Readings POLSC 4 — World Politics (Spring 2015)

Dr. Donald Douglas, Long Beach City College, Spring 2015
POLSC 4 World Politics – Take-Home Essay Assignment

Students are to write a 4-6 page essay, double spaced with 10- or 12-point font, stapled in the upper left-hand corner. The topic is for students to use international relations theory to analyze America's retreat from world order. Vladimir Putin's expansionist, recidivist Russia goes unchecked by the day. China is now extending power in the South China Sea. Longtime allies such as Saudia Arabia, Israel, and Japan question U.S. alliance commitments. And the Middle East has exploded in violence, with over 200,000 civilians killed in Syria, both al-Qaeda and Islamic State wreaking unprecedented terrorist atrocities across the region, and Iran has extended its hegemonic capabilities from Lebanon to Gaza to Yemen, while possibly crossing the threshold of nuclear weapons capability. Has the Obama administration made the world less safe?

Students should use the textbook, James M. Scott et al., IR, for discussions of international theories as they relate to power and international order. Further, use the following articles for the basis of your analysis: Bret Stephens, "Yes, America Should Be the World’s Policeman"; Henry Kissinger, "On the Assembly of a New World Order"; Robert Kaplan, "The Gift of American Power"; Robert Kagan, "Superpowers Don't Get to Retire"; and David Petraeus, "The Islamic State isn’t our biggest problem in Iraq."

And an outstanding case study (evidence of the retreat of American power) is Michael Crowley, "The Syria Problem."

(All readings are available online and will be posted at the class blog and announced in class.)

No other outside reading is necessary. That said, additional readings may be used, but only at the discretion of Professor Douglas (i.e., you will need advanced-approval for readings not included on this handout). The assignment is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, April 15. Late papers are not accepted. Or, to be clear, it’s possible that I would accept a late paper in a genuine emergency, on the scale of personal hospitalization or the death of an immediate family member. A zero grade on the paper assignment will result in a “D” or “F” grade for the entire semester (depending on the student’s outstanding class average). Note that according to college policy, a critical thinking (writing) project is a requirement for all GE transfer classes.

Now, here’s the thing: The assignment forces students to think theoretically. Sometimes immediate events appear of greater significance than they actually are relative to the long-term goals of American grand strategy. What do you think? Are events as bad as they seem? Why or why not? What theories are most compelling here (or at least, most interesting and persuasive)?

Also, be sure to give concrete examples to back up your claims. That is, be specific and scholarly in your analysis. Are you happy with the way things have turned out so far with U.S. policy during the Obama administration? Do you think the U.S. has ceded influence to Russia and other international actors? You don’t have to agree with any of the articles assigned in making an assessment, but be sure to elaborate your own perspective with reference to the major theoretical paradigms presented in class this semester.

******

Dr. Donald K. Douglas
Long Beach City College: Spring 2015
Office Location: T2361
Office Hours: M-W 10:05-11:05am; T-TH 2:30-4:00pm
E-mail: ddouglas [at] lbcc.edu

Course Outline and Reading Assignments:

I. The Study of World Politics (February 9, 11 and 18)

James M. Scott, Ralph G. Carter, and A. Cooper Drury, IR, 2nd. Ed (Boston: Wadsworth, 2016),
Chapter 1.
John Mearsheimer, "Structural Realism," in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theories, 3rd ed. (2013).

II. Anarchy, States and Non-State Actors (February 23 and 25)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 2.
Jessica Mathews, “Power Shift,” Foreign Affairs (January/February 1997).

III. Liberalism and Realism (March 2 and 4)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 3.
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, "Realism and Complex Interdependence," Chapter 2, in Power
and Interdependence, 3rd edition (2001).
Joseph Grieco, "Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal 
Institutionalism, International Organization (Summer 1998).


 ************* Midterm Examination – March 9 *************


IV. Alternative Perspectives on IR (March 11 and 16)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 4.
Alexander Wendt, "Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power    
Politics," International Organization (Spring 1992), especially pp. 391-395.
J. Ann Tickner, "Engendered Insecurities: Feminist Perspectives on International Relations," in
Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security (1992).

V. Understanding Conflict and War (March 18 and 23)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 5.
Barry Posen, "Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony,"
International Security (Summer 2003).


 ************* Midterm Examination – March 25 ************


VI. International Conflict Management (March 30 and April 1)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 6.
John Lewis Gaddis, "The Long Peace: Elements of Stability in the Postwar International  System,” International Security (Spring 1986).

VII. International Institutions and Security Cooperation (April 13 and 15)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 7.
Michael Glennon, "Why the Security Council Failed," Foreign Affairs (May/June 2003).
Greg Shupak, "Libya and Its Contexts," Jacobin (September 2013).

VIII. Trade, Finance, and Economic Integration (April 20 and 22)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 8.
Helen Milner, "International Political Economy: Beyond Hegemonic Stability," Foreign Policy (Spring 1998).
Benjamin J. Cohen, "The Future of the Euro: Let's Get Real," Review of International Political Economy (2012).


************** Midterm Examination – April 27 **************


IX. Economic Statecraft (April 29 and May 4)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 9.
George A. Lopez and David Cortright, "Containing Iraq: Sanctions Worked," Foreign Affairs
(July/August 2004).

X. Political Economy and Development (May 6 and 11)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 10.
Andre Gunder Frank, "The Development of Underdevelopment," Monthly Review (September 1966).
David Dollar and Aart Kraay, "Spreading the Wealth," Foreign Affairs (January/February 2002).
Ruchir Sharma, "Broken BRICs: Why the Rest Stopped Rising," Foreign Affairs (November/December 2012).

XI. Human Rights (May 13 and 18)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 11.


************** Midterm Examination – May 20 *************


XII. The Global Environment (May 27 and June 1)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 12.
Bjørn Lomborg, "Environmental Alarmism, Then and Now. The Club of Rome's Problem – and Ours," Foreign Affairs (July/August 2012).
Steven Hayward, "In Denial: The Meltdown of the Climate Campaign," Weekly Standard (2010).


XIII. Transitional Advocacy Networks (June 3)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 13.


XIV. The Future of World Politics (June 8)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 14.
Samuel Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations,” Foreign Affairs (Summer 1993).
Der Spiegel, "Assaulting Democracy: The Deep Repercussions of the Charlie Hebdo Attack," January 9, 2015.


********** Final Examination – June 10***********

Readings POLSC 4 — World Politics (Spring 2014)

Dr. Donald Douglas, Long Beach City College, Spring 2014

POLSC 4 World Politics – Take-Home Essay Assignment

Students are to write a 4-6 page essay, double spaced with 10- or 12-point font, stapled in the upper left-hand corner. The topic is for students to use international relations theory to analyze Russia’s military incursion in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea into the Russia state. Students should focus on the following questions: What’s happening now in Ukraine and Crimea and why are events there important to international relations? What’s the problem from the perspective of international security? What are Russia’s interests in the region? (How do IR theories explain those interests?) What are U.S. interests, not just in Ukraine but for America’s global role? And, finally, how should the U.S. and the international community respond? Be sure to place these questions in the context of topics discussed in class, like the use of force, economic and military power, international institutions, and economic statecraft (like sanctions).

