The Next Hurrah

The Only Issue is (Still) Iraq

by emptypockets

A month ago there was a spate of "sky is green" articles claiming that Iraq is no longer an important issue for voters:

Iraq War Fades as an Election Issue (NPR, Dec 6) "...concerns about Iraq remain, but the war is not the only top-tier issue among voters. Many have turned their focus to domestic issues such as health care, energy, the mortgage crisis and immigration."

Pocketbook issues push past Iraq in poll (USA Today, Dec 28) "More than half the voters in an ongoing survey for The Associated Press and Yahoo News say the economy and health care are extremely important to them personally. They fear they will face unexpected medical expenses, their homes will lose value or mortgage and credit card payments will overwhelm them."

Domestic issues now outweigh Iraq (NY Times, Jan 3) "...the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally, and it has moved to the back of the stage in the rush of campaign rallies, town hall meetings and speeches that are bringing the caucus competition to an end. Instead, candidates are being asked about, and are increasingly talking about, the mortgage crisis, rising gas costs, health care, immigration, the environment and taxes."

The funny thing is, when this voter sees "health care," "mortgage crisis," "rising gas costs," "the environment," and "taxes" I read them all as a single four-letter word: Iraq.

Qaddafi gets his reward

by emptypockets

We've extensively covered the story of the six healthcare workers scapegoated by Libya, telling you how they were blamed for an outbreak of HIV in a Libyan hospital, raped, beaten, and tortured in prison, and sentenced to death (here, here, here, and here); how American corporations nevertheless continued to expand trade with Libya, and how political leaders like Hillary Clinton discouraged diplomatic efforts to free the workers (here and here); and, finally, how the EU as a whole, and France in particular, ultimately secured their last-minute release (here).

So it's only fitting that we bring you the final chapter: this week, Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi is in France, receiving his reward: the royal treatment, meetings with national leaders, and a deal for Libya to receive several nuclear reactors from France. Happy International Human Rights Week.

I don't know how to feel about this outcome. Was the visit this week a part of the original package, which included $400 million for the families of HIV-infected children, that Libya extorted from the EU before the medics were released? Or is the visit just what it feels like: a lollipop for the child who stops his tantrum, a $20 tip for the mugger who didn't take your whole wallet?

The most positive light I can see it in is a reference to the old chestnut of game theory known as "The Prisoner's Dilemma," in which a pair of players have the option of cooperating with or exploiting each other -- the rewards are higher if you both cooperate, but attempting to do so runs the risk of exploitation by your partner. The most successful strategy for years (up until a funny trick was discovered in 2004) has been "tit-for-tat" -- start off cooperatively, then do whatever your partner did the last time. If he's good to you, return the favor; if he screws you, screw him back next time.

This translates directly into political games, and is sometimes considered to be one of the guiding principles of cold war strategy. Perhaps France's Sarkozy, unlike the "never cooperate" strategy adopted by Clinton or the "always cooperate" strategy used by American business, is simply practicing "tit-for-tat": regardless of Qaddafi's past, his most recent action was beneficial, so he gets benefits. If Qaddafi acts well in the future, he'll presumably get more rewards; if not, he'll presumably be cut off until the next "turn." One thing to note about this strategy is that it doesn't mean you'll always "win" -- there will be events where your partner screws you -- but, in the end, you come out farther ahead than you would with any other strategy.

Considering that in the mid-1980s Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein appeared to be a well-matched pair of terroristic dictators, and today one has been pulled from a hole and hanged while the other has pitched his tent in the fertile fields of France (and I don't mean that in a dirty way), it would seem that "Prisoner's Dilemma" is a game Qaddafi plays well.

The Monday before Tuesday

by emptywheel

I don't believe we're going to wake up at the end of tomorrow, after the Annapolis conference, and discover peace has broken out across the Middle East. I'm not developing some newfound faith in Condi's ability to negotiate real diplomatic deals. But I am intrigued by the degree to which pieces are falling into place, just on the eve of tomorrow's conference.

First there was the news that Syria will attend the conference. The most telling explanation of what that might mean, I think, is Iran's response.

