Obsidian Wings

Gary Farber Presents: Open Thread

by Eric Martin

I haven't seen the latest Indy yet, but rumor has it, some folks have.  That being said, this is an open thread and thus you should not feel obligated to discuss any subject in particular.  There is no off topic!  Think of the implications...

If We Don't Kill Them All, They Might Commit Suicide

by Eric Martin

Jeffrey Goldberg is rather taken by the argument put forth by Amnon Rubinstein as to why Iran would be willing to launch a nuclear attack on Israel despite the likelihood that such an act would constitute "national suicide."  According to Rubinstein, the penchant to commit national suicide is a particular trait of Islamist regimes - in fact, so unique that the examples he cites are "unprecedented" in history:

• The first case is that of Saddam Hussein, who in 2003 could have avoided war and conquest by allowing UN inspectors to search for (the apparently non-existent) weapons of mass destruction wherever they wanted. Yet Iraq's ruler opted for war, knowing full well that he would have to face the might of the US.

• The second case is that of Yasser Arafat in 2000, who after the failure of the Camp David and Taba talks had two options: continue talking to Israel - under the leadership of Ehud Barak, this country's most moderate and flexible government ever - or resort to violence. He chose the latter, with the result that all progress toward Palestinian independence was blocked. The ensuing loss of life, on both sides, testified to Arafat's preference for suicide over compromise.

• The third case is that of the Taliban. Post-9/11, their leadership had two options: to enter into negotiations with the US, with a view to extraditing Osama bin Laden, or to risk war and destruction. The choice they made was obvious: Better to die fighting than to give up an inch.

This argument is so full of holes it's hard to know where to begin with the spade and mortar.   First of all, these incidents are hardly unprecedented.  I would encourage Mr. Rubenstein to familiarize himself with the story of Masada.  Start there and work your way through the rest of history - from "Live Free or Die" to Imperial Japan. 

Second, and importantly, neither Saddam nor Yasser Arafat are "Islamists" - nor are the regimes they led.  They were actually quite secular, relatively speaking, and frequently drew the ire of Islamists for it.  That could easily end the discussion of those two examples, but they are otherwise so unsuited to serve Rubinstein's argument that the flaws are worth exploring. 

Regarding Saddam, Rubenstein argues that he could have avoided war by allowing weapons inspectors into Iraq, but chose not to.  Which is a good point other than the fact that it's not true.  Saddam did let weapons inspectors in (Hans Blix anyone?).  Blix took his team all over Iraq following the tips from US intelligence agencies on all of the alleged WMD sites.  Blix found nothing, and despite his requests to keep searching, Bush ordered them out so that he could commence the invasion.

Further, as we now know through the release of internal Iraqi documents, Saddam thought early on in the process (and for quite some time afterward) that Bush was bluffing, and that a spate of cruise missile strikes would be the sum total of the stand off.  He didn't think Bush would actually invade, and then we he realized the danger, he opened up for inspectors to seek to avoid the confrontation.  Some bid for redemptive suicide.

As for Arafat, as Rob Farley notes:

Arafat didn't believe he was committing national suicide; he was perhaps incorrect in his assessment of the situation, but mistaken and suicidal are entirely different concepts. This isn't hard to understand, and again I'm befuddled that anyone not intentionally obtuse would by into the logic.

Not only that, but the eventual outcomes stemming from Arafat's decision have not risen to the level of "national suicide" - as tragic as they've been.  National suicide would be something more cataclysmic one would imagine.

Finally, we have the Taliban.   A few things to consider here: Farley, again points out that the Taliban had a plausible reason to believe that they could survive an attack by the US.  After all, the USSR wasn't able to take and hold Afghanistan, so why not just wait out the US assault.  Speaking of which, the Taliban happen to still be alive and kicking - making gains and reconstituting in various regions.  Rumors of their glorous national suicide have been greatly exaggerated.

