The Battle of Agincourt is one of the most famous victories in English history.  Unlike the battles of Crecy and Poitiers in the preceding century which arguably were even greater victories in the preceding centuries, it has the benefit of being immortalized by Shakespeare.  Shakespeare also succeeded in varnishing the image of Henry V.  The New York Times has an article about the recent dispute about just how impressive a victory it was.  I read about the controversy recently in the postscript to Bernard Cromwell’s novel set around the battle, and am inclined with my non-academic gut to side with Cromwell’s admittedly non-academic thesis.

Medieval chroniclers can be notoriously biased, but attempting to get a definitive answer based on medieval records (particularly the France of the time which was slipping into civil war) is even harder.  All the chroniclers of the day agree on the fact that on St. Crispin’s day Henry V’s dysentery infested army achieved something remarkable.   Now it could have been cause by the sheer imbalance in casualties and the number of the French nobility killed or captured.  But it seems unlikely that the French would have been as certain of victory if the armies were fairly equal in size or that the rout of an army of equivalent size would have caused such a commotion across Europe or such a blow to the French national psyche.

Agincourt’s reputation is inflated in the larger historical context.  While it gave Henry V a short term victory and even an acknowledgment as the heir to the French crown the long term English conquest of France was untenable.  Henry’s early death prevented him from experiencing the likely bitter dregs of defeat faced by his great grandfather Edward III towards the end of his long reign.

One of the emerging narratives of American military operations in Afghanistan is that the combat there is just another round of the Afghan civil war.  Peter Bergen the posted this column last week disputing this and discussing the “merger” of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.  Then comes Vahid Brown with this column suggesting the interests are not as aligned as Bergen thinks.  Which is it?

Ideological movements that claim a global reach have historically run hard into the brick wall of national sentiment.  The Soviet Union, China, Vietnam and other communist countries ultimately put their national interests first instead of heading off into hare brained crusades like Che Guevara (which ended with his execution in Bolivia).  The founder of Saudi Arabia, Abdul Aziz Al Saud used his alliance with the fundamentalist Wahhabi ulema and the religious militia the Ikhwan to propel him to power.  But when the Ikhwan wanted to continue a global jihad and raid neighboring states he crushed them.  As Brown’s link shows, Hamas and Hezbollah have been pragmatically presenting themselves as national movements even if they may have sympathy with Islamic radicals elsewhere  (as an aside Hezbollah from Al-Qaeda’s perspective are Shiite schismatics).

Of course the cold rationality displayed by other fundamentalists does not always translate to the mind of Mullah Omar.  This could be a feint meant to distract public opinion.

But, American foreign policy rhetoric in the cold war and post-9/11 has not always appreciated that every communist and every jihadist is not automatically in bed with each other.  It was this rhetoric that was used to justify the Iraq misadventure (where Saddam Hussein was not an Islamic radical to begin with).  While there may be broad sympathy by ideologues for the cause, it does not always translate into any direct or effective aid.  The Afghan Taliban regime has cause for bitter feelings towards Al-Qaeda.  It is possible that they may be willing to engage in the more pragmatic goals of regaining power instead of engaging in the nihilistic crusades like the one Abu Musab al-Zarqawi waged in Iraq, but at the same time availing themselves of the military aid and training Al-Qaeda is able to offer.

To what extent these purported divisions can be exploited in unclear.  But if they can lead to a repeat of the Iraqi scenario when Sunni groups banded together against Zarqawi’s blood lust,  America, Afghanistan and Pakistan will be better off for it.

With Czech President Václav Klaus backing down in face of the carrots and sticks offered by his exasperated European colleagues, it appears that it is only a matter of time before the Treaty of Lisbon comes into force.  As Europe draws ever closer to forming some sort of unified state, the public support for the new union appears underwhelming.  Not since the Act of Union in 1707 created the United Kingdom, does there appear to be less support in the public for the creation of a united state.  While the Europeans are not rioting on the streets like the Scots did in 1707, the ruling classes of Europe seem to be aware of the tenor of public opinion.

