Today:

A series of bombs killed 35 children and seven adults Thursday as U.S. troops handed out candy at a government ceremony to inaugurate a new sewage treatment plant.

Whoever perpetrated this heinous attack, Arundhati Roy is there to enlighten us on their motives and argue that the “Iraqi resistance” deserves our support:

But at the same time, when you look at the massive amount of violence that America is perpetrating in Iraq, I don’t know that I’m in a position to tell Iraqis that you must fight a pristine, feminist, democratic, secular, non-violent war. I can’t say. I just feel that that resistance in Iraq is our battle too and we have to support it.

I found this baffling comment via Michael Totten who can’t even be bothered to fisk the entire interview with Roy from which the above is an excerpt, but he has a succinct rebuttal:

What's even more astonishing is that a person who supposedly believes in the values of feminism, secularism, and democracy can get a warm fuzzy feeling by cheerleading Islamofascists who would cut off her own infidel head and dump her body into a ditch. And hasn't she ever bothered to notice that the Iraqis who are democratic, secular, and feminist are pro-American?

No she hasn’t. Ms. Roy argues that in order to build a new Iraq we would first have to destroy everything that the American "aggressors and appropriators" together with international relief agencies are trying to achieve on the ground. If 35 children celebrating get in the way of that hallowed objective then so be it. Like Michael, I don’t have the ability to add anything to this, it’s beyond the pale and beyond debate.

UPDATE: Captain's Quarters is not lost for words.

There have been quite a few reactions to my piece on Bush. Some argued that my arguments explaining Bush’ interactions with the media are erroneous and speculative. Others complimented the effort and thought it was another useful installment in trying to understand the man’s psychological make-up. Judging for the tone of the reactions I guess it very much depends on where you stand. The ones that have bought into the “he’s stupid and doesn’t read” argument thought it was a questionable analysis, Bush supporters liked it. As always, the latter group falls into two: one unquestioningly buys into anything the President does and says, the other one supports him but is prepared to look critically at what goes on in Bush’ mind and challenge some of his exploits. My assessment was by no means a conclusive effort, there’s much more that can be said and researched. It was one more step in trying to understand the man behind the public appearance. Hopefully we’ll learn more tonight during the debate.

So, September was a blast for Peaktalk, best month ever. Generous linkage from Glenn and Sully generated a lot of traffic and, more importantly, there are returnees from these avalanches. All I can say is: thanks, I hope you enjoy the stuff here and keep visiting. It's not always easy to keep up the daily posting given various work commitments but the passion to do it is there, I hope it comes through in what I put up here.

To be complete I have updated the top referrers list for 2004 on the left sidebar, newcomers to the list are: Sullivan, Chrenkoff and Blogfonte. There are however many others who have linked and here are a few special mentions:

Galen’s Log is a group blog focused on medicine and politics, bookmark them as next Tuesday they will host Grand Rounds which represents the best of the medical blogosphere, or Carnival of the Doctors if you like. With Canada continuing to drift left-ward the conservative insurgency is in full swing with Right On!, a Canadian conservative blogging from Toronto. And do check out the Hopeful Cynic, who remains optimistic in the face of reality, no small task. And finally, long overdue, Entre Nous a former liberal Belgian with interests similar to mine: US-European relations, Terror and Israel. Go check ‘em all out!

Earlier this week I wondered where Jimmy Carter was with regards to lending his experience to the Iraqi elections in the post Iraq: Where’s Jimmy? The answer to that question was given in short order and was simple: in Florida.

Dan Drezner and especially Jane Galt have some interesting comments on the elections expert leveraging his third world experiences for the benefit of American voters. Again: as a former President who has built a track record in assisting with and monitoring elections in emerging democracies he has a moral obligation to offer his expertise to those who are facing the phenomenal task of getting the Iraqi vote off the ground.

Kenneth Bigley is still alive, the French journalists may soon be free and two Italian hostages have just been released. Good news? Sure, but American hostages invariably end up being beheaded. The terrorists have apparently re-discovered the strategy of driving a wedge between America and Europe. And that, for the long-term struggle against Islamist terrorism, is not good news.

Hardly.

Cathy Seipp takes on a subject that is quite familiar to me and that is the indignation, surprise or concern that you elicit when it becomes evident that you support Bush. It’s often almost as if people around me think: “he such a nice guy, well-spoken and reasonable what on earth could have led him astray?” Or, as a reader e-mailed the other day:

I don't understand how such a smart person as yourself can actually believe that there is any hope of building any decent society in Iraq at this point.

Which is pretty much the same thing. Support Bush, argue to stick it out in Iraq and you’re on the fringe. It’s amazing but Cathy at least is an American, imagine the disdain, bewilderment and surprise that friends and family back in Europe deliver at my door on a regular basis, and this I mean literally. My father, a conservative by Dutch standards, sends me a thick monthly envelope of newspaper clippings, most of them not exactly positive about Bush and since a short while they are accompanied with letters that summarize the negative aspects, point by point. He and I can laugh about it, discuss it, and there’s a lot of stuff that I use for the blog, of course.

