Jordan Michael Smith

Out-Hawking the Hawks

Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy adviser to John McCain, recently gave an interview with RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty that should put to rest any fantastical notions that a McCain administration would be more diplomatic than George Bush's (see Matt's piece for more on this). Even Donald "Old Europe" Rumsfeld would have thought twice before saying this: "traditionally, we have seen that the Russians will push and push until they meet opposition. And what they need to understand is that all European countries and the United States are united in opposing the latest Russian moves, which is really the culmination of years of what they've been doing". Or this: "I think first of all the administration has said very clearly and publicly that there will be no trade-offs. Trade-offs like that are kind of a relic of a bygone era of power politics."

Whoa daddy. McCain's got another thing coming if he thinks Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev and Zangief are just going to roll over the in the face of some tough Euro-American talk. Rather, they'll move closer to China and Iran and anyone else who will consider their interests. And since America needs them all to counter terrorism and WMDs, we might be rather upset when all of them don't help us out. And why should they help us? After all, trade-offs are just a thing of the past.

Is Afghanistan the Next Iraq?

Hamid Karzai's would-be assassins on Sunday penetrated 18 security rings to get at the Afghan president according to the Asia Times. Even getting within range of Karzai, let alone within 65 feet of the VIP viewing stand, would seem to suggest the Taliban is right claim that it has infiltrated the government security forces.

If and when the US leaves Iraq, it is going to find itself in a familiar situation in Afghanistan: bogged down in a war in a Muslim country, from which it seemingly cannot extricate itself.

Cross-Posted at TAPPED

Booting Carter

Max Boot manages the nice feat of getting two things wrong in a single blog post. First, he snidely refers to Jimmy Carter as a "peacemaker extraordinaire (at least in his own mind)". Well, if Carter's peacemaker image is in his mind, then the rest of the world must be telepathic. The 1978 Camp David Accords overseen by Carter directly led to the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel the following year--a treaty that, for all its flaws, has prevented war between the two countries for 30 years.

Boot is also wrong in his more substantive claim that "if Carter is to believed, Hamas is happy to set itself on an entirely different course–if only Israel and the United States would engage in direct negotiations with it. This is the kind of thing that, well, only Jimmy Carter could possibly believe."

Well Jimmy carter and most of Israel, but who's counting? 64 percent of Israelis say the government should host one-on-one talks with Hamas, according to a June poll in Ha'aretz. Since it's unlikely that 64 percent of Israelis would want to negotiate with an implacable terrorist group devoted to their destruction, I think it's fair to assume that most Israelis have, like TAP's Gershom Gorenberg, concluded that Hamas is more flexible than its charter would seem to indicate

Cross-Posted at TAPPED

Bittergate

My interview with the blogger who broke the "Bittergate" story for the Columbia Journalism Review.

McCain's Return from Vietnam

The LA Times finishes a two-part series today on John McCain's transition from Vietnam vet to US Senator. The most interesting parts are those detailing how impressed high-ranking politicians were by the war hero:    

He enthralled them with tales of his captivity in Hanoi...Soon the old bulls were maneuvering to sit next to the young captain on long flights...Indeed, the senators may have been more awed by McCain than McCain was by them...Part of McCain's allure was not only his life story, but his willingness to tell it. He seemed to have emerged from years of torture with a broken body but a strong psyche, willing to relate hellish memories other POWs struggled to forget. ..But McCain's stature extended beyond resident storyteller. Senators sought his advice on the intricacies of aviation and how the Navy operated.

Not only did McCain learn early on in his career that militarism pays off, but because McCain was a genuine war hero, people also thought he would be a wise foreign policy decision-maker. McCain instantly had "national security credentials" beyond his actual experience. The media has largely followed along with this narrative, portraying McCain as being strong on foreign policy despite his being wrong about nearly everything in the past 10 years. It's very difficult to uncouple military heroism from strategic acumen--nobody wants to imply that McCain was anything but amazingly courageous in Vietnam. But the two qualities aren't the same, and at some point the Democrats are going to have to engage in deft diplomacy to dispel the notion that they are.

Cross-Posted at TAPPED

Bill Clinton to the Old-Timers

Speaking to a crowd in Pennsylvania today, Bill Clinton offered a theory for why Hillary is less popular than Barack Obama with younger voters:

"I think there is a big reason there's an age difference in a lot of these polls," he said. "Because once you've reached a certain age, you won't sit there and listen to somebody tell you there's really no difference between what happened in the Bush years and the Clinton years; that there's not much difference in how small-town Pennsylvania fared when I was president, and in this decade."

Clinton's argument is curious for a number of reason. Firstly, it paints younger voters are gullible and historically ignorant. Second, Bill Clinton carried the youth vote in 1992. In fact, in 1992, a higher percentage of young people turned out to vote than had in decades, and they voted for Clinton more often than not. Overall, younger voters are much more likely to self-identify as Democrats than are older voters. Any argument that older voters are necessarily wiser is bizarre to begin with; Bill Clinton making that argument is absurd.

