Iraq updates

Two recent stories about Iraq caught my eye.

First, Florida Senator Bill Nelson told Florida Today that the Bush administration had warned that Iraq could attack the east coast of the US with WMD:

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.

Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force.

Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones.

"They have not found anything that resembles an UAV that has that capability," Nelson said.

Gee, the administration pushed some intelligence that turned out to be iffy. Huh.

The second story comes from the Philadelphia Inquirer, which reported about a top-secret US military report that "predicted that guerrilla attacks would increase" after Saddam Hussein's arrest.

The theory is that the Sunnis think it is better to force Americans out now, while there is still a chance of restoring Sunni political power. The Sunnis, including Hussein, have dominated Iraq's political system for most of the last century. They do not want to wait for elections, caucuses, a constitution that would hand power to the majority Shiites, or the creation of an anti-Sunni coalition of Shiites and Kurds.

The influence of radical Islamists in the resistance is also likely to grow with Hussein gone. In the coming months, possible confusion caused by the large rotation of U.S. troops and activities aimed at preparing for the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis on July 1 also could encourage an increase in attacks.

Whether this proves true or not, the US military doesn't expect a lot of quick benefits from the arrest:

The top U.S. military official in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, yesterday conceded that Hussein's capture had had little effect on the pace of attacks on American troops. He said U.S. troops had clashed with insurgents about 18 times in the last 24 hours. That was the same as the average for the last two weeks, although drastically lower than the 40 attacks a day a month ago.

"We expect it'll be some time before we see any possible effects of what we've accomplished," Sanchez said. "As I've stated over and over, we expect the violence to continue at some level for some time. We're prepared for that."

As I've said, continue to expect a "long, hard slog."

P.S. Thanks to various readers who have been sending me interesting stories (Strom's "new" daughter, Israel's pursuit of EU membership, etc.).

Dean's Foreign Policy Team

The Howard Dean campaign has released additional information about its foreign policy team -- and policy aims. A couple of days ago, Dan Drezner blogged about the team and then he blogged about Dean's major foreign policy address. Unfortunately, I only have time today to discuss the team. Consider this a followup to my earlier comment about Danny Sebright.

Later, I promise to take up the speech.

Dean's website has the list of new advisors (and it mentions Sebright and a couple of other longer-term people).

Overall, it's not an especially radical team, though there are several controversial figures. Dan Drezner pointed out that Warren Christopher was standing next to Dean when some important recent foreign policy announcements were made, but given his work in Florida 2000, it's not surprising that Christopher doesn't appear on this list.

Here's my brief rundown:

Ben Barber is a Professor at Maryland (disclosure: I obtained my PhD from Maryland). Barber is a longtime advocate of "strong democracy," which basically means he wants much more deliberation about public policy issues and much more democracy in global politics. This is an interesting choice for Dean. Barber wrote Jihad vs. McWorld, a book that managed to criticize both ethnic nationalism and economic globalization as threats to democracy.

Ash Carter is a longtime defense policy wonk. I first read his work back in the 1980s when I too wanted to be a defense policy wonk. He worries a lot about problems like missile defense.

Ivo Daalder is a Brookings fellow and another Clinton-era guy (everyone I mentioned so far worked for the Clinton administration). Whenever I read his work, it seems solid and mainstream.

Morton Halperin has been around a long time. He coauthored a famous book on arms control with Thomas Schelling (that basically says we should embrace deterrence as arms control and plan weapons choices accordingly). His phones were famously bugged by Kissinger/Nixon and he's been left-of-center for decades. He's most lately been a multilateralist writing for the American Prospect.

Elisa Harris is a WMD proliferation specialist. Her work is quite solid.

Tony Lake was Clinton's National Security Advisor. To many, he personifies the Democratic Party's foreign policy establishment. Note: Kissinger tapped Lake's phones too (someone leaked the secret bombings in Cambodia and Kissinger suspected his aides). Question: What has happened to the political landscape?

Clyde Prestowitz scares some people. Anyone who has authored something called "Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism..." is going to have that effect on those wedded to the status quo. Disclosure: I once wrote an op-ed called "Is an Outlaw State Calling the Shots?" (warning: pdf file). It was written in December 2000, prior to Bush's ascendance to power.

Susan Rice has been first consulting and then writing for Brookings since leaving the Clinton administration. She is an Africa specialist.

Jeffrey Sachs. Best known for his work "helping" Russia, Poland and other European nations make transitions from state socialism. Janine Wedel offered a fairly strong critique of his efforts, as I've noted previously.

Admiral Stansfield Turner is a former CIA Director and has lately been very worried about WMD proliferation.

Also named: Franklin Kramer, General Joseph Hoar, Major General Randy Jayne, General Merrill McPeak and William Woodward. I don't know of them -- or do not recall offhand. I'll try to update when I learn more.

What's Good for the Environment is Good for the Economy

A friend who lives in the Pacific Northwest sent me a short recent article from the Oregonian that reports an interesting letter to President Bush from over 100 economists, including 2 Nobel Prize winners. As I've blogged before, mainstream economists (even those employed by the Bush administration) regularly find that environmental regulation is good for the economy. It is also important to remember that environmentally destructive policies are also bad for the economy:

The letter said the economic importance of agriculture, logging, mining and commercial fishing have diminished steadily, both in terms of numbers of jobs and levels of pay. As the population increases, habitat for fish and wildlife shrinks, and many native species face extinction.