Syria's decision to attend the conference will please many U.S. and Israeli officials eager to make the talks appear successful. But it will likely upset Iran, which has become Damascus' biggest ally at a time when the West and fellow Arab states have spurned the country of 19 million over its support for Iranian-backed militants in Lebanon, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Tehran has vehemently denounced the Annapolis conference.

"They [the U.S. and Israel] intend to deceive a bunch of people who are like themselves in a watery conference and make them give concessions to the criminal Zionists," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today, according to the Fars News Agency.

Damascus may have decided to buck Tehran because Americans met its condition of including the Golan Heights on the agenda and would face criticism as an obstacle to peace if it then failed to attend, an analyst said.

Sending Moqdad instead of the more senior foreign minister, Walid Moallem, may be a concession to Iran, said the analyst, speaking on condition of anonymity. But Moqdad, a seasoned Syrian diplomat, is considered a relative heavyweight within the Damascus political elite. Emad Mustapha, Syria's well-connected envoy to Washington, will also attend the talks, the official in Damascus said.

Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar Assad spoke today in a phone conversation and issued a joint statement affirming that conferences such as Annapolis "are destined to failure even before they start," Fars reported.

Usually, Ahmadinejad manages to achieve coherent demagoguery, not this futile sputtering. Which suggests Iran has some real concerns that Syria might be seduced by what it sees in Annapolis. Which is kind of what Colonel Lang thinks:

Does this Sound Familiar?

by emptywheel

Where have we seen this before: a Bush Administration gives vague guidance to our favored military dictator in a turbulent neighborhood, and the dictator takes a step that might destabilize the whole region.

The Bush Administration knew that Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf planned to institute emergency rule but did not act or speak out about the plan, according to officials with knowledge of the discussion who spoke anonymously in Friday's Wall Street Journal.

"In the days before the Nov. 3 announcement, the general's aides and advisers forewarned U.S. diplomats in a series of meetings in Islamabad, according to Pakistani and U.S. officials," the paper said.

Because the US response was "muted," Pakistan interpreted American silence as a green light to instituting martial law, quickly deposing an intransigent Supreme Court, which had ruled against the general in the past.

"One of Gen. Musharraf's closest advisers said U.S. criticism was muted, which some senior Pakistanis interpreted as a sign they could proceed," the Journal said. "'You don't like that option? You give us one,' the adviser says he told his American interlocutors. 'There were no good options.'"

A U.S. official "familiar with the discussions" told the paper the talks were part of "'intensive efforts' to dissuade Gen. Musharraf from declaring a state of emergency."

"There was never a green light," the U.S. official told the New York daily. [my emphasis]

Of course, when we offered such vague guidance to Saddam Hussein in July 1990, just before he invaded Kuwait, he did not yet have nukes (though he was trying awfully hard to get them). Nor was he hosting a slew of terrorists who had already struck at the United States.

I'd love to know a little more about these conversations. The most obvious question, of course, pertains to the role of Dick Cheney in these purported "intensive efforts" to dissuade General Musharraf from imposing martial law. Was this vague guidance just one more consequence of having Dick in charge of Pakistan policy?

Putin Captures Opponent's Bishop

by emptywheel

Speaking of chess moves, Putin just detained Garry Kasparov after an opposition rally.

Riot police beat and detained opposition leader Garry Kasparov Saturday as they took dozens of protesters into custody at a rally against President Vladimir Putin, his assistant said.

The former chess champion was forced to the ground and beaten, his assistant Marina Litvinovich said in a telephone interview from outside the police station where Kasparov was held.

He was later taken to a city court, where he was charged with organizing an unsanctioned protest and resisting arrest. The court proceedings were continuing Saturday evening and it was unclear whether Kasparov would be released.

I put this news underneath Kasparov's appearance on the Colbert Report. I was so impressed with the way Kasparov played Colbert's false bravado that I actually bought his book (it's pretty good, though not terribly surprising). Though, when I read of Kasparov's detention, I recalled this line from Colbert.

It's a dangerous game ... In chess there are rules. In Russian politics there are no rules.

Kasparov did really well against Colbert, but you could just hear his pessimism about the larger game he was playing.