Cross-Posted at TAPPED

McCain and the Troops

Everybody knows that the Defeatocrats never fail to jump at any opportunity to undercut the troops. Which is why it's so unusual to read that it's John McCain who is holding up a trio of bills increasing aid and benefits to troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The measures, two of which were introduced at least in part by Republicans, give troops a month off for every month in combat, and offers them much-needed education assistance. McCain is worried that the benefits would be so juicy people would leave the military to get their education. "I want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military as well as for people to join the military," he said.

But the logic is circular. If military personnel are better compensated, then becoming a member of the military would become a more attractive option. And, as John Noonan points out, the Army is independently resuscitating its "menu of incentives" program, whereby active-component captains can choose from a cash bonus, or attendance at a graduate school. Programs like these greatly boost recruitment.

McCain and his allies are particularly worried about the month-off/month-on protocol."The worst thing you can do is let a bunch of politicians worrying about their reelections mandate troop rotations," said Sen. Lindsey Graham. Well, no. The worst thing you can is let a bunch of politicians worrying about their reelections send troops to fight in an unnecessary war, and then drastically underfund the returning veterans and their families. That's the worst thing you can do.

Cross-posted at TAPPED

Bush Vs. The Pope

Via the Corner, President Bush does an interview with ETWN, the Global Catholic Network. The interviewer says the Pope, when visiting the US this week, will raise the issue of Iraqi Christians:

Q What can we tangibly do? What can the administration tangibly plead with the Iraqi government to do to protect this fledgling minority? Is there anything we can do --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, one thing we can do is to keep our troops there long enough to have a civil society emerge, and go after them, and go after these killers, and bring them to justice so they quit killing people, including our own troops, because this is a war.

Actually, it's going to be difficult to protect Christians in Iraq because there aren't many left. Less than one-third of the 1.5 million-strong community that existed before the US invasion in 2003 remains. The rest have fled, mostly to other parts of the Middle East but also to asylum-friendly countries like Sweden, Germany, etc. One place where Iraqi Christians haven't found a home is America -- only 819 Iraqis have been granted asylum in 2008, Christians included. Permitting more refugees into the country might do more to help Iraqi Christians than keeping troops in their country, but, then that would be one fewer reason to keep the war going, wouldn't it?

Cross-Posted at TAPPED

How About We Don't Threaten to Nuke Iran?

In his column today, Charles Krauthammer laments the fact that Iran is moving ahead with its nuclear program. As a solution, he proposes that America extend its nuclear umbrella to Israel:

How to create deterrence? The way John Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. President Bush's greatest contribution to nuclear peace would be to issue the following declaration, adopting Kennedy's language while changing the names of the miscreants:

"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran."

But there's another policy besides preventive war and deterrence that Krauthammer refuses to consider -- global nuclear disarmament. One of the major dangers of Iran going nuclear is other states following suit. Turkey and Egypt, for instance, have stepped up their nuclear power industries in recent years. And that's just the Middle East. Instead of viewing Iran and Israel in isolation, as Krauthammer does, they should be seen as parts of a worldwide proliferation problem. Other nuclear states will undoubtedly arise across the globe in the next century. The prospect of having 30 nuclear states--all in an age of suicide terrorism -- has made global disarmament suddenly seem like a realistic scenario instead of a fantastical one. Lest anyone think global nuclear disarmament is a dream exclusive to pie-in-the-sky liberals, George Shultz, Sam Nunn, Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger and, in the last op-ed he wrote before he died, Paul Nitze have all advocated the same thing.

Cross-posted at TAPPED

A liberal Israel lobby?

The UK Prospect (no relation) has a cover story about a "New Israel Lobby" by TAP Senior Correspondent Gershom Gorenberg. Most of the piece is a nice analysis of why America's policy on Israel is so hawkish. Gorenberg explains why a counter-lobby to AIPAC and friends is needed, and what a liberal Israel lobby should, in fact, be lobbying for. This point is interesting:

Realistically, even a liberal Israel lobby will be more timid than progressive Israelis. Few US Jews will feel comfortable asking for American pressure on Israel. Publicly, the lobby's task will be to increase support for diplomacy and a two-state solution. But it will also allow more politicians—particularly liberal ones—to say what they really think about Israel/Palestine, safe in the knowledge that there is an alternative lobby to back them with money and votes.

I think it's important to distinguish between the limits of a lobby and the personal positions of prominent jewish Americans. Many of the most outspoken American critics of Israeli policy in recent years, from Tony Judt to George Soros to Richard Cohen to Eric Alterman, have been Jews. Heck, even Thomas Friedman has called for negotiations with Hamas, which would put him to the left of Barack Obama on the issue. As Gorenberg points out in the story, the bulk of US Jews are much more dovish on Israel than American policy in the region would suggest. I can't imagine American Jews would be hesitant to raise their voices about pushing for a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians if they could do so knowing they would have some institutional and community support. It's more of a chicken and egg problem -- you can't have a lobby without support and few people will feel comfortable expressing that support without a strong lobby.

Cross-posted at TAPPED