Sic Semper Tyrannis

"Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse" The Guardian

"The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.

The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'

The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'."  The Guardian

----------------------------------------------------------------

I am a writer of fiction among other things.  I think it would be difficult to invent a "plot twist" like this one.

I think of all the good priests I have known.  Some I have mentioned before.  God bless them and their memory.  "John XXIII?"  His seal was on this monstrosity? 

This brings to mind all the "churchy" movies in which evil prelates value "The Church" more than "Christianity."  Wasn't Gabriel Byrne in a couple of those?  And there is the scene in the Ridley Scott epic "Kingdom of Heaven" in which the fictional Balian of Ibelin tells the patriarch of Jerusalem that he has "learned a lot about religion" from him. 

In London I once heard an Irish Carmelite preach a sermon in which he remarked that his flock had too much of religion and not enough of Faith...

Don't bother to write to tell me that you are an atheist and that we have all merited this by our gullibility.  That would be a trivial comment.  pl

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection/print

The Events of the Day

India

The Mumbai attacks are, I think, illustrative of the difficulty that any society or set of security forces experience in a surprise transition to war from relative peace.  The Pearl Harbor attack was an example of this experience. Confusion is always the prime characteristic of the initial reaction.  This is often followed by a ferocious and sustained reaction.  In such cases it never seems to matter that the general situation may have portended the possibility of attack.  Surprise need only be tactical and local to be effective.  The average human mind seeks pattern in events and sees it whether or not it truly exists.  The gifted mind sees patterns that have not yet occurred, sees them against the backdrop of far reaching context. 

These attacks are likely to have been made by Kashmiri fighters influenced by the example of takfiri jihadis throughout the 'umma.  They are without meaning unless you are a takfiri jihadi or a victim of this violence.  Kashmir should be partitioned.  India and Pakistan should move on.

Iraq and Afghanistan

The US and its friends appear to have outstayed whatever welcome they once enjoyed in these countries.  I was wrong about the willingness of the Maliki government to accommodate the US in the matter of the two agreements.  I thought that, in the end, the Iraqis would decide to "humor" us in this until we grew weary and left of our own volition with our own timing, but I see now that the internal dynamic of a desire to be rid of the foreign "other" has been too strong to let that happen.  We will or should have our combat units out of there by the US mid-term elections.  That would have happened even if McCain had been elected.  In spite of his Vietnam driven angst, he would have had to yield to the demands of the Iraqis and the plain fact that the US is broken financially and likely to remain that way for a while.  In Obama's case, this is a gift from on high.  In Afghanistan, Karzai now laughs at us for not being able to defeat "a small force like the Taliban."  He says he will negotiate his own end to the war if we do not wind this up soon.   

To some extent wars like these are always messy in their ending.  It took the US military, handicapped by the Bush Administration, a long time to recognize these situations for the insurgent conflicts that they always were.  Adequate forces and a proper strategic approach could have led to an effective if "temporary" pacification of Afghanistan.  The time and opportunity for that are nearly gone.  Once again, we are "broke" and that reality will govern the outcome.  Iraq will not be Iowa in the Middle East, but it will also not be Saddam's Iraq, nor will it be the takfiris' dream of Iraq.  Perhaps that is victory enough.

The armed forces are weary and need to "reset."  Even the SOF counter-terrorist people would be secretly happy for a chance to absorb the impact of high casualties and an unrelenting operational tempo.  Their war against the takfiris will go on whether or not the US occupies Iraq and Afghanistan.  Good.

Among those who have bled in these wars, there will be cries of "stab in the back," and "nous sommes trahis."  Get used to these kinds of outcomes, boys and girls.  This is how the game is played.  pl

Guantanamo and Human Rights

"Judge Leon, in a ruling from the bench, said the information gathered on the men had been sufficient for intelligence purposes but not for the court.

He said the government’s case, which contended that the five men planned to travel to Afghanistan and take up arms against the United States, relied exclusively on information obtained from the single unnamed source.

Judge Leon, who was appointed by President Bush, ruled in 2005 that the men had no habeas corpus rights, and he had been expected to be sympathetic to the government in the current case.

As he read his decision in a quiet courtroom, he seemed to bridle at the Supreme Court’s ruling, saying its effect was “to superimpose the habeas corpus process into the world of intelligence gathering.”