Students should use the textbook, James M. Scott et al., IR, for discussions of international theories (and pay attention to Ch. 9 on “Sanctions and Their Consequences,” which we haven’t yet covered). Also, see Daniel Drezner, “Bringing the Pain: Can Sanctions Hurt Putin Enough to Make Him Give-Up Crimea?” Foreign Policy, March 7, 2014; Julia Ioffie, “Putin's War in Crimea Could Soon Spread to Eastern Ukraine," New Republic, March 1, 2014; Jamie Kirchick, “How the ‘Realists’ Misjudged Ukraine,” Daily Beast, March 3, 2014; Victor Davis Hanson, “Putin Is Everything and More — But Not Stupid,” PJ Media, March 9, 2014; Gary Kasparov, “Vladimir Putin and the Lessons of 1938,” Politico, March 16, 2014; Ivan Krastev, “Russian Revisionism: Putin's Plan For Overturning the European Order,” Foreign Affairs, March 16, 2014; Steven Lee Myers et al., “Defying West, Putin Formally Claims Crimea for Russia,” New York Times, “March 19, 2014; Walter Russell Mead, “Red Lines in Ukraine,” American Interest, February 28, 2014 and “Putin Invades Crimea: Obama Hardest Hit?” American Interest, March 3, 2014; Mitt Romney, “The Price of Failed Leadership,” Wall Street Journal, March 18, 2014; and Carol Williams, “Costs to Russia for Crimea Seizure Far Beyond Pinprick Sanctions,” Los Angeles Times, March 17, 2014. (All readings are available online and will be posted at the class blog and announced in class.)

No other outside reading is necessary. That said, additional readings may be used, but only at the discretion of Professor Douglas (i.e., you will need advanced-approval for readings not included on this handout). The assignment is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, April 9, 2014. Late papers are not accepted. Or, to be clear, it’s possible that I would accept a late paper in a genuine emergency, on the scale of personal hospitalization or the death of an immediate family member. A zero grade on the paper assignment will result in a “D” or “F” grade for the entire semester (depending on the student’s outstanding class average). Note that according to college policy, a critical thinking (writing) project is a requirement for all GE transfer classes.

Now, here’s the thing: The assignment forces students to think and write theoretically. Outline the main expectations of the theories you discuss. What theoretical approach provides the best explanation for events? What do you think? How important is Ukraine to American international relations and national security? Why or why not is Ukraine important? Plus, don’t be shy about sharing your opinion. What do you think should happen? How well are U.S. foreign policy leaders handling the crisis? What about Europe? Are the Europeans in tune with the U.S.? Why or why not? These prompts are not exhaustive. What else is important here? Have fun with the assignment and most of all, write a good paper.

*****

Dr. Donald K. Douglas
Long Beach City College: Spring 2014
Office Location: T2361
Office Hours: M-W 10:05-11:05am; T-TH 2:30-4:00pm
E-mail: ddouglas [at] lbcc.edu

Course Outline and Reading Assignments:

I. The Study of World Politics (Feb. 3, 5, and 10)

James M. Scott, Ralph G. Carter, and A. Cooper Drury, IR (Boston: Wadsworth, 2014), Chapter 1.
Jack Snyder, “One World, Rival Theories,” Foreign Policy (November/December 2004).

II. Anarchy, States and Non-State Actors (Feb. 12 and 19)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 2.
Kenneth Waltz, “The Anarchic Structure of World Politics” (1979), in Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis, eds., International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues.
Jessica Mathews, “Power Shift,” Foreign Affairs (January/February 1997).

III. Liberalism and Realism (Feb. 24 and 26)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 3.
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, “Realism and Complex Interdependence,” Chapter 2, in Power and Interdependence, 3rd edition (2001).


 *** Midterm Examination – March 3 ***


IV. Alternative Perspectives on IR (March 5 and 10)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 4.
Alexander Wendt, "Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics," International Organization (Spring 1992), especially pp., 391-395, 403-407,and the conclusion.
J. Ann Tickner, "Engendered Insecurities: Feminist Perspectives on International Relations," in Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security (1992).

V. Understanding Conflict and War (March 12 and 17)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 5.
Joshua Goldstein, "Think Again: War," Foreign Policy (September/October 2011).


 *** Midterm Examination –March 19 ***


VI. International Conflict Management (March 24 and 26)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 6.
John Lewis Gaddis, "The Long Peace: Elements of Stability in the Postwar International System,” International Security (Spring 1986).


VII. International Institutions and Security Cooperation (March 31 and April 2)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 7.
Charles Kupchan and Clifford Kupchan, "Concerts, Collective Security, and the Future of Europe," International Security (Summer 1991), especially pp. 113-137.
Madeleine Albright, "Think Again: The United Nations," Foreign Policy (September/October 2003).

VIII. Trade, Finance, and Economic Integration (April 7 and 9)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 8.
Helen Milner, "International Political Economy: Beyond Hegemonic Stability," Foreign Policy (Spring 1998).
Benjamin J. Cohen, "Currency and State Power," in Martha Finnemore and Judith Goldstein, eds., Back to Basics: State Power in a Contemporary World (Oxford University Press, 2013).


*** Midterm Examination – April 14 ***


IX. Economic Statecraft (April 16 and 28)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 9.
George A. Lopez and David Cortright, "Containing Iraq: Sanctions Worked," Foreign Affairs (July/August 2004).

X. Political Economy and Development (April 30 and May 5)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 10.
Andre Gunder Frank, "The Development of Underdevelopment," Monthly Review (September 1966).
"The Failure of Economic Development: Interview with William Easterly," Challenge (January/February 2002).
David Dollar and Aart Kraay, "Spreading the Wealth," Foreign Affairs (January/February 2002).
Ruchir Sharma, "Broken BRICs: Why the Rest Stopped Rising," Foreign Affairs (November/December 2012).

XI. Human Rights (May 7 and 12)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 11.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "The Politics of Human Rights," Commentary (August 1977).

*** Midterm Examination – May 14 ***


XII. The Global Environment (May 19 and 21)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 12.
Bjørn Lomborg, "Environmental Alarmism, Then and Now. The Club of Rome's Problem – and Ours," Foreign Affairs (July/August 2012).
Steven Hayward, "In Denial: The Meltdown of the Climate Campaign," Weekly Standard (2010).

XIII. Transitional Advocacy Networks (May 28)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 13.
Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, "Transnational Advocacy Networks in International and Regional Politics," International Social Science Journal (March 1999).

XIV. The Future of World Politics (June 2)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 14.
Samuel Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations,” Foreign Affairs (Summer 1993).
Robert Kagan, "History's Back. Ambitious Autocracies, Hesitant Democracies," Weekly Standard (August 2008).

*** Final Examination – December 11 ***

Readings POLSC 4 — World Politics (Fall 2013)

Dr. Donald Douglas, LBCC, Fall 2013 POLSC 4 

World Politics – Take-Home Essay Assignment

Students are to write a 4-6 page essay, double spaced with 10- or 12-point font, stapled in the upper left-hand corner. The topic is for students to evaluate possible U.S. military intervention in Syria using international relations theory. Students should focus on the following questions: What’s the U.S. interest in Syria? Is this a “vital national interest” or something else? How will American security be advanced by war in Syria? Apply international relations theories to evaluate those questions from different perspectives. And use the following readings for your essay: Michael Crowley, “The Syria Problem (Printer Version)," Time (Sept. 09, 2013); Erica Borghard “Arms and Influence in Syria: The Pitfalls of Greater U.S. Involvement,” Cato Institute (August 7, 2013); Anthony Cordesman, “U.S. Strategy in Syria: Having Lost Sight of the Objective…”, Center for Strategic and International Studies (September 12, 2013); Charli Carpenter, “Responsibility to Protect — Or to Punish: Morality and the Intervention in Syria,” Foreign Affairs (August 29, 2013); Frederick Kagan, “What to Do About Syria,” Weekly Standard (September 13, 2013); and “Experts to Obama: Here Is What to Do in Syria,” Weekly Standard (August 27, 2013). (All readings are available online and will be posted at the class blog and announced in class.)

