Friday, January 31, 2003

[12:14 PM] What exactly are those inspectors looking for in Iraq? Check out Carnegie’s new publication “Iraq; What Next?”

# posted 12:18 PM

Wednesday, January 29, 2003

[1:18 PM] Author and freelance journalist Robert Young Pelton has returned from his “stay” with right-wing Colombian guerrillas. Pelton was on assignment for National Geographic Adventure magazine when he and two companions were taken, allegedly for their own safety, by the AUC (this site is in Spanish and the link to the English version is broken) from southern Panama. Pelton gives detail of the ordeal here. I’m surprised more has not been said about this, especially on CNN for whom Pelton obtained the interview with John Walker Lindh in Afghanistan. I personally gave Pelton a 50-50 chance of coming back. As much as is reported about the left-wing guerrillas in Colombia, especially the FARC, the AUC (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia – roughly translated, the United Colombian self-defense forces) is responsible for the majority of civilian murders in Colombia.

# posted 1:23 PM

[11:58 AM] A few posts back, I commented on Michael Doran’s essay in the new Foreign Affairs. Dr. Doran emails to say that I have unfairly characterized his main argument. “My argument is not about whether we should work for a Palestinian state. I think we should. My argument is, rather, with those who believe that Palestine is a higher priority than Iraq, and who believe that our problems in the wider Arab world stem directly from our policy on Palestine. In my view, the Arab world has a problem with America -- a problem the roots of which are deep and diverse. Those who would have us believe that somehow progress on Palestine will act as a silver bullet are, therefore, sadly mistaken.”

His point is taken and is certainly the position that most of my colleagues take. I do think the hawks overestimate the threat Iraq poses. Doran writes “Is it alarmist to emphasize the danger of Iraqi counterattack on American soil? The odds may be low—perhaps as low as the odds were on September 10, 2001, that 19 Arab civilians would level the World Trade Center and tear a chunk out of the Pentagon.” But I don’t know if the odds were that low about the 9/11 attacks. And this is a bit alarmist. Iraq has some nasty weapons; but it’s just not that easy to employ them. Look at the anthrax mail attacks. They were scary but did not cause mass casualties. I think it is vitally important in considering the Iraqi threat to be realistic about weapons, weapons systems, and their capabilities. That’s certainly not that sexy, but essential.

# posted 12:02 PM

Monday, January 27, 2003

[9:33 PM] Two great piece in Slate by Fred Kaplan echoing some ideas about the rush to war with Iraq that I’ve been saying (obviously Kaplan reads the Fields Report). Here are the money lines for both pieces

So, at home and abroad, it is no longer enough for Team Bush to bang the gavel, pronounce guilt, and send in the Marines. Secrecy is necessary to protect intelligence sources and military tactics. But nobody deliberately embarks on war for reasons that are too sensitive to discuss. If Bush has reasons, it's time to lay them out.


And from today’s Slate regarding Han Blix at the U.N. today

This has been said before, but Blix's testimony today makes the point more valid and urgent, not less so: If President Bush has information that substantively justifies going to war against Iraq (and he may, he may), then it's time to come out with it.

Don’t expect any of that substantive justification in Tuesday’s speech.

# posted 9:34 PM

Saturday, January 25, 2003

[11:34 AM] Just a quick thought which I will explore in greater detail later. One of the fundamental tenets in successful negotiations is to allow your opponent a way to save face when you know that you have the upper hand and will likely prevail the “winner.” This idea is completely lost on the Bush administration both with regards to North Korea and Iraq. North Korea is obviously expressing a desire for a face-saving way out of this mess. But the Bushies won’t throw 'ema bone. The Iraq case is a tad more subtle. If Saddam is indeed holding out, who would want to cave in to the fierce, moralistic rhetoric that Bush spews most days.

Here is some good and related reading from yesterday’s NYT

"Much of it is the way he talks, this provocative manner, the jabbing of his finger at you," said Hans-Ulrich Klose, the vice chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the German Parliament. "It's Texas, a culture that is unfamiliar to Germans. And it's the religious tenor of his arguments."

One would think that the administration would have learned this lesson and temper the “finger jabbing.” But since they haven’t it’s no wonder the idea of leaving your opponent a way to save face is lost on them. More later.

# posted 11:35 AM

Wednesday, January 22, 2003

[9:16 PM] Why We Know Iraq Is Lying. Condoleezza Rice is going to educate us. Iraq hasn’t given a full declaration of its weapons of mass destruction nor answered lingering questions left over from UNSCOM. So how do we know Iraq is lying? Well, you won’t find out from Rice’s op-ed. It’s 905 words of “Iraq is so evil. They won’t cooperate;” the same bland rhetoric her top student of foreign policy uses (and she's a lot smarter--so what are we to conclude about the missing evidence?).

