Armchair Generalist  May 5 2008 - 1:58pm  Bush Administration  Foreign Affairs  Iran   

You know, back when Paul Bremer was running things in Iraq - in his unique fashion - I was amazed by the stories of Republican advocates in his staff trying to push their style of democracy onto the nation. They were trying gun rights, flat taxes, all kinds of silly things. Now it sounds like the proponents of "let capitalism have a chance" are back and bigger than ever.

Forget the rocket attacks, concrete blast walls and lack of a sewer system. Now try to imagine luxury hotels, a shopping center and even condos in the heart of Baghdad.

That's all part of a five-year development "dream list" - or what some dub an improbable fantasy - to transform the U.S.-protected Green Zone from a walled fortress into a centerpiece for Baghdad's future.

But the $5 billion plan has the backing of the Pentagon and apparently the interest of some deep pockets in the world of international hotels and development, the lead military liaison for the project told The Associated Press.

For Washington, the driving motivation is to create a "zone of influence" around the new $700 million U.S. Embassy to serve as a kind of high-end buffer for the compound, whose total price tag will reach about $1 billion after all the workers and offices are relocated over the next year.

"When you have $1 billion hanging out there and 1,000 employees lying around, you kind of want to know who your neighbors are. You want to influence what happens in your neighborhood over time," said Navy Capt. Thomas Karnowski, who led the team that created the development plan.

Yes, this is a Grand Idea! Because there is nothing like having the vast and unforgiving chasm between the "haves" and the "have nots" being shown to the dirt-poor Sadr City occupants on a daily basis to make them happier and obedient servants of the United States government. Can you just imagine the propaganda that will flow if this "Wizard of Oz" city is allowed to flourish? Exactly what kind of social science idiots are being employed here?

UPDATE: More opinions here.

Armchair Generalist  Apr 29 2008 - 9:33am  Arab League  Foreign Affairs  Middle East   

Abu Aardvark has an interesting post that outlines a challenge I had not previously seen - the fact that there are no Arab embassies in Baghdad to keep the monstrosity known as the Taj Mahal US Embassy company.

Finally, the Saudi position, from which other GCC states will likely take their lead, can be seen in Saud al-Faisal's announcement that security concerns prevent opening an embassy in Baghdad, and in today's column by the well-connected al-Arabiya director Abd al-Rahman al-Rashed dismissing the American and Iraqi demands on debt and embassies as a side issue:  security is the "first, second, and third Arab issue", he writes, and when that is solved the rest will fall into place.   None of this is surprising.  The real reasons, I suspect, lie in their continuing perception of Maliki as a pro-Iranian, sectarian leader and Iraqi state institutions as deeply penetrated by Iranian influence - as well as their lack of interest in doing the US any favors right now. As Ambassador Edward Gnehm, one of America's most experienced diplomats in the Arab world, told me:

Gulf Arab states reacted predictably to Secretary Rice’s blandishments urging those states to open embassies in Baghdad and to forgive Iraqi debts.  Those states remain wary and concerned over Shia dominance of the Iraqi political scene, Iranian influence that they perceive follows, and doubts that the U.S. really has an end game plan for Iraq that protects their interests.  Both actions are seen as means to pressure the Shia political figures to give Sunni Iraqis their “rightful” place in the power structure as well as to nudge Iraq back toward the “Arab” camp.  Until they conclude that Shia political figures are ready to move on these fronts, they will not act --- and they certainly will not make the concessions to the U.S.

In that regard, perhaps the most interesting thing I've seen in the wake of the conference is what seems to be an unusually direct outreach to Saudi concerns over the last two days, with an abrupt about-face on the part of senior Iraqi officials.  In Kuwait Maliki  called "on all our brothers and friends and all neighbouring countries to make more effort and to strengthen security measures to prevent terrorists from infiltrating our territory through joint borders." Arabs seem to have taken this as directed at them, rather than Iran, particularly when Maliki specifically expressed his dismay with the level of Arab support for Iraq. 

So if we can't get the Arab community to reach out and start state-to-state negotiations with its troubled neighbor, how exactly will this Iraqi adventure suceed in becoming a stabilizing force for the region?

Armchair Generalist  Apr 25 2008 - 7:57am  Bush Administration  Middle East  National Security   

SHORTER Bush administration: "It's okay to bomb nuclear plants that aren't yet active, as long as you photograph them first. For instance, consider those in Iran..."

