Return on Success? - Michael Barone, Real Clear Politics
For most of the last year, the dominant narrative in most media, and for most voters, has been that we are getting nowhere in Iraq and that the Democrats, after their victory in last November's elections, are going to get out of Iraq.
But events are not playing out that way. Last week, the Senate failed to pass an amendment that would have made it more difficult to rotate troops into Iraq -- and passed, by a 72-to-25 margin, a resolution denouncing the moveon.org ad that attacked "General Betray Us" for "cooking the books."
Polls show that the public approves of Petraeus' performance and endorses his recommendations for going forward with the surge -- the first margin of approval for the administration's course of action in a long time.
Petraeus argued convincingly that we are making real progress in Iraq, that the downward spiral of violence has been turned around and that the battle against al-Qaida in Iraq is meeting with success...
Can't We Get Along? - Dan Thomasson, Washington Times
The drawdown of troops in Iraq without leaving the country and the region in absolute chaos needs one elusive ingredient to succeed — bipartisanship. Without some political detente between Republicans and Democrats and the White House and Congress, the insurgents, terrorists and warring political factions will continue to be emboldened.
At least that's the consensus of the foreign-policy and military analysts who make a living in the arcane world of international politics by sucking long-range solutions out of their thumbs. In this case, they are probably right, seeing what the lack of civility and extreme partisanship have produced on the domestic front. Extending the presidential election stumping to more than two years has exacerbated divisiveness even on issues like the war that cry out for accommodation…
War and Impotence – Los Angeles Times editorial
As the Democrats rediscovered to their chagrin last week, Congress has little real power either to declare a war or to end one. Having authorized the president to use force in Iraq, Congress has found itself stymied. The weak Democratic majority lacks the political power to compel President Bush to start bringing substantial numbers of troops home, yet it is afraid to use the constitutional clout it does have: the authority to cut off war funding. Most Americans say they want the U.S. engagement in Iraq to be dramatically downsized or ended soon. But unless the antiwar forces in the Senate can attract the so-far elusive, filibuster-proof 60 votes -- and as of Friday, they were at least 12 votes short -- the Iraq war may drag on well beyond the Bush presidency.
The Democrats' current predicament is a testament to the enormous strength of the executive branch and the erosion of the powers of Congress, which hasn't declared a war since 1941 and hasn't gone to the mat with the president over any war since Vietnam. Since World War II, U.S. presidents have generally ignored what they considered to be congressional meddling, such as the War Powers Act of 1973 and the law cutting off U.S. aid to the Nicaraguan Contras. And, generally, Americans have liked it this way. In the Atomic Age, they reckoned a commander in chief would never have time to consult Congress before deciding whether to launch nuclear weapons. And most preferred to have a strong president in charge of national security and trusted the military, not the politicians, to manage military operations…
Is it Always Necessary to Reconcile? - Nir Eisikovits, Boston Globe
“Reconciliation,” like "terrorism," is becoming one of those words that is easy to use but hard to explain. The US troop surge in Iraq, we are told, was meant to buy the local government time to "achieve national reconciliation." Administration officials cite progress on "political reconciliation" as a key factor in deciding when to start sending American soldiers home. Accordingly, President Bush, in his most recent speech, insisted that while "local reconciliation is taking place" the Iraqi government must show more "determination" in spreading it throughout the country.
But what is political reconciliation? What does this newly ubiquitous concept, upon which we are increasingly basing our exit strategy from Iraq, mean? …
Iran's German Enablers – Yossi Klein Halevi, Wall Street Journal
Business opportunities in Iran were the theme of a German government-sponsored conference last week in Darmstadt, Germany. "Iran is accustomed to crises," the conference invitation delicately noted, "but somehow always keeps going forward." In fact, Iran's resilience is made possible in no small measure by Germany itself, which remains one of Iran's largest trading partners. Now Berlin is balking at international attempts to intensify economic sanctions against the Tehran regime for its nuclear program.