After the difficulty adopting the Maastricht Treaty and the debacle of the attempted ratification of the European Constitution, Europe’s leaders kept the decision out of the hands of its fickle electorate electing for parliamentary ratification.  Ireland, the only country to hold a referendum initially rejected it.  The economic crisis appears to have given the Irish a greater appreciation for being a part of Europe and a second referendum approved the treaty.

The irony of the European Union has been the undemocratic and bureaucratic framework it tossed on top of a league of democracies.  Public opinion in Europe has long been leery of the bureaucrats in Brussels and concerned about the implications of national sovereignty.  At the same time the national governments have been unwilling to devolve power to the directly elected European Parliament turning it into a debating forum.

Creating a European Union was an elitist if noble minded and practical concept to begin with, even if it has been extremely beneficial to Europe.  However, even with the Lisbon Treaty the European structure is likely to remain a somewhat weak confederation for the foreseeable future.  The European “Foreign Minister” appears likely to more of a liaison between the national governments than the creator of a “European” foreign policy.  The President will be an amiable figurehead with little executive power.  While the powers of the European Parliament are rising with each treaty, it still does not have the power of legislative initiative to initiate new legislation which must come from the appointed European Commission.

So while more driblets of power have been handed over to Europe, many things still remain the same.  The more powerful European States will still run their own foreign policy and there is no discussion of drafting something like the “Treaty Clause” of the United States Constitution which would assign this right to the European Government.  What the Lisbon Treaty does do is tie the economic bonds of the union even closer.  The practical result is that the smaller or poorer members who deviate too far from the line wanted by Germany and France (and from time to time the United Kingdom when it decides it is European) will be forced to toe the line or face reductions on their cherished subsidies.  This power cannot be used too often because it will aggravate the resentments the European public feels towards Brussels.

A United States of Europe will truly come into being only when the directly elected European Parliament and the executive branch truly obtain the initiative to direct policy independent of the member states, even the powerful ones like France and Germany.  If the European public is not enthralled by the current structure there appear to be no signs that the national governments are willing to surrender their powers to such an extent.  So for all the rhetoric and treaties, the answer to the question posited above is nobody.

Pakistani journalist Ahmad Rashid has an interesting blog on how the United States forced a recalcitrant Karzai to accept a runoff.   However, as Matt Yglesias notes that the ethnic tinderbox in Afghanistan likely forces the United States to root for a victory by the inept Karzai.  The lack of a Pashtun alternative with support from his own community and who would be acceptable to Afghanistan’s other minorities has left the United States with little room to maneuver and hopefully the runoff will not saddle the United States with a partner of dubious legitimacy.

Yglesias’s article also raises another point that has not always been addressed recently.   Is the Presidential system really suited for an ethically diverse country like Afghanistan?  While a Parliamentary system runs the risk of executive gridlock, it also gives a voice to minority groups from elected representatives instead of warlords and self appointed community leaders.  It is also a reason why even Iraq adopted a parliamentary system.  Such a system would also prevent Afghanistan from being saddled with a leader out of his depth for a fixed term of the next four years.

The New York Times has a profile on Mehdi Karroubi, one of the 4 presidential candidates in the rigged elections this summer.  Since I have been following the news coverage he has also been the most vocal critic of the torture and repression that followed the quasi coup.  While a lot of hopes were placed in former President Hashemi Rafsanjani’s behind the scenes machinations, the Green Revolution confirms a depressing truth on the underpinnings of power originally articulated in the deathbed advice of the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus to his sons.  ”Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men.”

When the soldiers stay neutral or switch sides tyrants like Marcos, Ceausescu and Milosevic fall.  When the regime buys their loyalty the result is what was displayed at Tiananmen, on the streets of Rangoon and in the student dorms of Iran’s universities this summer.