Is Iraq lying and concealing WMD or an active WMD program? Maybe. Or probably if you like. But it seems that the Bush administration can’t find that smoking gun. So they’ve resorted to implying that they have the smoking gun—but they won’t show it to us. That tactic is insultingly transparent. But to give the Bushies the benefit of the doubt, the only argument I can see, is not revealing the goods to protect sources. So one would think that facing the opposition that they are from the French and Germans (and if they have any regard for Tony Blair’s domestic standing), they would find a way to reveal something that resembles evidence without compromising said sources. Of course all of that assumes that the alleged smoking gun actually is in the hands of the administration.

This is another snow job by the administration, akin to their still unproven assertion that there is a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. And it’s obvious. Condoleezza Rice purposes to tell us how we know Iraq is lying and does nothing of the sort. “Many questions remain about Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and arsenal — and it is Iraq's obligation to provide answers,” she writes. Questions remain? I thought she was going to tell us “Why We Know Iraq Is Lying.” (okay, I’ll grant the slim possibility that the Times editorial page editor inserted the headline over that provided by the president’s National Security Adviser)

The U.S. is ready to go to war with or without a U.N. resolution. Okay. At least show us the smoking gun that you keep saying you have. You do have that smoking gun Mr. Bush, right?

# posted 9:18 PM

[1:52 PM] Generally I like Thomas Friedman’s writing. He has great insight into Arab politics. The one complaint I have, and it seems to manifest itself in about every third article, is his faulty logic. Usually it stems from his opening anecdote which he tries to use as a vehicle for the rest of the article. Many times it just doesn’t work, but you’ve probably forgotten it by the time you finish the essay.

Today’s topic is why things won’t be so bad without Saddam Hussein. Friedman writes “What liberals fail to recognize is that regime change in Iraq is not some distraction from the war on Al Qaeda. That is a bogus argument.” But he never backs this up or explains how the administration won’t be distracted.

“Regime transformation in Iraq could make a valuable contribution to the war on terrorism, whether Saddam is ousted or enticed into exile…If we don't help transform these Arab states — which are also experiencing population explosions — to create better governance, to build more open and productive economies, to empower their women and to develop responsible media that won't blame all their ills on others, we will never begin to see the political, educational and religious reformations they need to shrink their output of undeterrables.”

All of that may be true, but it doesn’t explain how the Bush administration won’t be distracted from the war on terrorism. Transforming Arab states may “shrink their output of undeterrables” but that hardly catches Usama Bin Laden or any of the al-Qaida network. In essence, Friedman is doing what the Bush administration has—transform the war on terrorism into something else that they’d rather talk about. With Bushies, it’s Iraq. With Friedman, its liberal democracy in the Arab world. Neither discussion will stop a truck full of explosives or a shoulder-fired Stinger missile.

I take Friedman’s point, but as I mentioned, he too many times uses a throwaway, illogical rationale to begin his argument.

# posted 1:56 PM

Tuesday, January 21, 2003

[4:55 PM] Remarks by George W. Bush today at the White House

Q Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. The French are saying they would block a U.N. resolution authorizing force on Iraq. Are you frustrated by these comments? Can you still reach a consensus?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Adam, first of all, it's important for the American citizens and the citizens around the world to understand that Saddam Hussein possesses some of the world's deadliest weapons. He poses a serious threat to America and our friends and allies. The world came together, including the French, to say he must disarm. He's not disarming. As a matter of fact, it appears to be a rerun of a bad movie. He is delaying, he is deceiving, he is asking for time. He's playing hide-and-seek with inspectors.

WRONG. This is the central issue in the hawks versus doves debate that many on both sides have incorrect. Say what you will about Saddam Hussein and his history of aggression and human rights abuses. The record speaks for itself. He is a brutal dictator. However, it is simply incorrect to assert that he poses a “serious threat to America.” He simply militarily does not. This is a tough one to debate, not because the facts are disputable, but because it’s not sexy and doesn’t fit into neat 20 second sound bites on Chris Matthews. Saddam has no delivery systems capable of striking the United States and has no nuclear weapons. And it’s worth remembering that although it was close, Iraq still did not have a workable weapon before the Gulf War. The only leg Bush might possibly have to stand on is his lame contention that Saddam could give WMD technology to terrorists like Usama Bin Laden. But that ignores (and again is not a sexy fear-raising discussion fit for television punditry) the history of Saddam’s hatred for Islamic fundamentalists.

