By Karl Rove
Thursday, July 31, 2008
In a race supposedly dominated by the economy, both Barack Obama and John McCain have spent a lot of time talking about Iraq. Why? Because both men have Iraq problems that are causing difficulties for their campaigns.
How each candidate resolves his Iraq problems may determine who voters come to see as best qualified to set American foreign policy.
If Mr. McCain wins the argument on Iraq, he will add to his greatest strength -- a perceived fitness to be commander in chief and lead the global war on terror. As the underdog, Mr. McCain needs to convince voters that he is overwhelmingly the better choice on the issue.
Mr. Obama needs to win the argument because his greatest weakness is inexperience and a perceived unreadiness to be president. That's dangerous. Voters believe keeping America safe and strong is a president's most important responsibility.
Mr. McCain's first Iraq problem is that he favored removing Saddam Hussein when it was popular -- 76% of Americans thought it was worth going to war in April 2003 -- and has maintained his support of the war even as it grew to be unpopular. In January, only 32% of Americans said the war was worth it.
Mr. McCain's second Iraq problem is that the success of the surge he advocated has made it easier for voters to believe we can accelerate the drawdown of U.S. troops. This belief makes Mr. Obama's proposal to withdraw in 16 months seem more reasonable.
Mr. McCain's position was further complicated recently when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki seemed to give a semiendorsement of Mr. Obama's withdrawal plan. Mr. Maliki actually agrees with Mr. McCain that a timetable should be aspirational and based on conditions on the ground, which is why he said U.S. troops should be withdrawn by 2010 "if possible."
Some Iraqis are anxious to have American troops leave and some are not -- which is why Mr. Maliki treads a fine line on withdrawal. Unfortunately for Mr. McCain, this only complicates things for his campaign.
Mr. Obama's problem is he opposed the policy that created the progress that makes victory in Iraq possible. Mr. Obama's unbending opposition to the surge undermines his fundamental argument that he has better judgment on national security. Mr. McCain needs to use Mr. Obama's retrospective mistake to shape voters' prospective conclusion, convincing them that Mr. Obama's badly flawed judgment on the surge shows he cannot be trusted with major foreign-policy decisions.
Mr. Obama also created a problem by canceling a visit to U.S. soldiers who were wounded in Iraq and are now recuperating at Landstuhl hospital in Germany. His campaign has offered a welter of explanations. What's the real one? My rule is that when in doubt, see what a candidate said at the time and judge his candor. In a July 26 London news conference, Mr. Obama explained: "I was going to be accompanied by one of my advisers, a former military officer. And we got notice that he would be treated as a campaign person, and it would therefore be perceived as political because he had endorsed my candidacy, but he wasn't on the Senate staff."
The solution was obvious. Leave the campaign adviser behind and visit the wounded troops. Mr. Obama's decision to work out in the hotel gym instead adds to his growing reputation for arrogance.
Most importantly, Mr. Obama missed the opportunity to show he can admit a mistake. He could have said that what he saw on his visit to Iraq convinced him that the surge was right and its success now allows U.S. troops to be safely drawn down. Instead, he insisted he was right to say the surge wouldn't work.
That may give voters pause. If Mr. Obama can't admit the surge worked after the fact, how can voters count on him to keep his mind open to the facts on other important foreign-policy decisions?
Mr. Obama should not be misled by polls showing support for a timetable. Opinion surveys are notoriously unreliable in gauging public opinion on a complicated question like Iraq.
Americans can simultaneously support a withdrawal timetable and also insist that the withdrawal occur only when conditions justify it and military leaders recommend it. For instance, Gallup polls have shown that 69% of Americans think we should set a timetable for withdrawal, but 65% also want to establish stability and security before withdrawing. Like Messrs. McCain and Maliki, Americans are for an aspirational and conditional timetable. They want to win.
The conventional wisdom has been that this election will be decided on the economy. That will be crucial, but so is Iraq. And it makes perfect sense. We are, after all, a nation at war. And in wartime, electing a president who will win should matter most of all.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The End of Free Trade?
July 31, 2008; Page A14
The demise of the Doha trade round is another blow to the struggling world economy, and there's plenty of blame to go around. But the crucial question going forward is whether this is merely a temporary setback, or if it marks the end of the post-World War II free-trade era that has done so much to spread prosperity.
We tend by nature and history toward optimism, but no one should sugar-coat Doha's collapse. For the first time since the multilateral trading rounds began after World War II, a trade expansion effort has ended in failure. Trade negotiations are never perfect, but for half a century the trend has been toward freer trade and more open markets. This has opened vast new opportunities for global business, spreading competition and innovation that have helped to raise living standards across the globe.
In 1990, trade represented about 40% of world GDP, according to the World Bank. By 2004, trade exceeded 55% of world GDP, and the global economy had expanded by 50%. The five fastest-growing countries from 1990 to 2004 were Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, China, Ireland and Vietnam, and all of them had annual double-digit increases in trade. Meanwhile, the countries that traded the least -- Iran, many African countries -- have stagnated.
So pervasive have the blessings of trade become that they are taken for granted. Americans hear a lot about textile plant closings in North Carolina, but they barely notice their expanded purchasing power thanks to Wal-Mart's vast global supply network. Thirty years ago something as simple as cotton shirts and trousers were expensive; now they're cheap. Fresh fruit was once rare in January; now it's ubiquitous.
Manufacturing exports supported nearly six million U.S. jobs in 2006, a figure that has surely grown given the recent boom in U.S. sales abroad. Farm exports supported some 806,000 American jobs in 2005, a figure that has also surely grown with the booming world demand for U.S. corn, soybeans, wheat, meat and specialty crops.
Yet at Doha, all of this wasn't enough to defeat the protectionists. The media spin of the moment is that this shows the rising power of the developing world. But the real dividing line in the world economy isn't this updated version of the North vs. South 1950s cliché. The real battle is between those who want to expand this era of global trade and prosperity, and those who want to carve out their own protected niches.
The latter seems to include Indian Commerce Minister Kamal Nath, who is the main villain in this week's failure. He preened as a Third World hero by refusing to open his country further to farm imports, insisting on a "special safeguard mechanism" that would have let countries jack up their tariffs if imports rose too rapidly. He claimed this would protect the "livelihood of millions of farmers" in India. But the rise of India's middle class has coincided precisely with the move of millions from the countryside to cities, as well as India's growing engagement with the world economy. More Indians will stay poorer longer because of his obstinance.
The U.S. political class also bears a substantial part of the blame. In its waning months, the Bush Administration has less power to persuade. But part of that weakness goes back to the original trade sins of its first two years. With its steel tariffs and overstuffed farm subsidy bill of 2002, the Administration sent a signal that domestic politics took precedence over U.S. global trade leadership. Its credibility never recovered.
Democrats in Congress have also spooked the world with their blatant protectionism -- from their recent veto override of a farm bill jammed with trade-distorting subsidies, to their refusal to ratify bilateral trade deals even with such vital U.S. allies as Colombia and South Korea. Barack Obama's promise to repudiate Nafta if Mexico and Canada won't go along with his ideas was also a trade shock heard 'round the world. For all their talk about listening to America's partners, Democrats are the world's biggest trade bullies.
Having defeated Doha, the world's protectionists will now press forward with their special-interest agendas, hoping to build a lattice-work of cartels and managed trade. One way to push back is with bilateral or regional trade pacts, but these also risk establishing regional cartels and a web of conflicting trade rules that raise business costs.
Doha's failure is a lost opportunity, but it could become much worse if it galvanizes even part of the world to resort to the tariffs and currency devaluations that led to and exacerbated the Great Depression. It was precisely the bitter memory of that era that led the world's postwar statesmen to build the GATT, the European Common Market, and the rest of free-trade system we now take for granted at our peril.
What the world really needs now is a fresh burst of global economic leadership -- on currency movements, pro-growth tax policies, and free trade.
The demise of the Doha trade round is another blow to the struggling world economy, and there's plenty of blame to go around. But the crucial question going forward is whether this is merely a temporary setback, or if it marks the end of the post-World War II free-trade era that has done so much to spread prosperity.
We tend by nature and history toward optimism, but no one should sugar-coat Doha's collapse. For the first time since the multilateral trading rounds began after World War II, a trade expansion effort has ended in failure. Trade negotiations are never perfect, but for half a century the trend has been toward freer trade and more open markets. This has opened vast new opportunities for global business, spreading competition and innovation that have helped to raise living standards across the globe.
In 1990, trade represented about 40% of world GDP, according to the World Bank. By 2004, trade exceeded 55% of world GDP, and the global economy had expanded by 50%. The five fastest-growing countries from 1990 to 2004 were Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, China, Ireland and Vietnam, and all of them had annual double-digit increases in trade. Meanwhile, the countries that traded the least -- Iran, many African countries -- have stagnated.
So pervasive have the blessings of trade become that they are taken for granted. Americans hear a lot about textile plant closings in North Carolina, but they barely notice their expanded purchasing power thanks to Wal-Mart's vast global supply network. Thirty years ago something as simple as cotton shirts and trousers were expensive; now they're cheap. Fresh fruit was once rare in January; now it's ubiquitous.
Manufacturing exports supported nearly six million U.S. jobs in 2006, a figure that has surely grown given the recent boom in U.S. sales abroad. Farm exports supported some 806,000 American jobs in 2005, a figure that has also surely grown with the booming world demand for U.S. corn, soybeans, wheat, meat and specialty crops.
Yet at Doha, all of this wasn't enough to defeat the protectionists. The media spin of the moment is that this shows the rising power of the developing world. But the real dividing line in the world economy isn't this updated version of the North vs. South 1950s cliché. The real battle is between those who want to expand this era of global trade and prosperity, and those who want to carve out their own protected niches.
The latter seems to include Indian Commerce Minister Kamal Nath, who is the main villain in this week's failure. He preened as a Third World hero by refusing to open his country further to farm imports, insisting on a "special safeguard mechanism" that would have let countries jack up their tariffs if imports rose too rapidly. He claimed this would protect the "livelihood of millions of farmers" in India. But the rise of India's middle class has coincided precisely with the move of millions from the countryside to cities, as well as India's growing engagement with the world economy. More Indians will stay poorer longer because of his obstinance.
The U.S. political class also bears a substantial part of the blame. In its waning months, the Bush Administration has less power to persuade. But part of that weakness goes back to the original trade sins of its first two years. With its steel tariffs and overstuffed farm subsidy bill of 2002, the Administration sent a signal that domestic politics took precedence over U.S. global trade leadership. Its credibility never recovered.
Democrats in Congress have also spooked the world with their blatant protectionism -- from their recent veto override of a farm bill jammed with trade-distorting subsidies, to their refusal to ratify bilateral trade deals even with such vital U.S. allies as Colombia and South Korea. Barack Obama's promise to repudiate Nafta if Mexico and Canada won't go along with his ideas was also a trade shock heard 'round the world. For all their talk about listening to America's partners, Democrats are the world's biggest trade bullies.
Having defeated Doha, the world's protectionists will now press forward with their special-interest agendas, hoping to build a lattice-work of cartels and managed trade. One way to push back is with bilateral or regional trade pacts, but these also risk establishing regional cartels and a web of conflicting trade rules that raise business costs.
Doha's failure is a lost opportunity, but it could become much worse if it galvanizes even part of the world to resort to the tariffs and currency devaluations that led to and exacerbated the Great Depression. It was precisely the bitter memory of that era that led the world's postwar statesmen to build the GATT, the European Common Market, and the rest of free-trade system we now take for granted at our peril.
What the world really needs now is a fresh burst of global economic leadership -- on currency movements, pro-growth tax policies, and free trade.
The Supreme Court Is Wrong on the Death Penalty
By Laurence H. Tribe
Thursday, July 31, 2008
It's not often that the U.S. Supreme Court is asked by a state and the federal government to reconsider a case it has just handed down because it missed key evidence.
But that is what is happening now in Kennedy v. Louisiana. In that case, the court ruled in late June that Louisiana could not execute someone convicted of violently raping a child. Dividing along familiar 5-4 lines, the court held, speaking through Justice Anthony Kennedy, that the death penalty must be reserved for killers and traitors. To apply it to others, including the most reprehensible violators of young children, would constitute a "cruel and unusual punishment" violating the Constitution's Eighth Amendment.
Emphasizing the evolving character of what constitutes an "unusual" if not an unduly "cruel" punishment, the court rested its condemnation of executing the rapists of children largely on what it described as a trend away from the use of death to punish such crimes both here and abroad.
But there was a problem with the court's understanding of the basic facts. It failed to take into account -- because nobody involved in the case had noticed -- that in 2006 no less an authority than Congress, in the National Defense Authorization Act, had prescribed capital punishment as a penalty available for the rape of a child by someone in the military.
Defenders of the court's decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana would have it ignore that embarrassing wrinkle by treating the military as a parallel universe that simply does not intersect civilian justice on the plane of constitutional principle. But a court searching for universal principles of justice in the name of the Eighth Amendment would be hard pressed to accept that view of the military/civilian distinction. Particularly when the court's division tracks the usual liberal/conservative divide, its credibility depends on both candor and correctness when it comes to the factual predicates of its rulings.
Whatever one's view of the death penalty -- and I have long expressed misgivings on both its wisdom and its constitutionality -- it's important that the inequities and inequalities in its administration be minimized. Commitment to that principle, not a rush to the center, lay behind Barack Obama's disagreement with the court's ruling in this case even before the 2006 federal death penalty provision came to public attention.
Many who applauded the court's original ruling did so not on the basis of the court's (now evidently faulty) trend-spotting rationale but, rather, on the premise that any way of containing the spread of capital punishment -- such as by confining its use to murderers and traitors -- is a good idea. But even those who harbor serious doubts about capital punishment should feel duty-bound to oppose carve-outs from its reach that denigrate certain classes of victims, or that arbitrarily override democratic determinations that such victims deserve maximum protection.
If a legislature were to exempt the killers of gay men or lesbians from capital punishment, even dedicated death penalty opponents should cry foul in the Constitution's name. So too, should they cry foul when the judiciary holds the torturers or violent rapists of young children to be constitutionally exempt from the death penalty imposed by a legislature judicially permitted to apply that penalty to cop killers and murderers for hire. In doing so, the court is imposing a dubious limit on the ability of a representative government to enforce its own, entirely plausible, sense of which crimes deserve the most severe punishment.
To be sure, holding the line at murder and treason gives the judiciary a bright line that blurs once one says a legislature may include other offenses in its catalogue of what it deems the most heinous of all crimes. But the same may be said of virtually any bright line. Placing ease of judicial administration above respect for democracy and for principles of equal justice under law is inexcusable.
The Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause should not be construed in a manner that puts it on a collision course with the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The Supreme Court would do well to take that overriding consideration into account as it decides whether to revisit its seriously misinformed as well as morally misguided ruling.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
It's not often that the U.S. Supreme Court is asked by a state and the federal government to reconsider a case it has just handed down because it missed key evidence.
But that is what is happening now in Kennedy v. Louisiana. In that case, the court ruled in late June that Louisiana could not execute someone convicted of violently raping a child. Dividing along familiar 5-4 lines, the court held, speaking through Justice Anthony Kennedy, that the death penalty must be reserved for killers and traitors. To apply it to others, including the most reprehensible violators of young children, would constitute a "cruel and unusual punishment" violating the Constitution's Eighth Amendment.
Emphasizing the evolving character of what constitutes an "unusual" if not an unduly "cruel" punishment, the court rested its condemnation of executing the rapists of children largely on what it described as a trend away from the use of death to punish such crimes both here and abroad.
But there was a problem with the court's understanding of the basic facts. It failed to take into account -- because nobody involved in the case had noticed -- that in 2006 no less an authority than Congress, in the National Defense Authorization Act, had prescribed capital punishment as a penalty available for the rape of a child by someone in the military.
Defenders of the court's decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana would have it ignore that embarrassing wrinkle by treating the military as a parallel universe that simply does not intersect civilian justice on the plane of constitutional principle. But a court searching for universal principles of justice in the name of the Eighth Amendment would be hard pressed to accept that view of the military/civilian distinction. Particularly when the court's division tracks the usual liberal/conservative divide, its credibility depends on both candor and correctness when it comes to the factual predicates of its rulings.
Whatever one's view of the death penalty -- and I have long expressed misgivings on both its wisdom and its constitutionality -- it's important that the inequities and inequalities in its administration be minimized. Commitment to that principle, not a rush to the center, lay behind Barack Obama's disagreement with the court's ruling in this case even before the 2006 federal death penalty provision came to public attention.
Many who applauded the court's original ruling did so not on the basis of the court's (now evidently faulty) trend-spotting rationale but, rather, on the premise that any way of containing the spread of capital punishment -- such as by confining its use to murderers and traitors -- is a good idea. But even those who harbor serious doubts about capital punishment should feel duty-bound to oppose carve-outs from its reach that denigrate certain classes of victims, or that arbitrarily override democratic determinations that such victims deserve maximum protection.
