You've all heard about the Rumsfeld memo. The press has described it as an admission of failure in Iraq, and as an example of administration backpedaling. Fortunately, this is the 21st century and you can see the memo for yourself, and make up your own mind about what it means.

Here it is:

  TO: Gen. Dick Myers
      Paul Wolfowitz
      Gen. Pete Pace
      Doug Feith

  FROM: Donald Rumsfeld

  SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism

    

When I read this, I'm pretty happy. The SecDef is asking if we should be more aggressive, and how. He's asking for an objective way to measure progress, a basic of good management. He's anticipating long-term problems and asking how best to get out in front of them. He's reminding everyone that we have a long, hard job ahead, just like he said when all this got started.

In short, it looks to me like he is doing his job, and doing it well. Of course, others disagree:

[...] Wesley Clark blamed Bush for not having a clear plan to fight the war on terrorism. "Secretary Rumsfeld is only now acknowledging what we've known for some time -- that this administration has no plan for Iraq and no long-term strategy for fighting terrorism," he told the Associated Press. [...] Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) said the memo proves that the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism has been a failure. "I think Secretary Rumsfeld's comments are an illustration of the concern that they have about the failures of their policy in Iraq so far," he told the Associated Press. "They acknowledge they have not succeeded to date."

"There can be no other description of those words than that."

When people like me say things like "I can't trust the Democrats on terrorism" this is exactly what we mean. Constructive criticism is one thing, partisan sniping is another. Sniping is fine when you are fighting over spending bills and crap like that, but it is not appropriate when you are in the middle of a fucking war.

Daschle and Clark would prefer, and they clearly go out of their way to encourage, a perception that we have failed. If we were to pull all of our troops out of Iraq tomorrow, abandoning our efforts in frustration and leaving Saddam to reclaim his throne, it would be a godsend for these guys. The point that it would hurt the nation as a whole does not seem particularly important to them. What's important is that they benefit, personally and politically, by the failure of others. By our failure.

You want constructive criticism? How about this:

Yes, Mr Secretary, we do need a metric, and badly. We should never be in the position of having to ask if we are winning, or worse, not knowing if we need to change our methods, and which methods we need to change. This is an important assessment - we shouldn't guess.

I agree that this is a time where boldness would pay off. We ought to make committing decisions, and follow them through to the end. Complacency represents a significant risk to our overall success.

When you say "the cost-benefit ratio is against us" I am reminded of another comment - we are not going to win by playing defense. Innovative measures to weaken the enemy's recruitment and support ought to be a higher priority than defensive action. Success and prosperity in Iraq is a key element in undermining the enemy's position, and we ought to make every effort to bring this about as quickly and surely as possible.

"What else should we be considering"? I'd like to see a long-term plan for both Syria and Saudi Arabia, and I'd like to see a short-term plan for Iran. The war is not over until all three of these nations has undergone significant change.

And speaking of constructive criticism... I think it's about time the democrats got the memo, too: keep this shit up and you'll spend another four years bitching about this nation instead of leading it.

comment

I'm sorry, but I can't resist. I know that by tomorrow at this time you'll have seen this in fifty other places, but it's just too sweet to pass up.

Seriously, read the whole thing:

The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. [...] A tour of the beaten-up cities of Iraq six months after victory is a mighty sobering experience for anyone. Arabs, Europeans. Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American.

[...]

Never has American prestige in Europe been lower. People never tire of telling you of the ignorance and rowdy-ism of American troops, of out misunderstanding of European conditions. ... They blame us for the corruption and disorganization of UNRRA. They blame us for the fumbling timidity of our negotiations with the United Nations. They tell us that our mechanical de-Bathification policy in Baghdad is producing results opposite to those we planned. "Have you no statesmen in America?" they ask.

[...]

The ruin this war has left in Iraq can hardly be exaggerated. I can remember the years after the last war. Then, as soon as you got away from the military, all the little strands and pulleys that form the fabric of a society were still knitted together. Farmers took their crops to market. Money was a valid medium of exchange. Now the entire fabric of a million little routines has broken down. No on can think beyond food for today. Money is worthless.

"Well, the Iraqis are to blame. Let them pay for it. It's their fault," you say. The trouble is that starving the Iraqis and throwing them out of their homes is only producing more areas of famine and collapse.

[...]

The British show signs of recovering their good sense and their innate human decency. All we have brought to the Middle East so far is confusion backed up by a drumhead regime of military courts. We have swept away Bathism, but a great many Iraqis feel that the cure has been worse than the disease.

OK, OK, I kid. Go here for the punchline.

(Via USSC)

comment

Nope, I'm not dead yet. I did have a nasty flu which knocked me on my ass for a while, but I'm better now, thanks.

It would've been cooler if it was monkeypox.