*********************************************

Dr. Donald K. Douglas
Long Beach City College: Fall 2013
Office Location: T2361
Office Hours: M-W 10:05-11:05am; T-TH 2:30-4:00pm
E-mail: ddouglas [at] lbcc.edu

Course Outline and Reading Assignments:

I. The Study of World Politics (August 26, 28 and September 4)

James M. Scott, Ralph G. Carter, and A. Cooper Drury, IR (Boston: Wadsworth, 2014), Chapter 1.
Jack Snyder, “One World, Rival Theories,” Foreign Policy (November/December 2004).

II. Anarchy, States and Non-State Actors (September 9 and 11)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 2.
Kenneth Waltz, “The Anarchic Structure of World Politics” (1979), in Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis, eds., International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues.
Jessica Mathews, “Power Shift,” Foreign Affairs (January/February 1997).

III. Liberalism and Realism (September 16)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 3.
John Mearsheimer, "Structural Realism," in Tim Dunne et al., eds., International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, “Realism and Complex Interdependence,” Chapter 2, in Power and Interdependence, 3rd edition (2001).


 *** Midterm Examination – September 18 ***


IV. Alternative Perspectives on IR (September 23 and 25)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 4.
Richard K. Ashley, “The Poverty of Neorealism,” International Organization (Spring 1984), especially pp. 225-230 and 237-281.
Alexander Wendt, "Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics," International Organization (Spring 1992), especially pp., 391-395, 403-407,and the conclusion.
Andrés Velasco, "The Dustbin of History: Dependency Theory," Foreign Policy (November/December 2002).
J. Ann Tickner, "Engendered Insecurities: Feminist Perspectives on International Relations," in Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security (1992).

V. Understanding Conflict and War (September 30 and October 2)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 5.
Joshua Goldstein, "Think Again: War," Foreign Policy (September/October 2011).


 *** Midterm Examination – October 7 ***


VI. International Conflict Management (October 9 and 14)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 6.
John Lewis Gaddis, "The Long Peace: Elements of Stability in the Postwar International System,” International Security (Spring 1986).
Charles Kupchan and Clifford Kupchan, "Concerts, Collective Security, and the Future of Europe," International Security (Summer 1991), especially pp. 113-137.

VII. International Institutions and Security Cooperation (October 16 and 21)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 7.
Thomas C. Schelling, "The Diplomacy of Violence" in Karen Mingst and Jack Snyder, eds., Essential Readings in World Politics.
Madeleine Albright, "Think Again: The United Nations," Foreign Policy (September/October 2003).

VIII. Trade, Finance, and Economic Integration (October 23 and 28)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 8.
Helen Milner, "International Political Economy: Beyond Hegemonic Stability," Foreign Policy (Spring 1998).
Benjamin J. Cohen, "Currency and State Power," in Martha Finnemore and Judith Goldstein, eds., Back to Basics: State Power in a Contemporary World (Oxford University Press, 2013).


*** Midterm Examination – October 30 ***


IX. Economic Statecraft (November 4 and 6)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 9.
George A. Lopez and David Cortright, "Containing Iraq: Sanctions Worked," Foreign Affairs (July/August 2004).
Charles Kenny and Justin Sandefur, "Can Silicon Valley Save the World?" Foreign Policy (July/August 2013).

X. Political Economy and Development (November 13 and 18)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 10.
Andre Gunder Frank, "The Development of Underdevelopment," Monthly Review (September 1966).
"The Failure of Economic Development: Interview with William Easterly," Challenge (January/February 2002).
David Dollar and Aart Kraay, "Spreading the Wealth," Foreign Affairs (January/February 2002).
Ruchir Sharma, "Broken BRICs: Why the Rest Stopped Rising," Foreign Affairs (November/December 2012).

XI. Human Rights (November 20 and 25)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 11.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "The Politics of Human Rights," Commentary (August 1977).
Kathryn Sikkink, "Transnational Politics, International Relations Theory, and Human Rights," PS: Political Science and Politics (September 1998).


*** Midterm Examination – November 27 ***


XII. The Global Environment (December 2)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 12.
Garrett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons," Science (1968).
Bjørn Lomborg, "Environmental Alarmism, Then and Now. The Club of Rome's Problem – and Ours," Foreign Affairs (July/August 2012).
Steven Hayward, "In Denial: The Meltdown of the Climate Campaign," Weekly Standard (2010).

XIII. Transitional Advocacy Networks (December 4)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 13.
Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, "Transnational Advocacy Networks in International and Regional Politics," International Social Science Journal (March 1999).

XIV. The Future of World Politics (December 9)

Scott, Carter and Drury, IR, Chapter 14.
Samuel Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations,” Foreign Affairs (Summer 1993).
Robert Kagan, "History's Back. Ambitious Autocracies, Hesitant Democracies," Weekly Standard (August 2008).

*** Final Examination – December 11 ***

Thank You President Bush

I've been formally studying politics for twenty-five years, but I truly came of political maturity during the G.W. Bush years of 2001-2008.

I have published an essay today, President Bush's last full day in office, at Pajamas Media: "George W. Bush’s Legacy: Moral Vision."

Readers can read the essay at the link, and the comment thread is certainly an interesting case of Bush derangement syndrome.

But for the present post, let me share the letter to the president by Eric at Tygrrrr Express, "Dear President Bush" (cited here at midstream):

I could spend hours praising your 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, in addition to your many fine qualities in terms of how you treated every day human beings.

Yet to me you will always be the man that kept us safe. I will always see you through the prism of September 11th, 2001. I will always well up with emotion when I think of you standing with that firefighter on September 14th, three days after the attacks. I still hear your voice exalting Americans. “I hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and pretty soon the people who knocked down these buildings will hear from all of us!” They heard us loud and clear.

I will go to my grave believing that the Iraq War was the legally and morally right thing to do. Reconstruction has been tough, but Saddam is gone. The world is absolutely better off for this. The collateral effects included Khadafi of Libya voluntarily giving up his weapons programs. This was a direct result of your leadership. You labeled Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the “Axis of Evil.” You were right, and one of those three is no longer led by a dictator out to threaten the world. When your critics declared that the Iraq War was lost, you doubled down, ordered a surge, and brought in General David Petraeus. Not only did you hire the best and brightest, you let them do their jobs, and get those jobs done right.

On September 20th, 2001, you told us that America, “would not falter, and would not fail.” You let us know in January of 2009 that we “did not falter and did not fail.”

If anybody wants evidence that America is still a beacon for the world to admire and emulate, just look at your successor. Only in America could his election be possible. As expected, your graciousness and kindness towards him and his family is sincere. Some say you were a divider and not a uniter. This is totally false. You reached out to your critics, and they never accepted your hand of friendship. Your political enemies were the ones who polarized this nation. Your successor mentioned the other day that he thinks you are a good person. His critics need to hear this over and over again. Despite their obsession with division, you remained kind to the end, and were able to unite people that were willing to let decency override partisanship.

Read the whole thing here (and leave a nice word or two in the comments).

Eric makes clear as well that this administration's record in black political inclusion and support for AIDS eradication in Africa, among other areas, is unsurpassed.

Thank you President Bush. You will be deeply missed and our country is better off for having you.

