Inverted Totalitarianism

Wondering what The Nation is publishing these days? Absurd discourse on something called inverted totalitarianism, fancy language for comparing the Bush administration to Nazis.

Sample grafs:

"No doubt these remarks will be dismissed by some as alarmist, but I want to go further and name the emergent political system "inverted totalitarianism." By inverted I mean that while the current system and its operatives share with Nazism the aspiration toward unlimited power and aggressive expansionism, their methods and actions seem upside down. For example, in Weimar Germany, before the Nazis took power, the "streets" were dominated by totalitarian-oriented gangs of toughs, and whatever there was of democracy was confined to the government. In the United States, however, it is the streets where democracy is most alive--while the real danger lies with an increasingly unbridled government.

Or another example of the inversion: Under Nazi rule there was never any doubt about "big business" being subordinated to the political regime. In the United States, however, it has been apparent for decades that corporate power has become so predominant in the political establishment, particularly in the Republican Party, and so dominant in its influence over policy, as to suggest a role inversion the exact opposite of the Nazis'. At the same time, it is corporate power, as the representative of the dynamic of capitalism and of the ever-expanding power made available by the integration of science and technology with the structure of capitalism, that produces the totalizing drive that, under the Nazis, was supplied by ideological notions such as Lebensraum.

In rebuttal it will be said that there is no domestic equivalent to the Nazi regime of torture, concentration camps or other instruments of terror. But we should remember that for the most part, Nazi terror was not applied to the population generally; rather, the aim was to promote a certain type of shadowy fear--rumors of torture--that would aid in managing and manipulating the populace. Stated positively, the Nazis wanted a mobilized society eager to support endless warfare, expansion and sacrifice for the nation."

Rumors of torture are terrifying America's citizenry nightly, right?

Oh and yes, the author of this hyperbolic screed, Sheldon Wolin, is a professor emeritus at Princeton.

Ken Pollack Interview

Transcript of interview with A Threatening Storm author here.

Key portions:

Q: "Did Saddam Hussein actually have unconventional weapons, and is there any evidence he was developing them?"

A: "We really don't know yet. I still think it is very premature to suggest that Saddam either did or did not have the weapons. Now it's not just that the fat lady hasn't sung yet, it's that in some senses the orchestra is just starting to tune up. We are only at the very beginning of what will have to be a very extensive weapons search throughout Iraq."

Q: "Before the invasion, there was a lot of talk about Iraq possessing tons of materials for chemical weapons and biological weapons. Was that an exaggeration by the intelligence community or by the administration itself?

A: "I don't think it was an exaggeration by anyone. The tons were based on what Iraqis imported during the 1980s and in some cases the 1990s. And it was all stuff that was documented by the U.N. inspectors. So the question was, where the hell was this stuff? And I think the answer is, we still don't know."

Q: "What would you have done if you were plotting the strategy back in the fall, would you have sought a Security Council resolution?"

A: "Assuming that we were going to war in 2003, or under my longer term scenario?"

Q: "Either way."

A: "For 2003, I think Resolution 1441 was fine; I thought it was actually a very good resolution. But I would not have handled it necessarily the way that the administration did. I would have done one of two things. Either, I would have had the troops all in place and ready to go, and then when the December Iraqi [weapons] declaration came in, which was an absolute farce, I would have then used that as the casus belli to launch the war, because in fact that was the clearest instance of outright Iraqi noncompliance that we got and were ever likely to get."

Put simply, despite the comfort I derive from Iraqi material breach having occurred (thus providing a justification for the war per Resolution 1441) both with regard to the false December weapons declaration and findings of banned WMD materials in Iraq post-war (if in somewhat de minimis quantities) the bottom line is that it's simply too early to judge what the Iraqi regime may or may not have possessed at this juncture. Patience, everyone!

Chalabi Watch

Chris Dickey reports on the Pentagon's man in Newsweek.

Straussians Populating the Beltway

Former U. Chicago prof Leo Strauss' long shadow.

"In "Ravelstein," a biography of Bloom in the form of a novel published in 2000, Saul Bellow depicts the information-avid professor Abe Ravelstein fielding calls on his cellphone from former students who have made their way to high places in government. His disciples include Philip Gorman, a Wolfowitz-like official in the first Bush administration who rings up his former professor to show that he's in the loop. "Powell and Baker," Gorman confides, have advised the President to call a halt to the 1991 gulf war without a march on Baghdad: "They send out a terrific army and give a demonstration of up-to-date high-tech warfare that flesh and blood can't stand up to. But then they leave the dictatorship in place and steal away. . . ." (Not this time.)

The Bush administration is rife with Straussians. In addition to Mr. Wolfowitz, there is his associate Richard N. Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board and the managing partner in Trireme Partners, a venture-capital company heavily invested in manufacturers of technology for homeland security and defense. Mr. Perle and Mr. Wolfowitz are both disciples of the late Albert Wohlstetter, a Straussian professor of mathematics and military strategist who put forward the idea of "graduated deterrence" — limited, small-scale wars fought with "smart" precision-guided bombs."

Regular readers will know that I find that such quasi-omnipotent neo-con cabal arguments (written about with increasing frequency) overwrought. There are too many other competing factions in Washington foreign policy circles that wield significant influence. And regardless, as Dan Drezner points out, barely any of these supposed myriad Straussians are even actually serving in the government.

Classical Arms Controllers versus Counter-Proliferators

Bill Keller on the debate regarding how best to pursue non (or counter) proliferation efforts.

He makes the point that nuclear pre-emption did not begin with Iraq:

"The idea of nuclear pre-emption did not begin with the Iraq war. Robert Litwak, director of international studies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, has found five earlier instances when states seriously considered using military force to prevent the spread of unconventional weapons. President Kennedy contemplated a preemptive strike on China's nuclear facilities before its first test explosion in 1964, but decided America could cope with a nuclear China. Israel in 1981 bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, enduring much criticism but setting back Saddam's nuclear program significantly. The 1991 gulf war plan targeted Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, although it was a secondary motive for the war. President Clinton thought hard about taking out North Korea's nuclear facilities in 1994, but instead managed to negotiate his way out of what advisers feared would be a new Korean war. And U.S. cruise missiles destroyed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in 1998, ostensibly linked to production of nerve gas -- a claim that has been disputed."

