coming years, the American public won't have stomach for this kind of thing again.  But that's reactionary, it isn't really based on understanding the lessons and making long term policy adjustments to reflect what this case teaches us.  Perhaps I'll start a third series on "Learning from Iraq," to go through and try to figure out the lessons of what happened in Iraq, including what worked, even though overall that was overshadowed by what failed.

We have a responsibility as a major world power to have a policy that is effective both at supporting our national interest, but also at trying to create a stable world with respect for human rights.  Some thought eliminating Saddam's regime and creating a democracy in Iraq was self-evidently a good thing in that regard, and they had reason to believe that.  But policies have consequences that are unintended, and even what seems to be a good idea (removing a brutal thuggish dictator) can end up creating problems worse than the one solved.  This is something we all -- Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Libertarian, Green, whatever -- need to think seriously about, not from the standpoint of partisanship, but with an eye to making sure we have the best foreign policy possible going forward.

November 30:  Alas, the perfect snow covering has now given way to mud and rain.  But more snow will come!

I was disappointed with President Bush's new "victory strategy" in Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/30/us.iraq/index.html

I had hoped that recent statements from the White House indicated that they recognized that the current policy has not worked, and that we need to think about what needs to be done differently in order to leave (like the American people are demanding) and succeed (failure would be costly).  I was hoping that he would initiate bi-partisan talks with frank assessments of the errors made, recognizing that since he is not running for re-election, there is no need to play politics with this.  The speech today fell short.  It was rhetorical, contained few new ideas, and no real attempt to rethink strategy and define a solution other than somehow creating stability with Iraqis able to take over.  The problem is that this result requires dealing with a variety of political issues which are complex, and cannot be solved through military action or even training an Iraqi military.

Still, reality cannot be ignored.  The American public are not likely to suddenly get on board for a long term presence in Iraq, and the problems over there can't be solved with PR.  My hope is that this is the "PR track" of a policy correction, but that there will be some major shifts in coming weeks about the nature of the problem and how to pull off a successful withdrawal.  This is a very important time for US policy.  Anti-Americanism is at an all time high, our prestige is weak, and our military shown to have severe problems as well.  I don't think most Americans really comprehend the depths to which our international reputation has fallen, even amongst close allies.  I don't think people here realize how seriously the rest of the world takes issues like secret prisons, torture, the idea to bomb al jeezera and the continuing instability in Iraq.

As a nation, we're at a cross roads.  The choices made in the next few years will be very important for our future standing in the world, and our ability to have an effective foreign policy.  We have to confront core dilemmas, make value judgments, think about what "works" and what doesn't in foreign affairs, and come to grips with the challenges that face, challenges that go beyond the partisan games that seem to dominate.  So, maybe rather than start a series on just the lessons from the Iraq war, I'll incorporate that into a series about the challenges to American foreign policy (maybe beginning that next semester when that course starts). 

Well, I'd planned on continuing the "Science and belief" series (which got stealthily renamed awhile back)  today, but I think I'll put that off to tomorrow.