He said his decision, which involved men first detained in Bosnia far from the war in Afghanistan, should not be read as a reflection on the strength of the cases against other detainees, more than 200 of whom have filed habeas corpus cases. “This is a unique case,” he said.

Still, there was a buzz in the gallery when he announced that the government had not proved its case against the five men. In urging the government not to continue to fight the case, he noted that an appeal could take as long as two years. "  NY Times

------------------------------------------------------------------

Life tenure on courts does funny things to and for people.  This judge says that he had not expected to be sympathetic to these appellants.  Nevertheless, the "thinness" of the government's case offended him and he ruled as he did.  Good.

A few nights ago at the Q&A session after my lecture in Norman, Oklahoma, a young man asked a related question.  He said he was a National Guardsman.  He had heard me say that I thought that the detention facility at Guantanamo should be closed and that those prisoners against whom the government has a solid case should be transferred to the custody of US courts either civilian or military for a speedy trial.  He asked if that meant that I "wanted to give these prisoners the rights of American citizens."

I was taken aback by that question and its predicate.  I told him that I had served in the US Army and government for a long time and that I thought him to be mistaken in believing that such features of American justice as; the right to confront one's accusers, the right to a speedy trial, the right of Habeas Corpus, etc., are rights attached to the citizenship of the United States.  I told him they are, in fact, rights that the founders of the country and the framers of the Constitution sought to guarantee to all those who were within the grasp of the power of the United States.

He looked surprised at that.  As I watched him, I imagined that I could see the opinion forming behind those eyes that he was dealing with yet another lefty softy. 

"When they are through trying these defendants," I told him, "it is of no interest to me what sentence the condemned might receive..."

Perhaps he will think that exchange through...  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/us/21guantanamo.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

PS  Yes, I know.  The slavery thing...

How low will oil go?

By now, those of you who are interested have noted that the price of crude dipped balow $50/barrel today.

You may also have noticed that I have thought for some time that much of the price range that was achieved this last summer was the product of human herd behavior in treating this commodity as a "poker chip" in large scale and ever more complex Ponzi schemes.

We have probably not reached the bottom in the process of what is now quaintly called "de-leveraging" of those prices. 

Down underneath the hot air and fluff there are prices for crude oil that are supportable on the basis of cost of production and transport plus a profit margin sufficient to cause producers to accept the risk involved in the "ahl bidness" as they say in the Permian Basin.

What is that price? pl

PS -  Yes, you can throw in "Peak Oil" in your comment if that is soothing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/

The Logistics of Withdrawal

Ladies and Gentlemen

We have received the two appeals posted below from Major Ed G. now at a student in the Army schools at Ft.Leavenworth, Kansas.

I ask that you help him with his research to the extent that it is possible for you to do so.  pl

------------------------------------------------------------------

"Gentlemen,

I came across this string and found it quite interesting.  I thought this would be a great topic for a class I am taking at CGSC.  My proposed topic is "What can our military history teach us that can be applicable to our eventual departure from Iraq." 

My problem is that redeployment / demobilization is not sexy and there-fore not covered as extensively as deploying to war or conducting operations in a campaign.  The data that is prominent is how many service members were released back to society. Nothing about how much equipment we left or logistical challenges faced when someone gave the green light to head home.   If you can share a search string or vector me towards some sources then I will be happy to share the final product. Regards, Ed"

---------------------------------------------------------

"Sir,

Missed the trackback URL. Trying to find data (historical) from previous wars that should assist any planners in developing a redeployment / demobilization from Iraq. My internet searches have proved to be limited in content.

V/R MAJ G"

"Premier of Iraq Is Quietly Firing Fraud Monitors"

http://www.maxwaugh.com/images/tanzania07/leopard2.jpg

"The government of Prime Ministe Nuri Kamal al-maliki is systematically dismissing Iraqi oversight officials, who were installed to fight corruption in Iraqi ministries by order of the American occupation administration, which had hoped to bring Western standards of accountability to the notoriously opaque and graft-ridden bureaucracy here."  NY Times

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surprise!  Surprise!!  Those naughty boys in Baghdad are stealing money from their own government!  What a surprise!  I wonder if this happens anywhere else in the Middle East? 