Photo Credit: Wordsmith at Flopping Aces, "8 Years of 'Failed Policies'."

**********

Cross-posted from American Power.

Protect Values, Protect America: Vote Life

Cross-posted from American Power:

*********

Via Jill Stanek, here's the powerful video from Catholic Vote 2008:

Life, faith, and family ... now more than any other time in history ... a new generation must stand for truth ...

Vote life in 2008.
**********

Don't miss the moral clarity at American Power!

Stop the Palinsanity!

Don't miss the hottest commentary and analysis on Sarah Palin and the GOP presidential campaign, at American Power!

What are you waiting for? Get the leading election analysis at American Power!

I've Moved!

I have a new blog, American Power!

It was time to retire the sturdy Burkean Reflections blogging project. What happened? Get the full story from my new blog's initial post, " Welcome to American Power."

Thanks to all those who've visited and commented at this site over this last 18 months.

Don't forget to update your blog links, bookmarks, and subscription feeds! Get moving with American Power!

Bush Stays Tough on Terror Interrogation Methods

The New York Times has the story on President's Bush defense of the administration's interrogation tactics I(via Memeorandum):

President Bush, reacting to a Congressional uproar over the disclosure of secret Justice Department legal opinions permitting the harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects, defended the methods on Friday, declaring, “This government does not torture people.”

The remarks, Mr. Bush’s first public comments on the memorandums, came at a hastily arranged Oval Office appearance before reporters. It was billed as a talk on the economy, but after heralding new job statistics, Mr. Bush shifted course to a subject he does not often publicly discuss: a once-secret Central Intelligence Agency program to detain and interrogate high-profile terror suspects.

Bush's reponse to critics was the lead story at today's Los Angeles Times as well:

The president's comments came amid disclosures this week of classified opinions issued by the Justice Department in 2005 that endorsed the legality of an array of interrogation tactics, ranging from sleep deprivation to simulated drowning.

Bush's decision to comment again on what once was among the most highly classified U.S. intelligence programs underscores the political peril surrounding the issue for the White House, which has had to retreat from earlier, aggressive assertions of executive power.

It also reflects the extent to which the debate over tactics in the war on terrorism remains unresolved, six years after the Sept. 11 attacks. The limits on CIA interrogators have been particularly fluid, shifting repeatedly under a succession of legal opinions, court rulings and executive orders.

In a brief appearance at the White House, Bush stressed the legality of the CIA program -- even while making the case for continued use of coercive methods.

"We stick to U.S. law and our international obligations," Bush said. But when the United States locates a terrorism suspect, he added: "You bet we're going to detain them, and you bet we're going to question them -- because the American people expect us to find out information, actionable intelligence so we can help protect them. That's our job."

Both articles discuss Democratic Party outrage over not only the hint of coercive techniques, but the idea as well that the administation has an executive interest in keeping internal dicussions on interrogation methods out of the public realm.

The outcry over torture - which is common all over the left wing of the political spectrum - represents a knee-jerk reaction to the issue. The United States needs more firmness in its approach to interrogations and the judicial treatment of terror suspects. This is a nation at war, and a tougher approach - either based on a forward-oriented morality or plain realpolitik - is warranted, and should be generating bipartisan support.

I wrote earlier on the justification of torture, citing Jerome Slater's Political Science Quarterly article, where he carefully examines the pros and cons of the practice, and comes down advocating aggressive interrrogations. Slater says torture's sometimes necessary:

Put differently, so long as the threat of large-scale terrorist attacks against innocents is taken seriously, as it must be, it is neither practicable nor morally persuasive to absolutely prohibit the physical coercion or even outright torture of captured terrorist plotters—undoubtedly evils, but lesser evils than preventable mass murder. In any case, although the torture issue is still debatable today, assuredly the next major attack on the United States—or perhaps Europe—will make it moot. At that point, the only room for practical choice will be between controlled and uncontrolled torture—if we are lucky. Far better, then, to avoid easy rhetoric and think through the issue while we still have the luxury of doing so.

Read the Slater piece in full to get the full context of the argument. It's a tough call, but circumstances warrant the legality of coercive methods, including torture.

Fighting Roadside Bombs: Part IV

This post concludes my coverage of Rick Atkinson's Washington Post series on the IED threat to international security. Atkinson's fourth article in the series continues his discussion of the Pentagon's dramatic policy efforts to adapt to improvised bombs. Frankly, much of the article repeats the main points raised by Atkinson previously. I did like this concluding passage, however:

At 9:30 p.m. on Monday, May 7, a convoy of four uparmored Humvees rolled through the heavily fortified gate at Camp Falcon in southern Baghdad before turning north onto Route Jackson at 35 mph. Each Humvee carried a jammer against radio-controlled bombs, either a Duke or an SSVJ. Each had been outfitted with Frag Kit 5, and a Rhino II protruded from each front bumper as protection against EFPs detonated by passive infrared triggers. As recommended, the drivers kept a 40-meter separation from one another.

The senior officer in the third Humvee, Lt. Col. Gregory D. Gadson, 41, had driven to Falcon to attend a memorial service for two soldiers killed by an IED. Now he was returning to his own command post near Baghdad International Airport. As commander of the 2nd Battalion of the 32nd Field Artillery, a unit in the 1st Infantry Division, Gadson was a gunner by training. But as part of the troop "surge" that President Bush announced in January, the battalion had taken up unfamiliar duties as light infantrymen in Baghdad.

After 18 years in the Army, including tours of duty in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and in Afghanistan, Gadson was hardly shocked by the change of mission. He knew that, proverbially, no plan survived contact with the enemy. Raised in Chesapeake, Va., he had been a football star in high school and an outside linebacker at West Point before graduating in 1989. The nomadic Army life suited him and his wife, Kim, who had been a classmate at the academy before resigning her commission to raise their two children.

In the darkness on Route Jackson, no one noticed the dimple in the roadbed, where insurgents had loosened the asphalt with burning tires and buried three 130mm artillery shells before repairing the hole. No one saw the command wire snaking to the east through a hole in a chain-link fence and into a building. No one saw the triggerman.

They all heard the blast. "The boom is what I think about every day," Gadson would say three months later at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. A great flash exploded beneath the right front fender. Gadson felt himself tumbling across the ground, and he knew instantly that an IED had struck the Humvee. "I don't have my rifle," he told himself, and then the world went black.

When he regained consciousness, he saw the looming face of 1st Sgt. Frederick L. Johnson, who had been in the trail vehicle and had brought his commander back from the dead with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Lying on the road shoulder 50 meters from his shattered Humvee, Gadson was the only man seriously wounded in the attack, but those wounds were grievous. Another soldier, Pfc. Eric C. Brown, managed to knot tourniquets across his upper thighs. Johnson hoisted Gadson, who weighed 210 pounds, into another Humvee, an ordeal that was "extremely complicated due to the extensive injuries Lt. Col. Gadson sustained to his lower extremities," an incident report later noted.

Thirty minutes after the blast, Gadson was flown from Camp Falcon to the 28th Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad's Green Zone. For hours he hovered near death, saved by 70 units of transfused blood. "Tell Kim I love her," he told another officer.

Two days later, he was stable enough to fly to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany; two days after that, he reached Walter Reed, where Kim was waiting for him. On May 18, a major artery in his left leg ruptured; to save his life, surgeons amputated several inches above the knee. The next day, the right leg blew, and it, too, was taken off at the thigh.

