Haggai's Place

:: Thursday, June 03, 2004 ::

Gotta check those blogs
From an article from last week about John Ashcroft's warnings of a potential major terrorist attack in America this summer:

In warning Americans to brace for a possible attack, Ashcroft cited what he called “credible intelligence from multiple sources,” saying that “just after New Year's, al-Qaida announced openly that preparations for an attack on the United States were 70 percent complete.… After the March 11 attack in Madrid, Spain, an al-Qaida spokesman announced that 90 percent of the arrangements for an attack in the United States were complete.”

But terrorism experts tell NBC News there's no evidence a credible al-Qaida spokesman ever said that, and the claims actually were made by a largely discredited group, Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, known for putting propaganda on the Internet.

The article goes on to give the details about how that group is largely believed to be a joke. Maybe the attorney general should have read about it in this mid-March post from In Context about how "Abu Hafs al-Masri" appears to be Arabic for "one dude with a computer and a fax machine."
2:22 PM

Begin-related myths repudiated?
A couple of them, maybe. Here's part of an interview with long-time Likud bigshot Moshe Arens:

bitterlemons: Apropos Egypt, does the projected Egyptian involvement in restoring security in Gaza have a strategic dimension for Israel?

Arens: It could have, though I'm not optimistic at all. Egypt is already in blatant violation of its peace treaty with Israel by not having an ambassador here and not dealing with the [Rafah] tunnels, so I'm not optimistic they'll help. [On the other hand], if the Egyptians are ready to take over the Gaza Strip that would be a significant development. I'm prepared to give them Gaza. Begin should have done that years ago. Begin was dead set against even allowing UN observers in Gaza, not to speak of an Egyptian presence, because he saw Gaza as part of the Land of Israel.

bitterlemons: According to peace process lore from the late 1970s, it was Begin who offered Gaza to Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and the latter who refused, arguing that it was Palestinian and not Egyptian land.

Arens: The myth that Begin offered Gaza to Sadat is totally without foundation. He should have told Sadat that if Egypt wants Sinai back, it has to take Gaza with it.

I've definitely heard the "Begin offered Gaza to Sadat--and he didn't even want it!" story in some circles, but Arens' version makes a lot more sense to me.

There's also an article dealing with another common belief about the peace process with Egypt, regarding the bulldozing of the Israeli settlement town of Yamit during the Sinai withdrawal:

Moshe Sasson, Israel's ambassador to Egypt at the time...writes [in his new book] that contrary to the prevailing public opinion, it was not [then defense minister] Ariel Sharon who decided to bulldoze the Yamit bloc after its evacuation. It was the personal decision of Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

4:34 PM

The Washington Post is "en fuego"
In addition to this front-page article about the rampant mendacity of the Bush campaign, there's also some political hardball in a column by William Whitlow, a retired Marine general:

It is inconceivable and derelict not to have a viable war termination strategy for an operation as complex as a major theater war. America's citizens and our service members deserve far better for their sacrifices. This combination of things -- misleading the president with false intelligence and omitting a principal element from our war strategy -- is reason enough to seek change in the vice presidency and senior defense leadership, civilian and military.

It is our patriotic duty to speak out when egregiously flawed policies and strategies needlessly cost American lives. It is time for the president to ask those responsible for the flawed Iraqi policy -- civilian and military -- to resign from public service. Absent such a change in the current administration, many of us will be forced to choose a presidential candidate whose domestic policies we may not like but who understands firsthand the effects of flawed policies and incompetent military strategies and who fully comprehends the price.

More tough reality in a column by Fred Hiatt, the editor of the Post's editorial page, talking about the prison abuse scandal:

Bush could have responded differently. He could have embraced the heroes such as Spec. Joseph Darby, who sounded the alarm; William J. Kimbro, the Navy dog handler who refused to sic his dogs on prisoners; Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who wrote an honest report. He could have apologized to the people of Iraq, appointed an investigator from outside the chain of command, pledged to abide by the Geneva Conventions. Instead, he opted for a Nixonian strategy of damage containment, and a summer of piecemeal disclosure.