And a good description of the two main camps in the debate:

"Opposing the arms controllers is a new and ascendant camp, which asserts that the old constraints have broken down. Against the ineffectual diplomacy of traditional arms control, they offer a relatively coldblooded self-interest and confrontation most fulsomely demonstrated by the invasion of Iraq, although the menu of options includes surgical intervention, blockades, economic sanctions and the purely political muscle of public exposure and brutal candor.

In the nuclear world, traditionalists talk about ''nonproliferation.'' The new school prefers the more muscular term ''counterproliferation,'' which refers to a subset of activities involving the military. It should not surprise you to learn that under President Bush, the White House office responsible for these issues has renamed itself to incorporate the word ''counterproliferation.'' Iraq was the first ''counterproliferation'' war."

The article is worth reading in its entirety.

Vidal Award Nominee

A formal Nobel Laureate (1980) from Argentina, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, weighs in with some good old fashioned anti-american vitriol.

A sample:

"Perversion has no boundaries; but you say to pray to God and you believe you are predestined for humanity. Hitler had the same thoughts when he unleashed his madness and wanted to dominate the world. The God of Life will call you on account for your own crimes. You are guilty of crimes against humanity and you will be judged for the many deaths and suffering against the people of Iraq and other peoples of the world.

The world sees with horror that you are parceling up and giving away that which not yours, that the vultures that surround you are ready to throw themselves over the carcasses and the blood of the Iraqi people, to make lucrative business with the oil. They talk of the "reconstruction of Iraq," colonized and subjected to the interests of the EE.UU. and think of the profits they will make.

You talk of God. And you detest God. You talk of freedom and you destroy freedom. You talk of democracy and dignity, and you do not hesitate in sacrificing them in the altar of the god, Molok, your god of destruction and death. You talk of human rights and you violate them systematically"

Gloomy W. 43rd Street

So, how does the main NYT story dealing with Bush's speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln announcing that the Iraq campaign is won portray the scene?

First, what is commonly described as a 3 (or 3 and a half) week war is now a six-week war simply, it appears, because of Dubya's timing in terms of this speech and lack of hasty triumphalist rhetoric before then:

"President Bush's made-for-television address tonight on the carrier Abraham Lincoln was a powerful, Reaganesque finale to a six-week war."

Then, of course, the "cold political and military realities" ominously gather:

"But beneath the golden images of a president steaming home with his troops toward the California coast lay the cold political and military realities that drove Mr. Bush's advisers to create the moment."

Then this graf:

"Even so, administration officials acknowledged that Mr. Bush's declaration of an all-but-over war carried huge risks. Not only could Iraq blow up again, they said, but major tasks were also unfinished. Weapons of mass destruction have not been found, Saddam Hussein's fate is a mystery and American troops remain under attack. Some political strategists say the Republican advantage over Democrats on national security has never been greater, and they questioned whether Mr. Bush should so quickly distance himself from his role as commander in chief."

But the NYT itself reported a while back that WMD had been found.

At least a Michael O'Hanlon quote in the piece provides better balance:

"The big event is over," Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution, said. "Why not take a victory lap, and what politico would advise against it? Bush's tone is excellent right now. He's good at the emotions of war. He doesn't appear giddy. He doesn't appear overcongratulatory. He doesn't have Rumsfeld's tendency to go around and boast and taunt his critics."

Even here, of course, the Times ensures a dig at one of Dubya's major cabinet figures.

India-Pakistan Watch

Very positive news on this front.

Department of Poor Diplomacy

Even retired French diplomats are getting into the fray in the pages of Le Monde criticizing de Villepin's Quai D'Orsay for various diplomatic missteps:

"La veille d'une intervention militaire américaine en Irak que tout le monde savait inéluctable, le déplacement précipité du ministre des affaires étrangères à Luanda, Yaoundé et Conakry, toutes capitales de pays singulièrement respectueux des droits de l'homme, était-il indispensable?"

Translation: "Was it indispensable to precipitously send the [French] Foreign Minister to Luanda, Yaounde and Conakry, all capitals of countries singularly respectful of human rights, on the eve of an American military intervention in Iraq that the entire world knew was inevitable?"

Indeed.

UPDATE: More regret in French quarters.

Money grafs:

"What is surprising is the talk on Parisian streets. Sure you still run into the odd group of men who stand around bitching about America--who make faces when they hear an American accent or who reflexively launch into the "this war was for petrol" loop. But you also hear a surprising number of people concerned that Chirac went too far.

A business dinner organized during the war by my husband's colleagues in Boulougne, St. Cloud, a banlieue chic of Paris, shed light on the new position. It's not, these people were quick to explain, that they were in favor of "Bush's war." Nor did they care much for the American president. But, just like Raffarin, who qualified his position as antiwar but pro-American, they worry that Chirac has forever marginalized the country. As one put it, "Who are our allies today? Iraq? China and Russia? China and Russia are not our natural allies, the United States is."

And these questions have clearly bubbled up to the country's political and intellectual elite. Over dinner a few nights later at a tiny restaurant in the fourth arrondissement, I couldn't help but notice that the party next to us was arguing. The issue, of course, was the war. But, contrary to what we might have expected, not simply how to be against the war. One diner was actually arguing that French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin should never have taken such an aggressive antiwar stance. Turned out the advocate of this position was chief of staff for a member of the French parliament. He was completely in favor of the American position--a rarity in Paris, especially for someone accompanied by a group of friends who are pretty adamant in their opposition to American foreign policy. But M. Chief-of-Staff was quick to say he knew other staffers who supported his position."

The "Four"

France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg are planning a Euro-defense capacity.

"La déclaration «insiste en particulier» sur «le caractère fondamental du partenariat stratégique entre l'Europe et les Etats-Unis dans le cadre de l'Alliance», a ainsi tenu à souligner le président français Jacques Chirac."

Translation: The declaration "insists in particular" on "the fundamental character of the strategic partnership between Europe and the U.S. in the framwork of the Alliance," emphasized French President Jacques Chirac.

I think Jacques doth protest too much here.

More: "Une Union européenne renforcée en matière de sécurité et de défense «n'est pas antagoniste ou n'entre pas en compétition avec l'Alliance atlantique», a renchéri le Premier ministre belge Guy Verhofstadt, en invitant «les Etats membres actuels et futurs à rejoindre» les Quatre."

A European Union reinforced in matters of security and defense "is not antagonistic or isn't entering into competition with the Atlantic Alliance"...the Belgian Prime Minister [said] in inviting "current [EU] members and future ones to join "the Four."