Liberation from Saddam's "yoke" was supposed to bring a new day of enlightened behavior and thinking, but humanity clings to its rotten old ways.  Surprise!  Mufaja'a!

The neocons must be soooo disappointed.

In the US we flatter ourselves with the thought that "power flows from money."  We have tried to believe that "money flowing from power" was an alien thought.

The Bush Administration corrected that.  In their time money flowed from power here as well.

What will the situation be in the Obama Nation?  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/world/middleeast/18maliki.html?_r=1&hp

The Obama Plan for the ME?

"Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America’s president-elect.

Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party.

The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948 while requiring it to restore the Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.

On a visit to the Middle East last July, the president-elect said privately it would be “crazy” for Israel to refuse a deal that could “give them peace with the Muslim world”, according to a senior Obama adviser. "  Times on line

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Words can not express my disappointment if this is the foreign policy that the Obama Administration will follow in the Middle East.

The "Abdullah Plan" is not a plan.  It was a public relations stunt in its beginnings when it was exaggerated in meaning by the American media, and it remains that.  Crown Prince Abdullah used to have the habit of telling visitors that if the Israelis would do this or that, and withdraw from this or that, then he would appeal to the Arab League for recognition of the State of Israel.  In the atmosphere that prevailed following the failure at Camp David II, this was taken as good news by Tom Friedman who visited Abdullah then and who made this Rotary Club "pitch" into a column.  Rejoicing took place in the media and at a previously scheduled meeting of the Arab League in Beirut a cornered Prince Abdullah proclaimed his "plan."  The League produced a document.  Problem:  The text says that when the Israelis and ALL the disputants to various issues with the Israelis resolve their differences, then the members of the League will CONSIDER recognition of Israel.

It is true that optimism is the soul of diplomacy, but a measure of realism should be accepted in exercising that optimism.  The list of issues between Israel and the members of the Arab League is too long to enumerate here.  Are we to believe that these issues will all be resolved in a way that has never occurred before so that a future general meeting of the Arab League votes to declare the "Peaceable Kingdom?"  Are we to believe that an Israeli government of the day will yield gracefully to the demands of these many Arab "players" to produce this happy condition?

This is nonsense.  Liberal partisans of Israel have long sought such an outcome.  There are many such among Obama's backers.  They will be disappointed again, a sad thing, but the truth.

Is there any possibility that the "Happy Valley" scenario of the "Abdullah Plan" might unexpectedly succeed?  Yes!  Certainly!  There could be a wave of good will and/or emotional exhaustion with conflict that might sweep the region and carry all before it.  I will welcome this if it happens, but will not hold my breath until then.

And then there is what is reported in the Times on Line piece of the supposed Dennis Ross plan for dealing with the Iranian missile and nuclear programs.  He is reported to think that Russia can be persuaded to "muscle" the Iranians into giving up these programs.   What would be the Russian motivation?  An American cancellation of anti-Iranian missile emplacements in eastern Europe?  Do we want to "outsource" our diplomacy to Russia?  One must ask why the Iranians would yield to Russian pressure.  They have not yielded to any other pressure.

I do not believe in the Tooth Fairy.  I do not believe in sacrificing the interests of the United States to benefit any other country.  I do not believe in sudden outbreaks of good will.

I believe in hard headed negotiations on a country by country basis to reach attainable results.  To do that one must be willing to compromise, and to bargain seeking win-win solutions.

If President Obama goes down the road outlined in the Times on Line piece, then at the end of his first year in office he will have accomplished nothing in the Middle East.  pl

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5162537.ece

University of Oklahoma Appearances

I will be at OU for a few days.  I have been invited to speak tomorrow evening on realistic negotiating prospects in the Middle East.  I will visit with a few other people on campus as well; seminars, radio station, etc. I will look at a computer at some point to post some of your comments.  pl

Saudi Arabia and Religious Toleration?

"The conference provides an opportunity for Saudi Arabia, which prohibits the public practice of non-Islamic faiths, to present a more tolerant image on the world stage. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers in the terrorist attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, were Saudis.

The meeting this week also provided Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni an opportunity to highlight her commitment to peace talks on the eve of elections in Israel, in which her ruling Kadima party will run on its ability to secure peace with the country's Arab neighbors. It also signaled that Israel's leaders are making some progress toward better relations with Saudi Arabia, which does not recognize Israel. In a rare gesture, Abdullah agreed to attend a dinner with the Israeli president on Tuesday night hosted by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. The two leaders, however, ate at separate tables and did not speak to each other."  Washpost

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remarkable.