"Reversing the trend becomes more expensive over time," the letter said. "As ecosystems are degraded, they provide fewer economically valuable services, such as cleansing the water in streams, and communities therefore must provide replacement services with water-treatment plants."

Government subsidies of irrigation, logging, livestock grazing and mining prop up activities that could not survive in efficient market conditions, the letter said. Artificially low costs for roads, water and pollution create false impressions of the cost of urban sprawl, according to the scientists.

The article includes a quote from a White House spokesman denying that Bush policies threaten the environment. But the economists know better and understand the administration's public rationale. Indeed, their critique of the administration's economic argument is important and should be repeated. Policies bad for the environment are bad for the economy and policies good for the environment are typically good for the economy:

"It is precisely the policies we see threatening economic growth in the West that are promoted as stimulating jobs and income and so on," Whitelaw [a University of Oregon professor of economics and president of ECONorthwest, an economic consulting firm] said. "There is definitely a disconnect between the professionals who study this stuff day in and day out and those who are implementing the policies, even though each of the two groups purports to serve the same purpose -- economic prosperity."

Among those signing the letter were Robert Solow, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the 1987 winner of the Nobel Prize for economics, and Kenneth Arrow, professor emeritus of economics at Stanford University and the 1972 winner.

"Often in the case of natural resource use, the beneficiaries of the environment are scattered," Solow said. "Whereas the people who lobby and push are a much smaller number of individuals who will profit in a big way from being able to use the resource."

Arrow said he felt the Bush administration's encouragement of tradable permits to reduce air pollution from power plants is good for the economy. But drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and encouraging logging on national forests would hurt the economy in the long run, he said.

"A lot of these things that are bad for the environment are bad period, from any efficiency point of view," Arrow said. "They represent government subsidies, which create inefficient production."

Oregon is a key battleground state and the environment is an awfully important issue in the Pacific Northwest (and elsewhere). Hopefully, some of these economists are working with Environment 2004, the political campaign to focus on environmental issues in swing states.

Next class: Military Math 101

When was the last time you went to a link from the Dodge City Globe? Well, I'm taking everyone there because of an August op-ed by Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. I'm sure this must have circulated more widely then, but it's the only persistent link I can find today.

And today, in the euphoria generated by Saddam Hussein's capture, we need to remain focused on the big picture.

In any case, O'Hanlon argues that the US is in big trouble in Iraq because of some very basic military math. Put simply, the army doesn't have enough forces to rotate fully into Iraq, let alone take on another foe like Syria or Iran:

The Army's brutish deployment math specifically works like this. Sixteen of its 33 active-duty combat brigades (there are typically three brigades per division) are now in Iraq; another two are in Afghanistan; two more are in Korea; one more is in the Balkans. That leaves only 12 available for other missions, and most of those are now preparing to go to Iraq.

Even international troops really cannot help very much:

Even if the U.N. Security Council passes a new resolution to put the United Nations formally in charge in Iraq, the problem will not be solved. That would help attract troops from other countries, but we would still probably need six to eight NATO brigades in the Sunni triangle of central Iraq in late 2004 and 2005, and most of those would have to come from U.S. active-duty forces.

Other countries that might provide forces under a stronger U.N. mandate, such as India and Russia, are not equipped or trained to handle the extremely difficult conditions in the region. Nor, despite their great capabilities, are the combat formations of the U.S. Army National Guard. France and Germany might be capable of helping -- and willing if the United Nations were put in charge -- but each would do well to muster a brigade.

The Marines can and should be expected to provide a brigade or two of the forces needed under U.N. auspices. But even with increased international and Marine Corps help, the Army would still need to generate two to four fresh brigades for Iraq, and another couple in Korea.

Two weeks ago today, I blogged about the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, a group of realist scholars and think tank analysts opposed to the war in Iraq (and to other neo-imperial dimensions of Bush administration foreign policy) for a variety of reasons. Today, I had lunch with one of them who pointed me to O'Hanlon's military math.

His bottom line: if we don't figure out a way to exit Iraq soon, we are not going to be able to prosecute the war on terror very effectively and will continue to suffer casualties in Iraq (as part of the "long, hard slog"). Nationalism and self determination remain powerful ideas for the insurgency, regardless of the fact that Saddam Hussein is in custody.

This all means trouble in Afghanistan and elsewhere (he was also very worried about Pakistan's future, especially after the attempted assassination yesterday) .

What a mess.

Update: A friend who reads this blog sent me a reference to William Langewiesche's "Peace is Hell" article from the Atlantic, October 2001. I haven't had a chance to look it over yet, but he reminds me that a lot of people may have missed it since that issue of the magazine arrived in mailboxes about the time of 9/11. Apparently, it explains why troop rotation is so important.

Update II: This AP story ("Iraq war will leave only two of Army's 10 divisions available") further explains the underlying logic of "military math."

The Army's 4th Infantry, 101st Airborne, 1st Armored and 82nd Airborne division are to leave Iraq by next May. When those troops return, they will need at least six months to rest, resume training and repair helicopters, tanks, Humvees and other gear that has been pushed to or past the breaking point in Iraq's harsh desert environment.

