Bad news?

from a Washington Post article last week:

As he was preparing to take command, Fallon said that a war with Iran "isn't going to happen on my watch," according to retired Army Col. Patrick Lang.

Lang, a former analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency, said in an interview that he asked Fallon how he would avoid such a conflict. "I have options, you know," Fallon responded, which Lang interpreted as implying Fallon would step down rather than follow orders he considers mistaken.

From the Post today: Top Military Commander Resigns

This may or may not mean war with Iran is imminent. An alternative explanation is that Esquire published an article last week that flattered Fallon at the expense of the administration. Fallon could have been canned because he committed the unforgivable (the only unforgivable in this administration)- making Bush look bad.

Either way, the canary in the coal mine just died.

Off the Record

Here is a critique of a critique dealing with the quote that got Obama aide Samantha Power canned. Greenwald breathes fire because American journalists tend to give more room to interviewees when it comes to declaring 'off the record' then British journalists.

Boiled down, the question is who has the power to decide what is off the record? The British style clearly assigns the right to the journalist, an interviewee may offer a comment with the condition that it not be quoted, the interviewer can accept or reject the condition and the interviewee responds accordingly. The American style seems to assign the right of determination to the interviewee. The interview is conducted with interviewee indicating as they go what is off the record or on, and the journalist just follows their instructions.

That's a pretty big difference in relative power. Has it always been this way?

Recession Now

per Krugman.

For those who like to keep track of dates.

Stephen Flynn Article

Stephen Flynn has an article in March/April issue of Foreign Affairs. The heart of his argument as I see it:

There is in our culture a tendency to view citizens as nothing more then consumers. Viewing ourselves that way infantilizes us, it renders us helpless when the lights go out. We need to get away from that. After 9/11, the government essentially codified the consumerist view of citizens, promising to take care of everything and keep our lives running as smoothly as a ride at Disney Land. A corollary to that is that we should cede total control to the government and just sit comfortably in our seats.

However, If you look at the actual events of 9/11, you see something striking. To quote Flynn:

it is the story of United Airlines flight 93, the thwarted fourth plane, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field, that ought to be the dominant 9/11 narrative. That plane's passengers foiled al Qaeda without any help from -- and in spite of the inaction of -- the U.S. government. There were no federal air marshals aboard the aircraft. The North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, could not intercept it; it did not even know that the plane had been hijacked. Yet United 93 was stopped 140 miles from its likely destination -- the U.S. Capitol or the White House -- because of the actions of the passengers who stormed the cockpit...

Americans should celebrate -- and ponder -- the reality that the legislative and executive centers of the U.S. federal government, whose constitutional duty is to "provide for the common defense," were themselves defended that day by one thing alone: an alert and heroic citizenry.

This is the antithesis of the consumerist view: an active and informed citizenry, taking matters into their own hands to shape the outcome. It's often been remarked on that 9/11 was perpetrated by a small number of people with little more then box cutters, it's almost never remarked that their plans were partially foiled by a small number of people with cell phones.

BTW, if you're interested in Flynn's work I recommend this discussion and Q&A podcast at CFR.

WaPo Op-Ed

Here is an Op-Ed by Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway from the Washington Post. It discusses current negotiations between the Bush Administration and Iraq over establishing a new status of force agreement. Democrats claim (quite plausibly) that Bush is pushing language that amounts to a security guaranty for the government of Iraq. Democrats claim such an agreement would bind future presidents to continue the current policy of large force occupation. I think the Op-Ed and most debate on this issue is missing something.

Forget about the validity of the claims, and consider how easily a presidential candidate could kneecap such a contract on their own by simply announcing their intentions with respect to Iraq. Put out a statement saying that any promise of a long term security guaranty by Bush isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and that if elected you would on the first day order a bottom up policy review of everything in force. I understand that Iraq policy is toxic waste so long as Bush is in office, but that ends when the new person comes in. Whoever it is, they should not be allowed to blame bad policy on ghosts.

POW: Dana Milbank on C-Span

Dana Milbank was on C-Span's Afterwords program pushing his new book, Homo Politicus. A cute discussion.

Milbank struggled when asked what was Taboo in Washington. He responded that you didn't really know until you broke one, and cited McCain in 2000 insulting fundamentalists and McKinney hitting a police officer. I don't think that's Milbank being naive, I think it's a genuinely hard question for someone in Washington to answer. Taboos aren't just rules, they're untouchable, unthinkable. Asking someone what is taboo is like asking a blind person to describe what they can't see. On the other hand politicians and media personalities do a pretty good job avoiding taboos (Milbank, who writes 4 columns a week can only cite two transgressions from the last 7 years!) so they must be at least subconsciously aware of them.

My picks for current taboos (broken by party)

Republicans:
- Racism among whites
- Homosexuality (except in the context of bashing it)
- The self-contradiction in being an "anti-government" politician

Democrats:
- The reality that what makes a government unique is it's ability to use legal coercion: That any time the government tries to solve a problem, to the extent that it is doing more then what an individual or non-profit could do, it is using coercion. In that sense the heart of classical liberalism is not in government at all.

For both parties:
- Criticizing the place of Israel in American foreign policy
- Saying that "sunken costs are sunken costs" with respect to Iraq

POW: Anthony Lewis

The National Constitution Center hosted a discussion with Anthony Lewis on the first amendment and it's modern interpretations. Nothing earth shattering, but a nice listen none the less. Lewis is (among other things) the author of Gideon's Trumpet.