The deeper issue I think is that Bush’s strong will, unmitigated clarity and unwavering approach to issues is something fairly new. In business and sports that sort of attitude is part and parcel of succeeding and therefore accepted as the norm, but in politics it is not, or it hasn’t been until recently. In fact, since the end of the Second World War until now - let’s call it the new interbellum for lack of better word - it was a skill that wasn’t needed. On the domestic side the post-war tensions created by growing abundance and voter emancipation demanded skilful middle of the road leadership, a clear ideological stance would definitely cost you at the ballot box. The one real international conflict was the Cold War, one that could hardly be managed by throwing in frank and direct language. The only leaders that did practice directness and a measure of uncompromising ideological purity were Thatcher and Reagan, and both to this date are ridiculed by the left-leaning and centrist political establishments on both sides of the Atlantic. So the new leadership style that is so despised by many results directly from the new geopolitical framework in which the United States, and the world, has found itself. It’s also the reason why Kerry is faring poorly, his style of politicking would have worked well in the new interbellum, but it has limited value today.

Dislike of Bush is two-layered: ideology and style. We can talk about different points of view, but the manner in which we do it may well have changed in the new era of global conflict and Bush may have set the standard for a new generation of leaders. Unwavering and direct, it doesn't make you a lot of friends in the short-run, but over a longer period of time it will deliver results.

In his TCS column, Henry Miller has taken on a book whose title has long fascinated this staunch Euro-skeptic: Jeremy’s Rifkin’s The European Dream. In his book Rifkin has made his contribution to the Euro-American debate by arguing that:

"the American Spirit is tiring and languishing in the past, a new European Dream is being born" -- an ethos that "emphasizes community relationships over individual autonomy, cultural diversity over assimilation, quality of life over the accumulation of wealth, sustainable development over unlimited growth, deep play over unrelenting toil, universal human rights and the rights of nature over property rights, and global cooperation over the unilateral exercise of power."

All of Rifkin’s arguments have in some shape or other been discussed and debunked here on these pages so let me stick to what Miller has to say. He takes on Rifkin and accuses him of oversimplifying affairs in order to suit his own political or ideological agenda; Rifkin is one of those disgruntled Americans from the left who have discovered Europe as the model society. You will find a lot of these types along the West Coast who are truly mystified when you tell them that you have abandoned Europe for better opportunities and especially a better quality of life across the ocean. They have after one or two trips to Amsterdam or Rome determined that everything is better in the old country. They do however lack the spirit to risk everything and go there and instead suffer America’s capitalism and ignorance, lament their lives, while they drink from Jeremy’s Rifkin’s well of oversimplified generalizations. They’re not dislike the bearded Al Gore who went to Europe to seek inspiration after his 2000 election defeat, and we all know in what shape he returned. Miller deconstructs Rifkin as follows:

In stark rebuttal to Rifkin's paean to European society and institutions, European countries and their Union are, in comparison to the United States, in dire straits. They have aging populations and low birth rates, their productivity is in decline, and their economies are stagnant. Everything in Europe is not on the decline, however: Stultifying taxation, over-regulation, obstruction of free markets, unemployment, anti-immigrant sentiment, anti-Semitism, and envy of the American economic miracle are alive and well.

While engaging in some generalizations himself (moves to deregulate, privatize and enable free-markets are on the rise in a many European countries, the EU has been a strong promoter of free trade), Miller strikes the right notes. Europe is on a crossroads and pulled in many different directions. The push for merging into one European superstate is questioned on many levels especially given the dominance of the two European powerhouses, France and Germany, in that institution. At the same time the rate at which new members join that project will serve as a counterbalance to those two troubled states, one of whom is adhering to its statist economic model and the other that suffers from its costly attempt to fund its reunification with its eastern brothers.

While that diversity should benefit those that resist the stifling encroachment of the centralist EU, it at the same time will hinder a pan-European consensus on how to deal with threats to the very fundaments of the continent’s future: security, immigration, cross-Atlantic relations and yes, the environment. It will be an uneasy road ahead for European countries, hardly the dream that Rifkin paints. On the contrary: instead of eclipsing the American Dream as he argues, Europeans are struggling to define if there is such a thing as a European dream.

We’re approaching Jimmy Carter’s 80th birthday and so there’s plenty of media coverage talking about his record and underlining his unwillingness to retire. His Carter Center continues to be pro-active around the word and the former President explained why last week during a speech given at Emory University:

It is important for Americans to realize that they live in the strongest and most powerful nation on earth, he said, adding that the United States should be looked upon as a champion of peace, freedom, democracy and a healthy environment.

Now, if that’s true why on earth is the Carter Center not using any of its expertise - in poverty alleviation and in enabling elections in third world countries – to help out in the place where America is facing its biggest challenge yet in bringing peace, freedom and democracy: Iraq? Their website reveals a very limited interest in the issues and lives currently at stake in Iraq. It’s unfortunate, but it seems that Carter’s bitterness about Bush is pre-empting a rational application of the principles of his own Carter Center.

UPDATE: Carter it appears is focusing on Florida instead.

Entered into OTB's Traffic Jam

It has to be said, any help with the elections is welcome as US Commander John Abizaid acknowledged yesterday that they are not going to be easy with parts of Iraq unable to participate and more violence targeted at disrupting this important coalition milestone. A quick search around the web about this topic yielded many headlines such as this one “It's getting worse in Iraq, Powell says", but if you read his comments carefully he put a distinctly positive spin on events by pointing to the elections in Afghanistan next week:

"And I think we're going to do the same thing in Iraq if we stay the course, if we defeat this insurgency," Powell said. He acknowledged that "yes, it's getting worse, and the reason it's getting worse is that they are determined to disrupt the elections."

