Shia death squad leaders flee Baghdad ahead of surge

Is this evidence that the surge can work or are the Shia death squads simply avoiding conflict now in order to fight another day? I'm hoping for the former but fear that the latter is the more likely scenario.

Posted by Kingston

Rand on the Insurgency

If they don't have money, they won't be able to fight. Thus goes an old argument regarding insurgencies, which Keith Crane from RAND is recycling for Iraq. He offers a 5 point plan to make it happen.

It is important to first understand where they get the funding: "Militias and insurgents in Iraq obtain funds from four major sources: government payrolls; the resale and smuggling of gasoline and diesel fuel; extortion, robberies, and kidnappings; and other countries. " It is unclear which is the largest source of income. Sadr apparently funds his militia through the payrolls of Ministries of Agriculture, Transportation and Health, but there is plenty of money from other sources.

According to Crane, if the US and Iraqi government can control these sources of revenue ("starving them of cash") we will have better success at ending the insurgency.

Crane's argument ignores the fundamental problems in the conflict and the difficulty of stopping an insurgency in this way. As another old addage goes, where there's a will there's a way. The Colombian government tried "starving" the FARC by spraying coca fields, but the guerrillas would move production or shift to other revenue sources, such as kidnapping.

Slowing the funding for guns and bombs is certainly important, but does not address the fundamental political problem in Iraq. As Crane rightfully points out, "Bombs and bullets have failed to stop Iraq's insurgents and militia fighters," and it's time for a new tact.

Posted by Peter

"The Iranian Missile Crisis"

Spencer Ackerman has a great post up on the folly of the Bush administration's "aggressive new policy" toward Iran. Money quote:

So let's review administration strategy here. In Iraq, the plan is to escalate the war in order to buy time for Iraqi politics... which is thoroughly dominated, according to U.S. intelligence, by Iran. The best case scenario for us in Iraq is handing Iraq to Iran even more than we already have. At the same time, U.S. military and intelligence assets will go around the country seeking to kill Iranian Revolutionary Guard Forces. (Pop quiz: how many soldiers or intelligence operatives do we have in Iraq who can tell the difference between Arabic and Farsi if they heard it?) Also, we plan to take unspecified "aggressive moves" to roll back Iranian influence around Iran, and, for good measure, confront Iran over its nuclear program on the world stage. And apparently, we think Iran will do nothing, roll over, and decide that conducting foreign policy with a sense of dangerous triumphalism has all been folly, according to [Dafna] Linzer:

Senior administration officials said the policy is based on the theory that Tehran will back down from its nuclear ambitions if the United States hits it hard in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a sense of vulnerability among Iranian leaders.

More likely, Archduke Ferdinand is en route to Sarajevo.

For starters, compare Ackerman's take on all this to Powerline's ridiculous insinuation that military confrontation with Iran is the key to solving our problems in Iraq. First, what part of "our allies in Iraq are also allies of Iran" doesn't Powerline understand? And second, does Powerline actually believe that Iran will simply kneel before us and accede to our demands after we've launched an illegal/unprovoked military first strike against what we think are their nuclear facilities?

Last April the WaPo's David Ignatius quoted Graham Allison as noting that the growing conflict between the U.S. and Iran is turning out to be "the Cuban missile crisis in slow motion." However, what worried Ignatius then (and what worries Ackerman now) was "that the relevant historical analogy may not be the 1962 war that didn't happen, but World War I, which did." The more the Bush adminstration carelessly ratchets up the pressure on Iran, the more likely we are to ignite a conflagration of epic proportions in the Middle East from which America may never recover.

Posted by Kingston

Ugly Politics

There are early signs that this is going to be an ugly primary season. I'm not sure who fabricated the story, or the leak, but this is exactly the kind of politics that Barack Obama is trying to redefine. From the New York Times:

A disputed report on the Web site of a conservative magazine about Senator Barack Obama’s childhood schooling kicked off a pointed exchange this week The original report, posted on the online version of Insight, a magazine owned by The Washington Times, said that as a child in Indonesia, Mr. Obama had attended a madrassa, a school that teaches a radical version of the Muslim faith. Mr. Obama, who spent a few years in Jakarta as a boy, is a Christian.