Gadson would be but one of 22,000 American casualties from IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that isolated incident along Route Jackson on May 7 was emblematic of the nation's long struggle against roadside bombs.

He had been wounded despite the best equipment his country could give him and despite the best countermeasures American science could contrive. His life had been saved by the armored door that shielded his head and torso, and by the superior training of his soldiers, the heroic efforts of military medicine and his own formidable grit. He had lost his lower limbs despite flawlessly following standard operating procedure. He faced months, and years, of surgery, rehabilitation and learning to live a life without legs.

Gadson's war was over, but for his comrades and for the country it goes on. An additional $4.5 billion has been budgeted for the counter-IED fight in the fiscal year that began this week. JIEDDO [the Joint IED Defeat Organization], which started four years ago this month in the Pentagon basement as an Army task force with a dozen soldiers, now fills two floors of an office building in Crystal City and employs almost 500 people, including contractors.

The House Armed Services Committee concluded in May that the organization "has demonstrated marginal success in achieving its stated mission to eliminate the IED as a weapon of strategic influence." Others disagree, including England. "Monty Meigs was the best thing that ever happened to us," he said, "and to the [Pentagon], and to the guys in the field."

Whether because of the surge, or despite it, total IED attacks in Iraq declined from 3,200 in March to 2,700 in July, an 8 percent drop. IED-related deaths also declined over the summer, sharply, from 88 in May to 27 in September.

If heartened by the recent trend, Meigs [Retired Gen. Montgomery C., head of the Pentagon's counter-IED effort] is cautious. He notes that sniping, another asymmetrical tactic, tormented soldiers in the Civil War. "Snipers are still around, and they're darned effective," he said. "Artillery has also been around a long time. There are some tactical problems that are very hard to solve. There are no silver bullets, no panaceas."

Virtually everyone agrees that regardless of how the American expeditions in Iraq and Afghanistan play out, the roadside bomb has become a fixture on 21st-century battlegrounds.

I mentioned earlier how the IED threat demonstrates "the sheer horror of war." Lt. Col. Gadson's experience powerfully illustrates the point, but it also brings home the tremendous importance of defeating the IED scourge.

Overall, while the Akinson series is informative, the reporting focused too much on the bureaucratic impediments in combatting the roadside bombs. In Atkinson's conclusion above he notes that "total IED attacks in Iraq declined from 3,200 in March to 2,700 in July, an 8 percent drop" and "IED-related deaths also declined over the summer, sharply, from 88 in May to 27 in September." There's more to these numbers, especially the more-than 50 percent drop in fatalities indicated for last summer. Atkinson's analysis might have focused more on what ground-level adaptions U.S. forces were making, rather than the almost exclusive attention to the top-down developments coming out of Washington.

Perhaps Atkinson's goal was to contribute to the defeatist grip that's got a hold on much of the Democratic establishment. Stanley Kurtz, at the National Review last week, was critical of the Post's left-wing slant to its coverage of the war:

Today, on the front page of The Washington Post, we see the third in a three-part series on roadside bombs in Iraq. The stories in this series have been centered on the top half of the page and highlighted in red (a device I don’t recall seeing before). Next to that is a huge headline about allegations of killings In Iraq by Blackwater. Below that is a headline that reads "Most in Poll Want War Funding Cut." Meanwhile deep inside the paper, on page A14, we find the following article: "U.S. and Civilian Deaths Decrease Sharply in Iraq: American Military Credits Troop Influx." True, nestled between the other screaming headlines on page one, there is a brief minuscule teaser for this far more positive story about Iraq. Yet the bias here is clear.

If the top story is Iraq, then I don’t see how you can put those three stories on the front page, while burying the other one on page 14. Arguably, an actual report of substantial positive progress in Iraq is more important, and more dramatic, than any of those other stories...

Kurtz has a good point. Yet, I'm reminded of my analysis from the first entry in this series, where I suggested that the IED threat represents a first-order challenge to American military preponderance, in that it works to weaken U.S. military effectiveness in the weakest link of the overall chain of U.S. strategy: the contested zones. This Weekly Standard report from 2005 on the Pentagon's bureaucractic approach to the IED threat captures the priority of taming this threat:

THE IED IS ONLY A TACTICAL WEAPON, but it is also the only weapon that produces significant U.S. casualties. And because these casualties are the primary factor in eroding American public support for Operation Iraqi Freedom, this tactical weapon is capable of having a major strategic impact. The IED is capable of defeating the U.S. mission in Iraq if not checked by an effective tactical response.

The Weekly Standard piece suggests that U.S. policy should cultivate more bottom-up efforts in adapting to IEDs (for an example of such initiatives, this report from Michael Yon). To its credit, the U.S. Army shows evidence of more attention to ground-level solutions to issues of asymmetrical warfare.

See my earlier entries in the "Fighting Roadside Bombs" series, here, here, and here.

No Humor in Welfare State Dependency

Paul Krugman's morning column ridicules Republicans for "laughing at the problems of the poor," saying the tendency to make fun of the disadvantaged is a basic character trait of conservatives (via Memeorandum):

In 1960, John F. Kennedy, who had been shocked by the hunger he saw in West Virginia, made the fight against hunger a theme of his presidential campaign. After his election he created the modern food stamp program, which today helps millions of Americans get enough to eat.

But Ronald Reagan thought the issue of hunger in the world’s richest nation was nothing but a big joke. Here’s what Reagan said in his famous 1964 speech “A Time for Choosing,” which made him a national political figure: “We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet.”

Today’s leading conservatives are Reagan’s heirs. If you’re poor, if you don’t have health insurance, if you’re sick — well, they don’t think it’s a serious issue. In fact, they think it’s funny.

On Wednesday, President Bush vetoed legislation that would have expanded S-chip, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, providing health insurance to an estimated 3.8 million children who would otherwise lack coverage.

In anticipation of the veto, William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, had this to say: “First of all, whenever I hear anything described as a heartless assault on our children, I tend to think it’s a good idea. I’m happy that the president’s willing to do something bad for the kids.” Heh-heh-heh.

Most conservatives are more careful than Mr. Kristol. They try to preserve the appearance that they really do care about those less fortunate than themselves. But the truth is that they aren’t bothered by the fact that almost nine million children in America lack health insurance. They don’t think it’s a problem...

Read the whole thing.

If you believe Krugman, conservatives are evil because they don't think a public health insurance program for the poor should be expanded to include families earning three times the poverty level (at just over $60,000 a year). Perhaps we should agree with Krugman, that Conservatives are evil because they demand a little honesty from politics, for example insisting from the Democratic congressional majority that they announce the expansion of SCHIPs for what it is - and a push for a socialized health care entitlement. Or perhaps people should agree with Krugman that conservatives are evil because they can see ahead to the collapse of widespread access to the world's finest healthcare amid health rationing and endless waits to see a physician, which is likely if the expansion of SCHIPs crowds out private insurers, ultimately driving up premiums to the point of breaking the market-driven health delivery system.

Or, conservatives might be right to back Bush: It wouldn't be funny to pile even more hardships upon those who desperately need the help. Certainly there are better ways to expand access to health coverage than destroying a system working well for the majority of Americans.

The last laugh will be on liberals when the price tag comes due and everyone's stranded in the waiting line to reform our disastrously socialized health care system.

Our Soldiers: Modern American Heroes

Observe the comments to my post yesterday, "Soldiers Die For Us: A Tribute to the Fallen":

Soldiers die for a lot of reasons. They die to protect their buddies. They die to expand the empire. They die to protect corporate profits. They die. But they do not die for us. They are not fighting for us. And nothing they are doing in Iraq is helping this country one bit. Their deaths are for nothing. They are not heroes. They are cowardly conquerors...

