Was It Worth It?

Naturally, every sane person is celebrating the quickly approaching demise of Qaddafi.Who wouldn't be? He is after all, an objectively terrible person and no friend to anyone anywhere (well, with the glaring exception of Venezuelan BFF: Hugo Chavez).

That said, over at Foreign Policy, Blake Hounshell asks whether the intervention was worth it.

Despite his assurances to the contrary, I have to say "No. No it certainly was not." From his piece:

But these problems seem manageable over time, and it is in any case hard to imagine any Libyan government worse than Qaddafi, whose rule was not only deeply repressive and arbitrary at home but also destabilizing abroad. I disagree strongly with those, like CFR's Richard Haass, who would like to see some kind of foreign stabilization force -- not only is it not going to happen, but it's best if Libyans handle their own affairs as much as possible. They will make mistakes, but these will be their own mistakes. It's now their country once again.

And that's the best news about the fall of Qaddafi

He notes correctly, that the United States managed to effect the overthrow of Qaddafi for a mere $1.1 billion. And I don't say that to be snarky. Compared to the costs of Iraq, that's definitely regime change at bargain basement prices. That's certainly well and good.

And undoubtedly, it's wonderful that the Libyan people will be able to live out from under the yoke of their dictator. Granted though, how they intend to live, whether it be in a pluralistic democracy or a state of civil war remains to be seen. The point is that it's their problem to determine how their society will progress.

That final point however, is unfortunately one that undermines his argument.

The situation in Libya has always been a Libyan problem. To be sure, it certainly had regional ramifications (specifically in terms of refugees fleeing to other countries including NATO ally; Italy). However, strictly from a security perspective, this civil war had NOTHING to do with the United States. Neither our allies nor ourselves were in anyways threatened by actual physical danger.

And yet, off we went to war. Or off to "kinetic military action" or whatever the administration chose to designate it. The point is that the President chose to involve the United States in the affairs of another country despite a lack of threat. This is not to say that the President shouldn't want to involve the United States militarily in other countries. However, prior to this particular engagement, there was the now quaint notion of getting Congress' approval for such actions. In fact, there still exists a dusty law mandating that the President seek such approval.

And it was ignored.

Since We're Most Certainly Not Involved In Any Sort of Hostilities...

Conor Friedersdorf offers up ten euphemisms for whatever the hell it is that does not require congressional approval in Libya.

My personal favorite is:

Operations abroad characterized more by their energy than any animus toward what I'll refrain from calling the enemy.

Our New Post-Modern World

You know things are getting surreal when life imitates the Onion.

A Bit of Context

After Obama stated that an Israeli-Palestinian peace process should be based around the borders of Israel circa 1967, Prime Minister Netanyahu was quick to reject this as "indefensible". Democracy in America provides a bit of context to these "indefensible borders":

I note and agree with all of this. But it also seems to me at least worth mentioning, in the context of the question of whether the borders established by the 1949 armistice are "defensible", that Israel fought two wars from those borders. In 1956, the Israel Defence Forces seized the Sinai from Egypt in nine days. In 1967, Israel seized the Sinai, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights in six days.

There are certainly reasons why those conflicts might not provide good models for future conflicts. One might object that they didn't prove the borders were "defensible", since both began with surprise attacks by Israel against its neighbours. Perhaps one would need to consider the scenario of a surprise attack against Israel, such as the 1973 war, but fought within the 1967 borders. On the other hand, Israel's military superiority over Jordan and Syria is now much greater than it was in 1956 or 1967, particularly since the loss of Syria's Soviet patron. In any case, it just seems like people ought to at least make some acknowledgment when talking about the defensibility of these borders that these two wars did actually take place, and the borders didn't seem to be much of a problem for Israel.