If a legislature were to exempt the killers of gay men or lesbians from capital punishment, even dedicated death penalty opponents should cry foul in the Constitution's name. So too, should they cry foul when the judiciary holds the torturers or violent rapists of young children to be constitutionally exempt from the death penalty imposed by a legislature judicially permitted to apply that penalty to cop killers and murderers for hire. In doing so, the court is imposing a dubious limit on the ability of a representative government to enforce its own, entirely plausible, sense of which crimes deserve the most severe punishment.
To be sure, holding the line at murder and treason gives the judiciary a bright line that blurs once one says a legislature may include other offenses in its catalogue of what it deems the most heinous of all crimes. But the same may be said of virtually any bright line. Placing ease of judicial administration above respect for democracy and for principles of equal justice under law is inexcusable.
The Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause should not be construed in a manner that puts it on a collision course with the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The Supreme Court would do well to take that overriding consideration into account as it decides whether to revisit its seriously misinformed as well as morally misguided ruling.
Where's the Outrage? Really.
By Arthur C. Brooks
Thursday, July 31, 2008
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."
So lectures a popular bumper sticker in my university-dominated neighborhood. And according to an emerging journalistic narrative of this campaign season, ordinary Americans are indeed outraged -- at the Iraq war, at gas prices, and by the fact that their houses are not rising in value. As a July 4 Associated Press headline put it, "Americans' unhappy birthday: 'Too much wrong.'"
One does not do well to question the legitimacy of this alleged anger. Former Texas senator and McCain economic adviser Phil Gramm learned this the hard way. Looking at data showing less economic trouble than he felt the gloomy headlines warranted, he said in an interview on July 9 that the U.S. was a "nation of whiners" and that we are merely in a "mental recession." Within a few days he stepped down from a McCain campaign increasingly worried about a possible backlash from supposedly enraged voters.
The controversy about Mr. Gramm's comments involved whether Americans have the right to be angry. The anger itself is simply assumed to exist. Ironically, this assumption is questionable, and is not supported by the data.
In May 2008, the Gallup Organization asked 1,200 American adults how many days in the past week they had felt "outraged." The average number of angry days was 1.17, and 54% of those surveyed said none. Only one in 20 reported being outraged every day. Despite the litany of horrors presented to us daily by campaigning politicians, most of us appear to be doing really quite well managing our anger.
Indeed, we are less angry today than a decade ago. Let's look back to the glory days of the 1990s, when -- according to the media narrative -- we enjoyed uninterrupted peace and prosperity. In 1996, the General Social Survey asked exactly the same "outrage" question of 1,500 adults. Then, only 38% had not been outraged at all in the past week. The average number of angry days was 1.5 per week, 29% higher than at present.
Virtually every group in the population is less angry in 2008 than in 1996 -- those making more and those making less than the average income; college-educated and noncollege-educated folks; men and women.
Only one major group in the population has gotten angrier: people who call themselves "very liberal." While conservatives, moderates and nonextreme liberals all have seen their average levels of outrage fall over the past 12 years, the number of angry days among our leftiest neighbors has risen 56% (to 2.28 from 1.46), and the percentage with no angry days in the past week has fallen to 31% from 37%. Today, very liberal people spend more than twice as much time feeling angry as do political moderates. One in seven is outraged seven days a week.
The reason they are so angry -- and getting angrier -- is probably obvious. This is the group that feels the depredations of the Bush administration with every waking breath.
Should you pity your extremely progressive friends -- after all, they're more miserable than you, aren't they? Maybe not. In fact, anger does not translate very well into lower levels of happiness. In fact, extreme liberals were more likely than moderates in 2008 to say they were "very happy" about their lives (28% to 25%). This is of a piece with a growing body of political research which finds that people on the extreme left (and extreme right) tend to be quite a bit happier than those with more moderate views.
A more interesting question than what afflicts extreme liberals today is why folks outside their ranks (including moderate liberals) are failing so miserably to muster up much rage in the current environment. One theory is that ordinary Americans have been lulled into a culture of complacency -- or in the fancier language of academics, they're suffering from "false consciousness."
Another possibility is that most Americans recognize that, while gas is expensive and our grocery money doesn't go as far as it did last year, we are still an enormously prosperous and fortunate nation.
In some countries, a depressed economic climate means mass unemployment, political instability and large-scale deprivation. In America this decade, we have reached the point at which even in a down economy, our unemployment rate does not reach 6% (lower than the rates in Canada and the European Union, let alone those in the developing world). Any unwanted unemployment is terrible; but it is worth remembering that this stability especially benefits the economically vulnerable.
Furthermore, no matter what the state of our economy, we can realistically count on uninterrupted provision of critical public services, high business start-up rates, the world's highest levels of charitable giving and volunteering, and countless other benefits that come from living in a successful nation.
We may well be unsatisfied with the current state of affairs. Some Americans are suffering, and cannot be faulted for seeking substantial political change in the coming election. But most of us are reasonable people, and can see the difference between correctable problems within a strong system of democratic capitalism and the kind of catastrophic failure that justifies real outrage.
For the nonoutraged majority, here's what the bumper sticker ought perhaps to say: "If you're not grateful to live in America, you're not paying attention."
Thursday, July 31, 2008
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."
So lectures a popular bumper sticker in my university-dominated neighborhood. And according to an emerging journalistic narrative of this campaign season, ordinary Americans are indeed outraged -- at the Iraq war, at gas prices, and by the fact that their houses are not rising in value. As a July 4 Associated Press headline put it, "Americans' unhappy birthday: 'Too much wrong.'"
One does not do well to question the legitimacy of this alleged anger. Former Texas senator and McCain economic adviser Phil Gramm learned this the hard way. Looking at data showing less economic trouble than he felt the gloomy headlines warranted, he said in an interview on July 9 that the U.S. was a "nation of whiners" and that we are merely in a "mental recession." Within a few days he stepped down from a McCain campaign increasingly worried about a possible backlash from supposedly enraged voters.
The controversy about Mr. Gramm's comments involved whether Americans have the right to be angry. The anger itself is simply assumed to exist. Ironically, this assumption is questionable, and is not supported by the data.
In May 2008, the Gallup Organization asked 1,200 American adults how many days in the past week they had felt "outraged." The average number of angry days was 1.17, and 54% of those surveyed said none. Only one in 20 reported being outraged every day. Despite the litany of horrors presented to us daily by campaigning politicians, most of us appear to be doing really quite well managing our anger.
Indeed, we are less angry today than a decade ago. Let's look back to the glory days of the 1990s, when -- according to the media narrative -- we enjoyed uninterrupted peace and prosperity. In 1996, the General Social Survey asked exactly the same "outrage" question of 1,500 adults. Then, only 38% had not been outraged at all in the past week. The average number of angry days was 1.5 per week, 29% higher than at present.
Virtually every group in the population is less angry in 2008 than in 1996 -- those making more and those making less than the average income; college-educated and noncollege-educated folks; men and women.
Only one major group in the population has gotten angrier: people who call themselves "very liberal." While conservatives, moderates and nonextreme liberals all have seen their average levels of outrage fall over the past 12 years, the number of angry days among our leftiest neighbors has risen 56% (to 2.28 from 1.46), and the percentage with no angry days in the past week has fallen to 31% from 37%. Today, very liberal people spend more than twice as much time feeling angry as do political moderates. One in seven is outraged seven days a week.
The reason they are so angry -- and getting angrier -- is probably obvious. This is the group that feels the depredations of the Bush administration with every waking breath.
Should you pity your extremely progressive friends -- after all, they're more miserable than you, aren't they? Maybe not. In fact, anger does not translate very well into lower levels of happiness. In fact, extreme liberals were more likely than moderates in 2008 to say they were "very happy" about their lives (28% to 25%). This is of a piece with a growing body of political research which finds that people on the extreme left (and extreme right) tend to be quite a bit happier than those with more moderate views.
A more interesting question than what afflicts extreme liberals today is why folks outside their ranks (including moderate liberals) are failing so miserably to muster up much rage in the current environment. One theory is that ordinary Americans have been lulled into a culture of complacency -- or in the fancier language of academics, they're suffering from "false consciousness."
Another possibility is that most Americans recognize that, while gas is expensive and our grocery money doesn't go as far as it did last year, we are still an enormously prosperous and fortunate nation.
In some countries, a depressed economic climate means mass unemployment, political instability and large-scale deprivation. In America this decade, we have reached the point at which even in a down economy, our unemployment rate does not reach 6% (lower than the rates in Canada and the European Union, let alone those in the developing world). Any unwanted unemployment is terrible; but it is worth remembering that this stability especially benefits the economically vulnerable.
Furthermore, no matter what the state of our economy, we can realistically count on uninterrupted provision of critical public services, high business start-up rates, the world's highest levels of charitable giving and volunteering, and countless other benefits that come from living in a successful nation.
We may well be unsatisfied with the current state of affairs. Some Americans are suffering, and cannot be faulted for seeking substantial political change in the coming election. But most of us are reasonable people, and can see the difference between correctable problems within a strong system of democratic capitalism and the kind of catastrophic failure that justifies real outrage.
For the nonoutraged majority, here's what the bumper sticker ought perhaps to say: "If you're not grateful to live in America, you're not paying attention."
What If Iraq Works?
Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday, July 31, 2008
There is a growing confidence among officers, diplomats and politicians that a constitutional Iraq is going to make it. We don't hear much anymore of trisecting the country, much less pulling all American troops out in defeat.
Critics of the war now argue that a victory in Iraq was not worth the costs, not that victory was always impossible. The worst terrorist leaders, like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Muqtada al-Sadr, are either dead or in hiding.
The 2007 surge, the Anbar Awakening of tribal sheiks against al-Qaida, the change to counterinsurgency tactics, the vast increase in the size and competence of the Iraqi Security Forces, the sheer number of enemy jihadists killed between 2003-8, the unexpected political savvy of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the magnetic leadership of Gen. David Petraeus have all contributed to a radically improved Iraq.
Pundits and politicians -- especially presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama -- are readjusting their positions to reflect the new undeniable realities on the ground in Iraq:
The additional five combat brigades of the surge sent to Iraq in 2007 are already redeployed out of the country. American soldiers are incrementally turning province after province over to the Iraqi Security Forces, and planning careful but steady withdrawals for 2009.
Violence is way down. American military fatalities in Iraq for July, as of Tuesday, were the lowest monthly losses since May 2003. The Iraq theater may soon mirror other deployments in the Balkans, Europe and Asia, in which casualties are largely non-combat-related.
Since overseas troops have to be billeted, fed and equipped somewhere -- whether in Germany, Okinawa or Iraq -- the material costs of deployment in Iraq may soon likewise approximate those of other theaters. Anger over the costs of the "war" could soon be simply part of a wider debate over the need for, and expense of, maintaining a large number of American troops anywhere abroad.
For over four years, war critics insisted that we took our eye off Afghanistan, empowered Iran, allowed other rogue nations to run amuck and soured our allies while we were mired in an unnecessary war. But how true is all that?
The continuing violence in Afghanistan can be largely attributed to Pakistan, whose tribal wild lands serve as a safe haven for Taliban operations across the border. To the extent the war in Iraq has affected Afghanistan, it may well prove to have been positive for the U.S.: Many Afghan and Pakistani jihadists have been killed in Iraq, the war has discredited al-Qaida, and the U.S. military has gained crucial expertise on tribal counterinsurgency.
Iran in the short-term may have been strengthened by a weakened Iraq, U.S. losses and acrimony over the war. Yet a constitutional Iraq of free Sunnis and Shiites may soon prove as destabilizing to Iran as Iranian subversion once was to Iraq. Nearby American troops, freed from daily fighting in Iraq, should appear to Iran as seasoned rather than exhausted. If Iraq is deemed successful rather than a quagmire, it is also likely that our allies in Europe and the surrounding region will be more likely to pressure Iran.
These shifting realities may explain both the shrill pronouncements emanating from a worried Iran and its desire for diplomatic talks with American representatives.
Other rogue nations -- North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba (not to mention al-Qaida itself) -- also do not, for all their bluster, think that or act like an impotent U.S military is mired in defeat in Iraq.
Meanwhile, surrounding Arab countries may soon strengthen ties with Iraq. After all, military success creates friends as much as defeat loses them. In the past, Iraq's neighbors worried either about Saddam Hussein's aggression or subsequent Shiite/Sunni sectarianism. Now a constitutional Iraq offers them some reassurance that neither Iraqi conventional nor terrorist forces will attack.
None of this means that a secure future for Iraq is certain. After all, there are no constitutional oil-producing states in the Middle East. Instead, we usually see two pathologies: either a state like Iran where petrodollars are recycled to fund terrorist groups and centrifuges, or the Gulf autocracies where vast profits result in artificial islands, indoor ski runs and radical Islamic propaganda.
Iraq could still degenerate into one of those models. But for now, Iraq -- with an elected government and free press -- is not investing its wealth in subsidizing terrorists outside its borders, spreading abroad fundamentalist madrassas, building centrifuges or allowing a few thousand royal first cousins to squander its oil profits.
Iraq for the last 20 years was the worst place in the Middle East. The irony is that it may now have the most promising future in the entire region.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
There is a growing confidence among officers, diplomats and politicians that a constitutional Iraq is going to make it. We don't hear much anymore of trisecting the country, much less pulling all American troops out in defeat.
Critics of the war now argue that a victory in Iraq was not worth the costs, not that victory was always impossible. The worst terrorist leaders, like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Muqtada al-Sadr, are either dead or in hiding.
The 2007 surge, the Anbar Awakening of tribal sheiks against al-Qaida, the change to counterinsurgency tactics, the vast increase in the size and competence of the Iraqi Security Forces, the sheer number of enemy jihadists killed between 2003-8, the unexpected political savvy of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the magnetic leadership of Gen. David Petraeus have all contributed to a radically improved Iraq.
Pundits and politicians -- especially presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama -- are readjusting their positions to reflect the new undeniable realities on the ground in Iraq:
The additional five combat brigades of the surge sent to Iraq in 2007 are already redeployed out of the country. American soldiers are incrementally turning province after province over to the Iraqi Security Forces, and planning careful but steady withdrawals for 2009.
Violence is way down. American military fatalities in Iraq for July, as of Tuesday, were the lowest monthly losses since May 2003. The Iraq theater may soon mirror other deployments in the Balkans, Europe and Asia, in which casualties are largely non-combat-related.
Since overseas troops have to be billeted, fed and equipped somewhere -- whether in Germany, Okinawa or Iraq -- the material costs of deployment in Iraq may soon likewise approximate those of other theaters. Anger over the costs of the "war" could soon be simply part of a wider debate over the need for, and expense of, maintaining a large number of American troops anywhere abroad.
For over four years, war critics insisted that we took our eye off Afghanistan, empowered Iran, allowed other rogue nations to run amuck and soured our allies while we were mired in an unnecessary war. But how true is all that?
The continuing violence in Afghanistan can be largely attributed to Pakistan, whose tribal wild lands serve as a safe haven for Taliban operations across the border. To the extent the war in Iraq has affected Afghanistan, it may well prove to have been positive for the U.S.: Many Afghan and Pakistani jihadists have been killed in Iraq, the war has discredited al-Qaida, and the U.S. military has gained crucial expertise on tribal counterinsurgency.
Iran in the short-term may have been strengthened by a weakened Iraq, U.S. losses and acrimony over the war. Yet a constitutional Iraq of free Sunnis and Shiites may soon prove as destabilizing to Iran as Iranian subversion once was to Iraq. Nearby American troops, freed from daily fighting in Iraq, should appear to Iran as seasoned rather than exhausted. If Iraq is deemed successful rather than a quagmire, it is also likely that our allies in Europe and the surrounding region will be more likely to pressure Iran.
These shifting realities may explain both the shrill pronouncements emanating from a worried Iran and its desire for diplomatic talks with American representatives.
Other rogue nations -- North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba (not to mention al-Qaida itself) -- also do not, for all their bluster, think that or act like an impotent U.S military is mired in defeat in Iraq.
Meanwhile, surrounding Arab countries may soon strengthen ties with Iraq. After all, military success creates friends as much as defeat loses them. In the past, Iraq's neighbors worried either about Saddam Hussein's aggression or subsequent Shiite/Sunni sectarianism. Now a constitutional Iraq offers them some reassurance that neither Iraqi conventional nor terrorist forces will attack.
None of this means that a secure future for Iraq is certain. After all, there are no constitutional oil-producing states in the Middle East. Instead, we usually see two pathologies: either a state like Iran where petrodollars are recycled to fund terrorist groups and centrifuges, or the Gulf autocracies where vast profits result in artificial islands, indoor ski runs and radical Islamic propaganda.
Iraq could still degenerate into one of those models. But for now, Iraq -- with an elected government and free press -- is not investing its wealth in subsidizing terrorists outside its borders, spreading abroad fundamentalist madrassas, building centrifuges or allowing a few thousand royal first cousins to squander its oil profits.
Iraq for the last 20 years was the worst place in the Middle East. The irony is that it may now have the most promising future in the entire region.
From Gitmo to Miranda, With Love
By Debra Burlingame
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Captive Miranda, Lord knows I have not given a thought to the paperwork you sent me.
Let me tell you, Captive, that our release is not in the hands of the lawyers or the hands of America. Our release is in the hands of He who created us.