There are some other important distinctions as well.  None of the above examples are of a group launching an attack that it believes worth the costs despite the fact that it will result in national suicide.  All of the above examples are defensive in nature, or at least represent a willingness to resist pressure and attack from outside forces.  Further, none anticipated "national suicide" of the scale that nuclear war would bring.  More like, "national struggle and hardship," not nuclear annihilation. 

Yet (tabling the obvious flaws in the examples as mentioned above), Rubenstein would have us believe that such a readiness to sacrifice in the face of aggression is analogous to a willingness to launch an unprovoked nuclear assault that would result in the complete and utter destruction of a land and people.

This is two part monger of the "fear" and "war" varieties.  A frequent coupling in fact.  Here is Rubenstein's closing admonition:

Israel, as well as the West, should be prepared for a long, irrational and costly war, unlike any other fought in the past.

Well, at least we agree that it would be long, irrational and costly.  The difference being, I see that as a reason to abstain.

Clinton Campaign Threatens "Open Civil War"

by hilzoy

CNN is reporting that the Clinton and Obama campaign are "in formal talks" about ending her campaign. Here (h/t TPM) is the video:

I don't have a transcript to post, unfortunately. It's sourced to "Hillary Clinton's inner circle"; the Obama campaign denies that there are talks. "Clinton's inner circle", whoever that might be, is quoted as saying that they are "pushing for some sort of graceful exit strategy", and see three options. The first is that Obama chooses someone else to be Vice President; the second is that Obama publicly offers the VP slot to her and she declines; the third is that somehow Obama and Clinton get together personally and work something out. They don't say much about option three. Option two seems not to be working: they claim that the Obama people are worried that she might just take the VP slot. But it's what they say about the first that's really striking.

They think that for Obama to choose someone else as his running mate would be "a total dismissal", and "totally unacceptable to their camp, one of them saying that it could mean open civil war within the party," and that "it wouldn't mean that Clinton wouldn't campaign for Obama -- she would -- but she would do so like Bill Clinton campaigned for Al Gore, quite aloof. They do not believe that this would be acceptable."

I have been thinking about Clinton's conduct ever since she compared her efforts to get the Florida and Michigan votes counted to abolitionists, suffragists, and the current crisis in Zimbabwe. I agree with Josh Marshall that her attempts to gin up resentment and a sense that the nomination was stolen from her are toxic. Even Ezra Klein, who has been a lot more open to Clinton than many people, has concluded that she is trying to ensure that Obama loses. Since then, there have been a lot of stories wondering what on earth she is up to. And while I haven't heard what the NYPost describes as a "Groundswell Of Calls For O-Hill Union", there has definitely been a groundswell of stories about that alleged groundswell, much of which seems to be coming from the Clinton campaign itself. There have also been a lot of stories asking: what does Obama need to do to keep her on board?

Note what's missing here: any sense that Clinton herself is a responsible moral agent. People are writing about her as though she were a bomb that needed to be expertly defused, as opposed to a person who can govern her own life, and is responsible for her own choices.

I am aware that it must be hard to face the fact that you've lost. But it became clear that she was not going to win the nomination months ago -- I would say after Wisconsin, but certainly after Texas. Moreover, this is not unprecedented. People lose the nomination every four years. Most of the time, they do not stay on until it is mathematically impossible for them to win; they leave when it has become clear that they will not win. They do not complain about disenfranchising all the states with later primaries, they do not threaten to keep their supporters home, and they certainly do not threaten "open civil war" if they don't get nominated for Vice President. On those rare occasions when some candidate does this in the absence of some truly monumental issue, we normally think that that candidate is a narcissistic and unprincipled person who has just shown why s/he should never, ever be President.