Who pays the price for the president's dishonesty? Soldiers such as Maj. Gen. Peter Chiarelli and his troops, who, as The Post's Scott Wilson reported last week, are out in Baghdad's slums, fighting insurgents one hour and fixing sewers the next. The prison scandal and the administration's failed response haven't doomed those efforts, but they've lengthened the odds. They've given aid and comfort to the enemy.

Ouch. The truth hurts sometimes.
10:17 AM

Now this is more like it
In terms of his hold on political power, most of Sharon's tenure as prime minister has been quite a bit calmer than the previous decade of Israeli politics, which was marked by frequent coalition crises, rampant backstabbing, and an almost Italianesque level of government instability. But all that is changing as we speak, as a few Ha'aretz articles argue quite strenuously. Sharon seems to floating the idea of a "mini-disengagement" now, a sort of watered-down version of the previous plan that was trounced in a Likud party referendum a few weeks ago.

Aluf Benn:

The depth of the political crisis became clear yesterday in a meeting that was meant to result in the final formulation of the proposal to the cabinet. The previous evening, his aides had assumed that they could get a majority in the cabinet vote and recommended that Sharon put the whole plan up for approval in principle by the cabinet. By morning, they had discovered that they have no one to lean on...

Since the referendum, Sharon's ruling circle has been reminiscent of the final days of Ehud Barak's government: a growing number of trial balloons, contradictory announcements and empty threats of dismissing ministers. The unity that characterized the Sharon government has now escaped the building. Discord among the inner circle is no longer kept indoors.

A mini-disengagement makes no sense. The IDF opposes it, particularly if it is done in stages; its effect on security will be minimal; and the Americans will withdraw their support. Still, Sharon did break the taboo of talking about dismantling settlements, a move that many of his predecessors feared no less. Yet Barak also broke taboos, on Jerusalem and the Golan, and in the end brought no results. It seems that in order to take another step, it will be necessary to stake the whole pot and call elections.

I'm not sure the Americans wouldn't get behind a different version of the plan. Bush's desire to stay out of the whole Israeli/Palestinian situation at all costs will lead him to support any course of action that will achieve that goal. US support for the original version of the plan failed to help it get passed, but if it looked like American backing might make a difference for getting another version passed, it would probably be forthcoming.

Yossi Verter talks about who's really in charge:

The government of Israel is today being run de facto by Netanyahu, economically and politically. The finance minister's refusal to support the "government recognizing the overall revised disengagement plan" formula has left Sharon with no options.

Netanyahu's proposal, under which the government would decide to pull out only from three settlements, would have brought about the immediate resignation of the right-wing parties - The National Union and the National Religious Party - while still keeping Labor out of the government.

Thus, Sharon would have been left with no majority at the Knesset. Or, as he once said of Netanyahu in another context, "caught with his pants down." Perhaps this is what Netanyahu is aiming for - to leave Sharon with no government and inherit his place.

This is what the people at the PM's bureau think. Yet even assuming this is true, the seeds of the current situation sprouted in the behavior of Sharon's own bureau in the past few months.

What began with a dramatic declaration at the Herzliya Conference, continued with the dramatic interview to Haaretz's Yoel Marcus, and peaked with the dramatic Likud Party referendum - has slid into farce.

Did anyone at the PM's office during all that time bother to check whether Sharon had the majority needed to carry out his declarations? Sharon's real problem is not with the government but in the Knesset.

He can fire a minister and so gain a needed majority. Even if he managed to create a national unity government along with Labor and Shinui, he would still have a hard time managing the Knesset.

He could threaten general elections, but that would be an empty threat, because Netanyahu is already snapping at his heels, with the signatures of 61 MKs who, rather than put themselves through uncertain elections, would recommend him as an alternate prime minister.