We might start by assuring the Belgian Prime Minister that we aren't overly concerned about the "Four" constituting "competition" with the Atlantic Alliance (Luxembourg?). But sarcasm aside--why has this Euro quartet picked the present juncture so as to make such an announcement? Partly, perhaps, to counter Robert Kagan's Mars/Venus arguments that only Hobbesian Americans understand force while the Euros dwell in a Kantian universe of perpetual peace blissfully sans any need for significant armies.

But, given the timing of this initiative, one can also see a continuation of a short-sighted and highly unfortunate French tendency to have the current organizing principle of their foreign policy seemingly appear to be focused on limiting U.S. power whatever the specific merits of the issue(s) at hand. Their contention that, during the Resolution 1441 Turtle Bay imbroglio, they played the role of guardian of international law can't be taken seriously. Saddam's violations of 1441 have already been proven to be material and thus it was the U.S. that was pursuing the integrity of international law by insuring the integrity of U.N. resolutions.

More worrisome, of course, are the intelligence documents being unearthed in Baghdad that showcase close Franco-Iraqi cooperation including French provision to Baghdad of appraisals regarding U.S. foreign policy thinking--certainly not behavior akin to that of an ally. And why did Dominique de Villepin head to Teheran at the present juncture?

Relations with France look set to continue detiorating for a good while yet--unless Chirac and Dominique swiftly change course--highly unlikely given an increasingly consistent pattern of behavior.

UPDATE: Vinocur's analysis in the Trib.

Two money quotes:

The project was dismissed by Colin Powell, U.S. Secretary of State, who called it "some form of plan to develop some sort of headquarters." He said the four would have done better spending more money on guns, manpower and equipment."

And Japp de Hoop Scheffer, the Dutch Foreign Minister: "Belgium and France will not guarantee our security. Germany will not guarantee the security of the Netherlands. I cannot imagine a world ordre built against the United States."

Said's Hyperbole

Edward Said lets loose in the London Review.

First, a few cheap shots at Fouad Ajami:

"Fouad Ajami is a Lebanese Shia educated in the US who made his name as a pro-Palestinian commentator. But by the mid-1980s, he was teaching at Johns Hopkins; he'd become a fervent anti-Arab ideologue and had been taken up by the right-wing Zionist lobby (he now works for Martin Peretz and Mort Zuckerman) and the Council on Foreign Relations. He is fond of describing himself as a non-fiction Naipaul and quotes Conrad while sounding as hokey as Khalil Gibran. He also has a penchant for catchy one-liners, ideally suited to television. The author of two or three books, he has become influential as a 'native informant' - the Arab 'expert' is a rare species on American networks. Ten years ago, he started deploying 'we' as an imperial collectivity which, along with Israel, never does anything wrong. Arabs are to blame for everything and therefore deserve 'our' contempt and hostility."

Then this concluding graf:

"This is the most reckless war in modern times. It is all about imperial arrogance unschooled in worldliness, unfettered either by competence or experience, undeterred by history or human complexity, unrepentant in its violence and the cruelty of its technology. What winning, or for that matter losing, such a war will ultimately entail is unthinkable. But pity the Iraqi civilians who must still suffer a great deal more before they are finally 'liberated'."

The "most reckless war in modern times." Since the French Revolution, I take it? Hitler's dreams of a Third Reich spanning the entire Eurasian landmass were less reckless, I guess.

Or how about Saddam's genocidal campaign against the Kurds from 1987-1988. Perhaps not as "reckless" vis-a-vis hyperbolic fears that the international order is no longer extant as a result of the three and a half week coalition operation in Iraq. But certainly "reckless" for the nearly 100,000 Kurds killed by Saddam's regime. Samantha Power, in her excellent "A Problem from Hell--America and the Age of Genocide", details Saddam's attacks on Kurds, including the "Kurdish Hiroshima", Saddam's attack on the town of Halabja on March 16th 1988:

"It was different from other bombs," one witness remembered. "There was a huge sound, a huge flame and it had very destructive ability. If you touched one part of your body that had been burned, your hand burned also. It caused things to catch fire." "The planes flew low enough for the pertrified Kurds to take note of the markings, which were those of the Iraqi air force. Many families tumbled into primitive air-raid shelters they had built outside their homes. When the gases seeped through the cracks, they poured out onto the streets in a panic. There they found friends and family members frozen in time like a modern version of Pompeii: slumped a few yards behind a baby carriage, caught permanently holding the hand of a loved one or shielding a child from the poisoned air, or calmly collapsed behind a car steering wheel. Not everybody who was exposed died instantly. Some of those who had inhaled the chemicals continued to stumble around town, blinded by the gas, giggling uncontrollably, or, because their nerves were malfunctioning, buckling at the knees...."

"Halabja quickly became known as the Kurdish Hiroshima. In three days of attacks, victims were exposed to mustard gas, which burns, mutates DNA, and causes malformations and cancer; and the nerve gases sarin and tabun, which can kill, paralyze, or cause immediate and lasting neuropsychiatric damage. Doctors suspect that the dreaded VX gas and the biological agent aflatoxin were also employed."

Athens Postcard

The sole foreign service officer to resign in protest from the State Department over the war in Iraq continues his Warholian 15 minutes in the pages of the NYRB.

Sample language:

"Few in Europe will be quick to forgive us for blighting one cherished prospect. Inspired, perhaps misled, by the miracles of EU membership in expanding democracy, justice, prosperity, and security in Greece and in Europe generally, a surprising number of Greeks saw the world as an improvable and improving place. Our current leaders, however, have declared the planet a pit of beasts to be cowed. Whether America has become more secure through its conquest of Iraq will not be judged soon, and certainly not from the streets of Athens. From the streets of Athens, however, the world feels a grimmer, less hopeful, and far more dangerous place."

I trust any diplomat who believes disarming Saddam pursuant to a judicious reading of Resolution 1441 is tantamount to having declared "the planet a pit of beasts to be cowed" won't be too missed by professional diplomats at the Department.

Take Me, Please!

Remember this guy? (via Andrew Sullivan)

Shi'a Intrigues

Remember the assassination of Shi'a cleric Abdul Majid Khoei on April 10th? Dave Ignatius, while probably blowing it a bit out of proportion, has a pretty good round-up here.