Adding to the political volatility of the report was the attribution of the news to “researchers connected to” Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Representatives of Mr. Obama of Illinois and Mrs. Clinton of New York denounced the Insight report, calling it false and an effort by a conservative publication to smear two Democratic contenders at the same time.

Quote of the Day

It is critical that we understand that this new form of terrorism carries another more subtle, perhaps equally pernicious, risk. Because it might encourage a fear-driven and inappropriate response. By that I mean it can tempt us to abandon our values. I think it important to understand that this is one of its primary purposes...

London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a 'war on terror', just as there can be no such thing as a 'war on drugs'.

The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement...

Britain's director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, in a speech to Britain's Criminal Bar Association. Sir Ken makes two absolutely critical points here. First, conceiving of terrorism as a military target is conceptually incoherent and utterly counterproductive when it comes to devising strategies to combat it. Second, the gravest consequences of terrorism come not from the damage inflicted by terrorists themselves, but from the overreactions they provoke.

Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan

Posted by Kingston

Are Teachers Really Underpaid?

There's an ongoing debate in the US about the pay of public school teachers. It is often claimed that they are inadequately compensated; the Teachers' Union and others have claimed that higher pay will increase educational results. However, there is substantial evidence that pay has no effect on student performance.

A common reason many of my peers dismiss teaching is because of the salary. That teachers are undercompensated is such a common refrain that it is rarely questioned (perhaps because of publicity by the national teacher unions?). If one looks more closely at the numbers, teaching is actually a financially attractive profession.

One factor people often leave-out of this debate is the fact public school teachers work substantially less than other professions (about 9 months out of the year, as opposed to 11.5). The average income of a teacher in the US is $46,752 (excluding benefits). If these this mythical teachers worked all year, rather than take their standard 3 months vacation, their pro rata income would be $62,336 (plus benefits).

Benefits differ by state, but there are some commonalities. Pension plans tend to be generous: for example, in Missouri, a teacher who worked from age 22-55 could retire with 84% of her annual salary, adjusted for inflation; at age 55, the ex-teacher could even take a new job and still receive the pension. As one might expect, teachers, on average, retire four years younger than the average retiree collecting Social Security. Incredibly, health insurance coverage for public school teachers is over 99% nationally.

When compared to other similarly educated professional using these metrics, teaching is actually a very attractive profession.

If the government really wants to increase the caliber of new teachers, rather than emphasize the miserly pay, it should publicize the fact that it is a wonderful financial and personal opportunity for college graduates.

Posted by Peter

Are Teachers Really Underpaid?

There's an ongoing debate in the US about the pay of public school teachers. It is often claimed that they are inadequately compensated; the Teachers' Union and others have claimed that higher pay will increase educational results. However, there is substantial evidence that pay has no effect on student performance.

A common reason many of my peers dismiss teaching is because of the salary. That teachers are undercompensated is such a common refrain that it is rarely questioned (perhaps because of publicity by the national teacher unions?). If one looks more closely at the numbers, teaching is actually a financially attractive profession.

One factor people often leave-out of this debate is the fact public school teachers work substantially less than other professions (about 9 months out of the year, as opposed to 11.5). The average income of a teacher in the US is $46,752 (excluding benefits). If these this mythical teachers worked all year, rather than take their standard 3 months vacation, their pro rata income would be $62,336 (plus benefits).

Benefits differ by state, but there are some commonalities. Pension plans tend to be generous: for example, in Missouri, a teacher who worked from age 22-55 could retire with 84% of her annual salary, adjusted for inflation; at age 55, the ex-teacher could even take a new job and still receive the pension. As one might expect, teachers, on average, retire four years younger than the average retiree collecting Social Security. Incredibly, health insurance coverage for public school teachers is over 99% nationally.

When compared to other similarly educated professional using these metrics, teaching is actually a very attractive profession.

If the government really wants to increase the caliber of new teachers, rather than emphasize the miserly pay, it should publicize the fact that it is a wonderful financial and personal opportunity for college graduates.

Posted by Peter

Globalization and Wages

The Economist's latest magazine focuses on the impact of globalization on inequality and wages. All and all, it's a solid report, but I have one major bone to pick: their argument that CEO compensation reflects true "value" in the market. They find it preposterous that CEO's might be overpaid, eventhough there is no evidence that CEO pay actually correlates with performance. Home Depot's $210m severance package for its failed leader being a most recent example. This is faith in markets ad absurdum, and plenty of business leaders would agree with me. Warren Buffet being the most revered.

Berkshire Hathaway has enjoyed a 41 year history with a compounded annual gain in book value of around 22%, an extraordinary achievement. In Warren's words:

Too often, executive compensation in the U.S. is ridiculously out of line with performance. That won’t change, moreover, because the deck is stacked against investors when it comes to the CEO’s pay. The upshot is that a mediocre-or-worse CEO – aided by his handpicked VP of human relations and a consultant from the ever-accommodating firm of Ratchet, Ratchet and Bingo – all too often receives gobs of money from an ill-designed compensation arrangement.

I like The Economist. But it's dead wrong on this one.

Posted by Peter

Conservatives Support Raising Gas Taxes

There is hope after all. Greg Mankiw reports that Robert Samuelson is advocating adding a $2 a gallon tax to gasoline. While he doesn't get into the nuances of making this tax neutral for low-income Americans, I like the direction conservatives are headed.

Posted by Peter

The King

Kinger raised some good points in his last few posts. Aside from the amusing quote from the department of the WTF, I particularly like his looking forward to the inevitable debate about "Who lost Iraq" (which will be the PR battle of a lifetime for conservatives) and the critical analysis of Donald Stoker's could be article in FP.

First, on who lost Iraq. Despite all of the counterfactuals which IR professors will write for decades, people familiar with the region were convinced that the mission would fail from the outstart. Indeed, even people familar with the general history of foreign occupations and insurgency had strong convictions that the regime change would fail (see my undergraduate thesis here, for an example. But, as King suggests, the Revisionists will tell a different story, just as conservatives have tried to distort the explanation for America's failure in Vietnam. The beauty of revisionist history is that you can choose an moment to begin creating your fairy tale. Revisionists will most likely start with this moment, when Liberals voted against the troop surge, as the turning point. The argument will go something like this:

President Bush's Administration, and particularly Donald Rumsfeld, made some careless mistakes after their overwhelmingly successful invasion, which led to an increase in sectarian violence. Just when President Bush arrived at the winning strategy of increasing US troops and pressuring the Iraqis to control Sadr, Liberals in Congress lost their nerve, demoralized the troops and eventually forced the US withdrawl of troops at the end of Bush's last year as President, in hopes of giving Republican candidates some help. If the Liberals hadn't been so weak, the USA would have prevailed. This story will pop up somewhere; it's patently false.

Of course, the strategy could have worked. I recently played the Powerball while I was in the states. The grand prize was around $160 million (which without taxes and multiple winners is better than a fair bet) and I bought a ticket. I could have won!!! But I didn't. What were my odds? Exactly 1:146,107,962. Donald Stucker is right, the strategy could work, and the revisionist story I outlined above could be true, just as Aliens might arrive tomorrow. Any student of statistics will appreciate the difference between things that could happen and things that are likely to happen. As Kinger says, "Last time I checked, sound policy needs to be based on the likelihood of success rather than on wishful thinking about how it could work."

Posted by Peter

I Hope, Therefore it Will Work

Others have already commented on this piece by Donald Stoker in Foreign Policy (see here and here) but I want to take a bit of a different angle. According to Stoker:

The cold, hard truth about the Bush administration’s strategy of “surging” additional U.S. forces into Iraq is that it could work. Insurgencies are rarely as strong or successful as the public has come to believe. Iraq’s various insurgent groups have succeeded in creating a lot of chaos. But they’re likely not strong enough to succeed in the long term. Sending more American troops into Iraq with the aim of pacifying Baghdad could provide a foundation for their ultimate defeat, but only if the United States does not repeat its previous mistakes. [italics mine]

Last time I checked, sound policy needs to be based on the likelihood of success rather than on wishful thinking about how it could work.

Posted by Kingston

Fresh in From the Department of WTF

Via Kevin, look what our President thinks about sacrifice and the Iraq War:

LEHRER: Let me ask you a bottom-line question, Mr. President. If it is as important as you've just said -- and you've said it many times -- as all of this is, particularly the struggle in Iraq, if it's that important to all of us and to the future of our country, if not the world, why have you not, as president of the United States, asked more Americans and more American interests to sacrifice something?....