And if you really want to get your head spinning, try this other Verter article that deals with recent developments regarding both intra-Likud and intra-Labor intrigue (the latter being almost comedically childish).
3:43 PM

Political CW on Iraq
I've seen a stressing dynamic in some articles like
this one on Iraq. The basic idea is that Bush's half-hearted flip-flop towards Kerry's year-long consistent position on post-regime-change Iraq--internationalize the occupation, send enough troops to deal with the problems on the ground--is somehow a problem for Kerry, if the two candidates' positions come out sounding similar. This is absurd, given that Bush's dreadful leadership is what has us where we are today, but that's how some in the media seem determined to frame the issue. So Bush gets to act like he's being steady, staying the course, being a determined leader, etc., while the media glosses over that on focuses on Kerry.

Not so fast, says TNR &c.;, in a comforting series of posts. From the first one:

Regardless of what either Kerry or Bush says from here on out, the only thing most voters will end up knowing about the two candidates' proposals on Iraq is that Kerry's was to not get us into this mess in the first place, while Bush's was to get us into this mess. (Yes, I know. Kerry voted for the war resolution in Congress. But since then he's been a pretty vocal critic of the way the war's been prosecuted, and the Bushies have taken care to portray him as one.) If the situation gets worse or stays the same, Bush's "proposal" looks like a loser. If it gets appreciably better, Bush's proposal looks like a winner. That's easily 95 percent of what you need to know about Iraq as it relates to the election. At least assuming Kerry can clear a minimum bar of acceptability in the eyes of the American people--which polls suggest he can.

From another post, this one responding to part of the NYT article I linked to above:

First, the fact that Bush has moved closer to Kerry on some Iraq-related questions is neither here nor there. Iraq is Bush's baby. Everyone knows it's Bush's baby. And if it keeps going badly, he's finished, regardless of how close he happens to be to Kerry's positions on the matter. Second, Kerry isn't left to argue that he has more credibility in executing the same policies. He's left to argue that Iraq has been a disaster, and that it's Bush's fault--which is almost self-evidently true. And, finally, declaring a timetable for withdrawing the troops would not be politically advantageous for Kerry. Doing so would give Bush cover to lay out a timetable of his own, which would be substantively disastrous but pretty useful politically for the White House. By not budging from his commitment to stay the course in Iraq, Kerry forces Bush to do the same, meaning [Bush] has to keep owning every inch of the disaster Iraq has become.

And then the latest one, with some refreshing honesty from a fairly prominent neo-con:

From today's Washington Post:

Foreign policy experts on the left and the right said that, on Iraq, the principal focus will remain on Bush. "Kerry can let the administration stew in their own juices, and he can just essentially say incompetence has led them to this point," said Gary J. Schmitt of the Project for a New American Century, a conservative think tank. "I don't think the public really would even pay attention if he had an eight-point plan for fixing things."

Amen.

3:44 PM

Martin Peretz? Still a clown.
His latest New Republic article, basically just a rambling screed of Israeli-left-bashing, is subscriber only, so I'll just quote this comical bit:

Sharon is considering a proposal to ask Egypt to allow Gaza to expand westward into the Sinai desert. In return, it would get land in Israel's Negev. There are preliminary explorations between Jerusalem and Cairo on this suggestion. Let's see how far that goes.

This ain't going nowhere, as anyone who's even slightly informed about the region is well aware. Here's something from a Ha'aretz article from a couple of weeks ago, talking about this same issue:

The head of the National Security Council, Giora Eiland, presented a comprehensive regional plan to the United States a few weeks ago, according to a report published in Yedioth Ahronoth yesterday. The plan calls for Egypt to transfer 600 square kilometers of territory in northern Sinai (the former Yamit region) to the Palestinians in order to expand the Gaza Strip. In exchange, Israel will transfer 200 square kilometers in the Negev highlands in the area of Paran, to Egypt, which in return will be allowed to build a tunnel between the Sinai and Jordan. U.S. officials who were presented with the plan dismissed it.