The poem, "To My Captive Lawyer, Miranda," was written by Abdullah Saleh Al-Ajmi while he was a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No doubt, it would have given the former detainee, who was released in 2005, immense satisfaction to know that his last earthly deed was referenced in Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion in Boumediene v. Bush. That's the recent Supreme Court decision that gave Guantanamo detainees the constitutional right to challenge, in habeas corpus proceedings, whether they were properly classified by the military as enemy combatants.
Al-Ajmi, a 29-year-old Kuwaiti, blew himself up in one of several coordinated suicide attacks on Iraqi security forces in Mosul this year. Originally reported to have participated in an April attack that killed six Iraqi policemen, a recent martyrdom video published on a password-protected al Qaeda Web site indicates that Al-Ajmi carried out the March 23 attack on an Iraqi army compound in Mosul. In that attack, an armored truck loaded with an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 pounds of explosives rammed through a fortified gate, overturned vehicles in its path and exploded in the center of the compound. The huge blast ripped the façade off three apartment buildings being used as barracks, killing 13 soldiers from the 2nd Iraqi Army division and seriously wounding 42 others.
Using the name "Abu Juheiman al-Kuwaiti," Al-Ajmi is seen on the video brandishing an automatic rifle, singing militant songs and exhorting his fellow Muslims to pledge their allegiance to the "Commander of the Faithful" in Iraq. Later, Al-Ajmi's face is superimposed over the army compound, followed by footage of the massive explosion and still shots of several dead bodies lying next to the 25-foot crater left by the blast.
In 2006, Al-Ajmi's "Miranda" poem was included in a recitation of detainee poetry at a "Guantanamo teach-in" sponsored by Seton Hall Law School. The all-day event was Webcast live to 400 colleges and law schools across the country and abroad. Some of the lead attorneys pushing for detainee rights participated in the event, which began with organizers boasting about the diversity of the event's participating schools as exemplified by the American University of Paris, the American University in Cairo, the U.N. University for Peace in Costa Rica, Princeton Theological Seminary, and Parsons School of Design in New York City. One of Al-Ajmi's lawyers gave a presentation about detainee treatment entitled, "Insults to Religion."
Marc Falkoff, a former Covington & Burling attorney-turned-law-professor who represents several detainees, read the poems and later published a selection of them in a book ("Poems from Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak," Iowa University Press, 2007.) In his introductory remarks to the students, Mr. Falkoff described Al-Ajmi and the other detainee poets as "gentle, thoughtful young men" who, though frustrated and disillusioned, expressed an abiding hope in the future. "One thing you won't hear is hatred," he said, "and the reason you won't hear it is not because I edited it out, it's because it's not there in the poetry." Then how to explain the fact that -- on the advice of Al-Ajmi's attorneys -- "To My Captive Lawyer, Miranda," was excluded from the published collection last year? Mr. Falkoff, who also has a Ph.D. in literature, refused to explain further, though he insists on describing Al-Ajmi's verse as a "love poem to his lawyer."
Miranda, antelope, I am madly in love with captive Roman gazelles.
I pledge that if I ever see you outside this jail, I shall capture you and take you in a starry night.
In light of Al-Ajmi's deadly suicide attack, his poem seems less, as Mr. Falkoff insisted in a recent interview, "a trope about being a prisoner of love," and more about taunting his lawyers and mocking the American legal system. As any devotee of the successful "Law & Order" television franchise knows, "Miranda" is more than a fanciful female name. It is also the name of another infamous prisoner -- Ernesto Miranda, the career criminal and itinerant sex offender whose 1966 landmark legal case resulted in the "Miranda rule," requiring law enforcement officers to inform criminal suspects in custody of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney during questioning.
It is easy to imagine the detainees' attorneys, upon first arriving at Guantanamo in 2004, earnestly explaining to their incredulous clients how the Miranda warning works. Incredulous, because detainees would certainly grasp that extending the full array of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to unlawful enemy combatants would have a devastating effect on vital intelligence-gathering efforts. Indeed, lawyers have already become part of the al Qaeda tool kit. When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was apprehended in Pakistan in 2003 and handed over to the U.S., he reportedly told his initial interrogators, "I'll talk to you guys when you take me to New York and I can see my lawyer."
After the Boumediene decision, that is no longer an empty threat. While Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in his 5-4 majority opinion that detainees are entitled to habeas review in the federal courts, he failed to expressly outline what legal standards the government would have to meet for detainee cases to pass constitutional muster. Many legal experts contend that if the habeas lawyers succeed in attaining for detainees the same degree of procedural rights as those extended to ordinary criminal defendants in domestic cases, "lawyering up" would mean the end of terrorist questioning, not the beginning.
If this is what "Miranda" represents, no wonder an Islamist suicide bomber would love her.
Miranda, what can I say? The heart is incarcerated in prisons of injustice, tortured and deprived, targeted with sharp, poisoned arrows by the hands of oppressors who have no mercy. Tell the mothers about their sons, the prisoners, brothers in bondage . . . they shall walk home.
But many in the detainees' home countries aren't welcoming them with open arms. The bombings carried out by Al-Ajmi and two other Kuwaiti nationals have stirred a public outcry from their fellow citizens. Al-Ajmi's own father has reportedly threatened to sue the government of Kuwait for issuing his son a passport and failing to live up to the terms set forth in the transfer agreement with U.S. State Department as a condition of his release. Kuwait's negligence and the State Department's failure to follow up have resulted in calls from the public for the detainees to stay right where they are and for Guantanamo to stay in operation.
"I believe the U.S. State Department knows the prisoners well, their way of thinking, and their plans after being released from prison," wrote Ali Ahmad Al-Baghli, Kuwait's former Minister of Oil, in the Arab Times after news of Al-Ajmi's suicide attack broke. He specifically criticized the outspoken leader of the Kuwaiti detainee families committee, Khalid Al-Odah, (interestingly, he is one of the "translators" Mr. Falkoff acknowledges in his poetry book), whose son remains at Guantanamo. Al-Odah hired a Washington, D.C., public-relations firm to "humanize" the detainees with sympathetic press.
"We cannot romanticize them into fallen heroes of Western neo-imperialism," wrote Shamael Al-Sharikh, a columnist for the Kuwaiti Times, in an article advocating that Guantanamo stay open, "because we are as much potential victims of terrorist attacks as [Americans] are."
As an example of where we might be headed after Boumediene, consider the situation in Britain. In June, Abu Qatada, a radical imam wanted in connection with bombing conspiracies in several countries, was released from jail after seven years of fighting his deportation. Qatada, whose recorded sermons were found in the Hamburg apartment of the 9/11 hijackers, was described by an immigration appeals commission as a "truly dangerous individual" who was "heavily involved, indeed at the center of terrorist activities associated with al-Qa'eda."
But judges in Britain will not extradite him to Jordan, where he was convicted in absentia, because his lawyers allege that the evidence against him might have been obtained by torture. Sending him packing under these circumstances, the court ruled, would violate the European Convention on Human Rights.
The result is a perverse situation in which, to protect the human rights of the man who issued a fatwa to kill the wives and children of Egyptian police and army officers, the British public pays a yearly tab of $1.1 million to cover Qatada's round-the-clock police surveillance, housing and welfare assistance for him, his wife and five children.
For those who scoff at the idea that U.S. judges would release a dangerous terrorist here, think again. As Attorney General Michael Mukasey pointed out in a speech earlier this month at the American Enterprise Institute, the Boumediene decision was vague on every detail but one. The ruling said that for habeas review to mean anything, the court must have the power to release. What do we do with a graduate of al Qaeda training camps who hasn't yet committed an act of violence? What do we do if no country will take him? If Congress doesn't intervene, the most difficult detainee cases may end up being administered by federal judges who are dismissive of concerns about enemy combatants returning to the battlefield.
"Courts guarantee an independent process, not an outcome," wrote John Coughenour, the federal judge who presided over the trial of "millennium bomber" Ahmad Ressam in a Washington Post op-ed just this Sunday. Yes, and that is precisely why Congress has an obligation to formulate the substance and parameters of that process. Judges do not make law or policy. The scope of their review is limited to the immediate case before them.
Unless Congress weighs in, judges -- unaccountable to the body politic -- will decide what standards of proof and rules of evidence will apply to these detainees, resulting in an ad hoc, case-by-case body of law which focuses on the rights of the detainees, not on the consequences for our war fighters who risk their lives to capture them. Since when do we leave it to judges to decide when and to what degree our troops are required to engage in police duties in the heat of battle?
Further, judges only rule on the applications made by the lawyers who come before them. Despite their rhetoric about "rule of law," attorneys are not charged with acting in furtherance of the national security interests of the public. Their obligation is to their clients alone, the detainees. Hence, we have witnessed the six-year campaign by Gitmo lawyers to pressure the U.S. government into releasing dangerous men before their cases come before a military tribunal or are heard in the federal courts.
David Cynamon, a senior attorney at Pillsbury Winthrop Putnam Shaw, is one of the lead lawyers negotiating the repatriation of the Kuwaiti detainees. In an email last fall to Pentagon officials, Mr. Cynamon expressed frustration with what he perceived as foot-dragging in the release of the last four Kuwaitis still held at Gitmo. He attached an exhibit which compared the unclassified information on all original 12 Kuwaiti detainees who were captured in Afghanistan. "I find it impossible to deduce from this chart," he wrote, "that the four who remain are any more (or less) [sic] dangerous than the ones who were returned." After Al-Ajmi's devastating suicide attack in Mosul, one hopes the Pentagon is giving his chart a second look.
Meanwhile, the habeas attorneys' effort to smear the United States and paint their clients as innocent victims continues. "Poems from Guantanamo" was taught this spring in an undergraduate course called "Writers in Exile" at City University of New York in Queens, a short distance from Ground Zero. The book's introduction states that the detainee poets "follow in the footsteps of prisoners who wrote in the Gulag, the Nazi concentration camps, and, closer to home, Japanese-American internment camps." One of the students, posting on the class blog, wrote of the detainees' plight, "Wow, I had no idea. For the first time in my life, I am ashamed to be seen as an American."
Your whole being and your heart will be captivated by this night, who drove the Romans to madness. You will forget everything about Rome and will live the life of faith in Islam.
Abdullah Salem Al-Ajmi, the detainee who wrote of turning the tables on his lawyer, Miranda, should haunt the dreams of every member of Congress.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Captive Miranda, Lord knows I have not given a thought to the paperwork you sent me.
Let me tell you, Captive, that our release is not in the hands of the lawyers or the hands of America. Our release is in the hands of He who created us.
The poem, "To My Captive Lawyer, Miranda," was written by Abdullah Saleh Al-Ajmi while he was a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No doubt, it would have given the former detainee, who was released in 2005, immense satisfaction to know that his last earthly deed was referenced in Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion in Boumediene v. Bush. That's the recent Supreme Court decision that gave Guantanamo detainees the constitutional right to challenge, in habeas corpus proceedings, whether they were properly classified by the military as enemy combatants.
Al-Ajmi, a 29-year-old Kuwaiti, blew himself up in one of several coordinated suicide attacks on Iraqi security forces in Mosul this year. Originally reported to have participated in an April attack that killed six Iraqi policemen, a recent martyrdom video published on a password-protected al Qaeda Web site indicates that Al-Ajmi carried out the March 23 attack on an Iraqi army compound in Mosul. In that attack, an armored truck loaded with an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 pounds of explosives rammed through a fortified gate, overturned vehicles in its path and exploded in the center of the compound. The huge blast ripped the façade off three apartment buildings being used as barracks, killing 13 soldiers from the 2nd Iraqi Army division and seriously wounding 42 others.
Using the name "Abu Juheiman al-Kuwaiti," Al-Ajmi is seen on the video brandishing an automatic rifle, singing militant songs and exhorting his fellow Muslims to pledge their allegiance to the "Commander of the Faithful" in Iraq. Later, Al-Ajmi's face is superimposed over the army compound, followed by footage of the massive explosion and still shots of several dead bodies lying next to the 25-foot crater left by the blast.
In 2006, Al-Ajmi's "Miranda" poem was included in a recitation of detainee poetry at a "Guantanamo teach-in" sponsored by Seton Hall Law School. The all-day event was Webcast live to 400 colleges and law schools across the country and abroad. Some of the lead attorneys pushing for detainee rights participated in the event, which began with organizers boasting about the diversity of the event's participating schools as exemplified by the American University of Paris, the American University in Cairo, the U.N. University for Peace in Costa Rica, Princeton Theological Seminary, and Parsons School of Design in New York City. One of Al-Ajmi's lawyers gave a presentation about detainee treatment entitled, "Insults to Religion."
Marc Falkoff, a former Covington & Burling attorney-turned-law-professor who represents several detainees, read the poems and later published a selection of them in a book ("Poems from Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak," Iowa University Press, 2007.) In his introductory remarks to the students, Mr. Falkoff described Al-Ajmi and the other detainee poets as "gentle, thoughtful young men" who, though frustrated and disillusioned, expressed an abiding hope in the future. "One thing you won't hear is hatred," he said, "and the reason you won't hear it is not because I edited it out, it's because it's not there in the poetry." Then how to explain the fact that -- on the advice of Al-Ajmi's attorneys -- "To My Captive Lawyer, Miranda," was excluded from the published collection last year? Mr. Falkoff, who also has a Ph.D. in literature, refused to explain further, though he insists on describing Al-Ajmi's verse as a "love poem to his lawyer."
Miranda, antelope, I am madly in love with captive Roman gazelles.
I pledge that if I ever see you outside this jail, I shall capture you and take you in a starry night.
In light of Al-Ajmi's deadly suicide attack, his poem seems less, as Mr. Falkoff insisted in a recent interview, "a trope about being a prisoner of love," and more about taunting his lawyers and mocking the American legal system. As any devotee of the successful "Law & Order" television franchise knows, "Miranda" is more than a fanciful female name. It is also the name of another infamous prisoner -- Ernesto Miranda, the career criminal and itinerant sex offender whose 1966 landmark legal case resulted in the "Miranda rule," requiring law enforcement officers to inform criminal suspects in custody of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney during questioning.
It is easy to imagine the detainees' attorneys, upon first arriving at Guantanamo in 2004, earnestly explaining to their incredulous clients how the Miranda warning works. Incredulous, because detainees would certainly grasp that extending the full array of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to unlawful enemy combatants would have a devastating effect on vital intelligence-gathering efforts. Indeed, lawyers have already become part of the al Qaeda tool kit. When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was apprehended in Pakistan in 2003 and handed over to the U.S., he reportedly told his initial interrogators, "I'll talk to you guys when you take me to New York and I can see my lawyer."
After the Boumediene decision, that is no longer an empty threat. While Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in his 5-4 majority opinion that detainees are entitled to habeas review in the federal courts, he failed to expressly outline what legal standards the government would have to meet for detainee cases to pass constitutional muster. Many legal experts contend that if the habeas lawyers succeed in attaining for detainees the same degree of procedural rights as those extended to ordinary criminal defendants in domestic cases, "lawyering up" would mean the end of terrorist questioning, not the beginning.
If this is what "Miranda" represents, no wonder an Islamist suicide bomber would love her.
Miranda, what can I say? The heart is incarcerated in prisons of injustice, tortured and deprived, targeted with sharp, poisoned arrows by the hands of oppressors who have no mercy. Tell the mothers about their sons, the prisoners, brothers in bondage . . . they shall walk home.
But many in the detainees' home countries aren't welcoming them with open arms. The bombings carried out by Al-Ajmi and two other Kuwaiti nationals have stirred a public outcry from their fellow citizens. Al-Ajmi's own father has reportedly threatened to sue the government of Kuwait for issuing his son a passport and failing to live up to the terms set forth in the transfer agreement with U.S. State Department as a condition of his release. Kuwait's negligence and the State Department's failure to follow up have resulted in calls from the public for the detainees to stay right where they are and for Guantanamo to stay in operation.
"I believe the U.S. State Department knows the prisoners well, their way of thinking, and their plans after being released from prison," wrote Ali Ahmad Al-Baghli, Kuwait's former Minister of Oil, in the Arab Times after news of Al-Ajmi's suicide attack broke. He specifically criticized the outspoken leader of the Kuwaiti detainee families committee, Khalid Al-Odah, (interestingly, he is one of the "translators" Mr. Falkoff acknowledges in his poetry book), whose son remains at Guantanamo. Al-Odah hired a Washington, D.C., public-relations firm to "humanize" the detainees with sympathetic press.
"We cannot romanticize them into fallen heroes of Western neo-imperialism," wrote Shamael Al-Sharikh, a columnist for the Kuwaiti Times, in an article advocating that Guantanamo stay open, "because we are as much potential victims of terrorist attacks as [Americans] are."
As an example of where we might be headed after Boumediene, consider the situation in Britain. In June, Abu Qatada, a radical imam wanted in connection with bombing conspiracies in several countries, was released from jail after seven years of fighting his deportation. Qatada, whose recorded sermons were found in the Hamburg apartment of the 9/11 hijackers, was described by an immigration appeals commission as a "truly dangerous individual" who was "heavily involved, indeed at the center of terrorist activities associated with al-Qa'eda."