During the retraining, those divisions' formal readiness ratings will fall to the lowest or second-lowest level, first reported this week by The Wall Street Journal.

Some experts say that one year on duty in a place like Iraq necessitates one year off duty, to rest, refit and retrain.

VOA: Me on Saddam's Capture

Today, at 9 am Eastern Time, I received a call from a reporter (I didn't catch her name) at Voice of America. She wanted to obtain my views on the "big news" that was all over the media this morning. Since I had been out of bed for less than half an hour, and hadn't even had caffeine yet (3 holiday parties last night), I noted that this news wasn't yet familiar to me. In my defense, I had checked CNN for news headlines just before 1 am and did not see the story.

Anyway, the reporter agreed that we would talk at 11 am. I do not know if our conversation will be webcast, but if a press release or story appears on the web, I'll provide a link when I see it.

Meanwhile, I can blog about the interview.

The reporter had a handful of questions. Below, I'll try to recall them -- and provide a summary of my answers. The interview lasted less than 10 minutes, but we covered a lot of ground.

Initially, she asked what this would mean for the US and Iraq.

First, I said this was good news for everyone because it helps resolve the past. Hussein was a horrible leader of a Stalinist state who could now be held accountable for his past crimes.

I then said it might not mean much in the present. For example, it is unlikely to decrease the insurgency against American occupation since even US officials have said that Saddam Hussein was probably not directing the opposition. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld expects a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and I don't see any reason this has changed. Reconstruction, state building, security -- these all remain difficult problems.

She asked what I made of the difference between the positions taken by the Iraqi Governing Council and the US government on the potential trial of Saddam Hussein.

This was the really odd question in the mix. So far, I have seen reports from the Governing Council that they want to try Hussein, but have not seen anything from US government officials that conflicts with that. I even asked her to clarify, but she basically repeated the question.

So, I said it was highly unlikely that the US would be opposed to a trial for Saddam, even if they want first to interrogate him. Iraqis naturally want to try their former leader themselves and there are a lot of obvious reasons for thinking that is a good idea.

She asked me if I thought Saddam Hussein should be tried in Iraq.

Since this question seemed related to the prior one, I started to wonder if this was a trial balloon by someone to see what the reaction might be if the US were to do something odd (like a military trial, or a US-based trial). Voice of America is voa.gov, after all, owned and operated by the US government. I might also note that the reporter seemed to be reading prepared questions.

In any case, I noted that in an ideal world, a venue like the International Criminal Court might be best. It is designed to try individuals charged with crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, since most of Hussein's crimes occurred before the ICC existed, and since the ICC does not cover offenses committed before it was created, then the more appropriate format would be something like the international tribunal that has tried Milosevic and others in the former Yugoslavia.

However, other states have tried former human rights violators under other formats, and many would be fine for this trial. The key, I said, was a transparent process that clearly accused Hussein of specific crimes, heard evidence of these crimes, and provided appropriate punishment. It is also important to assure various legal protections.

She asked me if this arrest would hurt the electoral prospects of Democratic candidates like Howard Dean who had staked their candidacies on an anti-war position.

I said this was highly unlikely. First, the general election is 11 months away and I do not think people will vote based merely on the capture of Saddam Hussein. Second, as I stated previously, the situation on the ground in Iraq is unlikely to improve very much as a result of this arrest.

Over the next few months, if American occupation forces continue to suffer casualties as Iraq moves towards sovereignty next July, then many potential Dean voters are going to continue to oppose the Iraq war. This arrest likely changes nothing for them.

She asked me if the arrest was likely to influence reluctant allies and help garner their cooperation on the Iraq issue.

Again, I said no. Both France and Germany, for example, opposed the war for a variety of reasons and this arrest is unlikely to sway them one way or the other.

I pointed out that leaders all over the world, including France's Jacques Chirac, have expressed their pleasure about this news. Indeed, through appropriate diplomatic measures, it might still be possible to win greater support for reconstruction. However, that is a different and difficult task.

Update: Newsday has an article ("U.S. Won't Concede Trial to Iraqis") that helps clear up the mystery of the possible "trial balloon." As everyone knows, Iraqis want to try Saddam Hussein in Iraq -- and soon. So what is the US thinking?

"If we are in a position to build a case against Saddam, we will take a hard look at that," the State Department official said when asked about a U.S. prosecution. "We reserve the right to do that ourselves." ...

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday night that while Hussein is being treated as a prisoner of war, his status could change if it is determined he was involved in the postwar insurgency, suggesting that he might also be tried for the postwar death of U.S. soldiers.

Sunday on TV, I saw a former Reagan official talking about the possibility of a US military tribunal.

Next? Maybe Syria?

Some members of the Bush administration, especially neoconservatives like John Bolton (he's the one embedded in the State Department), dream of taking the war on terrorism to additional states, like Syria or Lebanon.

And by "war on terror," I mean war.

This past spring, in the immediate euphoria of military success in Iraq, a number of people in the administration speculated openly about who might be next.