Armchair Generalist  Apr 23 2008 - 11:43am  Bush Administration  Middle East  National Security   

It's time once again to update the list of COCOM commanders. The AP says that General David Petraeus has been nominated to be the next CENTCOM commander. This ought not to surprise anyone. Lieutenant General Ray Odierno will replace General Petraeus in Baghdad as the commander, Multinational Forces - Iraq, instead of the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, as previously announced. Lieutenant General Pete Chiarelli will be nominated for that position.

Here's the new score:

• CENTCOM - Army General David Petraeus
• PACOM - Admiral Tim Keating
• EUCOM - Army General Bantz Craddock
• NORTHCOM - Air Force General Victor Renuart
• SOUTHCOM - Admiral James Stavridis
• AFRICOM - Army General William Ward
• JFCOM - Marine General James Mattis
• STRATCOM - Air Force General Kevin Chilton
• SOCOM - Admiral Eric Olsen
• TRANSCOM - Air Force General Norton Schwartz

Army - 3, Air Force - 3, Navy - 3, Marines - 1. Wow, look at that balance. It's almost like a sense of reality has returned to the Pentagon.

[UPDATE BY ERIC: At the risk of stepping on the AG's toes, just wanted to point out that (as noted in the comments) Spencer Ackerman has a good round up of commentary about the Petraeus promotion - including a link to a post at Newshoggers by Cernig with an update from yours truly.]

Armchair Generalist  Mar 25 2008 - 7:47am  Bush Administration  Iraq  National Security   

There is news that Basra, the third largest city in Iraq, is in turmoil as Shi'ite gangs fight the Iraqi militia for control of the local oil fields.

The BBC's Adam Brookes says three Iraqi army brigades were deployed from Baghdad to Basra as back-up for Tuesday's operation, and that up to 15,000 troops could be involved.

Coalition aircraft patrolling the skies above Basra have carried out air strikes to help the embattled Iraqi troops below.

Of the nine suspected known to have been killed so far, four died in street fighting and five in an air strike.
---------
Some of the fiercest fighting has reportedly involved the powerful Mehdi Army, which is loyal to radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr.

The Iraqi commander in charge, Lt Gen Ali Ghaidan, said the operation aimed to purge Basra of what he called "outlaws".

He said his forces had confiscated weapons and roadside bombs during raids across Basra.

Routes into the city have been sealed off, according to reports, while hospital officials spoke of a number of casualties.

Well who could have forseen that, after British troops turned over the city to the Iraqi government and declared success, this fighting would have broken out? I mean, the Surge(TM) was a success, no? And Sadr's spokesman is saying that this wasn't his idea.

Liwa Sumaysim, head of Sadr's political bureau in the central city of Najaf, denounced the bloodletting.

"We do not want the situation as it is in Basra. We are against bloodshed, especially in this critical period of time," Sumaysim told AFP.

"The Sadr movement is being targeted in Basra, that is why this tension has been created. The Iraqi government forces should not use force against poor people," he added.

"Sadr emphasises the need to solve the problem peacefully through dialogue. Sadr is following the events and his instruction is to solve this problem politically with Iraq's leaders."

This lends more credence to the thought that there won't be any drop in American troop levels in 2008, not with "successes" like this one.

Armchair Generalist  Mar 11 2008 - 8:50am  Bush Administration  Iraq  National Security   

SHORTER Michael O'Hanlon: Having not heard about the increase in insurgent bombings and decreased availability of electricity in Iraq, I believe we should "work for success" in Iraq while reminding the Iraqi politicians not to emulate the US Congress.

After all, what's another Friedman Unit?

Armchair Generalist  Mar 4 2008 - 11:08am  Bush Administration  Israel  Middle East  National Security   

I've just recently stumbled across the fact that the US government had been supplying arms to the Palestinian Authority for the purposes of countering Hamas in the Gaza Strip and West Bank areas.

A well-timed Vanity Fair expose caused a flap on the first day of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's trip to the Middle East.

The article, "The Gaza Bombshell," by David Rose, cited confidential documents and interviews to allege that the Hamas takeover stemmed from a secret Bush administration plan to use Fatah security forces to confront Hamas. Hamas, the article said, caught wind of the plan and acted before Fatah could, seizing the Gaza Strip.

Since Rice is traveling in the region, trying to stem the fallout from the constant rocket attacks launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza, any article that claims that the current crisis is the result of administration mistakes, rather than terrorist actions, is bound to grab attention. Arab reporters here seemed especially interested in the Vanity Fair piece.