I Wish I'd Said This

Jeffrey Goldberg sums up my feelings nicely:

For whatever reason, I tend to react strongly when a foreign leader disrespects the United States, and its President. I didn't like it when Hugo Chavez of Venezuela insulted President Bush; I don't like listening to Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan lecture the U.S. on its sins, and I'm not happy when certain Pakistani leaders gin-up righteous indignation about American behavior when it was their country that served as a refuge for the greatest mass murderer in American history.

And so I was similarly taken aback when I read a statement from Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday that he "expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both House of Congress."

So Netanyahu "expects" to hear this from the President of the United States? And if President Obama doesn't walk back the speech, what will Netanyahu do? Will he cut off Israeli military aid to the U.S.? Will he cease to fight for the U.S. in the United Nations, and in the many international forums that treat Israel as a pariah?

Shut up Bibi. Just shut the hell up.

As little as I like Obama (and I dislike him only marginally less than Bush the younger), I am appalled that the head of a country whose foreign policy is essentially underwritten by the guarantee of American military support has the nerve to come here expecting that we kowtow to him on this. It's unbelievable to me.

When All's Said and Done

Besides the Archbishop of Canterbury, there's been a notable lack of protest from critics of targeted killings in the wake of the death of Bin Laden. Because...well, honestly, it's Bin Laden for crying out loud! Not exactly a figure commanding great compassion, to say the least. It's easy to argue against the assassination of someone unless it happens to be a really, really terrible someone.

Democracy in America lays out the bottom line:

The silence of the usual critics of "illegal", "extrajudicial", targeted killing in the wake of America's killing of Osama bin Laden might reflect hypocrisy, sure. But this can be tough to distinguish from resignation to the fact that Mr Obama didn't submit his case for executing Mr bin Laden to some global civil authority because there isn't one and he didn't have to—because America's the biggest kid on the block and, ultimately, what America says goes. And, if it comes down to it, Britain, France, Italy, Russia and other powerful governments hope America will indulge their own kill-squad adventures with similar approving silences. Of course, if some aggrieved faction in the future seeks retribution through the targeted killing of one of these countries' leaders,

that will be raw vengeance, that will be terrorism, that will be an international crime, because, like it or not, that's how it works.

Or We Could Keep Giving Them Billions of Dollars

Strong words from Salman Rushdie:

There is not very much evidence that the Pakistani power elite is likely to come to its senses any time soon. Osama bin Laden’s compound provides further proof of Pakistan’s dangerous folly.

As the world braces for the terrorists’ response to the death of their leader, it should also demand that Pakistan give satisfactory answers to the very tough questions it must now be asked. If it does not provide those answers, perhaps the time has come to declare it a terrorist state and expel it from the comity of nations.

My emphasis.

Considering their cache of nuclear weapons, that's perhaps not the wisest option to pursue. However, when considering the amount of aid evidently squandered on them to fight terrorists (who they're quick to point out have killed thousands of Pakistanis), it's impossible to not consider.

Pakistan, You Got Some 'Splainin' To Do!

Pictured: 'Splainin'

Foreign Policy has a minor concern over the death of Osama Bin Laden:

Second, the news that bin Laden was found in a lavish mansion just outside Islamabad -- in a suburb that is the richest of the entire country of Pakistan -- and guarded by dozens if not hundreds of minions, shows that Pakistan has been at least partially assimilated by the global jihadist movement. There is no way in God's green earth that some part of official Pakistan -- the military, the intelligence agencies, or the political class -- was not somehow involved in protecting bin Laden from detection and capture. Punishing Pakistan is not the point, but rather that the country is much further along in its slide toward extremism and perhaps even civil war and needs more, not less, assistance from us. 

Let the 'splainin' commence!

We Must! We Must! We Must!