What's more impressive is that guys like Bolton are still saying these things in the face of the "long, hard slog" in Iraq. Consider this excerpt from a recent Financial Times story, which is archived at Cuba-Solidarity. Originally, I found the reference to the story from Digby at Hullabaloo. However, FT stories require subscription.

The Bush administration on Tuesday defended its strategy of pre-emptive action against Iraq - even while admitting that US intelligence had been imperfect - and warned that the US was ready to use all options against five other "rogue states".

John Bolton, under-secretary of state for arms control and international security, singled out Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya and Cuba as being "hostile to US interests" during a speech in Washington. Mr Bolton, known as a hardliner, also cautioned negotiating partners in Asia and Europe that the US remained sceptical over efforts to induce North Korea and Iran to abide by nuclear safeguard commitments, amid reluctance to take firmer action.

Obviously, the US is bogged down in Iraq and I do not think the US is about to start any wars before the 2004 election. However, US foreign policy is still moving toward head on collision with Syria.

This week, Congress passed legislation authorizing new sanctions against Syria, though President Bush has the authority to waive them. Here are key paragraphs from the Reuters report:

The bill bars trade in items that could be used in weapons programs until the administration certifies that Syria is not supporting terrorist groups, has withdrawn personnel from Lebanon, is not developing unconventional weapons and has secured its border with Iraq.

It would also oblige Bush to impose at least two other sanctions from a menu that includes barring U.S. businesses from investing in Syria, restricting travel in the United States by Syrian diplomats, and banning exports of U.S. products other than food and medicine to Syria.

With trade between the two countries a modest $300 million or less annually, the sanctions would have more political than economic effects.

Bolton has accused Syria of pursuing WMD, though the CIA says his evidence is exaggerated. In fact, Bolton was slated to testify to Congress about this back in July, but it was delayed until September at least partly because the CIA wrote a 35+ page critique of his evidence.

At least it is good to know the intell people are going to have (and apply) more careful standards before another war is launched on shaky evidence.

New music?

If you had just graded 33 undergrad term papers, you'd be ready for some light blogging too...

RollingStone.com has their 50 best albums of 2003 posted (though it seems like you have to click through them one-by-one). I quickly glanced through the list in the paper version.

It didn't take long to discover that I'm not a cutting edge Rolling Stone reader. The only two albums on their list that I own are by Johnny Cash and the Drive-By Truckers.

Both were gifts too.

It's not that I don't buy music on a regular basis (no downloading MP3s for me), but I tend to buy stuff in my preferred genre, which is usually described as alt.country or "no depression." Think Uncle Tupelo (Wilco is a spin off) or Whiskeytown.

And I'm no newcomer to this music. In the 1980s, I listened to what was often called cow-punk. That would be the Beat Farmers (rest in peace Country Dick Montana), The Blasters (who were more rockabilly), Rank and File or Scruffy the Cat.

I think this is what happens when a kid who liked the New Wave hails from parents who listened almost exclusively to country music.

My Rolling Stone subscription is expiring, by the way, and I'm hoping to start taking...No Depression!

Their featured cover artists closely match my CD collection. Having Steve Earle and Lucinda Williams on the cover more than once reflects excellent editorial decision-making.

Update: I forgot to mention that readers can listen to alt.country music on the web in streaming audio. My neighbor and friend Michael Young has a great two hour radio show that I try to catch every Sunday night at 6 pm ET called "Roots and Boots."

Howard Dean and the Progressives

On December 9, Ruy Teixeira posed an odd question: "Can Dean Move to the Center?" He cites polling data showing that Dean is most popular with the most left-leaning Democrats, and his popularity declines among centrists and conservatives in the party.

Teixeira seems to be anticipating the general election as many people are wondering if Dean is McGovern 1972 or Mondale 1984. For example, Matthew Yglesias links to a Washington Post article that notes Bush intends to paint Dean...surprise...as someone too liberal to be president!

Pssst, everyone, isn't Dean basically a centrist? Certainly more a centrist than either Bush or the more left-leaning Democrats who vote in the primaries.

Yesterday, Lean Left posted a link to the 2004 presidential candidate selector. It's a short quiz that asks for simple responses to a number of important policy questions and then, after a click, the website produces a list of candidates who most closely approximate your selections.

I've taken their test many times over the past year and several of the top Democrats usually score around 80 to 85% for me. Several of my friends report similar results.

Over the year, as I have re-taken the test, Dean has gone up, Kerry has gone down, and Clark has emerged out of nowhere. Kucinich has usually been my top or sometimes second choice (after their "ideal theoretical candidate," who unsurprisingly scores 100% for everyone). Bush barely registers, which apparently means I'm not a Bush Republican.

Surprise, again!

Anyway, there are a lot of good reasons why Dean is more a centrist than someone "too liberal to be president." This is true even if he does have some progressive leanings: his re-regulation plan, anti-Iraq war, gay civil unions, etc.

One of Dean's major issues is balancing the budget. Do radical leftists worry about balancing the budget, or about the state absorbing too much of the economy's borrowing? For literally decades, Republicans bashed Democrats because they wanted to spend on social welfare. During the 1970s and 1980s, this meant deficits-be-damned.

In an odd twist, it's now the Bush people who seem to embrace deficits-be-damned.