The Salafism that is the official position in Saudi Arabia has not previously allowed such an attitude.  There are no churches, temples or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.  The traditional Islamic recognition of the kinship of the three "Heavenly Religions" is stretched mighty fine in "The Kingdom."  No public practise of Judaism or Christianity is allowed.  Society there has followed an unrelenting path of hostility to other faiths, indeed to other interpretations of Islam within the Sunni "community."  On that basis and in the belief that God's Will must be done in the establishment of Wahhabi Salafism, many bad things have been done, and extremist splinter groups like Al-Qa'ida were allowed to develop.

There is a new spirit abroad in the lands of the Middle East.  Something new is being discussed in the mosque universites and among the ulema'.  Is there an opening  for a general diplomatic campaign that might to some extent reconcile the peoples?

In the Middle East, religion, government, economics and war are all intimately and inextricably linked.  Peace can not be made without religious reconciliation.  There was no Renaissance in the Middle East, no Protestant Reformation.  The European historical phenomena that separated lfe into the different spheres of "sacred" and "profane" never really occurred in the Islamic World.  That set of ideas is an import from the West.  The paradigm that dictates separation of things like "church" and "state" never prevailed in the area.  The neocon folly was rooted in the idea that it had.  There have been many attempts to transplant the idea of the division of life on the Western pattern.  Nationalism, Communism, Baathism, socialism; the list is lengthy.  All failed.  They foundered on the shoal of the solidity of the local forms that continue to persist so strongly. 

If the door to religious and therefore political reconciliation begins to open, let us hope that diplomacy will walk thought it.  "Tawhiid" can have many meanings.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/12/AR2008111202670.html

A Question of Consumers

"But the conservatives had their revenge. What the Republicans under Reagan did was to suddenly announce that government was bad, and the less you had of it, the better. Reagan undid a whole, vast field of regulations on security marketing, resurrecting the doctrine of Mellon and the 1920s Republicans, that the market was self -regulating, that businessmen were too sensible to be subject to greed. Reagan even brought back to life Mellon’s tax cuts for the rich." Richard Sale

Download a_conversation_with_richard_parker.doc

Today's News

Jerusalem:  Barkat, who takes Michael Bloomberg as his role model, will be the next mayor of the Holy City.  New York City is his ideal town.  Barkat aspires to make Jerusalem an international metropolis as the eternal capital of the Jewish people.  Having spent a lot of time there, I have a hard time imagining that.  It would be a very different place.  Jerusalem is perched high on the Judean ridge looking east into hard desert and west down the slope to the sea.  The only part of the city that has any real charm or tourist value is the tiny Old City with its winding cobblestone streets and its burden of history.  What does he want to do, tear some of that down for redevelopment?  Will we see the Holy Sepulchre Spa, Casino and Convention Center?  Are we going to see massive development on the Mount of Olives?   Many Americans think that New York City is of doubtful national identity.  Is that what he wants for Jerusalem?

Lieberman:  An interesting "Kabuki Drama" is being played out within the nascent Obama Administration concerning Good Old Joe.   Lieberman votes liberal on nearly everything.  The exceptions are things that his neocon buddies at AEI want concerning the Middle East.  He has been a BIG backer of the Iraq War.  Obama has been a staunch opponent of that war.  Lieberman endorsed McCain, spoke for him at the GOP convention, campaigned with him everywhere and was short listed as among the choices to be McCain's VP running mate.  Now, the Chicago crowd want Harry Reid to allow him to retain chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee?  Why?  I say again, why?  I gave Joe a thousand dollars once for one of his senate campaigns.  That was a long time ago.  He can send it back.