Some key grafs:

"According to the Iraqi sources, Khoei planned to ask Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's top Shiite cleric, to issue a religious fatwa urging Iraqi Shiites not to cooperate with an Iranian-backed mullah named Bakr Hakim. The United States hoped that Khoei could forge an alliance with the movement headed by a militant Iraqi Shiite leader in Najaf named Muqtada Sadr, whose father, a founder of an Iraqi wing of the Islamist Dawa Party, had been murdered by Saddam Hussein in 1999.

Things went disastrously awry soon after Khoei's arrival in Najaf. On April 10, he went to the Imam Ali mosque with a caretaker appointed by Hussein. Khoei apparently hoped to gain control of the mosque, but the two men were attacked by an outraged mob, and both were murdered.

Initial U.S. accounts of Khoei's death suggested that he had been killed accidentally, caught in the crossfire by a mob that was really after Hussein's hated caretaker. But Iraqi sources say the killing of Khoei was intentional. He fired a pistol in the air after the mob began its attack and was then stabbed repeatedly. According to one account, his assailants included Sadr's followers -- the very people the United States had hoped would be Khoei's allies.

The disaster in Najaf reinforced Shiite suspicions and boosted the power of pro-Iranian clerics, according to Iraqi sources. That's now one of the biggest problems facing U.S. forces in their attempt to create a stable, pro-Western government in postwar Iraq."

But the situation is likely not so gloomy re: Iranian trouble-making in Iraq:

"A religious decree issued from Qum early this month by an Iraqi cleric, Kadhem al Husseini al-Haeri, is widely believed to be a result of his loyalty to the hard-line establishment. He called on Shiite Iraqis to return home and promote people's awareness against the Great Satan, a term used by hard-line Iranians for the United States.

Yet, Iraqi clerics who are returning to Iraq say they are tired of seeing their faith dominated by Iran.

"Iraq is a holy country and we do not need Iran," Mr. Hassani said. "It is independent and has its own differences with Iran. We do not need to look at Iran as our model."

Steyn Steamed at the Spectator!

Mark Steyn on the Spectator going wobbly on a post-war U.N. role.

Some key language: "Now another Middle Eastern war has come and gone, and the bien-pensants are anxious that once again an obsolescent institution be glued back together and propped in position. This time it’s the UN. The Spectator has it exactly backwards: it’s not the irritating ‘do-gooders’ among its ranks, but the do-badders. The ‘oil-for-palaces’ programme (as Tommy Franks calls it) is a classic UN boondoggle: it was good for bureaucrats, good for Saddam’s European bankers, good for George Galloway (allegedly), but bad for the Iraqi people. A humanitarian operation meant to help a dictator’s beleaguered subjects has instead enriched the UN by more than $1 billion (officially) in ‘administrative’ costs. There’s no oversight, no auditing, nothing most businesses would recognise as a legitimate invoice, and, although non-essential items can be approved only by the secretary-general himself, Kofi Annan has personally signed off on practically anything Saddam requested, including ‘boats’, from France. The UN, France, Germany and Russia are desperate to keep the oil-for-palaces programme going, and they figure they can bully the Americans into going along."

Galloway Ouster Watch

The preliminary maneuverings to rid Labour of Galloway.

UPDATE: The corruption versus treason angle.

Sarin Barrels

More of this doubtless to be uncovered in the coming weeks. Tony Blair thinks so too.

NYC Spawned the Neo-Cons!

At least per the Manhattan-centric folks at the Observer.

State is Hitting Back

Someone at Foggy Bottom or Langley is leaking to Glenn Kessler and Dana Priest in the WaPo making Pentagon uber-Chalabi-cheerleaders look unprepared and short-sighted:

"Chalabi's influence, particularly with senior policymakers at the Pentagon, helped play down the prospects for trouble, some officials said. "They really did believe he is a Shiite leader," although he had been out of the country for 45 years, a U.S. official said. "They thought, 'We're set, we've got a Shiite -- check the box here.' "

"We're flying blind on this. It's a classic case of politics and intelligence," said Walter P. "Pat" Lang, a former Defense Intelligence Agency specialist in Middle Eastern affairs. "In this case, the policy community have absolutely whipped the intel community, or denigrated it so much."

The smartest strategy now would appear to involve diplomatic attempts to reduce any Iranian meddling (while banking that differences between Arab Shi'a and Persian Shi'a, along with residual Iraqi nationalist feeling, will help stave off Iranian influence), while hoping that a decent number of "moderate" clerics are in the offing.

Galloway to the Gallows

I remember hearing George Galloway bellow away when I attended the February 15th anti-war protest in Hyde Park (merely as an observer, of course). He said something about how he would rather be eating cheese and reading Sartre on the banks of the Seine than eating popcorn with the born-again, Bible-belting, fundamentalist Crawford crew. Well, it certainly appears that the seemingly perma-tanned George would have ample funds to wile away the hours poring through The Stranger or The Rebel in a sunny cafe in the 7th while munching on Camembert and Brie given that he is alleged to have been on Saddam's payroll to the tune of 375,000 pounds/annum (over $560,000).

When the Guardian is running copy like this you wonder if the game might just be up for Mr. Galloway (currently writing a book on Iraq in Portugal!)

Here's the original scoop from the Daily Telegraph. I trust most Labourites want to get rid of Mr. Galloway in a hurry--save the left wing of the Party. Yet his libel action might delay such moves for his expulsion. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, Geoff Hoon and Jack Straw's approval ratings are bouncing up post war in Iraq.

UPDATE: A handy Galloway guide in the Guardian. And too, the view from right of center tabloid land.

Imperious Raines

The "Republic of Fear" on W. 43rd Street.

Money quote: "According to insiders, Raines is the kind of 1950s-style autocrat who manages through humiliation and fear. Aside from right-hand men Gerald Boyd and Andy Rosenthal and a core of loyalists, morale is said to be at a new low. There are many rooms in that palace and nobody sees the whole picture. But, says one source, "the old timers who lived through the worst of [former executive editor] Abe Rosenthal say they have never seen anyone be so arrogant, so petty, so mean. Vindictiveness is in." Another source says, "It's no longer about managing down. It's about paying obeisance to the king." Among cognoscenti, 43rd Street is now known as the "republic of fear."

State Versus Defense

The WaPo on the battles underway between Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon. A prominent part of the piece has to do with a Newt Gingrich broadside against Powell's State Department.

