lloydtown 

More U.S. Plans in Iraq

Doonesbury, that valuable resource, says today the U.S. is now building 14 permanent military bases in Iraq, and will maintain a substantial presence there until 2010.

USA Today says Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) has asked for estimates of costs under various scenarios.

"Of three long-term scenarios Conrad asked the congressional analysts to study, the most expensive, which assumed the U.S. force would level off at 69,000 in 2010, would total $392 billion through the decade ending 2014.

"The least expensive would cost $179 billion over 10 years and assumes troop levels in Iraq decline to 15,000 by 2010."

Based on what is known about U.S. military bases around the world, will Iraq remain one of the largest U.S. commitments for at last another 5 years?

Advice to Cheney from a Friend

James P. Gannon, a former reporter for The Wall Street Journal and editor of The Des Moines Register, has written in USA Today that Dick Cheney should remove himself from the Republican ticket.

The argument is that Cheney has some negatives that the President, and other Republicans who might be candidates for VP, are free from. At the same time, his positives are less than they were in 2000.

One possible choice: John McCain, who has been somewhat fancifully advanced as a possibility for the Democratic ticket.

Makes sense to me.

Anne Applebaum lowers the boom

Anne Applebaum isn't by any means convinced that things in Iraq are hopeless, or even that they are going to get worse. A lot could happen, and the outcome is to a great extent up to the Iraqis--moreso than when Saddam was in charge.

But this awareness doesn't prevent her from criticizing the Bush administration:

"The truth, of course, is that, for all its talk of universal human rights, this is not an administration that actually perceives itself as a part of something greater than the United States. For all of its talk about spreading American values to benighted foreigners, this is not an administration that even likes foreigners. It never occurred to me that American troops would arrive in Baghdad and have absolutely no idea what to do next, or who was important, or who was on their side. But then, I hadn't realized that the Pentagon leadership had no interest in or knowledge of the Iraqi people. I thought these were cold warriors, whereas in fact they are narrow-minded American nationalists, isolationists turned inside out."

I keep coming back to the fact that in the 2000 campaign, Bush practically said he didn't know or care anything about any foreign country--with the possible exception of Mexico. What was planned as a self-congratulatory invasion of Iraq as part of the reaction to 9/11 is just the other side of the same coin.

(TNR Online via Kevin Drum)

One document on Saddam and Osama

Glenn Reynolds can be counted on to link to any new finding that suggests a "tie" or "link" or a meeting once in the 90s.

Here's one that the NYT says may have been missed by the 9/11 Commission. During the early 90s (at least 7 years before March 2003), there were apparently discussions between Al Qaeda and Saddam about co-operating on a number of fronts.

Where does the document come from?

"The Americans confirmed that they had obtained the document from the Iraqi National Congress, as part of a trove that the group gathered after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government last year. The Defense Intelligence Agency paid the Iraqi National Congress for documents and other information until recently, when the group and its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, fell out of favor in Washington.

"Some of the intelligence provided by the group is now wholly discredited, although officials have called some of the documents it helped to obtain useful."

This doesn't sound good. Isn't it possible that everything Chalabi says is a lie, and every "key document" he turns over is some kind of forgery? Apparently the Americans now share my suspicions.

"A translation of the new Iraqi document was reviewed by a Pentagon working group in the spring, officials said. It included senior analysts from the military's Joint Staff, the Defense Intelligence Agency and a joint intelligence task force that specialized in counterterrorism issues, they said.

"The task force concluded that the document 'appeared authentic,' and that it 'corroborates and expands on previous reporting' about contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden in Sudan, according to the task force's analysis.

"It is not known whether some on the task force held dissenting opinions about the document's veracity."

So it is now U.S. policy to distrust everything Chalabi says or hands over--and this document passed the test.

By the mid-90s, bin Laden had been involved on attacks on Americans, or on facilities used by Americans--but there was no indication of an involvement by Saddam in these attacks.

"At the meeting, Mr. bin Laden requested that sermons of an anti-Saudi cleric be rebroadcast in Iraq. That request, the document states, was approved by Baghdad.

"Mr. bin Laden 'also requested joint operations against foreign forces' based in Saudi Arabia, where the American presence has been a rallying cry for Islamic militants who oppose American troops in the land of the Muslim pilgrimage sites of Mecca and Medina.

"But the document contains no statement of response by the Iraqi leadership under Mr. Hussein to the request for joint operations, and there is no indication of discussions about attacks on the United States or the use of unconventional weapons."

For Saddam before 1996: anti-Saudi sermons: yes. Anti-American anything at all: as far as we know, no.

There is no year attached to these meetings, but the story agrees with the one told by the 9/11 Commission:

"'A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan,' it said, 'finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.'"

As Kevin Drum says, it is the possibility of actual plans of violence between Saddam and Osama that interest most of us, not isolated meetings that seem to have led nowhere. The NYT even says Osama asked for some kind of base or support within the borders of Iraq, and this was refused.