It’s a shame that this debate doesn’t get put into proper perspective. It generally gets reduced to ideology, which allows either side to claim the moral high ground. But the debate shouldn’t even reach that level if we take a minute to carefully examine the presumptions.

# posted 4:59 PM

[10:27 AM] Seymour Hersh writing in the New Yorker reports that the CIA discovered evidence that Pakistan had been sharing nuclear weapon technology with North Korea since 1997. The CIA issued a detailed, classified report which the administration did not share with many, including its own nonproliferation people. The article has some great quotes from intelligence sources as well as former Clinton administration people. Overall, it again is another scathing account of the administration’s perplexing inability to develop a North Korea policy. The Pakistan angle though is left tantalizingly unexplored. Hersh quotes an American nonproliferation expert as saying “If we're incinerated next week, it'll be because of H.E.U. (highly enriched uranium) that was given to Al Qaeda by Pakistan.” That’s a bold statement (and I think exaggerated), but we’re left to chew on it in the article. More on the Pakistani angle later.

# posted 10:31 AM

Monday, January 20, 2003

[2:58 PM] I’ve asked this question before: what happens if “Mr. Saddam Hussein” (what’s up with Bush referring to him this way?) listens to the administration’s bluster and says “you know what, here are the keys to our WMD program. We give up. We can’t fool you guys any more.”? What then? Do you let Saddam off the hook? More importantly, what happens with U.N. sanctions? If they’re lifted, would not the oil revenue return that would allow Saddam Hussein to reconstitute from “scratch” any dismantled weapons programs? After all, all the knowledge and experience is already there.

Can you bet on this outcome? This is where Fields Report would put his money. Take Saddam and the points.

# posted 3:00 PM

Tuesday, January 14, 2003

[3:09 PM] In a previous post I recommend the essay “An Unnecessary War,” in the current Foreign Policy. To read a more extensive version of the article click here.


# posted 3:13 PM

Monday, January 13, 2003

[10:32 PM] We don’t negotiate with terrorists. And we can’t be blackmailed by North Korea into negotiating their nuclear status. The rationale behind these doctrines is that favored slippery slope fear that the United States has in so many policy issues. If we do it this one time…

Nicholas Kristoff says we need to grit our teeth and give in and negotiate with the DPRK. In the end, the more the regime opens up, the quicker its demise, he argues.

The primary reasoning behind not giving in to “blackmail” rests primarily on the premise that it sets a bad precedent and thus will be likely to happen again in the future. But this isn’t necessarily true for a superpower like the U.S. Sure it may look weak in the very short run, but that is not a true portrait. This would be rewarding proliferation, so the argument would go. What will stop Iran from trying the same tactic? The easy answer is Iran is completely different. They do not possess any nuclear weapons and its domestic political dynamic is completely different than the DPRK. Iran is simply a placeholder for the next North Korea opportunist.

The point is that “giving in”/negotiating in instances like this can’t weaken the power the U.S. inherently possesses. This administration, with its newfound penchant for preemptive and unilateral action should be especially cognizant of this dynamic. If the U.S. negotiates with the DPRK and subsequently faces a burgeoning proliferation threat that wants to point to the North Korea example as why they should be left alone or negotiated with, this administration should simply use the same “Iraq is different from North Korea” logic and deal with the immediate threat removed from the North Korea example.

But even contemplating consequences for precedents set by negotiating with North Korea is not necessary. Here’s an analogy. If a mafia family controls a certain region of a city or state, that doesn’t necessarily prevent a wannabe opportunist from sticking up a lone wiseguy from the controlling family at any given time on some isolated street. If the wiseguy gives up his wallet, watch, etc., has he weakened his family’s position in the neighborhood? Of course not; and everyone still knows, if you continue to play with fire you’ll get burned. And the big boys on the block have ability to do a lot more than “burn” you should you get any ideas of repeating the stickup.

Besides, in the stickup analogy, the stickup kid wants something fleeting in the short run. North Korea’s goal is not the stickup, but something a lot more benign. They just have a different way of showing it. The U.S. by negotiating is not actually giving up anything and still retains the power to punish future proliferators as well as still being the ruling family of north Jersey, er, you know what I mean.

In the final analysis, is the goal nonproliferation or chest-thumping projections of power? What did Teddy Roosevelt say?

# posted 10:33 PM

Sunday, January 12, 2003

[4:58 PM]A while back I suggested Negotiating on the Edgethat perhaps the Bushies’ North Korea point people ought to read this book.