But judges in Britain will not extradite him to Jordan, where he was convicted in absentia, because his lawyers allege that the evidence against him might have been obtained by torture. Sending him packing under these circumstances, the court ruled, would violate the European Convention on Human Rights.
The result is a perverse situation in which, to protect the human rights of the man who issued a fatwa to kill the wives and children of Egyptian police and army officers, the British public pays a yearly tab of $1.1 million to cover Qatada's round-the-clock police surveillance, housing and welfare assistance for him, his wife and five children.
For those who scoff at the idea that U.S. judges would release a dangerous terrorist here, think again. As Attorney General Michael Mukasey pointed out in a speech earlier this month at the American Enterprise Institute, the Boumediene decision was vague on every detail but one. The ruling said that for habeas review to mean anything, the court must have the power to release. What do we do with a graduate of al Qaeda training camps who hasn't yet committed an act of violence? What do we do if no country will take him? If Congress doesn't intervene, the most difficult detainee cases may end up being administered by federal judges who are dismissive of concerns about enemy combatants returning to the battlefield.
"Courts guarantee an independent process, not an outcome," wrote John Coughenour, the federal judge who presided over the trial of "millennium bomber" Ahmad Ressam in a Washington Post op-ed just this Sunday. Yes, and that is precisely why Congress has an obligation to formulate the substance and parameters of that process. Judges do not make law or policy. The scope of their review is limited to the immediate case before them.
Unless Congress weighs in, judges -- unaccountable to the body politic -- will decide what standards of proof and rules of evidence will apply to these detainees, resulting in an ad hoc, case-by-case body of law which focuses on the rights of the detainees, not on the consequences for our war fighters who risk their lives to capture them. Since when do we leave it to judges to decide when and to what degree our troops are required to engage in police duties in the heat of battle?
Further, judges only rule on the applications made by the lawyers who come before them. Despite their rhetoric about "rule of law," attorneys are not charged with acting in furtherance of the national security interests of the public. Their obligation is to their clients alone, the detainees. Hence, we have witnessed the six-year campaign by Gitmo lawyers to pressure the U.S. government into releasing dangerous men before their cases come before a military tribunal or are heard in the federal courts.
David Cynamon, a senior attorney at Pillsbury Winthrop Putnam Shaw, is one of the lead lawyers negotiating the repatriation of the Kuwaiti detainees. In an email last fall to Pentagon officials, Mr. Cynamon expressed frustration with what he perceived as foot-dragging in the release of the last four Kuwaitis still held at Gitmo. He attached an exhibit which compared the unclassified information on all original 12 Kuwaiti detainees who were captured in Afghanistan. "I find it impossible to deduce from this chart," he wrote, "that the four who remain are any more (or less) [sic] dangerous than the ones who were returned." After Al-Ajmi's devastating suicide attack in Mosul, one hopes the Pentagon is giving his chart a second look.
Meanwhile, the habeas attorneys' effort to smear the United States and paint their clients as innocent victims continues. "Poems from Guantanamo" was taught this spring in an undergraduate course called "Writers in Exile" at City University of New York in Queens, a short distance from Ground Zero. The book's introduction states that the detainee poets "follow in the footsteps of prisoners who wrote in the Gulag, the Nazi concentration camps, and, closer to home, Japanese-American internment camps." One of the students, posting on the class blog, wrote of the detainees' plight, "Wow, I had no idea. For the first time in my life, I am ashamed to be seen as an American."
Your whole being and your heart will be captivated by this night, who drove the Romans to madness. You will forget everything about Rome and will live the life of faith in Islam.
Abdullah Salem Al-Ajmi, the detainee who wrote of turning the tables on his lawyer, Miranda, should haunt the dreams of every member of Congress.
A Black Conservative Lament
Larry Elder
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Oh, no, not another "blacks in America" news special! One of the cable networks recently put together another one of these "specials" on what it's like to be black in America. The network asked a conservative friend of mine to participate. He sent the following letter; and I wrote back.
My sister-in-law, an almost-recovered victicrat (thanks, at least in part, to me) called me during the show. She asked whether I was watching it, and I said no -- I knew what to expect. BMW -- bitching, moaning and whining.
I asked my sister-in-law why they didn't spend four hours on the "experience" of Chinese-Americans? Americans of Chinese heritage are among our country's most successful -- despite being the first ethnic group to be specifically excluded from legal immigration to America, by laws enacted in 1882, and despite mistreatment and discrimination including many anti-Chinese laws passed in places like San Francisco, which were designed to protect the "native" laundry business.
Why doesn't the cable network, I asked her, do a show on the "experience" of Japanese-Americans, also some of the most prosperous of all Americans -- despite the World War II "relocation" camps and California's anti-Japanese laws, once passed to prevent them from owning farmland?
I don't compare this in kind or in degree to slavery, but it's 2008 -- with a black man possibly on the brink of attaining the presidency of the United States. Can we move on? The problems of the "black community" have to do with the welfare-state-induced breakdown (or, more accurately, non-formation) of the family. This causes a disinterest in education, and leads to poor values, reckless and irresponsible breeding, as well as a lack of the job skills necessary in an information-age society. We also have grievance groups -- black "leaders"; the oh-so-sympathetic media; fear- and guilt-laden whites who refuse to say (as they do to their own children) work hard and play by the rules; and many reluctant blacks who refuse to preach the message of "no excuses, hard work" for fear of being labeled "Uncle Toms."
I told my sister-in-law that nearly half of Harvard's black freshman class consists of blacks from the Caribbean or Africa -- areas less prosperous with far less opportunity. Care to explain that?
I told her that I bet many of the "talking heads" live comfortable middle-class lives or better -- some, no doubt several, tenured college professors who, not so deep down, believe that they were smart enough or worked hard enough to have made it, but the other poor SOBs, well, they need a more compassionate government, a less racist society to pull them through.
So, try to relax. Thanks to editing, they can make anyone sound like Elmer Fudd.
--Larry
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Oh, no, not another "blacks in America" news special! One of the cable networks recently put together another one of these "specials" on what it's like to be black in America. The network asked a conservative friend of mine to participate. He sent the following letter; and I wrote back.
Dear Larry,Dear friend,
OK, Larry, I grew up a bit last night. Those (unflattering descriptive deleted) at that news network on cable used me like a two-dollar whore! I interviewed with them for almost 10 hours, and all that talk was whittled down into five-second sound bites that put me in a rather negative light. Part of our talk was about the crack epidemic. I spoke about the way we are fighting this drug war, which we should approach as a health issue as opposed to a law enforcement problem. I talked about the impact single parenthood has on crime rates. … I talked and talked. They edited it all down to, "If you don't want to go to jail, don't sell crack." I am really angry.
The "wretched blackness" slant was so clear. I was on live for the half-hour preceding the beginning of the program. They ran a long segment with a black comedian/actor, talking about how he tells his son each and every day about how to talk to the police and how black men must be wary of cops. They cut to me, and I said that I was certainly in agreement that we need to talk to our children about respecting authority, but I also wondered if the comedian/actor talked to his son about the proper color shirt to wear in case some knuckleheads have a dislike of the color red or blue. The truth is that his son has more to fear from other young black men than he does from the police. I then quoted a homicide statistic: 94 percent of black homicide victims are killed by other black people. It was dismissed by the moderator so we could focus instead on how racist the cops are. Unbelievable.
It should not surprise me, then, that producers and editors would give liberal, hypersensitive blacks room to make their points -- even if they were factually untrue. They spoke to a professor from Columbia, who was droning on about how the legacy of slavery is to account for blacks' out-of-wedlock birthrate. Slavery?! This nonsense was seconded by another panelist. When I corrected them and said that the out-of-wedlock rate was lower during Jim Crow … eyes began rolling, and my point was ignored in order to move on. And I was reduced to sound bites.
Had to vent a bit.
--Your friend.
My sister-in-law, an almost-recovered victicrat (thanks, at least in part, to me) called me during the show. She asked whether I was watching it, and I said no -- I knew what to expect. BMW -- bitching, moaning and whining.
I asked my sister-in-law why they didn't spend four hours on the "experience" of Chinese-Americans? Americans of Chinese heritage are among our country's most successful -- despite being the first ethnic group to be specifically excluded from legal immigration to America, by laws enacted in 1882, and despite mistreatment and discrimination including many anti-Chinese laws passed in places like San Francisco, which were designed to protect the "native" laundry business.
Why doesn't the cable network, I asked her, do a show on the "experience" of Japanese-Americans, also some of the most prosperous of all Americans -- despite the World War II "relocation" camps and California's anti-Japanese laws, once passed to prevent them from owning farmland?
I don't compare this in kind or in degree to slavery, but it's 2008 -- with a black man possibly on the brink of attaining the presidency of the United States. Can we move on? The problems of the "black community" have to do with the welfare-state-induced breakdown (or, more accurately, non-formation) of the family. This causes a disinterest in education, and leads to poor values, reckless and irresponsible breeding, as well as a lack of the job skills necessary in an information-age society. We also have grievance groups -- black "leaders"; the oh-so-sympathetic media; fear- and guilt-laden whites who refuse to say (as they do to their own children) work hard and play by the rules; and many reluctant blacks who refuse to preach the message of "no excuses, hard work" for fear of being labeled "Uncle Toms."
I told my sister-in-law that nearly half of Harvard's black freshman class consists of blacks from the Caribbean or Africa -- areas less prosperous with far less opportunity. Care to explain that?
I told her that I bet many of the "talking heads" live comfortable middle-class lives or better -- some, no doubt several, tenured college professors who, not so deep down, believe that they were smart enough or worked hard enough to have made it, but the other poor SOBs, well, they need a more compassionate government, a less racist society to pull them through.
So, try to relax. Thanks to editing, they can make anyone sound like Elmer Fudd.
--Larry
Berlin ♥ Iran
Wall Street Journal
Thursday, July 31, 2008
In the first speech by a German chancellor to the Knesset, Angela Merkel earned Israel's respect in March by insisting that Iran's nuclear program must be stopped and that, if necessary, "Germany will push for further sanctions."
Oh, really? It now turns out that only a month earlier, Germany's Export Control Office had given the green light for a €100 million ($157 million) gas deal with Iran. Business interests, it seems, trump any proclaimed concerns for Israel's security.
Berlin's refusal to use its considerable economic leverage over Tehran puts it at odds not only with Washington but increasingly with its European partners in London and Paris. Following February's export approval, SPG Steiner-Prematechnik-Gastec will build three plants that turn gas to liquid fuels in the Islamic Republic, the Siegener Zeitung reported last week. Ms. Merkel's assurance that Israel's security is "nonnegotiable" is further put in doubt by the fact that her party colleague, Hartmut Schauerte, had been pushing the Export Control Office to speed up the process.
The Export Control Office denies to us that any political interference took place but the company, which is located in Mr. Schauerte's electoral district, seems to disagree. Without him, "there would have been nothing," SPG owner Bernd Steiner told the Siegener Zeitung. "We'd still be waiting."
The news about the Iranian deal comes as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been pushing European leaders to extend sanctions to include liquefied gas technology. And in September, Paris urged French companies not to respond to Iranian tenders.
At least one French company seems to have gotten the message. After Iran test-fired long-range missiles this month, Total pulled back from a liquefied gas project. The company "would be taking too much political risk to invest in Iran," Chief Executive Christophe de Margerie told the Financial Times.
SPG doesn't seem to have such worries. Its gas deal is just one recent example of Germany's still-blossoming commercial relationship with the mullahs. True, exports to Iran have declined in the past couple of years -- not least due to U.S. pressure. But imports from Iran rose 28% last year. And German exports to Iran are on the rise again, up 13.6% in the first quarter.
Meanwhile, Germany is increasingly siding with China and Russia to give diplomacy yet another chance even as Iran's regime shows no willingness to respond to the carrots. Ms. Merkel's speech in the Knesset, considered "historic" only four months ago, already sounds hollow.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
In the first speech by a German chancellor to the Knesset, Angela Merkel earned Israel's respect in March by insisting that Iran's nuclear program must be stopped and that, if necessary, "Germany will push for further sanctions."
Oh, really? It now turns out that only a month earlier, Germany's Export Control Office had given the green light for a €100 million ($157 million) gas deal with Iran. Business interests, it seems, trump any proclaimed concerns for Israel's security.
Berlin's refusal to use its considerable economic leverage over Tehran puts it at odds not only with Washington but increasingly with its European partners in London and Paris. Following February's export approval, SPG Steiner-Prematechnik-Gastec will build three plants that turn gas to liquid fuels in the Islamic Republic, the Siegener Zeitung reported last week. Ms. Merkel's assurance that Israel's security is "nonnegotiable" is further put in doubt by the fact that her party colleague, Hartmut Schauerte, had been pushing the Export Control Office to speed up the process.
The Export Control Office denies to us that any political interference took place but the company, which is located in Mr. Schauerte's electoral district, seems to disagree. Without him, "there would have been nothing," SPG owner Bernd Steiner told the Siegener Zeitung. "We'd still be waiting."
The news about the Iranian deal comes as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been pushing European leaders to extend sanctions to include liquefied gas technology. And in September, Paris urged French companies not to respond to Iranian tenders.
At least one French company seems to have gotten the message. After Iran test-fired long-range missiles this month, Total pulled back from a liquefied gas project. The company "would be taking too much political risk to invest in Iran," Chief Executive Christophe de Margerie told the Financial Times.
SPG doesn't seem to have such worries. Its gas deal is just one recent example of Germany's still-blossoming commercial relationship with the mullahs. True, exports to Iran have declined in the past couple of years -- not least due to U.S. pressure. But imports from Iran rose 28% last year. And German exports to Iran are on the rise again, up 13.6% in the first quarter.
Meanwhile, Germany is increasingly siding with China and Russia to give diplomacy yet another chance even as Iran's regime shows no willingness to respond to the carrots. Ms. Merkel's speech in the Knesset, considered "historic" only four months ago, already sounds hollow.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Obama's Naive Berlin Speech
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
To better understand Sen. Barack Obama, his speech before 200,000 Germans in Berlin is one good place to start. As we shall see, however, it does not leave one secure as to the senator's understanding of history, of America's role in the world, and what to do about evil, among other important issues.
Obama: "At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning -- his dream -- required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West."
Promised by the West? Or promised by America? It wasn't "the West" that Obama's father went to; it was America. During the Cold War, it wasn't "the West" that led the fight to preserve Western freedom; it was America. Obama concedes this point in his next sentence: "And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life."
Obama's speech was a paean to the West and especially to Germany in fighting for freedom during the Cold War. Throughout his speech he equated the German contribution to defeating Communism with that of America
Obama: "And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life."
It is understandable and even expected that an American speaking in Germany will praise Germans. But even so, it is quite an exaggeration to state that the "only reason" he and they are standing in a free Berlin is because men and women from both countries sacrificed for that better life. Americans sacrificed far more than Germans. The sad truth is that, with some heroic exceptions, Germans on the right supported Hitler, and during the Cold War, Germans on the left fought the Unites States more than they fought the Soviet Union. When Ronald Reagan came to Berlin, tens of thousands of Germans -- many of them, one would surmise, of a similar mindset to those who came to hear Barack Obama -- protested his visit.
Obama: "The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe."
Isn't this exactly where we are regarding the retreat from Iraq that Obama and the Democrats have advocated? Wouldn't retreat from Iraq allow militant Islam to march across the Middle East and beyond?
How is one to explain this? I have long believed that many liberals recognize evils only after the evil has been vanquished. Today, Democrats like Obama in his speech, regularly revile Communism. But from the late 1960s until the end of the Cold War they rarely judged Communism. They judged anti-Communists. Liberal Democrats routinely call Communism evil today, but when it was actually a threat, they reviled those who called Communism evil. Again, recall Ronald Reagan and the virtually universal liberal condemnation of his calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire."
So, too, now, regarding today's greatest evil, to cite but one example, not one Democrat in any of their party's presidential primary debates used the term "Islamic terrorism."
Obama: "Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin."
In his attempt to exaggerate the role of Berlin before his large Berlin audience, Obama made a claim that simply makes no sense. "Berlin stood in the way" of another World War beginning? How? If anything, Berlin was the flash point of East-West tension and therefore could have triggered a war.
Obama: "People of the world -- look at Berlin! Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle."
Germans and Americans "learned to work together and trust each other" only thanks to the fact that America and its allies vanquished Germany, overthrew its Nazi leadership, imposed democracy and freedom on Germans, and kept plenty of soldiers in Germany. Why does Obama not apply this lesson to Iraq? If Americans and Iraqis learn to work together and trust each other, it will also be thanks to America and its allies vanquishing the Islamic terrorists, overthrowing the Nazi-like regime of Saddam Hussein, imposing democracy and freedom on Iraqis, and keeping soldiers in Iraq for as long as needed.
Obama: "Look at Berlin … where a victory over tyranny gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security."
Obama did not want to offend his hosts by inserting an element of reality here: Many of America's NATO partners have been largely worthless in confronting evils from Communism to al-Qaida to the Taliban. A few weeks ago, leading German newsweekly Der Spiegel reported that German forces in Afghanistan are under strict orders not to shoot any Taliban forces unless shot at first. As a result, they refused to shoot a major Taliban murderer whom they had in their sights because his forces had not shot at the Germans and therefore allowed him to escape.
