What's the Story with History?

I stumbled across a website I developed last year for an interdisciplinary seminar on democracy. The purpose of the site was to explain the basics of my discipline (history) to someone who might not know anything about it. I was in a class with industrial engineers, genetic counselors, and english majors, so it was a pretty interesting exercise.

It's kind of funny and kind of informative, but after reviewing it, it's pretty clear the main goal was finishing the assignment and not producing anything of real lasting value. Still, it's always fun to look back at old assignments and reflect on how you've traveled since then. So take a look if you're bored. The best part of the site is Dr. Marten's comments - I did a really good interview with him, and his comments were very illuminating as to how a practicing historian actually works.

The Most Interesting Story of the Week

South Africans first, then Angolans, refused to allow a Chinese ship carrying arms bound for Zimbabwe to dock in their port. The arms had to be returned to China. The arms deal was neither secret or illegal, but considering the ever-increasing likelihood of a violent crackdown on members of the Zimbabwean opposition, it was a powerful demonstration of shared humanity and solidarity.

Graeme Wood has concerns with the precedent set, though he applauds the action itself. It does offer a stark challenge to the concept of open borders and free trade, but I think the precedent is not limiting, but rather affiriming. If a transnational sentiment develops against a given transaction, product, or economic action, the ability to rise up and refuse to comply seems perfectly legitimate. That Zimbabwe is a pariah state and China is generally regarded as wrong by the global community in this situation certainly helps, as the US, EU, and other enforcers of global free trade have not raised protests. The whole episode raises an interesting question about the legitimacy of trade and the rules that govern it.

UPDATE: As I was reading up on this story, I found this article from Christopher Hitchens at Slate that says essentially the exact same thing I was writing, only more eloquently. It also goes on to do some incisive analysis of Mugabe's autocratic tendencies. Kinda proves Gene Weingarten's point about the repetition of internet punditry.

Post Debate Blah...

Well, here was my question. What do you believe to be an appropriate policy towards NATO expansion, particular with regard to recent moves made by George Bush to expand the alliance to the Ukraine and Georgia? I thought it was kind of important, but I guess not, since Charlie Gibson didn't ask it.

The Crew is still down, 5-2.

I just caught Chuck Todd saying how the messages coming out of the camps in the next days will be: 1) obama - look at how this debate failed to discuss the issues facing Americans and got caught up in all the old politics BS; and 2) clinton - look at how many attacks the Republicans can throw at obama - we need someone who's had the kitchen sink thrown at her already.

I concur.

9:47 - Battery dying...must go to room to plug in. Thus concludes the liveblog. Not bad though.

9:41 - Obama did a terrible job communicating the affirmitive action question, but he had an idea and he tried. That's what I respect about him. Hillary just didn't go there. That is what this campaign will hinge on throuhgout the nomination, and if Obama wins, throughout the election.

Obizzle: "I don't think Democrats have a monopoly on good ideas." I've heard it before, but I love it.

9:34 - Affirmitive action. Conor, this one's for you. First, Obama: ahhh, you lost me. Not a good answer.

Hillary: her answer did not discuss affirmitive action in any way. If I had to guess, I'd say her prep team said "Don't say a word about affirmitive action." And she didn't. That could be a textbook lesson in artful dodging and evasion.

"Let's affirimitively invest in our young people." There should of been a cut-her-off angry follow up on that, a la Obama and capital gains, but to no avail.

Sorry Conor, looks like this one is left up to you and me.

9:27 - Hillary mentions COPS program. I'd love to hear here and Obama discuss this in a closed session for a half hour, because I think it'd reveal some fascinating differences between the two. Obama, coming from south side Chicago, can probably give a pretty forceful and effective critique of our criminal justice policies. Hillary probably can too, but they both have to pander on this one.

9:26 - And we're back! GUNS!