Some key language:

"Gingrich said the "final straw" that caused him to speak out was Powell's announcement that he planned to visit Syria. Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon officials had assailed Syria, accusing the country of aiding Saddam Hussein's government and allowing top Iraqi officials to flee. Powell's statement helped cool the diplomatic fires. But Gingrich said Powell should not visit a country that he said was obviously linked to terrorism.

Powell allowed himself to be convinced to go to Damascus" by the department's Near East Bureau, which Gingrich said "appeases dictators and tries to be nice to corrupt regimes." The State Department official noted that Bush said over the weekend that Syria appeared to be cooperating in response to U.S. concerns, in effect endorsing Powell's approach."

Listen, this isn't Warren Christopher off to Damascus for his 26th visit or such. The Syrians have assured visiting Congressmen that they will not provide asylum to any of Saddam's former henchmen or other wanted Iraqi Baath party officials. On WMD, we will have to wait and see if there is any evidence that Iraqi chemical or biological agents may have been transferred to Syria but grandstanding about it at the present moment is unwise until compelling intelligence proves the case.

This leaves the terrorism issue. Damascus has cooperated on providing critical intelligence regarding al-Qaeda in the past. The U.S., however, has very real concerns about their support to Hezbollah and, to a lesser extent, Hamas (this is less of a "global reach" terror group than Hezbollah). But having the Secretary of State press Bush's agenda (make no mistake, it is Bush's agenda, despite Newt trying to make Powell's Damascus trip sound like a nefarious plot hatched by hapless Arabists at NEA) in Damascus is just fine. Better to apply diplomatic pressure, in person at such high levels, than continue the breathless pontifications that Damascus is next--at least at this juncture.

Some neo-cons might find my musings above wobbly Foggy Bottom prattle. But the bottom line is that marching to Damascus now, or even imposing severe economic sanctions without even trying to make progress diplomatically, would be folly. What is needed now is a vigorous diplomatic push to have a chastened Damascus, cowed by the rapid-fire implosion of their fellow Baathists across the border, make very real concessions to the U.S. Let's give Powell a chance to do that contra Newt's broadside.

Kennedy's Back!

Well, at least Paul Kennedy, author of the gloomy late '80's tome "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers." In a lengthy WaPo outlook section piece, Kennedy dusts off the old opus and recycles it, tells us why we aren't on our way to Damascus (or Teheran) now (but might be soon, he implausibly argues), and reminds us of all the problems the hapless Brits had in the Middle East early in the last century.

Put this one in the poor prognostications department (will he ever learn?). As I've argued before, no Washington consensus exists now (or will exist during this Administration) that calls for taking out the regimes in Syria and Iran by force and occupying those countries in "Empire"-like fashion, while pressuring the Saudis, Egyptians and other assorted Arab leaders to democratize with dispatch or face American retribution.

Instead, we have removed a sadistic despot with WMD capability from the scene and are now proceeding to have, through diplomatic (and perhaps economic) pressure, neighboring governments reform their behavior when it comes to WMD-possession or support of global terror groups. Contemporaneously, I trust, pressure will be applied in both Tel Aviv and Ramallah to make headway on "roadmap" implementation.

Is this tantamount to taking on Kipling's "white man's burden" as Kennedy, in cliched fashion, trots out at the end of his op-ed?

WMD Watch

"Where's all the WMD?", the Iraq skeptics will doubtless begin to bellow more loudly in the coming days. Judith Miller, on the WMD beat for a good while and one of the NYT's more intrepid reporters, has the goods here:

Money grafs:

"Military officials said the scientist told them that four days before President Bush gave Mr. Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war, Iraqi officials set fire to a warehouse where biological weapons research and development was conducted.

The officials quoted him as saying he had watched several months before the outbreak of the war as Iraqis buried chemical precursors and other sensitive material to conceal and preserve them for future use. The officials said the scientist showed them documents, samples, and other evidence of the program that he claimed to have stolen to prove that the program existed."

Miller's piece will also give neo-con Syria Bashar-bashers more ammo but there is nothing here that is out and out damning vis-a-vis Damascus. More footwork needs to be done on the extent of (if any) WMD transfers to Syria by Iraq over the past few years.

Gone Fishing

Apologies for the very light postings that look set to last through the Monday after Easter Sunday. I am traveling and, as of tomorrow, without any Internet access for several days. Thanks for your patience.

Axis of Evil

It's increasingly looking like Damascus is replacing Baghdad so that the Axis of Evil remains a triumvirate. I'm beginning to wonder if Bashar's father would have been so clumsy in dealing with this U.S. Administration? Probably, not. Let's at least hope Bashar hasn't done something really dumb like harbor Saddam (if he's indeed alive and not in some Tikrit bunker) or accepted the transfer of significant WMD to his country for safekeeping or the like.

North Korea Watch

The NYT appears a bit schizoid regarding NoKo today. There is an ominous tone in this story from Dave Sanger:

"The North Koreans have been eerily quiet for the past three weeks. "Kim Jong Il has gone underground for months, and no one is sure why," said one senior official. Yet satellite photographs continue to show steady progress at his one known nuclear site."

Then James Brooke's reports, rather contra to the tone in Sanger's piece, that Pyongyang has just made a highly significant diplomatic concession:

"In a policy shift, North Korea said today that it would negotiate its nuclear program without sticking "to any particular dialogue format" if the United States changed its stance on the issue." In other words, they are finally dropping their demand for one-on-one talks in a direct bilateral forum with the U.S.--a non-starter for most policymakers in Washington.

There is also this intriguing quote from the South Korean President:

"North Korea is "petrified" by the rapid American victory in Iraq, Mr. Roh said Friday in an interview with The Washington Post."

Remember how conflict in Iraq was going to inexorably lead NoKo to take provocative actions to goad us into miscalculations while we were occupied in Iraq? Quite the opposite, at least at this juncture. A show of strength by the U.S. in Iraq (and perhaps some long overdue concerted diplomatic pressure from regional players on Pyongyang) has led to, at least for now, more conciliatory noises emanating from Kim Jong Il.

Fiske Alert

Robert Fiske writing in the Independent:

"American control of the city is, at best, tenuous – a fact underlined after several marines were killed last night by a suicide bomber close to the square where a statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down on Wednesday, in the most staged photo-opportunity since Iwo Jima."

That's quite a charge, isn't it? Might Fiske even attempt to corroborate his claim? Nah, why bother...

Of course, Fiske is writing in a paper that will headline this tomorrow.