The Saudis Have Been Busy

by emptywheel

The Saudis appear to be moving three chess pieces at once. I won't pretend to know what the moves mean. But I'd suggest that the coincidence of the three moves might suggest they're taking an upper hand in the US policy-making in the Middle East.

Nawaz Sharif

First data point: after preventing former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from returning to Pakistan several weeks ago, the Saudis now appear to be forcing his return on Pervez Musharraf.

Mr. Sharif met Saudi King Abdullah in Riyadh yesterday evening, to clear his passage. Previously, Saudi Arabia had been complicit in keeping Mr. Sharif forcibly in the country under an agreement with Gen. Musharraf, who had told the kingdom's royal family that it was needed to ensure stability in Pakistan.

However, Saudi Arabia was angered when Gen. Musharraf allowed another opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, back to Pakistan. The Saudis have always been sympathetic to Mr. Sharif's pro-religion politics, whereas Ms. Bhutto represents the forces of secularism.

When Mr. Sharif landed in Pakistan in September this year, he was quickly bundled off to Saudi Arabia by the Musharraf regime. This time, it seems unlikely that Mr. Sharif will be sent packing, as the Saudis are no longer willing to keep him. While Ms. Bhutto has engaged in sporadic power-sharing talks with Gen. Musharraf, Mr. Sharif has doggedly refused to negotiate with the general.

Musharraf made an unexpected trip to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, at which he discussed Sharif's return. And Sharif apparently met with the chief of the ISI.

Musharraf had made a brief visit to Saudi Arabia on November 20 where he met the King and apparently discussed the issue of Sharif's return.

Though the military ruler's spokesman said there was no contact between Musharraf and Sharif, it is believed that Sharif met Lt Gen Nadeem Taj, chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, who accompanied Musharraf to Riyadh.

So we've got a religious conservative returning to Pakistan in time to contest the election for President--with Saudi support and the potential involvement of the ISI.

Saudis to Attend Annapolis Peace Conference

And then, on the very same day that Sharif was finalizing his plans for return to Pakistan with King Abdullah, the Saudis announced they would attend the Middle East peace conference to be held in Annapolis starting Tuesday.

The US-brokered Annapolis peace conference was given a significant boost yesterday when heavyweight Saudi Arabia decided to send its foreign minister to the launch of the first peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians in seven years. Syria, Israel's most implacable Arab enemy, signalled that it was now also likely to attend.

Prince Saud al-Faisal said he would be taking part in next Tuesday's Maryland summit as part of an Arab "consensus" of support for the Palestinians - despite near-universal gloom about the prospects of agreement on the toughest issues.

The decision had as much to do with Arab consensus as it has to do with any events in Pakistan. For whatever reason, it appears the Arab states may believe the Saudi proposal--normalization in return for the pre-67 borders--may be on the table. It even appears possible that Syria will win recognition of its right to the Golan Heights, pretty remarkable given Israel's apparently successful recent strike in Syria.

Of significance, Bush will personally participate in the Annapolis conference, which might be read as a signal for his support of Condi's attempts at peace-making over Cheney's attempts to foment war. And it surely will give whatever discussions occur real emphasis.

No, Pakistan Was the Last Big Test. And We Failed It.

by emptywheel

"Serious Person" Michael O'Hanlon and  escalation surge architect Fred Kagan end their op-ed with the following words.

There was a time when volatility in places like Pakistan was mostly a humanitarian worry; today it is as much a threat to our basic security as Soviet tanks once were. We must be militarily and diplomatically prepared to keep ourselves safe in such a world. Pakistan may be the next big test. [my emphasis]

I'm just a DFH and not a "serious person" or anything. But I am certain they have this wrong--dead wrong. It highlights the problem of neoconservatism--an acute myopia that therefore cannot see a problem until we're already in the thick of it and until they can make an argument--however specious--that the only solution is military.

The way in which O'Hanlon and Kagan conceive of Pakistan "becoming the next big test" is the perfect illustration of this. They describe the events that need to occur for them to take some action--and of course, action is exclusively military.