Progressives have gone for Dean, I suspect, because he spoke out early and loudly against the Iraq war, organized actively on the internet by tapping into progressive venues, and appears ready for a bloody campaign against Bush.

In short, progressives want their candidate personally able to assume the "war room" tasks taken by James Carville and George Stephanopoulos in the '92 Clinton campaign. Those guys ran a media operation that directly challenged every distortion emerging from the '92 Bush I campaign.

They matched fax-for-fax.

From all this, I suspect progressives want to win really badly, and except for the tiny majority that register support for Dennis Kucinich in the polls, are willing to sacrifice on a few issues to assure the overall goal.

That's all good, and hopefully means even the Greens will draw the same conclusion.

I bought a Howard Dean political button at the Kentucky state fair back in August, but have not yet worn it. It's getting more tempting though.

Globalizing Crony Capitalism

Let's see if I can recall ECON 101 stuff...free market...competition...comparative advantage...efficiency...

You get the idea.

It's standard Republican dogma that if the government has to spend money, it ought to be as much like private enterprise as possible -- competitive bids for government contracts are essential, otherwise the result is inefficiency and waste.

Inefficiency and waste are real no-nos when one is dealing with tax revenues (or, as the President used to day, "YOUR MONEY").

Some libertarians equate taxes with theft and slavery, so this is kind of important to them, especially.

So, what do we make of the Bush administration's view on spending taxpayer money in Iraq? It's crony capitalism on a global scale.

The New York Times (registration required) had a significant story Tuesday, "U.S. Bars Iraq Contracts for Nations That Opposed War" that is being widely syndicated and discussed today.

The Pentagon has barred French, German and Russian companies from competing for $18.6 billion in contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, saying the step "is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

The directive, which was issued by the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, represents perhaps the most substantive retaliation to date by the Bush administration against American allies who opposed its decision to go to war in Iraq.

Under the guidelines, which were issued on Friday but became public knowledge today, only companies from the United States, Iraq and 61 other countries designated as "coalition partners" will be allowed to bid on the contracts, which are financed by American taxpayers.

Particularly since Germany, France and Russia most recently voted with the US at the UN -- and the US continues to ask these states for their cooperation on Iraqi debt, NATO involvement, etc., this seems very petty and short-sighted.

Plus, as basic economic theory would suggest, it's quite inefficient and that means higher costs for taxpayers.

His Gift from the Wizard: A Spine!

Kentucky Representative Ken Lucas (the delegation's lone Democrat) is retiring from Congress after his current term ends, and it looks like he has decided to go out with a bang.

Lucas voted for the Iraq war resolution and consistently votes with Bush in Congress.

However, the tagline from the Cincinnati Enquirer accurately describes his recent outburst of dissent: Ken Lucas unleashes criticism of Bush

"I thought that the administration needed bipartisan support, and I was for our commander-in-chief," Lucas said. "Because I felt at that time it was the right thing do. If I knew then what I know now, I would have never voted for the war.

"There was no imminent danger about weapons of mass destruction," he said. "And the tune of the administration changed from that to ridding a country of a ruthless dictator."

The Bush administration also was not straightforward about the intelligence it had, releasing tenuous information that fit its goal of attacking Iraq, Lucas said.

"I feel deceived," he said.

"I don't think we have a good plan for an exit strategy," Lucas said. "I think it was handled poorly as far as not bringing in other countries."

At the end of October, I quoted Kansas House member Pat Roberts (chair of the intelligence committee reviewing the evidence) saying that many members of Congress regretted their vote.

Lucas, by the way, did vote against the prescription drug benefit and described the real beneficiaries as the drug companies.

Who has Dean's ear?

On November 21, after reading a little bit about Howard Dean's plan to re-regulate some industries, I speculated that Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz might be behind them. After all, Stiglitz has just authored a book proposing much the same thing. The economist defends regulation as a measure to make up for information gaps in the economy.

Anyway, it now seems clear that I was right.

The Washington Post is reporting that Stiglitz is advising the Dean campaign.

The article also mentions some other people who are advising Dean. Since the former Vermont Governor has received more attention for his criticism of the Iraq War, and since I follow international politics, I was particularly interested in his foreign policy team.

It turns out that Dean's main foreign policy person is a volunteer he met after giving a speech for the DNC: Danny E. Sebright, who is Associate Vice President for the Cohen Group. It seems to be some sort of policy consulting shop, headed by former Defense Secretary William Cohen (who was once a Republican Senator).

It looks like Sebright started at DIA, and then spent about a decade as a civilian in the Pentagon, working on various issues including the Middle East Peace Process, arms sales, counter-proliferation, and most recently the anti-terror campaign. He took a mid-career MPA from Harvard's Kennedy School too. His BA is 1984 (George Washington), so I guess he's roughly my age ('83 Kansas).

In short, this doesn't look like the resume of an anti-establishment progressive peacenik. Indeed, in an interview with the Boston Globe, Sebright said he hooked up with the Dean campaign for reasons that sound an awful lot like the kinds of things Wes Clark is saying: the anti-terror war would be more effective with engaged allies.

Sebright says that he initially tried to convince Dean to tilt the other way on Iraq and argued that Bush shouldn't have to reveal detailed evidence about chemical and biological weapons.