"A City in Flames, A Nation in Chaos"? Almost makes you pine for the good old days of order and discipline under Saddam...

Josh Marshall has a less hyperbolic analysis here.

Passions Running High over Ahmed Chalabi!

Here's the view from the pro-Foggy Bottom anti-Pentagon side of the fence.

Galbraith finds a pretty fired up Danielle Pletka when interviewing her for this article:

"Danielle Pletka, vice president of the AEI and an expert on the Iraqi opposition, angrily denounced State Department officials who disparage Chalabi. "The [Defense Department] is running post-Saddam Iraq," said Pletka, almost shouting. "The people at the State Department don't know what they are talking about! Who the hell are they? Who gives a good goddamn what they think?" Pletka concedes that the State Department has a "deep bench," a lot of expertise and Arabic-speaking professionals. "But they need to remember that the president of the United States needs to be boss," she said. "And the simple fact is, the president is comfortable with people who are comfortable with the INC."

Oh my.

Meanwhile, a retired diplomat who served often in the Middle East and is not a died-in-the-wool-Arabist-type describes Chalabi to me thus:

"Unreliable, financially suspect (implicated in a corrupt banking deal in Jordan), self promoter and not considered to have grass roots support among Shi'a."

It's going to get nasty and Dubya is going to have to play umpire. Stay tuned.

"Embarassed" German Anti-War Protestors

And this a headline in Le Monde!

Embarrased, perhaps, yet a planned Berlin anti-war protest is set to go forward regardless this Saturday. Meanwhile:

"Alors que les Irakiens faisaient la fête à Bagdad, leurs compatriotes de Nuremberg ont spontanément organisé un défilé de voitures décorées des drapeaux irakiens, américains et britanniques pour fêter la chute de Saddam."

Translation: "While Iraqis are celebrating in Baghdad, their compatriots in Nuremberg spontaneously organized a demonstration with cars decorated with Iraqi, American and British flags to celebrate the fall of Saddam"

So let's get this straight. German anti-war activitists and assorted hanger-ons will protest the war in Berlin on Saturday while Iraqis residing in Germany organize demonstrations celebrating Saddam's fall. Telling, isn't it?

That "Cakewalk" Thing

Ken Adleman (maybe a bit too soon?) takes something of a victory lap in the WaPo today.

Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer:

"The sight of them panicked Cassandras here in the United States who were quick to predict that the evidence of any armed resistance meant that we were in for a long guerrilla war. But the Vietnam analogy was absurd. It was not the people of southern Iraq who harassed our troops on the drive to Baghdad but the regime's shock troops. These "irregulars" were not insurgents; they were counterinsurgents. They did not represent the people they used as human shields; they ruthlessly repressed them."

Very true. But I'm less comfortable with his concluding graf:

"Which is what makes the Three Week War a revolution in world affairs. It is one thing to depose tin-pot dictators. Anyone can do that. It is another thing to destroy a Stalinist demigod and his three-decade apparatus of repression -- and leave the country standing. From Damascus to Pyongyang, totalitarians everywhere are watching this war with shock and awe."

A bit triumphalist and laden with hubris for my taste. For one, the war isn't over so we don't know if it is, indeed, a "Three Week War." (Is Krauthammer trying to be the first to provide a moniker for this conflict a la Six-Day War?) Also, Saddam may not have been quite "tin-pot," but he wasn't Uncle Joe presiding over an empire spanning eleven time zones either.

And a "revolution in world affairs"? Maybe, if suddenly a working, democratic polity in Iraq proves inspirational and leads to Jeffersonian Democrats popping up in Cairo, Riyadh, Damascus and Teheran. But is is just too early to judge the impact of the dramatic events of yesterday per Krauthammer's conclusion.

Put differently, I'm not sure 2003 is quite 1776, 1789, 1917 or, even, 1989. If the Middle East region that has never been through the Enlightenment and other key historical periods the West passed through begins, over the next few years, to become more transparent, extend voting rights to its people and create working democracies with representative parliaments and egalitarian constitutions--maybe the beginnings of a revolution in world affairs were indeed witnessed yesterday. But we're very far from that, as sober observers appreciate.

For the time being, however, I simply rejoice in the liberation of a people desperately hungry for their freedom after unimaginable brutalities were visited upon them decade after decade. I hope too that the naive and spoiled anti-war protestors (many of them comfortable amidst the material bounty of the West and protesting out of nothing more noble than sheer boredom) will take stock of the lessons of Baghdad's liberation yesterday.

Many of these anti-war protestors, of course, had nary a clue about the grotesque repression that was part and parcel of Saddamism (while pretending to be protesting on behalf of the Iraqi people). Perhaps some of the anti-war forces, even if just a small number, might re-analzye their Pavlovian anti-war posture in the face of the images of liberation the world witnessed yesterday.

Finally, I rejoice too that a vicious regime, with every passing day, is less likely to possess and be in control of the WMD that could be used to devastating effect against free and innocent peoples the world over.

Wolfy Is....Woodrow Wilson!

Says Caleb Carr in the pages of the Observer.

"We are, after all, a country that has always profiteered with a noble fig leaf; and the man whose job it is in this case to spin a set of philosophical principles that will serve as a cover for the potentially exploitative occupation of Iraq is Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Possessed of a powerful intellect, along with ideas that, packaged in the best sort of benign American wrappings, are nonetheless characteristically self-interested, Mr. Wolfowitz is thought of as the eminence grise behind the idea that a democratic Iraq is possible, desirable—and will take far longer to embody than did the rehabilitation of Afghanistan (where a pre-assembled government was in place within weeks of the liberation of Kabul and where—not coincidentally—the potential rewards to American business were far lower).

Mr. Wolfowitz has been analyzed and reanalyzed in the press, yet he is not generally paired closely enough with the American to whom he bears the strongest ideological and psychological resemblance: Woodrow Wilson. This is perhaps understandable— Mr. Wolfowitz is a short, unassuming Jew, while Wilson was a puffed-up, posturing Presbyterian—but it’s also troubling. For whatever the superficial differences between the two men, they share one overriding quality: a belief in evangelical interventionism. This passion caused Wilson’s eight-year Presidency to become the greatest single period of American interference in the affairs of other governments in our nation’s history: He was a serial, unilateral interventionist, and one gets the feeling that Mr. Wolfowitz—who increasingly enjoys the ear of another democratic evangelist, George W. Bush—may be trying to duplicate the feat."