AS the government of Pakistan totters, we must face a fact: the United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss. Nor would it be strategically prudent to withdraw our forces from an improving situation in Iraq to cope with a deteriorating one in Pakistan. We need to think — now — about our feasible military options in Pakistan, should it really come to that. [my emphasis]

Note, "could not stand by" ... "should it come to that." They're only considering action if Pakistan "descends into the abyss." Otherwise, here we are standing by.

Couple that with their ignorant assertion that, "There was a time when volatility in places like Pakistan was mostly a humanitarian worry," and you see the problem. They would not--and did not--consider action at a time when non-military solutions were the obvious solution to the problem, when AQ Khan and his nukes didn't have us by the nuts. As I said last year when I was earning Matt Bai's wrath, the time to address these problems is before they've exploded, while we're still nominally allies. Because we're going to have to do nation-building anyway, whether or not Pakistan falls into the abyss, if we want to prevent its extremists from accruing more power. Had we done it six years ago, when Musharraf took the risk of cooperating with us after 9/11 and when he was begging for a textile trade agreement so he could create jobs, we ignored him. Now, it's going to take a lot more than some textile factories to find a solution to the crisis, peaceful or no.

But O'Hanlon and Kagan apparently can't see that, because they're looking in all the wrong places.

Oil Bucks

by emptywheel

I'm a determined skeptic about broadcast "accidents." But for the life of me, I can't understand the precise goal of allowing a discussion about not discussing the falling dollar at the OPEC summit to be caught on tape. Here's the Financial Times' version of events--which depicts it as disagreement about the underlying issue. 

In a landmark summit, leaders of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries are meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, were divided over how they should respond to the weakness of the US dollar, which has fallen 16 per cent this year against a basket of leading currencies.

The dollar has dropped 44 per cent against the euro since Opec leaders last met in Caracas, Venezuela in 2000. Opec members are also divided about whether the group should seek to play a greater role in world politics as well as in the oil market.

The disagreement was revealed when a ministerial meeting Friday afternoon, supposed to be in closed session, was accidentally broadcast live to reporters for about 30 minutes, before Saudi officials cut off the transmission.

But look at Bloomberg's version:

Saudi Arabia, the world's largest crude oil exporter, rejected a proposal by Iran and Venezuela to discuss the weak dollar at this weekend's OPEC summit in Riyadh, saying it didn't want the U.S. currency to ``collapse.''                  

Saudi Arabia won't discuss pricing oil in currencies other than the dollar, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal said, speaking at a meeting of oil and finance ministers today that was accidentally broadcast to journalists.           

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which pumps more than 40 percent of the world's oil, has seen its revenue diminish because of the decline in the dollar over the past three years. OPEC holds a heads of state summit in Riyadh tomorrow.           

``As for the monetary aspect and the dollar I would like to ask his Excellency, the minister of Iran, to leave this question to the appropriate party, the ministers of finance, without mentioning that we gave them this task so that there won't be negative impact from OPEC,'' Al-Faisal said, speaking in reaction to an Iranian proposal to discuss the currency.

Note carefully--what al-Faisal rejected was the (public) discussion of the dollar, not a consideration of whether to move away from the dollar. He left that task to the ministers of finance, which suggests he, too, thinks it worthy of consideration. He just wants that consideration to be "secret." Whoops.

I thought, at first, that whoever "accidentally" taped this wanted to expose Venezuelan and Iranian interest in moving away from the dollar. But that's not exactly a secret to anyone paying attention. So if this is indeed intentional, why broadcast a discussion about not making something public, thereby making it public? Does it reflect dissent within the Saudi family over whether they--and OPEC--should jettison the dollar?

Thus far, the broadcast statements haven't accelerated the decline of the dollar. Perhaps the markets have already adjusted to the eventual move away from dollars (not). Or perhaps they're as confused by this exchange as I am.

"This problem will not be discussed in public"

by emptywheel

I do intend to return to my planned series on Matt Bai and the Serious People. But for now, David Sanger asks a question that really needs to be asked: what is going to happen to Pakistan's nukes? Before I look at the answer Sanger offers, let me point to this one line in the story.