One of the book’s continuing themes is that the North Koreans are from wacky, crazy, or irrational. In fact the author contends that they are quite predictable in their negotiating behavior, but a general lack of understanding of North Korean history and culture. Here are excerpts

Contrary to the views of many external observers who evaluate North Korean behavior on the basis of their own expectations, North Korea’s approach to negotiations is not characterized by “irrationality” or craziness but rather is highly regularized and internally consistent.

Counterstrategies for Managing a Negotiation with the DPRK
Past Negotiations with North Korea offera number of lessons about how best to respond to North Korean negotiating strategies and tactics.


Be aware of the stages in the “drama,” or ritual of negotiations and the importance of “atmosphere” in determining North Korean negotiating moves.

Don’t confuse North Korea’s rhetoric with its reality. Some rhetoric designed to show toughness may include an invitation to come to the negotiating table—for instance, the DPRK announced that it would continue missile exports unless the United States was willing to provide compensation for not doing so.


It’s amazing how badly the Bush administration is playing this crisis, especially, as the author points out, with past experience as a guide. But perhaps the most perplexing contention coming from pundit and administration officials is one that characterizes Kim Jong Il as crazy (or Saddam Hussein for that matter). Analyst Kongdan Oh debunks this as well in an interview in Salon. Analysts are putting the information and analysis out there; when will the administration crack a book?

# posted 5:00 PM

Thursday, January 09, 2003

[10:13 AM] Read the CIA’s new Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, 1 July Through 31 December 2001. Interestingly and predictably, the Axis of Evil member with the most ominous assessment, is the one the Bush administration goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid discussing—Iran.

# posted 10:16 AM

Tuesday, January 07, 2003

[11:05 AM] This Miami Herald article finds the Bush administration losing focus and floundering in Latin America. “Part of the reason behind these problems is that the Bush administration is focused almost exclusively on the war against terrorism.” Maybe Latin America should be a low priority because of the war on terrorism. But every day that North Korea won’t go away and the Bushies won’t get a North Korea policy, while determined to go to war with Iraq, makes it more believable that despite its assurances, the White House can’t focus on more than one problem, let alone more than one crisis.

# posted 11:08 AM

Monday, January 06, 2003

[10:50 AM] President Bush issued a statement Saturday condemning the latest suicide attack in Israel, which killed 23 people. “The United States is determined to continue the global fight against terrorism and against the terrorist organizations that conduct operations such as the murders in Israel today,” the president said in his statement. Last week 12 people including eight civilians and 3 soldiers were killed by the Colombian rebel group the FARC, which appears on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. No condemnation was forthcoming from the White House after those attacks in Colombia. One shouldn’t be cynical and naïve; Israel presents greater strategic interests than Colombia, but it’s the president who after the September 11th attacks declared “war on every terrorist group of global reach.” William Saletan in Slate implies that the administration intentionally tacked on “global reach” to avoid actually having to fight a war on terrorism and not simply a war on al-Qaida. So does this mean that the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade has “global reach”? Of course not, and neither does the FARC. So why no mention of any of the almost daily attacks that occur in Colombia? Cynical not naïve. It’s reassuring that even the killing of innocents is not free from politics. Note: Don't forget about Colombia. This site provides up to date news in Spanish and English about the conflict which kills around 3,000 per year (last year saw 92 massacres in the first 10 months alone).

# posted 10:55 AM

Wednesday, January 01, 2003

[3:04 PM] Read a great essay in the new Foreign Policy refuting most of the arguments for going to war with Iraq and why Saddam Hussein cannot be deterred or contained. Here’s an excerpt:

The belief that Saddam’s past behavior shows he cannot be contained rests on distorted history and faulty logic. In fact, the historical record shows that the United States can contain Iraq effectively—even if Saddam has nuclear weapons—just as it contained the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Regardless of whether Iraq complies with U.N. inspections or what the inspectors find, the campaign to wage war against Iraq rests on a flimsy foundation.

# posted 3:07 PM

[2:56 PM] Warren Christopher makes several good points in his op-ed “Iraq Belongs on the Back Burner” in yesterday’s NYT. “[T]he decision to start a war, especially a pre-emptive war, requires a vision wider than the sole question of whether a favorable outcome is possible or likely,” Christopher writes arguing that no administration could focus properly on Iraq, al-Qaida, and North Korea (or Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian situation). “Washington is chronically unable to deal with more than one crisis at a time,” he asserts. He is certainly correct and it’s sobering and refreshing to hear that from a Washington insider and former secretary of state. Of course the operative word in all of that is vision, which not surprisingly, the president knowing nothing of foreign policy, lacks. That's not a cheap shot or piling on, but simple reality.

# posted 2:59 PM