Ah yes, the wild messianic fervor of Paul Wolfowitz. Aren't these arguments getting mind numbingly dull given how often we hear them?

But Mr. Carr has other unfounded ruminations to share with us. While describing the occupation of Iraq as "potentially" exploitative-he appears to have already made up his mind that said occupation is doomed to be a neo--colonialist affair with Cheney and chums filling up their pockets (and so Republican party coffers too).

He concludes:

"Perhaps we will insist that our civilian leaders honor the achievements and sacrifices of our forces, and those Iraqis who have fought beside them, by rejecting the plan that Messrs. Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz are trying to railroad through Congress, even as various Iraqi opposition groups scream their protests. Perhaps we will recognize that "Iraqi Freedom" may not mean "Iraqi American-Style Capitalist Democracy"; but then, our commanders presumably chose the first name rather than the second because it had a distinctly better ring to it. This ought to tell them something: We have sacrificed and inflicted sacrifices in order to liberate Iraq, and let its people live as they wish—not to remake it in our image. That is the work we must now be about; that is the only work that can match what our troops have done in the field."

Will someone please explain to me what exactly is the "plan" that Dubya, Cheney and Wolfowitz are trying to "railroad through Congress" to "remake [Iraq] in our image"? I haven't seen it, have you?

Baghdad Has Fallen

U.S. forces are in the main central square:

"It's like Iraqi tanks pulling up on Fifth Avenue in New York or Picadilly Circus in London," said Reuters correspondent Khaled Yacoub Oweis, speaking from within the hotel. "The fall of Baghdad is complete."

I guess it's on to Tikrit next.

Magnanimity Department

Bob Kagan mostly hits all the right notes counseling mitigation of any U.S. triumphalism post victory and a good dose of magnanimity during the post-war period. Meanwhile, Jim Hoagland (did Doug Feith draft his op-ed?) is singing Ahmed Chalabi's praises.

Too much, I think. Many Iraqis will doubtless prefer a more home-grown leadership to take up the post-war leadership mantle. To be sure, Iraqi exile groups will have to be prominently represented in any future government. But to pitch Chalabi as the Iraqi Karzai isn't going to cut it, I fear, for a variety of reasons.

One reason comes to us from the Development Director of the International Rescue Committee, probably the leading U.S. humanitarian NGO [full disclosure: I used to work for them in the mid-90's]. Michael Kocher, most recently in Basra today, informs me that from run-of-the-mill folks to local non-Baath elites (and this is in the Shi'a south, Chalabi is Shi'a)--many locals were unenthusiastic about the prospects of Chalabi having an overly prominent role in the post-war government. Sure, that's just some sporadic reporting from Basra. But I'll have more on all this soon.

Chirac Watch

We've moved well beyond the French perfidy stage when Powell had to play deep huddle with Dominique around the horse-shoe-shaped table at the UNSC. Now, French foreign policy objectives are merely becoming laughable.

Dubya and Blair are looking to grant the U.N. a "vital role" in post-war Iraq. But Chirac, instead of making a good faith exploration regarding what such a "vital" role might consist of--is instead continuing the scuttle-style French diplomacy of recent months:

"In remarks in Paris today, Mr. Chirac said the United Nations — "and it alone" — should be responsible for administering Iraq's reconstruction and governance. "We are no longer in an era where one or two countries can control the fate of another country," he said pointedly at a news conference after meeting the United Nations' high commissioner for refugees."

For one thing, Jaques might try that one on, say, inhabitants of the Cote D'Ivoire.

And what planet is Chirac living on if he thinks the U.N. "alone" will have a role in post-war Iraq? After the huge expenditure of U.S. and U.K. blood and treasure on the war effort, said countries, just like that, will turn over the entire Iraq reconstruction effort to Turtle Bay technocrats and, by extension, feckless nation-states that sat the war out?

I'm not saying Washington and London shouldn't consider well conceived plans that provide the U.N. with a prominent role such as this one. [Though I think that Gareth Evans and Bob Malley may be exaggerating the degrees of anti-Americanism that would be engendered by a U.S. led interim authority swiftly handing power over to Iraqis as compared to their more U.N.-centric structure. Regardless, note that ICG's recommendation forsees significant U.S., not U.N. troop commitments, to ensure stability.]

But not, per Jacques, a role for the U.N. simply "alone." That's simply a non-starter given the U.N.'s abdication of responsibility vis-a-vis Iraq in the advent to the conflict. Further, a Bosnia redux with hapless blue helmets hopscotching about "safe havens" and the like would make a mockery regarding the seriousness of purpose the international community has regarding stemming the potential tide of revanchist killings, ensuring the territorial integrity of Iraq, and otherwise stabilizing the polity.

The George Michael of Diplomacy!

Yes readers, someone got to the Belgravia Dispatch per the following Google search: "Dominique de Villepin", "sexy". I trust this visitor (coming to us from a France-based Internet server, bien sur) might have been a bit let down by what they found regarding the dashing French FM on this modest site. We know it wasn't a regular Maureen Dowd reader who was googling for Dom hits. Were that the case, as regular Dowd readers will know, the search terms would have been "Dominique de Villepin", "svelte."

Arundhati Roy

Middlebrow novelist Arundhati Roy penned this screed right after 9/11--and is back with another opinion piece in the pages of the Guardian. She employs a moronic adolescent tone throughout much of the op-ed. Sample:

"So here's Iraq - rogue state, grave threat to world peace, paid-up member of the Axis of Evil. Here's Iraq, invaded, bombed, besieged, bullied, its sovereignty shat upon, its children killed by cancers, its people blown up on the streets. And here's all of us watching. CNN-BBC, BBC-CNN late into the night. Here's all of us, enduring the horror of the war, enduring the horror of the propaganda and enduring the slaughter of language as we know and understand it. Freedom now means mass murder (or, in the US, fried potatoes). When someone says "humanitarian aid" we automatically go looking for induced starvation. "Embedded" I have to admit, is a great find. It's what it sounds like. And what about "arsenal of tactics?" Nice!"

Another snippet: "And now this talk of bringing the UN back into the picture. But that old UN girl - it turns out that she just ain't what she was cracked up to be. She's been demoted (although she retains her high salary). Now she's the world's janitor. She's the Philippino cleaning lady, the Indian jamadarni, the postal bride from Thailand, the Mexican household help, the Jamaican au pair. She's employed to clean other peoples' shit. She's used and abused at will."