The article does contain excerpts from some fascinating documents--including talking points by a senior U.S. official accidentally left behind in a meeting--that demonstrate how much pressure Rice and other top officials put on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to dismiss the Hamas-led government. But many of the reporters traveling with Rice felt the article mostly summarized information that many of us had written about at the time. The administration's plan to bolster the Fatah security forces was well known--and the article does not definitely prove that even a partial coup was part of the plans.

I can't find the article on-line, but I have to wonder - why is it that the Bush administration's first answer to every regional conflict is to throw more weapons into the mix? You'd think that, by now, they'd have figured out that hard power doesn't solve these long-term conflicts. Or maybe that's the problem - that the Bush administration hasn't in fact learned this lesson. Certainly they have shown no appreciation for grand strategy elsewhere through this administration's term in office.

Armchair Generalist  Mar 3 2008 - 2:02pm  Africa  Bush Administration  National Security   

In regards to the newly formed U.S. Africa Command, there are those who insist that the US government's intentions in Africa are solely humanitarian and largely will not involve the basing or involvement of US military forces in Africa. So I'm sure that this news article will have absolutely no impact on the success of that new command.

Pentagon officials said Monday the United States launched an air strike in Somalia to go after a terrorist suspect.

In the strike early Monday, Somali police said three missiles hit a Somali town held by Islamic extremists, destroying a home and seriously injuring eight people.

A Pentagon official said the U.S. military was going after an al-Qaida suspect in the town. As yet, there is no word on whether the suspect was hit. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly about the strike.

The strike follows one last year in which the U.S. shelled suspected al-Qaida targets in Somalia.

The DOD was brief in its explanation for the attack.

"On March 2, the United States conducted an attack against a known al Qaeda terrorist in southern Somalia," Bryan Whitman, Pentagon spokesman, said.

"As we have repeatedly said, we will continue to pursue terrorist activities and their operations wherever we may find them," he said.

Whitman said the United States works closely with partners in the region in the conduct of military operations.

"We share common goals with respect to fighting terrorism," he said. "We will continue to seek out, identify, capture and, if necessary, kill terrorists where they plan their activities, carry out their operations or seek safe harbor."

Interesting on how you don't hear about any US "non-kinetic" operations in Somalia, or any other African country (although I am sure that some are ongoing). A colleague of mine told me that most people learn by this practice: "I hear what the boss is saying, but I also see what he does, and they ain't the same thing."

Armchair Generalist  Feb 5 2008 - 8:46am  Afghanistan  Air Force  Counterinsurgency  Military Affairs   

This week, we have a report of an air strike against a Taliban leader in Afghanistan.

The air strike took place in the Bakwa district of Farah province late on Sunday and killed one woman, two children and four men.

"Mullah Malang, a Taliban commander in the district, was the target, but he was not among the casualties," provincial police chief General Khiasbaz Sherzai said.

A provincial official, who declined to be named, said the civilians killed were family members of the Taliban commander.

Both the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the US-led coalition in Afghanistan said they had no immediate information on the air strike.

A total of 1,977 civilians were killed in 2007 in fighting in Afghanistan, including nearly 240 who lost their lives in air strikes by foreign troops, according to Afghanistan NGO Safety Office, a body that monitors security for non-governmental organisations.

Here's another fine example of the US Air Force's counterinsurgency tactics, except that they weren't insurgents. CBS News reports the incident of AF "air support" to soldiers in Iraq.

Iraqi police said the victims, including two women, were in two houses in the village of Tal al-Samar, which was bombed by American warplanes late Saturday. They were all Sunni members of the al-Ghrir tribe, an officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to media.
The U.S. air strike came after an American convoy came under enemy fire in Tal al-Samar, and soldiers called for air support, the Iraqi officer said.

Shortly after the incident, American officers met with a Muslim sheik representing citizens in the area, Evans said.

"We offer our condolences to the families of those who were killed in this incident, and we mourn the loss of innocent civilian life," he said in a statement e-mailed to the AP.

Saturday's strike was the deadliest known case of mistaken identity in recent months.

I keep forgetting, is the US Air Force fighting for our side or to aid the insurgent cause? Because they are doing a great job of pushing Afghani and Iraqi civilians into the insurgent camps.

