June 04, 2004
"Vets Favor Bush"
From the recent CBS Poll:
OVERALL: Kerry - 49%, Bush - 41%
VETERANS: Bush - 54%, Kerry - 40%
My baseless speculation is that 75% of the difference is because vets are generally more conservative than the general voting public, and 25% of the difference is because of Kerry's post-Vietnam statements and activities. But I am surprised that this wide of a gap exists despite the fact that Kerry volunteered to serve in combat, and Bush managed to avoid it.
Econ 000.5: Exchange Rates
Very good article of the basics of exchange rates and how their vagaries can effect different economies by HAL R. VARIAN at the New York Times:
Many experts think the foreign exchange interventions of the last two years have maintained the dollar's value at an unnaturally high level. As evidence, they point to the ballooning trade deficit and the hubbub over outsourcing and "predatory trade practices." If foreign goods and services look cheap, the dollar is probably overvalued.Maybe it is. But by how much? And if it is overvalued, how rapidly will it fall? In the rosy scenario, the dollar has a steady decline against the renminbi and the yen; the Chinese economy has a soft landing; the Japanese recovery persists; and the American economy has a healthy recovery.
Then there's the other scenario. The dollar drops precipitously; prices of imported goods shoot up here, rekindling inflation; the Japanese economy drops back into the doldrums; and unemployed Chinese workers riot in the streets.
Needless to say, a lot hinges on which scenario materializes. Keep your eye on those exchange rates. They have a lot to do with America's recovery and the health of the world economy.
The whole thing is worth reading. It's a complicated system we live in. It suggests people should be much less blithe about prognostications, and a lot less harsh when fueled by hindsight. Hat tip to Alex Tabarrok over at Marginal Revolution.
June 03, 2004
Tenet Quits
Read the story here.
Two thoughts:
1. The pressure got to be too much over the bad intelligence on WMD's, or...
2. Something else is about to come up.
Your thoughts? So far Tenet has cited personal reasons without going into detail.
Saudi Arabia
Today, Friedman writes that Saudi leaders are in denial. Yesterday, Gwynne Dyer wrote --
If you drew up a list of Royal Families Long Overdue To Be Overthrown, the al-Saud family would rank right up there with the Bourbons and the Romanovs. The latest terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, in which 22 people were killed and three of four Islamist attackers escaped, raises the question of whether the time of the family Saud has come round at last. . .The physical plant is vulnerable, too. Former CIA officer Robert Baer claims . . .
[a] coordinated assault on five or more junctions in the 10,500 miles of pipeline that connect the five main Saudi oil fields could put the country out of the oil-exporting business for up to two years . . .
My point is not to endorse or object to either of these opinion pieces, but to ask a question - what to do about Saudi Arabia? I have no answers, but I have huge concerns.
June 02, 2004
NPR on Imperialism in Iraq
This started as half of my British Empire in Iraq posting, but got separated out as my that post ballooned beyond 100 lines, to my astonishment. This is a grumble about an NPR comment on the same topic as my post. It provides unhappy quotes from that occupation about disorder in the country resulting from the nasty way the Empire treated Iraq (see that other post on this subject for details.
NPR is providing quotes from the British occupation (fine by me!), deliberately without noting any differences between our plans (free elections for all offices) and theirs (at the time of the quotes, indefinite imperialism - er, tutelage). Not fine.
I think that many NPR commentators feel at some level that we're basically doing the right thing in Iraq, but would rather go with the flow and ding Bush than take the effort to be honest with themselves and do what's right for the Iraqi people even if it's uncomfortable for them. Many commentators against Iraq were for Kosovo, similar in so many ways, "unilateralism" and all. The New York Times is against this second Iraqi war, but was a constant warmonger against Milosevic. Having a Republican in ofice doesn't change ground truth.
That's why so many comments are so strident and unaided by fact. A
strong intellectual position is held with facts and calm. Note that I
think that the problem with NPR Iraq coverage isn't the problems they
talk about, it's that the problems are completely almost completely
unaccompanied by important positive events or little, er, details of
context like rebel troop sizes (isn't estimated troop strength
an absolutely basic part of reporting a rebellion?).
Rumor Mongering
The woman who did not have an affair with John Kerry writes a fascinating article about how a rumor blew out of control. A blog contributed to it. (via Mark Kleiman)
Condi
I do not understand why Dr. Rice is not used by this administration more to settle fears about Iraq.