Obama: "People of the world -- look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."
The wall came down because America stood strong, not because the world stood as one. What he said here is John Lennon-like fantasy, the opposite of reality, and as such, coming from the man who may well be the next president of the United States, a bit frightening.
Obama: "While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history."
Of all the lessons taught by the 20th century, that we share a common destiny is not among the top 10. It is not even among the top 100. It is actually untrue and meaningless. Just to cite one obvious example, did those who lived under Communism and those who lived under democratic capitalism "share a common destiny"? What is he talking about?
If the 20th century did teach something, it taught that evil must always be fought.
The speech reveals a man who has good will and noble desires, but who may be dangerously naive regarding the lessons of history and what to do about evil.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
To better understand Sen. Barack Obama, his speech before 200,000 Germans in Berlin is one good place to start. As we shall see, however, it does not leave one secure as to the senator's understanding of history, of America's role in the world, and what to do about evil, among other important issues.
Obama: "At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning -- his dream -- required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West."
Promised by the West? Or promised by America? It wasn't "the West" that Obama's father went to; it was America. During the Cold War, it wasn't "the West" that led the fight to preserve Western freedom; it was America. Obama concedes this point in his next sentence: "And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life."
Obama's speech was a paean to the West and especially to Germany in fighting for freedom during the Cold War. Throughout his speech he equated the German contribution to defeating Communism with that of America
Obama: "And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life."
It is understandable and even expected that an American speaking in Germany will praise Germans. But even so, it is quite an exaggeration to state that the "only reason" he and they are standing in a free Berlin is because men and women from both countries sacrificed for that better life. Americans sacrificed far more than Germans. The sad truth is that, with some heroic exceptions, Germans on the right supported Hitler, and during the Cold War, Germans on the left fought the Unites States more than they fought the Soviet Union. When Ronald Reagan came to Berlin, tens of thousands of Germans -- many of them, one would surmise, of a similar mindset to those who came to hear Barack Obama -- protested his visit.
Obama: "The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe."
Isn't this exactly where we are regarding the retreat from Iraq that Obama and the Democrats have advocated? Wouldn't retreat from Iraq allow militant Islam to march across the Middle East and beyond?
How is one to explain this? I have long believed that many liberals recognize evils only after the evil has been vanquished. Today, Democrats like Obama in his speech, regularly revile Communism. But from the late 1960s until the end of the Cold War they rarely judged Communism. They judged anti-Communists. Liberal Democrats routinely call Communism evil today, but when it was actually a threat, they reviled those who called Communism evil. Again, recall Ronald Reagan and the virtually universal liberal condemnation of his calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire."
So, too, now, regarding today's greatest evil, to cite but one example, not one Democrat in any of their party's presidential primary debates used the term "Islamic terrorism."
Obama: "Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin."
In his attempt to exaggerate the role of Berlin before his large Berlin audience, Obama made a claim that simply makes no sense. "Berlin stood in the way" of another World War beginning? How? If anything, Berlin was the flash point of East-West tension and therefore could have triggered a war.
Obama: "People of the world -- look at Berlin! Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle."
Germans and Americans "learned to work together and trust each other" only thanks to the fact that America and its allies vanquished Germany, overthrew its Nazi leadership, imposed democracy and freedom on Germans, and kept plenty of soldiers in Germany. Why does Obama not apply this lesson to Iraq? If Americans and Iraqis learn to work together and trust each other, it will also be thanks to America and its allies vanquishing the Islamic terrorists, overthrowing the Nazi-like regime of Saddam Hussein, imposing democracy and freedom on Iraqis, and keeping soldiers in Iraq for as long as needed.
Obama: "Look at Berlin … where a victory over tyranny gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security."
Obama did not want to offend his hosts by inserting an element of reality here: Many of America's NATO partners have been largely worthless in confronting evils from Communism to al-Qaida to the Taliban. A few weeks ago, leading German newsweekly Der Spiegel reported that German forces in Afghanistan are under strict orders not to shoot any Taliban forces unless shot at first. As a result, they refused to shoot a major Taliban murderer whom they had in their sights because his forces had not shot at the Germans and therefore allowed him to escape.
Obama: "People of the world -- look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."
The wall came down because America stood strong, not because the world stood as one. What he said here is John Lennon-like fantasy, the opposite of reality, and as such, coming from the man who may well be the next president of the United States, a bit frightening.
Obama: "While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history."
Of all the lessons taught by the 20th century, that we share a common destiny is not among the top 10. It is not even among the top 100. It is actually untrue and meaningless. Just to cite one obvious example, did those who lived under Communism and those who lived under democratic capitalism "share a common destiny"? What is he talking about?
If the 20th century did teach something, it taught that evil must always be fought.
The speech reveals a man who has good will and noble desires, but who may be dangerously naive regarding the lessons of history and what to do about evil.
Kyoto Treaty: Pointless Promises
Ed Feulner
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Next month, the greatest athletes in the world will visit Beijing for the Olympic Games. Undoubtedly they’ll set new records in plenty of sports.
But after the stars go home, China (which has cut back industrial production in an effort to clear the air ahead of the Olympics) will go back to setting a dubious record of its own: It’s the greatest emitter of carbon dioxide on earth.
China’s CO2 emissions rose 8 percent last year, after jumping more than 11 percent in each of the two previous years. According to a Dutch study, China alone accounted for two-thirds of the growth in global greenhouse-gas emissions in 2007, and its current lead over the United States in such emissions is only expected to grow.
Contrast that with our environmental record.
The U.S. government estimates that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions increased by just 1.6 percent in 2007, after dropping 1.5 percent the year before. The growth in our emissions is less than the growth of our Gross Domestic Product, meaning we’ve improved the economy while reducing the growth in our emissions.
And we’re doing that without being part of the Kyoto treaty.
That 1997 agreement requires the 37 countries that signed it to slash emissions by a combined 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But the treaty is a pipe dream. Instead of falling, the U.N. reported that such emissions are nearing “an all-time high.” Greenhouse gas emissions from the Kyoto signers increased 2.6 percent between 2000 and 2005.
Signing Kyoto may allow a country to claim it’s a good “global citizen,” but many of those citizens aren’t keeping their promises. The U.N. reports Kyoto signers Austria, New Zealand and Canada have all increased their emissions over 1990 levels -- by 14, 23 and 54 percent, respectively.
In fact, the U.N. admits that the only reason the world might meet Kyoto’s goal (a 5 percent reduction from 1990 emissions levels by 2012) is because the economies of so many Eastern European economies collapsed when the Iron Curtain fell. In other words, only a domestic recession will allow the planet to hit Kyoto’s target.
Lawmakers understand this point, too.
The Senate recently considered the Lieberman-Warner climate-change bill, which would have set a limit on the emissions of greenhouse gases, mostly CO2 from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. The bill would have mandated that emissions freeze at 2005 levels in 2012, then plunge. It demanded an unreasonable -- and probably impossible -- 70 percent reduction by 2050.
As energy analyst Ben Lieberman -- no relation to the author of the bill -- noted, “It is hard to think of any economic activity that does not involve energy, and there is not one that would not be made more expensive by Lieberman-Warner.” An assessment of the bill by Heritage Foundation experts showed it would slash our national GDP by at least $1.7 trillion by the year 2030.
Killing the economy for an -- at best -- 0.07 degrees Celsius reduction in global temperatures by 2050 (what Kyoto promises) makes no sense. Economic growth has lifted millions of people out of poverty. That’s why developing countries, including China and India, are scrambling to increase their growth rates, not diminish them. The U.S. can’t afford to cut our growth, either.
The United Nations is pressing all countries to approve a new Kyoto agreement. That pact is supposed to be signed in Denmark next year. But what’s the point of a new Kyoto, when the old one is useless?
Instead of making vague promises, we should focus on proven policies.
We can reduce pollution by generating growth. No one wants to live on a dirty planet, but only people with high enough standards of living have the leisure time to worry about the environment. We also need to build more nuclear power plants, to generate electricity with zero CO2 emissions.
The world doesn’t need a new Kyoto -- the treaty that accomplished nothing but takes the gold medal for uselessness and hypocrisy.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Next month, the greatest athletes in the world will visit Beijing for the Olympic Games. Undoubtedly they’ll set new records in plenty of sports.
But after the stars go home, China (which has cut back industrial production in an effort to clear the air ahead of the Olympics) will go back to setting a dubious record of its own: It’s the greatest emitter of carbon dioxide on earth.
China’s CO2 emissions rose 8 percent last year, after jumping more than 11 percent in each of the two previous years. According to a Dutch study, China alone accounted for two-thirds of the growth in global greenhouse-gas emissions in 2007, and its current lead over the United States in such emissions is only expected to grow.
Contrast that with our environmental record.
The U.S. government estimates that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions increased by just 1.6 percent in 2007, after dropping 1.5 percent the year before. The growth in our emissions is less than the growth of our Gross Domestic Product, meaning we’ve improved the economy while reducing the growth in our emissions.
And we’re doing that without being part of the Kyoto treaty.
That 1997 agreement requires the 37 countries that signed it to slash emissions by a combined 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But the treaty is a pipe dream. Instead of falling, the U.N. reported that such emissions are nearing “an all-time high.” Greenhouse gas emissions from the Kyoto signers increased 2.6 percent between 2000 and 2005.
Signing Kyoto may allow a country to claim it’s a good “global citizen,” but many of those citizens aren’t keeping their promises. The U.N. reports Kyoto signers Austria, New Zealand and Canada have all increased their emissions over 1990 levels -- by 14, 23 and 54 percent, respectively.
In fact, the U.N. admits that the only reason the world might meet Kyoto’s goal (a 5 percent reduction from 1990 emissions levels by 2012) is because the economies of so many Eastern European economies collapsed when the Iron Curtain fell. In other words, only a domestic recession will allow the planet to hit Kyoto’s target.
Lawmakers understand this point, too.
The Senate recently considered the Lieberman-Warner climate-change bill, which would have set a limit on the emissions of greenhouse gases, mostly CO2 from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. The bill would have mandated that emissions freeze at 2005 levels in 2012, then plunge. It demanded an unreasonable -- and probably impossible -- 70 percent reduction by 2050.
As energy analyst Ben Lieberman -- no relation to the author of the bill -- noted, “It is hard to think of any economic activity that does not involve energy, and there is not one that would not be made more expensive by Lieberman-Warner.” An assessment of the bill by Heritage Foundation experts showed it would slash our national GDP by at least $1.7 trillion by the year 2030.
Killing the economy for an -- at best -- 0.07 degrees Celsius reduction in global temperatures by 2050 (what Kyoto promises) makes no sense. Economic growth has lifted millions of people out of poverty. That’s why developing countries, including China and India, are scrambling to increase their growth rates, not diminish them. The U.S. can’t afford to cut our growth, either.
The United Nations is pressing all countries to approve a new Kyoto agreement. That pact is supposed to be signed in Denmark next year. But what’s the point of a new Kyoto, when the old one is useless?
Instead of making vague promises, we should focus on proven policies.
We can reduce pollution by generating growth. No one wants to live on a dirty planet, but only people with high enough standards of living have the leisure time to worry about the environment. We also need to build more nuclear power plants, to generate electricity with zero CO2 emissions.
The world doesn’t need a new Kyoto -- the treaty that accomplished nothing but takes the gold medal for uselessness and hypocrisy.
The Berlin Obama Didn't See
By Bret Stephens
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
"People of the world -- look at Berlin!"
-- Barack Obama, July 24, 2008, quoting Berlin Mayor Ernst Reuter, Sept. 9, 1948
By all means, senator, let's take a long, hard look at Berlin: Germany's hip, and nearly bankrupt, capital.
A couple of years ago, Berlin Mayor Klaus Wowereit -- a man Passport magazine describes as "effortlessly personifying" the city's "hip, sophisticated, and tolerant image" -- petitioned Germany's high court to compel the federal government to assume at least 60% of the city's debt, then topping $77 billion and marking a fivefold increase since the city's reunification in 1990. About 12% of the city's budget went to servicing its debt, close to the 15% figure New York City reached when it nearly defaulted under Mayor Abe Beame in 1975. Worse, unemployment in Berlin was running around 17%, about twice the national average, and the city was poorer than it had been 16 years before.
"We cannot climb down from this mountain of debt alone," complained the mayor. "We have done everything we can and now need federal solidarity" -- solidarity in this case being the German word for "bailout."
The high court demurred. "Berlin adorns itself with the slogan 'poor but sexy,' but it isn't so poor," observed the presiding judge in his verdict. "Berlin doesn't have a budget emergency. Significant indicators point only to a budget that is under stress." The judge suggested the city might consider selling off some of the 270,000 housing units it owned, or cutting the wages of Berlin's civil servants, which on average ran 50% higher than Hamburg's, or consolidating its six housing authorities, two zoos, or three opera houses into more manageable units.
Well, perish the thought. In the matter of opera houses, for instance, no other city except Milan has more; New York and London, each twice the size of Berlin, get by with two apiece. Attendance at the old East German Komische Opera rarely topped 50%. On one notorious occasion, all three houses staged Mozart's Marriage of Figaro on the same night. Until recently, all this cost taxpayers $146 million a year in subsidies.
Now, after years of tortuous debate, the opera subsidies cost taxpayers a mere $120 million a year. Naturally, all three operas remain in business, if "business" is the right word. So do both zoos.
Yet Berlin's problems are not merely, or even mainly, political. Mr. Wowereit has done a relatively creditable job by cutting spending by 11%, slashing tens of thousands of jobs from the city payroll and balancing the budget. Other revolutionary changes include introducing tuition fees for the city's three universities, a shock to the system of Berlin's student class.
Instead, the real problem is ideological. A reunited and rebuilt Berlin was intended to serve as a symbol for a vibrant, bold, energetic country, and the recipe for achieving this vision was government support on a grand scale. First, subsidies to the tune of six billion euros a year poured in. Then the federal government moved in, with all the new jobs that was supposed to entail.
There was also a massive urban planning component, with areas like the old no-man's land of Potsdamer Platz being transformed, through the mechanism of "public-private partnerships," into what was meant to be a glittering cultural and commercial center.
Typically, the planning didn't turn out as planned. In December, anchor tenant Daimler sold its 19 buildings on the Platz to a Swedish banking group, reportedly at a loss. Sony followed suit a couple months later, and Deutsche Bahn also intends to leave in a couple of years. The city's building craze hasn't been a total loss: Berlin has become a renter's paradise, where huge apartments can be had for a pittance. But what's good news for starving artists is bad news for landlords, not to mention the city's tax base. In 2006, revenues amounted to barely half of the city's budget.
All of which brings us back to Mr. Obama's call to "Look at Berlin!" After nearly 18 years of economic decline, there isn't that much to look at, at least in the sense that it might serve as a model. The notion of a "German miracle" has become as much a memory as the Berlin airlift. Mr. Obama's call for Europe to share "the burdens of global citizenship" forgets, or ignores, just how slight a burden Europe is able, much less willing, to bear.
As for Berlin itself, a city that in 1989 seemed to serve as an emblem for the end of history turned out to offer a different lesson: that history keeps rolling along; that the tearing down of walls marks a beginning rather than an end; and that history isn't especially kind to those who fail to keep pace with it.
So, yes, let's look closely at Berlin, a city that's hip, sexy, sophisticated and tolerant. Also a city of wasted promise. It didn't get there by accident.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
"People of the world -- look at Berlin!"
-- Barack Obama, July 24, 2008, quoting Berlin Mayor Ernst Reuter, Sept. 9, 1948
By all means, senator, let's take a long, hard look at Berlin: Germany's hip, and nearly bankrupt, capital.
A couple of years ago, Berlin Mayor Klaus Wowereit -- a man Passport magazine describes as "effortlessly personifying" the city's "hip, sophisticated, and tolerant image" -- petitioned Germany's high court to compel the federal government to assume at least 60% of the city's debt, then topping $77 billion and marking a fivefold increase since the city's reunification in 1990. About 12% of the city's budget went to servicing its debt, close to the 15% figure New York City reached when it nearly defaulted under Mayor Abe Beame in 1975. Worse, unemployment in Berlin was running around 17%, about twice the national average, and the city was poorer than it had been 16 years before.
"We cannot climb down from this mountain of debt alone," complained the mayor. "We have done everything we can and now need federal solidarity" -- solidarity in this case being the German word for "bailout."
The high court demurred. "Berlin adorns itself with the slogan 'poor but sexy,' but it isn't so poor," observed the presiding judge in his verdict. "Berlin doesn't have a budget emergency. Significant indicators point only to a budget that is under stress." The judge suggested the city might consider selling off some of the 270,000 housing units it owned, or cutting the wages of Berlin's civil servants, which on average ran 50% higher than Hamburg's, or consolidating its six housing authorities, two zoos, or three opera houses into more manageable units.
Well, perish the thought. In the matter of opera houses, for instance, no other city except Milan has more; New York and London, each twice the size of Berlin, get by with two apiece. Attendance at the old East German Komische Opera rarely topped 50%. On one notorious occasion, all three houses staged Mozart's Marriage of Figaro on the same night. Until recently, all this cost taxpayers $146 million a year in subsidies.