A violent race toward the January vote. Still, there has to be optimism and there are many recent precedents where elections in hopeless cases have worked, think of East-Timor and Cambodia. There is therefore no reason why, with about four months to go, they are a lost cause. On the contrary, coalition, UN and other nations should all pull together to make them work and they should never become the playball of domestic US or US-European politics. The Iraqi people simply do not deserve that.

UPDATE: Via Sullivan, Tony Blair on the importance of pulling together, regardless of pre-war positions:

"Obviously there will be people who have never been convinced about the original decision. But the fundamentals of the situation in Iraq are absolutely clear. You have a government supported by the United Nations. You have got massive reconstruction. You've got an attempt to bring democracy to the country and you've got these people trying to stop it. I can understand why people still have a powerful disagreement about the original decision to go to war, but what ever that disagreement, surely now it is absolutely clear we have to stay and see it through. Because the consequences of not doing so is that global terrorism will get a tremendous boost. By contrast, if we succeed and defeat these people and help the Iraqis to get what the Iraqis want, then global terrorism will suffer a defeat... So my point to people is: which side should we be on now? You might have disagreed about the conflict, but there is only one side to be on now, and that's the side of people who are trying to bring democracy and hope to the country, not trying to plunge it into terror and chaos."

Jimmy Carter, take note.

Jeremy Wright the owner of Ensight, a blog about business and technology, has sold it for the tidy sum of $15k and a monthly fee, allowing him editorial control in return for all advertising revenue.

The BusinessPundit asks if this could lead to blogs as a commodity: build-up blog brands and then sell them off. This in turn could help create small conglomerates that aggregate blogs with similar content. It’s not inconceivable that many B-list bloggers who command decent traffic rankings and search engine power would sell of their ownership or form smaller groupings of like-minded blogs, finding a model to make their efforts commercially sustainable. A-listers however could do without this as their market - read traffic - pull is probably strong enough to survive on their own. If so, than it looks like we will see a number of different models of commercialized blogs co-existing, dispelling the myth of one model for blogs to attain sustainable revenues.

UPDATE: James Joyner has some interesting comments on blogs and commerce.

Or that is what it seemed like over the past five days. If we are going to write history after November 2 pundits will point to this week as the decisive moment, the last chance Kerry had to turn a flagging campaign around. And to be frank, he tried to do that, he left domestic issues behind and gambled on attacking Bush on national security in a kamikaze-like fashion. Now, even if Kerry had been able to get some traction out of this strategy there’s simply too much evidence floating around that his bid for the White House is doomed. Here are the more salient points:

Women, a traditional part of the Democratic constituency are walking away argues Michael Totten. Times have changed and mother and daughters alike look at security as far more important in the year 2004 than something like equal rights. I would add: there are more women at work than ever, so looking at your tax bill has become far more of an issue than competing for a job that you already have.

Talking about women, THK is proving to be a total liability for the Kerry campaign says Andrew Sullivan. True, and even if she kept her mouth shut it would be next to impossible for her to bridge the gap with down-to-earth Laura Bush.

Glenn has one of the most searing indictments: Joe Lockhart’s disgraceful attack on Ilyad Allawi could be evidence that the Clintonites just want Kerry to fail in order to have a good shot at 2008, and that is a very plausible explanation. I always wondered what possible interest Bill and Hillary could have in a Kerry success and their support to date has indeed been nominal.

Power Line puts an absolute bombshell on the table when evidence emerged that back in 1997 Kerry argued for, yep, pre-emptive action against Saddam Hussein, arguing that the French wouldn’t be of any help. This in and by itself should relegate the Kerry campaign to the wastebasket, there’s nothing to add here.

And, go check out Jeff’s assessment: he’s done a quick round-up too with a damning verdict. The net: he won't even support Democrats on the local level.

OK, that's the right-hand of the blogosphere but on the left side I couldn’t find anything material that would impact the debate and the numbers unless you think that reciting from Kitty Kelley or recycling Iraqi quagmire arguments hold any water. I am not dismissing Kerry as having failed utterly but both the momentum and the numbers are just not supporting any measure of enthusiasm for his efforts.

Next week’s debate on national security may be the last opportunity for Kerry to try and move the numbers his way, but the odds are stacked firmly against him:

1. Bush, while not a great orator, stood his ground against one of the sharpest debaters of recent presidential elections, Al Gore, and won the verbal spar. That should be a strong indicator of his ability to manage a hefty discussion with Kerry;

2. Kerry has kindly provided Bush with such a deluge of material that the President can probably devote all three debates in their entirety to foreign policy;

3. Which is the Republican home turf anyways; and

4. Evidence points to the fact that the Kerry campaign has a major problem verbalizing and articulating its positions. Problems verbalizing, sounds familiar?

If that forecast holds, then by the time the domestic debates swing around the gap will be close to unbridgeable. “Barring any disaster” would be the qualifying remark after such a statement. Well no. If anything of a calamitous nature presents itself in the next six weeks American voters are, in light of the evidence presented above, far more likely to support Bush than Kerry. Another 9/11 will prompt voters to pick the guy with a track record and a plan and it isn’t Kerry.