A more blunt appraisal from Yossi Alpher in Bitter Lemons:

[Sharon's] apparent disdain for any constructive interaction with the US and Israel's neighbors regarding Israeli-Palestinian peace is illustrated by the incredibly naïve peace plan that he sent National Security Adviser Giora Eiland to present to Washington some weeks back: Egypt cedes territory from Sinai for the Palestinian state and in return Israel cedes one-third as much territory from the Negev to Egypt and enables Egypt to tunnel under the rest of the Negev and link up to Jordan! Suffice it to say that Sharon never asked either the Egyptians or the Jordanians, who can only wince at this incredible scheme, and that the Americans, to their credit, reportedly laughed Eiland out of the room.

They weren't the only ones laughing. From the sister site to Bitter Lemons, here's the reaction from Mohamed Shaker, a former Egyptian ambassador to the UK:

BI: Israel National Security Adviser Giora Eiland recently presented to the US administration an Israeli peace plan under which Egypt would be asked to give 600 square kilometers of northeast Sinai to enlarge a Palestinian state based in Gaza, and Israel would compensate it with 200 square kilometers of the southern Negev and the right to tunnel under the rest of the Negev and link up with Jordan. Is this an attractive offer?

Shaker: (Laughter). Do you think any Egyptian would give up Egyptian sovereign territory to anybody--and, what's more, territory that was occupied for so many years?

Maybe Sharon and Peretz could do a modern version of one of my favorite movie musical numbers: Make 'em laugh, make 'em laugh, don't you know everyone wants to laugh...
2:51 PM

Tergi-what-the-%^$?
My favorite blog is definitely Josh Marshall's. But what was he busting out near the end of this post, which discusses what's going on behind the scenes within the Bush administration regarding Chalabi:

[W]hat we're seeing here is less the result of new revelations than the outward signs of deep tectonic shifts within the US government -- the discrediting of some factions and agencies, the attempts of others to reposition themselves in a moment of acute crisis and get ahead of the storm, and the freeing up of others to assert themselves for the first time in years.

It's probably too dramatic to compare this to the bubbles, choppy water and occasional scraps churned up by a Piranha feeding. But the struggles that are giving rise to all these leaks and tergiversations of the state are the real story -- one that it is difficult to see directly, but possible to glimpse in what we can infer from its effects and repercussions.

Not that I have the world's greatest vocabulary, but where the hell did that word come from? Looking it up reveals a couple of definitions:

1. equivocation, tergiversation -- falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language
2. apostasy, tergiversation -- the act of abandoning a party or cause

It seems like Marshall is using the second meaning there, apostasy, in that the administration is casting Chalabi off after having supported him for so long. But, come on, how many people know what that word means?
10:34 AM

Running out of people to blame
So now Ahmad Chalabi's compound has been raided by "U.S. military personnel and Iraqi police." I wonder who Chalabi's remaining defenders will blame for this, since they've been attacking everybody except the Pentagon and the White House, the people who have been in complete control of the Iraq policy from the beginning. For instance, this bit of comedy about how the State Department and the CIA somehow managed to foil Rumsfeld's heroic plans to bring Chalabi into the country with 10,000 armed fighters. I wonder how they managed to accomplish that--the sheer power of the Colin Powell Brigades, a separate branch of the US Army directly under State's control?

Apparently Chalabi's aides are blaming a "smear campaign by the CIA." Hmmm...last time I checked, if "US military personnel" were involved, that means the Pentagon was involved.
11:37 AM

This sounds pretty bad
The latest from Gaza:

Eight Palestinians were killed and dozens were wounded Wednesday afternoon when Israel Defense Forces helicopter gunships and tanks fired missiles and shells at a crowd of protestors in Rafah refugee camp, in the southern Gaza Strip...

An estimated 3,000 people were marching to the nearby Tel Sultan neighborhood of the camp, to protest the IDF invasion in that area, when the strike occurred.