“It’s a very professional military,” said a senior American official who is trying to manage the crisis and insisted on anonymity because the White House has said this problem will not be discussed in public. “But the truth is, we don’t know how many of the safeguards are institutionalized, and how many are dependent on Musharraf’s guys.” [my emphasis]

Understand: the threat that Al Qaeda could get nukes was the single most important driving force behind the Iraq war. And now, because BushCo has seen fit to put Cheney in charge of its Pakistan policy, and Cheney has seen fit to make a spokesperson one of the main architects of that policy, there is a very real possibility that our "ally" Pakistan will provide nukes to the guys that hit us on 9/11. And the White House's response is to dictate that, "this problem will not be discussed in public."

All the more reason to discuss it in public, I say.

And Sanger's discussion is none too optimistic.

Pakistan and the Serious People, One

by emptywheel

I'm going to do a series on Pakistan--and how the blindness of the "serious people" got us into big trouble there. I'm going to use Matt Bai's inaccurate slam on me as a foil to show how the serious people allowed themselves to get distracted from a brewing crisis that carries real consequences. I'll start, then, by showing you the slam, and explaining what Matt got wrong. MissLaura (who wrote an insightful review of this exchange) sent along this excerpt from Matt's book; I haven't read the book, so if you have, let me know if there's more to this. [Update: This exchange happened at a post-keynote bloggers chat with former VA Governor and likely future VA Senator Mark Warner.]

Marcy Wheeler, who blogged as "emptywheel" on Daily Kos, jumped in first.  Why, she wanted to know, had Warner pointed to Iran as such a big threat to national security?  Wasn't Pakistan a bigger problem? After all, they already had nukes.

Warner had been spending hours in private tutoring sessions on foreign policy, and he talked confidently about Iran's president, Mahmoud Amahdinejad, and his "whole approach toward regional hegemony."  This made him dangerous, Warner said.

"On what grounds?" Marcy demanded.  She had short hair and glasses and a serious demeanor.  She reminded me, strangely, of Marcy from Peanuts.  I wondered if she got that a lot.

Warner mentioned Ahmadinejad's explicit threat to Israel.

"I've heard Pakistan described as Iran in 1978, except it's Iran with a nuclear bomb," Marcy retorted, as if she'd just stepped off a plane from the region.  There were nods and murmured assents all around. "Maybe I'm crazy."

"I hope you're crazy," Warner said testily.  This had caught him completely off guard.  He had just given the most confrontational, partisan speech he knew how to give, and he had expected the bloggers to appreciate it.  Instead, he was getting hammered on Iran.  Why were they seizing on this one line?  What he didn't understand was that this was the one place in his speech where he had agreed with Bush on something, and thus it had to be probed.  To the bloggers, if Bush said the sky was blue, then it was green.  If he said the world was round, it had to be flat.  And if Bush thought Iran was the most serious threat out there, then no Democratic candidate could think that too. Warner was clearly buying into the right-wing spin. [my emphasis]

Now, compare Bai's description with my own description.

I asked the first question, which went something like:

I'm going to ask the Iran question, but I'm going to get at it sideways. You said that Iran is the biggest WMD threat out there. But Pakistan is a tremendously unstable country right now. And if Musharraf fell, Al Qaeda could get the bomb within 6 weeks. And al-Baradei has just said that Iran does not now have the bomb. So why is Iran the biggest threat?

He then listed several reasons why Iran was a threat: Ahmadenijad's nuttiness, a "regional strategy," support for terrorism. I pointed out that none of those things were WMDs.

Do you see what Matt left out? Warner had called Iran the biggest WMD threat--not the biggest threat, as Matt inaccurately reported it. And I'm not sure (I'm still looking for a video), but I believe I effectively agreed with Warner's assessment of why Iran was a threat--Ahmadinejad's threats, Iran's hegemonic pretensions, and Iran's support for Hezbollah. My point was not that Iran wasn't (and isn't) a threat. My point was that Warner was claiming it was a WMD threat, even while the three things he pointed to to support that argument had nothing to do with WMD.

Matt rewrote the story to transform my challenge to Warner from a serious critique of his logic into a frivolous objection to his agreement with Bush. While Matt's move is clearly shitty reporting (though it served his narrative well), I believe it captures the blindness of the serious people quite well.

Oh, and for the record, Matt? No, I never get comparisons with Marcie from Peanuts.