Again, it would be strange if Saddam's people never met with Osama's people under any circumstances; they would have a natural desire to keep some tabs on each other. Bush's defenders are now stuck with pretending that the only real anti-Bush view on all this is "there were never any contacts of any kind." Therefore any contact, of any kind, is substantial evidence in Bush's favour; and in fact a link or a tie is always somehow turned into coordination.

Frantic efforts are being made to make a lot out of a little, or even something out of nothing--as in the cases of mistaken identity. (See also Yglesias here). (On Cheney's contradiction on Atta in Prague see here. A fairly full account of the Prague story, with answers to Stephen Hayes' latest, here and here--thanks to Hit and Run).

And always lurking over the horizon: the idea that these two bad guys, among the few Third World leaders most Americans can name, must have somehow worked together in planning 9/11. But of course, no one in the Bush administration has actually said that.

A Mayberry (Alberta) Machiavelli

I have suggested that Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, a Liberal, might have deliberately made his Budget bad news just in time to hurt the federal Liberals. Voters might prefer different parties to be in office provincially and federally; and it is convenient for a province to be able to "fed bash."

Now a suggestion by Lawrence Martin in the Globe that Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, a Conservative, is deliberately announcing a possible private-sector type departure from medicare--the kind of thing Stephen Harper is trying to deny he is in favour of.

Would Klein deliberately hurt the national leader of "his" party? Certainly he has more of a record of inconsistency, and looking out for Number 1, than McGuinty.

Canada's Election

The conventional wisdom appears to be: the Conservative party made big gains as long as it was seen as the decent alternative to a tired, maybe somewhat corrupt Liberal government. As the saying goes, voters don't vote for someone as much as they vote against someone.

More recently, Conservatives have revealed some of the relatives they have living in the attic: conservative stands on social issues. Stephen Harper, clearly inspired by the examples of Reagan and Thatcher, has argued there is no essential disagreement between economic and social conservatives. (As he says, economic conservatives are really classical liberals).

The two groups used to have a common enemy in communism and radical socialism--which were opposed both to individual ambition and to traditional morality. Today, Harper argues, there is still a common enemy--moral relativism or even nihilism on the so-called left. Exhibit A is Gulf War II or "the war on terror" (which I still think are two different things). Bush's main opponents weren't simply indifferent about the outcome--they were clearly hoping the U.S. would lose to cruel, theocratic regimes, which regularly crack down on secular intellectuals like Bush's critics.

Harper is too sophisticated to argue, as some Americans might, that there is a Christian majority, and believers in majority rule should simply let this majority have its way in politics a certain amount of the time. Harper actually says:

"Many traditional Liberal voters, especially those from key ethnic and immigrant communities, will be attracted to a party with strong traditional views of values and family. This is similar to the phenomenon of the 'Reagan Democrats' in the United States, who were so important in the development of that conservative coalition."

Harper doesn't mention abortion, and he warns his conservative allies that progress on their issues may be "incremental." (He also doesn't mention capital punishment, or the possibility of liberalizing prostitution; he seems to be all for the war against drugs). Harper, unlike the Liberals, doesn't want to ban spanking; he does favour: "banning child pornography, raising the age of sexual consent, providing choice in education and strengthening the institution of marriage. All of these items are key to a conservative agenda."

Is there a consensus on these issues, including among recent immigrants, that might give the Conservatives a majority? Harper warns that conservative stands should not be too theocratic, but my sense is that new Canadians in general are not enthusiastica about a conservative agenda. They might like "choice in schools," or vouchers--which would allow them to remain quite distinctive, not part of a melting pot. An older generation might want to continue to legislate who can and cannot get married, but my sense is that for younger people, it makes sense that if they want to be free to make their choices, they would be wise to leave others free to make theirs.

Of course it would be hard to find any significant group that is in favour of child pornography. Is Harper right to imply that the Martin Liberals are somehow soft on this issue? I think everyone can agree that "current" kiddie porn, especially on the Internet, makes it clear that crimes have been committed against actual children in the recent past. To fail to stop the porn would be to tolerate the crimes against children. Does Harper want to deny any exceptions to a ban on depictions of children? What about clearly dated images of children (and teenagers) who have long since grown up or died? (via Hit and Run) What about Nabokov's Lolita? (see Globe and Mail). What about writings and sketches--no pictures from life--that are purely works of imagination? The Victorians, who may have invented some of the wholesome family imagery we all live with, also went in for weird kinds of kiddie porn. I'm not sure what this means, but in general Harper could probably learn about the Victorian era.

My guess is that recent immigrants like tax cuts, but they also like generous government programs more than Harper does. (Although he is promising a lot of spending on a lot of things right now). Do they want a crackdown on what was traditionally thought of as immorality? I doubt it.

Did opposing Bush II on Iraq II constitute a clear case of nihilism and self-hatred? Not in every case. I think young people fear there are no more wars to fight. Relatively right-wing young people favour old-fashioned wars; relatively left-wing ones favour massively expensive environmental reforms, and perhaps eradicating AIDS in Africa.