Just how long the iron fist can control Iran’s youth remains to be seen.  China purchased political stability with an economic boon.  Burma’s junta got it though sheer repression and a willful disregard for the condition of its people.  Iran lies somewhere in the middle.  Its economy is a mess and over dependent on its oil industry.  But it is far too culturally integrated with the world to lapse into a North Korea or Burma like isolation.  Time is not on the regime’s side.

It is a debate academics often engage in. Do individuals shape history or do they flow with the tide of events. As a true middle of the road moderate, I vote for both. Individuals often shape the contours of history and the pace at which things happen. Russia without Peter the Great was already slowly westernizing.  But he significantly accelerated the process and the nature of the transformation.

But every once in a while an isolated event can set off a chain reaction that alters the ebbs and flows of history.  One of the most famous such events was triggered by the death of a middle aged woman in St. Petersburg – the so called “Miracle of the House of Brandenburg.”  In 1762 towards the end of the Seven Years War, Prussia was on the verge of collapse.  Having lost his last Baltic port and with his army almost annihilated, Frederick the Great seriously contemplated suicide.  The consequences for Prussia were dire.  Starting with the Great Elector, over the previous 100 years the Electors of Brandenburg had established one of the finest armies in Europe, acquired the royal crown in Prussia and seized the rich province of Silesia from the Hapsburgs.  Now the Ferederick’s implacable foe the Tsarina Elizabeth (daughter of Peter the Great) was on the verge of humbling the Prussian upstart.  In addition to the loss of Silesia, Frederick also faced the prospect of the loss of his royal title and the prestige his house had accumulated.  And then the miracle occurred.   The Tsarina died unexpectedly.  Her notoriously pro-Prussian successor Peter III promptly removed Russia from the war giving a gasping Prussia time to catch its breath and drive the Austrians from Silesia.  Even though Peter III was deposed by his wife Catherine II a few months later and Russia reentered the war, the interval had changed the strategic position on the ground.

In the resulting peace treaty Prussia retained Silesia and gained the prestige of having fought off the far larger states of France, Austria and Russia.  Prussia had forced itself into the ranks of the major powers of Europe and would expand further during the partitions of Poland.  The Congress of Vienna would lead to further expansion by giving it a slice of Saxony, the Rhineland and Westphalia.  This enhanced Prussian state would be the focus of nationalistic German aspirations.  The unification of Germany under the militaristic Prussian state would have additional consequences in the 20th century. Read the rest of this entry »

With global warming melting the Himalayan glaciers an interesting read on a local attempt to limit the fallout.   Water will be a major flash point in South Asia in the coming decades as the perennial rivers like the Ganga, Yamuna and the Indus could become seasonal rivers and the rain patterns that feed agriculture and aquifers across the subcontinent change.  The Economist discussed this issue a month back.  A friend has often joked about India’s constant position as an emerging power – that it is full of “potential energy” rather than “kinetic energy.”  In addition to the other domestic, structural and regional issues India needs to solve, this looming water crisis adds to its development burden.

Since World War II the British and American governments have harped on the special relationship between the “mother country” and the first of its children to leave. An interesting read from last week’s Christian Science Monitor on how special public opinion in the United Kingdom finds the relationship.  It is not surprising that the British could resent the country that replaced it as the global behemoth.  The loss of empire after World War II, the economic malaise and then the jarring realization during the Suez Crisis that it could not operate a foreign policy in opposition to the United States are bound to hurt the self esteem of a country that thought the sun would never set on it empire (notwithstanding the prestige of an undeserved permanent spot on the Security Council with fellow second tier power France).

Even though it is still about the 7th largest economy in the world the United Kingdom still tries to punch above its weight with the 4th largest defense expenditures in the world  (just below China almost twice as much as India without anywhere near the same security threats).  The history of colonial rule and the aggressive attempts to remain relevant still keep the United Kingdom as a possible bogeyman for tyrants from Iran to Zimbabwe.  At other times it can cause embarrassments, like the spats with India in the past decade from clumsy attempts to interfere in the Kashmir dispute.  See here and here.