This should alert conservatives and liberals alike. Turn your sound on.

When President Bush was asked last week about the criticism from Senators McCain and Hagel on Iraq, his response was curt, replying that “both men want me elected as president”. It was not the best way of addressing the issue, but then we have seen Bush do that on many occasions. It has been fodder for his critics who will gladly point to his limited grasp of the matter at hand or for the less eloquent among them: his stupidity. Of course, this is what Bush should have said and done:

“Senators McCain and Hagel are fine Republicans and the White House works with them closely in a number of areas, and on military issues their contributions are extremely valuable. You know, John McCain and I were opponents at one point but that hasn’t turned us into enemies (smile), on the contrary we’re both dedicated to the same course so I understand his eagerness to contribute to this important debate. We are part of the same party and support the same cause”

That would not only have been a good reply, it would have been politically astute and it might even have resulted in picking up a few McCain Democrats uncertain whether to make the hike to the polling station in November. But Bush didn’t say that, he couldn’t express the obvious and we can only fathom the joy with which his predecessor would have jumped on that particular question. Still, Bush must have had this answer in his head, it was on the tip of his tongue, but something snapped and all that came out was “both men want me elected as president” and then some boiler plate lines on Kerry’s position on Iraq. Not a great response, not a great media moment.

It’s very unlikely that a man who worked through Yale, picked up a Harvard MBA and has spent the better part of his life among the well-spoken and educated elites of America can not intelligently address questions. So, we have to look in his character or mental make-up to see why his off-the-cuff interactions with the press have most of times been so disastrous. It almost makes you think that Bush is uncertain and hesitant, and from there it is a very short step to the bottle which helped govern his life until he became forty. Alcoholism in a lot of cases results from the inability to deal with and manage uncertainty or lack of self-worth. In Bush’s case his lack of direction in early life may have contributed to similar feelings. The ease with which you can escape that reality or manage social situations after a few drinks must have somehow shaped his relation with the bottle. And it took place in an environment that was extremely conducive: from college dorm rooms to Texas country clubs, cold beer wherever you looked. For those who like the taste and have to manage some uncertainty that is an easy way to fun and some swagger, alcohol is a very pleasant companion and a place of refuge when you haven’t figured out things all that well. And we know by now that Bush hadn’t, and by his own admission, the taste of Tex-Mex food with cold beer is just too good to resist.

In judging George Bush we must never underestimate the tremendous amount of willpower that someone exercises if he or she kicks the bottle without any institutional or professional help. Laura talked, the bible helped but George did it. He mastered his devil and that by itself tells you what a strong and determined person the 43rd President of the United States is. Taken together with his academic grounding, his penchant for nature and simple life on the ranch, not to mention his long and enduring marriage to Laura, a particularly down-to-earth woman, it all makes for a pretty compelling guy. And that lifestyle gives us another clue. Bush has somehow chosen the haven of a private setting over dealing with unfamiliar social settings now that he is older and sober. He rightly has a limited interest in laying his soul bare to the American public, he prefers a family retreat in his Midland cocoon and that’s it. That attitude doesn’t sit too well with the openness and 24/7 accessibility that our crazed media culture demands. It was the same for Reagan who, while a great orator, preferred to disappear from the scene together with Nancy. The outcome is that for their reclusive and quiet private lives, both Presidents have been branded as idiots by their opponents.

Speaking on an impromptu basis thus remains an issue and with beer out of the window Bush has to rely on his own ability to translate his thoughts into coherent and slick verbal prose. It hardly ever works, with a few exceptions, and he usually reverts to the pre-ordained paragraphs written by others that even most of us can now recite by heart. George Bush’ ability to confidently talk about issues is probably restricted to situations where he’s really comfortable and totally at ease which is probably at home with family at the ranch and not in front of a camera and a battery of microphones. His foes jump on it and say: “there’s the village idiot, he can’t verbalize his thoughts, to the extent that he has any”. But we can argue that his biography points to an almost inexplicable lack to verbalize thoughts when surrounded by a judgmental outside world where the lone Texan is deeply uncomfortable. And then when he is confident he will go too far the other way and say things that some of his critics will equally hold against him: “We will smoke them out of their holes”. Good stuff, but frowned upon by elitist observers.

The man is neither stupid nor incoherent. A confluence of life events turned him - late in life - into an honorable and determined man whose ambitions have led him into corners where he doesn’t fit naturally. Interestingly the reverse is true for Bill Clinton, he was a perfect fit for the charged public environment of politics, but his mental and moral constituency was totally unsuitable for the Oval Office. If re-elected, we’ll see more botched appearances in front of the press in the next four years and hopefully some genuine bravado. We won’t however see polished verbose interactions with the press from Bush. The man just can’t do it, and in his mind it probably doesn’t matter: he’s got a far more important job to do.

I am working on a longer piece about the personal side of Bush, hope to have it up later tonight or tomorrow morning.

Ever since Russia started to participate in G-7 (or after that G-8) get-togethers, I often wondered when China would be invited by the world’s economic powerhouses. Dan Drezner today points us to the fact that that process has started. China in my opinion would be a far more logical member than Russia but given the interrelatedness of markets and politics I presume we would want to have Putin at the table. And it won’t be long before we can welcome Hu Jintao.

One can not begin to describe the inhumane suffering of the hostages in Iraq and their families back home, but I hope to write something lengthy about these gruesome events later.