I've been pondering a discussion which had been cooking in one of my comment threads over this time. An astute reader caused me to defend my views, reconsider my positions, clarify my statements - you know, basically making me think, and holding me accountable for what I've said. Hopefully, when a discussion like that is over we may still disagree, but we better understand each other and ourselves.

After a few days reflection, I've decided that what we were really talking about, all along, was blame.

Blame is a loaded word, loaded not only by the judgement it carries but by the enormous bulk of moral universe which necessarily encapsulates it. If there is blame, then there must be blamelessness, and there must be willful wrongs; most importantly, there must also be some sort of justice which could be done to make it all come out right in the end.

Personally, I have a flatly amoral view of things and I often get caught off-guard by stuff like this. (I wrote about this once before, in a post called Port And Ditchwater). I forget that people often have very deep beliefs that differ sharply from my own, and as a result we can miscommunicate without realizing it.

Here's an example of just how amoral I really am:

On my way to a coffee shop, I see a young woman walking the other way down the street. She is attractive, dressed nicely in business clothes, and she stumbles as she walks, catching my eye as I drive past. I take a moment to find her in my mirror and I see that she is in obvious pain. I instantly decide to turn my car around and offer to help, despite the fact that I am already late for my appointment. Even if it takes all day to help make this right, I'm already committed to seeing this through.

As I swing the car around, I notice a homeless person apparently sleeping in an alley. Is he passed out from booze? A beating? Insulin shock? Is he even alive? Fuck if I care. I evaluate him only as a potential threat, and finding none, I instantly forget about him.

Turns out that the woman is fine, and I wheel the car around again to continue on my way. I feel pretty good about myself now, wondering why nobody else stopped to help her. I park, walk in to the coffee shop, and see a newspaper headline about two missing college kids. Hey, they were from a small town just a few hundred miles from here. Hope they are OK. Below that, another headline - an absurdly overloaded ferry in India overturns, killing dozens. "Idiots", I think, and I get in line for my coffee.

I get my drink and a cookie (which I really don't need, thank you very much) and am left holding twenty cents in change. There are two small cans on the counter. One is collecting money to help starving children in Africa, the second is for the local animal shelter. A moment later I've helped buy another eighth of a can of dog food, and I'm on my way.

Go ahead, laugh. You've done it, too.

Those of you who inhabit a moral universe may feel a little guilty about this. I don't. I'm comfortable with the idea that this is not a moral issue but simply one of empathy, and that empathy is driven by sameness and desirability. If you are similar to me, if you are in proximity to me, if I find you attractive or valuable, I will go way out of my way to help you. If you are different from me, really far from me, or, in my view, somehow gross or disgusting, you'll pretty much fall right off the fucking radar.

This is a shockingly selfish, subjective, and cold-hearted world view, yet it's shared, guiltily or not, by almost every thoughtful and caring person you know. I'd say it's quite natural, even desirable, but it is certainly not moral. It's not even rational, yet this sort of thinking guides every important decision in our lives.

We all have bias. Just as you cannot stand on a single point on the earth and not have a point of view, you cannot exist without preference of some things over others. Our bias is not something to be overcome, it is something to be accepted, even embraced. It is what we are.

Should you apologize for, or even feel guilty for the biases you hold? Of course not. Should you fight for your biases? If they are really important to you, than yes, you should.

Should you pass on your biases to your children? Certainly you should. And one thing's for sure, the one thing you don't want to do is to abandon your biases. That's a terrible mistake.

Surprised? Just replace the word "biases" with "values" and it all becomes pretty obvious, doesn't it? Sure, it's nicer to call them values because that's a much prettier word, but they are really just biases, after all.

There is no morality here, no objective right or wrong. There is no blame. There are only our biases, and the choices that we make.

Israel and the Arab world have been going at it for decades, and as anyone with an internet connection knows, there are passionate people advocating for both sides of the conflict. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that both have done bad things. Assume that both have missed chances for peace, that both are blinded by their own world view, and that both enjoy a moral equivalence that allows everyone a valid grievance. Let's suppose there is plenty of blame to go around.

So let's evaluate them, then, not on the basis of their conflict, but on their own merits. Let's look at everything other than the history of the conflict, and judge them that way.

Despite their mistreatment of the Arabs, Israelis are a people who have emancipated their women, who hold fair elections, and welcome free speech. The Arab world is a hodgepodge of failed dictatorships where free speech is akin to collaboration with the enemy. In Israel, when the political opposition might advocate the enemy's point of view, they'd do it in their own newspapers and with their own representatives in government. In the Arab world, such people would probably be beaten or executed. Israel has a thriving, free economy which has lifted its people from the dirt. The Arab would is a klepocracy where leaders goldplate their toilets while sewage runs in the streets. Israel educates its people and is a world leader in innovation and technology. In the Arab would, education is seen as a threat.