How can I get a likely presidential candidate's ear?

I'd have a slightly different message.

Nonpartisan Opposition to US Iraq Policy

I missed today's "Meet the Press," but former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich was apparently a lot more critical of the US policy in Iraq than was NY Senator Hillary Clinton.

The über-blogger Atrios makes a fundamentally important generalization from this data, and I think he's exactly on-point:

in the wider world of opinion shapers there has been plenty of criticism by those who are otherwise ideological allies of this gang.

By attempting to portray this as a partisan debate, the media successfully delegitimizes the opposition, who are "of course" simply trying to score political points, according to the Cokie Roberts school of political journalism.

There's been plenty of non-partisan criticism of the administration's policy from its typical allies (the military analyst on Fox News I mentioned this week, Senators Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar, the Weekly Standard...even General Wes Clark fell into this category before he declared as a Democratic candidate for President).

When media voices (or Republican TV commercials) say that Democratic opposition to the war reflects partisan politics, they are trivializing meaningful debate and implicitly challenging the patriotism of critics.

Over the three months I've been blogging, I've tried to present lots of reasons why the war in Iraq was bad policy. The unilateral war divides the US from its closest allies (threatening NATO and the UN), it diverts attention and resources from the war on terror, and potentially exposes the US to years and years of costly occupation of a hostile and dangerous land.

These are real concerns, not partisan.

Most of the opponents of Iraq war favored the Afghan war and want to prosecute the war on terror more effectively.

I will be quite surprised if the 2004 presidential election is framed as a rational discussion of the best anti-terror (or Iraq) policy.

Can Business Regulation be Globalized?

Friday, December 5, 2003, the University of Louisville announced the 2004 winner of the $200,000 Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order.

As is apparent from this AP story in The Australian ("Aussie researchers win book award"), the latest award has gone to John Braithwaite and Peter Drahos, law professors at the Australian National University, in Canberra, for their book, Global Business Regulation. The AP story has been widely syndicated in Australian newspapers:

The bulk of the 704-page book is an analysis of 13 case studies of global business operations and how they are regulated in areas such as environmental standards, labour and trade.

Published in 2000, it involved interviews with more than 500 government, business and non-governmental organisation leaders and took more than 10 years to complete.

"A major theme of the book is how weaker players, or citizens, protect their interests in a movement that seems to be led by large corporations and the forces of history," he [Drahos] told The Courier-Journal of Louisville.

The authors concluded global business interests usually trump citizen and consumer interests - notably in pharmaceuticals and food standards. But they found that globalisation sometimes allows people to learn more about how multinational businesses operate than about companies that do business only in one country.

As I've blogged before, liberal globalization has basically meant relatively free mobility of capital, but labor does not have similar free movement and the regulatory power of the state is quite limited worldwide.

Thus, business is uniquely privileged under the status quo globalization pathway. The kinds of ideas Braithwaite and Drahos emphasize can help plug one part of the gap.

Interestingly, the authors plan to put their cash award to this purpose:

Drahos said they are considering using the $US 200,000 prize to establish an organisation that would advance the principles in the book.

"I figure if we can't do something with this money and the prestige of the Grawemeyer prize, we're not really worth our salt, as it were," he said.

Disclosure: I oversee the administration of this prize.

Fox War Critic

The Nation has an interesting interview with Major Bob Bevelacqua, a Fox News military analyst. It turns out that he's pretty critical of the way the US is making policy in Iraq:

I recently spent a month in Iraq, and I did a lot of listening and not much talking, which is not characteristic for me. The way the Iraqis see it--and they call it very accurately--is that there is a lot of corruption in how the CPA has been handling contracts with Halliburton, Bechtel, and the subcontractors. It upsets Iraqis to see subcontractors brought in from South Africa, Germany, England, India and elsewhere to do simple contracts that are not high-tech. They feel those opportunities for work should go to the Iraqi people. It is their nation; they should probably be involved in rebuilding it.

I don't know how anyone can argue that security is good.

The enemy has the ability to fire when and where they like. That's because the civilian population is allowing them to do that. And that's because we have not embraced that civilian population. We have isolated ourselves in Saddam castle behind concrete barriers. Think of the irony of this. We put ourselves in the castles from where he dominated and repressed that country. Who do we look like?

I thought going to war in Iraq was a good thing. But we are screwing it up. If we change our policies and truly work with the Iraqi people, things can change. If they do not change, we will have another Beirut, another Somalia. We will end up leaving, and it will implode. And that will give us negative PR in the eyes of 1.6 billion Muslims. This is the Super Bowl. Look, we trained and advised the Afghanistan mujaheddin [who battled the Soviet Union in the 1980s] and some of them managed to fight against us later. Our ability to screw things up is immense.

Some of this echoes criticisms made by General Wesley Clark.

It's nice to see someone on Fox taking a "fair and balanced" stance, and I hope the message about crony capitalism resonates widely.

Homegrown WMD Terrorists?

I really don't know what to make of this report:

On November 13, 2003, William J. Krar, 62, a right-wing extremist with connections to militia groups and an interest in white supremacist literature, pleaded guilty in federal court in Tyler, Texas, to possessing chemicals that could be used to make a dangerous weapon. Krar's co-defendant and companion, Judith Bruey, 54, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess illegal weapons.