Stolen Valor:  The FBI is now investigating violations of the "Stolen Valor Act" of 2006.  Good.  Try reading the book, "Stolen Valor."  It is about all the little pukes who have awarded themselves decorations for valor or have falsely claimed to have served.   Former personnel clerks who simply drew up orders giving themselves the medals, people who never served who claim to own the Navy Cross, Distinguished Service Cross, etc.  Other people who simply claim to have served in units that would have scorned them.  Special Forces, the Airborne force and the US Marines are the usual claimed identities.  Over the years I have had many, many men tell me that they were Green Berets.  I always ask them a few questions abut that service.  This is a revealing process.  Famous people make such claims.  The actor Brian Dennehy is an example.  He falsely claimed to have served in Vietnam.  Hang'em high!   pl

Veterans Day - "Only the dead..."

“For 14 hours yesterday, I was at work-teaching Christ to lift his cross by the numbers, and how to adjust his crown; and not to imagine he thirst until after the last halt. I attended his Supper to see that there were no complaints; and inspected his feet that they should be worthy of the nails. I see to it that he is dumb, and stands before his accusers. With a piece of silver I buy him every day, and with maps I make him familiar with the topography of Golgotha.”

Captain Wilfred Owen, The Manchesters, Killed in Action, 4 November, 1918

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgwQcUhKceg

Lincoln's First Inaugural Address

Our "president to be" quoted this speech the night he was elected.  He mentioned the "sacred bonds of friendship" or some such thing.  It seems appropriate for him to have done so since there is so little left of that spirit.  He has quoted this speech before in the matter of the "better angels of our natures."  That makes the old words interesting.

I have no interest in visits to the White House or the other trivialities of the day's news.  The economy will rise or fall, depending on stimulus and the general level of fecklessness in bankers' hearts.  We can talk about that later.  The next big story will be the personalities with which President-elect Obama populates the Executive Branch of the federal government.  The identities of the appointed inhabitants of the Beltway Enclave will tell us much with regard to what is owed and to whom.  In the meantime, life goes on...

Ah, yes, Lincoln.  I had never paid much attention to his first inaugural address.  As I recall it is the second inaugural address that is carved into the wall of his memorial along with the lyricism of the Gettysburg Address.

It is a remarkable speech, especially remarkable in that it was spoken at a point in time at which seven states had already seceded.

It is a plea for them to return. This is from the Wiki.

"Summary

Strongest possible federal support for the Fugitive Slave Law and the service/labour clause of Section Two of Article Four of the United States Constitution

1. He had just taken an oath "to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution" which enjoined him to see that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all states.
2. There would be no invasion of the South unless such were necessary for him as President to fulfill his obligation to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the federal government.
3. The Constitution was established "to form a more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union had been, which was explicitly perpetual in name and text, and thus the Constitution too was perpetual. He added that even were the Constitution construed as a simple contract, it could not be legally rescinded without an agreement between all parties.
4. He had no objection to the proposed Corwin amendment to the Constitution (that had already been approved by both houses of the United States Congress to protect slavery in those states in which it already existed — though he thought that such was already protected by the original Constitution and that the Corwin amendment merely reiterated that which was already contained in the nation's highest legal document). (According to Henry Adams, Lincoln actually lobbied to help the Corwin Amendment through both houses.
5. Nothing in the Constitution expressly says what either can or cannot be done regarding slavery in the territories.
6. Mails would continue."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%27s_first_inaugural_address

By this time, the departed seven clearly wanted "out," but if these words were not disingenuous, then war was not inevitable, not at all.

A couple of things stand out in this composition:

-  The 16th president does not seem to have been much attached to the cause of abolition. This was evident in some of his statements in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1856 and continues here.  Lincoln's willingness to accept and even support a constitutional amendment specifically barring in perpetuity federal interference in the states' "domestic institutions" is striking.

-  This is a lawyer's pleading.  The argument is made that states can not secede unless they do so in a legal way and then he effectively argues that there really is no "legal way."  Lincoln says here that because the present US Constitution succeeded the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union," the resulting union of the states is also perpetual even though the constitution does not say that the union is perpetual.  The fact that the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was called to amend the "Articles of Confederation" but did not do so is ignored.  Lincoln also makes a case that a contract entered into by several parties can not be separately voided by some of them without the consent of the others.  Hmmm.  Business contracts always, in my experience, contain the terms of their dissolution.  This one did not and so he argues that it is not legal for some of the states to dissolve that contract.  It is evident that he was a business lawyer. 

- He says that force will not be used against the seceded states unless the seceded states "interfere with" the property of the US Government.  Presumably he means military and naval bases, post offices, customs offices, etc.  He puts it that way because he evidently saw himself as the legal custodian of the goods of the federal government, the "chief magistrate" as he puts it.