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night.

Any thoughts on what this could possibly mean? Personally, I think he's completely lost it.

Posted by Kingston

Surging to Nowhere

According to Thomas Sowell, we'd be winning in Iraq if it weren't for the Democrats and the liberal media. Simply put, it's Vietnam all over again.

Deep down Sowell knows that the surge is likely to fail - how else to explain the fact that he doesn't bother to explain how it will make things better. What's more, he knows that American forces will eventually withdraw without having been able to prevent a blood bath. Like most of his comrades on the Right, Sowell is attempting to lay the groudwork for the "Who Lost Iraq Debate" that will inevitably follow our retreat. If only the defeatist media had presented a less biased account of events. If only excessively restrictive "rules of engagement" hadn't prevented us from wiping out Sunni insurgents and the Shia militias. If only we could have imposed our iron will by disregarding the wishes of Iraq's elected government. Or something like that.

Instead of making ridiculous assertions about how great Iraq would be if it weren't for Nancy Pelosi, defenders of the surge need to be making arguments that actually comport (or at least somewhat comport) with the reality on the ground. Does the bulk of the evidence suggest that escalating the war is going to make things better? How is the surge going to prevent the transformation of the Iraqi government into an Iran-backed Shia theocracy (think Sadr) bent on annhilating the Sunnis? And what if the surge fails? Is Sowell prepared to send even more troops? Why are so many on the Right unwilling to answer these questions?

Posted by Kingston

What Reconciliation

A quote from one of the Sunni mourners following the executions of Al-Barrack and Barzan Ibrahim:

"Where are those who cry out in demands for human rights?" Marwan Mohammed asked in grief and frustration. "Where are the U.N. and the world's human rights organizations? Barzan had cancer. They treated him only to keep him alive long enough to kill him. We vow to take revenge, even if it takes years."

Posted by Peter

How Long Does a Surge Last?

According to the optomistic General Casey, he does not expect significant results in Iraq until the summer and fall, but, in his words, "I believe that this plan can work."

Interestingly enough, I expect the same death toll among American troops this August as we had last August (about 70), and, in my words, "I can't believe they think this plan can work."

George Casey certainly has more credibility than I do, but then again, General Casey himself was against sending more troops to Iraq before he was for it. General Abizaid (Another 4 Star General) has also opposed the troop surge in the past. I'm interested to see if Bush has him recant to the national press as well.

Posted By Peter

What Apology?

President Bush last night on "60 Minutes":

PELLEY: Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?

BUSH: That we didn't do a better job or they didn't do a better job?

PELLEY: Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion.

BUSH: Not at all. I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.

Right on Mr. President. Clearly the thousands of innocent civilians killed in Iraq each month should have sent thank you notes to the White House before they were blown up eating at a cafe, shopping at a market, or walking their kids to school.

Posted by Kingston

In Case We Needed Another Reason ...

Leaks from Maliki's government reveal that the Shiite-led government does not want an American troop increase.

From The New York Times:

[That the US should not increase troop levels] is an opinion that is broadly held among a Shiite political elite that is increasingly impatient, after nearly two years heading the government here, to exercise power without the constraining supervision of the United States. As a long-oppressed majority, the Shiites have a deep-seated fear that the power they won at the polls, after centuries of subjugation by the Sunni minority, will be progressively whittled away as the Americans seek deals with the Sunnis that will help bring American troops home.

We are putting ourselves in the middle of the Iraqi Civil War. The Shiite's don't want us to send more troops, since they now have the upper-hand; moderate Sunni's are asking for more US troops to combat Sadr's Shiite militia. While Bush is correct that millions of Iraqis want peace, there is also a powerful number of people on in the Shiite-led government who want revenge. It is unclear how either staying in Iraq or sending more troops will change that sentiment.

Posted by Peter

Americans Want Out

From an AP-Ipsos Poll:

Fully 70 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops, and a like number don't think such an increase would help stabilize the situation there. The telephone survey of 1,002 adults was conducted Monday through Wednesday night, when the president made his speech calling for an increase in troops. News had already surfaced before the polling period that Bush wanted to boost U.S. forces in Iraq.