Driving home yesterday, I listened to her press conference on C-SPAN radio regarding the President's upcoming schedule for the G8 summit where he will, including other events, meet with Prime Minister Schroeder and President Chirac one on one.
You can read the text of the press conference here. You can also see the video by going to the site. It's long, but even if you can catch a few minutes, I think it is worth it.
Rice pretty much outlined the five point plan, but when questions where asked she was not just direct and candid, but very realistic, understanding, honest, intellectual, and provided a humanistic sense that I think the President misses big time when he speaks. Condi comments toward France and Germany for instance where very polite and diplomatic.
She was very clear that the recently appointed government was acceptable to the United States and made the point that American policy was never to bet it all on one horse.
Here is an excerpt between the NSA and Helen Thomas, who should have retired twenty years ago, where I think Condi does maybe a better job defending the WMD justification for war better than anybody else in the administration ever has. I still say, however, that it was never the true center reason for military action.
Helen.
Q To put this all in perspective, what is the latest rationale of why we invaded Iraq --
DR. RICE: Well, Helen, the rationale --
Q Especially without any weapons of mass destruction.
DR. RICE: The rationale has been the same from the very beginning. Saddam Hussein was a very dangerous man, in the world's most dangerous region. This is someone who had acquired weapons of mass destruction, used them before, been sanctioned by the United Nations for 12 years, by his refusal to give them up. In Resolution 1441, had been ordered by the international community to finally disarm, and had failed to do so. He had invaded his neighbors, he had gassed his own people --
Q Twelve years ago and he had been punished for that.
DR. RICE: Helen, would you like to let me answer the question?
He had gassed his own people, he had gasses his neighbors, he was paying $25,000 to suicide bombers. He was the world's -- a dangerous man in the world's most dangerous region.
The President and a coalition, a large coalition of states decided it was time to put an end to this problem and to give the Iraqi people a chance at freedom and to give the Middle East a chance at a more stable environment in which democracy might --
Q Do you acknowledge there was no imminent threat?
DR. RICE: Helen, I believe the President --
Q It was sold on the fact that he was an imminent threat --
DR. RICE: -- I believe the President -- Helen, would you like me to finish answering the question? I believe the President said in his speech at Cincinnati, some say that we must wait until this threat is imminent. What there was, was a threat from Saddam Hussein --
Q What was --
DR. RICE: -- threats to his neighbors. This was, after all, someone against whom we had gone to war in 1991, against whom we had gone to acts of war in 1998, who was flying missions against our pilots, trying to patrol the no-fly zone every day. This was the world's most dangerous reason; Saddam Hussein had to be taken care of and the world is better for it.
June 01, 2004
Pervez Musharraf
My father-in-law was in Pakistan when General Pervez Musharraf seized power in a coup in October 1999, and he was not allowed to leave the country for several, tense days. In the five years since, Musharraf joined the U.S. war on terrorism, walked up to the brink of nuclear war with India, and has survived at least two assassination attempts. Going forward, it will be up to him to keep Pakistan's nuclear weapons out of the hands of radical Islamists who are clearly a growing threat to his government.
Musharraf has now offered a plan for the Muslim world that he calls "Enlightened Moderation."
It is a two-pronged strategy. The first part is for the Muslim world to shun militancy and extremism and adopt the path of socioeconomic uplift. The second is for the West, and the United States in particular, to seek to resolve all political disputes with justice and to aid in the socioeconomic betterment of the deprived Muslim world. . .I say to my brother Muslims: The time for renaissance has come. The way forward is through enlightenment. We must concentrate on human resource development through the alleviation of poverty and through education, health care and social justice. If this is our direction, it cannot be achieved through confrontation. We must adopt a path of moderation and a conciliatory approach to fight the common belief that Islam is a religion of militancy in conflict with modernization, democracy and secularism. All this must be done with a realization that, in the world we live in, fairness does not always rule.
Let's hope his brother Muslims are listening.
Good News From Iraq...
...can be found in this column by Rod Dreher of the Dallas News. (link may require registration)
In which Dreher points out that the one-sided disaster-slanted news we've been getting is not necessarily due to media bias, but to limited journalistic resources in a dangerous area. But he also follows up with some of the positive things that are going on that we're not seeing on the news.
Continue reading "Good News From Iraq..."Summer Doldrums
Is it just me, or has the news cycle got quieter. I haven't been watching the news channels as much lately. Probably, that's a good thing, because no news is good news.