Armchair Generalist  Jan 8 2008 - 8:54am  Foreign Affairs  Middle East   

Who knew that Miss South Carolina was the norm, rather than the exception, when she accurately quoted: "I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to [find the United States on a map] because some people out there in our nation don't have maps." Via Abu Muqawama, this story from the Olin Center at Harvard:

On average, young Americans can find one (1.3) of these four countries. Fourteen percent can point out all four countries correctly, while 44% cannot find any of them.

After three years of war in Iraq, only 37% of young Americans can find Iraq; 63% cannot. As many can—and cannot—identify Saudi Arabia. The result is even worse for Iran and Israel. Only one in four can find Iran (26%) or Israel (25%). Three-quarters cannot find these two countries. Overall, up to one in five say they “don’t know” where these four countries are located (ranging from 16% for Iraq to 20% for Iran).

Education makes a difference in young adults’ ability to locate these four countries in the headlines: young Americans with college experience (1.6 correct answers on average) are more likely than those with up to a high school education (0.9 correct) to locate these countries. That said, even the more educated group fares relatively poorly, with less than a quarter of those with a college education able to find all four countries (23%, 6% of those with up to a high school diploma).

Wow. We've been at war within the Middle East for more than six years, and less than 25 percent of college-educated Americans can't figure out the players. This is just pathetic. I personally blame Karen Hughes...

Armchair Generalist  Jan 4 2008 - 10:18am  Bush Administration  Iran  Iraq  National Security   

Yesterday, the Washington Times reported General Petreaus's spokesman COL Steven Boylan as saying that Iran's leadership was pulling back from aiding Iraqi insurgents with material and training. Today, he's pulling back that statement:

The spokesman for Gen. David H. Petraeus said that a quote he e-mailed to The Washington Times for the article in yesterday's paper headlined "Iran no longer aids Iraq militants" was not clear and therefore misinterpreted.

Col. Steven Boylan said, "It is not clear if Iran's leaders stopped supplying weapons or training to extremist elements in Iraq. We hope that they have, but until we can confirm it, we are in the wait and see mode."

Oops! It sounds like someone's chain got snapped back, and hard. Didn't he know that Iran was and will continue to be the bad guys, as long as they refuse to participate in open inspections of their nuclear energy program?

Armchair Generalist  Jan 2 2008 - 9:01am  Bush Administration  Iraq  National Security   

I was surprised to see this headline noting that it was one year ago that Saddam Hussein was hanged. It seems like it was longer ago.

December 19 marked a year in the Muslim religious calendar since his death, and Mr al-Nasseri, expecting a big turn-out, laid on free posters of Saddam.

Yet the supporters who gathered to commemorate by laying flowers and reading the Koran numbered only in the dozens, not the hundreds of thousands that Saddam's deluded ego might have expected.

It has been the same, by all accounts, for most of the rest of the year - visitor numbers seldom reach double figures, and on quieter days are down to just two or three.

Nor do all of Saddam's relatives come intending to pay their respects.

"As long as Saddam's body remains in that grave, we will try to destroy it," vowed Mohammed Sagaban, an al-Owja resident.

It's good, but perhaps not surprising, that few miss the dictator's presence in Iraq. It may even be an indicator that the Iraqi society is far more capable of moving on than the one-third of American society who still support the presence of US troops in Iraq.

Armchair Generalist  Dec 27 2007 - 9:35am  Foreign Affairs  Pakistan   

News stations are reporting that Benazir Bhutto is dead of wounds suffered from a suicide bomber's attack.

Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide bombing that also killed at least 20 others at a campaign rally, a party aide and a military official said.

Earlier, it was reported that Bhutto was in critical condition undergoing emergency surgery at Rawalpindi General Hospital.

An Associated Press reporter at the scene could see body parts and flesh scattered at the back gate of the Liaqat Bagh park where Bhutto had spoken. He counted about 20 bodies, including police, and could see many other wounded people.

CNN reports that local Pakistani television quoted her husband as saying she had been shot in the neck. This is horrible news. I hope that, at the least, it shocks Musharraf into understanding the need to buckle down hard on the radicals in his country.

Armchair Generalist  Dec 13 2007 - 10:45am  Bush Administration  Foreign Affairs  Iraq   

Via Kevin Drum's Political Animal, I found this blog post about a university professor's discovery that some of his students believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the al Qaeda attacks on 9/11.

I have now received three (3) student papers that discuss Iraq's attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11. All three papers mention it as an aside to another point. I've had two papers on the virtue of forgiveness that argue that if we had just forgiven Iraq for the 9/11 attacks, we wouldn't be at war right now. I just read a paper on the problem of evil which asked why God allowed "the Iraq's" to attack us on 9/11.

The thing that upsets me most here is that the the students don't just believe that that Iraq was behind 9/11. This is a big fact in their minds, that leaps out at them, whenever they think about the state of the world.

For some reason, this really bugs me. I can understand how a third of the US population still thinks that Iraq was behind 9/11. They drank the koolaid, didn't bother thinking about it, missed the president's own stated retractions in the past few years. But undergrads in a college?? At the least, you'd expect some measure of academic research, some fact-checking? No?

Read the comments. It's an interesting discussion.

Armchair Generalist  Dec 5 2007 - 9:54am  Bush Administration  Foreign Affairs  Iran   

Amazing how the blogosphere can penetrate the sense of a situation much quicker than any media pundit. In regards to dealing with the post-NIE Iran, the NY Times editorial board suggests... sending in SecState Condi Rice. To which a credulous Duncan Black responds, "Because everything she touches turns into... gold?"

The NYT editorial board actually means this seriously.

Yesterday, Mr. Bush insisted that he believes in a carrot-and-stick approach. But he has yet to make a serious offer of comprehensive talks and real rewards if Iran is willing to give up its fuel program and cooperate fully with inspectors. He is going to have to send someone a lot higher ranking than the American ambassador in Baghdad to deliver the message. We suggest Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for the job.

Our elite discourse is filled with fools.

 To which I can only question why he didn't add the following paragraph in the editorial for review:

We don’t know if the Iranians will find any offer credible, or if they even want to. It is the least Mr. Bush can do to try to salvage his credibility with the American people and America’s allies.

Ahhh... isn't it just a little too late to be thinking of salvaging his credibility? Ain't gonna happen, not with this current administration and its rhetoric to date. 

Armchair Generalist  Dec 3 2007 - 9:31am  Bush Administration  Foreign Affairs  United States   

You knew his stand-up routine from PNAC, you loved him on the big stage in the defense field, you wanted more of him in his follow-on act in banking... Now due to popular demand, Paul Wolfowitz returns to the Bush administration stage.

Don't ever say the Bush administration doesn't take care of its own. Nearly three years after Paul Wolfowitz resigned as deputy Defense secretary and six months after his stormy departure as president of the World Bank—amid allegations that he improperly awarded a raise to his girlfriend—he's in line to return to public service. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has offered Wolfowitz, a prime architect of the Iraq War, a position as chairman of the International Security Advisory Board, a prestigious State Department panel, according to two department sources who declined to be identified discussing personnel matters. The 18-member panel, which has access to highly classified intelligence, advises Rice on disarmament, nuclear proliferation, WMD issues and other matters. "We think he is well suited and will do an excellent job," said one senior official.

Wolfowitz, now a visiting scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, will replace former senator Fred Thompson, who quit over the summer to run for president. Although officials declined to say how Rice came to choose him, Wolfowitz began his government career in the 1970s in the State Department as an arms-control expert; he forged a relationship with Rice during the 2000 presidential campaign, when they both served as top foreign-policy advisers to the then candidate Bush. But his selection has raised more than a few eyebrows within State because he'll be providing advice on some of the same issues that critics say the administration got spectacularly wrong when Wolfowitz was pushing the case for the Iraq War at the Pentagon. (One of the department sources called the appointment "amazing.") At least Wolfowitz, who did not return calls seeking comment, will have like-minded company: other panel members include Robert Joseph, the former National Security Council official in charge of Iraq WMD intelligence, and ex-CIA director James Woolsey, both strong allies during the Iraq debate.

The sources said Wolfowitz has already accepted Rice's offer to fill the part-time position, though it won't be announced until the completion of a standard check for conflicts of interest. But he won't have to worry about any complaints from pesky Democrats. The position doesn't require Senate confirmation.

Way to go, Condi! I'll bet Wolfowitz was really worried about his post-comedy career...

UPDATE: I missed this one from Andrew Sullivan...

He's advising Condi on WMDs. Curveball wasn't available?

Armchair Generalist  Nov 29 2007 - 9:15am  Afghanistan  Bush Administration  National Security   

It's painful to watch the Department of Defense self-immoliate itself - again and again - on the issue of counterinsurgency doctrine. We had a recent case where US planes bombed a group of tents near a construction site in Afghanistan, killing 14 civilians. They believed they were hitting a Taliban camp. Unfortunately, this work crew was hired by the Army Corps of Engineers to work at the construction site.

Gov. Tamim Nuristani of Nuristan said he could confirm that 13 workers had been “mistakenly” killed when NATO forces bombed the area based on what he said was an intelligence report of insurgent infiltration.

“All these victims are civilians and they were from nearby provinces,” he said.

Maj. Charles Anthony, a NATO spokesman, said its forces had struck what it believed were Taliban insurgents but could not confirm that the workers had been killed.

Mr. Jalali said that in the year his company had worked in the region, his workers had not come across any militants.

“We have not seen any evidence of insurgency in that specific area, and we don’t know why and who attacked our laborers,” he said.

And of course, the best thing that the DOD could do is say, yeah, we screwed up. We need to check our intel better and consider engaging with ground troops rather than eyeballs at 15,000 feet. But no..... instead we get this defensive stance:

The Pentagon Tuesday defended an air attack in Afghanistan that was reported to have killed 14 road workers as based on "credible and multiple" intelligence that the targets were insurgents.

The head of an Afghan-Korean construction company building a road in remote Nuristan province said the warplanes mistakenly bombed a road construction camp, killing its workers.
-----------
He said there was a construction site a kilometer (half mile) away, but the site hit had no construction vehicles or other signs of roadbuilding activity.

Very nice. A statement guarenteed to gain respect and admiration by the populace you're bombing.

Armchair Generalist  Nov 27 2007 - 12:27pm  Bush Administration  Foreign Affairs  Israel  Palestine   

I was struck by the optimistic tone in many evening news shows and other media over the last two weeks, promoting SecState Condi Rice's potential to drive the Israeli-Palestinean discussions at Annapolis to a more fruitful state. After the Bush administration has ignored these talks for so many years, it seemed strange to believe that one set of meetings might correct that trend. The NY Times agrees:

Even if a deal is reached, and many are skeptical, it will not be carried out for a number of years. Israel wants to be sure that if it withdraws from the West Bank, there is a reliable Palestinian security force to stop aggression and terrorism — to ensure that a Hamas-run Gaza that fires rockets at Israel is not replicated in the West Bank.

As Tony Blair, the representative of the so-called quartet — the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations — pushing for a Middle East peace, said: “The true Israeli anxiety is focused not only on the territory of the Palestinian state, but on the nature of that state. The true Israeli position is not to agree to a state for the Palestinians unless they are sure of how that state will function, how it will be governed, how viable it will be, and not simply in its territorial contiguity, but in its stability as a long-term partner for peace.”

The risks of failure, all agree, are extremely high, both for Mr. Abbas and the concept of a negotiated two-state solution. Many Israelis and Palestinians — and not just Hamas — say they think that Annapolis is ill-timed and bound to disappoint.

Even senior Israeli and Palestinian officials are worried. “If we can reach a final agreement, then I’m willing to risk the government and go to new elections,” the Israeli official close to Mr. Olmert said. “But to risk the government for something unclear seems unwise. To go to Annapolis and lose a government is not a good idea.”

But here's the paragraph that really caught my eye:

The long buildup to Annapolis, together with Ms. Rice’s many trips to the region, have given birth to a new verb in Israeli government circles: “lecondel,” meaning, to come and go for meetings that produce few results. The word is based on Ms. Rice’s first name.

Oh, SNAP! no you didn't! You didn't go there, did you? Wow, it must really hurt to see your name become a synonym for "I joined this administration and all I got done was frequent flyer miles." But the real shame of this dog-and-phony show is best described in this Foreign Policy Watch blog:

As things get underway in Annapolis tomorrow, many analysts are warning that substance will not be foremost in the spotlight: Israeli PM Ehud Olmert is too politically weak to credibly deliver major concessions on behalf of Israel while Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas suffers from much the same dilemma, ruling only half of the territory that is nominally his and constantly grappling with a fierce opposition beholden to violence and a rejectionist foreign policy. But if the point of Annapolis, then, is merely to bring the two sides together - with strong international backing - to renew dialogue and begin talking again, you have to ask yourself, Couldn't the same thing have been achieved long ago?

Word, brother.

Armchair Generalist  Nov 1 2007 - 6:04am  Bush Administration  Foreign Affairs  Iraq   

On Monday, I had blogged a brief post about how the State Department is looking for a few good men and women to go to Baghdad - and if they don't find them, they'll force a few to go. Always a winning approach. Well, today the Washington Post has coverage of the revolt of the State Department personnel.

At a town hall meeting in the department's main auditorium attended by hundreds of Foreign Service officers, some of them criticized fundamental aspects of State's personnel policies in Iraq. They took issue with the size of the embassy -- the biggest in U.S. history -- and the inadequate training they received before being sent to serve in a war zone. One woman said she returned from a tour in Basra with post-traumatic stress disorder only to find that the State Department would not authorize medical treatment.

Yesterday's internal dissension came amid rising public doubts about diplomatic progress in Iraq and congressional inquiries into the department's spending on the embassy and its management of private security contractors. Some participants asked how diplomacy could be practiced when the embassy itself, inside the fortified Green Zone, is under frequent fire and officials can travel outside only under heavy guard.

Service in Iraq is "a potential death sentence," said one man who identified himself as a 46-year Foreign Service veteran. "Any other embassy in the world would be closed by now," he said to sustained applause.

Harry K. Thomas Jr., the director general of the Foreign Service, who called the meeting, responded curtly. "Okay, thanks for your comment," he said, declaring the town hall meeting over.

I'm not a State Dept insider, but I'm amazed that it's taken this long for rumblings to emerge about Condi Rice's "leadership" of Foggy Bottom.

The notices, which most diplomats first learned about from the news media as the e-mails sat in their office computers over the weekend, appeared to have catalyzed unease that has been swirling through the Foreign Service over issues that include Iraq, underfunding and inadequate recruitment, perceived disrespect from the U.S. military and the job performance of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

A poll conducted this month by the American Foreign Service Association found that only 12 percent of officers "believe that . . . Rice is fighting for them," union president John K. Naland said at yesterday's meeting, which was first reported by the Associated Press.

"That's their right. But they're wrong," said Thomas, who appeared to grow increasingly agitated as the questioning became more pointed.

"Sometimes, if it's 88 to 12, maybe the 88 percent are correct," Naland said.

"Eighty-eight percent of the country believed in slavery at one time. Was that correct?" Thomas responded, saying he was "insulted." Rice is fighting hard for them, he said. Amid scattered boos from the audience, Thomas added: "Let no one be a hypocrite. I really resent people telling me that I do not care about other Foreign Service officers."

Wow. Can you believe he pulled out the slavery comparison there? There's a really high class boss. And I thought things were bad in the DOD. Heckuva job, Condi!

UPDATE: Oh, snap. I just found out that Karen Hughes is leaving the State Department, making this her second leave of absence from the Bush administration. Oh, however will we win the Muslim hearts and minds now?

Armchair Generalist  Oct 15 2007 - 8:55am  Bush Administration  Foreign Affairs  Russia   

It boggles the mind how so many people (and in particular the media) seem to ignore the ridiculous flailing of our Secretary of State. It's bad enough that she's been ineffective in the Middle East, but in her own area of expertise - Russia - she's reduced to a caricature. Via TPM, Steve Benen notes the irony of her statements.

The Russian government under Vladimir Putin has amassed so much central authority that the power-grab may undermine Moscow's commitment to democracy, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday.

"In any country, if you don't have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development," Rice told reporters after meeting with human-rights activists.

"I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin. I have told the Russians that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma," said Rice, referring to the Russian parliament.

Very amusing stuff. Substitute "White House" for Kremlin and "Congress" for Duma, and the irony becomes clear. I'm certainly no fan of Russia's increasingly authoritarian government, but even their side sees the hypocrisy inherent in our government.

Alexander Brod, head of the Moscow Human Rights Bureau, said the discussions touched on "authoritarianism and the crisis of human rights." He said he disagreed with "the opinion that we had a flourishing democracy in the 1990s and that we have a setback now."

"Not all is ideal in America, either. We see protests against the war in Iraq and violations of human rights on the part of security services and violations of human rights in countering terrorism," Brod said.

Vladimir Lukin, the government-appointed human rights ombudsman, was quoted by Interfax as saying he told Rice that human rights should be discussed in a dialogue rather lecturing in a "doomsday" style.

Is it because the media is afraid of criticizing a black woman in Bush's administration for fear of being hit with the racist card? Or is it because Condi Rice is such a great dresser and smiles a lot that no one has the heart, being dazzled by her charm? Or maybe it's because we all stopped expecting things to be done by the State Department a long while ago.