Hopefully this will give Congressional Democrats more confidence in stopping Bush from Dumping more troops into Iraq.

Posted By Peter

Bush Speaks

If we leave, apparently a sanctuary for Al Qaeda will develop in Iraq, harboring terrorists to launch attacks on the US. There is no mention of how Iraq in such a scenario would differ from our present situation with other countries in the region, nor how staying in Iraq would increase our ability to actually alter the perception of Americans in the Middle East.

Sending more troops only reinforces the terrorist's rhetoric that we are an occupying power.

I feel bad for our troops: over 3000 dead and 20,000 injured, and as Bush admits, it isn't going to get better any time soon. He used the old Vietnam argument that we can not let our troops die in vain by leaving. I have never understood how sending more troops to die in their place honors anybody. I'm interested to see if Congressional Democrats will make a stand, and if the American public will support them.

Posted by Peter

20,000 New Troops

A drop in the bucket.

I applaud the spirit of not wanting to "give up", but it's time we finally help the situation by leaving. Yes, there will be civil war when we leave: there is already civil war.

People who advocate risking the lives of more troops start with the assumption that we can "win the war." Such people don't take the time to define what such a victory would look like. Is it the end of sectarian violence? Over a thousand years of violence isn't going to end with an additional 20,000 troops, and I've yet to hear an argument as to how these extra troops are going to overcome all of the problems we've had to this point. Is it establishing a government? We've already done that. Eliminating WMD? They were never there. Training more police and army forces? Talabani has said that Iraqi troops are sufficiently trained since 2005. Ensure that the government does not collapse? Our presence has no impact on this; the Iranian's have already offered to support the government if asked, and if we're worried about handing Iraq over to Iran, we already fucked that when we invaded.

I wish we wouldn't send the troops, but I don't think the Democrats have the political cohesion to block funding for the additional troops. Some Democrats are saying (incorrectly) that it is unconstitutional for the congress to deny the president funding for the troops. Unless moderate Dems decide to bring the troops home now, we'll unnecessarily put more young Americans in harms way and run-up the deficit another 100 billion dollars or so.

Wake up Mr. President. There's nothing left to win in Iraq.

Posted by Peter.

Democrats Playing Smart

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid issued a joint letter to President Bush today, urging him to abandon the insanity of increasing troop levels in Iraq, and to begin bringing troops home in 4 to 6 months. Aside from cutting funding for the troops (which would be politically stupid), the Democrats have no control over the President's executive decisions regarding Iraq.

Bush will probably go ahead and send more troops to Iraq anyways; There is a sad desire to Fail Big and then go home. As King and I have argued in the past, more troops are not going to end the civil war. We learned that lesson in Vietnam.

The Democrats are playing this well. They are focusing on the Budget by pushing through domestic legislation on PAYGO and ethics reforms, all while keeping pressure on Bush to get out of Iraq. When Bush ignores them and sends more troops, it will hurt both his legacy and McCain's chances at the Presidency. Indeed, the best thing Bush could do for Republicans in pull out of Iraq now. At least then they can continue peddling the myth that sending more troops may have helped.

Posted by Peter

The Minimum Wage Redux

The mantra that "the minimum wage should be $0" fills every economics 101 textbook that I've ever seen and conservatives like to repeat the saying along with their usual chant for "smaller government." The argument is that the mimimum wage distorts the labor market and leads to unemployment. For years, this was the consensus among economists, but no longer. When PhD members of the American Economic Association were recently polled, it is one of the few issues that generates basic controversy: 37.7% want it increased and 46.8 want it eliminated.

I support raising the minimum wage, although it is a crude anti-poverty measure and I would vastly prefer a reduction in the tax rate for people earning under $20,000 a year. But, given that all tax bills somehow end up unequally benefiting the top 1% of Americans, increasing the mimimum wage is a start.

I agree with Kinger and Kevin Drum that conservative economists often mistakenly view workers as commodities. Aside from the moral problems with this view, there is plenty of research showing that it is factually wrong: commodity markets and the labor market are fundamentally different (See this paper by Stiglitz et al for an example).

