Interesting Analysis

M K Bhadrakumar has an interesting review in Asia Times of Iran's role in Basra.  There is a lot of quote-worthy material, such as his puzzlement over Iran's modesty:

In the highly competitive world of international politics, nation states very rarely miss an opportunity to crow about success stories. The opportunity comes rare, mostly by default, and seldom enduring. By any standards of showmanship, therefore, Tehran has set a new benchmark of reticence.

The real money quote though is on the Bush administration:

 

Out of the dramatic developments of the past week, several questions arise, the principal being that the Bush administration's triumphalism over the so-called Iraq "surge" strategy has become irredeemably farcical, and, two, US doublespeak has become badly exposed. What stands out is that Washington promoted the latest round of violence in Basra, whereas Iran cried halt to it. The awesome influence of Tehran has become all too apparent. How does Bush come to terms with it?

How indeed?

Rubin Op-Ed

Via Foreign Affairs

Michael Rubin has a generally wrong op-ed in the WSJ, but it has a few nuggets worth considering.  His thesis in a nutshell:  Democratic presidential candidates pose as realists, but their emphasis on diplomacy as opposed to military force makes them idealists.  Rubin implies this makes them more dangerous then the fantasist George Bush.

The problems with this thesis are clear.  Neither of the Democratic candidates have indicated a desire to disband the U.S. military.  They have not even indicated a desire to reduce military funding from it's current astronomical levels.  In fact, the only policy proposal from a Democratic candidate that Rubin cites is Obama's advocacy of aggressive diplomacy with Iran.

What is Rubin's take on Iran?

Attacking Iran isn't a viable option because it would likely only delay, not eliminate, Tehran's nuclear program. Risking the blowback from an attack would only be productive if there was a strategy to use the interim period to end the threat posed by the regime's ideology. Until there is a regime-change strategy, a military strike would merely allow politicians to put off conducting a serious national security debate.

In other words, to topple the government of Iran. 

PURE REALISM, BABY!!

Snarkage:  Rubin pushes the combination of threatening military force with diplomacy.  Is there a better example of successfully executing this strategy then Bill Clinton with North Korea and Iraq?  Is there a better example of the perils of this strategy then George W. Bush?

Continuity in the White House?

Via Foreign Affairs daily opinion roundup:

Philip Stephens has an op-ed in the Financial Times suggesting that the next President will have significant continuities in policy with the Bush Administration, if only because there are too many problems to solve in the course of a single term.

If you allow problems to define you then I suppose he's right.  I'd hope for more though, a lot more from whoever is next to sit in office.  The key challenge Stephens dances around is rejecting the factionalism that developed under Bush and regaining control of the bureaucracies.

Throughout Bush's term he was constantly overwhelmed and outmatched by events on the ground.  This was only partially due to his incompetence.  Another factor was the lack of control and direction given to the bureaucracies that make up the federal government.  Cabinet members and their subordinates were free to pursue whatever agenda they wanted, so long as they observed the Golden Rule:  Do not make George Bush look bad.  Disband the Iraqi Army?  Give the leader of North Korea the finger?  Badmouth Western Europe?  Sure thing!  Allowing the departments to pursue their own agendas meant allowing them to define their own problems, all of them vying for attention and resources.  A more unified administration would force policies to match given resources, based on the President's priorities.

I think any of the current candidates including McCain would bring a more unitary style of management.  That in itself would mark a dramatic change from Bush- a President defined by their policies, rather then their problems.

Surprisingly smart op-ed on Afghanistan

Courtesy of Foreign Affairs:

Benjamin Friedman has a good op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor.  He criticizes the field of presidential candidates for seeking to expand the western troop presence in Afghanistan, either through NATO or the American military. 

His point in a nutshell- foreign military power is no substitute for a legitimate federal government.  The US doesn't need a large occupation force to conduct anti-terrorist operations, and military forces are terribly ineffective at nation building.  Hence sending in more troops is a waste of lives and money. 

Friedman does not dwell on the political calculus that encourages both parties to support escalation, but it's not hard to see.  First there is a perception that while Iraq is 'lost' Afghanistan can still be 'won', and having more troops there increases the chance of winning.  Afghanistan is salve and distraction from our losses in Iraq.  Escalation also serves as political cover; candidates who would withdraw troops from Iraq can still claim the mantle of militarism by sending them elsewhere.  There is a third reason for sending troops to Afghanistan, one that somewhat undermines Friedman's argument.

I'd argue that eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan are more important to America's national security then Iraq.  First, Pakistan is an unstable country with nuclear weapons.  Anything is possible there, and a significant area troop presence creates options.  Second, the worst people are there.  Osama Bin Laden and his followers, the people who actually did attack the U.S., are there.  More troops permit more effective cordon and search operations.  In sum, Afghanistan and Pakistan possess real WMD, and real people who have demonstrated the will and ability to launch attacks on U.S. soil.  Iraq (and Iran) possess neither.

That's a relatively small problem though, because that only works if you think military forces in Afghanistan won't be used for nation building, and they almost certainly will be.  It's worth thinking about what that is likely to accomplish.

POW: Cringely

Robert Cringely put out an excellent column on 3/21/08, the podcast is here.  The theme:  Society at large is only just beginning to adapt to the emergence of personal computing, and that changes to come will be greater then the ones we've already seen.  He picks on schools in particular as an institution destined to be radically altered in character and purpose.

The current educational system is designed to help children internalize knowledge, that is to learn.  Technology in this setting is a two edged sword- on the one hand it permits vast and cheap access to knowledge (Wikipedia).  It also permits vast and cheap plagiarism and cheating (Yahoo Answers).

Cringely poses the question:  Should schools be fighting such conduct?  Is knowing how to find an answer an adequate substitute for knowing the answer itself?  In an information economy the answer must be yes, and if so what then should educational institutions look like?

For a less pessimistic view of the future of education, see Brown and Duguid.

Walter Pincus Essay

Via DeLong, Here is an essay by Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus.  Much good stuff.  The nutshell thesis:  Modern journalists have shied away from the necessary and valid role they play in influencing the federal government.

Pincus attributes this phenomenon to the pursuit of objectivity, to the desire to stay above the conflict of ideas.  That may go a long way as explanation, but I'd throw in something else. 

It seems to me that people are extremely pessimistic about the capability and utility of the federal government.  There is a sense that the major social conflicts and tensions such as poverty, race relations, and terrorism cannot be solved or even improved by government.  The gospel of Reagan.  And if the government is going to get it wrong no matter what, then who cares what it does?  Maybe journalists trivialize politics because they cannot imagine it having more then trivial significance.

Scary Stuff

Via Marginal Revolution,

Wired has a choice article about an episode from early in Nixon's first term, wherein he tried to convince the Soviets that he was insane in order to end the Vietnam War.  The logic was that by convincing the Soviets that he was crazy enough to start a nuclear war, they would pressure Hanoi to fold.  And to convince the Soviets he was really crazy, he sent a squadron of B-52's loaded with nukes to skirt Soviet air defenses.

How many problems can you find in Nixon's thinking?  Try these:

• Pressuring USSR equals pressuring North Korea.
• Sending a squadron of bombers armed with nuclear weapons onto the edge of hostile airspace has no downside.
• It is in the interest of the United States to have countries with massive nuclear forces convinced that our president is insane.

How many of these delusions are present in the thinking of George W. Bush?

• Pressuring Destroying the government of Iraq pressures Al Qaeda.
• Sending air craft carrier squadrons into the Persian Gulf skirting Iranian territory carries no downside.
• It is in the interest of the United States to have the rest of the world convinced that our president is insane.