In his plea agreement, Krar, owner of a company that makes gun parts, admitted to possessing sodium cyanide and other chemicals that can produce a lethal gas when combined. In an April raid on a storage unit rented by Krar and Bruey in Noonday, Texas, FBI agents found chemicals, including nitric and acetic acids along with the sodium cyanide, and instructions on how to produce chemical weapons. Agents also found machine guns, more than 100,000 rounds of ammunition and materials for pipe bombs.

Authorities also found weapons and false documents in Krar's vehicle, in a U-Haul truck at his residence, and in a storage facility in New Hampshire, where Krar used to live.

Several different bloggers have cited a sexier story from a TV news station. It emphasizes "weapons of mass destruction" and domestic terrorism:

Since arresting the three people in May, federal agents have served hundreds of subpoenas across the country in a domestic terror investigation that made it onto President Bush’s daily intelligence briefings and set off national security alarms among the country’s most senior counter-terror officials.

Terrorism investigators suspect that Krar, who has paid no federal income taxes since 1988, made his living as a traveling arms salesman who pedaled illicit bomb components and other weapons to violent underground anti-government groups across the country.

Sources familiar with the investigation say authorities especially fear that Krar may have manufactured more than one sodium cyanide bomb and sold them. After a traffic stop earlier this year while Krar was traveling through Tennessee, state troopers seized sodium cyanide among other weapons, one government source confirmed.

Federal investigators were not looking for white supremacist groups when they stumbled across Krar by accident.

He drew the FBI’s attention when he sent a package of counterfeit ID’s for the United Nations and Defense Intelligence Agency to Feltus’ New Jersey home earlier this year. The package was mistakenly delivered to a Staten Island man, who opened it and called police.

Since the period right after Oklahoma City, the media hasn't reported much about right wing militias in the US.

I know a former diplomat who has served in Pakistan, Turkey and India, and then lived domestically in Montana. Just after 9/11 (about the time the US went to war in Afghanistan) he told me there are probably a lot more "terrorists" in Montana than in Southwest Asia.

This may not be literally true, but it is surprising that the media hasn't given this story significant attention.

Update: January 7, 2004, reporter Scott Gold has a piece on this story in the Los Angeles Times . Interestingly, Gold credits bloggers with publicizing and keeping the story alive. Robert Jensen of Texas is quoted as saying that the Bush administration gains politically by playing up international terrorist threats, but gains little by emphasizing domestic terror -- even if the latter threat is greater.

Japanese Missile Defense, Asian Missiles and Deterrence

Reuters has a story today reporting that Japan is likely soon to announce its intended deployment of missile defenses. It looks like Japan will be buying off-the-shelf US technology, which basically means it doesn't yet work very well:

Under a Defense Ministry plan, Japan would spend $4.62 billion from fiscal 2004/05 to 2007/08 to buy a two-stage system developed by the United States, Mainichi said.

Actually, the article says the Japanese are going to deploy the system that works on Aegis destroyers (as well as Patriots), so the technology is more promising than the fixed, land-based systems the US is planning to deploy in Alaska. It will be fully deployed in 2011-2012.

While the Japanese say these defenses are designed to stop North Korean missiles, they will also (if they work) stop Chinese missiles.

The Chinese are not likely to be happy about losing their deterrent (the US worries about Chinese missiles capable of hitting US forces at Okinawa), and will likely respond by increasing offensive missiles.

It's a simple recipe for a costly missile arms race in Asia. So says Axel Berkofsky, PhD, of the European Institute for Asian Studies.

A strong opponent of joint US-Japanese missile-defense projects, China is believed to have increased the number of missiles by 75 per year in an attempt to discourage the United States and Japan from working on a missile-defense system eventually unable to deal with the growing number of Chinese missiles. The opposite is the case, of course. The more the number of Chinese missiles grows, the more the US and Japan want to develop and deploy the system.

This looks like the beginning of a new arms race in East Asia to Chinese Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan, who met with his Japanese counterpart Shigeru Ishiba in Beijing last week. Missile defense, he complained, will lead to a new escalation in Japan's defense spending. And Cao certainly knows about rising military spending, given that China's defense budget has seen two-digit growth per year over at least the past decade.

With all the focus on Iraq, little attention is directed at China these days. But foreign policy wonks might want to note that the neocons from the Project for a New American Century (as well as Condi Rice in the 2000 Foreign Affairs piece) focused a great deal of hostile attention on China.

This is one of those issues that divides academics -- even on the same faculty.

Update: The BBC reports that Australia is commiting to missile defense too.

Libertarians: Welcome!

Last week on Volokh, David Bernstein blogged about "The Republican Collapse." Here's his thesis:

It's really gotten close to the point where the only reason for limited-government types to vote for Republican presidents is that they occasionally appoint judges who believe that the Constitution restrains federal and state regulatory power...

"Compassionate conservatism" seems to have turned out to be a replay of the Nixon strategy of buying off every conceivable interest group that is capable of being bought off by a Republican admnistration, while using social issues and conservative rhetoric to appease the Republican masses.