- He also says that the Constitution contains no guidance as to the disposition of the jointly owned property possessed by the states as a whole.  He means the results of the "Louisiana Purchase" and the War with Mexico.   Once again, the lawyer in him is assigning ownership rights.

Taken as a whole it is a remarkably moderate document, much different in tone from his second inaugural, "yea verily the Lord is Just, etc." (paraphrase).  I am not surprised that the builders of the memorial preferred the later speech.  Lincoln is revealed in this speech as a practical politician, a man who abhorred the institution of slavery, but was not willing to fight over it or see the country torn apart over it.

I sense somehow that President-elect Obama is somewhat like Lincoln, a man of principle, but not foolishly so.  That is a good thing.  pl

The Dahlgren Affair

"Meade confided to his wife that "Kilpatrick's reputation, and collateral evidence in my possession, rather go against this theory" that Dahlgren alone devised the conspiracy.

In addition to Meade's private beliefs, the papers' authenticity is corroborated by statements from Bureau of Military Information officers John McEntee, who accompanied Dahlgren on the raid and thus saw the papers, and John Babcock..."  Wiki

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

A great historical mystery - Why did John Wilkes Booth assassinate President Lincoln?  Did he act from idiosyncratic madness?

As many of you know, I am editing the second volume of my series of novels.  They are set in the American Civil War.

In spite of the primitive techno0logy of that time, the politics of the war and the actions of the actors are easily recognisable today.

The "Dahlgren Affair" may well say something important to us avout the impossibility of ever really controlling the actions of something as large as a national government.  pl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahlgren_Affair

The picture is of Dahlgren Chapel in Turner's Gap.  Admiral Dahlgren built it in memory of his son.

Al - On the likelihood of a new party

"The data are plain.  They argue for the need for the existence of a political party whether new or old that will address the need for “changes in some of the (Republican) party’s long standing policy commitments.” The most likely scenario, however, is that this will not happen.  The Republican Party will simply fade away both because it will likely be co-opted by Obama and his successors, and, more importantly, despite all evidence to the contrary, because it will continue to involve itself with causes that are relevant only to its ever declining voter base until nothing is left but “a white, rural, regional party.”"  Al

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Al sent me this.  I asked him to do so based on an earlier discussion he and I had concerning the viability of the Republican Party.  pl

Political Trends - Are there any?

"The election's outcome is a "fairly thorough repudiation" of the party's governing style, said Peter Wehner, a former deputy assistant to President Bush. "The Republican Party is in worse shape than conservatism," he said. "The problem with the Republican Party is that it is not speaking the language and addressing the concerns of the middle class."

Democrats made great gains this year in some of the fastest-growing parts of the South and Mountain West, boosted by expanded support from young voters, suburbanites, and Hispanics. The results demonstrated Republicans had become "a white, rural, regional party," retiring US Representative Tom Davis of Virginia lamented on Tuesday." Boston Globe

--------------------------------------------------------------

"a white, rural, regional party,"  That's the risk. Regional parties that represent particular ethnic constituencies do not win national elections in the US.  The Republicans have to re-invent themselves as a "big tent" that stops babbling about RINOs and concentrates on center-right positions on issues that have a country-wide appeal.  No more single issue "litmus tests" about abortion.  No more embrace of neocon dreams.

The Republicans must embrace: fiscal responsibility, limited government, federalism, and a general inclination to libertarian values, no more "creep" toward a police state. 

The Democrats should look carefully at the results of this election.  I do not see evidence that a general ideological shift to the Left is taking place in the American electorate.  People were disgusted with what the Bush Administration, the "K Street Project" and the Jacobins had done to them.  In retaliation they voted Democratic in great numbers.  Blacks voted for a Black.  Will they show up in the same kind of numbers to vote for a White?  The giddy talk on 24/7 news is not reassuring on that score.

Are we really seeing an expansion of the electorate?  I doubt it.  All these "new" people could have voted in equal numbers in previous elections.  They did not.  Why?  Was this elections a "one off" as the Brits say?

The Democrats picked up 18 seats in the House?  Disappointing.  Several referenda refused public assent to leftish proposals concerning gay marriage, etc.  How does that "square" with the idea of a "progressive" trend?

