Last spring, I posted fairly regularly about college lacrosse. I did so from the Duke perspective and even rooted for the Blue Devils, something that, as a Maryland fan, I never thought I'd do. The reason, of course, was the persecution of the Duke lacrosse program by the University following the bogus rape charges against three Duke players.
Following the cancellation of their 2006 season, the Duke players were on a mission last year. However, they came up just a little short in the national championship game, losing a thrilling contest to Johns Hopkins.
This year, Duke received a huge and controversial boost when the players who were denied their 2006 season received an extra year of eligibility. Duke thus became the odds-on favorite for the title, and the team lived up to this billing with a great regular season that resulted in a number one seed in the NCAA tournament.
Not every Duke player used the extra year to play for Duke. Peter Lamade, the outstanding midfielder, is playing for the University of Virginia where he enrolled as a graduate student. UVA is seeded number two in the NCAA tournament.
This weekend, the tournament moves into the quarterfinal round. UVA, having narrowly survived its opening game against the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (an unduly tough opponent for the tournament's number two seed) will take on Maryland (College Park) as part of a doubleheader that also features Johns Hopkins against Navy. Attendance in Annapolis is expected to smash the record for a quarterfinal. Meanwhile, Duke probably will not have much trouble with Ohio State. Syracuse vs. Notre Dame completes the slate.
For me, regular service has been restored. In other words, I'll be rooting against the heavily favored Dukies throughout the tourney.
Obama's unrealistic realism
(06:32PM)
Today David Brooks asked Barack Obama to expand on his deep thoughts for dealing with Hezbollah. Obama seems to think that Hezbollah can be turned into a constructive force in Lebanon.
Brooks thinks Obama can't be as clueless as he appeared to be when he recently called on “all those who have influence with Hezbollah” to “press them to stand down” and declared: “It’s time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.”
This is what passes for sophistication among Democrats seeking to formulate a passable position that might purport to confront the threat posed by a genocidal terrorists. It is frankly pathetic.
Invited to take another pass at the topic by Brooks, Obama presents himself as a foreign policy realist. Brooks reports:
Right off the bat [Obama] reaffirmed that Hezbollah is “not a legitimate political party.” Instead, “It’s a destabilizing organization by any common-sense standard. This wouldn’t happen without the support of Iran and Syria.”
So why is Obama reaching out to offer unconditional negotiations with Iran and Syria, but not their tools in Hezbollah? Brooks doesn't ask and Obama doesn't say. Is the problem here really something that calls for a dose of good government? Brooks adds:
I asked him what he meant with all this emphasis on electoral and patronage reform. He said the U.S. should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites “to peel support away from Hezbollah” and encourage the local populace to “view them as an oppressive force.” The U.S. should “find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services.”
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”
It's nice to know that Obama has a "root causes" approach to dealing with terrorism. Although it was long ago rejected as a liberal nostrum with resepct to American law enforcement, it's sure to work wonders with Hezbollah terrorsits. Brooks continues:
Obama being Obama, he understood the broader reason I was asking about Lebanon. Everybody knows that Obama is smart (and he was quite well informed about Lebanon). The question is whether he’s seasoned and tough enough to deal with implacable enemies.
“The debate we’re going to be having with John McCain is how do we understand the blend of military action to diplomatic action that we are going to undertake,” he said. “I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism. Those are the terms of debate that have led to blunder after blunder.”
Obama said he found that the military brass thinks the way he does: “The generals are light-years ahead of the civilians. They are trying to get the job done rather than look tough.”
I asked him if negotiating with a theocratic/ideological power like Iran is different from negotiating with a nation that’s primarily pursuing material interests. He acknowledged that “If your opponents are looking for your destruction it’s hard to sit across the table from them,” but, he continued: “There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations.”
Brooks doesn't ask Obama whether Hamas, Hezbollah and the mullahs who control Iran are ideologically driven, but the implication seems to be that they are not. Brooks quotes Obama's self-assessment as a foreign policy realist: "This is not an argument between Democrats and Republicans. It’s an argument between ideology and foreign policy realism." Brooks fails to observe that Obama's foreign policy "realism" is of the peculiarly unrealistic kind that verges on fantasy and delusion.