Just how discordant Germany's Iranian policy is even within the European Union was made clear to me last spring, when I participated in a "roving seminar" on Iran and nuclear weapons that visited Paris, Brussels and Berlin. As the sole Israeli participant in the seminar--jointly sponsored by the German Marshall Fund and the American Enterprise Institute--I assumed that my role was to play the heavy, reminding naïve and self-righteous Europeans of the unpleasant truths of the Middle East…
Ahmadinejad in America – Washington Times editorial
Not since the days of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich has a head of state spoken as openly about the destruction of Jewish people and his contempt for the Western democracies and international law as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. On Saturday, as Mr. Ahmadinejad prepared to fly to New York and address the U.N. Security Council, he once again displayed his "peaceful" intentions at a military rally in Tehran. The Iranian government put on display for the first time a new long-range missile called the Ghadr-1 (Power-1), which it said had a range of more than 1,100 miles — enough to put in range, Israel, the nation Mr. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly vowed to destroy, as well as hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops and other Americans working in the region. At the parade, there were banners and slogans such as "Death to America" and "Death to Israel"; "Israel should be eliminated"; and "Israel has to be wiped off the map." Thousands of goose-stepping members of the Iranian army and the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps paraded by and saluted Mr. Ahmadinejad and Iranian military leaders reviewing the parade. To make sure that no one missed his message, Mr. Ahmadinejad vowed that neither sanctions nor military action could stop Iran's nuclear program from going forward…
Let Iranian President Speak – To Showcase American Values – USA Today editorial
Lots of people, ranging from the speaker of the New York City Council to the head of the Anti-Defamation League, don't want to let Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talk today at Columbia University. They see it as a chance for Ahmadinejad to spew his odious anti-American, anti-Semitic views.
That it is. But the Columbia invitation represents an opportunity of another, more important sort. The public display of Ahmadinejad getting to taste two fundamental pillars of democracy — free speech and the right to protest — should speak volumes about what the United States stands for, and what he and Iran don't.
That message can be particularly powerful for Iranians who have access to the Internet and sources beyond their propagandistic state TV. In Iran, Ahmadinejad has helped orchestrate a ferocious crackdown on dissent focused on labor leaders, universities, the press, women's rights advocates and Iranian-Americans. The contrast with how the United States treats critics hopefully won't be lost on the Iranian people…
Boycott Ahmadinejad – William Kristol, Weekly Standard
A Columbia student asked how he could effectively protest his university's invitation to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak Monday. My first response was to suggest petitions, e-mails to President Bollinger and the university trustees, letters to the student paper, peaceful protest, and the like. All these are fine. But then I had a second thought. There might be one form of protest that would be effective both in showing appropriate disgust for the Iranian regime, and in shaming the Columbia administration: A total student boycott of Ahmadinejad's speech. Let the Iranian president (and the Columbia president) look out on, and speak to, a sea of empty seats on Monday.
The rationale for a student boycott is simple: The Iranian government is directly involved in killing and wounding American soldiers in Iraq. As a gesture of elementary solidarity with those serving our nation in the military--young men and women, many of them their exact contemporaries--Columbia students should refuse to dignify Ahmadinejad's talk by attending it. Needless to say, Columbia faculty and administrators shouldn't attend either. Some of them will. But this is a chance for the 9/11 generation to show a decency and a sense of honor that some of their elders lack…
A Perversion of Free Speech – Abraham Foxman, USA Today
All the reasons given to provide a platform at Columbia University to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just don't hold up and don't even begin to compare with the damage done by giving legitimacy to a dangerous and evil figure.
Of course, the first defense of the invitation is free speech. The idea that free speech obligates a university to host a program where the speaker, a head of state, is one who denies the Holocaust, calls for the destruction of the state of Israel, supports international terrorism and seeks to acquire nuclear weapons is a perversion of that doctrine.
Columbia University has no moral, legal or social imperative to provide such a platform. As president of Iran, Ahmadinejad has many platforms to convey his messages of hate every day. For Columbia, the issue is not one of free speech at all but how proper it is to have Ahmadinejad as a speaker…
Aid and Comfort by Any Other Name - David Feith & Jordan Hirsch, National Review
… It is naïve to ignore the uses to which Ahmadinejad will put his invitation. Over the past years, Ahmadinejad’s confrontational rhetoric and policies have resulted in diplomatic isolation and economic hardship for Iran. These developments are unpopular among Iranians. It is beneficial to Ahmadinejad and his regime, then, if he can claim to the Iranian people that his leadership is not hurting their country. If he can demonstrate that he is treated abroad as a respected leader, he will be better able to counter his critics at home. Columbia’s invitation thus gives political assistance to Ahmadinejad.
Bollinger has written that “it should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas...implies our endorsement of those ideas.” That is true. But the argument against the official invitation of Ahmadinejad is not an argument against listening to his ideas. It is an argument against bestowing prestige on Ahmadinejad. There are many ways Columbia can engage with his ideas without giving him the politically valuable respectability of an official speaking invitation. Columbia can hold a forum on his views. It can play recordings of his speeches and ask experts to comment on them. It can create courses on the history and ideology of the Iranian Revolution. Indeed, if “listening to ideas” is truly Bollinger’s goal, then bringing to campus Ahmadinejad, a master of deception and propaganda, should be one of his last options…
Respect Uganda’s Brand of Justice - Claire Putzeys, Christian Science Monitor
Uganda has enjoyed relative calm since the rebel Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) joined the government in peace talks last year. The talks have been on-and-off at best, with the third round just starting this month.