There is absolutely no reason not to apply these same standards to Hillary Clinton. Right now, instead of floating demands in the press and comparing herself to abolitionists and suffragists, she could be telling her supporters that she lost fair and square; that while there was a lot of sexism in the campaign, there was racism as well, and that sexism does not explain why a candidate with literally every institutional advantage over her opponent lost the nomination. She could be reaching out to the voters who supported her in places where Obama has had trouble, and urging them to vote for him. She could, in a word, be doing the right thing: trying to earn that respect she seems to want.

Instead, she's throwing tantrums, making demands that she has no right to make, and threatening civil war.

I can't imagine a better demonstration of why she should not be President or Vice President. Nor can I imagine a better demonstration of why some of us who are committed feminists are not happy with her as our standard-bearer. She lost. It happens. If she were an adult or a professional, she would deal with it. Apparently, she is neither.

Department Of Hmmmm...

by hilzoy

Big news! The rules governing soldiers having sex in Afghanistan have been changed. Sex used to be forbidden. Now, it's a conundrum:

"A new order signed by Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Schloesser, commander of Combined Joint Task Force-101, has lifted a ban on sexual relations between unmarried men and women in the combat zone.

General Order No. 1 outlines a number of prohibited activities and standards of conduct for U.S. troops and civilians working for the military in Afghanistan. Previously, under the regulation, sexual relations and "intimate behavior" between men and women not married to each other were a strict no-no. The regulation also barred members of the opposite sex from going into each other’s living quarters unless they were married to each other. (...)

The new regulation warns that sex in a combat zone "can have an adverse impact on unit cohesion, morale, good order and discipline."

But sexual relations and physical intimacy between men and women not married to each other are no longer banned outright. They’re only "highly discouraged," and that’s as long as they’re "not otherwise prohibited" by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, according to the new order.

Single men and women can now also visit each other’s living quarters, as long as everyone else who lives there agrees, and as long as visitors of the opposite sex remain in the open "and not behind closed doors, partitions or other isolated or segregated areas," according to the new regulation.

Unmarried men and women who are alone together in living quarters must leave the door open, according to the new policy.

Men and women "will not cohabit with, reside or sleep with members of the opposite gender in living spaces of any kind," unless they are married or if it’s necessary for military reasons, the new policy states.

A cursory reading of the order would seem to suggest that unmarried men and women could have sex in their living quarters, as long as all other persons who live there agree, or if they left the door open, if they were otherwise alone. But that’s not the case, said Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, a spokeswoman for Regional Command East and Combined Joint Task Force-101.

"Sex in both scenarios … would be a chargeable offense under the UCMJ," Nielson-Green said, referring to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in an e-mail to Stars and Stripes. (...)

"The bottom line is that the troops are responsible for their own behavior," Nielson-Green said. She declined to "speculate" on the conditions under which soldiers could engage in legal sexual behavior." (h/t)

So: sex used to be against the rules. Now, it isn't, but no one can think of any actual circumstances in which it would be allowed.

So, um, why did they bother to make this change?

Better Make Those Flowers and Candies "To Go"

by Eric Martin

Wow.  This is pretty big news (via the indefatigable Cernig):

Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric has been quietly issuing religious edicts declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible — a potentially significant shift by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad.

The edicts, or fatwas, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani suggest he seeks to sharpen his long-held opposition to American troops and counter the populist appeal of his main rivals...Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.

But — unlike al-Sadr's anti-American broadsides — the Iranian-born al-Sistani has displayed extreme caution with anything that could imperil the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. [...]

In the past, al-Sistani has avoided answering even abstract questions on whether fighting the U.S. presence in Iraq is allowed by Islam. Such questions sent to his Web site — which he uses to respond to followers' queries — have been ignored. All visitors to his office who had asked the question received a vague response.

The subtle shift could point to his growing impatience with the continued American presence more than five years after the U.S.-led invasion.

It also underlines possible opposition to any agreement by Baghdad to allow a long-term U.S. military foothold in Iraq — part a deal that is currently under negotiation and could be signed as early as July. [...]

Al-Sistani's distaste for the U.S. presence is no secret. In his public fatwas on his Web site, he blames Washington for many of Iraq's woes.