Now, after years of tortuous debate, the opera subsidies cost taxpayers a mere $120 million a year. Naturally, all three operas remain in business, if "business" is the right word. So do both zoos.
Yet Berlin's problems are not merely, or even mainly, political. Mr. Wowereit has done a relatively creditable job by cutting spending by 11%, slashing tens of thousands of jobs from the city payroll and balancing the budget. Other revolutionary changes include introducing tuition fees for the city's three universities, a shock to the system of Berlin's student class.
Instead, the real problem is ideological. A reunited and rebuilt Berlin was intended to serve as a symbol for a vibrant, bold, energetic country, and the recipe for achieving this vision was government support on a grand scale. First, subsidies to the tune of six billion euros a year poured in. Then the federal government moved in, with all the new jobs that was supposed to entail.
There was also a massive urban planning component, with areas like the old no-man's land of Potsdamer Platz being transformed, through the mechanism of "public-private partnerships," into what was meant to be a glittering cultural and commercial center.
Typically, the planning didn't turn out as planned. In December, anchor tenant Daimler sold its 19 buildings on the Platz to a Swedish banking group, reportedly at a loss. Sony followed suit a couple months later, and Deutsche Bahn also intends to leave in a couple of years. The city's building craze hasn't been a total loss: Berlin has become a renter's paradise, where huge apartments can be had for a pittance. But what's good news for starving artists is bad news for landlords, not to mention the city's tax base. In 2006, revenues amounted to barely half of the city's budget.
All of which brings us back to Mr. Obama's call to "Look at Berlin!" After nearly 18 years of economic decline, there isn't that much to look at, at least in the sense that it might serve as a model. The notion of a "German miracle" has become as much a memory as the Berlin airlift. Mr. Obama's call for Europe to share "the burdens of global citizenship" forgets, or ignores, just how slight a burden Europe is able, much less willing, to bear.
As for Berlin itself, a city that in 1989 seemed to serve as an emblem for the end of history turned out to offer a different lesson: that history keeps rolling along; that the tearing down of walls marks a beginning rather than an end; and that history isn't especially kind to those who fail to keep pace with it.
So, yes, let's look closely at Berlin, a city that's hip, sexy, sophisticated and tolerant. Also a city of wasted promise. It didn't get there by accident.
McCain Is the Radical on Health Reform
By John C. Goodman
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
If you listen only to presidential campaign rhetoric, you might conclude that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama proposed bold new changes for our health-care system, while John McCain is offering only small improvements. If so, you are in for a surprise. Most health-policy analysts believe that Mr. McCain is proposing the most fundamental health-care reform.
Right now the federal government encourages private health insurance primarily through the tax system -- handing out more than $200 billion in tax subsidies every year. Mr. Obama would leave this system largely intact. Mr. McCain would completely replace it with a fairer, more efficient system with a much better chance of insuring the uninsured and controlling health costs at the same time.
Under the current system, every dollar in health-insurance premiums paid by an employer is excluded from employee income and payroll taxes. Take an employee in the 25% income-tax bracket. Throw in state and local income taxes, add the 15.3% (FICA) payroll tax, and the tax exclusion for a middle-income family is worth almost 50 cents on the dollar. To make things a little better, employees can often pay their share of the premium with pretax dollars as well.
But this system is extremely arbitrary. There is virtually no tax relief for people who work for the 40% of employers who do not provide insurance, for part-time workers or people not in the labor market, or for anyone else who for any reason must buy his own insurance. The self-employed get a slightly better deal: They can deduct 100% of their premiums, but they get no relief from the payroll tax.
According to the Lewin Group, a private health-care consulting firm, families earning $100,000 a year get four times as much tax relief as families earning $25,000. In other words, the biggest subsidy goes to those who least need it, and who probably would have purchased insurance anyway.
The system is also wasteful. People can always lower their taxes by spending more on health insurance, and there is no limit to how bloated a health plan can be.
Under the McCain plan, no longer would employers be able to buy insurance with pretax dollars. These payments would be taxable to the employee, just like wages. However, every individual would get a $2,500 credit (and every family would get $5,000) to be applied dollar-for-dollar against taxes owed.
The McCain plan does not raise taxes, nor does it lower them. Instead, it takes the existing system of tax subsidies and treats everyone alike, regardless of income or job status. All health insurance would be sold on a level playing field under the tax law, regardless of how it is purchased.
The impact would be enormous. For the first time, low- and moderate-income families would get just as much tax relief as the very rich when they purchase health insurance. People who must purchase their own insurance would get just as much tax relief as those who obtain it through an employer. Whereas Mr. Obama would continue the current practice of giving the vast bulk of federal help to the rich (through tax subsidies) and the poor (through spending programs), the McCain tax credit would give the most new tax relief to the middle class.
The McCain plan would also encourage all Americans to control costs. The tax credit would subsidize the core insurance that everyone should have. It would not subsidize bells and whistles (marriage counseling, acupuncture, etc.) as the current system does. Since employees and their employers will be paying for additional coverage with aftertax dollars, everyone will have an incentive to compare the value of extra health benefits to the value of other things money can buy. When they eliminate health-care waste, they would get to keep every dollar they save.
The McCain tax credit would be refundable. People could apply $2,500 per person or $5,000 per family to the purchase of health insurance, even if they do not owe any income taxes. Families would not have to wait until April 15 the following year to get their credit. They could obtain the subsidy at the time the insurance is purchased.
The credit would also be transferable. Insurance companies and other intermediaries would be able to help families obtain their credit and apply it directly to health-insurance premiums.
The McCain health plan would allow people to buy insurance across state lines -- thus creating a competitive, national market for health insurance. It would provide additional federal money for people who have been denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, making it easier for people who have lost their insurance to obtain new coverage. It would also encourage Medicare to become a smarter, more efficient buyer of care.
The McCain plan will not solve all our health-care problems. But it has a far better chance of positively reforming the system than any other plan that has been proposed in this campaign season.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
If you listen only to presidential campaign rhetoric, you might conclude that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama proposed bold new changes for our health-care system, while John McCain is offering only small improvements. If so, you are in for a surprise. Most health-policy analysts believe that Mr. McCain is proposing the most fundamental health-care reform.
Right now the federal government encourages private health insurance primarily through the tax system -- handing out more than $200 billion in tax subsidies every year. Mr. Obama would leave this system largely intact. Mr. McCain would completely replace it with a fairer, more efficient system with a much better chance of insuring the uninsured and controlling health costs at the same time.
Under the current system, every dollar in health-insurance premiums paid by an employer is excluded from employee income and payroll taxes. Take an employee in the 25% income-tax bracket. Throw in state and local income taxes, add the 15.3% (FICA) payroll tax, and the tax exclusion for a middle-income family is worth almost 50 cents on the dollar. To make things a little better, employees can often pay their share of the premium with pretax dollars as well.
But this system is extremely arbitrary. There is virtually no tax relief for people who work for the 40% of employers who do not provide insurance, for part-time workers or people not in the labor market, or for anyone else who for any reason must buy his own insurance. The self-employed get a slightly better deal: They can deduct 100% of their premiums, but they get no relief from the payroll tax.
According to the Lewin Group, a private health-care consulting firm, families earning $100,000 a year get four times as much tax relief as families earning $25,000. In other words, the biggest subsidy goes to those who least need it, and who probably would have purchased insurance anyway.
The system is also wasteful. People can always lower their taxes by spending more on health insurance, and there is no limit to how bloated a health plan can be.
Under the McCain plan, no longer would employers be able to buy insurance with pretax dollars. These payments would be taxable to the employee, just like wages. However, every individual would get a $2,500 credit (and every family would get $5,000) to be applied dollar-for-dollar against taxes owed.
The McCain plan does not raise taxes, nor does it lower them. Instead, it takes the existing system of tax subsidies and treats everyone alike, regardless of income or job status. All health insurance would be sold on a level playing field under the tax law, regardless of how it is purchased.
The impact would be enormous. For the first time, low- and moderate-income families would get just as much tax relief as the very rich when they purchase health insurance. People who must purchase their own insurance would get just as much tax relief as those who obtain it through an employer. Whereas Mr. Obama would continue the current practice of giving the vast bulk of federal help to the rich (through tax subsidies) and the poor (through spending programs), the McCain tax credit would give the most new tax relief to the middle class.
The McCain plan would also encourage all Americans to control costs. The tax credit would subsidize the core insurance that everyone should have. It would not subsidize bells and whistles (marriage counseling, acupuncture, etc.) as the current system does. Since employees and their employers will be paying for additional coverage with aftertax dollars, everyone will have an incentive to compare the value of extra health benefits to the value of other things money can buy. When they eliminate health-care waste, they would get to keep every dollar they save.
The McCain tax credit would be refundable. People could apply $2,500 per person or $5,000 per family to the purchase of health insurance, even if they do not owe any income taxes. Families would not have to wait until April 15 the following year to get their credit. They could obtain the subsidy at the time the insurance is purchased.
The credit would also be transferable. Insurance companies and other intermediaries would be able to help families obtain their credit and apply it directly to health-insurance premiums.
The McCain health plan would allow people to buy insurance across state lines -- thus creating a competitive, national market for health insurance. It would provide additional federal money for people who have been denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, making it easier for people who have lost their insurance to obtain new coverage. It would also encourage Medicare to become a smarter, more efficient buyer of care.
The McCain plan will not solve all our health-care problems. But it has a far better chance of positively reforming the system than any other plan that has been proposed in this campaign season.
Monday, July 28, 2008
The Thrill Is Gone
Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
That was a brief fling. No sooner had Barack Obama called for more allied support in Afghanistan than Germany's romance with the Democratic Presidential hopeful was on the rocks.
A day after his Berlin speech before an adulating crowd last week, Mr. Obama said more NATO troops in Afghanistan would allow the U.S. to cut its presence there. The "billions of dollars" saved, he told CNN Friday, could "finance lower taxes for middle-class families."
But tax promises that depend on German solidarity are unlikely to materialize. On Sunday the Secretary General of the opposition German Free Democrats, Dieter Niebel, shot back, telling the Bild am Sonntag that "Under no circumstances will the German taxpayer pay with more money and more troops for Afghanistan for tax cuts in the U.S."
Erwin Huber, chairman of the center-right Christian Social Union of Bavaria, called Mr. Obama's statement "a disappointment for Europe and Germany." Mr. Huber, whose CSU is the sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, also said that "it is the opposite of solidarity and partnership when one side is to make more sacrifices and the other gains an advantage from it."
Welcome to America's world, Herr Huber. The U.S. twice sacrificed its sons last century to save Europe from German aggression. During the Cold War, Europe "gained an advantage" from America's security umbrella. Today, even in the "good war" in Afghanistan, it's mostly U.S. troops who do the fighting and dying. German soldiers never leave the relatively safe north. That's solidarity?
The German outburst illustrates the hollowness of Mr. Obama's pitch that he'd repair the trans-Atlantic relationship supposedly damaged by President Bush. According to this narrative, Mr. Bush has so antagonized America's allies with his "unilateralism" that they are unwilling to carry their fair burden. But Europeans have long enjoyed the free ride of U.S. protection while enjoying even more criticizing the way it was provided.
In Berlin last week, many Germans felt the thrill of new romance. Now they're beginning to find out that Mr. Obama may not be the man of their dreams.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
That was a brief fling. No sooner had Barack Obama called for more allied support in Afghanistan than Germany's romance with the Democratic Presidential hopeful was on the rocks.
A day after his Berlin speech before an adulating crowd last week, Mr. Obama said more NATO troops in Afghanistan would allow the U.S. to cut its presence there. The "billions of dollars" saved, he told CNN Friday, could "finance lower taxes for middle-class families."
But tax promises that depend on German solidarity are unlikely to materialize. On Sunday the Secretary General of the opposition German Free Democrats, Dieter Niebel, shot back, telling the Bild am Sonntag that "Under no circumstances will the German taxpayer pay with more money and more troops for Afghanistan for tax cuts in the U.S."
Erwin Huber, chairman of the center-right Christian Social Union of Bavaria, called Mr. Obama's statement "a disappointment for Europe and Germany." Mr. Huber, whose CSU is the sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, also said that "it is the opposite of solidarity and partnership when one side is to make more sacrifices and the other gains an advantage from it."
Welcome to America's world, Herr Huber. The U.S. twice sacrificed its sons last century to save Europe from German aggression. During the Cold War, Europe "gained an advantage" from America's security umbrella. Today, even in the "good war" in Afghanistan, it's mostly U.S. troops who do the fighting and dying. German soldiers never leave the relatively safe north. That's solidarity?
The German outburst illustrates the hollowness of Mr. Obama's pitch that he'd repair the trans-Atlantic relationship supposedly damaged by President Bush. According to this narrative, Mr. Bush has so antagonized America's allies with his "unilateralism" that they are unwilling to carry their fair burden. But Europeans have long enjoyed the free ride of U.S. protection while enjoying even more criticizing the way it was provided.
In Berlin last week, many Germans felt the thrill of new romance. Now they're beginning to find out that Mr. Obama may not be the man of their dreams.
It's Time Israel Woke Up
Burt Prelutsky
Monday, July 28, 2008
Because December 7, 1941, was when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR quite aptly called it a day that would live in infamy. For Israel, July 15, 2008, is just such a date. That was the day that Ehud Olmert’s government swapped child murderer Samir Kuntar and four of his Lebanese cohorts to Hezbollah for the corpses of Israeli army reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Israel agreed to do this even though the Arabs reneged on their promise to disclose the present whereabouts of Israeli airman Ron Arad.
While one can sympathize with the families of Goldwasser and Regev, who desired closure and only wanted to give the young men a proper burial, one can’t help wondering what’s gone wrong with Israel’s leadership. Have they decided for some odd reason to take their lead from people like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama?
Once you begin trading live terrorists for dead soldiers, what have you done but encouraged your sworn enemies to abduct and murder your soldiers as well as your civilians? How do you trade for the corpses of Goldwasser and Regev, but not for the dead bodies of the next two Israelis or the next dozen or the next hundred? Once you open the door to such depraved swapping, how do you ever close it? How do you tell the next set of Jewish parents that the remains of these two were worth infinitely more than the corpses of their own sons and daughters?
Frankly, I have no idea how Israel has so far resisted the urge to unleash nuclear bombs on the likes of Syria, Iran and the Palestinians. But be that as it may, I do have a couple of suggestions I wish they’d take to heart. One, I wish they’d finally institute capital punishment. Until the day they begin to execute terrorists, they will leave themselves open to more of this same sort of emotional blackmail.
Until they can bring themselves to exterminating the likes of Samir Kuntar, who went home to a hero’s reception, the Israelis will continue to find themselves swapping human garbage for human cadavers. Furthermore, the next time Kuntar murders a Jewish child, and assuredly this unrepentant savage will, the child’s blood will not only be on his hands, but on the hands of Prime Minister Olmert, President Shimon Peres and the rest of the gutless politicians currently running things in Israel.
My second suggestion is that Israel announce that from this moment on, the remains of any suicide bomber, in fact of any Muslim terrorist captured and executed in Israel, will be buried carefully wrapped in pigskins. Not only should that policy act as a deterrent, but what could be a more appropriate fate for swine?
Monday, July 28, 2008
Because December 7, 1941, was when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR quite aptly called it a day that would live in infamy. For Israel, July 15, 2008, is just such a date. That was the day that Ehud Olmert’s government swapped child murderer Samir Kuntar and four of his Lebanese cohorts to Hezbollah for the corpses of Israeli army reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Israel agreed to do this even though the Arabs reneged on their promise to disclose the present whereabouts of Israeli airman Ron Arad.
While one can sympathize with the families of Goldwasser and Regev, who desired closure and only wanted to give the young men a proper burial, one can’t help wondering what’s gone wrong with Israel’s leadership. Have they decided for some odd reason to take their lead from people like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama?
Once you begin trading live terrorists for dead soldiers, what have you done but encouraged your sworn enemies to abduct and murder your soldiers as well as your civilians? How do you trade for the corpses of Goldwasser and Regev, but not for the dead bodies of the next two Israelis or the next dozen or the next hundred? Once you open the door to such depraved swapping, how do you ever close it? How do you tell the next set of Jewish parents that the remains of these two were worth infinitely more than the corpses of their own sons and daughters?
Frankly, I have no idea how Israel has so far resisted the urge to unleash nuclear bombs on the likes of Syria, Iran and the Palestinians. But be that as it may, I do have a couple of suggestions I wish they’d take to heart. One, I wish they’d finally institute capital punishment. Until the day they begin to execute terrorists, they will leave themselves open to more of this same sort of emotional blackmail.
Until they can bring themselves to exterminating the likes of Samir Kuntar, who went home to a hero’s reception, the Israelis will continue to find themselves swapping human garbage for human cadavers. Furthermore, the next time Kuntar murders a Jewish child, and assuredly this unrepentant savage will, the child’s blood will not only be on his hands, but on the hands of Prime Minister Olmert, President Shimon Peres and the rest of the gutless politicians currently running things in Israel.