Christopher Hitchens lays out some compelling arguments for a truly active military role for NATO (by which he means the US),  in Libya:

Now to Libya: Quite obviously Col. Muammar Qaddafi has joined the list of deranged dictators whose acceptability is at an end, and it is unimaginable that he should emerge from the current confrontation with control over any part of the country. Equally obviously, we shall have to go to Tripoli to remove him. But we will not be doing so in the rearguard of any victorious insurgent army. In Afghanistan we could call upon some fierce and hardened fighters in the shape of the Northern Alliance. In Iraq, the Kurdish peshmerga militias had liberated substantial parts of the country from Saddam Hussein under the protection of our "no-fly zone." But the so-called Libyan rebels do not just fire in the air and strike portentous attitudes for the cameras. They run away, and they quarrel among themselves, and they are not cemented by any historic tradition of resistance or common experience.

True, true and true. The rebels are an incompetent and at best probably well meaning group. And that assessment certainly deserves some very strong caveats. The chances of them toppling Qaddafi seem to be increasingly far-fetched.

In effect, this half-baked approach leaves the initiative with Qaddafi. It also means that the mounting death rate, which recently included the lost life of my much-admired Vanity Fair colleague Tim Hetherington along with several others, is not justifiable by any commensurate military or political gains. These are lives that are being frittered away. Hetherington's last tweet described what he saw in Misurata the day before his death: "Indiscriminate shelling by Qaddafi forces. No sign of NATO." How shameful. What is utterly lacking in Libya, still, is an entrance strategy.

Again, true. It seems that the rebels are just strong enough to prolong a stalemate. A stalemate heavily featuring the slaughter in Misurata.

I have heard it argued that the pursuit of Qaddafi runs the risk of civilian casualties, as I presume in theory it must do. But the failure to target him most certainly means a steady and continuous and increasing flow of civilian deaths. To refuse to soil our hands with this homicidal lunatic is an odd way of keeping them clean.

All indisputably true.

But the questions remain: To be paid for by whom? What national necessities obligate our participation in this? For whom are we fighting and would their reign over Libya be for the better or worst?

In short, "Why must we?". Is every humanitarian disaster within our purview, let alone our ability?

Parsing the President

I've finally had some time to sit down and read the Presidents speech concerning the war in Libya in full and think properly about it.

If I may, I'd like to run through some parts of the speech that intrigued me as well as my thoughts about them.

Obama begins the meat of his speech with this:

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.

Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt – two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.

Obviously, this is a somewhat romanticized view of the United States' role in the world. As every other country, we have certainly had interests that prevented us from serving as an "anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom" every time insecurity or oppression has occured. This isn't to say that it's wrong to anchor and/or advocate for security and/or freedom. I absolutely believe that this is consistent with what could be called "American Values". That said, it would also be astonishing and wonderful if there was ever a land that could or even would formulate the entirety of its foreign policy around those ideals. Reality quite unfortunately, often throws a monkey wrench into the loftiest of missions.

This brings us to the first hints of realpolitik in Obama's speech: Libya's inconvenient geography as well as Qaddafi's larger role as a destabilizing force in the Mid-East and the world in general.

Both of these are real challenges to American interests and problematic ones at that. I would assume neither Egypt nor Tunisia is in a position to accept any sort of sizable refugee migration. I also believe that the world would be a substantially better place were someone to bury something small, sharp and exceedingly poisonous in Qaddafi's back.

That said, given that the rebels seem incapable of advancing or holding territory without allied air support, I fail to see what hope exists for anything other than a Libya, partitioned between two hostile combatants and patrolled for the foreseeable future by NATO air forces. I'm unconvinced that this helps stabilize the region more than allowing Qaddafi's regime to continue. As fragile as Egypt and Tunisia are currently, how more more tenuous their situation when both sides in the conflict begin to import fighters across their borders?

Obama continues:

Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly. 

This is good news from an American perspective. It would be ideal to hand this mess off to anyone else that wants it. Unfortunately, though this will significantly limit our risks and costs, will it limit our responsibility? Though I don't know that I would say that a country must clean up its messes, I think morally, it probably should. Having played such a vital role in the opening salvos of the war, are we in a position where we can simply step away from it? Though the United States will undoubtedly provide Libya with humanitarian aid (say what you will, one thing the US does is humanitarian aid), I think that there are serious challenges waiting for us.