But a more aggressive tone from the cleric could have worrisome ripples through Iraq's Shiite majority — 65 percent of the country's estimated 27 million population — in which many followers are swayed by his every word.

A longtime official at al-Sistani's office in Najaf would not deny or confirm the edicts issued in private, but hinted that a publicized call for jihad may come later.

"(Al-Sistani) rejects the American presence," he told the AP, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment to media. "He believes they (the Americans) will at the end pay a heavy price for the damage they inflicted on Iraq."

Yeah, those permanent bases, that 100 year slumber party...we might want to consider a change of plans.  Opposition from both Sadr and Sistani is deal breaker territory - especially when you throw in a good portion of the Sunni population as well. 

Now Sistani is old, and reportedly infirmed, but I wouldn't bank on his successor changing that tune.  Consider this: Sistani is moving in this direction, at least partially, because of public sentiment and Sadr's ability to capitalize on his anti-American stance.  Opposing the American presence is popular.  That's not going to change any time soon.

Sistani also expressed his gratitude for the toppling of Saddam:

Webb Bill Passes Senate

by hilzoy

From the Washington Post:

"The Senate today approved $165 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan well into the next presidency, but in a break with President Bush, it also approved billions of dollars in domestic spending and a generous expansion of veterans education benefits. (...)

The 75-22 vote surprised even the measure's advocates and showed clearly the impact of the looming November election on Republican unity. Senate Republicans who face reelection broke first on the amendment, followed by other Republicans who quickly jumped on board.

It was a clear rebuke to Bush, who has promised to veto any measure that adds domestic spending to his $108 billion request to fund the war. The White House opposed the expanded G.I. Bill, concerned that the price tag was too high and the generous benefits could entice soldiers and Marines to leave the overburdened military rather than reenlist."

This is really great news. Good for Jim Webb for pushing it; good for the Senators who voted for it. The roll call is here.

***

In somewhat related news, during the debate on this bill Barack Obama said: "I respect Senator John McCain's service to our country. He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can't understand why he would line up behind the President in his opposition to this GI bill." I thought that was a pretty innocuous statement, myself. But it seems to have gotten to McCain, who shot back a long response which falls somewhere on the spectrum running from caustic to downright bizarre. It begins:

"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim."

I do not, and never would, question either John McCain's personal heroism or his admiration and respect for veterans. If I hadn't just gone and looked up his record on veterans' issues, it would not occur to me to wonder whether that admiration and respect had actually translated into action. But I did, and it didn't. That made me somewhat less sympathetic to the condescension that followed, and less inclined to take McCain's recitation of his family history as showing much of anything.

I particularly liked the part about the responsibilities of the Presidency being so serious that a person of conscience cannot take the politically easy route. No doubt that explains why McCain has refused the temptation to support making permanent the tax cuts he once called irresponsible:

"Contrast this with McCain 2001, who said, quite correctly, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief." Or McCain 2003, who called further tax cuts "irresponsible," adding, "At a time of war, at a time of economic stagnation, at a time of rising national debt . . . one might expect our national leaders to pursue policies calling for shared sacrifice to achieve shared benefits. Regrettably, that is not the case." Or McCain 2004, who said, "I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit.""

No doubt it also explains why McCain never resorted to cheap political gimmicks like temporary cuts in the gas tax, or misrepresenting negotiation as appeasement. That would be to take the politically easy route, instead of taking his responsibilities seriously. And John McCain would never, ever, do that.

All Those Dirty Words...

by Eric Martin

Noah Pollak places the cart before the horse and yells "gotcha" from the saddle:

Why is McCain allowing himself to be dragged into a debate about presidential-level diplomacy, when the more important question — and the question whose answer is more politically favorable to McCain — is whether diplomatic engagement will actually get anything accomplished? McCain should be asking Obama what concessions he realistically thinks he’s going to get from the Iranians upon going hat in hand to Tehran.