However, after two horrific decapitations earlier this week the remaining British hostage has now addressed Tony Blair directly by video, begging for his life. The British government has appropriately reiterated that there can be no negotiations with hostage-takers, or death cults which is what we should label these depraved groups. One thing is clear, apart from creating mayhem and instability in Iraq itself events like this start to affect public opinion back home. Consider how the video with hostage Kenneth Bigley ended:

The video then feature three frames of text, written white on black in Arabic and English.

The first reads: “Does a British (sic) worth anything to Blair.”
The second: “Will he try to save the hostage or will he not care?”
A third asks: “Do leaders really care about their people?”

Apparently, Bigley's family has criticized Blair for not doing enough to secure the release of the engineer and it won’t be long before British tabloids will run headlines arguing that Blair has blood on his hands. The impact thus will be primarily on the political feasibility of a prolonged stay in Iraq and the numbers for that are beginning to look discouraging for Tony Blair:

In one recent nationwide poll, 70 percent of those interviewed said they wanted British troops out of Iraq following the elections scheduled to take place in January.

Look at the last part: echoes of Novak’s early pull-out theory? Hard to say but in such a climate the opponents of a prolonged stay in Iraq may indeed force their hand and argue that merely holding an election is a sufficient enough milestone to establish success and get both military and civilian staff out, permanently. With elections in Australia and a bruised Blair, the Bush team will not only have to justify its course in a tight presidential election, it will have to pull out all the plugs to ensure its key partners stay onboard the coalition boat.

UPDATE: In what can hardly be a coincidence it is now reported that the two Italian hostages have been killed. Yes, I forgot Berlusconi.

Yesterday one of Canada’s labor leaders acknowledged that free trade with the United States was not the disaster that the unions had projected it to be. Of course not, North American free trade has ensured a phenomenal economic boon ever since its establishment and the windfalls have been of such magnitude that even for die-hard union leaders it is hard to hold on to the scaremongering notions that they have used to promote their outdated political agenda.

I wouldn’t go as far to credit this particular union leader with showing signs of incipient sense, but it is evident that unions as we have known them are on their way out. It may take a while for that happen since organized labor can focus exclusively on ensuring the survival of one of the last vestiges of collectivist ideology; there is not much else on their plate these days. We have not yet arrived in the paradise of a contract society, but when union leaders start to publicly admit that free trade isn’t so bad after all we may be a few steps closer.

A reader mails in response to my claim that if the key battleground for the remaining weeks of the campaign is national security Kerry will face an uphill struggle. He disagrees:

This strikes me as an odd analysis. True, the Republicans have very adeptly depicted Mr. Bush as a strong leader who took decisive, effective action at a time of national crisis; while portraying Senator Kerry (indeed, all Democrats) as weak-willed, slack-jawed, hand-wringing moral relativists who, if they were in power, would immediately try to engage in a meaningful dialogue with Al Qaeda, probably by first disarming unilaterally as a goodwill gesture. And Senator Kerry has been inept, so far, at dispelling that caricature. But I don't think the caricature survives the light of day for very long. Senator Kerry does still owe the American people a clear explanation of how he would conduct the war. But I don't think it's an uphill struggle for him to come up with an alternative that compares favorably to the Bush administration's reckless, costly, incompetently executed entanglement in Iraq.

It’s in a way the essence of the campaign so far and the major stumbling block for Kerry, hence my analysis. Bush and his team have been so effective in mastering the safety of Americans as a campaign item that even a very troubled execution of the war in Iraq hasn’t cost them any points, so far. On the contrary, Bush’s command of the “staying the course” message has resonated in America and beyond and events – such as the terror attacks in Madrid and Beslan – have proven his case. When voters are polled on national security and Iraq, Bush outpolls Kerry by a wide margin, although overall the race remains close. It’s the advantage of the incumbent and so Kerry does indeed need to come up with a clear vision as my reader suggests, but it is getting very late in the game to do so.

The Bush strategy has weathered the various setbacks and questions raised over Iraq skillfully by sticking to grand themes and a broad vision for the future. But as Greg Djerejian notes about Bush:

And he then needs to tell us, in some detail, what specifically he is going to do to a) improve the dreadful security situation for ordinary Iraqis b) beat back the insurgency and c) get the reconstruction effort back on tap. Put differently, the too often utopic meta-narrative needs to be embroidered with more of the gritty, pesky details.

Right. And that goes for both candidates but as long as Bush can survive on meta-narrative it will be awfully hard for Kerry to get attention with an itemized wish list which still only exists in draft form. He’s got nine days to present the final version.

UPDATE: Steven Taylor has similar thoughts as does Power Line.

One of my colleagues today pointed to me to this interesting site, Israel 21c, Beyond the Conflict. Although not a blog, it probably falls into the same category as the regular efforts from Arthur Chrenkoff to highlight the positive aspects of life in certain conflict zones. And in Israel there are plenty of signs that things aren’t all that bad, take a look at this:

Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin - 109 per 10,000 people - as well as one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed;

Israel is ranked #2 in the world for venture capital funds right behind the US;

Israel's $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors combined;

On a per capita basis, Israel has the largest number of biotech start-ups;

Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel.

And that’s just a small selection of factoids from a very long list which indicates that it is indeed not just politics but equally markets that pave the way to a better future, an argument often put forward on this site.