This kind of troop-bashing sentiment is common among the International ANSWER types. Yet, as Robert Kaplan notes in today's Wall Street Journal, denigration of the military is increasingly common among the transnational elite in America's top insitutions, especially the mass media:

I'm weary of seeing news stories about wounded soldiers and assertions of "support" for the troops mixed with suggestions of the futility of our military efforts in Iraq. Why aren't there more accounts of what the troops actually do? How about narrations of individual battles and skirmishes, of their ever-evolving interactions with Iraqi troops and locals in Baghdad and Anbar province, and of increasingly resourceful "patterning" of terrorist networks that goes on daily in tactical operations centers?

The sad and often unspoken truth of the matter is this: Americans have been conditioned less to understand Iraq's complex military reality than to feel sorry for those who are part of it.

Kaplan reports from the field that U.S. soldiers are looking for respect, not pity: "We are not victims," one battalion commander asserted. "We are privileged." Thus Kaplan continues:

The cult of victimhood in American history first flourished in the aftermath of the 1960s youth rebellion, in which, as University of Chicago Prof. Peter Novick writes, women, blacks, Jews, Native Americans and others fortified their identities with public references to past oppressions. The process was tied to Vietnam, a war in which the photographs of civilian victims "displaced traditional images of heroism." It appears that our troops have been made into the latest victims.

Heroes, according to the ancients, are those who do great deeds that have a lasting claim to our respect. To suffer is not necessarily to be heroic. Obviously, we have such heroes, who are too often ignored. Witness the low-key coverage accorded to winners of the Medal of Honor and of lesser decorations.

The first Medal of Honor in the global war on terror was awarded posthumously to Army Sgt. First Class Paul Ray Smith of Tampa, Fla., who was killed under withering gunfire protecting his wounded comrades outside Baghdad airport in April 2003.

According to LexisNexis, by June 2005, two months after his posthumous award, his stirring story had drawn only 90 media mentions, compared with 4,677 for the supposed Quran abuse at Guantanamo Bay, and 5,159 for the court-martialed Abu Ghraib guard Lynndie England. While the exposure of wrongdoing by American troops is of the highest importance, it can become a tyranny of its own when taken to an extreme.

Media frenzies are ignited when American troops are either the perpetrators of acts resulting in victimhood, or are victims themselves. Meanwhile, individual soldiers daily performing complicated and heroic deeds barely fit within the strictures of news stories as they are presently defined. This is why the sporadic network and cable news features on heroic soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan comes across as so hokey. After all, the last time such reports were considered "news" was during World War II and the Korean War.

In particular, there is Fox News's occasional series on war heroes, whose apparent strangeness is a manifestation of the distance the media has traveled away from the nation-state in the intervening decades. Fox's war coverage is less right-wing than it is simply old-fashioned, antediluvian almost. Fox's commercial success may be less a factor of its ideological base than of something more primal: a yearning among a large segment of the public for a real national media once again--as opposed to an international one. Nationalism means patriotism, and patriotism requires heroes, not victims.

Kaplan's piece is worth reading in whole, but the conclusion is particularly good:

The media is but one example of the slow crumbling of the nation-state at the upper layers of the social crust - a process that because it is so gradual, is also deniable by those in the midst of it. It will take another event on the order of 9/11 or greater to change the direction we are headed. Contrary to popular belief, the events of 9/11--which are perceived as an isolated incident--did not fundamentally change our nation. They merely interrupted an ongoing trend toward the decay of nationalism and the devaluation of heroism.

As Kaplan points out, the notion that there's been a "decay of nationalism" is contested. Yet on the question of the deligimization of state-based heroism, Kaplan's commentary here makes a compelling case to the contrary.

Republican Voters Shifting to Protectionism

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows Republican voters growing increasingly skeptical of free trade policies:

By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president....

Six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher regulations to limit foreign imports. That represents a challenge for Republican candidates who generally echo Mr. Bush's calls for continued trade expansion, and reflects a substantial shift in sentiment from eight years ago.

Take a look at the article. In my view, the findings of GOP unease with free trade reflect a broader unhappiness with the greater forces of globalization, and especially GOP concerns surrounding illegal immigration and border security (48 percent of Republicans oppose the administration's proposal for a guest worker program). The survey indicates a breakdown of the conservative concensus on economic and regulatory policies. For example, the survey finds a plurality of Republicans supporting tax increases to fund health care and other items:

In part, the concern about trade reflected in the survey reflects the changing composition of the Republican electorate as social conservatives have grown in influence. In questions about a series of candidate stances, the only one drawing strong agreement from a majority of Republicans was opposition to abortion rights.

Post-9/11 security concerns have also displaced some of the traditional economic concerns of the Republican Party that Ronald Reagan reshaped a generation ago. Asked which issues will be most important in determining their vote, a 32% plurality cited national defense, while 25% cited domestic issues such as education and health care, and 23% cited moral issues. Ranking last, identified by just 17%, were economic issues such as taxes and trade.

The WSJ poll appears to buttress some of the findings from the Washington Post's recent survey, which found increasing numbers of business professionals shifting to the Democratic Party.

The Republican shift on trade policy is a toubling development for American international economic policy. A shift toward protectionism - perhaps under a new Democratic administration in 2009 - is the last thing the U.S. needs. Since World War II, the U.S.-led liberal international trade and monetary regimes have provided the economic foundations for world growth and prosperity. Both developed and less-developed nations thrive on open markets and access to the diversity of the world goods and human resources. Rising protectionism threatens these achievements.

In a 2005 Foreign Affairs article, Carla A. Hills, who was U.S. Trade Representative during the G.H.W. Bush administration, reviewed the stakes involved in the continued push for trade expansion:

The U.S. experience since World War II proves that increased economic interdependence boosts economic growth and encourages political stability. For more than 50 years, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the United States has led the world in opening markets. To that end, the United States worked to establish a series of international organizations, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO)....

The results to date have been spectacular. World trade has exploded and standards of living have soared at home and abroad. Economist Gary Hufbauer, in a comprehensive study published this year by the Institute of International Economics, calculates that 50 years of globalization has made the United States richer by $1 trillion per year (measured in 2003 dollars), or about $9,000 added wealth per year for the average U.S. household. Developing countries have also gained from globalization. On average, poor countries that have opened their markets to trade and investment have grown five times faster than those that kept their markets closed. Studies conducted by World Bank economist David Dollar show that globalization has raised 375 million people out of extreme poverty over the past 20 years.

And the benefits have not been only economic. As governments liberalize their trade regimes, they often liberalize their political regimes. Adherence to a set of trade rules encourages transparency, the rule of law, and a respect for property that contribute to increased stability. Without U.S. leadership...the world would look very different today.

The United States has an interest in continuing this progress. Republican voters worried about the effects of trade on their economic well-being have legitimate fears, although ultimately the gains from trade will exceed the pain incurred by trade-induced economic dislocation. Candidates in the GOP presidential field need to provide public leadership on this issue, rousing the party's base to a greater understanding of the benefits of international trade openness. Recent Democratic Party statements in favor of trade policy protectionism present a much more damaging alternative to the American economy in the long run.