Bernstein links this article from The Washington Post which briefly summarizes a minority committee report from the House finding that Republicans have loaded up on budgetary pork far more than did their recent Democratic predecessors.

Then, on Sunday, the Post had an op-ed called "The Bush Betrayal" by David Boaz:

Federal spending has increased by 23.7 percent since Bush took office. Education has been further federalized in the No Child Left Behind Act. Bush pulled out all the stops to get Republicans in Congress to create the biggest new entitlement program -- prescription drug coverage under Medicare -- in 40 years.

He pushed an energy bill that my colleague Jerry Taylor described as "three parts corporate welfare and one part cynical politics . . . a smorgasbord of handouts and subsidies for virtually every energy lobby in Washington."

It's a far cry from the less-government, "leave us alone" conservatism of Ronald Reagan.

I've been thinking lately that Democrats should make an overt appeal to Libertarians in 2004 to try to pry them from the Republican voter pool.

Libertarians must be given pause by the developments noted in these articles, as well as the Patriot Act (internet and library snooping), the deficit spending (they like the tax cuts, but hate the failure to cut government), the drug war (Ashcroft has gone after head shops), and other aspects of the Bush era.

Democrats could try to appeal to libertarians by promising to balance the budget (cutting corporate handouts in mining, agriculture and other areas would make for a large start), overturning the excesses of the Patriot Act, and perhaps at least thinking about easing the drug war. Democrats could also embrace more transparency in government, which libertarians are bound to favor.

Boaz, from the libertarian Cato Institute, concludes with three options for those that share his political philosophy:

It could happen that limited-government voters decide to stay home, or vote for an independent candidate in the mold of Ross Perot or Jesse Ventura or vote Libertarian.

They could even vote for an antiwar, anti-Patriot Act, socially tolerant Democrat.

Given a choice between big-government liberalism and big-government conservatism, the leave-us-alone voters might decide that voting isn't worth the trouble.

Those are some interesting choices.

Update: See another post on Volokh and the links therein. Just last week, the libertarian magazine Reason had a critical on-line piece about Republicans.

The Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy

I finally checked out the web pages for the nonpartisan Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. The group includes several dozen foreign policy scholars and analysts. This text is from their "About us" link:

The Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy is a group of scholars, policy makers and concerned citizens united by our opposition to an American empire. The Coalition is dedicated to promoting an alternative vision for American national security strategy that is consistent with American traditions and values.

Here are the lead paragraphs from their Statement of Principles:

Against the backdrop of an ever-bloodier conflict in Iraq, American foreign policy is moving in a dangerous direction toward empire.

Worrisome imperial trends are apparent in the Bush administration's National Security Strategy. That document pledges to maintain America's military dominance in the world, and it does so in a way that encourages other nations to form countervailing coalitions and alliances. We can expect, and are seeing now, multiple balances of power forming against us. People resent and resist domination, no matter how benign.

Of particular interest to me is the Coalition's call for debate as a means for people to resist the move toward empire:

The need for a change in direction is particularly urgent because imperial policies can quickly gain momentum, with new interventions begetting new dangers and, thus, the demand for further actions. If current trends are allowed to continue, we may well end up with an empire that most Americans-especially those whose sons and daughters are, or will be, sent into harm's way-don't really favor. The issue must be the subject of a broad public debate. The time for debate is now.

The American people have not embraced the idea of an American empire, and they are unlikely to do so. Since rebelling against the British Empire, Americans have resisted the imperial impulse, guided by the Founders' frequent warnings that republic and empire are incompatible. Empire is problematic because it subverts the freedoms and liberties of citizens at home while simultaneously thwarting the will of people abroad. An imperial strategy threatens to entangle America in an assortment of unnecessary and unrewarding wars.

As I've noted before, many international relations (IR) theorists think that public debate about foreign policy doesn't matter much, as states will simply pursue power/interest/security.

In any case, the list of signatories is fairly impressive and includes a lot of IR scholars:

Robert J. Art, Brandeis University
Andrew Bacevich, Boston University
Richard K. Betts, Columbia University
Seyom Brown, Brandeis University
Michael Desch, The University of Kentucky
Eugene Gholz, University of Kentucky
David Hendrickson, Colorado College
Robert Jervis, Columbia University
Charles Kupchan, Georgetown University
James Kurth, Swarthmore College
John J. Mearsheimer, University of Chicago
Daniel Nelson, University of New Haven
Robert Paarlberg, Wellesley College
Barry R. Posen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Jack L. Snyder, Columbia University
Robert W. Tucker, Johns Hopkins University
Stephen Van Evera, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Stephen Walt, Harvard University
Kenneth N. Waltz, Columbia University

Disclosure: I have been on panels or worked with many of the people on that list.

The list also includes Doug Bandow (former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan), Ted Galen Carpenter and several other people from the Cato Institute, former US Senators Mike Gravel (Alaska) and Gary Hart (Colorado), Theresa Hitchens (Center for Defense Information, or CDI), and journalists from both The American Prospect, and The American Conservative.

Again: People from CDI and Cato? Progressive and Conservative? Republicans and Democrats? In IR terms, idealists and realists?

Ultimately, the group plans to host conferences and policy forums, publish articles, and appear in the media to advance their viewpoint.

I hope they find an eager audience.

How do I join?