Most significantly, Libya will be a security mess. Even assuming that the rebels manage to gain control of the country, who will protect the aid workers we send? Who will protect the engineers we dispatch to rebuild critical infrastructure damaged during the fighting? Will we ensure that we're able to provide safety for our people as well as the Libyans, via gunship? I think not. I have a hard time imagining a scenario where Libya can be rebuilt without someones boots on the ground. Tossing rockets and cannon fire at tanks may very well prove to be much less difficult that protecting the peace in the aftermath.

On the limits accepted by the US by the UN mandate:

The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next. 

All very true. But what if he stays? I'm not advocating for regime change in any way. There are excellent reasons why that's off the table. Rather, I feel that since realistically, we cannot use force to remove the primary cause of this conflict, that perhaps it's a wasteful, ultimately pointless and perhaps even sysiphean use of  force in the first place.

He concludes:

My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas – when the news is filled with conflict and change – it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength at home. That must always be our North Star – the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring of our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.

But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Let us hope. 

We're Here To Help

Andrew Sullivan wonders if the efforts being undertaken by the international community might not hamper the development of democracy in the Arab world:

In the grand scheme of things, this new war could even risk derailing democratic movements elsewhere, by turning the Arab 1848 into a Western intervention question.

By changing the narrative, by not letting the Arab world find its own equilibrium, the administration may have unwittingly done damage to the revolutionary momentum.How many time can one insist: this is not about us. But Clinton, reared in the 1990s, cannot resist interjecting the US where it does not belong. And Obama's alleged remark - "days, not weeks" - is a hostage to fortune. Let me just say I will hold the president to his word. After a week, if the US has not withdrawn its forces from the Mediterranean, we should ask Obama: why not? 

War It Is

And so it begins.

Somehow, inexplicably, a Democrat President has embroiled us in a neo-conservative wet dream. Yet again, we've managed to find ourselves in a benighted hell-hole, committed to bombing people until they stop being nasty to each other and embrace democracy:

The U.S. military attacked Moammar Gadhafi's air defenses Saturday with strikes along the Libyan coast that were launched by Navy vessels in the Mediterranean. 

A senior military official said the assault would unfold in stages and target air defense installations around Tripoli, the capital, and a coastal area south of Benghazi. That's the rebel stronghold under attack by Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

Complete details were not immediately available.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive military operations.

Hours after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton attended an international conference in Paris that endorsed military action against Gadhafi, the U.S. kicked off its attacks on Libyan air defense missile and radar sites along the Mediterranean coast to protect no-fly zone pilots from the threat of getting shot down.

Michael Lind looks to the historical results of this sort of fundamentally neo-conservative style of foreign policy:

Undeterred by the failure of lift-and-strike in the Balkans, neoconservatives proposed the same discredited strategy as a way to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz and others proposed the creation of enclaves in Iraq, from which anti-Saddam forces under the protection of U.S. airpower could topple the tyrant. Critics who knew something about the military dismissed this as the "Bay of Goats" strategy, comparing it to the Kennedy administration's failed "Bay of Pigs" operation that was intended to overthrow Fidel Castro without direct U.S. military involvement by landing American-armed Cuban exiles in Cuba. In Iraq, as in the Balkans, the ultimate result was an all-out U.S. invasion followed by an occupation.

And (via Andrew Sullivan ) Talleyrand closes in for the kill on the argument for military intervention:

Talleyrand, like many other people, is very perplexed by this most recent action. Several European nations, the United States and a few token others have decided to intervene militarily in a civil war on the losing side, and just at the moment when these forces were on the verge of defeat.