PAUL adds: This is vintige Obama. Instead of serious argumentation, he falls back on labels. People who disagree with him are ideologues; he's a "realist." Obama is being particularly slippery because foreign policy "realism" is as much an ideology -- a belief system -- as whatever it is he thinks he's opposing. Unless by "realism" Obama simply means that being right.
I also love the part about the generals being "light years ahead of the civilians." It would be interesting to know which generals favor trying to defeat Hezbollah in Lebanon through "good works" and what credentials or expertise these generals, if they exist, possess regarding Hezbollah, Lebanon, and diplomacy. If Obama is elected, it will also be interesting to see how much respect "the generals" have for him and visa versa.
Fix this
(06:24PM)
Chris Cilizza turns out copy galore for political junkies at his Washington Post venue The Fix. Here is his take on what he inaptly refers to as the Knesset kerfuffle. Regarding Bush's condemnation of the appeasement of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, Cilizza asserts: "Make no mistake: This was a pre-planned strategy by the Bush campaign to re-inject foreign policy into the presidential campaign in a way that many Republicans believe will ultimately be beneficial to McCain." There are only two problems with this sentence. Bush isn't running a campaign. And Cilizza offers no evidence whatsover to support the proposition that Bush's statement was pretextual. I conclude that this is a sorry performance deserving of a fix of another kind.
UPDATE: Steve Hayes comments here and Marc Ambinder cites some background support for Cilizza here.
PAUL adds: Ambinder’s “supporting background” is weak. It consists of analysis “laundered through the brains” of an NBC reporter and a CNN reporter. They say they were told by White House staffers that when the president criticized the views of those who want to negotiate with radicals and terrorists, he was referring to anyone who has suggested engaging with Hamas. But Obama hasn’t suggested engaging with Hamas. Rather, he says he opposes this.
Thus, the "evidence" Ambinder cites does not support Cillizza’s claim that President Bush was trying to inject foreign policy into the political campaign or Ambinder’s similar but more aggressive claim that Bush was taking a shot at Obama. If anything, the White House staffer's focus on Hamas suggests that if Bush had a particular target, that target was Jimmy Carter.
The morning after
(02:40PM)
Yesterday, I predicted how Barack Obama would react to the California Supreme Court's decision finding a constitutional right to gay marriage. I also considered how the MSM would treat the poltical implications of the decision. Finally, I noted the tension between the California decision and claims by MSM legal commentators that judicial activism is largely a myth.
Obama issued a statement on the court's ruling this morning. My prediction (assisted by Bill Otis) was on-target. Obama said he believes same-sex couples "should enjoy equal rights under the law," that he "will continue to fight for civil unions as President," that he "respects the decision of the California Supreme Court," and that he "continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."
My prediction regarding the MSM was also accurate, at least if the New York Times is any indication. The Times' account opens by stating that McCain's views on gay marriage are identical to Obama's. The Times ignores the key point here -- McCain promises to nominate judges who will exercise restraint when it comes to imposing their policy preferences; Obama has promised to nominate liberal judicial activists to the Supreme Court. The Times understands, but conceals, the likelihood that McCain's judicial nominees and Obama's judicial nominees would take very different approaches to issues like the one decided yesterday in California.
The Times goes on to argue that the gay marriage issue will either amount to nothing or will be a net minus for Republicans. That certainly will be the case if the Times has anything to say about the outcome. If the MSM is unable to hide the ball, the result may well be different.
Finally, Dahlia Lithwick presses on with the liberal MSM's mantra that judicial activism is "an empty label." Ed Whelan does an effective job of demonstrating her "confusion."
Samantha Power -- gone (?) but not forgotten
(01:58PM)
Noah Pollak has an insightful piece on Barack Obama's absurdly naive prescription for neutralizing Hezbollah in Lebanon. As we noted, Obama responded to the latest crisis in Lebanon with mushy talk about the need for electoral and patronage reform. David Brooks asked him, in effect, whether he really sees this as a solution. Obama, in Pollak's words, doubled-down. According to Brooks' report:
[Obama} said the U.S. should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites “to peel support away from Hezbollah” and encourage the local populace to “view them as an oppressive force.” The U.S. should “find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services.”
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.”
Pollak notes that this is Samantha Power's "prescription for combating Islamic supremacist groups, who, in the Obama/Power worldview, rise to power and retain political saliency because they seek to address the legitimate grievances of a 'disaffected' (Obama’s word) people." Pollak's critique of that worldview in this context is, I think, entirely persuasive.
I would add two points. First, Obama's choice of language reveals the incoherence of his approach. He says that Hamas and Hezbollah "need to be compelled to understand that they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims." But compulsion entails force and/or coercision, and Obama won't commit to either.
Obama's sentence would make sense as a matter of ordinary English usage if he said these terrorist outfits "need to be persuaded" to understand things as Obama wants them to. But Obama won't say "persuaded" because it would sound weak and foolish. By saying "compelled" he sounds foolish, but less weak. The larger problem, of course, is that Obama's jawboning, including his salute to the "legitimate claims" of Hamas and Hezbollah, would only persuade them they are going down precisely the alley that serves their interests.
Second, how would Obama's view of Lebanon translate to Iraq? Does he favor a high level of U.S. engagement to promote democracy, end corruption, and deliver services there? If not, why is it more important to be actively engaged in Lebanon? If so, will he maintain the troop levels needed to support this engagement, i.e., protect the folks who are helping "to deliver services" to the Iraqi people in order to peel off support for terrorists? Or will he leave them largely defenseless in their endeavors?
The lad he doth protest too much
(06:10AM)
President Bush's address in the Knesset yesterday was an excellent (if imperfect) speech. In parts it was great. Among these parts is its introduction setting forth the deep identification of the American people with the state of Israel:
The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty. It is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul. When William Bradford stepped off the Mayflower in 1620, he quoted the words of Jeremiah: "Come let us declare in Zion the word of God." The founders of my country saw a new promised land and bestowed upon their towns names like Bethlehem and New Canaan. And in time, many Americans became passionate advocates for a Jewish state.
***
Israel has built a thriving democracy in the heart of the Holy Land. You have welcomed immigrants from the four corners of the Earth. You have forged a free and modern society based on the love of liberty, a passion for justice, and a respect for human dignity. You have worked tirelessly for peace. You have fought valiantly for freedom.
My country's admiration for Israel does not end there. When Americans look at Israel, we see a pioneer spirit that worked an agricultural miracle and now leads a high-tech revolution. We see world-class universities and a global leader in business and innovation and the arts. We see a resource more valuable than oil or gold: the talent and determination of a free people who refuse to let any obstacle stand in the way of their destiny.
Bush looked beneath the surface of the bond between America and Israel:
We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman, and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal, and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation. (Applause.)
We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world. (Applause.)
We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to a civilized society. So we condemn anti-Semitism in all forms -- whether by those who openly question Israel's right to exist, or by others who quietly excuse them.
We believe that free people should strive and sacrifice for peace. So we applaud the courageous choices Israeli's leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction. (Applause.)
We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve. (Applause.)
The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.
Bush posits a weak theological argument with the terrorist enemies of Israel and the United States, but more importantly he rejects Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran as the joint enemies of both Israel and the United States: "[T]hey reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis." Bush expanded on their joint hatred:
And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.
Understanding Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran to be the sworn enemies of the existence of Israel and the United States, Bush rejects the notion that some conciliatory action can appease them:
There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)
Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you. (Applause.)
Barack Obama and his many friends in the mainstream media have projected Obama into Bush's speech, alleging that Bush made a veiled reference to him as a supporter of appeasement. From Hamlet we learn that the play's the thing wherein to catch the conscience of the king. Bush's "play" in Jerusalem was not about Obama. Yet Obama purports to see himself as an object of its critique of appeasement. Bush's speech treats Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran as common enemies with whom negotiation is impossible. Obama purports to distinguish Iran from Hamas and Hezbollah, rejecting unconditional negotiations only with the terrorist groups.