It is difficult for a major power to adjust to a diminished status through slow decline.   The declines of previous major powers whether abrupt like Sweden, Germany and Imperial Japan or over a longer period like Spain, Austria-Hungary. Ottoman Turkey and Manchu China received a major assist from military defeats.  The British case is unusual in that it fought and won two world wars only to find itself exhausted and surpassed by its erstwhile allies and then its former foes.  The absence of that defining defeat probably made it harder to accept a diminished world standing.  Not that defeat can always bring such objectivity.  France is still overcompensating for the triple  debacles of World War II, Algeria and the Indo-China war culminating in the decisive defeat at Dien Bien Phu.  But however annoying the Gallic Rooster can be to Americans, French self esteem has not suffered from a policy of supine abasement that the “special relationship” entails.  When was the last time a French leader was called the poodle of any foreign power (even if the string of French military debacles since 1870 have prompted other phrases)?

So Britain frets that the torture and arrest of Barack Obama’s grandfather and father when Kenya was a British colony may cause him to resent it.  A purported snub of the Prime Minister causes national hyperventilation. Why is the United Kingdom so keen for marks of favor from the occupant of the White House?  Who cares?  Its time British politicians publicly discussed whether the “special relationship” is worth the cost in national self esteem and human life.  With its wealth, the United Kingdom will not be entirely unimportant.  But by cutting loose some of its ties to the memories of past grandeur and operating within its means, it may be a happier one.

Or rather the radioactive rabbit poop…I kid not.

On a serious note, the United States still has to figure out what to do with its nuclear waste now that the Yucca repository fell prey to NIMBYism.  Reprocessing the fuel like the French do could be an option, or at least worth further review.

Few people shed tears for Velupillai Prabhakaran when the LTTE chief was killed this past May as Sri Lanka brought its 25 year civil war to a victorious close.  However, in the flush of victory the Sri Lankan government used security concerns to put over 200,000 Tamil civilians in internment camps.  Five months later the humanitarian catastrophe shows no signs of drawing to a close.

It was discrimination against the Tamil minority culminating in the notorious Black July pogrom in 1983 triggered the civil war.  With the Tamil minority able to draw the support from their ethnic kin in the neighboring Indian state of Tamil Nadu (it was these political pressures that prompted India to arm the Tamil groups after Black July) and the vocal Tamil diaspora, Sri Lanka cannot just wish away the problem.  Lingering Indian resentment against the LTTE (particularly in the ruling Congress party for the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in 1991) muted India’s response to the final push by the Sri Lankan army this summer.  But the misery of the Tamils in their internment camps will eventually force India to join the vociferous protests currently being spearheaded by the European Union.  Sri Lanka will be then forced into reliance on support from China and the company of dubious partners like Pakistan, Iran and Venezuela.  While jingoism may dictate such a course, in the long run governing a state with an embittered minority able to draw on foreign support is not a workable strategy.  Sri Lanka should not squander the opportunity to reset its relations with its Tamil minority that the destruction of the LTTE provided.

A truly horrendous fact pattern in the attached link.  Woman gets raped.  Takes anti-HIV drugs as a precaution.  Because of exercising common sense in protecting herself she is now uninsurable.  This on the heels of examples that could constitute uninsurable preexisting conditions in some states like spousal abuse, being a firefighter or having acne, getting pregnant. getting pregnant again after a previous caesarian birth, etc.

Health insurers do have a point in that without a strong mandate to buy insurance, people with pre-existing conditions will only obtain insurance when they need medical care.  But they do not address two issues. What do the people in some of the cases who were not engaging in moral hazard do?  And if private insurance companies are not willing to accept people with pre-existing conditions how do such people afford health care?  If you are 65 the answer is simple.  Get on Medicare.  What happens to the rest of America?

