David Seaton is correct, I think, that Richardson and Biden are the leading foreign policy hands among the Democrats, although Hillary Clinton knows her stuff as well. She visited Central Asia when I lived there, and if she was well-versed in that arcane region, which she was, I think she can handle the more front-burner issues.

I also agree that Huckabee is a quick study. I heard him speak in Dallas, and he can pick up what he needs to know. But the questions on how he navigates once he's briefed are, as William Hartung suggests, serious indeed. Some of his personal stances -- on science for example -- are worrying if he intends to extend ideological thinking into foreign policy as the current administration has done.

Steve LeVine, author
The Oil and the Glory
http://www.oilandglory.com

Posted at January 4, 2008 12:46 PM in response to On Foreign Policy, At Least Two Huckabees

The debate seems to have fractured as it progressed. The initial remarks seem to me the most reasonable -- support Pakistan and the electoral process, reject the Lord Jim attitude of the column writer, and recognize that in the end Pakistanis will decide how to lower the temperature, and who will dominate the new Parliament. After having lived there and watched it for almost two decades, I find that one of the most irritating suggestions out there is that Pakistan has a thin bench. On the contrary, its professional, judicial, banking and business sectors are replete with world-class players. The system works against them filtering into politics -- the former prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, was an exception -- and that's where Musharraf could truly do some good.

It also would be great if Nawaz Sharif would calm the rhetoric.

Steve LeVine, author
The Oil and the Glory
http://www.oilandglory.com

Posted at December 29, 2007 5:03 PM in response to Musharraf Regime, R.I.P.

Right, and then if you've got high ground on one topic, it's possible to carry over into others. That's true. Being a worry wart, I recall how strong the case seemed, how industry reform was regarded as inevitable, during the Clinton administration, but then ... well you know what happened.

A strong editorial as usual by the Times. In the calm of future years, his record will be much more dispassionately evaluated.

http://www.oilandglory.com

Posted at December 26, 2007 7:30 PM in response to Best and Worst of 2007, Economic Policy Version

Jared, I think socialdem41 is right in the sense that, even if only the attainment of good, and not great, is politically possible at the moment. That's because one must first burst through the prevailing wisdoms that, in its actual voting (versus campaign stump rhetoric), Congress has accepted as articles of faith (that reversion to former tax rates amounts to tax "hikes"; that the ultimate measuring stick for Kyoto is its economic impact; that revenue-neutral spending is a Trojan Horse for "tax hikes," and so on).

Big ideas are king in terms of capturing the imagination, the political high ground, and the initiative in the execution of power.

Regarding your previous on bubbles -- I think that if banks are not bailed out and are made to pay for their incredible blundering, that would provide quite a precedent for future bubble- inflaters. As for government regulation, is there a fits-all-sizes notion for how this would be managed, or would government have to act individually as bubbles arose?

http://www.oilandglory.com

Posted at December 26, 2007 12:43 PM in response to Best and Worst of 2007, Economic Policy Version

Bubbles are a fact of the human race, and greed is not Democratic or Republican. People see their neighbors making a quick buck and want in. There's no governing the instinct for earning a bundle without having to do the time.

There was fair warning in the news columns and in new books on the Internet and housing bubbles. I saw it regularly in my former paper, The Wall Street Journal, for instance. The question is who should pay for the race's incurable habit of falling for the latest in tulips.

Steve LeVine, author
The Oil and the Glory
http://www.oilandglory.com

Posted at December 25, 2007 6:46 AM in response to Best and Worst of 2007, Economic Policy Version

Hi Steve, as Dan K writes it's not clear why one needs to idolize Sheurer. Yet Valdron's case is well-taken as well -- even a lunatic can have a point now and then.

A case in point is Sheurer's criticism of the failure to secure the Soviet nuclear stockpile and braintrust for the last several years. It's baffling why this is seen by some parts of the U.S. as a white elephant.

Steve LeVine, author
The Oil and the Glory (Random House)
http://www.oilandglory.com

Posted at December 16, 2007 8:29 AM in response to Former CIA Bin Laden Hunter Says A Neglectful Congress & Executive Should Be TIME's Persons of the Year

Ours must be the only country in the world where you cannot get elected president if you're a pompous jerk.

In his 2000 campaign, Gore was forever being vilified for this malady. When talk arose of him possibly running next year, the supposed death blow -- that he's a pompous jerk -- raised its ugly head again.

Over half the country voted for Gore despite his pompous jerkiness. It was not a deal killer for this majority that he is a wooden speaker, either.

If we were all judged on our personalities, after all, few of us would have jobs.

Steve LeVine, author
The Oil and the Glory (Random House)
http://www.oilandglory.com

Posted at December 15, 2007 2:38 PM in response to Jack the Name-Caller

Hi Dan, in general the Shiite states make the Sunni majority Gulf states nervous. While we may not ourselves obsess in conspiracies, the region has no shortage of it, so emerging petro-power in Iran and Iraq can't ease them. That said, I think that the main answer in this case is right on the surface -- the difference between a nuclear-power hegemon and a nuclear-armed hegemon is considerable, and they know that. Best, Steve

Posted at December 13, 2007 1:55 PM in response to Thomas Friedman's Flawed Analogy on Iran

Hi William, as with almost all analogies, Friedman's cannot be taken to the bank from every angle, in every detail. That's why it's almost always a mistake for a writer to use one. But I think your column goes a bit far in dismissing Friedman's main point, which is that, whether or not Iran is currently making a bomb, it is enriching uranium, and that's troubling to its neighbors with whom Friedman has been meeting at a conference in Bahrain.

Friedman's interlocutors, and he himself, do not take exception to what's contained in the NIE, but with its top line. Whether you find that objectionable, it's apparently what these people genuinely think. And it seems to me that they have a plausible case that U.S. leverage is reduced; it's certainly not a silly inference.

Few side with Bush's and Cheney's persistent saber-rattling. However, I too have been troubled by the abrupt succession of intelligence reports. If the prior reports were extremist in their alarmism, the latest NIE is jarring in going the other way. It makes me think it may be best to absorb the data, but be cautious in our own policy.

Your last message -- that the NIE should be a building block for more reasonable diplomacy -- is the take-away line from the column. Thanks for that.

Steve LeVine, author
The Oil and the Glory (Random House)
http://www.oilandglory.com

Posted at December 12, 2007 10:16 AM in response to Thomas Friedman's Flawed Analogy on Iran