One of my favorite points to make against conservative pundits is that there is no conclusive evidence that raising the mimum wage actually increases unemployment. David Carr and Alan Krueger provided the most compelling evidence. (If people know what they're talking about, they'll cite some other contradictory studies such as the work by Neumark and Wascher, but like I said, there's no conclusive evidence.)

Most people support the minimum wage as a matter of promoting equality. The minimum wage might also be about Power. Employers, such as fast-food restaurants, often have more power than their low skilled workers, who earn nickle and dimed wages. Poor workers have no option but to take the work they are offered, since they have no savings to search for higher-paying jobs. The miminum wage is a way of guarranteeing that poor workers are not exploited any more than they already are.

Not all employers enjoy such power and low-skill workers do not always produce more value than the wage they receive, which is why there are adverse effects to raising the minimum wage. But, if the government isn't going to help out the poorest Americans with tax breaks, free health care or other social services, a higher minimum wage is the best of a bad situation.

Poster by Peter

The Minimum Wage

While I'm far less qualified than Peter to comment on this, George Will's take on the subject in today's WaPo didn't sit well with me:

But the minimum wage should be the same everywhere: $0. Labor is a commodity; governments make messes when they decree commodities' prices.

As Kevin Drum points out, "this, in a nutshell, is the core problem with conservative economics: it views workers as commodities. Naturally it follows from this that we should be free to treat workers like commodities, rather than as human beings." Any thoughts Pete?

Posted by Kingston

I Did Not Realize

The AugustReview.Com (apparently a think tank) has just informed me of an Orwellian disaster in the making:

The global elite, through the direct operations of President George Bush and his Administration, are creating a North American Union that will combine Canada, Mexico and the U.S. into a superstate called the North American Union. There is no legislation or Congressional oversight, much less public support, for this massive restructuring of the U.S.

Lou Dobbs has the story too. My respect for CNN just dropped further. They claim the US government is planning a common currency called the "Amero"! This is populist fearmongering and absolutely ridiculous.

Posted by Peter

Human Rights, Democracy and Liberalism

There are inconsistencies in all world views, although when we see them in our own philosophy we usually turn a blind eye. Saddham's execution reminded me of one of the problems with liberalism's belief in human rights. And as long as I am on the subject I thought I would take this opportunity to discuss the motherload of Liberal quandries, which is the support of Democracy around the World.

One of the revisionist justifications for overthrowing Saddham was his crimes against humanity, including the massacre of 148 Sunni Muslims for which he was ultimately sentenced to death. Ignoring the much larger loss in civilian lives and lower standard of living resulting from the invasion itself, most people I have spoken with do not recognize the irony of using political executions as a justification for invasion, only to turn around and execute the very person you claim was committing a crime. Some liberals will argue that Saddham received a trial and that his execution is therefore justifiable, whereas he killed people without such transparency. I don't buy it.

It is not difficult to run a counterfactual as to whether Saddham could have devised a trial for killing the 148 Sunnis after they tried to assassinate him, or that there could have been a trial for his massacre of the Kurds after Gulf War I. Beauty and murder are in the eye of the beholder. This is a paradox which most people ignore. We try and cloud our actions in righteousness, but our actions are inconsistent with our philosophy. Realists have a much easier time executing Saddham; he was a political threat, and now he isn't.

My concern is that our actions are obviously hypocritical to most people outside of this country. There is little wonder that people in the Middle East question our motives in the region, given that there is no coherent reason. The administration originally claims that it is for WMD, then it fails to admit it made a mistake and seamlessly creates the justification of emancipation and hypothetical security. People would respect us more if we remained consistent. In the long run, it would also be more effective.

The same is true of Democracy: we claim to support it until we don't like the results of the elections. The Bush administration has created a dichotomy between Democracies and Everyone-Else. Democracies Good. Everyone-Else Bad. We lose credibility when we push for elections in Palestine and we suddenly claim that Palestine is a bad Democracy when a political group associated with terrorist gets elected; it's inconsistent. It's time we stop claiming that Democracy is an end, in and of itself. The institutions themselves are not goals. We need to stop talking about bringing people Democracy, because when it fails to give people a better life, it actually undercuts the liberal agenda.

That's my first rant of 2007. Happy new year.

Posted by Peter