9:21 - Bill Hall singles in Ryan Braun with two outs. 3-1 Cards. Hall ties Kaplan for lead in RBIs. Two out hitting with RISP is clutch. It's also something I could never do. Two outs and I'm at the plate any my hands just clam up. The bat once slipped out of my hands after a swing they were so sweaty. I sometimes wish I had been on Valium in my ballplaying days, because the legitimate skills I had were often trumped by my shaky nerves. A word to the wise for the vicariously living dads out there.

9:16 - 15 minutes left erso. How bout a question on education policy? I'm thinking no. And what a shame that is. What is more important to anyoen than their kids going to a good school and getting a good education?

9:12 - Hillary and Obama on Iran. I liked how Obama broke it down into steps as to how we would leverage Iran. Incentives and costs clearly explained. Hillary ties Ahmadinejad to 9/11 conspriacy theory - that's just weird. And it's not what I want out of my commander in chief. It gets us nowhere.

9:01 - Yes! One more Natty Light in the fridge!

Obama stumbles on whether or not we would extend the policy of deterrence to Israel. He seemed very caught off guard.

Hillary goes too far: I would extend deterrence to other countries in the region as well as Israel. Wait, did she say that, or am I just putting words in her mouth. Nope, she definitely said it. The security umbrella. Is this new?

8:55 - The Hill buys in. Then again, The Hill is trash.

8:45 p.m.: Obama seems to be getting the worst of it in the early going.

He has been asked about bittergate, Rev. Wright and now, by a Pennsylvania voter, why he doesn’t wear an American flag on his lapel. Calling the mini-controversy a “manufactured issue,” Obama said: “I revere the American flag, and I wouldn’t be running for president if I didn’t revere this country.

8:52 - Brew Crew 1-2-3 in the 2nd.

Article II, Section II - Commander in Chief. Please tell me this is the foreign policy part.

8:46 - Villanueva's in trouble. 2-0 Cards in the 1st with two men on.

8:44 - Obama mentions his friend the Good Doctor Coburn, much to my delight.

8:41 - I don't think there was a mention of the wars we're in until a half hour in. By Obama, by the way.

8:38 - Andrew Marshall:

8.33 pm. So far, neither Gibson nor Stephanopoulos have asked a single policy-related question. They seem utterly uninterested in foreign or domestic policy. After the past eight years, we have had half an hour with nothing but process questions. Gibson and Stephanopoulos are clearly part of the problem in this election and part of what has to be reformed.

8:29 - Hillary prolongs the Wright controversy. As does Charlie Gibson. I don't think we're going to get to my question tonight. I'll save it for the end just in case I'm surprised.

Gene Weingarten, Washington Post humor writer, interviewed after spending 24 straight hours listening only to political pundits:

BOB GARFIELD: One of the things that you observed in your piece is that punditry, especially in the digital world, somehow manages to instantly create more punditry.

GENE WEINGARTEN: Yeah. I actually compared it to something Darwinian in that somebody says something and somebody says something that pretty much echoes it, changes it a little bit, and then eventually somebody says something that really goes off the track. That's like a mutation, and it winds up advancing the dialog in a completely new direction. So it's evolution.

8:22 - Brewers/Cards is underway. Villanueva on the mound.

8:18 - Simple yes or no from George Stephanopolous: Can Obama beat McCain? Hillary:...still waiting.

YES! YES! YES! There it is, when pressed.

8:14 - "Defend bitter, Barack." I'm satisfied. Then again, I don't think he needs to speak to me one that one.

Hillary is trying to make hay with her follow-up. A shot of both candidates shows Obama disgusted.

Democratic Debate

8:05 - What a nauseating opening segment. With the graphics and all. Tonight is absolutely byoo-tee-ful in DC. The nicest night since I've been out here. Lawns are freshly cut, and as beautiful as the cherry blossoms were last week, I think all the other trees catching up this week is just as pretty. In any other city in America, people would be outside playing frisbee, grilling, sitting in lawn chairs and drinking beer. Not here though. Like thousands of others throughout the district, my ass is firmly planted on the couch for the next two hours.


8:11 - Boo Charlie Gibson. First question is politics, not policy. The seats are filled already man, no need to hype. We can get to the substance now.

Liveblogging the Democratic Debate

I'm going to try something I've never done before and liveblog tonight's Democratic debate. ABC, 8 pm eastern, 7 central. If you are watching along with me, feel free to comment.

Drive By Truckers in DC

My venerable and hairy former roommate Logan will be coming to visit DC in a few weeks. He and I will be checking out two shows by the Drive By Truckers. I've never seen them, but Logan says they fucking rock, and after listening to this 3 hour concert on NPR (real player/windows media), I'm inclined to agree.

Absolut is Now My Vodka of Choice

They get clever points in my book.




Although, according to this map, I will soon be living in Mexico.

Probably the first time a Secretary of State's Ass was discussed in a major American newspaper

As much as I enjoyed this little ditty in the Washington Post, I couldn't help but feel it probably shouldn't see itself on the pages of one of the nation's preeminent newspapers.

But Rice walked the magazine through her regimen, describing how she gets up at 4:30 a.m. and exercises...She's asleep by 10 p.m., she said, and she restricts herself to healthy meals during the week but permits herself fried chicken or anything else she wants on weekends. As a girl, she reveals, she was "a little chubbette" but now she's a fitness fiend and wants to be like Mike. " Michael Jordan is probably the most beautiful athlete of all time," she gushed.

This reminds us of the wickedly funny anecdote in our colleague Glenn Kessler's recent book on Rice, "The Confidante: Condoleezza Rice and the Creation of the Bush Legacy." At a party, one of Rice's friends wanted to prove how tight her bottom was, so without her realizing what he was doing, he bounced a quarter off her tush while she was dancing.

Bounced off how? Did he just flip a quarter at her ass and it shot off, like a bullet ricocheting off steel (including sound effect)? And how exactly would she have to be dancing in order for someone to unsuspectingly bounce a quarter off her rump? This couldn't have been your standard upright, hip-shakin' arm-swingin' affair. As distasteful as this story is, I gotta admit it only feeds my Condi Rice fetish. I bet she was dancing to Cream.

Ahhh Pope!

From World Politics Review. Gossip columns are great. Political gossip columns are better.

The Vatican is believed to favor a McCain win in the elections, according to two Vatican specialists. The senator doesn't have a history of relations with the spiritual and administrative center of the Roman Catholic Church, and nothing has been, or is likely to be, said in support of his candidacy. But based on conversations with senior Vatican prelates, the specialists said, the Vatican sees McCain as "reliable"-- in other words, less likely to spring any surprises than Obama. They believe, for example, that he shares the Vatican's opposition to gay marriage and abortion -- although not with the same reassuring rigidity as George W. Bush.

Well, McCain might not pursue an end to the war in Iraq, see market regulation as a way of helping uplift the poor in America, or consider sweeping reforms to fix a broken American health care system. But, grazie Dio, he's against gay marriage and abortion. Because that is what being a good Catholic is all about.

John McCain: Hopeless Idealism in Iraq

I watched pretty much all of the Petraeus and Crocker testimony before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees. I tend to find the most exciting parts of these hearings are when people get out of hand and have to be ordered removed, or if Joe Biden is chairing, his running commentary. That was very true today. Everyone knew the message Petraeus and Crocker were bringing to the table. Every senator was so concerned about looking sharp and sounding profound that they would pause frequently, adding umms and ya-knows, trying to avoid at all costs slipping up with the cameras rolling. (I find reading the transcripts to be a much easier way of gleaning the points of all parties involved.)

Still, through all the tedium, there were a few interesting points. A dominant theme of both Petraeus and Crocker's testimony, and McCain's statements on Iraq, was the need to combat the spread of Iranian influence in Iraq. This is troublesome. Iran and Iraq are neighbors. The majority of each country is Shia. And it's not clear that Iranian political meddling is unwelcome by Iraqi Shia politicians. Barbara Boxer, and then Obama, picked up on this:

OBAMA: If that's the case, can you respond a little more fully to Senator Boxer's point? If, in fact, it is known -- and I'm assuming you've shared that information with the Maliki government -- that Iran's government has assisted in arming special groups that are doing harm to Iraqi security forces and undermining the Iraqi government, why is it that they're being welcomed the way they were?

CROCKER: Well, we don't need to, again, tell the prime minister that. He knows it.

OBAMA: OK.

CROCKER: And is trying to take some steps to tighten up significantly on the border.

In terms of the Ahmadinejad visit, you know, Iran and Iraq are neighbors. A visit like that should be in the category of a normal relationship.

OBAMA: OK.

In Obama's preceding question, which can be found in the link, he asked Petraeus if the Iranian government was directly supporting the arming of Special Groups in Iraq that are hurting Americans, or if they are just kind of tacitly condoning it. Petraeus' response was about as unequivocal as you can get: "There's no question in our minds that the Iranian government, and in particular the Quds Force, is -- this is a conscious, carefully worked-out policy."

This is interesting. We are aware - there is no question in our mind - that the Iranian government has a policy of supporting groups within Iraq that are hurting Americans. Joe Lieberman was keen to point out that this amounted to the murder of American soldiers. The Iranian murder of American soldiers, that is. Which, as Petraeus says, the Iraqi government and al-Maliki are aware of.

Boxer's original question is prescient, however. If you have an ally (Iraq) that knows of another government (Iran) actively pursuing a policy that leads to the murder of your soldiers, as well as its own, would you expect the leader of your ally to meet openly and amicably with the former country's leader? Well, if all the premises of that proposition were true, you would not. But something in it is apparently false.

This is complicated further by the fact that al-Maliki's political ally Ibrahim Jafari (also a former prime minister) was in Tehran yesterday meeting with a top Iranian cleric and stating "“Iran seeks to establish peace, security and stability in the region.” Again, that doesn't sound like something a US ally should be saying when Petraeus says we are sure - there is no question in our mind - that the Iranian government is supporting a policy to kill Americans. Curiously, not much of this has been scrutinized in the American media.

Thus, if a central canard of our continued presence in Iraq is to combat Iranian influence, as Lieberman and McCain clearly believe, evinced by their statements at the hearings today, then we are now failing. We are being played by the Iraqi government. Which isn't hard to believe if you take a cold, hard, interest-based look at things. The goal of creating an Iraqi state free of Iranian influence, without major ethnosectarian (the new buzz word) divisions is hopelessly idealistic. Again, it amazes me that McCain and his supporters who have long championed their hard-minded national security bona fides can believe in such an unrealistic goal.

That Iraq Thing

Anyone who has read this blog or known me for a while knows I have a proclivity to waver in my beliefs. I like to think it Aristotelian - others, Kerry-esque perhaps. Whatever you call it, I'll admit to it. I am constantly reevaluating and adjusting my positions as I consume and interpret new information, and one area where I have laid out my wafflings very publicly in this blog (here, here, here) is with regard to Iraq.

Well, I think events in the past couple weeks have crystallized my thinking. We need to set a timetable for withdrawal and start drawing troops down according to that timetable. We can leave some troops there for counter terrorism and training purposes, but major military actions should stop. I've come to this long (and this time, certain ) conclusion after reading about the effects of the surge and following the fighting in southern Iraq last week. I can break it down into two separate arguments. Let's call the first "Good fucking luck", and the second "America, nickel and dimed."


1) "Good fucking luck"

The chief argument put forth by John McCain and his backers in support of his Iraq policy (which is essentially no draw down until a coherent, stable, friendly, free market Iraq emerges from the ashes of Shock and Awe) is that we now have the right general and the right strategy. The surge and its concomitant focus on counterinsurgency tactics, they argue, will eventually stabilize the country long enough to create a political framework under which everyone will willingly lay down their arms and negotiate non-violently. I don't think I'm being uncharitable in this characterization - please, McCainites, correct me if so. But you don't have to read to deeply to see that this course of action rests on a naivete seldom attributed to hard-minded, realistic Republicans. Iraq is simply too fractured to create an overarching political framework that can accommodate the myriad sects of Shias, the largely autonomous Kurds (who have little interest in a federally-administered Iraqi state), and the Sunnis - who are all armed to the teeth, some thanks to the US.

The response from a pro-surger might be that we have to wait until upcoming provinical elections occur, which will usher in leadership more representative of the people in a given region, i.e. we won't have Shias in control in western Iraq - a largely Sunni area - because the Sunnis who boycotted the last elections will now take part and elect Sunni leaders they agree with. Well, even if we grant that this happens without a hitch, you still have to deal with the fact that you have three major sects, each with sects within itself, which have numerous options more appealing to them than aligning themselves with a foreign power which has not proven itself in really giving a rip about the overall well-being of Iraq.

Let me give an example. Western Iraq, where the Sunni population is highest - if the conditions were such that violence was brought down to a manageable level nationwide (a troublesome proposition itself - what constitutes manageable violence? No US media reports?), and Sunni leaders were able to ponder freely and deeply where they should put their chips, would they be more likely to choose: A) a nation which has invaded and occupied their country and decimated their infrastructure, shattered their security and then sought to bring it back piecemeal through whack-a-mole policies until finally just offering cash; or B) a nearby Muslim country with vast oil riches and a record of providing material support? I'm thinking B is the better option for these fictional Sunni leaders. And ditto for Shias with Iran. And who knows with the Kurds?

In summary, to believe that, should we really achieve a long-term lull in violence, Iraqi factions will naturally gravitate towards a national Iraqi state aligned with a far-removed foreign entity rather than towards other regional countries with similar demographics, is an exercise in self-delusion.


2) "America, nickel and dimed"

There may be some credence to the notion that if we stay in Iraq for 100 years in some capacity, we can create a friendly state that transforms the Middle East. Maybe. But really, the notion is more a thought exercise than anything else, since the current presence in Iraq is unsustainable from both financial and human-power perspectives. It's tired, but true: the Army is broken - and fatigued, and vulnerable. I listened to Sen. Chuck Hagel talk tonight about how we are short thousands of captains and sergeants, who are the critical soldiers in combat situations. If we invest more people in Iraq in the long term, other areas of concern are going to have to move to the backburner, plain and simple. Unless, that is, there is a massive uptick in enlistment or a draft - neither of which is likely.

Aside from the lack of boots on the ground, the debt being racked up to finance this war, and it's long term costs, are now simply outrageous and in the future will become simply unfathomable. Let's say the $3 trillion dollar cost estimate is off - even though it's done by quite formidable scholars - but still, for argument's sake, let's say they are off by, oh, $1 trillion. You still have a two trillion dollar fucking war! Don't tell me that doesn't have negative long term economic effects (weakening dollar anyone?) and don't tell me that $2 trillion is better than having another attack on the US when no attacks came from Iraq to begin with.

The cost of "success" (which here means a largely unrealistic outcome dependent on several factors) is simply not worth it. We are better of cutting losses now, doing ideological damage control on Al Qaeada (which obviously will claim victory), and working on real solutions.

If "winning" in Iraq were an option, I'd say get 'er done. But anyone who believes IRaq can be transformed into an allied democracy now is drowning in the ideological kool aid.

Lenny Dykstra in the New Yorker

This profile of former MLB All Star and now entrepreneur Lenny Dykstra is probably the funniest article I have ever read.

A teaser:

When the call ended, he led me back out front, to a fountain, which he said had been imported from Italy, and pointed at a gnarled oak next to the driveway. “You know how much that tree right there cost?” he asked. “If you touch that, that’s like murder here. Thousand Oaks, man.” He lit a cigarette, and soon, almost like a smoke alarm, the sounds of “Stuck on You,” by Lionel Richie, began playing in his pocket. It was Terri, calling from inside. “Hey, Ter,” Dykstra said. “No, I’m coming in.” He started to stub out the butt. “I got down to, like, one cigarette a day and I don’t even like it,” he said. “It’s weird when you get old.”