Matt Yglesias makes it a teaching moment:

The problem here is that, once again, we see hawks not understanding what diplomacy is...[T]hink of diplomacy as a kind of bargaining. Like you might do at a yard sale or something. Diplomacy doesn't exist at one end of a spectrum of coercive measures -- we try war, we try sanctions, we try diplomacy -- any more than bargaining operates on a smooth continuum with robbery. The point of bargaining with a vendor is to see whether or not it's possible to find mutually acceptable terms that improve both parties' positions. In terms of diplomacy with Iran, the idea isn't that Obama's steely gaze would force concessions out of the Iranians, the idea is that we might be able to give Iran something Iran deems more valuable than weapons-grade nuclear material, and in exchange we would get verifiable disarmament.

The "something" here would presumably be some form of security assurances plus an accommodation to Iranian interests in Iraq, along with Teheran and Washington laying out a pathway to gradual normalization of relations in exchange for an end to Iranian support for terrorism and Palestinian rejectionist groups. Would it be possible to strike such a deal? Maybe, maybe not. But the purpose of a negotiating session would be to find out by attempting to do the bargaining rather than having five more years of back-and-forth blog posts speculating about the possibility. The general theory of diplomacy is that rational actors should, through negotiations, be able to achieve positive-sum settlements rather than negative-sum conflicts. It's always possible that your would-be negotiating partner will prove irrational (as George W. Bush did when he rejected Iranian peace overtures several years back) and the process will fail, but it's worth attempting in good faith. [emphasis added]

Um, yeah.  The best way to find out what you can get through negotiations is to, you know, negotiate!  Pollak's other main argument is that we've been trying the "Obama approach" with respect to Iran's nuclear program and it hasn't worked.

From 2002 to 2006, the EU-3 (Germany, France, the UK) and the IAEA attempted to dissuade the Iranians from their nuclear program through high-level diplomacy and when that saga of fruitlessness was finally handed over to the UN Security Council, Russia and China saw to it that the only sanctions passed would illustrate nothing more than the ambivalence and impotence of the international community.

Notice anything missing from that equation that Obama could bring to the table?  How about the direct involvement of the US government in the bargaining process?  Further, how about the involvement of a US government that is actually willing to take negotiations seriously and consider making significant concessions and compromises, as outlined by Yglesias above? 

Which is all the difference in the world.  Iran's not going to make a deal unless it gets what it wants from the US.  To the extent that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, it has something to do with its fear of the US.  Not unfounded or irrational I would say considering the shared history between the two nations. 

Now maybe Iran will ask for too much.  Maybe not.  But we won't know until we ask.

Her Own Private Zimbabwe

by hilzoy
CBS News:

"Desperate to get attention for her cause to seat Florida and Michigan delegates, Hillary Clinton compared the plight of Zimbabweans in their recent fraudulent election to the uncounted votes of Michigan and Florida voters saying it is wrong when “people go through the motions of an election only to have them discarded and disregarded.”

“We’re seeing that right now in Zimbabwe," Clinton explained. "Tragically, an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people,” Clinton told the crowd of senior citizens at a retirement community in south Florida."

The news from Zimbabwe:

"We can't believe that the youthful, soft-spoken,humble, truthful, dreadlocked Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) activist, Tonderai Ndira is nomore. Today we give this eulogy for a courageous men who stood against evil.Tonderai Ndira was abducted last week at his Mabvuku home by members of the Central Intelligence Organization (CIOs). We have just received the news that Tonderai's body was found near Parirenyatwa Hospital with the lips and tounge cut off."

And:

"My mother and brother were requested to surrender all that MDC materials in their custody. My brother and brother could not produce any of the items because they did not have any of it. They invited the group to search for these items anywhere in the house; they found nothing.