Once we put aside the issue of the conflict, these two worlds stand in rather stark contrast to one another, don't they? It'd be nice if everybody got along, but if one side has to come out on top, who would you rather it was? When push comes to shove, what values are really most important to you?

Personally, I can say that the details of the Arab/Israeli conflict have become irrelevant to me. Any wrongs that anyone may have committed over this time are far, far outweighed by the basic natures of the countries involved.

Here's a quote from the comment thread which sums the whole thing up very nicely:

>> Israel's existence, as currently constructed, is a source of instability in the region

> Or, to put it another way, the region, as currently constructed, is a source of instability to the Western world, including Israel.

The conflict in a nutshell.

I know I've chosen my side.

comment

I just read this article in the Washington Post and I am not happy. According to the Post:

• Plame was, in fact, a serious undercover agent.
• Whoever cold-called those six journalists to blow Plame's cover did it before Novak's story was published.

This is seriously fucked up.

I'm going to give this a couple of days and see what else comes out, but as of right now, I'm ready to see somebody go to jail for this one.

(Via FR)

comment

The US murder rate has fallen, yet again, to another 40 year low. This is wonderful news. I spent a little time poking around the BJS crime data looking for something interesting to report that the regular media might have overlooked.

One thing I did find was this deceptive little graph:

See those little numbers there on the vertical axis of each graph? They're important. Notice how they don't line up?

Thanks to the magic of Photoshop, here's a close approximation of what this data really looks like if it's represented honestly:

This is a big part of the story. Let's all just cut the crap and be honest about what we are dealing with here.

comment

Israel struck back against Islamic Jihad today - in Syria! This is big news. It is really good news, too.

Syria is a primary supporter of the bad guys in the region. They control the northern part of Lebanon and provide money, weapons, intelligence, and training to the various terrorist groups operating in and around Israel. They have done this for many years with little fear of reprisal.

That was before the US 3rd ID was stationed right on their border, backed up by the Marine 1st division plus more air and heavy armor assets than you could shake a stick at. Our dear friends in Syria must be feeling very lonely right now, and they have just discovered, in the clearest possible terms, that the IDF will no longer hesitate to retaliate against them directly. Now, they find, there is a price to be paid for deploying their little proxy army against Israel. It is no longer safe for them to kill civilians by remote control.

What are they going to do, fire up their rusty tanks and go to war, hoping the Saudis and Iranians would race to their aid as the IDF crushes them against US forces sweeping in from the rear? They wouldn't last a week, and they know it.

Their impunity is gone. This is an incredible achievement with enormous long-term consequence.

The moment we invaded Iraq we took the fight to the enemy, forcing them to react to us for a change. Initially, we had compelled them to commit their resources to fighting the 3ID in the streets of Baghdad rather then the citizens of Los Angeles in the lobbies of their airports. In the longer term, we also projected real power against the terrorist's allies - power that may, or may not, culminate in the actually use of military force - that will weaken the bad guys now and will continue to weaken them further as time goes on. In a single stroke, we have changed the rules of the game to the point where the Israelis can now consistently hold the Syrians directly accountable for their actions.

I'd expect, and hope, that every new bomb blast in Israel is answered by another strike deep within Syria. The Syrians will have no alternative but to stand down.

Think about that for a minute: The Syrians will have no alternative but to stand down. We've just achieved more real progress towards Middle East peace in the last six month than the whole world has managed to achieve in thirty fucking years.

comment

I haven't said much yet about the CIA-leak story because the facts seem to be changing every few minutes. Like the rest of you, I don't really know what's going on.

However, I would like to say this: we all agree that somebody from the government did call cold-call six reporters to disclose this information. If Plame was actually put at risk by this disclosure, and if this disclosure was made before Novak's column was published, and if, as now reported in the British press, Karl Rove personally made these calls, than I will be among the first to call for Rove to be fired and hauled up in front of a judge.

If this story holds together, it's serious stuff and it demands a serious response. I have zero patience for any government that threatens to harm its critics.

Of course, we still don't know what's going on here and the story can still go either way. Maybe these calls were made after Novak's story was published; in that case, these calls would represent nothing more criminal or unethical than anyone else's comments on what they'd read in the paper that day. Maybe Plame's job is such that she was not credibly put at risk by this disclosure; if that's the case then this was just a leak, and not a threat to harm anyone.

My call? I can't imagine that Plame, the wife of a former Ambassador, could have had the sort of job where her life would really be threatened if her identity were exposed. I also doubt very much that the CIA would have confirmed to Novak that she was in their employ if she really held such a position. I think she's just an analyst, and that her job title is classified because the CIA prefers to routinely classify every operational detail that they can. I think that the intent of this leak was to harm Wilson, not Plame, by suggesting that he is incompetent and that he was hired only as a favor to his wife.

I think this is going to be nothing, once all the smoke clears. But if it's something, I'm going to be calling for Rove's head on a stick.

comment