There’s a lot more on Israel 21c that makes for good news and interesting reading although I am not entirely sure if the Madonna visit to Israel - every newspaper I open this week is full of it – would qualify as such. But in a way it’s reassuring, despite war and conflict Israelis love to engage themselves in the same sad celebrity worship that has become an important benchmark of North American culture.

So the debate on Iraq has now really started. I am not sure if the blogosphere can take credit for this one, but it seems to me that those prodding the issue, both on the left and the right, have drawn John Kerry out of his domestic comfort zone. Now the Democratic nominee has to fight the battle in the area of national security: precisely where the Bush campaign has always wanted it to be. That to me is an uphill struggle for Kerry, but it will definitely make the debate livelier and more interesting. No more Swiftboats and National Guard memos: the focus will be on the pressing issues of today. It was about time.

No, I don’t attach any real value to the Novak piece arguing that there’s going to be a swift pull-out from Iraq come January. Still, there are a number of aspects worth pondering and I am sure the idea of a “cut-and-run” has been floated around in administration circles, if only to envision what effects it would have.

The Bush team is known for drastic steps which appear to be taken on short notice. The sovereignty handover last June was an example of trying to radically alter the parameters of the situation in the hope that it would rapidly improve, which it unfortunately didn’t. If we extrapolate that to January next year there may be those that argue: come what may, we will have elections in January - with or without the Sunni triangle – and at that point we have achieved our goals, we can pack up and go and hand over extra-sovereign tasks to the UN or whoever else is interested. The reason why this is not an unlikely train of thought is that the alternative is indeed a long drawn-out commitment with a lot more US troops, a potential blot on the Bush legacy and a drain on the US economy for years to come.

However, either Novak’s dreaming, his sources may be wrong or it’s a ploy to get a real commitment out of Bush. And commitments he has made, he has staked his entire presidency on it which probably points in the direction of seeing Iraq through. The pressure on the ground, from Kerry, fellow Republicans and the media will however force Bush to come up with tangible results, unlike the symbolic gestures like the sovereignty transfer, and a firm medium term plan. The comments from Novak have indeed put that mission in even sharper focus for all to see.

What stood out in Novak’s column and what convinced me that his message was erroneous was actually this part:

The end product would be an imperfect Iraq, probably dominated by Shia Muslims seeking revenge over long oppression by the Sunni-controlled Baathist Party. The Kurds would remain in their current semi-autonomous state. Iraq would not be divided, reassuring neighboring countries -- especially Turkey -- that are apprehensive about ethnically divided nations.

Shia Muslims seeking revenge is equal to a perpetually divided Iraq and the ayatollahs in Iran would have a field day with this scenario, as will al-Qaeda who will use the remnants of Sunni Iraq as the launching pad for a new caliphate. The very reasons that prompted real-politiker Bush Sr. to let Saddam stay will compel George W. Bush to stay in Iraq now that Saddam has gone.

OTHER REACTIONS: Dan Drezner, Kevin Drum and a passionate response from Iraq the Model.

Donald Sensing has taken a sabbatical and is joining Steven Den Beste in the group of pre-eminent bloggers who have figured out that there are - believe it or not – some drawbacks to this phenomenon. It’s a pity because both would have had valuable contributions to especially the debate over the next steps in Iraq. Now they join the list of inactive links on the right sidebar, weblogs that were recommended highly on this site and for whom we can only hope that at some point they will return. All three currently on the inactive list have linked generously to Peaktalk in the past which is why I am reluctant to boot them off completely. Again, let’s hope they return at some point.

In Indonesia and that is major achievement in a country that only five years ago hesitantly moved away from fifty years of autocratic rule. Without major incidents Indonesians have voted incumbent President Sukarnoputri out of office today in a landslide, a landmark in South-East Asia where deposing leaders by way of the ballot-box continues to be an exception.

We are far from sure however what to expect from the new leader, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (or SBY which will no doubt become the reference of choice), but voters opted for change and many hope that he will be the man to boost the economy and take on Indonesia’s most persistent illness: corruption. Acting against terrorism is another matter completely and hardly the concern of the average Indonesian and here the US and Australia will have to focus their attention to ensure that the new president will have his priorities right.

Regional election results in the former East Germany underlines the frustration many German voters feel with regards to the incompetent economic management of Schröder’s center-left coalition government. However it would be fair to say that a reformist center-right coalition would equally run into electoral trouble in these troubled parts of Germany. Davids Medienkritik has some very good graphs which not only reveal the surge of far-right parties but also the baffling ability of the former Communists to claim a significant portion of the vote. That ill-advised nostalgia may soon lead to the resurrection of Erich Honecker as a great economic thinker.

The traditional parties will however be able to keep out the radicals by building coalitions and voters will learn that going extreme doesn’t really pay off in modern and mature democracies. So, I wouldn’t attach too many alarmist notions to the result other than that things are not groovy in Germany right now.

The one thing I neglected to elaborate on last week, was the surging number of deaths caused by insurgents targeting those Iraqis enlisting in the security and police forces, hitting one of the centrepieces of the reconstruction and rebuilding effort. That combined with the increased number of hostages and the semi-autonomy prevailing in the Sunni triangle contributed to the suggestion that if we want to prevail we need to fix our strategy, soon.