Over the last 15 years the Anglican communion has been rocked by the divisive issues of ordaining women priests and (even more controversially) ordaining gay priests and recognizing gay marriage.  There is a major cultural schism between the more liberal English church and the conservative African parishes.  The dispute has split the Episcopalian church in the United States with some dioceses switching allegiance to the African Church.

Now the Catholic church has decided to fish for believers in troubled Anglican waters.  With Catholics set to surpass the number of Anglicans in England, Pope Benedict XVI announced yesterday that the Catholic Church would make it easier for Anglicans to join the Catholic communion.  What this does for the ecumenical dialogue initiated by Pope John Paul II and the reception that Pope Benedict will receive when he visits the United Kingdom next year remains to be seen.  However, the Catholic Church’s eagerness to integrate disaffected Anglicans could have unwanted side effects by rehashing a theological dispute Rome considers resolved.  If married Anglican priests can be ordained Catholic clergy (even if they cannot become Bishops) just like the married clergy in Eastern Rite churches in communion with Rome, why is a similar approach not possible for regular Catholics?  Similar pragmatism could help stem the severe shortage of priests in American and European dioceses and bring clergy who can relate culturally with their flock, instead of the imported priests from India, Africa and the Philippines.  Rome’s justification for this contradiction will be interesting to watch.

Silvio Berlusconi is at it again.  After a scandal filled year where he was accused of cavorting with teenagers and prostitutes, faced a divorce action by his long suffering wife, faced accusations that he was filling up parliamentary slates and his cabinet with models and actresses, and lost his legal immunity, Italy’s Prime Minster has now brazenly insulted the looks and intelligence of a female opposition politician in a manner which would have ended his career in any other western country.

Yet in spite of the outrage of Italian feminists, he remains in power aided by the absence of a credible national opposition candidate and his stranglehold over Italy’s electronic media. While columnists not on his payroll may fulminate for his removal, Berlusconi has still to run out of his nine lives.  Those in the United States who mocked the indiscipline of Bill Clinton or the lack of intellectual curiosity of George W. Bush can only watch with bemusement as the most shameless man to control a major industrial power in recent memory continues his charmed political existence.  While his colorful antics delight his supporters, Italy and its creaky political system are the victims.

The BRICs other than India have aggressively used the Olympics as a marketing ploy to announce their emergence (or re-emergence).  The Beijing Olympics were a grand showcase for the Chinese regime to erase the images of Tiananmen.   In the midst of its descent into Corporatism, Russia will hose the 2014 Winter Olympics at Sochi, not far from the Caucasus flash points of Chechnya and Georgia.  In contrast Brazil under President Lula da Silva seeks to project a different image while hosting the 2016 Summer Olympics, of a progressive democratic emerging power that has broken from its history of economic turmoil and military involvement.  But the endemic violence in its shantytowns could turn the dream into a nightmare.  It was only a year ago that soccer legend Pele was mugged on his way home.  One hopes that the first Olympics in Latin America are not marred  by images of an overbearing police presence and a heavily fortified Olympic Village to protect athletes.  China was embarrassed when athletes dropped out of the Olympics citing pollution.  It will not be surprising to see an athlete choose security over Rio.

A few links to follow up on the post a couple of days back.  Matt Yglesias on the standards of international humanitarian law, the much maligned Richard Goldstone speaks up about his report, and Andrew Sullivan chimes in here and here.  I have never been an amnesty international absolutist on international human rights law.  Countries do bad things.  Sometimes there are legitimate national security threats to act contrary to obligations.  And every country is entitled to defend itself.  But you cannot have a special set of standards or absolutely no limits for the exercise of military power for certain actors.  That is essentially what the Bush administrations expansive reading of executive power attempted to do.  That is the privilege Israel is claiming today.

It is also something the Cheneyites should ponder.  Do the United States and Israel really want to stoop to the standards set out by Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda?  And when they win in the face of international opprobrium will they like what they have become when they look at themselves in the mirror (assuming they have the objectivity left to make an honest self appraisal)?

With millions of votes from the ham-handed rigging of an election Hamid Karzai would have likely won being tossed out, a runoff in Afghanistan appears increasingly likely. After displaying some intransigence pressure from the Obama administration appears to have forced Mr. Karzai to back down, for now. See this link for a great article by Renard Sexton on the recount and its implications on a fair election, if one were possible. The rigging in the Afghan election has made the logistics of a runoff harder and a Zimbabwe of Kenya style compromise may be needed (though those have not worked well).

Regardless of the next step, its time to have a heart to heart with Mr. Karzai. Even with his incompetence and corruption, the Afghan people do not appear to want the Taliban back, for now. But a failure to provide security could cause the Pashtun majority to remember the relative peace in the brutal Taliban regime with nostalgia. If America is supposed to keep fighting in what is now an Afghan civil war, it needs a partner on the ground whose administration put added obstacles in its way. Just as Pakistan is not getting a free ride, neither can the corrupt Karzai government. With the patience of American public opinion running out, America may be better off cutting bait. If Hamid Karzai and his backers do not want this to happen, they need to shape up. Even if some of the problems are caused by Hamid Karzai’s weaknesses, he cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption in his inner circle and family any more. The fate of Moussa Arafat should warn them of the fate of corrupt, nepotistic cronies when their protector moves on.

Kudos to Andrew Sullivan for managing to make an off the cuff reference to Girolamo Savonarola in a random blog.  Never thought I would run into a reference to the 15th century fanatical homophobic Florentine priest who ended up burned at the stake for his opposition to the notorious Alexander VI in a reference to a conservative flack.  Savonarola’s most famous contribution to pop culture is the phrase Bonfire of the Vanities.  I wonder how many people caught the reference.  In a country where a period drama set in Italy a 100 years later has its title changed from “Courtesan” to “Dangerous Beauty” because 95% of the country did not know what courtesan meant, the number cannot be high.

The “Main Stream Media” has disapprovingly noted the Obama administration calling out Fox News as the media arm of the Republican party.  See here, here, here, here and here.  Not unexpectedly Fox News howled in outrage and liberal blogs cheerfully detailed the hypocrisy of Fox’s complaints when it cheered on the Bush administration calling out NBC News and MSNBC.  Very few media members noted that the underlying charge that Fox News is “opinion journalism masquerading as news” is essentially true.

A couple of good reads from the Economist’s Democracy in America blog today comparing Fox News to what is happening in Russia, Italy and Thailand, and Slate’s Jonathan Weisberg noting that the Fox response to the administration shows the inherent bias in its coverage.

I agree with the final point in both articles.  Cable “news” is now unwatchable.  Opinion shows dominate the peak hours and off-peak hours are filled with a bunch of documentary shows.  Even CNN Headline News which a decade ago provided 24 News coverage is now filled with shows that masquerade as news.  The Internet would be a refuge for finding news, but alas even the AP has decided to muddy its role as a wire service by falling for the opinion journalism lure.

More than ever, developing a filter to separate the wheat of news from the chaff of opinion is essential.  Paraphrasing the legal principle of caveat emptor, let the  unwary news reader beware.

I will let these two articles speak for themselves.  First is the column by two Republican Party county chairmen in South Carolina.  Next is an editorial by the Palmetto scoop.  One would think that after a year of racial gaffes by Southern Republicans a memo about using ethnic stereotypes would have been circulated by now.  Evidently not.  One hopes that the inevitable apology will be a genuine one, instead of the meaningless “If I offended someone, I am sorry” that public figures seem to think constitutes an apology.

An interesting read in Foreign Policy this week about the souring of tires between Israel and its only Muslim ally, Turkey. The last decade has seen a significant decline in support for Israel in most of the world except Washington, and even there Benjamin Netenyahu found it hard to drum up support in the usual corners earlier this year.