The assumption appears to be that Col. Gaddafi and those with him will be so intimidated, demoralized or simply disrupted as to surrender in short order and cede control of the country and its resources to a capable and effective national government led presumably by those now active in Benghazi. If that assumption proves incorrect, the next assumption appears to be that he will be defeated, also in short order, by superior air power. If that assumption proves incorrect, the next assumption appears to be that his Libyan enemies will be so emboldened by outside intervention that they will finish the job themselves. If that assumption proves incorrect, the final assumption appears to be that the “coalition of the willing” will just keep bombing until something else happens. That something else is vague, but the assumption appears to be that it will be better than the state of affairs in Libya during the past four decades.

Good Morning, Have Some War

We begin the plunge. From the New York Times:

Mr. Obama used tough language that was at times reminiscent of President George W. Bush before the war in Iraq. 

“If Qaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action,” Mr. Obama said, laying out a policy decision made after several weeks in which the administration sent conflicting signals about its willingness to use force to aid the rebels at a time of upheaval throughout the Arab world. 

But unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama cast the United States in a supporting, almost reluctant role, reflecting the clear desire of the Pentagon, which has been strongly resistant to another American war in the Middle East. He said that Britain, France and Arab nations would take the lead, and that United States ground forces would not enter Libya.

The idea of not getting embroiled in yet another conflict in yet another Muslim nation sounds perfectly lovely. But committing jets to a civil war is not the way to avoid that. If we push forward with the no-fly zone, we'll be ignoring the tanks that are raining shells on citizens. If we push forward with a so-called "no-drive" zone we'll be ignoring the snipers that are shooting people indiscriminately. If we opt to go after the snipers...Well, welcome to Libya. Unpack your things and enjoy your stay. You'll be here for awhile.

Glenn Greenwald looks at the chilling similarities between the buildup of our shiny new Middle Eastern war and the PR blitz leading us into Iraq. Already the specter of terrorism has been raised:

The attack on Iraq and the intervention in Libya are, in critical ways, vastly different, and glib comparisons should be avoided. Fear-mongering was the primary means of selling the Iraq war to the public. whereas purported humanitarian goals have taken center stage now (though humanitarian appeals -- rape rooms, mass graves, chemical attacks on his own people, and sadistic sons!! -- were also prominently featured in 2003 and in virtually every other war ever started). That the Arab League advocated the Libya intervention, and it now has U.N. endorsement, lend a perceived international legitimacy to it that Iraq so disastrously lacked. Because both political parties' leaders are even more supportive of this military action than they were for Iraq, the domestic debate will be much less contentious. At least for now, Obama is substantially more cautious than Bush ever was in limiting the U.S. commitment. And given that the Libya intervention has not even begun, no comparisons can be made between its execution and the brutal, inhumane slaughter and destruction that characterized the eight-year assault on Iraq; it's possible (though far from guaranteed) that this intervention could be short, relatively bloodless and successful.

Just as in the Iraq conflict, there's no reason to assume that this intervention will be "short, relatively bloodless and successful". Once again, we're diving head first into a conflict in a region that historically has not liked us very much. Not very much at all. Furthermore, there seems to be an assumption that as soon as the United States shows a bit of force, the pro-Qaddafi forces will immediately either lay down their arms or defect to the rebel side. Because naturally, just like in 2003, we'll be seen as "liberators". Of course. That always works out.

As for Brennan's warning that this action may trigger Terrorist attacks on the U.S., I suppose -- just as was true for the similar 2003 warnings -- that this is a possible repercussion of our intervention. But doesn't that really underscore the key point? If we really want to transform how we're perceived in that part of the world, and if we really want to reduce the Terrorist threat, isn't the obvious solution to stop sending our fighter jets and bombs and armies to that part of the world rather than finding a new Muslim country to target for war on a seemingly annual basis? I have no doubt that some citizens who support the intervention in Libya are doing so for purely humanitarian and noble reasons, just as was true for some supporters of the effort to remove the truly despicable Saddam Hussein. But the intentions of those who support the war shed little light on the motives of those who prosecute the war and even less light on what its ultimate outcomes will be.

Qaddafi should go. He's a monster by any standard. But in terms of American interests, must he? Until that question can be answered, we should not commit further treasure and yes, blood to another country's liberation movement.