My second suggestion is that Israel announce that from this moment on, the remains of any suicide bomber, in fact of any Muslim terrorist captured and executed in Israel, will be buried carefully wrapped in pigskins. Not only should that policy act as a deterrent, but what could be a more appropriate fate for swine?
Class in America
Paul Greenberg
Monday, July 28, 2008
Why do politicians pride themselves on being working class, or at least having working-class origins? For the same reason 19th-century presidential candidates were almost required to have been born in a log cabin. Seven of them actually were. Then there were those who would like to have been for political purposes. It was a way of identifying with The People.
The People, not The Masses. In this country, we don't have Masses, unless you write for the Daily Worker. It would be un-American.
Also unrealistic. Americans may be farmers, but we've never been peasants. (Slaves, maybe.) It probably has to do with having skipped the feudal period. The very first Europeans to observe this strange new species of man in the New World tended to comment on our lack of subservience. Which cheered some, but horrified others.
"What then is the American, this new man?" Crevecoeur asked in his "Letters from an American Farmer" (1782), and answered: "He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He has become an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all races are melted into a new race of man, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world."
A forerunner of Tocqueville when it came to analyzing/diagnosing this new kind of man, Crevecoeur tried to sum us up, but it's an impossible job. If we left behind old prejudices, we soon acquired new ones. And we've turned out to be less a new race than one that hasn't congealed yet, and may never, what with new ingredients being added all the time. Let's hope not.
It's always been a myth that America is a classless society, though it's a myth that has its uses. For what begins in myth may end in reality. If we pretend class doesn't matter, maybe one day it won't. At least not as much. Let's just hope we never reach the point of glorifying poverty, of extolling downward rather than upward mobility.
But romanticizing the poor has always been a staple of American discourse. William Henry Harrison, he of Tippecanoe and Tyler, too, used the log cabin as his campaign emblem. And he set the fashion.
Working class may be a term of opprobrium in some societies; here it is a term of approbation. At least publicly. It's the one class Americans feel free not only to recognize but laud.
A presidential candidate (Hillary Clinton) can risk sounding like a sociologist as long as she's identifying herself with the working class. Or at least claiming that it identifies with her and not her opponent. As when she asserted that "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again," while whites "who had not completed college were supporting me." At least she didn't use euphemisms like "blue-collar majority.''
It's hard to imagine a presidential candidate, at least one with any political sense, running as the Candidate of the Upper Crust. ("I was born in a plush penthouse on Park Avenue.") Instead the lower crust is shamelessly flattered. It's the contemporary version of the old log cabin theme.
Something else hasn't changed: Much as the Andrew Jacksons and William Henry Harrisons extolled log cabins, they weren't about to live in one. Any more than today's politicians are about to take a vow of poverty.
I live for the day when some politician comes out and admits that, while being poor is no shame, it's no great honor, either.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Why do politicians pride themselves on being working class, or at least having working-class origins? For the same reason 19th-century presidential candidates were almost required to have been born in a log cabin. Seven of them actually were. Then there were those who would like to have been for political purposes. It was a way of identifying with The People.
The People, not The Masses. In this country, we don't have Masses, unless you write for the Daily Worker. It would be un-American.
Also unrealistic. Americans may be farmers, but we've never been peasants. (Slaves, maybe.) It probably has to do with having skipped the feudal period. The very first Europeans to observe this strange new species of man in the New World tended to comment on our lack of subservience. Which cheered some, but horrified others.
"What then is the American, this new man?" Crevecoeur asked in his "Letters from an American Farmer" (1782), and answered: "He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He has become an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all races are melted into a new race of man, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world."
A forerunner of Tocqueville when it came to analyzing/diagnosing this new kind of man, Crevecoeur tried to sum us up, but it's an impossible job. If we left behind old prejudices, we soon acquired new ones. And we've turned out to be less a new race than one that hasn't congealed yet, and may never, what with new ingredients being added all the time. Let's hope not.
It's always been a myth that America is a classless society, though it's a myth that has its uses. For what begins in myth may end in reality. If we pretend class doesn't matter, maybe one day it won't. At least not as much. Let's just hope we never reach the point of glorifying poverty, of extolling downward rather than upward mobility.
But romanticizing the poor has always been a staple of American discourse. William Henry Harrison, he of Tippecanoe and Tyler, too, used the log cabin as his campaign emblem. And he set the fashion.
Working class may be a term of opprobrium in some societies; here it is a term of approbation. At least publicly. It's the one class Americans feel free not only to recognize but laud.
A presidential candidate (Hillary Clinton) can risk sounding like a sociologist as long as she's identifying herself with the working class. Or at least claiming that it identifies with her and not her opponent. As when she asserted that "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again," while whites "who had not completed college were supporting me." At least she didn't use euphemisms like "blue-collar majority.''
It's hard to imagine a presidential candidate, at least one with any political sense, running as the Candidate of the Upper Crust. ("I was born in a plush penthouse on Park Avenue.") Instead the lower crust is shamelessly flattered. It's the contemporary version of the old log cabin theme.
Something else hasn't changed: Much as the Andrew Jacksons and William Henry Harrisons extolled log cabins, they weren't about to live in one. Any more than today's politicians are about to take a vow of poverty.
I live for the day when some politician comes out and admits that, while being poor is no shame, it's no great honor, either.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
If It's Thursday, This Must Be Berlin
Debra J. Saunders
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Should Americans become more like Our Betters in Europe?
Clearly the 200,000 Germans who gathered to watch Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama at Berlin's Tiergarten on Thursday thought so. And in that Obama liberally challenged U.S. policies on the war in Iraq, global warming and U.S. interrogation measures, he gave the German audience the affirmation it craved.
A Pew Research Center poll showed 82 percent of Germans had confidence that Obama would do the right thing on world affairs. No wonder.
In Germany, it was all wunderbar. Addressing the throng as a "proud citizen of the United States," but also "a fellow citizen of the world," Obama seemed to be giving Europeans a role and a voice in an election in which they have no vote.
Not that Europeans haven't tried to play a role in U.S. electoral politics before. Who can forget Operation Clark County? That was the campaign waged by British paper the Guardian that encouraged Brits to write to voters in a swing county in the swing state of Ohio to urge them to vote for 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry -- because "the result of the U.S. election will affect the lives of millions around the world, but those of us outside the 50 states have had no say in it."
Well, they had their say, and Clark was the only county in Ohio to switch from supporting Gore in 2000 to Bush GOP in 2004. George W. Bush garnered some 25 percent more votes than in 2000.
To date, Obamaland has run an extremely savvy and effective campaign, but the European leg of the Obama world tour could be one big wrong turn. Figure that Obama already had the majority of votes among Americans with passports -- that's roughly 34 percent of Americans age 18 or older, according to the Economist. (In 2004, pollster James Zogby found that Americans with active passports preferred Kerry, while those without passports preferred Bush.)
Today, Obama is not polling as strongly as you would expect, given his media coronation. His European capitals tour probably did little to appeal to two-thirds of no-passport-required Americans who may not be all that impressed if the French and Germans go gaga for Obama.
While the speech went over big in Berlin, over time Obama's speeches seem notable for the irritating manner in which he straddles issues. There are no rough edges in his stump rhetoric. While he has a way of seeming to be critical, he is always careful not to make a sharp point.
The speech was classic Obamaspeak: "In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth -- that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe."
As usual, his words appear to be analytical, but probably that's because he comes to no specific conclusion. There is no straight talk on this jet.
Obama opposed the Bush surge of troops in Iraq, and to applause in Deutschland, he spoke against the war. He told the crowd what it wanted to hear.
Conversely, Obama has proposed a surge of U.S. troops in Afghanistan -- a position that will require sacrifice from American troops who could use more help from abroad. Germany has sent more than 3,500 troops to Afghanistan, most of them essentially exempted from combat duty. Polls show that 85 percent of Germans object to sending more German troops into the southern part of Afghanistan -- yet Chancellor Angela Merkel's government did send a German combat unit into that theatre this summer. Obama had a chance to praise Merkel and speak in support of sending 1,000 more German troops.
This is what he said: "The Afghan people need our troops and your troops, our support and your support, to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaida, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation."
Before the speech, the Washington Post reported that an aide had revealed Obama "will ask Europe to shoulder more of the burden to help deal with global security threats." I guess that was it.
OK, maybe Obama didn't want to come across as a "cowboy," but he didn't exactly come across as a leader either.
When Obama went overseas, he had the perfect platform to take on Western Europe's defense-light posture, but all he could mutter was, "Merci beaucoup."
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Should Americans become more like Our Betters in Europe?
Clearly the 200,000 Germans who gathered to watch Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama at Berlin's Tiergarten on Thursday thought so. And in that Obama liberally challenged U.S. policies on the war in Iraq, global warming and U.S. interrogation measures, he gave the German audience the affirmation it craved.
A Pew Research Center poll showed 82 percent of Germans had confidence that Obama would do the right thing on world affairs. No wonder.
In Germany, it was all wunderbar. Addressing the throng as a "proud citizen of the United States," but also "a fellow citizen of the world," Obama seemed to be giving Europeans a role and a voice in an election in which they have no vote.
Not that Europeans haven't tried to play a role in U.S. electoral politics before. Who can forget Operation Clark County? That was the campaign waged by British paper the Guardian that encouraged Brits to write to voters in a swing county in the swing state of Ohio to urge them to vote for 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry -- because "the result of the U.S. election will affect the lives of millions around the world, but those of us outside the 50 states have had no say in it."
Well, they had their say, and Clark was the only county in Ohio to switch from supporting Gore in 2000 to Bush GOP in 2004. George W. Bush garnered some 25 percent more votes than in 2000.
To date, Obamaland has run an extremely savvy and effective campaign, but the European leg of the Obama world tour could be one big wrong turn. Figure that Obama already had the majority of votes among Americans with passports -- that's roughly 34 percent of Americans age 18 or older, according to the Economist. (In 2004, pollster James Zogby found that Americans with active passports preferred Kerry, while those without passports preferred Bush.)
Today, Obama is not polling as strongly as you would expect, given his media coronation. His European capitals tour probably did little to appeal to two-thirds of no-passport-required Americans who may not be all that impressed if the French and Germans go gaga for Obama.
While the speech went over big in Berlin, over time Obama's speeches seem notable for the irritating manner in which he straddles issues. There are no rough edges in his stump rhetoric. While he has a way of seeming to be critical, he is always careful not to make a sharp point.
The speech was classic Obamaspeak: "In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth -- that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe."
As usual, his words appear to be analytical, but probably that's because he comes to no specific conclusion. There is no straight talk on this jet.
Obama opposed the Bush surge of troops in Iraq, and to applause in Deutschland, he spoke against the war. He told the crowd what it wanted to hear.
Conversely, Obama has proposed a surge of U.S. troops in Afghanistan -- a position that will require sacrifice from American troops who could use more help from abroad. Germany has sent more than 3,500 troops to Afghanistan, most of them essentially exempted from combat duty. Polls show that 85 percent of Germans object to sending more German troops into the southern part of Afghanistan -- yet Chancellor Angela Merkel's government did send a German combat unit into that theatre this summer. Obama had a chance to praise Merkel and speak in support of sending 1,000 more German troops.
This is what he said: "The Afghan people need our troops and your troops, our support and your support, to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaida, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation."
Before the speech, the Washington Post reported that an aide had revealed Obama "will ask Europe to shoulder more of the burden to help deal with global security threats." I guess that was it.
OK, maybe Obama didn't want to come across as a "cowboy," but he didn't exactly come across as a leader either.
When Obama went overseas, he had the perfect platform to take on Western Europe's defense-light posture, but all he could mutter was, "Merci beaucoup."
Obama, "The Vast Majority Of Muslims," And The Rest Of Us
Austin Hill
Sunday, July 27, 2008
So now that you know that the rest of the world loves Obama, how about you?
I raised that question last Thursday night on my radio talk show at Washington, DC’s 630 WMAL, albeit rather facetiously. Despite what the forces at CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Rueters, The New York Times, and “CNN International” may want me to believe, I don’t assume that “the world loves Obama,” anymore than I assume that “the world hates Bush.”
But now that the week of cathartic revelry is behind us and the excitement has subsided a little bit, it’s time for some reflection. And despite the aura of victory that was entailed in many reports, there were moments that reflected very poorly on Mr. Obama himself, and on our country.
For one, there were Obama’s remarks in Israel regarding his good deeds on the “Senate Banking Committee.” In responding to an Israeli reporter’s question about his commitment to defending Israel (Israeli’s are rightly skeptical of Mr. Obama, given his previously stated commitments to meet “unconditionally” with Iran’s tyrannical leader), Mr. Obama explained that “his committee” - - the Senate Banking Committee - - had just voted in favor of a bill that provides for sanctioning, and the divesting of revenues out of, Iran.
But Mr. Obama doesn’t serve on the Senate Banking Committee. And he hadn’t “just voted” on anything. Senators don’t “text message” or “email” their votes - - they vote in the Senate chamber, and Mr. Obama was out of the country all week. Mr. Obama lied to the Israeli reporter - - and to the rest of the world - - with these remarks. Are we to regard this as “presidential?” Or was this merely “change we can believe in?”
Then there was the speech in Berlin last Thursday. While many of the journalists repeatedly stated that “an estimated 200,000 people" had turned-out to see Obama, blogs were all abuzz with reports that the “crowd” to which Obama spoke was drawn not so much by the candidate (who insisted that he was NOT “speaking as a candidate”) himself, but rather, by a rock concert with free music, food and drink.
The wide-angle camera shots of Obama waving to a sea of people looked great, but what was really happening right then and there on the ground? Was it a well choreographed campaign event from “America’s next President,” or was Obama’s speech inserted into the midst of a mini music festival?
But then there were four particular sentences from Obama’s Berlin speech, the intricacies of which went largely ignored by “the press.” Ostensibly Mr. Obama was calling for the United States and Europe to unite for the common purpose of defeating Islamo-fascist terrorism, and that’s what the headlines conveyed. Yet, Obama’s relativistic, multi-cultural, "I-wouldn't-dare-offend-anybody" sensibilities colored his remarks on this all-important subject:
“This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.”
So what are we to make of this? For nearly seven years, the United States has called upon Europe to join us in combating terrorism and the ideology that drives it. President Bush has made it clear to Europe - - and to the rest of the world - - that we will wage this fight, and win, with or without the help of other nations. This is something which Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats have pejoratively decried as Bush’s “cowboy diplomacy” and his “go it alone” approach.
But notice the structure of the last sentence: “If we ('we' presumably meaning the U.S. and what was then 'Western Europe') could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.” Who is it, exactly, that “we” - - citizens of the U.S. and modern-day Europe - - are supposed to stand with? The implication is that “the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism” already have some kind of well-developed movement going on, and the rest of us non-Muslims just need to get on board with it.
But where is this “vast majority of Muslims?” Do they have a website? Can I sign-up for their newsletter, or attend a rally? And who speaks for this “vast majority?” Is it President Ahmedinejad of Iran? Or would it be the two hijab scarf-wearing Muslim women who were denied their “rights” to sit on the platform behind Obama’s podium last month in Detroit, and who pitched a fit and eventually coerced an apology from him? Are they the examples of the “vast majority” who reject “extremism?”
Mr. Obama may find camaraderie with this elusive, mystical “vast majority.” But the rest of us Americans must remain vigilant, lest we fall prey to not merely “hate,” but to beheadings and suicide bombings as well.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
So now that you know that the rest of the world loves Obama, how about you?
I raised that question last Thursday night on my radio talk show at Washington, DC’s 630 WMAL, albeit rather facetiously. Despite what the forces at CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Rueters, The New York Times, and “CNN International” may want me to believe, I don’t assume that “the world loves Obama,” anymore than I assume that “the world hates Bush.”
But now that the week of cathartic revelry is behind us and the excitement has subsided a little bit, it’s time for some reflection. And despite the aura of victory that was entailed in many reports, there were moments that reflected very poorly on Mr. Obama himself, and on our country.
For one, there were Obama’s remarks in Israel regarding his good deeds on the “Senate Banking Committee.” In responding to an Israeli reporter’s question about his commitment to defending Israel (Israeli’s are rightly skeptical of Mr. Obama, given his previously stated commitments to meet “unconditionally” with Iran’s tyrannical leader), Mr. Obama explained that “his committee” - - the Senate Banking Committee - - had just voted in favor of a bill that provides for sanctioning, and the divesting of revenues out of, Iran.
But Mr. Obama doesn’t serve on the Senate Banking Committee. And he hadn’t “just voted” on anything. Senators don’t “text message” or “email” their votes - - they vote in the Senate chamber, and Mr. Obama was out of the country all week. Mr. Obama lied to the Israeli reporter - - and to the rest of the world - - with these remarks. Are we to regard this as “presidential?” Or was this merely “change we can believe in?”
Then there was the speech in Berlin last Thursday. While many of the journalists repeatedly stated that “an estimated 200,000 people" had turned-out to see Obama, blogs were all abuzz with reports that the “crowd” to which Obama spoke was drawn not so much by the candidate (who insisted that he was NOT “speaking as a candidate”) himself, but rather, by a rock concert with free music, food and drink.