Extinguishing the Fire of Radical Islam

Check out the following letter to the editor, from John L. Sorg, of McCordeville, Indiana, in response to last Friday's Frederick Kagan commentary in the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Kagan's message that security for the Iraqi people is a prerequisite for defeating al Qaeda is correct. It's also necessary for defeating the Sadrists, other "extremists/terrorists" and laying the foundation for political compromise on key issues like oil-revenue sharing at the federal level. The idea that politics will lead to defeating terrorists without security coming first has it exactly backward.

Despite the mantra of the left that Iraq is a failure and is separate and apart from the war on radical Islam, success in Iraq is essential to turning the tide against the radical, worldwide jihadist movement, which seeks to force its will on the rest of Islam and, ultimately, the rest of the world. The fact that most of the Democratic Party cannot acknowledge this disqualifies those Democrats running for president from effectively operating as commander in chief. In World War II there was a national consensus regarding the need to defeat the evil of Nazism. Many Democrats have not recognized the need to defeat the similar evil of a radical Islam that will stop at nothing to impose its will on the world.

We must stay in Iraq for as long as it takes with the forces necessary to achieve victory. Instead, let's talk about "strategic redeployment" of our troops out of Europe and Asia if it means we can solidify our presence in the Middle East and put out the fire of radical Islam. No one wants to "occupy" the Middle East indefinitely, but occupy we must until the jihadists understand that we will not allow defeat. Only then will they give up. The antiwar leftists have served only to prolong the war by giving the evil ones hope that they can outlast us. I believe that if the Democrats win the presidency, hope will be renewed for the terrorists.

See also yesterday's Bartle Bull commentary in WSJ, which argues that we have indeed turned the tide in Iraq, with military victories forcing the realignment of Iraq's sectarian parties, which has in turn consolidated the current Shiite political order.

Runaway Train? Hillary Boosts Lead in Polls, Money

Hillary Clinton's nomination as 2008's Democratic standardbearer is looking more and more inevitable, according to new poll findings from the Washington Post:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has consolidated her place as the front-runner in the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, outpacing her main rivals in fundraising in the most recent quarter and widening her lead in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

For the first time, Clinton (N.Y.) is drawing support from a majority of Democrats -- and has opened up a lead of 33 percentage points over Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). Her popularity, the poll suggests, is being driven by her strength on key issues and a growing perception among voters that she would best represent change.

The new numbers come on the heels of an aggressive push by Clinton to dominate the political landscape. She unveiled her health-care proposal and then appeared on all five Sunday news shows on the same day -- all while her husband, former president Bill Clinton, went on tour to promote a new book. Within the past month, at least one Clinton has appeared on television virtually every day, increasing the campaign's exposure among millions of Americans.

Yesterday, her campaign announced that it had topped Obama for the first time in a fundraising period, taking in $22 million in the past three months in funds that can be used for the primary campaign, to Obama's $19 million.

When all funds raised in the period were included, Clinton raised a total of $27 million in the quarter and Obama took in $20 million. While Obama topped her performance in the first two fundraising periods this year, the two are virtually even in the amount they have raised for the primaries, with Obama bringing in about $75 million for the nominating contests and Clinton about $72.5 million.

Even with the avalanche of publicity the Clintons have received, the Post-ABC News poll suggests that there is more than name recognition at work.

Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 53 percent support Clinton, compared with 20 percent for Obama and 13 percent for former senator John Edwards (N.C.).

Despite rivals' efforts to portray her as too polarizing to win the general election, a clear majority of those surveyed, 57 percent, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate with the best chance on Nov. 4, 2008. The percentage saying Clinton has the best shot at winning is up 14 points since June. By contrast, 20 percent think Edwards is most electable and 16 percent think Obama is, numbers that represent a huge blow to the "electability" argument rivals have sought to use against her.

One of the central claims of Obama's campaign is that he is best suited to lower partisan tensions in Washington. But, in this poll, more see Clinton as best able to reduce partisanship.

Here's something that made me think: The article noted a major publicity blitz by both Hillary and Bill Clinton last week (Hillary appeared on all the Sunday talk shows and Bill made the rounds promoting a new book). This in turn reminded me of the discussion early this year of Hillary's ramrod-like presidential campaign machine, composed of fierce loyalists with much more discipline than that found among the top aides in the Bill Clinton White House:

Bill Clinton ran a loose and leaky ship during his two White House terms, and many in his old brain trust who are expected to return to the fold for a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign now have careers to tend and outside interests to promote.

By contrast, "Hillaryland" is a disciplined structure of her own design, a tight-knit realm populated by discreet, fiercely devoted aides who have been with the former first lady since her East Wing days, along with newer additions who serve on her Senate staff. Some wonder if her circle is too buffered.

Buffered or not, Hillary Clinton's emergence as the odds-on nominee poses tremendous electoral challenges to the Republicans, who look to be facing a less decisive nomination process, and thus a delayed party rally behind the eventual general election candidate.

It's also worth thinking about the prospects of Hillary as president. Some in the GOP have essentially conceded 2008 to the Democrats, and if Hillary retains her momentum through November 2008, she'll bring a degree of experience to the top rungs of power rarely seen in the history of the presidency.

Soldiers Die for Us: A Tribute to the Fallen

Check out this YouTube, a tribute to the fallen:

Hat tip: Forward Deployed.

Also check out Chicago Ray's Wednesday Hero.

Fighting Roadside Bombs: Part III

Rick Atkinson's third installment of his Washington Post IED series takes a further look at the agonizing effort by U.S. officials to develop effective countermeasures to the threat of roadside bombs. Here's the introduction:

On Aug. 3, 2005, the deadliest roadside bomb ever encountered by U.S. troops in Iraq detonated beneath a 26-ton armored personnel carrier, killing 14 Marines and revealing yet another American vulnerability in the struggle against improvised explosive devices.

"Huge fire and dust rose from the place of the explosion," an Iraqi witness reported from the blast site in Haditha, in Anbar province. In Baghdad and in Washington, the bleak recognition that a new species of bomb -- the underbelly, or "deep buried," IED -- could demolish any combat vehicle in the U.S. arsenal "was a light-bulb moment for sure," as a Pentagon analyst later put it.

Of the 81,000 IED attacks in Iraq over the past 4 1/2 years, few proved more devastating to morale than that "huge fire" in Haditha. At a time when coalition casualties per IED steadily declined, even as the number of bombs steadily increased, the abrupt obliteration of an entire squad -- made up mostly of reservists from Ohio -- revealed that the billions of dollars being spent on heavier armor and other "defeat the device" initiatives had clear limits.

Haditha provided a light-bulb moment for insurgents as well. During the next year, underbelly attacks just in the Marine sector of western Iraq would increase from a few each month to an average of four per day. By early summer of this year, the underbelly IED -- considered a specialty of Sunni bombers -- was killing more American troops in Iraq than all other variants of roadside bombs combined.

A bomb with 100 pounds of explosives detonating beneath an armored vehicle was equivalent to a direct hit from a six-gun artillery battery, but with an accuracy no gunner could hope to achieve. A single 155mm artillery round, which by itself can destroy a tank, typically contained 18 pounds of explosives. "That's just a damned difficult thing to defeat," said Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, the current chief of staff for the Multinational Corps in Baghdad.

Two weeks after the Haditha killings, Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, who headed the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, lamented the failure of American science to vanquish the roadside bomb. "If we could prematurely detonate IEDs, we will change the whole face of the war," he said. For "a country that can put a man on the moon in 10 years, or build a nuke in 2 1/2 years of wartime effort, I don't think we're getting what we need from technology on that point."

This installment of the series - with its detailed explication of the astonishingly raw firepower of the latest roadside explosives - really brings home the utter brutality of the IED threat to U.S. forces. To put it bluntly, this piece really captures the sheer horror of the war.