Oh, and this: "And now we have the siege of Basra. About a million and a half people, 40 per cent of them children. Without clean water, and with very little food. We're still waiting for the legendary Shia "uprising", for the happy hordes to stream out of the city and rain roses and hosannahs on the "liberating" army. Where are the hordes? Don't they know that television productions work to tight schedules? (It may well be that if Saddam's regime falls there will be dancing on the streets of Basra. But then, if the Bush regime were to fall, there would be dancing on the streets the world over.)

Surely Ms. Roy didn't see recent media coverage of local inhabitants of Basra visiting the old Baath parties' mukhabarat (secret police) headquarters in that city. They showed the hooks from which they were dangled and brutally tortured. They were, be sure, very pleased that such a brutish regime was no longer stoking terror there. Their clear feeling, contra Roy's grotesquely exagerrated diatribe, was not that mass murderers had arrived in Iraq. Rather, there was real relief that a regime that frequently resorted to mass murder had been unseated.

We likely wouldn't have had to hear all this claptrap if five judges hadn't helped provide Roy with celebrity (or, at least, Notting Hill starlet) status post-dispensation of the Booker Prize. But, alas, here we are.

UPDATE: Le Monde, predictably, dutifully translated this piece and ran it for the benefit of any Francophones who might have missed the English language version.

Yale Professoriat Think

Predictable dispatch from New Haven.

But note this wise student reaction:

"I thought that their speeches were crafted very carefully to draw whimsical chuckles from jaded leftists in the crowd," Goldenberg said. "It was long on wit, short on wisdom. It was rhetoric without content, opinion without foundation, but worst of all, it was above all an ego enhancement session for a group of smug intellectuals. In short, [it was] a session of group intellectual onanism."

Indeed.

Karbala Dispatch

Quote of the day: I love you George Bush. Well, sounds like a liberation in Karbala folks. Now the love has to last a while--the harder task--as married couples likely realize!

UPDATE: Related to my post below, note also these quotes from the article linked above: "Night and day, no water." "Hospital. No electricity, no food, no medicine."

To retain the goodwill manifested by the spontanous celebratory outbursts--humanitarian aid needs to get to places like Karbala quickly.

Field Report

I just got off the phone with Michael Kocher of the International Rescue Committee who was in southern Iraq two days ago and is now back in Kuwait City. He was among the first U.S. NGO representatives to enter Umm Qasr and surrounding areas (CNN International had a story on the trip yesterday). I've known Michael since we worked together in the Balkans in the mid-90s and highly respect his judgment. He relayed to me that the humanitarian situation in cities like Umm Qasr is somewhat difficult, though not critical or desperate. That said, he stressed that water supplies are urgently needed.

In addition, he mentioned that simple peasant families queried him about whether coalition forces were coming as liberators or occupiers. He was also shown unexploded ordnance (including cluster munitions) and queried about when the international community would remove such bombs from their land.

I didn't directly ask Michael, but by reading between the lines of what he was relaying, I got the sense that a good 50%-55% of the chillier than expected reception by Shi'a in the south could be attributed to continuing fear that Saddam loyalists, fedayeen etc. will avenge "traitorous" behavior were coalition forces were to move on leaving the population unprotected. Another 25% or so might be attributed to how quickly water supplies and other humanitarian aid gets up and running effectively. The remaining 20-25% or so could be attributed to the fears underpinning the Iraqi peasant's query, ie. why are coalition forces in Iraq? To liberate or occupy? In addition, where more civilian deaths occurred due to the allied campaign the mood appeared, predictably, more cautious regarding U.S./U.K. intentions.

The lessons are clear. Fedayeen and other Saddam loyalists must be eliminated or apprehended as expeditiously as possible. Major attention needs to be focused on ensuring rapid delivery of humanitarian aid. That takes care of the underlying causes of about 75% of the suspicion among Iraqi civilians about U.S. intentions. Then the even harder and more nuanced task(s) awaits. The U.S. will have to make all best efforts to ensure that an interim coalition administration hands power over to the Iraqis with dispatch. That said, however, a strong coalition presence will be needed to stem revanchist killings and ensure the territorial integrity of Iraq--a benign MacArthur if you will. So it's going to be a tough balancing act--and all this once the conflict is won. Remember, this is just day 18 of the war. Major tasks await both to conclude the conflict and effectively win the peace.

Syria Watch

O.K. so maybe I was wrong that Dubya has been telling Rummy to cool it recently on Syria and Iran--if the NYT got this story right.

"Shortly after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld issued a stark warning to Iran and Syria last week, declaring that any "hostile acts" they committed on behalf of Iraq might prompt severe consequences, one of President Bush's closest aides stepped into the Oval Office to warn him that his unpredictable defense secretary had just raised the specter of a broader confrontation. Mr. Bush smiled a moment at the latest example of Mr. Rumsfeld's brazenness, recalled the aide. Then he said one word — "Good" — and went back to work."

It does bear noting that Dave Sanger gets it wrong when he describes Rummy's statements as prompting 1441ish "severe consequences." I have Rummy's exact statement (and some analysis) here and, as the transcript shows, the phrase "severe consequences" wasn't used.

That said, I'm a bit alarmed by Dubya's reaction. I still think we should be handling this issue with Damascus off the public airwaves in private channels. We have an Embassy in Damascus and active diplomatic relations with that country. Colin Powell can pick up the phone and call his Syrian counterpart, Farouk Shara, anytime. Leaking to the NYT that the President, reacting to Rummy's press conference statements on Syria, simply smiled and says "good" won't go over too well in Damascus and points beyond.

Nor does it inspire much confidence that top-down policy formulation is taking place within the Beltway. Too often with this Administration, policy tortuously emerges after protracted in-fighting between the Pentagon and State Department. With major issues like this, where Rumsfeld's comment can contribute to potential regionalization of the conflict and fan suspicions among Arabs (and Iranians) that other countries are on the U.S. regime change list--we should expect that the White House has provided coordinated marching orders to both Foggy Bottom and Defense.

Instead, it appears this may be another Rummy free-lancing episode. Of course, if Syria is miscalculating and providing succor to the enemy through manpower and materiel transfers of material scope--such "shots across the bow" are likely justified. But I have to suspect we'd do better with Bashar Assad regarding having him cooperate more through concerted private diplomacy. More soon.

UPDATE: Ross Douthat over at the American Scene has a good post up on the whole Iran/Syria angle.