The wide-angle camera shots of Obama waving to a sea of people looked great, but what was really happening right then and there on the ground? Was it a well choreographed campaign event from “America’s next President,” or was Obama’s speech inserted into the midst of a mini music festival?
But then there were four particular sentences from Obama’s Berlin speech, the intricacies of which went largely ignored by “the press.” Ostensibly Mr. Obama was calling for the United States and Europe to unite for the common purpose of defeating Islamo-fascist terrorism, and that’s what the headlines conveyed. Yet, Obama’s relativistic, multi-cultural, "I-wouldn't-dare-offend-anybody" sensibilities colored his remarks on this all-important subject:
“This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.”
So what are we to make of this? For nearly seven years, the United States has called upon Europe to join us in combating terrorism and the ideology that drives it. President Bush has made it clear to Europe - - and to the rest of the world - - that we will wage this fight, and win, with or without the help of other nations. This is something which Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats have pejoratively decried as Bush’s “cowboy diplomacy” and his “go it alone” approach.
But notice the structure of the last sentence: “If we ('we' presumably meaning the U.S. and what was then 'Western Europe') could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.” Who is it, exactly, that “we” - - citizens of the U.S. and modern-day Europe - - are supposed to stand with? The implication is that “the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism” already have some kind of well-developed movement going on, and the rest of us non-Muslims just need to get on board with it.
But where is this “vast majority of Muslims?” Do they have a website? Can I sign-up for their newsletter, or attend a rally? And who speaks for this “vast majority?” Is it President Ahmedinejad of Iran? Or would it be the two hijab scarf-wearing Muslim women who were denied their “rights” to sit on the platform behind Obama’s podium last month in Detroit, and who pitched a fit and eventually coerced an apology from him? Are they the examples of the “vast majority” who reject “extremism?”
Mr. Obama may find camaraderie with this elusive, mystical “vast majority.” But the rest of us Americans must remain vigilant, lest we fall prey to not merely “hate,” but to beheadings and suicide bombings as well.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
One world? Obama's on a different planet
The senator's Berlin speech was radical and naive.
By John R. Bolton
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama said in an interview the day after his Berlin speech that it "allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I have made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer."
If that is what the senator thought he was doing, he still has a lot to learn about both foreign policy and the views of the American people. Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective.
These troubling comments were not widely reported in the generally adulatory media coverage given the speech, but they nonetheless deserve intense scrutiny. It remains to be seen whether these glimpses into Obama's thinking will have any impact on the presidential campaign, but clearly they were not casual remarks. This speech, intended to generate the enormous publicity it in fact received, reflects his campaign's carefully calibrated political thinking. Accordingly, there should be no evading the implications of his statements. Consider just the following two examples.
First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, "The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together." Having earlier proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."
Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator's own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik -- "eastern politics," a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance -- continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.
But there are larger implications to Obama's rediscovery of the "one world" concept, first announced in the U.S. by Wendell Willkie, the failed Republican 1940 presidential nominee, and subsequently buried by the Cold War's realities.
The successes Obama refers to in his speech -- the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism -- were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by "one-worldism." Although the senator was trying to distinguish himself from perceptions of Bush administration policy within the Atlantic Alliance, he was in fact sketching out a post-alliance policy, perhaps one that would unfold in global organizations such as the United Nations. This is far-reaching indeed.
Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as president: "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."
This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn't see all these "walls" as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that "walls" exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.
Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side -- our side -- defeated the other. Differences in levels of economic development, or the treatment of racial, immigration or religious questions, are not susceptible to the same analysis or solution. Even more basically, challenges to our very civilization, as the Cold War surely was, are not overcome by naively "tearing down walls" with our adversaries.
Throughout the Berlin speech, there were numerous policy pronouncements, all of them hazy and nonspecific, none of them new or different than what Obama has already said during the long American campaign. But the Berlin framework in which he wrapped these ideas for the first time is truly radical for a prospective American president. That he picked a foreign audience is perhaps not surprising, because they could be expected to welcome a less-assertive American view of its role in the world, at least at first glance. Even anti-American Europeans, however, are likely to regret a United States that sees itself as just one more nation in a "united" world.
The best we can hope for is that Obama's rhetoric was simply that, pandering to the audience before him, as politicians so often do. We shall see if this rhetoric follows him back to America, either because he continues to use it or because Sen. John McCain asks voters if this is really what they want from their next president.
By John R. Bolton
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama said in an interview the day after his Berlin speech that it "allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I have made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer."
If that is what the senator thought he was doing, he still has a lot to learn about both foreign policy and the views of the American people. Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective.
These troubling comments were not widely reported in the generally adulatory media coverage given the speech, but they nonetheless deserve intense scrutiny. It remains to be seen whether these glimpses into Obama's thinking will have any impact on the presidential campaign, but clearly they were not casual remarks. This speech, intended to generate the enormous publicity it in fact received, reflects his campaign's carefully calibrated political thinking. Accordingly, there should be no evading the implications of his statements. Consider just the following two examples.
First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, "The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together." Having earlier proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."
Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator's own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik -- "eastern politics," a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance -- continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.
But there are larger implications to Obama's rediscovery of the "one world" concept, first announced in the U.S. by Wendell Willkie, the failed Republican 1940 presidential nominee, and subsequently buried by the Cold War's realities.
The successes Obama refers to in his speech -- the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism -- were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by "one-worldism." Although the senator was trying to distinguish himself from perceptions of Bush administration policy within the Atlantic Alliance, he was in fact sketching out a post-alliance policy, perhaps one that would unfold in global organizations such as the United Nations. This is far-reaching indeed.
Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as president: "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."
This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn't see all these "walls" as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that "walls" exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.
Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side -- our side -- defeated the other. Differences in levels of economic development, or the treatment of racial, immigration or religious questions, are not susceptible to the same analysis or solution. Even more basically, challenges to our very civilization, as the Cold War surely was, are not overcome by naively "tearing down walls" with our adversaries.
Throughout the Berlin speech, there were numerous policy pronouncements, all of them hazy and nonspecific, none of them new or different than what Obama has already said during the long American campaign. But the Berlin framework in which he wrapped these ideas for the first time is truly radical for a prospective American president. That he picked a foreign audience is perhaps not surprising, because they could be expected to welcome a less-assertive American view of its role in the world, at least at first glance. Even anti-American Europeans, however, are likely to regret a United States that sees itself as just one more nation in a "united" world.
The best we can hope for is that Obama's rhetoric was simply that, pandering to the audience before him, as politicians so often do. We shall see if this rhetoric follows him back to America, either because he continues to use it or because Sen. John McCain asks voters if this is really what they want from their next president.
What Bush and Batman Have in Common
By Andrew Klavnan
Friday, July 25, 2008
A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .
Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a "W."
There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.
And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.
"The Dark Knight," then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year's "300," "The Dark Knight" is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.
Conversely, time after time, left-wing films about the war on terror -- films like "In The Valley of Elah," "Rendition" and "Redacted" -- which preach moral equivalence and advocate surrender, that disrespect the military and their mission, that seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism, have bombed more spectacularly than Operation Shock and Awe.
Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense -- values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right -- only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like "300," "Lord of the Rings," "Narnia," "Spiderman 3" and now "The Dark Knight"?
The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?
The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of "The Dark Knight" itself: Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.
Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They're wrong, of course, even on their own terms.
Left and right, all Americans know that freedom is better than slavery, that love is better than hate, kindness better than cruelty, tolerance better than bigotry. We don't always know how we know these things, and yet mysteriously we know them nonetheless.
The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them -- when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love.
When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, "He has to run away -- because we have to chase him."
That's real moral complexity. And when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values; and that while movie stars may strut in the bright light of our adulation for pretending to be heroes, true heroes often must slink in the shadows, slump-shouldered and despised -- then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror.
Perhaps that's when Hollywood conservatives will be able to take off their masks and speak plainly in the light of day.
Friday, July 25, 2008
A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .
Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a "W."
There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.
And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.
"The Dark Knight," then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year's "300," "The Dark Knight" is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.
Conversely, time after time, left-wing films about the war on terror -- films like "In The Valley of Elah," "Rendition" and "Redacted" -- which preach moral equivalence and advocate surrender, that disrespect the military and their mission, that seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism, have bombed more spectacularly than Operation Shock and Awe.
Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense -- values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right -- only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like "300," "Lord of the Rings," "Narnia," "Spiderman 3" and now "The Dark Knight"?
The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?
The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of "The Dark Knight" itself: Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.
Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They're wrong, of course, even on their own terms.
Left and right, all Americans know that freedom is better than slavery, that love is better than hate, kindness better than cruelty, tolerance better than bigotry. We don't always know how we know these things, and yet mysteriously we know them nonetheless.
The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them -- when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love.
When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, "He has to run away -- because we have to chase him."
That's real moral complexity. And when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values; and that while movie stars may strut in the bright light of our adulation for pretending to be heroes, true heroes often must slink in the shadows, slump-shouldered and despised -- then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror.
Perhaps that's when Hollywood conservatives will be able to take off their masks and speak plainly in the light of day.
Obama and the German Question
By Matthew Kaminski
Friday, July 25, 2008
Barack Obama soaked up the love yesterday in Berlin. The backdrop, so rich in historical symbolism and television potential, was apt for a reason few acknowledged. Should the Democratic candidate become president and reach out to Europe, Germany will determine how successful he is.
Much has been made of the need to improve America's image in Europe. This narrative is some two years past its sell-by date. President Bush may not be popular at home or on the Continent, but America is again the ally of choice. On Iran, Russia, China and the Mideast, the big players of the European Union eagerly and pragmatically seek out U.S. leadership; in the surprise twist of this century so far, France leads the way.
Berlin is the exception. Its foreign policy can be charitably described as inconsistent and confused -- and infused with a strain of anti-Americanism hard to find among other European ruling elites these days.
Part of the problem is the so-called grand coalition. After an inconclusive election in 2005, Chancellor Angela Merkel shares power with the left-wing opposition. Her foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, was her predecessor Gerhard Schröder's chief of staff; in elections due next year, he'll possibly lead the Social Democrats into battle against her and the Christian Democrats.
Like his previous boss (Mr. Schröder is now on the Kremlin's payroll at gas giant Gazprom), Mr. Steinmeier nurtures friendly ties with Moscow and is cool toward Washington. Chancellor Merkel's instincts lead her in an opposite direction, yet she has shown little leadership on foreign policy of late, possibly to avoid a costly fight before elections.
In April, Germany derailed an American push at NATO to reach out to Ukraine and Georgia. Mr. Steinmeier said there are "limits" to Russia's patience. Russia showed its gratitude by almost immediately stirring up trouble for Georgia in the breakaway region of Abkhazia, putting the Caucasus on the brink of another war. Close Merkel aides were taken aback and one told me in Berlin the other week that "we can't give an inch" to Russia. A bit late for that now.
On Afghanistan, Ms. Merkel has always sided with her foreign minister. Germany's large troop contingent isn't allowed to leave its safe northern bases to join the U.S.-led fight against the Taliban in the south. "The only thing the [coalition] parties have in common is, 'Don't send troops to southern Afghanistan!'" says Omid Nouripour, a German MP who belongs to the Green Party, which isn't in government.
So there are likely limits to German Obamamania, which is anyone-but-Bush-mania by another name. Mr. Obama wants Europe's support for expanded military operations in Afghanistan; so, for that matter, does John McCain. The Democratic candidate backs NATO enlargement; ditto the Republican. France and Italy, both led by men who want closer trans-Atlantic ties, are loosening restrictions put on their forces in Afghanistan and are open to enlarging the NATO alliance. Yet Ms. Merkel this week pre-empted the Obama visit by ruling out any change on Germany's deployment in Afghanistan. "I will make the limits very clear [to Mr. Obama], just as I have done with the current president," she said. Welcome to Berlin.
Ms. Merkel, who was brought up in Soviet-dominated East Germany, is a political outsider who looks the part of a leader able to break the longstanding German policy mold. In one of her best moments, she calmly told Vladimir Putin last year to lay off his hounded political opponents; the Russian leader looked stunned.
She can build on some recent positive trends. Germany has in the past decade sent troops to crisis zones from Kosovo to Congo, breaking a post-1945 taboo about foreign military deployments. In Afghanistan, Germany has the third most troops after the U.S. and Britain.
But the pacifist training drummed into generations of leaders after World War II has tied Germany into psychological and political knots. To the ruling class, "atonement [for the war] is Germany's chief political capital, its very own soft power," notes Constanze Stelzenmüller of the German Marshall Fund. "Luckily for Europe, neither the British, nor the French, nor the Swedes or the Poles have qualms about using the entire gamut of their toolbox of power, from diplomacy and suasion to military force."
Mr. Obama invoked the collapsed Berlin Wall repeatedly yesterday in his speech on U.S.-European relations. But the old Cold War "German Question" has merely changed, not disappeared. Russia knows Germany is a pivotal country in Europe. Mr. Putin has set out to co-opt its politicians (hence Schröder of Gazprom) and divide the West through Germany. Any American president who seeks to build on the recent progress in forging a new partnership with Europe will have to contend with a wobbly Germany.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Barack Obama soaked up the love yesterday in Berlin. The backdrop, so rich in historical symbolism and television potential, was apt for a reason few acknowledged. Should the Democratic candidate become president and reach out to Europe, Germany will determine how successful he is.
Much has been made of the need to improve America's image in Europe. This narrative is some two years past its sell-by date. President Bush may not be popular at home or on the Continent, but America is again the ally of choice. On Iran, Russia, China and the Mideast, the big players of the European Union eagerly and pragmatically seek out U.S. leadership; in the surprise twist of this century so far, France leads the way.
Berlin is the exception. Its foreign policy can be charitably described as inconsistent and confused -- and infused with a strain of anti-Americanism hard to find among other European ruling elites these days.
Part of the problem is the so-called grand coalition. After an inconclusive election in 2005, Chancellor Angela Merkel shares power with the left-wing opposition. Her foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, was her predecessor Gerhard Schröder's chief of staff; in elections due next year, he'll possibly lead the Social Democrats into battle against her and the Christian Democrats.
Like his previous boss (Mr. Schröder is now on the Kremlin's payroll at gas giant Gazprom), Mr. Steinmeier nurtures friendly ties with Moscow and is cool toward Washington. Chancellor Merkel's instincts lead her in an opposite direction, yet she has shown little leadership on foreign policy of late, possibly to avoid a costly fight before elections.
In April, Germany derailed an American push at NATO to reach out to Ukraine and Georgia. Mr. Steinmeier said there are "limits" to Russia's patience. Russia showed its gratitude by almost immediately stirring up trouble for Georgia in the breakaway region of Abkhazia, putting the Caucasus on the brink of another war. Close Merkel aides were taken aback and one told me in Berlin the other week that "we can't give an inch" to Russia. A bit late for that now.
On Afghanistan, Ms. Merkel has always sided with her foreign minister. Germany's large troop contingent isn't allowed to leave its safe northern bases to join the U.S.-led fight against the Taliban in the south. "The only thing the [coalition] parties have in common is, 'Don't send troops to southern Afghanistan!'" says Omid Nouripour, a German MP who belongs to the Green Party, which isn't in government.
So there are likely limits to German Obamamania, which is anyone-but-Bush-mania by another name. Mr. Obama wants Europe's support for expanded military operations in Afghanistan; so, for that matter, does John McCain. The Democratic candidate backs NATO enlargement; ditto the Republican. France and Italy, both led by men who want closer trans-Atlantic ties, are loosening restrictions put on their forces in Afghanistan and are open to enlarging the NATO alliance. Yet Ms. Merkel this week pre-empted the Obama visit by ruling out any change on Germany's deployment in Afghanistan. "I will make the limits very clear [to Mr. Obama], just as I have done with the current president," she said. Welcome to Berlin.
Ms. Merkel, who was brought up in Soviet-dominated East Germany, is a political outsider who looks the part of a leader able to break the longstanding German policy mold. In one of her best moments, she calmly told Vladimir Putin last year to lay off his hounded political opponents; the Russian leader looked stunned.
She can build on some recent positive trends. Germany has in the past decade sent troops to crisis zones from Kosovo to Congo, breaking a post-1945 taboo about foreign military deployments. In Afghanistan, Germany has the third most troops after the U.S. and Britain.
But the pacifist training drummed into generations of leaders after World War II has tied Germany into psychological and political knots. To the ruling class, "atonement [for the war] is Germany's chief political capital, its very own soft power," notes Constanze Stelzenmüller of the German Marshall Fund. "Luckily for Europe, neither the British, nor the French, nor the Swedes or the Poles have qualms about using the entire gamut of their toolbox of power, from diplomacy and suasion to military force."
Mr. Obama invoked the collapsed Berlin Wall repeatedly yesterday in his speech on U.S.-European relations. But the old Cold War "German Question" has merely changed, not disappeared. Russia knows Germany is a pivotal country in Europe. Mr. Putin has set out to co-opt its politicians (hence Schröder of Gazprom) and divide the West through Germany. Any American president who seeks to build on the recent progress in forging a new partnership with Europe will have to contend with a wobbly Germany.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)