Obama's protestations against Bush's speech make up his own play-within-the-play. They don't serve to prick a conscience, but rather to obscure the senator's inability to offer a rationale distinguishing between the terrorists and their state patron.
Quin Hillyer argues that this distinction belongs to Lindsey Graham.
In terms of pure substance there are, of course, worse Republican Senators than Graham. But if you take into account what reasonably can be expected of a Senator from South Carolina, Quin has a pretty good case.
The California Supreme Court has ruled that California's constitution confers the right to same-sex marriage. Ed Whelan discusses the decision here and here.
There is pending a referendum drive to add a gay marriage ban to California's constitution. Thus, there's no chance the issue will go away this year.
John McCain's speech deploring lack of judicial restraint has been pooh-poohed by liberal commentators as merely an attempt to provide "red-meat" to conservative voters skeptical of the candidate's ideological bona fides. Just yesterday Ruth Marcus accused McCain of promoting a "high court caricature." For purposes of this election season, the liberal mantra is "judicial activism? what judicial activism?"
Today's decision suggests that this disingenuous line may not fool many members of its target audience. The decision also suggests that complaints about judges as makers of socially "enlightened" policy don't just provide "red meat" for conservatives. I suspect that there are plenty of non-conservative voters, including voters in key states, who will find little to like in the California decision.
When asked about this decision, Obama's response will probably be (1) that it's a matter for Californians to decide, and (2) that he approves of civil unions, essentially marriages-lite, but not necessarily of gay marriage itself. He may add that the issue is a distraction and that we should stop focusing on what divides us, etc. I pretty sure he will not pledge, as McCain has done, to nominate judges who can resist the sort of policy-making we witnessed today.
As my friend Bill Otis says, Obama's response will end the matter as far as the MSM is concerned. Whether it will satisfy swing voters in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania remains to be seen.
Over at ABC's Poltical Radar blog, David Wright reported Barack Obama's disoriented comments on manpower needs in Afghanistan. As I noted earlier, Obama complained of the lack of Arabic translators duing Obama's appearance eariler this week in Cape Girardeau. Wright points out that Arabic is not a native language of Afghanistan.
I take Obama's comments as indicative of the improvisised nature of his superficially sophisticated critique of the conduct of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the update to the original post, however, Obama spokesman Bill Burton actually defends the Obama's statement by citing the presence of foreign fighters in Afghanistan. Wright responds:
As for the point about Arabic translators needed for Afghanistan, the Obama campaign points to the well-documented presence of foreign fighters there, many of whom do speak Arabic. However, these folks are mostly shooting at NATO troops, not talking to them.
No doubt there are a handful of Arabic speakers employed at Bagram and Kandahar and other detention centers to interrogate foreign fighters captured on the battlefield. But I have not seen any reports that there is a shortage of such personnel, or that the need for such translators in Iraq has hamstrung the interrogators in Afghanistan.
To the charge that Obama is a remarkably naive, inexperienced, and unknowlegeable candidate to fill the position of Commander-in-Chief, we can add a count that he is unserious as well.
Certain Democrats, including Barack Obama, are terribly bothered that President Bush made the following statement before the Israeli Knesset today:
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Obama found it "sad" that Bush "would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack." He added:
It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.
It's not clear why the occasion of Israel's birthday is an inappropriate one on which to assure Israel that the American president does not favor negotiating with terrorists and radicals who are out to destroy Israel.
What's telling here is Obama's defensiveness. Bush didn't say that Obama is among those who favor negotiating with terrorists. But it's understandable that this is a sore point for Obama, inasmuch as, to cite just one problem, his former adviser Robert Malley not only favors negotiating with Hamas but apparently was actually "negotiating" with it.
Obama's reference to former presidents by way of defending his plan to negotate with Iran is unpersuasive. Past presidents negotiated with the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War, but this is not the same thing as negotiating with a state like Iran that sponsors terrorism against both Israel and the U.S. Neither Kennedy nor Nixon did any such thing. It's true that President Reagan made overtures to Iran (arms for hostages and all that), but for this he was widely and properly condemned. It was perhaps Reagan's worst moment.