A Glimpse into U.S. Health Care

As the Bush administration has discovered, sometimes the doctors that scream the loudest about malpractice insurance are ... perhaps not the best doctors. (Via Tapped and Atrios).

What interests me even more is the story saying doctors are trying to establish an official policy that the Hippocratic Oath does not require medical treatment (except for emergency treatment) for lawyers.

Is a vet required to stop and treat every animal by the side of the road?

I guess they could borrow from the abortion debate and say some potential patients don't have lives--only potential lives. That in turn would raise the issue "whether these organisms are sentient--whether they have something like normal brain function."

OK, enough is enough. Whatever is wrong with lawyers, it is probably not a lack of brain function.

Zarqawi and Al Qaeda

Eric Umansky in his new blog clarifies what is known about the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is apparently leading terrorist attacks in Iraq, and Al Qaeda. Even Donald Rumsfeld has said there may be a "disagreement about something" between Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden.

Mickey Kaus thinks there may be one terrorist operation inside Iraq (possibly led by Zarqawi) that wants Bush to lose in November--or more generally, wants to get Americans disgusted with the Iraq war, and determined to get out--and another terrorist operation, more international and led by Osama bin Laden, that wants Bush to win and welcomes an international culture and morality war. ("Bring it on").

None of this answers the question whether any of the terrorists were working closely with Saddam before March 2003, but possibly that is ancient history by now.

What's With the Saudis?

The Saudis say they have killed at least some of the people responsible for the murder and beheading of American contractor Paul Johnson.

Questions remain as to why Johnson's body has not turned up, and how exactly the terrorists died.

Even worse, there are questions as to the extent to which official Saudi forces are infiltrated by terrorists, or in general are unable to combat terrorism.

See also here.

The U.S. Ambassador speaks as if the Saudis are doing all they can. But the warning to all Americans to leave the country remains in effect indefinitely.

Noonan and her, er, former colleagues

Another strange thing in Noonan's (rather beautiful) piece on the death of Reagan: she took advantage of the occasion to criticize, in rather harsh personal terms, some of her former colleagues in the Reagan White House speechwriting shop.

It was to be expected that Reagan's critics would try to spoil the occasion by dropping some rather noisy farts; but Noonan? In some ways the person who continues to present the best possible face of the Reagan administration to the world?

She says one writer wrote only two good speeches, about six years apart, and seemed to spend his time getting haircuts. "Haircut boy" has written a book about his time at the White House, but without properly crediting Ben Elliott, who was the head writer and, according to Noonan, protected the incompetent. "Hack" couldn't really write at all, and hasn't written a book, but he has always been a great shmoozer.

Who could she mean, being mean?

She has disappointed some of her fans. She has been criticized by Jack Wheeler, who says he "worked closely" with Reagan's speechwriters, and is willing to report that Peggy was never part of the team and, er, we guys never really liked her.

Wonkette seems pretty certain that "haircut boy" is Peter Robinson, who now writes for The Corner. "Hack" seems harder to identify.

Could this really be about ensuring that Ben Elliott gets proper credit, as Noonan suggests? She admits that once she praised him, everyone present joined in applause for him, if not an ovation.

("At that great gathering of unsung heroes of the Reagan era, I got to speak of Ben. I got to sing him.

"And when I said his name the crowd burst into the biggest applause of the day. Because they knew who Ben Elliott was. Becky Norton Dunlop, who had taken her own hits for RR, took to her feet for her own standing ovation.")

So perhaps Elliott's reputation doesn't need Noonan's help.

Is Noonan rubbing it in that she is by far the most successful of them all? (The names Wheeler mentions are: Tony Dolan, Ben Elliott, Clark Judge, Dana Rohrabacher, Josh Gilder, and Peter Robinson. Wonkette mentions David Gergen and Ken Khachigian.) Is she getting revenge for the way they treated her 20 years ago?

Noonan and Wheeler agree on one thing. As clear as Reagan was on his own message, he had trouble getting the bureaucrats, and even some of his own fossilized senior appointees, to write and approve the appropriate speeches. It was up to the young politicals to polish the required text, and Ben Elliott played a big part in this.

Wheeler says that without these speechwriters, "there would be no Reagan Doctrine."

There's something funny and unsettling about this reliance on speechwriters--especially when it is said that unless the right wordsmith is found, the leader's own personal message won't get through.

Update: Maybe there's a fair contrast with Thatcher's eulogy for Reagan--pre-taped because of her frailty. It is truly both thoughtful and beautiful, with some details that sound true to Reagan, and some "big picture" comments on what it all means. No one has asked who wrote that for her.

There is an old joke that the Brits speak well even if they have nothing to say, whereas the Americans have difficulty speaking well even if they have a great deal to say. Maybe.

A stark contrast has often been drawn between W and Tony Blair, both defending the same actions at the same time. There is a temptation to wait for Blair's speech and then say "Oh, so that's what W meant."