Israel does have the right to protect itself and its citizens from attacks and Hamas and Hezbollah’s part in the tragedy unfolding in the region should not be overlooked. However, what a large part of the world has balked at is the disproportionate Israeli response, a refusal to alleviate the human catastrophe in Gaza and a failure of the hardliners who constitute the Israeli government to appreciate that the right of the Jewish state to survive cannot mean carte blanche in keeping the Palestinians in a subjugated state for eternity.

The United States in Vietnam struggled to sustain popular support after images like the infamous picture of the 9 year old girl on fire after a napalm attack were transmitted to television sets worldwide. Winning the propaganda war today is harder. In an age where a cell phone can transmit the horrifying images instantaneously worldwide, anti-insurgency operations that appear cavalier about civilian casualties inflame world opinion. That appears to have led to the Israeli-Turkish breach.

This does not excuse the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah who have cynically exploited the suffering of their people for political gain. But as the stronger power (not to mention as a party to international treaty obligations regarding human rights) public opinion place a greater burden on Israel. Hamas’s bad acts cannot act as automatic exculpation for any Israeli action.  Winning this propaganda war will require positive actions from Israel and its friends in delineating the procedures and responses on Israel’s legitimate self defense needs, instead of the reflexive and tedious accusations of anti-semitism that were hurled when the Goldstone Report was released that only serve to harden opinion against Israel.

As noted before the neo-cons have been urging military action against Iran.  The fact that a ground invasion is impractical without a neighboring country willing to allow the United States to use it as a staging area, the exhausted United States army has no troops for an invasion and subsequent occupation, allowing Israel to bomb the Iranian nuclear sites is unlikely to have much practical effect and any bombing campaign would force the Iranian public that hates the regime to rally around the flag are mere technicalities to be dismissed in their fantasy world.

Now the man George W. Bush insisted on appointing as ambassador to the United Nations has revealed that there is no limit to his bombing fetish.  Earlier this week Bolton raised the possibility that the only solution may be for Israel to preemptively nuke Iran.

By all accounts Iran is still some distance from actually getting the Bomb.  Even if it gets the ability it is unclear whether Iran wants the expense of keeping an active arsenal or getting a quick trigger ability like Japan.  Even if Iran did get the Bomb it is not a given that a nuclear strike on Israel will follow.  Regardless of the focus on the theocratic aspects of the regime and the rewards in the afterlife, the Iranian regime has displayed time and again that its primary motive is survival.  Israel’s second strike ability and Washington’s nuclear shield guarantees the annihilation of Iran should it strike with nuclear weapons.

Even Saddam Hussein in 1991 held back from using chemical weapons in his Scud strikes against Israel, knowing that the result would be annihilation.  An Israeli nuclear strike against a nation without nuclear weapons would be sheer insanity.  I agree with Daniel Luban, that this rhetorical escalation is intended to shift the contours of the debate further to the right.  But the lack of rational boundaries for Bolton’s warmongering raises the question why exactly George W. Bush thought this man could be a diplomat.

This story and the comments by the anonymous Internet warriors is disgusting. A bunch of Republican congressmen felt it incumbent upon themselves to have the House Sergeant at Arms investigate the “infiltration” of Congress through Muslim staffers and interns. Oh the horror!!!

This post brings up the question from General Powell quoted in a previous blog. “Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?” The bigotry spewed from the right wing now reaches such proportions that Republican congressmen (albeit from the extreme fringe of an already fringe party) seek to initiate a McCarthyesque search for “infiltration” of Congress by the practitioners of a religion with over a billion practitioners world wide.

In this world view Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban and Wahhabi inspired fundamentalist preachers somehow represent the religious spectrum of an entire faith in a way that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell could never do so for Christianity. While lashing out at the bloody history of radicalized Islam, they conveniently forget the violence wreaked elsewhere by other religions.

This must stop. Substitute Arab or Islam in these screeds with any other race or religion and even the supine Republican leadership that kowtows to these purveyors of hate would have to step in. The Republican Party attempted to re-brand itself with a new website this week, only to find that all its civil rights heroes dated before the Civil Rights Act or back to the Civil War and that baseball hero Jackie Robinson was an independent who turned against the Republican Party after the 1964 convention that nominated Barry Goldwater. The Republican Party lost its moral high ground on race when it embraced the Southern strategy. It is time it rediscovered its civil rights roots and displayed the moral fortitude to stand up to the rank bigotry some of its congressmen displayed today.

As the world considers limiting oil consumption to fight global warming, Saudi Arabia is tossing a cynical ploy to delay negotiations. After decades of profit from the Western addiction to oil Saudi Arabia now wants to be compensated so that it can be diversify its economy.  Given the Saudi logic, maybe the rest of us should be reimbursed by OPEC for the cartel’s manipulation of oil prices.

OPEC’s plea for assistance is very different than that put forward by China and India. For years the rulers of OPEC states have squandered their oil bounty in bribing restive populations or lavish largesse to its leaders. Very few emulated Malaysia and Indonesia in diversifying their economies. This was even after the drop in oil prices in the 1990s showed the folly of relying solely on oil revenues. It is hard to feel sorry for resource rich countries who already have the money necessary to diversify their economies.

As it stands, even with reduction in oil consumption OPEC’s oil fields are not going to run dry any time soon. Even if the oil consumption in the West drops, it will rise in China and India. While OPEC may not enjoy the record profits of the last few years, the shower of oil money will continue for some time to come. Maybe instead of exporting Wahhabi fundamentalism abroad or bankrolling totalitarian dictatorships, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and other OPEC countries will use this as an opportunity to improve their societies and economies. The world will be a better place for it.

Hamid Karzai’s Teflon cover in American opinions sheets is drawing to an end.  A year after now Vice President Biden famously walked out of a dinner where Karzai denied that his government was corrupt, Tom Friedman now joins the chorus.  This follows a detailed New York Times article this summer on Karzai detailing his descent into haplessness and paranoia.  Vietnam analogies are always problematic, but Washington now faces a repeat of trying to bolster a corrupt, faction ridden ally against a more ideologically cohesive foe.  The long term answer to Washington’s draw down in Afghanistan, short of abandoning the place, relies on an Afghan partner whose army takes the lead in fighting the Taliban.  That and not the surge enabled Washington’s drawdown in Iraq…absent that the United States is stuck in the Afghan quagmire.

A follow up to the preceding post regarding Pakistan.  The New York Times is reporting about the divides within the Pakistani establishment about conditions attached to aid from the United States.  Ever since its first military coup in 1958 the Pakistani army has held a stranglehold over its political life.  Civilian attempts to rein in the security establishments have been promptly snuffed out.  While the current head of the Pakistani Army has shown a disinclination to interfere with the day to day workings of the civilian regime, it has still protected its turf – notably after the attacks on Mumbai last November when it squashed President Zardari’s offer to send the head of the ISI to India for talks.

It is understandable why Washington does not wish to give the Pakistani military a free hand.  The dictatorship of Pervez Musharraf diverted the aid provided after 9/11 to beef up Pakistani military preparedness against India instead of tackling extremists.  However, the opposition appears to arise more from nationalistic saber rattling rather than concerns about what the Pakistani Army will be prevented from doing.  Add to that national pride bruised by American bombing of targets within Pakistani borders.

With its economy in shambles Pakistan is unlikely to refuse American aid and my guess is that after a suitable amount of bluster and the requisite face saving compromises the money will be accepted.  But it does raise an important point regarding Pakistan’s future.  Future military chiefs may not be professional soldiers who stay out of civilian affairs.  Ultimately a democracy is not created by a public franchise but by the willingness of institutions to accept the rule of law and the mandate granted by the franchise.  If Pakistan is genuinely to become a democracy civilian control of its military is a necessity, however venal the public leadership is perceived to be.  In this regard the epithet “Mr. Ten Percent” bestowed on President Zardari during his wife’s tenure as Prime Minister and the stench of corruption attached to the other national leader, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, does not help. Read the rest of this entry »