That sentiment was echoed over the weekend, by Republicans no less. John McCain argued a troop increase, questioned the rosy messaging from the administration, reiterated that the coalition will probably be in Iraq for a long time and:

"I think every day that goes by that we don't remove these sanctuaries in Falluja and other places in the Sunni Triangle, the more expensive it's going to be at the time we take this out"

In any case, clearing out these areas is a pre-condition for stabilizing the country and holding elections, Prime-Minister Allawi yesterday ensured that these would take place in January, on schedule. At the same time however Allawi alerted the world that in order for the project to succeed Iraq needed a rapid rebuilding of its economy as the dearth of jobs contributed in no small part to the instability that was felt in many parts of the country. He added that:

“ … that less than five percent of the $18 billion pledged by the U.S. and the $13 billion promised by other countries had been received and disbursed”

It is not clear how these funds are disbursed and if certain milestones need to be met before funds will flow, but it is not unrealistic to expect that a measure of stability on the ground will make it easier to make funds available, attract investment and create sustained employment.

For a good and detailed round-up of events in Iraq, check out Winds of Change which has a mixture of good and bad news.

Phil Carter’s Intel Dump has appeared on the blogroll and with good reason as it is one of the better quality blogs around at the moment. Phil has analyzed the self-congratulatory mode of bloggers following the Rathergate event last week. He argues that in this particular case the topic was well suited for blogs, but that at the end of the day weblogs are nothing more than a streaming op-ed of sorts, read by a relatively small proportion of the population at large. The new medium is still reliant upon old media to pick up new stories it generates.

True, but a number of stories have indeed been both broken and fact checked by the sphere and if you restrict your consumption to a limited number of quality blogs they do start to take on the function of a primary news source, in addition to traditional media. My day starts with a quick review of the headlines of the newspaper on the doormat and the latest online, but I quickly shift to a few of the more well-informed blogs you can find on your right hand side. And even though some can be qualified as random op-editry, they do point to important news and interesting topics that both bring and help shape news. To that extent blogs are becoming one of the primary newsgatherers, a theory that has been around for a while, but I agree with Phil it only applies to “quality blogs”. It should also be noted that any firm numbers supporting this theory are very hard to get hold of, to the extent they exist.

While I am still enjoying the Sullivanche the debate about Iraq gains in intensity. Of course, the anti-war crowd is decrying the Bush administration and dusting off the Vietnam and quagmire theories, that hasn’t changed. On the other hand, those that have supported the war, like myself, seem to have fallen into two groups. There is a group arguing that everything is on track and there’s nothing we should criticize Bush for, and one group questioning the strategy precisely because they want the US-led coalition to succeed. Debating the situation and the next steps requires a thorough understanding of the situation on the ground, which isn’t all that clear and the news this week just wasn’t encouraging. But there are optimistic voices on the ground, and via Captain’s Quarters a Major in the Marines is updating us from operational HQ in Baghdad:

So, you may hear analysts and prognosticators on CNN, ABC and the like in the next few days talking about how bleak the situation is here in Iraq, but from where I sit, it’s looking significantly better now than when I got here. The momentum is moving in our favor, and all Americans need to know that, so please, please, pass this on to those who care and will pass it on to others. It is very demoralizing for us here in uniform to read & hear such negativity in our press. It is fodder for our enemies to use against us and against the vast majority of Iraqis who want their new government to succeed.

Agreed. But negative reports are coming from different directions, not just the biased media and in many cases the reports are just incomplete. Are we getting the right information on which we can base sound opinions? If staunch Bush supporters question his strategy then they are probably not just jumping on whatever it is that CNN and ABC throw in front of us, note that many Iraqi bloggers are not very excited about what’s going on either. There’s a legitimate question as to why the country after almost 18 months is still not pacified.

In any case there is an acknowledgment from the Bush team that things are not easy but that all efforts are being made to prevail. Colin Powell:

And we are starting to work in Samarra, Fallujah and the other cities in the Sunni Triangle where there is too strong an insurgent presence.

This one sentence tells you an awful lot. That leaves on other issue on the table. Is the election interfering with decision making? There is scant evidence for the latter but it is too tempting for many, both left and right, to probe the idea and ask the questions why things are not moving faster. Power Line calls the suggestion nefarious, but in my mind it remains a valid question.

It’s Saturday and we can digest the weekend papers and let the facts sink in. The intensity of the Rathergate discussion will probably wane next week and we can only hope that that will allow others to jump into this important debate.

The discussion over the deteriorating situation in Iraq is gaining momentum after Andrew Sullivan started to express his concerns earlier this week. Those were brushed aside by Roger Simon who referred to the Belmont Club’s number crunching and concluded with the argument that things in Iraq are not as bad as they look and the obligatory comment that we should stick it out in Iraq, no matter for how long. Sorry Roger, that’s not the point because we all agree on that one.

The point is picking the right strategy to realize our objectives. The ultimate objective is: a free and stable Iraq where a democratic process is able to take root. That objective is under severe pressure as evidence is mounting that the elections scheduled for January are now very likely to be postponed. That’s only a setback on our way to realize our objective. Yet, it could have long term implications because such a delay is likely to be interpreted as a victory for the insurgents, be they Sunni, be they Shi’a. Then the question is: why is the realization of our objectives under pressure? Answer: the strategy is flawed.

