Do you get a kickback for each new subscriber? :)

Well, I'd comment if I could see it, but it's available only to TNR subscribers.

Well, I'd comment if I could see it, but it's available only to TNR subscribers.

So--judging from the 2x4 illustration that TNR has graciously provided us--if Bush gets re-elected the Powers Behind the Throne will be the all-Americans Rummy and Condi? But if Kerry gets elected he *may* [inserting requisite academic qualifier] prove to be a dupe of the International Frog Conspiracy? OK, OK--it's a reasonable and well-informed analysis for people who think seriously about the public-policy issues resulting from trying to encourage democracy in places that we all agree desperately need it. I, for one, learned a lot from the TNR piece, as I always do from your pieces. But couldn't you have come up with an AMERICAN "hidden actor" for the lower-left-hand quadrant of your 2x4? I can see the RNC ads now . . . .

"if Bush gets re-elected the Powers Behind the Throne will be the all-Americans Rummy and Condi"

Was this in the article(I didn't read it becuase I am not a subscriber)? I thought that Condi was not planning to be a part of a second Bush term? I can't remember the source of this... maybe it is just rumor.

Drezner writes: "In one corner, you have the multilateralist democracy-builders--these are folks who might have supported the idealistic intent behind the Iraq invasion, but who would have, at minimum, wanted U.N. backing." We are not multilateralists; we are bilateralists. We don't need UN support; we need NATO support. Remember: we invaded Kosovo without UN support.

The other issue: the piece ducks the key question, is Cheney a neocon or a realist? Leading up to the invasion I put him in the Rumsfeld corner, but it's hard to believe the post-war turn towards wildly idealist democratic transformation in the Middle East could go forward without Cheney support.

“Had Al Gore been elected in 2000, he almost certainly would have invaded Afghanistan in 2001”

I doubt this very much. Al Gore would have talked about it for at least another year. His Hamlet styled administration would have likely listened seriously to all of the nay sayers who warned of Armageddon. Would he have invaded in 2002? That’s not even a sure bet.

“ The main similarity between Kerry and Bush post-9/11 is that both profess an idealistic faith in the value of democratic nation-building"

Idealistic faith? We don’t have a valid alternative. The only way to ultimately defeat Mid Eastern related terrorism is to change the culture. Invading Iraq is not a diversion---but an unavoidable necessity.

“In one corner, you have the multilateralist democracy-builders--these are folks who might have supported the idealistic intent behind the Iraq invasion, but who would have, at minimum, wanted U.N. backing. Kerry falls into this category.”

Anyone who believes the fantasy that the United Nations is a moral and effective organization is too dumb to be President of the United States. At best, we cautiously cooperate, when we can, with this group of fools.

“one suspects that Karl Rove is equally frustrated with the neocons for the failure of postwar Iraq to meet prewar expectations.”

Excuse me, but somebody needs a reality check. The Turkey government refused to allow the coalition troops to invade from the North. Almost certainly, the Pressure exerted by the Old Europeans was greatly responsible for this outrageous lack of cooperation. We therefore had to alter our original plans. Many of the deaths today result from the betrayal of the Old Europeans. This is why should continue to hold them in contempt.

“European elites are skeptical that even a concerted effort will lead to genuine transformation in the Middle East anytime soon.”

I think that I’m going to have a mental breakdown. This sentence needs to be changed a little bit:

“European elites are intellectually skeptical that even a concerted effort will lead to genuine transformation in the Middle East anytime soon---because they are so soft, lazy, and selfish. Anything requiring sacrifice is too high of a price to pay.”

“Europeans would no doubt pressure Kerry to impose a solution on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute...”

Yeah, and I can impose a solution on the rivalry between the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees. The premise of these Old Europeans fools is that Israel needs to make further concessions. This is nutty because the Palestinian militants will not settle for anything less than the Jews total removal from the region. It is outrageous to even hint that the latter are somehow equally guilty for the ongoing carnage. Did you wish to bring peace to the region? In that case, one must kill and jail all of the Palestinian true believing nihilists. Nothing less will accomplish this most laudable goal.

"Nothing less will accomplish this most laudable goal."

Let's try this instead:

"Nothing less will resolve this most laudable goal."

"Well, I'd comment if I could see it, but it's available only to TNR subscribers."

The online TNR edition only costs around $20 a year. We elite snobs don't hesitate to pay this small amount. It gives us the right to condescendingly look down on the unwashed hoi polloi.

If I were talking about constraints on the next administration the first thing I'd mention would not be a guess as to what John Kerry would have done after 9/11.

I'm not sure Dan's is even a very good guess. We are after all talking about Bush administration actions with respect to Afghanistan and terrorism on which John Kerry was not consulted. He didn't really take a leadership role in what Congressional response there was to 9/11, either.

This is not to argue that Kerry would have done worse (or better) than Bush after 9/11, an essentially meaningless point. I mean to suggest that an element of mystery exists as to how a Kerry administration would handle foreign and national security policy.

The obvious constraints on any new administration would exist for him as well -- those being the finite ability of any new President to change what previous administrations have done even if he wants to. A Kerry administration would not bring back the Comanche or act as though the Iraq invasion had never happened, and more than Bush's administration abandoned its predecessor's commitment to the Balkans. But the course he would chart is unclear not only because he has never run foreign policy before but also because his likely Cabinet officers and other senior appointees have not made clear how their own thinking has changed since 9/11. Many of them, after all, held posts in a Clinton administration whose policy on terrorism clearly failed, and they have scarcely even acknowledged the fact of its failure, let alone been clear on what parts of it they now think were wrong and what they would now do differently.

A campaign will not fully resolve the mystery, because any administration will make foreign policy, to some extent, in response to events rather than as part of a pre-election strategy. But it is the one opportunity we do have to question John Kerry on the kind of foreign policy he would run, and on how different he thinks his foreign policy would be from George Bush's.

“This is not to argue that Kerry would have done worse (or better) than Bush after 9/11, an essentially meaningless point. I mean to suggest that an element of mystery exists as to how a Kerry administration would handle foreign and national security policy. “

Yeah, and there’s an element of mystery as how we would handle ourselves in the low post against Yao Ming. It appears that someone has been trained in postmodernist reasoning. Let’s get serious. John Kerry is a proven policy wimp. He may have been a brave man in Viet Nam, but his behaviour during a long political career strongly suggests that the Massachusetts senator would be weak kneed and allow the Old Europeans to push him around. We must never forget that Kerry was also disastrously wrong about the Cold War. Thank God that Ronald Reagan didn’t listen to him. He is instinctively a pacifist who will find every excuse not to employ the U.S. military. I also strongly contend that Senator Kerry feels that the Old Europeans truly represent the ideals of Western Civilization; the United States is too capitalist and militaristic. We are a second best nation.

Dan, how does your theoretical "Grand Bargain" in the hypothetical Kerry Administration differ from the current American pressure/Sharon unilateral withdrawal currently occurring as we speak? In the context of a post-election timeframe, it seems less a proposal than an acknowledgment of the situation on the ground, barring anything excessively interesting occurring between now and then.

From John Kerry's campaign papers:

“We now know that the Administration went to war without a thorough plan to win the peace” he (John Kerry) said in recent remarks on Capitol Hill. “It is time to face that truth and to change course—to share the post-war burden internationally—for the sake of our country, for our standing in the world, and most of all for the young Americans in uniform.”

Please note the emphasis on “thorough plan.” How is this to be interpreted in the real world? I think it it’s very fair, reading John Kerry’s own words and looking at his voting record, to conclude that he would be sitting around twiddling his thumbs while Rome burns. Moreover, it morally and logically despicable that Kerry pretends the Old Europeans truly wanted to do the right thing on Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. He is an utter fool. And that’s the nicest thing you say on Kerry’s behalf.

David Thompson says:

The only way to
ultimately defeat Mid Eastern related terrorism is to change the
culture. Invading Iraq is not a diversion---but an unavoidable
necessity.

You're making quite a pair of assumptions that 1) the invasion will definitely result in democracy and 2) that this will reduce terrorism.

History's not so clear. cf. successful imposition of democracy (Germany and Japan 1950's), vs failed (Haiti, Liberia, or half a dozen spots in Latin America). Iraq may yet fall into the successful category, but the case for guaranteed success, is wobbly at best.

Meanwhile, scores of authoritarian rules have fallen in favor of democracy and/or independence with no invasion or even revolution necessary (cf. USSR, Otpor vs. Milosevic, Ghandi vs. British Empire, at least 50 others). The historical case that invasion is necessary to produce democracy you is extraordinarily shaky.

Turkey refused to allow ... the Pressure exerted by the Old Europeans ... Many of the deaths [in Iraq] today result from the betrayal of the Old Europeans.

Iraq's army evaporated in sometimes some people resist invasions. If someone invaded the US, even to get rid of a dictator we didn't like, how many partisans would fight the occupation?

Yes, it's a mess; wars are and you have to expect costs. Of course, pretending that's not so gives you something to blame on the French, which I'm sure makes you feel better.

This is nutty because the Palestinian militants will not settle for anything less than the Jews total removal from the region.

This is ludicrous. The most hardcore factions of Hamas won't settle for anything less, just as the most hardcore factions of Likud won't settle for less than the complete elimination of Palestine. But there's a huge moderate class on both sides.

The Israeli moderate class votes hardline when they're being bombed daily. This is no surprise. The Palestinian moderates support Hamas when they have no jobs and can't get mom to the hospital b/c of curfew at gunpoint. This is also no surprise.

On both sides, if the population didn't feel so pressed the hardliners wouldn't have much support. Palestinian public attitudes are more extreme than Israelis'. They are also a 3rd world people next to a prosperous 1st-world nation, so this is no surprise. The most prosperous Muslim areas - Turkey and Dubai - are significantly less inclined to violence.

Cycles of violence are not rocket science. The hardliners on both sides keep reigniting it by engaging in suicide bombings (Palestinian) and pushing settlements (Israeli).

The only real sticking point for the moderates on both sides is the Old City.

-Ev

P.S. Before you shout that the settlements are not on par with suicide bombings, look at a map of their distribution within Palestinian territories. They are not on the border, they are almost even throughout. If they rooted and grew, it would mean the defacto complete elimination of Palestine. The hardliners who push for them are using their own citizens in a fully contemplated act of war that merely appears more benign than because there's no sudden explosion to make the news.

Make no mistake: I fully support Israel's right to exist and have zero sympathy for suicide terrorists. But economically enticing your own people to displace your enemy via "settlements" in the heart of their lands is no less sick an act of aggression.

Shrug,

DT has made a lot of predictions that didn't pan out. (Dean's capture of the Democratic ticket - I was on the ground and volunteering for Dean's campaign and all I reported and saw was mo for Kerry and Edwards.) He's called stating that anyone associated with Harvard being an intellectual sl*t was a cautious and nuanced PoV. He's accused the oldman of being a liar or a fool with regards to unemployment numbers, and then shut up afterwards when facts were presented clearly.

To add to this, he stated last fall that by March - yes that's the month that today is the last day of - that Americans would be proud of what we were doing in Iraq. Now I see a lot of grit about seeing it through, but except for unrealistic boosters I don't think anyone thinks that Iraq is going real great.

In fact, Fred Barnes one word assessment from Iraq while he was there to Fox News was "sobering" and by his own admission he'd been quite optimistic before.

So chalk up the above DT predictions to more wild hair up his arse speculations that DT has no intention of ever backing up, or defending, if those predictions inconveniently shouldn't match reality.

He'll just go blithely on, never questioning if the reason why he get's so many calls wrong might indicate something is wrong with his analysis style.

Of course, it's ironic that when the oldman suggested that intel analysts have a track record kept of their performances DT also opposed that as "unrealistic". I guess I could see why, seeing as applying the same standard to his own prognostications would give him a failing grade.

oldman

Lighten up. :) DT is part of the entertainment. Looks like his friends in the "liberal media" at CNN helped the WH fisk Letterman.

PS No mention of "Old Europeans" however.

“To add to this, he stated last fall that by March - yes that's the month that today is the last day of - that Americans would be proud of what we were doing in Iraq.”

Oh really, here the numbers from the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll:

"All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?"
Wording, 6/03-12/03: "All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not?"
Wording prior to 6/03: "All in all, do you think the current situation in Iraq is worth going to war over, or not?"
Worth
Going
To War Not Worth
Going
To War No
Opinion
% % %
3/26-28/04 56 41 3

56% of Americans believe the Iraqi war is worth it. What were you saying?

“You're making quite a pair of assumptions that 1) the invasion will definitely result in democracy and 2) that this will reduce terrorism.”

You are obviously not a careful reader. I said we have no choice but to try to promote democracy in the Middle East. We do not have an option. Where did I say that we will certainly win? And yes, this is the only way that we can ultimately defeat Muslim related terrorism. The culture of reactionary Islamic rage, self pity, and scapegoating must be changed. We must help the moderate Muslims to defeat the true believing nihilists.

“Cycles of violence are not rocket science. The hardliners on both sides keep reigniting it by engaging in suicide bombings (Palestinian) and pushing settlements (Israeli).”

“But economically enticing your own people to displace your enemy via "settlements" in the heart of their lands is no less sick an act of aggression.”

When is the last time a hard-liner Israeli turned themselves into a human bomb? How many right wing Jews murder women and children? The settlements is an issue that is greatly exaggerated. What about the Arabs living in Israel? Should the Jews kick them out? Why are the Arabs so upset by a few Jewish settlers living among them? I will tell you why: they are racist anti-Semites.

“DT has made a lot of predictions that didn't pan out. (Dean's capture of the Democratic ticket...”

My prediction on Howard Dean’s campaign was premised upon the reported $40-50 million dollars he was suppose to have in his bank account. It stunned everyone when we found out Dean was actually broke! John Edwards may very well be the nominee. What about John Kerry? He has to be hidden from the American people. Kerry does best when others are slamming President Bush. He comes across as a New England liberal snob. Kerry has the personality of a week old dead fish. President Bush is currently leading slightly in the polls. I expect that lead to widen to a firm 6-8 point lead, maybe more. The Democrats should be desperate by convention time.

“He's called stating that anyone associated with Harvard being an intellectual sl*t”

I did no such thing. However, I did indeed say that many Harvard graduates are intellectual sluts. The irony is that the school’s high standards inevitably attracts the very ambitious. This sort of individual often puts their wet finger into the air to see which way the wind blows. I totally agree with Bill Buckley that it is better to be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard.

However, I did indeed say that many Harvard graduates are intellectual sluts. The irony is that the school’s high standards inevitably attracts the very ambitious. This sort of individual often puts their wet finger into the air to see which way the wind blows. I totally agree with Bill Buckley that it is better to be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard.

President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975.

ps. Intellectual slut to Straussian elitists

DT,

Those numbers are misleading for two reasons. (i) public support for Iraq has been wobbling and dropping for months. You're coming off the high not getting on it. (ii) You're conflating "worth it" with "proud of it,".

I don't think Americans were exactly proud of the way we haven't found WMD, and they aren't exactly proud of the Fallujah style welcoming committee those Americans got the other idea.

What do you expect? Of course people aren't ready to write off Iraq yet, which is what saying it "wasn't worth it" would mean. If almost half the people in the United States are saying already that it wasn't worth it, then what that really means is that the United States is about ready to bail out on Iraq.

And I see that on both sides of the spectrum. The right-wingers want to pump up the successes, declare victory, and slink on out quietly. The leftists want to throw it in the UN's lap, declare defeat, and go squealing back with their tails between their legs. And the idjit neo-cons and neo-liberals are still convinced that nothing is wrong whatsover.

And no, DT, you specifically said that anyone associated with Harvard merited that designation. I would remind you that your words are preserved in the archives here, and this is a matter of fact, and not opinion. You said anyone associated with.

That your memory is performing these little post-operative memory switches in order to minimize your culpability doesn't do wonders for the credibility of your observations.

Americans may not be quite ready to cut and run, but it's getting dangerously close to an insurrection or mutiny on the topic.

“Divide foreign-policy thought into four quadrants. Note Bush and Kerry's positions. Account for the hidden influence of the other two squares. Now pick your candidate. Choose wisely.”

Hidden influence? Are you suggesting that influence in your 2x2 box resides in any one particular cell, or that there is more influence between any two cells vis-à-vis the entire collection?

Your square consists of a realism/idealism axis (R/I Axis) and a multilateral/unilateral axis (M/U Axis) – placing Kerry in the idealism/multilateralism (IM) cell, Bush in the idealism/unilateralism (IU) cell, Chirac in the realism/multilateralism (RM) cell, and Rumsfeld in the realism/unilateralism (RU) cell. You then argue that Bush and Kerry are more likely to be influenced by the realist that shares the same position on the M/U Axis.

Its my understanding that if interaction exists in a 2x2 ANOVA, then it exists in the COLLECTION of cells and not in any particular cell and that a change in the value one cell changes the interaction among ALL the other cells. Logically, there is no way to ascertain which of the other cells would change value as a result of the change in the value of a particular cell, yet you impose a “hidden influence” only along the M/U Axis. In other words, you contend that Kerry in the first cell (IM) would be more likely to be influenced by a change in the Chirac (RM) cell and Bush in the second cell (IU) would be more likely to be influenced by a change in the Rumsfeld (RU) cell and this does not logically follow. A change in one or more of any of the three remaining cells could “normalize” the interaction. Thus, unless you impose a variable outside of your model (such as rigidity) to a particular row, column or cell, where is the logical reason to assume that the “hidden influence” of a Chirac or a Rumsfeld will affect either Bush or Kerry to a greater or lesser extent?

It seems to me you HAVE imposed rigidity as a third variable, and also made a value judgment that rigidity is the preferred attribute in a rigidity/flexibility continuum. This leads to a larger point. Haven’t both Kerry and Bush acted “against type” in the M/U axis in the past? Is Bush’s Madrid meeting an attempt to change the value in his cell towards multilateralism? Hasn’t Kerry said that sometimes we must act alone? The question then becomes, who would have a greater ability to “change his value” along the M/U axis? I would suggest that Kerry does. I would argue that Kerry’s evident superior ability to change his value (and thus, America’s value) on the M/U axis is the greater strength in this modified model.

To carry this point further, it is perhaps even more important to consider the effect on the other cells of a change in Kerry/Bush values. Is it not equally correct logically to posit that the Chirac/Rumsfeld relative value on the Realism/Idealism axis might change as a result of a change in the Kerry/Bush value? Perhaps Idealism will win the day.

Doubtful.
Reality holds the cards.

If "reality holds the cards", then under Dan's model, we are abandoning Iraq to its fate no matter who wins this election.

I happen to disagree with Kelli on this point. We broke it, we have already invested lives and mana in it, we cant give up on it now without a terrible cost.

If "reality holds the cards", then under Dan's model, we are abandoning Iraq to its fate no matter who wins this election.

Depends on how you use that label. After all, we're not planning on making Iraq the 51st state.
In the ultimate sense, they're the ones that need to decide their own fate. I do agree however that they will need guidence for years to come... and on the whole, that seems far more positive than some would make it.