Also check this next quote on "explosively formed penetrators" (IFPs), the IED projectiles supplied to the Iraqi terrorists by Iran:

By late summer 2005, the explosively formed penetrator, like the underbelly IED, had become an appallingly lethal weapon for which there was no obvious countermeasure.

Although still a small fraction of all roadside bombings, EFP attacks since spring had increased from about one per week to roughly one every other day. When fired, the semi-molten copper disks struck with such violence that casualties tended to be higher and more gruesome than in other IED attacks. "This was beyond the capability of anything in our arsenal," an Army brigadier general said. "And, by the way, you can't armor your way out of this problem."

Read the whole thing.

For my earlier entries in this series, click here and here.

I Thought I Was Tough on Glenn Greenwald!

This entry is a follow-up to my Blog Watch post on Glenn Greenwald. That one was one of my better posts in the series, but for comparison, check out this exchange flying across the blogosphere today between Greenwald and his enemies:

It starts with Greenwald's post up today attacking conservative foreign policy hawks as anti-Islamist bigots. He mounts some special animosity for Protein Wisdom, which called him a (stupid) faggot:

On Protein Wisdom - the right-wing blog of Pajamas Media's Jeff Goldstein - there is a "response" to a post I wrote a couple of weeks ago concerning the exaggerations of the Muslim threat from Marty Peretz's assistant, Jamie Kirchick of The New Republic and Commentary. The Protein Wisdom response to my post is entitled "Hey (Faggot) Stupid."

I don't advocate calling ideological opponents rank ad hominems, although I can see why conservatives really hate Glenn Greenwald. Still, Greenwald gets some nasty hate mail, such as this:

Glenn -- just read your post about how we're all over-reacting to Islamic fundamentalism. How refreshing! I had no idea that our fears were so ill-founded. There I was, all set to actually believe the rhetoric of Al Qaeda and Iran and the countless video tapes of suicide bombers, not to mention the actual language of the Quran. In fact, I'd even begun to believe this poll, which says that quite a few American Muslims think that there is justification for strapping a bomb to yourself and walking into a mall [GG: I wrote about that poll here and here]. But who needs polls when I have Glenn Greenwald! Thank heavens we have you to balance all this with an argument that can basically be summed up as, "well none of these people who mocked Islam have been killed, so you all need to relax, OK?"

I picture this moment, Glenn, and it brings me a little chuckle. It's you, begging some terrorist for your life, pointing out all the wonderful things you wrote that undermined America's resolve to fight against Islamic terrorism. "Look," you say, pulling articles out of your pockets with shaking hands, "I have served you! Clearly this means that I deserve to be spared!"
I won't tell you how it ends, Glenn.

The e-mail's from RH Potfry at The Nose on Your Face. Now, while I really dislike Greenwald, I'm just not willing to get this down and dirty in attacking him (so consider this as the rejection of conservative ad hominem smears some of my lefty readers keep demanding).

But back to the issues in play: Check out Greenwald's response, which dismisses any possible inkling of an Islamist threat to American national security:

One can only marvel at how developed and richly detailed is the fantasy that he has created and carries around with him -- being on one's knees before a Muslim terrorist, begging and pleading and shaking, dialogue about "having served you." It is really right out of some cheap, trite sadomasochistic pornography script, and yet these fears and truly creepy fantasies are the foundation for their political beliefs, driving most of our political discourse and policy.

And this bile that spewed forth really illustrates so much about why we continue to fight one of history's most absurd wars ever, whereby we occupy Iraq indefinitely even though the original justifications for invading have long ago vanished and even those who want to stay have no idea what we are trying to accomplish. It is the same dynamic that fueled so much of the intense and obsessive hatred for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and which drives the insatiable quest for new Enemies to attack, including what looks increasingly like the new War with Iran.

Bombing and killing Muslims is the only path for avoiding the humiliating scenarios which our nation's war cheerleaders carry around obsessively in their heads, and which are currently filling my inbox. They're not going to be the ones on their knees, begging. They're not going to be the "faggots." Instead, they are going to send others off to fight and bomb and occupy and kill and thereby show who is strong and tough and feel protected.

Greenwald's really stuck on his "wimp factor" theories, which are of the garden variety "chicken hawk" kind, but read the whole post for more. For now, though, note how the debate continues back over at Protein Wisdom. Especially this section, with updates:

UPDATE: Gleen begins an update to a post with the formula, “I honestly just read . . . .” No, really. Were fatwas issued against them? No, but good old religieuse Gleen is deeply concerned about the blasphemy and wound to the sensibilities of Allahpundit’s handle. O tempora, o mores!

UPDATE2: More fun spun off from Gleen’s fantastical inferences regarding our fantasy lives: They are terrified but they can’t look away. “Tormented, they invent their own counter-fantasies where they are the ones holding the long, hard, dark penis and telling the source of their agony, ‘Suck. On. This.’” Because the only explanation for why one might differ from their point of view has to do with psychosexual deficiency. That’s the Progg Fantasy in a nutshell.

UPDATE3: Another numbskull weighs in:

None of this should surprise anyone. America is filled with people like Dan Collins, some of whom may be in your own families. I recall a relative of mine arguing in favor of extensive war in the Middle East, saying that if we didn’t bomb the Arabs into submission, they would come over here and “fuck us in the ass.” That’s a direct quote, by the way. I remember that line well because I had no real come back to it. I mean, what do you say to that: “To the contrary, they won’t fuck us in the ass”? Not exactly Oxford debate material. Still, the rightwing fascination with homosexual rape and queer-tinged scenarios in general says more about their confused psyches than the actual politics of the real world. I’ve run into this time and time again. Hell, twenty years ago I heard similar violent and gay-oriented rhetoric from the ex-Dartmouth Review editors and writers I had gotten to know. Back then, it was the Sandinistas who wanted to fuck us in the ass. You’d think that the U.S. has the most tantalizing rear the planet has ever seen, given how many countries desire cramming their dark, uncircumcised pricks deep inside our cheeks. This is why we must kill them before they drop their pants and pull out the bad news. Call it the Tucker Carlson school of international diplomacy.

I’m not worried about getting rammed up the ass by a Muslim, you jackass. I’m flummoxed by Gleen’s running interference for homosexual-murdering regimes and then turning around and lecturing us on our insensitivity to a particular brand of cultural difference that seems to inculcate that practice.

Of course, none of this should surprise anyone, because whatever that cultural difference may consist in, it cannot possibly be as dangerous as Neo-cons.

In fact, Gleen pretty much embodies Lacanian disembodiment:

Because of this lack of signifieds, Lacan says, the chain of signifiers–x=y=z=b=q=0=%==s (etc.)–is constantly sliding and shifting and circulating. There is no anchor, nothing that ultimately gives meaning or stability to the whole system. The chain of signifiers is constantly in play (in Derrida’s sense); there’s no way to stop sliding down the chain–no way to say “oh, x means this,” and have it be definitive. Rather, one signifier only leads to another signifier, and never to a signified. It’s kind of like a dictionary–one word only leads you to more words, but never to the things the words supposedly represent.

But people being stoned to death because of their sexuality by a regime that represents no threat to anybody, that’s rather real, I would imagine, in the moment the rock breaks the skull. On the other other other hand, you have one sockpuppet that refers to another sockpuppet that refers to another sockpuppet, ad infinitum.

And to think: I thought I was getting pretty tough on Gleen Greenwald!