Why Us?

It's necessary for the United States to get involved in another war why? Leslie Gelb opines:

Doubt not that those pushing for a U.N./U.S. no-fly zone can enforce that goal themselves. Libya has less than 200 usable jet fighters of old vintage, flown by pilots who get less than 90 hours practice time yearly. Egypt has first-class F-16s that could pulverize any Libyan opposition. Saudi air power is even more formidable. That is to say nothing of the hundreds of top-grade fighters that London and Paris could deploy to bases in Egypt, Tunisia, or Italy. There would be no contest. Those arguing for a no-fly zone don't need a U.S. aircraft carrier. If the stakes are anywhere near as great as activists claim, they don't need a U.N. Security Council resolution either. Many is the nation that resorted to force without such international blessing. The hypocrisy here is monumental, even by traditional foreign-policy standards of baloney.

Frankly, I think the countries calling for a no-fly zone are making a rational decision based on history. From Korea to Vietnam to Nicaragua to Kuwait to Bosnia to Somalia, when has there ever been an internal conflict that the United States hasn't been happy to stick it's nose into?

The Time for Jaw-Jaw Has Passed!

It's rare that I find myself so strongly in agreement with a pundit proposing the offensive use of force. Typically, I find myself in favor of a restrained foreign policy; I would avoid using our blood or treasure to resolve other nations difficulties.

That said, there is a point where outrages become too serious to ignore and action is simply demanded. With that in mind, I must agree with this post from Democracy in America:

...But we also can't just sit back and watch while a clearly disturbed dictator defies the wishes of his own people, embroils his country in civil war, and then uses as his final weapon his control over his nation's supplies of the fuel that drives the economies of America and the rest of the developed world. There is such a thing as "vital American interests". Mr Obama needs to act, not next week, not after further deliberations with NATO allies, but now.

With that in mind, I propose that Mr Obama:

• order the United States strategic coffee reserve to immediately release into the market quantities of bean sufficient to calm nervous consumers worried about supply disruptions

• call on Congress to repeal all environmental legislation impeding development of America's domestic coffee production

• demand that Laurent Gbagbo of the Ivory Coast give up control of that country's coffee production or face possible American naval action to secure stockpiles

And don't even get me started on cocoa. We should just make it clear that all options are on the table

More on Mubarak's Speech

Lexington takes a good look at his political position as well as our own:

Since the one thing the rioters seemed to agree on is that he had delighted them long enough after 30 years on the presidential throne, and should depart for Saudi Arabia, it is impossible to know whether his decision to brazen it out will quieten or inflame the situation. The latter, one imagines. But—and this is speculation only—it must be assumed that the president secured the backing of the armed forces before deciding to make his stand. Thus the stage could be set for a more violent confrontation on the streets, which remain thronged in defiance of an official curfew.

Shortly after Mubarak spoke, so did Barack Obama. He called on the Egyptian president to "give meaning" to his promises to improve the lot of the Egyptian people. But all this makes it a cruel irony that Mr Obama chose Cairo as the venue for the big speech in 2009 that was designed to start to restore America's relations with the Muslim world. One of the main promises he held out there—American help for Palestinian statehood—has recently run into the sand as the result of what even his admirers admit was a sequence of cack-handed diplomatic fumbles, notably the mistake of picking a fight over Israeli settlements and then backing down. Now he will be judged, not only in Egypt but well beyond, by whose side he takes in the showdown between Hosni Mubarak and the Egyptian people.

So far, the administration has been trying hard to avoid making a choice: Mubarak is our ally but we deplore violence and are on the side of "reform", goes the line. Hillary Clinton has called for restraint on all sides and for the restoration of communications. She said America supported the universal rights of the Egyptians, and called for urgent political, economic and social reforms. This is a sensible enough line to take, but sitting on the fence becomes increasingly uncomfortable as events unfold.

