Disclosure of intentions would most certainly have their own effects.

Your question reminds me of the covert vs. overt policy discussion that was prominent in the Old TPM Cafe when the ISG report first came out. There were many who expressed the opinion that the report did not represent a specific plan of action so much as a series of messages intended to influence different groups. This view was expressed by both defenders and opponents of the present administration.

I reject the either/or judgment in the matter. While no executive government can be effective if it reveals everything it wants or doesn't operate outside of public channels, the other extreme leads to a vacuum where the executive is accountable for nothing and is unburdened by the need to deliver any planned result revealed to others.

In Iraq, the critical issue is becoming whether the U.S. can accept the formation of strong communities there. Whatever other purposes (and pocketbooks) it may serve, the present state of endless emergency will not permit anything like that to happen.

Any meaningful change of course has to start with turning the sirens off.

Posted at July 15, 2008 1:56 PM in response to Obama's Hagel-Brzezinski Plan for Iraq

The question of how many troops should stay in Iraq needs to be split into at least two separate questions:

What role does the U.S. presence and withdrawal play in having the Iraqi groups move toward a political solution of what otherwise will be "negotiated" through civil war?

What U.S. forces will be needed inside Iraq to "stabilize" the region both in the sense of keeping the borders of the existing countries in the same place and preventing any other nation from performing a "regime change" in Iraq?

The two questions are obviously interrelated but it is impossible to talk about the development of a policy if they can't be viewed separately. Making his observation was the primary purpose of the Iraq Study Group report.

The Cheney/Bush administration did not address that element of the report but criticized (or adopted) particular policy recommendations on the basis of whether they concerned "facts on the ground."
By refusing to acknowledge the central message of the report, the administration was admitting they were embroiled in a state of emergency that did not permit the development of policy. This paralysis of discourse has been marketed as the firm jaw of decisive leadership but it is actually the quivering lip of intellectual bankruptcy.

While I share artappraiser's desire to hear more than general statements about "national interests" from Obama, I am heartened that Obama has signaled that the U.S. is strong enough to have a policy and talk about it on the eve of his tour of foreign nations.

Posted at July 15, 2008 9:51 AM in response to Obama's Hagel-Brzezinski Plan for Iraq

Mr. Amir,
If you perform an Internet search of Mr. Baker's writings, you will find that he has given the topic some consideration.

Posted at July 14, 2008 10:03 AM in response to Bush and Congress Want to Raise Your Taxes to Help out Fannie and Freddie's Management and Shareholders

Richardxx said:

That confusion was a clear symptom of competing power groups within the administration.

Yes, the place was a free for all of competing U.S. agencies.

Learning about all the decisions that went into the change from Garner to Bremer would certainly advance understanding of the policy apparatus at that time. But that incident was part and parcel of a larger pattern where some things were being micromanaged by the administration while most of the resources responsible for carrying out tasks were completely uncoordinated.

There is something strangely defiant about the prosecution of this war. It is as if a certain group of people decided that all the emphasis placed by previous administrations upon getting all the elements of an operation to work toward a specific objective was a mistake.

Posted at March 22, 2008 5:50 PM in response to "It's Astonishing How Little Thought Was Given."

29 recommendations suggests something more than self promotion.

Maybe some glitch in the code is cloning recommendations the way Mickey got more than he asked for in the The Sorcerers Apprentice.

Posted at February 24, 2008 5:29 PM in response to Why Won't the Media Establishment Share This Hillary News?

Piotr,

Your point is well made. The money spent so far has stopped a new energy bloc from funneling the pipelines to Indian and Pakistani ports.

Actually, I shouldn't say stop, nor should you. The steps toward that alliance are still being made, bribes or no bribes.

The policy you describe is about slowing things down that can't be stopped altogether.

Posted at February 19, 2008 6:57 PM in response to Democracy in Pakistan, Despite Bush Policies

In reply to the Sixth comment of Billy Glad

He is just going to have to accept the reality that Israel (not to mention SA and other allies in the region) are not going to let him have a no conditions summit with Iran. He will extricate himself from that promise as neatly as he has extricated himself from the promise to set a date certain for withdrawing from Iraq.

If this "submission to reality" is as unavoidable as you describe it, what difference does it make if McCain or Obama is the one who submits to it?

The real question here is when Israel attacks Iran, who do you want as CIC? Obama will have to say, well, I'll figure out if that's a dumb war or not when the time comes. Clinton can say that's between Israel and Iraq and everybody else had better stand down. Obviously, the more we do to contain Iran, the less chance there is that Israel will have to do anything.

If I am following your train of thought correctly, the only way to avoid being completely dictated to by Israel is to do exactly what they want. Call me Pollyanna but I was thinking that the dues the U.S. paid to create the existing international order gave us more options than that.

Posted at February 18, 2008 5:18 PM in response to "War with Iran" rhetoric brewing again

A reply to the 1st Billy Glad comment:

When you say

Which of our candidates can keep Israel from attacking Iran?

it suggests to me that such a candidate would be the one who is willing to withdraw some of our substantial support of the state of Israel if they attack Iran without "our" consent.

The er, skepticism expressed by some that Obama is not the best U.S. president that could happen to Israel is largely based upon the expectation that someone who (as you put it) would "meet face-to-face with Ahmadinejad" is exactly the sort of President who would withdraw support if Israel acted unilaterally against Iran.

How all this diminishes or increases Obama's elect-ability is a valid question but the way you frame the issue sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Posted at February 18, 2008 2:32 PM in response to "War with Iran" rhetoric brewing again

Until things get more sophisticated in this new set up, I am going to "recommend" things only because I want to personally keep track of something happening within; (and thus using artappraiser's tip of taking advantage of the only part of our accounts that tag links).

On the old site, I only recommended a post when I thought the post itself was particularly groovy.

Software is all about working around the boulders of an applications limitations....

Posted at February 14, 2008 7:55 PM in response to Hardly Worth the Effort

You say:

You can see this in the evolution of Jewish and Christian teachings and morality through the ages, it evolves hopefully towards God.
Such evolution is impossible in Islam and thus those Sura's that are the most out of place in the modern world continue to hold force, immutable to reinterpretation.

And then you say:

Nothing is impossible in this world and there are examples, such as the sufi or the ismalis that offer hope for a peaceful coexistence between people.

The word impossible doesn't let you get to say both of these things at the same time.

Posted at February 14, 2008 7:41 PM in response to Who Are Moderate Muslims?