My impression is that things have gotten quieter in Iraq over the last few weeks. I suspect the quiet is deceptive however. If I were an insurgent, I would be spending the next month stocking my arsenal, and defer action until after June 30. I would plan a rising for after the handover, hoping to force resignations in the new Iraqi government and create a revolutionary situation.
Kerry has made a couple of foreign policy speechs that have left me with a positive impression. In one, he focused on nuclear terrorism. In another, he placed security over democracy as our foreign policy goal for unstable regions of the world. I approve of that. Democratization is a long-term process, and cannot solve our short-term security concerns in the Middle East.
All in all, I don't expect to pay much attention to the news in the next month. Once July rolls around, however, we'll have a Democratic convention and a fluid situation in Iraq.
May 31, 2004
The moderate media?
A recent Pew survey reports that, although many more journalists describe themselves as liberals than conservatives, the majority consider themselves to be moderates. Now Dan Drezner reports the results of an extensive survery that finds that the top three most read blogs among journalists are (1) Andrew Sullivan (who is way out in front), (2) Instapundit, and (3) Mickey Kaus. All of these guys are strong Kerry and media critics. Interesting.
Kerry and National Security
In numerous posts over the past two months I have been harping on the need for Kerry to convince me that, as president, he would be a Lieberman Democrat, not a (Ted) Kennedy Democrat, on national security issues. I have never believed that he needs to say exactly what he would do -- I view that as an unreasonable request given the fluid nature of events -- but I have been looking for him (1) to state unequivocally that we simply can't afford to fail in Iraq, (2) to identify his general ideas about how we maximize the potential for success, and (3) to commit to a pro-active, not reactive, approach to terrorism. To his credit, he has recently tried to do all of these things. I have also recently said that a change of presidents, for the sake of change, may ultimately be in the national interest and a tie-breaking reason to vote for Kerry.
On Sunday, the Washington Post editorial page effectively summarizes my current thinking, albeit far more eloquently than I could do so. Thus, I will simply recommend that you read the editorial and I limit my comments to these: "I agree." (Exception: The idea that if Bush had been less of a bully and more of a diplomat, France might have been brought on board. Other countries, maybe; France, never.)
Kerry hasn't got my vote yet, but I am getting comfortable that he offers a real choice for moderate hawks.
May 30, 2004
On the Lighter Side (Vol. 5)
- "Sandwiched between two squirming, squealing piglets, Gov. Mark Sanford walked up the State House steps to take a light-hearted jab at the Legislature about pork in the state budget." (here)
- "Croatia's Euro 2004 squad warned against 'acrobatic sex'" (here)
- "Las Vegas Officials Worried About City's Foul Stench" (here)
- Onion: Cheney to Run
Good Essay on Threats from Troubles from Non-Globalizing Regions
Saw this great essay, The Pentagon's New Map linked at buzzpundit. I think it's great stuff.
Ironically from the title, I think his "threat map" is a tad weak and needs a little work (it overexuberantly covers PR and the VI,which are
doing pretty well - in fact, most of the eastern Antilles are doing OK globalization-wise -
it's Cuba and Hispaniola that are troublesome now. But thiere are many things that struck me as very likely right in this essay.
May 29, 2004
Selecting the Iraqi Prime Minister, Part II
After reading conflicting news reports yesterday, I was nursing a pet theory on the naming of Dr. Iyad Allawi as the soon-to-be Iraqi Prime Minister.
My guess was that Brahimi and members of the Bush administration were worried about Allawi's longstanding ties with the CIA and State Department, and that they had the Iraqi Governing Council nominate him to counter impressions that he was the "U.S. guy".
The article in my morning paper has me wondering, though. It reports the following:
- Brahimi's choice for Prime Minister was Dr. Hussain al-Shahristani, as reported last Wednesday. However, the Iraqi Governing Council objected to that choice, and Shahristani withdrew in the midst of those objections.
- Dr. Allawi has been lobbying his fellow council members for the nomination.
- Brahimi and U.S. officials were surprised by the IGC's nomination of Allawi yesterday.
I wonder if Allawi essentially managed to scuttle Brahimi's choice and then nominate himself.
I also wonder about the selection of an interim leader who may have political ambitions. In the runup to elections seven months from now, would you rather have an interim leader who was running for office, or someone above the fray?
My guess, the latter. If the appointed Prime Minister is truly sovereign, he may have influence over the electoral process that will have to be established in the coming months. If he's perceived as stacking the deck in his favor -- while also being a "U.S. guy" -- that could feed the cynical interpretation of the whole thing.
What do you think?
