Few publications have reported on micro-level developments in Iraq as thoroughly as the New York Review of Books, whose Michael Massing has built an unmatched portfolio of surprisingly non-ideological dispatches and analysis pieces. While the arcana of the Iraqi scene seems peripheral to larger issues of regional strategy (who, after all, cares whether the Kirkuk Governate switches over the proportional representation?), it is articles like Peter Galbraith’s assessment of post-surge Iraq (in the aforementioned NYRB) that argue that the exact opposite is true–that troop levels are important, but not nearly as important as, say, Shiite harassment of pro-western Kurdish militias, or Nouri al-Maliki’s ties to the Islamic revolutionary Dawa party. Anybody paying attention to the situation knows what a mess the place is politically; seldom has it been evoked in as much terrifying detail as it is here.

Some choice passages–a top five, if you will:

Read the rest of this entry »

And a similarly convoluted case against Tibetan independence.

Now, the moral arguments against Tibetan independence are pretty well known at this point: Tibet was a feudal theocracy pre-1950, the Dalai Lama has more in common with Yasser Arafat than with Nelson Mandela, China’s been the best thing that’s ever happened for Tibetan literacy and public health…etc., etc., etc. I won’t tell you where I stand in the “let them screw up on their own” versus “let [insert country here] screw them up in the name of the common good” debate–suffice it to say, this logic has gotten the U.S. into a good deal of trouble (by the way, pleeeasse click on that link. If you learn one thing from this post, let it be the fact that the Iraq War has an official website), although nationalistically-tinged missionary imperialism seems to be going strong on the Tibetan plateau.

Of course this is an imperfect comparison, since China’s Tibet policy reflects an almost hyper-provincial sense of manifest destiny (or irredentism, if you’re familiar with that concept) rather than Dick Cheney-style utopianism. In fact, Tibet and Iraq have almost nothing in common–which is why the last few paragraphs of Liu’s piece are wildly incoherent:

Read the rest of this entry »

I guess the House of Representatives is banking on the fact Al-Qaeda doesn’t get cable because we wouldn’t want the terrorists to get a hold of this fascinating tidbit…

Nancy Pelosi is an idiot.

Read the rest of this entry »

[More from Greg Keilin, who has been at Columbia's Parisian outpost this summer. Read this till the end, and join the discussion. And if you're still interested (and even if you're not) see this movie.] I signed up for a course this semester on the Algerian War, a subject that is all but absent from American textbooks. Though I was sure my French classmates would be familiar with the topic, it turned out their ignorance mirrored my own, so we have spent the first few classes establishing some broad historical background.

France invaded Algeria in 1830 and, following a bloody military campaign, established absolute rule over its territory, eventually integrating it completely into the national administrative system. Despite the mutual advantages of this arrangement, decolonization elsewhere encouraged a growing nationalist movement until, by the 1950s, many Algerian politicians had become convinced of the need for autonomy or sovereignty.

The War of Independence began on November 1, 1954 with a series of terrorist attacks by the National Liberation Front (FLN). The French government’s brutal response included abductions and assassinations, torture, forced tribal relocation, and scorched-earth warfare, as well as conventional tactics. These policies eventually alienated the local population to such an extent that, despite overwhelming military superiority, France was forced to recognize an independent Algeria.

Read the rest of this entry »

Pssst! Over here! [whispering] I know we’re not supposed to even think it, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to let you in on a little secret: The surge in Iraq might actually be working.

Shit. This is absolutely horrendous. I hate it when the Republicans turn out to be right.  Especially President Bush, or PrezBu. Now I’m going to have to burn my Al Franken books and start openly displaying my Ann Coulter collection. There’s no way liberalism can stay “in vogue” once evidence is presented proving their incorrect assumptions.

The official wartime jargon has morphed from “victory” to “success,” when PrezBu, announced that we are to reshuffle our expectations away from so-called victory in response to vilification from the anti-war mongers. But whatever. Tom-ey-to, tom-ah-to.

Despite the overwhelming hatred directed towards the Iraq war (and PrezBu), the troops seem to have made the most of their situation.

To quote Reuters: “Iraq’s army and police could be ready to take over security in all 18 provinces by the end of this year as the U.S. military moves toward a less prominent role in the country, U.S. officials said…

If we continue along the path we’re on now, we’ll be able to do that by the end of 2008,” Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the No. 2 commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said when asked when Iraqi forces could take the lead in all provinces.”

But we might not even have to wait for the end of 08 for success – it may be on its way as early as this spring.

“U.S. forces said on Friday they could hand over security in the vast Western province of Anbar to Iraqi forces as soon as March or April, after a remarkable turnaround of security in the one-time insurgent stronghold.

… Anbar was now listed among the next few provinces to be turned over to Iraqi forces in coming months, and U.S. and Iraqi officials had been meeting to discuss the conditions for the handover to take place.”

Unfortunately, this news is getting very little coverage in the Mainstream media, or MSM. But once the story is out and widely known, Reagan will be the new Clinton, and red the new blue. But even the United Nations (UN) has been forced to face a reality they’d rather not:

“The United Nations envoy to Baghdad said on Wednesday he would present a positive picture of progress in Iraq in a report to the Security Council despite earlier having serious misgivings about reconciliation efforts. …

‘[The national dialogue] has changed our mind from being worried or from being pessimistic,’ said [envoy] de Mistura.”

But, you ask, is there a prominent paper that is covering this news to give it some legitimacy? Ah, good question, Glaucon. I appreciate your interest. What does the Wall Street Journal say?

“Thanks to the surge, the Sunni Arabs who once constituted the insurgency’s core of support in Iraq have been empowered to rise up against the suicide bombers and fanatics in their midst — prompting Osama bin Laden to call them “traitors.”

As al Qaeda has been beaten back, violence across the country has dropped dramatically. The number of car bombings, sectarian murders and suicide attacks has been slashed. American casualties have also fallen sharply, decreasing in each of the past four months.”

Even liberal, opposing arguments fall apart in the face of the facts. To quote Joe Conason, who Columbia students might recognize after he staunchly defended President Bollinger’s decision (or PrezBo, as he is affectionately known on campus) to invite Ahmadinejad to speak during the university-sponsored World Leaders Panel:

“According to Kristol, … the drop in violence last month marked the lowest overall number of deaths for both civilians and military forces since the war began in March 2003. Declining casualties for a month or two means progress, which, in turn, means that the war must continue, and that the president’s policy is correct.”

I know Conason doesn’t sound like a liberal, but he goes on to claim that Kristol’s statistics don’t matter. Never once does he assert their falsity. But how can a declining number of casualties “not matter?”

The subconscious shift from liberal to conservative is already happening. Quick, everyone, trade in your New York Times subscription for Human Events’. Join the facebook group “If Hilary Clinton becomes president, Jack Bauer will probably kill her” – anything to align yourself with the team that very shortly will garner all the support.

You wouldn’t want to look like a loser, would you, standing there in your “Edwards 08” t-shirt while everyone around you is competing for who donated the most to Romney’s “Surge of Support for our Troops” campaign …  or furtively asking, “Hey, you voted for McCain, right?”