It's also unprecedented, I believe, for a president to negotiate with an enemy state without pre-conditions, as Obama has promised to do, in order to persuade the world, as Obama puts it, that we aren't "arrogant." Even Hillary Clinton draws the line here. Obama's claim that his diplomacy with terrorist-sponsoring states will be "tough" rings hollow when a purpose of the negotiations is to persuade the world that we've changed and now are suitably humble.
JOHN adds: I'm increasingly struck by the sheer incoherence of what Obama says. His statement accuses President Bush of an "extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear." What on earth is this supposed to mean? Obama thinks we should be more willing to negotiate with terrorist states; Bush says we shouldn't. If Bush is "politicizing foreign policy," why isn't Obama? In Obama's eyes, it seems that anyone who disagrees with him about foreign policy has to keep his mouth shut, otherwise he's "politicizing foreign policy." But that doesn't apply to Obama; he spends several hours a day attacking President Bush's and John McCain's foreign policy views in speeches where he's trying to get people to vote for him. If that isn't "politicizing foreign policy," what is?
Likewise with the "politics of fear," about which Paul did an excellent post yesterday. Obama says that President Bush's policies have made us less safe and that al Qaeda is stronger than at any time since September 11. Why isn't that the "politics of fear?"
It's hard to imagine that any politician could get away with being as consistently incoherent and self-contradictory as Obama if he didn't have the mainstream media running interference for him, non-stop.
UPDATE by JOHN: It's probably foolish to apply a logical standard to Obama's statement. He undoubtedly knew that it didn't make any sense. His purpose, I suppose, was not to make a plausible argument, but rather to get credit for attacking President Bush. It may not be a bad political strategy: President Bush is unpopular, so if Obama pretends that Bush has attacked him (even if he didn't) and responds with faux indignation, he'll come out ahead politically even though his answer made no sense. It's not exactly a noble approach to politics, but it's typical Obama.
Posts like this one from John Aravosis, with the title "Go away you horrible human being," are almost enough to induce me to read left-wing blogs:
Why is the media even covering her? The only stories that should be written about Hillary Clinton is how much damage she's causing our party. . . Five months ago we all felt that we had 3 great candidates. Now, far too many of us loathe Hillary Clinton, and she has done her racist best to ensure that her supporters can't stand Barack Obama either.
I actually loathe her. She makes me yell at the TV like she's George Bush, and no one other than George Bush makes me yell at the TV - until now. I actually can't stand her or her husband any more. I defended her. I defended her husband. And now I'm actually wondering if the Republicans weren't right about them. That's how bad [sic] she has damaged her reputation. People who actually liked you, who actually helped you, who actually defended you, LOATHE you now. Call me a Clinton-hater all you like, but people like me were the ones who had your back. And we never will again.
People like Aravosis "had the back" of the perjurer president and his corrupt first lady for the same reason they shriek at them now -- overwrought, opportunistic partisanship, coupled with a total lack of perspective. The use of the "loathe" three times in a short post, and its capitalization the last time, pretty much says it all.
There is occasionally an improvised quality to Barack Obama's critique of the conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He sometimes seems to be making up his critique as he goes along. This improvised quality comes through clearly in the ABC News Political Radar blog report on Barack Obama's appearance earlier this week in Cape Girardeau:
Sporting a shiny new American flag pin at an appearance in Rush Limbaugh's hometown, Sen. Barack Obama came up with some novel reasons why the U.S. may be struggling in the war in Afghanistan.
"We don't have enough capacity right now to deal with it -- and it's not just the troops," Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd in Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
Obama posited -- incorrectly -- that Arabic translators deployed in Iraq are needed in Afghanistan -- forgetting, momentarily, that Afghans don't speak Arabic.
"We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then its harder for us to use them in Afghanistan," Obama said.
The vast majority of military translators in both war zones are drawn from the local population. Naturally they speak the local language. In Iraq, that's Arabic or Kurdish. In Afghanistan, it's any of a half dozen other languages -- including Pashtu, Dari, and Farsi.
Ed Morrissey comments here, and Jeff Emanuel provides an extended consideration here.