At stake is whether peace will continue. The people of northern Uganda believe it can, if the international community allows them to practice their own cultural traditions of justice.
In dealing with war crimes, the West has emphasized criminal proceedings and punishment, including use of the International Criminal Court (ICC); anything less, advocates say, leads to impunity and possibly future violence. Without justice, the adage goes, there is no peace.
But the people of northern Uganda, the Acholi, are convinced peace talks will fail if Western-based standards of prosecution prevail. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," says Ojara Bosco (quoting Gandhi), a member of the peace committee at Unyama camp for internally displaced persons (IDPs)…
Forsaking the Egyptian Free Press – Jackson Diehl, Washington Post
The Egyptian publisher Hisham Kassem was in Washington last week to pick up the National Endowment for Democracy's prestigious annual Democracy Award, in recognition of his role in jump-starting a free Egyptian press. Along with two other honorees, he spent nearly an hour in the Oval Office with President Bush, who spoke with feeling about his "freedom agenda" and his intention to pursue it after he leaves office.
But Kassem could not help but feel a little depressed. While he was being honored, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was directing a frontal assault against the island of liberty Kassem helped to create in Cairo -- independent newspapers that have subjected Mubarak's rotting autocracy to serious scrutiny for the first time. And hardly anyone in Washington seemed to care…
America’s New Lafayette – Christian Science Monitor editorial
… For decades, Paris has prided itself on its separateness from Washington. Nowhere has that been more visible than in its break with the US over the Iraq war. Not that that position was a mistake, says President Sarkozy, but the almost automatic anti-Americanism that accompanied it was.
"Here's a country that some of France's elites claim to detest, or at least criticize regularly in a stereotypical way. This is rather strange," he wrote in his preelection book, "Testimony." He rightly reminds the French of the strong links between the two countries: shared democratic ideals in their founding revolutions and the US fought for France in two world wars.
Since taking office as a reformer last May, this presidential dynamo has moved swiftly to remake domestic and foreign policy. Washington is delighted over some key shifts, the biggest in the Middle East, where he's altered France's traditionally pro-Arab bias to more openly embrace Israel. "I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security," he said last month…
Bush and China's 'Genocide Olympics' – Nat Hentoff, Washington Times
China's merciless Communist dictators, eager to sanitize their image around the world, are now gladdened by President Bush's acceptance of an invitation from China's president, Hu Jintao, to attend the Summer Olympics in Beijing. His host is a huge investor in the economy of Sudan — perpetrator of what Mr. Bush was the first world leader to call the genocide of black Africans in Darfur. The American president must know that China is making elaborate, expensive preparations, which include reducing air pollution in Beijing, for this legendary international event. There is an intense expectation among China's leaders that hosting (and sharing in) the glories of the quest for the gold medals will change China's image in the world, from that of a merciless dictatorship to the embodiment of the Olympic spirit of harmonious relations among nations…
Monks of Burma – The Australian editorial
If only the media in Burma were free, people around the world would have been hearing the most extraordinary sound lately. At 8pm on Sundays, brave people in Burma are standing outside their homes, banging on pots and pans.
Burma is a country of 53 million people, most of them destitute. They live under a ruthless and absurd military junta. Let us not doubt the insanity of the regime. A few years ago, one general changed all the currency so it was divisible by nine, simply because he thought nine was an auspicious number. In the process, he wiped out the savings of most of the population.
In 2005, a new general moved the capital from Rangoon to a place called Nay Pyi Taw. It means Seat of Kings and it is a nine-hour drive from Rangoon in dense jungle and was, until two years ago, served only by steam train.
The BBC recently sent a reporter there, posing as a tourist. He found all the trappings of dictatorship. The military is keeping the spoils of the country - in this case, reserves from gas pipes to China and India - for itself. The new capital has wide boulevards, impressive public buildings, and massive homes for jumped-up generals with no community support. Meanwhile, the junta has stopped paying for upkeep in Rangoon, where average annual per capita income is just $225.
For the first time in 20 years, the people of Burma are taking to the streets to protest against the madness. The action is incredibly brave. In 1988, the military crushed an uprising, leaving 3000 people dead. The junta spends 40 per cent of its budget on the army. Many people depend on the junta to survive. The regime is building ties with North Korea, driven into bad company that will make the situation worse…
-----