Obama and the Democratic congressional leaders should be careful.  Their control of congress could be very transient.  pl

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/07/mccains_defeat_poses_threat_to_gops_short_term_ambitions/?page=1

"Toward a Concert of the Greater Middle East" W. Patrick Lang

"The circumstances in the “Islamic Culture Continent”—extending from Morocco to Indonesia and from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean—do not differ so much from Europe’s predicament in the aftermath of the Napoleonic War. Decades of what Clausewitz thought to be “total war” had ruined the economies and “status quo ante” social systems of the many European states. To overcome the instability of the continent and the likelihood that this would lead to further disastrous warfare, the great powers of the time met at Vienna after 1815 to create a system of balanced agreements that would bring into equilibrium the interests of all possible adversaries in Europe. This system preserved European peace for many years, until it came to pieces in August 1914.  The system has been known as the Concert of Europe.  What is now needed is a Concert of the Greater Middle East."  W. Patrick Lang

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This piece is now almost two years old. I think it remains relevant to the continuing situation in the Islamic World.  What is suggested in this article is initiation of a lengthy and intensive "campaign" of diplomacy and foreign policy initiatives that cumulatively, and over some period of time, would lead to a lowering of the average "temperature" in the Islamic World.  The kind of policy suggested in this article led to a marked improvement of the situation in Iraq, but there is much left to do everywhere in the region.

Afghanistan seems a likely area in which to apply many of the methods applied successfully in Iraq.

The creation of a new administration in Washington seems an apt moment for the contemplation of such options.  For this reason I offer it yet again.

I will be at the University of Oklahoma on the 17th of this month for a discussion of this general topic.  I believe that the discussion will be open to the public.  pl

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=13252

Wednesday 5 November open thread.

I do this in my "spare time" and I am taking the day off.  pl

http://www.simonwachtelgallery.com/

Open thread on the '08 election

Let's have at it and don't forget to look at the prospects for the parties that emerge from today.

I think Obama and the Democrats are going to do very well today.

The following groups will be disappointed in the first Obama administration and in this order:

1- The far Left. (Binh {corrected}, etc.)

2- Many Black Americans

3- Arabs and Muslims

4- Characters like Chris Matthews.

pl

More Neocon Cleverness on Iran

"The report warns that the next administration “might have little time and fewer options to deal with this threat.” It explores such strategies as blockading Iran’s gasoline imports, but it also says that “a military strike is a feasible option and must remain a last resort.”

Its authors include Dennis Ross, top Mideast adviser to Mr. Obama, and former Senator Dan Coats, a McCain adviser.

Ashton Carter, a senior Pentagon official in the Clinton administration, wrote a paper for the Center for a New American Security, a prestigious bipartisan think tank, that asserts military action must be seen as only one component of a comprehensive strategy, “but it is an element of any true option.”

At a conference in September in Virginia sponsored by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “surrogates” for Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama insisted America must focus on preventing Iran from developing a bomb, not on allowing Iran to produce one and then deterring its use.

“John McCain won’t wait until after the fact,” declared the columnist Max Boot, from the McCain team. The Arizona senator has previously said risking military action may be better than living with an Iranian nuclear weapon (and to his regret jokingly sang a song about bomb, bomb, bombing Iran)."  NY Times

-------------------------------------------------------------

What does this "new thing" amount to?

The Jacobin neocons have developed a more sophisticated "bi-partisan" approach to moving the United States to war against Iran.

Dennis Ross is a principle figure in an Israeli think-tank dedicated in its mission statement to the advancement of the interests of the Jewish People.  When he took that position he was asked if it was seemly for a former US Ambassador who more or less ran the Peace Process as a guarantor of US neutrality to accept such a role.  His reply was that he thought it was.  After all, he said "they are my people."  I suppose Palestinians could be forgiven for doubting that he was ever neutral.

Max Boot?  This is a joke.  This guy has built a career on saying and writing things like the Times quote above.  I was on a panel with him once and remember all too well the extremity of his opinions.

The "Washington Institute for Near East Policy"  is AIPAC's wholly owned subsidiary.  It exists to serve what it sees as Israel's interests.  It is one of a galaxy of AIPAC satellites in Washington.  JINSA, BENS, AEI.  The list is long.