My mother and brother were taken out of the house and immersed in cold water. There were then forced to sit down and lashed with makeshift whips made of metal wires and wood planks. They were lashed on the back, under the feet and on the buttocks. They suffered severe bodily injuries namely, loss of skin and loss of flesh and gapping wounds on legs, back and buttocks. My mother lost fingernails.

This torture happened in the presence of my mother’s granddaughter and my cousin’s daughter who has mental health problems. Both girls are below the age of 10. The group stopped the beatings after 2 hours and left without making any arrangements for their victims to be treated."

And:

"Zimbabwean school teacher Patrick (not his real name) is angry and in pain.

He has three broken ribs, a bandaged right arm and is barely able to sit up; traces of blood can be seen in the drip attached to his stomach.

Two weeks ago he was beaten with iron bars in the northern Mashonaland Central Province.

He says the ruling Zanu-PF party youths who attacked him wanted to know why his school, used as a polling station in the 29 March elections, recorded a high figure of opposition voters."

And:

"The MDC have said 43 of their activists have been killed so far in worsening post-election violence countrywide. The official death toll stood at 41 over the weekend, but the party received information on Monday that two decomposed bodies had been unearthed in a village near Goromonzi just outside Harare. The bodies had gunshot and knife wounds. The party is yet to confirm the identity of these murdered activists, but party spokesman Nelson Chamisa told Newsreel they had dispatched a team to verify the identities."

Honestly: the similarities are just so striking. I don't know why I didn't see it before, especially after Hillary Clinton had to flee Florida and Michigan after her campaign received credible assassination threats.

Next up: an explanation of why "comparing the struggles of the voters in Florida and Michigan to those of abolitionists [and] suffragists" is completely reasonable, featuring interviews with Emmeline Pankhurst and Topsy.

The Dirty, Dirty Farm Bill

by publius

Well, you won’t hear me say this too often, but good for President Bush and good for John McCain for opposing the farm bill monstrosity. Obama should have done the same (maybe he will if and when he stops being an Illinois Senator). Here’s the Post describing a few of the bill’s more distasteful provisions:

The bill assures growers of basic crops such as wheat, cotton, corn and soybeans $5 billion a year in automatic payments, even if farm and food prices stay at record levels. And subsidies for the ethanol industry will decline only slightly, leaving largely intact support for the biofuel industry, which has been blamed for contributing to higher food prices.

Frankly, I think farm bill opponents need a new political strategy. Most of the opposition focused on how the bill was wasteful pork. And it truly was — reading about it makes you want to take a long shower. But that said, the pork argument doesn’t really resonate all that well. For one, Republicans (particularly Bush) have no credibility on that front. Second, the American people don’t really care about pork (i.e., the idea of it) — heck, local political campaigns often turn on who can bring home the most pork.

Instead, farm bill opponents should have spent more time arguing that it’s a substantively bad bill — more precisely, it’s a bill that jeopardizes health and increases hunger. For one, the subsidies of corn, sugar, and meat play a huge role in our nation’s obesity problem (not to mention in the broader lack of nutrition). Ezra Klein in particular has been criticizing the meat subsidies lately (see here and here). Second, the ethanol subsidies are, quite literally, about the worst policy you could imagine. They not only actually harm the environment (mostly through land use changes/deforestation), they are quite literally starving people across the globe.

Admittedly, the farm bill was probably a lost cause this year anyway. But arguing in a more direct substantive way at least helps mobilize political opposition for the future. In fact, you could easily imagine a progressive-evangelical political coalition forming around this issue. Feddie, how about it?

Blogroll

by publius

As I mentioned in a prior thread's comments, I cleaned up the sidebar on the left by essentially removing most of the links (I essentially made "Hilzoy's" to "Blogroll" and removed everything else, just as a starting point). This was just a first step, not a final one.

So without further ado, the floor is open for suggestions from the larger ObWi community about what links to add to the blogroll. If your own blog was removed, please let me know that too. Also, please don't limit the suggestions to liberal blogs. Thanks for the help.