Fun Stuff to Look Forward To

Leslie Gelb looks at some perfectly dreadful possibilities in the coming year.

I have to disagree with him on the Yankees: In a truly just world, the Yankees will lose Again and again and again. However, this is apt:

Mexico could fall into further turmoil and control by drug dealers, thus compelling Washington to make much greater commitments to “the Mexican problem”. Americans have been underplaying this one for decades, especially given the immigration and drug issues plus mutual trade and investment. The one good result of this would be that Americans finally realize that Mexico is far more important to their national security than Afghanistan.

Lips, Teeth and Nuclear Weapons

Banyan talks about the Wikileaks cables that may show some evidence of China backing away from North Korea and accepting the idea of a unified Korean peninsula under the direction of Seoul.

The take? Don't count your Kims until they've cracked:

China’s leaders are not a sentimental lot, and if they cling to an alliance with the North Korean regime it must be because they believe it in China’s interests. Which leaves the suggestion that the officials Mr Chun was quoting were either out of line, telling their interlocutor what he wanted to hear or, perhaps, ahead of their time. Mr Chun himself described a generational shift in Chinese attitudes and noted that the Chinese envoy to the six-country talks on North Korea was, contrary to his hopes, not one of the enlightened sophisticates. Rather it was (and still is) Wu Dawei, an older man, whom he called China’s “most incompetent official”, and the American scribe summed up as “an arrogant, Marx-spouting former Red Guard”. The old guard in China still seems to be running Korea policy.

My feeling is that sooner or later, China is going to have to accept that North Korea is simply too unstable and too nuclear armed to be a viable buffer against the United States. Certainly, they don't want a situation where American soldiers could conceivably be camped out on their borders. At the same time though, they don't want a neighboring, nuclear armed regime that sooner or later, is bound to collapse under its own lunacy.

To me, it seems far wiser to make what attempts it can to lure Seoul towards neutrality. China is already South Korea's largest trading partner. Surely, some peaceful, economic incentives can help move them away from the American sphere of influence. Naturally, I wouldn't be terribly happy to see that. But given the options of a neutral, unified Korea without an American military presence vs. clearly insane people with nukes and a starving populace, I have to prefer the former.

On Wikileaks Part II

Russia is not going to fool around if Wikileaks starts airing their dirty laundry. At all.

It's going to be interesting to see if Wikileaks decides to tackle the Russian bear. I think it'll be a good test of their resolve to say the least. If Julian Assange really wants to be a whistleblower, let's see if he's willing to blow the whistle on a government that's been absolutely brutal towards journalists. I wish him the best. I truly do.

On Wikileaks Part I

Democracy in America defends the dump:

I think we all understand that the work of even the most decent governments is made more difficult when they cannot be sure their communications will be read by those for whom they were not intended. That said, there is no reason to assume that the United States government is always up to good. To get at the value of WikiLeaks, I think it's important to distinguish between the government—the temporary, elected authors of national policy—and the state—the permanent bureaucratic and military apparatus superficially but not fully controlled by the reigning government. The careerists scattered about the world in America's intelligence agencies, military, and consular offices largely operate behind a veil of secrecy executing policy which is itself largely secret. American citizens mostly have no idea what they are doing, or whether what they are doing is working out well. The actually-existing structure and strategy of the American empire remains a near-total mystery to those who foot the bill and whose children fight its wars. And that is the way the elite of America's unelected permanent state, perhaps the most powerful class of people on Earth, like it.

I'm still a bit torn about it. Does Wikipedia serve a valuable purpose? I think so. I think it's important for people in government, or more specifically in the "state" as it's put above, to know that they will be held to account. Embarrassed if they deserve it, prosecuted if need be.

That said, I maintain that because Wikileaks is by definition agenda driven (as am I and all other political bloggers for that matter), it's critical to be very leery of what's being presented. A diplomatic cable discussing shady things in Pakistan may be very interesting for example. But it may be one of thousands discussing little of import.