Let us be clear.  It is ISRAEL.  ISRAEL.  ISRAEL that would be threatened by Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon and delivery means.  It is ISRAEL that does not believe in nuclear deterrence.  You know, MAD (mutual assured destruction).  MAD is the deterrent strategy that allowed the world to survive the Cold War, but it is not good enough for Israel.  An Iranian nuclear threat to Europe or the US is so far away in time that it is not even a cloud seen on a far horizon.

The Israeli military knows that unless it uses nuclear weapons, it can not successfully attack Iran without US assistance.  That is why the neocons are now trying to propagandize the American political parties and the American people into supporting a US war against Iran.

Iran is a state.  Iran has "state Interests."  Ahmadinajad does not control the Iranian Armed Forces.  Ahmadinajad does not control the Iranian Armed Forces.

It is my considered opinion that Iran would not yield to a US air campaign.  Such a campaign would be merely the "first round" in a long war, eventually involving a ground war in that huge country, but that would probably be a desired outcome for the neocons.

How many of you think that the US can not deal with Iran without war?  How many?  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opinion/03mon4.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

"Who Is in the Middle?" Eduardo Porter

"There is such a thing as a straightforward middle. The nation’s median household income last year was $50,233. Half of all households earned more and half earned less. Some economists would define the middle class as those who earn between 75 percent and 125 percent of that — say households making between $37,500 and $63,000.

Development economists sometimes define the middle class as those making more than the bottom fifth of the population but less than the top fifth. In this country, that would include households making between $20,291 and $100,000. Of course, there are places — New York comes to mind — where $150,000 a year does not buy many of the trappings of wealth.

The heavy use of the term seems to be more than an appeal to people’s wallets. “Middle class” has become less a position on the income scale than a state of being. According to a poll by the Pew Research Center, a little more than half of Americans consider themselves middle class, including a third of those who make more than $150,000 per year. For many people, to be “middle class” is to work hard, to struggle to succeed, often against unfair forces. Forget the money."  Eduardo Porter

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Porter's essay is about the bourgeoisie, and who is in it.

"Forget the money" is the key phrase in the piece.  That is the essence of the thing. The whole argument about who is "middle class" in the US is altogether about the political and sociological "load" that attaches to the term.

Most Americans worship the idea of the Norman Rockwell life; solid houses of indeterminate age situated well back from curbside in a scene inspired by Frederick Olmstead's conception of "life in a garden setting," the PTA, the school board, the two cars, the 2 1/2 children who do moderately well in school, public higher education available in the background, Social Security, Medicare, probably church or synagogue (now mosque as well?), a comfortable retirement.  These are the things that most Americans think of as their birthright, their patrimony.

"We" have aspirations not too high, not too low, not very political at all.  We are not really interested in government except as a vehicle for the delivery of the goods of the bourgeois life. 

The truly rich live in a different world, a world where striving for the means of a comfortable life is absent, and self indulgence is generally reflected in the conception of "life as art form."  No matter, the truly rich are still a small group in spite of endless yuppy striving.

America the bourgeois, from sea to shining sea.

Our friend Fortunato had become something that was not bourgeois.  He and all the other fortunatos become something not bourgeois in the process of following their metier.  Is that one of the disturbing things about the rough men who guard you while you sleep?" pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/opinion/02sun3.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

"The villagers in Buner..."

"In Swat, the army has been unable to stop the burning of more than 100 girls schools or the murders of politicians and their families. About one-third of the police force has deserted in Swat, and some of the deserters have joined the Taliban, even as trainers, according to senior police officials.

In Bajaur, more than 200,000 people have fled, becoming refugees in appalling conditions in makeshift camps.

The villagers in Buner say they would prefer to handle the Taliban on their own, rather than have the heavy hand of the army come and do it for them.

They did it with gusto, later lining up the bodies of their Taliban victims at a hospital like trophies so citizens could take a closer look.

“We don’t want happening here, what is happening around us,” said Mohammed Zada, a retired bank manager, and a driving force behind the peace council. “The people are very unified so the Taliban failed. We are dead set against the army, too.”"  NY Times

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In the end only the people can reject the extremists.  This is the great lesson that the US should have re-learned in Iraq.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/world/asia/02pstan.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slog