Military sources said that troops had spotted the approaching demonstrators, among them armed men, and asked a helicopter to fire a warning missile at an open field. But when the crowd continued to march, a tank fired three shells at the nearby abandoned building to ward the protesters off.

Senior IDF officers said that if there was indeed a mistake in the firing of the shell, it would be a grave fault that would affect the continuation of the ongoing military operation in the Gaza Strip.

Mixing armed terrorists in with unarmed crowds is a favorite Palestinian tactic, but is firing missiles and tank shells a justifiable method of crowd control? Doesn't look good to me.
2:04 PM

"That's interesting."
I certainly think that Ted Kennedy went too far when he recently said, "we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management - U.S. management." That's drawing an equivalence that shouldn't be made.

However, shouldn't we also be confident that we're operating on a more principled level than the villains from Pirates of the Caribbean? This quote from Captain Barbossa becomes a sort of theme about the "Pirate's Code" that comes back a few more times later in the movie. Tell me this doesn't remind you of the administration's attitudes regarding the Geneva Conventions:

First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement, so I must do nothin'. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the Pirate's Code to apply, and you're not. And thirdly, the Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner.

12:01 PM

The Halle Berry doctrine
Yossi Alpher of Bitter Lemons has an article in the Washington Post about America's options for getting out of Iraq. I never heard anyone put it this way before, but it would be interesting to see any and all pretenses of nation-building explicitly abandoned and codified in doctrine (that would immediately open itself up to mocking based on the most notorious celebrity incident of said nature):

Declare victory and withdraw. Save American (and coalition) lives and avoid more painful mistakes. Put future Saddam Husseins on notice that the United States has adopted a new "hit and run" strategy to remove them without the complications of extended occupation and nation-building. This may turn out in the long term to be the only realistic option.

The last option that Alpher outlines is surely the one we'll be seeing implemented:

Status quo. Hunker down, try to reduce losses, invent new ways to "democratize" Iraq, outlast the prison scandal and hope things improve. This is probably where the United States will go in the short term, because both bureaucratically and ideologically it's the easy option.

10:59 AM

Some tough Democrats
Nice to see Paul Wolfowitz getting pounded at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Hillary Clinton stated some incontrovertible facts:

"You come before this committee . . . having seriously undermined your credibility over a number of years now," she said. "When it comes to making estimates or predictions about what will occur in Iraq, and what will be the costs in lives and money, . . . you have made numerous predictions, time and time again, that have turned out to be untrue and were based on faulty assumptions."

She quoted to him from his previous testimony from the run-up to the war, in which he asserted that the Iraqi people would see the United States as their liberator, that Iraq could finance its own reconstruction and that the estimate of Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, that it would take several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq was "outlandish."

Wolfowitz' response was pretty pathetic:

[He] ignored many of the attacks [from committe members], including most of Clinton's charges. But he told her that in disagreeing with Shinseki's estimates on the troop requirements for postwar Iraq, he was siding with another senior Army general closer to the action -- Gen. Tommy R. Franks, then chief of the Central Command, the U.S. military headquarters for Iraq and the Middle East.

Hey, don't look at me, someone else was wrong, too.

Now, the civilian leaders at the Pentagon (Wolfowitz being #2, behind Rumsfeld) are, of course, supposed to exercise oversight over the generals. The idea, though, is to overrule the ones who are wrong, not the ones who are right. It's obvious who was right and who was wrong in this case.

There were also plenty of reasons to listen to Shinseki, in spite of Wolfowitz' "the other guy was in the field" dissembling. Shinseki had experience in Bosnia, as a ground commander during a major post-conflict/nation-building enterprise. Almost everyone else who had any experience at all in the Balkans was saying the same thing as him about post-regime-change Iraq (that it would take a lot more troops than the Balkans did).

"I didn't have time to respond . . . to the whole list" of Clinton's points, Wolfowitz said in an interview last night. "I plan to."

With more buck passing? He has no direct response to her accusations, of course. They're undeniably true. This guy has no credibility left at all.
12:20 AM