Proponents of the Dartmouth trustee board-packing plan have portrayed those of us who support the traditional role of the alumni in electing half the board as part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. Class of '02 alum Daniel King isn't buying it:
“I am an openly gay man, a teacher, a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party, the ACLU, and the Human Rights Campaign,” writes Daniel King, Class of 2002, in an essay just emailed to Dartblog. “I don’t really think my political leanings should have anything to do with how I vote in the current Association of Alumni elections,” he writes.
“The real battle going on is one between an overly paternalistic College administration, supported by a rubber-stamp Board of Trustees that has totally abdicated its oversight responsibilities—and, on the other side, loyal alumni from all sides of the political spectrum who wish to not see the value of their Dartmouth degree plummet and to preserve the historic and unique ties that alumni have to our alma mater.”
In War and Decision, Douglas Feith’s important book on Pentagon decision-making in the early days of the war on terrorism, Feith tells of two memos presented by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on the same day, July 25, 2002, regarding the governance of a post-invasion Iraq. The first memo warned of the danger of the U.S. being seen as an occupying power. It predicted that the result likely would be “delegitimized government, instability and possible terrorist acts against U.S. forces.” This view was shared by Feith, who therefore advocated that significant power be transferred to Iraqis promptly after the invasion.
The second State Department memorandum rejected this approach, however. It insisted there “must be no doubt who has international executive authority in Iraq,” namely a U.S. led “Transitional Civil Authority.” Although in Afghanistan the rapid transfer of power to Afghans “external” to that country had worked reasonably well, Armitage took the position that this approach would not work in Iraq where, he argued, the “balance” of “real leadership” was “weighted much more to the inside.” In essence Armitage and others in the State Department believed that the Iraqi “externals,” and particularly Ahmad Chalabi, lacked credibility with Iraqis.
Thus, Armitage favored a “multi-year transitional period” during which the U.S. would run the country while “internals” developed their credibility. Armitage advocated this despite his understanding, expressed in the first memo, that multiple years of a U.S. dominated government would breed instability and terrorism.
Given these probable consequences, which turned out to be all too real, Armitage’s position makes sense only if an Iraqi government dominated by “externals” was likely to be disastrous. This seems to have been Armitage’s view, but on what was it based? He and others in the State Department believed that “externals” like Chalabi lacked credibility with the Iraqi people, but, again, how did they know this? The U.S. had precious little reliable intelligence about Iraq, and there certainly were no public opinion polls we could rely on. Moreover, common sense suggests that the credibility of any post-invasion Iraqi government would be a function less of a priori assumptions than on performance. A government that could deliver basic services, get the economy going, and provide basic security would likely be credible enough. And Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld had stipulated that the amount of power granted to an Iraqi government would depend on its performance of those duties initially turned over to it.
In short, the State Department’s position against turning power over to Iraqis, and in favor of a heavy-handed occupation laden with adverse consequences of which State was well aware, seems misguided and arguably irrational. It is best explained, perhaps, by reference to the view of Chalabi held by certain Arab states whose preferences have been known to carry weight at Foggy Bottom. To these states, Chalabi was a menace, but not because he lacked “credibility” with Iraqi, and not because he lacked competence. To the contrary, the problem with the charismatic, dynamic Chalabi from their perspective was (a) his pro-Arab democracy stance and (b) his Shiite religion.
One can understand why this might alarm certain Sunni Arab dictators. Why it should have alarmed the State Department and/or why the Department failed to distinguish the interests of these dictators from our own (and from those of the Iraqis) is less clear.
As Feith recounts in his book, L. Paul Bremer ultimately implemented the State Department’s vision for post-invasion Iraq even though President Bush had signed off on Rumsfeld’s plan. Bremer would later write: “What would have happened if the U.S. government had turned over Iraq to the exiles in May, as some in Washington had wanted?” As Feith notes, Bremer “misses the point that the individuals he disparages. . .are the very same Iraqis to whom he eventually turned over the government.” The case can be made that all Bremer and Armitage achieved by delaying the turnover was the instability and terrorism Armitage himself had predicted would likely result from U.S. domination of the post-invasion government.