The coalition forces have enough firepower to roll-up all the insurgent hotspots and regain full control of the country. That potentially could result in heavy casualties on the coalition side but also among the civilian population which has the following implications:

1. A negative impact on Bush' road to re-election;
2. It might alienate our rebuilding partners: ordinary Iraqis.

The first point is understandable but a war should be fought independent of an election cycle. There’s too much at stake and at this point in time many get killed or taken as a hostage precisely because of the deteriorating mess Iraq is currently in. To let that situation continue for any period of time is dangerous, I don’t think anyone could argue that point convincingly. Greg Djerejian makes some compelling arguments today as to why you can’t let things slip for any pro-longed period of time. Bush is probably gambling that the situation will hold until November 2 – and it might – but it may be a costly gamble. With the passage of time the insurgency gains momentum. David Warren put it bluntly earlier this week:

Election or no election, the Americans must now undo their mistake. They must, regardless of casualties, retake every town in the Sunni Triangle, and clean each one out, properly. Or, go home beaten by the Jihad. There really isn't a third option.

Precisely. So what about the second point? Would an all out attack destabilize the country to such an extent that elections and nation building would come under severe pressure and would be delayed indefinitely? It’s not possible to make a projection here, but given the importance of achieving that objective there are very few options. And with speculation of a civil war in the air it appears that there’s an even greater urgency to engage in rapid nation building. Again Belmont:

Civil war, if it eventuates, will not be result of military failure but from a lack of commitment to create a replacement Iraqi State. If we build it, it will come.

Military failure is unlikely but delaying decisive military action, because of electoral considerations, is dangerous and borders on the immoral. It’s the wrong gamble and will compromise achieving the key objective: building a free Iraq. Unleashing the maximum firepower may be equally dicey but it is the right risk to take. Yes, we should stick it out even if it takes twenty years, but we should adapt our strategy and revitalize our pro-activity to achieve the very basic objectives that underpinned Iraqi Freedom.

UPDATE: Stephen Green has similar thoughts, as does James Joyner.

Dan Drezner reminds us of what is going to be the one of the more unusual senate races: the one in Illinois between Obama Barack and Alan Keyes. The latter has already fired a few opening salvos labeling Obama a “terrorist” and suggesting the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which established the direct public election of senators as opposed to an election by state legislators. Keyes’ assertion that that was a critical campaign issue was enough to get Dan to move into Democrat territory and lie down for a while. Many have ridiculed the GOP’s choice - some even suggested a Democrat plot - and believe that this race will be won hands-down by Barack.

Yet, Alan Keyes is hardly an idiot. In fact he is one of the more cerebral Republicans with an impressive academic background and on the public front he served as ambassador to the UN under Reagan. Most will remember him as a candidate in the 2000 presidential primaries where during one debate he addressed George W. Bush as “Massa Bush”. Still he got some decent results during those primaries and his ability to debate and orate combined with the color of his skin turned him into material to set the Illinois senate race on fire. And that’s what he’s doing. There will definitely be more interesting stuff from both the Republican and the Democratic candidates for this senate seat than what is coming from the two men slugging it out for the White House. Barack is the face of tomorrow’s Democrats; Keyes is an influential intellectual who will help shape conservative thinking for years to come.

Barack’s chances are far better than Keyes’ whose career as a behind the scenes thinker who can make the odd public appearance to stir up the base, whenever that’s necessary, suits him far better than elected office. In fact extreme positions don’t work in elections where there are no life and death issues at stake (although Keyes would dispute that) but they can certainly help direct the discussion on a national level in a certain direction. Phyllis Schlafly however believes that Keyes can replicate the upset in the 1950 senate race in the same state by the illustrious Everett Dirksen. While interesting, I think the comparison goes of track on a number of points but I am prepared to be surprised.

And, repealing the 17th Amendment is not as odd as it seems, there are some democracies where to this very date the Senate is indeed appointed by regional legislators. But it is hardly a critical campaign issue. Alan Keyes however got what he wanted by raising the issue: attention, although debating him on it would be a perilous undertaking. That’s why the 2004 Illinois senate race is indeed an amazing race.

Bigwig, the creator of Carnival of the Vanities is hosting the event today and celebrating its second anniversary and makes an important observation:

In fact, the long life of the Carnival--long in terms of the Internet, that is, for if a calendar year is the equivalent of seven for a dog then surely it is something along the lines of a decade in Internet time--is due to the fact that, not only does it keep on keeping on, something that I've long considered essential to blogging success, it's developed the primary characteristic of a successful meme--the ability to survive and prosper in a changing environment.

Yes, and it has given both upstart and established bloggers an avenue to get their stuff out to a larger audience. On top of that it has created a number of highly successful spin-offs, most notably the Carnival of the Capitalists which will be hosted here on December 20.

What was headline stuff only two week ago seems to have disappeared from the front pages, but I check Google News every day: What happened to the French journalists that were taken hostage in Iraq?

It seems that their alleged captors, Islamic Army, have raised the bar for the French government negotiating their release, if the unfortunate journalists were dead we would have known by now. This article raised some interesting points arguing that the French government may have less capital in the Arab world than its frantic efforts to free the journalists seem to indicate. And France did go out of its way to seek the freedom of those kidnapped:

Almost immediately, Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat, Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi -- and even radical movements such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic J