Why is the ADL Koshering Defamation of Jews?

In her newly published memoir, Them: A Memoir of Parents, author Francine Du Plessix Gray quotes her mother--the Vicomtesse Tatiana Iacovleff Du Plessix Liberman--telling her husband, after he offended an orthodox rabbi in a railway carriage, that the worst kind of anti-Semite is a Jewish anti-Semite. Apparently the so-called Anti-Defamation League doesn't understand this point, judging from Abe Foxman's organization's public apology for Sacha Baron Cohen's new Jew-baiting "comedy." Just compare the apologetic tone of this press release to Foxman's strong campaign against Mel Gibson's Passion:

The premiere of Sacha Baron Cohen's new film featuring his farcical character "Borat" has raised anew concerns among some in the Jewish community about the character's notoriously boastful expressions of anti-Semitism and stereotyping of others.

When approaching this film, one has to understand that there is absolutely no intent on the part of the filmmakers to offend, and no malevolence on the part of Sacha Baron Cohen, who is himself proudly Jewish. We hope that everyone who chooses to see the film understands Mr. Cohen's comedic technique, which is to use humor to unmask the absurd and irrational side of anti-Semitism and other phobias born of ignorance and fear.

We are concerned, however, that one serious pitfall is that the audience may not always be sophisticated enough to get the joke, and that some may even find it reinforcing their bigotry.

While Mr. Cohen's brand of humor may be tasteless and even offensive to some, we understand that the intent is to dash stereotypes, not to perpetuate them. It is our hope that everyone in the audience will come away with an understanding that some types of comedy that work well on screen do not necessarily translate well in the real world -- especially when attempted on others through retelling or mimicry.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Cohen chose to make jokes at the expense of Kazakhstan. It would have been better to have used a mythological country, rather than focus on a specific nation.

I watched the trailer here. You don't need a Ph.D. in Film and Television Studies or and M.F.A. in Film and Television Production to see there is absolutely intent on the part of the filmmakers to offend, and there is obvious malevolence on the part of Sacha Baron Cohen. He uses crude anti-Semitism --as well as anti-Kazakh jokes, which for some reason the ADL recognizes might offend--to get cheap laughs.

A deep shonda--for Borat and Foxman and the ADL.

Jim Lehrer's Newshour on the Future of Iraq

Recently, I've been watching a fascinating series of interviews on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer about the future of Iraq. Someone I know told me that they are all available on the web--here's the link:

As part of a series of conversations about mapping out a new U.S. strategy in Iraq, James Dobbins, a former Bush administration official now with the RAND Corporation, discusses the need to involve Iraq's neighbors in the effort to stabilize and rebuild the war-torn nation.

Past conversations:
Frederick Kagan on adding troops to end the violence
Eric Davis on encouraging economic projects
Michael Vickers on training Iraqi security forces
Peter Galbraith on decentralizing Iraq
Phyllis Bennis on withdrawing U.S. troops

Willy Lam on the Future of China

Just heard an interesting presentation on the future of China under President Hu on C-Span radio while in the car. WIlly Lam--author of Chinese Politics in the Hu Jintao Era: New Leaders, New Challenges-- sounds like he knows what he's talking about. You can listen to to his analysis of the Middle Kingdom via this link to the Heritage Foundation website.

You can buy his book from Amazon.com here:

Counsellor At Law

A friend in Chicago insisted that someone I know and I order Counsellor At Law from Netflix immediately and tell him what we thought of it. So, we put it at the top of our queue. Last night, it arrived (for some reason the mail now gets to our place after 6pm). And we watched this 1933 William Wyler film version of Elmer Rice's Broadway play, starring John Barrymore and a very young Melvin Douglas, among others.

Turns out that TV shows like Boston Legal and LA Law have nothing on early Hollywood depictions of the lives of officers of the court. John Barrymore does a memorable star turn as super-lawyer George Simon, whose fancy offices in the Empire State Building are a Grand Central Station of murder, infidelity, corruption, financial impropriety, communism, and blackmail--as well as love, loyalty, and success.

Elmer Rice was trained as a lawyer, and the realism of the script is obvious. The 80-minutes are so fast paced, it's a roller-coaster ride of laughs, suspense, and relief. Plus, the plot conflict pits John Barrymore's scrappy ethnic America --Jews, Italians & Irish--against snobby and prejudiced blue-bloods played by Doris Kenyon and Melvin Douglas.

They really don't make them like this anymore... 5 stars. (Amazing coincidence, it is distributed by the same company as my film: Kino International.)

William Shawcross: No Exit from Iraq

From William Shawcross's article in The Spectator (subscription required):

Iraq’s deputy prime minister Barham Salih made an excellent impression in London this week — but he was surprised if not horrified by the level of hysteria and ‘defeatism’ that he found in the media.

The bias in much of the coverage of Iraq, both here and in the United States, helps only those violent extremists who are trying to destroy the country. It dreadfully discourages all the millions of Iraqis who still need our support to build a decent society.

President Bush was not wrong when he said recently that the spike in terrorist attacks in Iraq is similar to the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam. Both aimed at domestic opinion. Al-Qa’eda and the Shia terrorists hope to inflict Republican defeats in November’s elections which will weaken American commitment to the future of Iraq — and thus strengthen Islamism throughout the world. As Barham Salih said, for our own sake as well as that of Iraq, we need to be ‘realistic, not defeatist’.

Leon Aron on Evgeny Yasin and the Future of Russia

Leon Aron discusses the views of the author of Will Democracy Take in Russia? in AEI Russian Outlook:

So, will democracy take in Russia? Yasin, a professional economist, answers that question only in terms of probabilities and conditions.

The long national tradition is clearly authoritarian. But Russia is no longer the backward peasant society it was for most of its history. With 74 percent of Russians living in cities and towns, and with the democratic revolution destroying what Yasin calls “the foundations of the hierarchical social structures,” the only remnant of authoritarianism today resides in what is known as the “vertical of power” created by the Kremlin.

Poverty and inequality are the other major impediments, but the economic growth between 1999-2002 reduced poverty by half, to about a quarter of the population. Another halving, to 12-15 percent, is now a realistic prospect, and, in Yasin’s view, it renders Russia’s social structure potentially compatible with a stable democracy.

Of course, the pressures of the age-long Russian political culture are strong, and the habits of fear, servility, and civic passivity die very hard. Together, they may yet keep Russia “in the same old rut of low competitiveness and backwardness” it occupied for centuries.

Yet there is no reason why the tripartite formula of success--democratization, free economic system, and humanism--which Yasin holds responsible for propelling other post-authoritarian nations toward impressive achievements, cannot work in Russia. Sooner or later, people will appear who, as in the 1990s, will attempt to put this formula in practice--and finish remaking Russia into a viable, free, and modern country."

“Democracy is only beginning in Russia,” Yasin concludes. “But if there be democracy, there will be Russia as well.”

Save Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury

Melanie Phillips calls for action to save the life of a Bangladesh editor facing trial for supporting Israel:

So much for principle and consistency. The so-called liberal newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic are silent about the fate of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. So too, as far as I know, have been the so-called human rights NGOs. There is, in short, widespread indifference to the persecution of a decent, truly moderate Muslim by the Islamist fascists who threaten all of us. When push comes to shove, therefore, all the pious talk about supporting Muslim reformers in their heroic stand against Islamic extremists is the purest cant and humbug. For western governments, Choudhury is too marginal, too inconvenient. For so-called western ‘multicultural’ liberals, he can’t be a cause to champion because he does not fit the stereotype — he actually supports Israel and Zionism, for heaven’s sake, and thus puts such ‘anti-racists’ to shame by exposing their own indefensible prejudice against Jewish self-determination.

Above all, how can they condemn Bangladesh and hold it to account? Only western countries can be guilty of terrible deeds, after all; the third world is by definition the blameless victim of western imperialism (sic). So there will be no marches on Bangladesh High Commissions, no boycott calls from humbugging academics, no impassioned leading articles or op-eds in the posh papers in solidarity with one of their own profession who is being persecuted for telling the truth.

Shameful — and short-sighted. For the fate of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury is our own.

More on the case here.

Christopher Hitchens: No Exit from Iraq

From Slate:

I am glad that all previous demands for withdrawal or disengagement from Iraq were unheeded, because otherwise we would not be able to celebrate the arrest and trial of Saddam Hussein; the removal from the planet of his two sadistic kids and putative successors; the certified disarmament of a former WMD- and gangster-sponsoring rogue state; the recuperation of the marshes and their ecology and society; the introduction of a convertible currency; the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan (currently advertising for investors and tourists on American television); the killing of al-Qaida's most dangerous and wicked leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and many of his associates; the opening of dozens of newspapers and radio and TV stations; the holding of elections for an assembly and to approve a constitution; and the introduction of the idea of federal democracy as the only solution for Iraq short of outright partition and/or civil war. If this cause is now to be considered defeated, by the sheer staggering persistence in murder and sabotage of the clerico-fascist forces and the sectarian militias, then it will always count as a noble one.

But the many disappointments and crimes and blunders (the saddest of which is the utter failure to influence Iran, and the corresponding advantage taken by Tehran-backed militias) do not relieve us of a responsibility that is either insufficiently stressed or else passed over entirely: What is to become, in the event of a withdrawal, of the many Arab and Kurdish Iraqis who do want to live in a secular and democratic and federal country? We have acquired this responsibility not since 2003, or in the sideshow debate over prewar propaganda, but over decades of intervention in Iraq's affairs, starting with the 1968 Baathist coup endorsed by the CIA, stretching through Jimmy Carter's unforgivable permission for Saddam Hussein to invade Iran, continuing through the decades of genocide in Kurdistan and the uneasy compromise that ended the Kuwait war, and extending through 12 years of sanctions and half-measures, including the "no-fly" zones and the Iraq Liberation Act, which passed the Senate without a dissenting vote. It is not a responsibility from which we can walk away when, or if, it seems to suit us.

Some time ago, I wrote rather offhandedly that the coalition forces in Iraq act as the defensive militia for those who have no militia. I get e-mails from civilians and soldiers in that country, as well as from its growing number of exiles, and this little remark generated more traffic than I have had in a while. Just look at the report in the Oct. 30 New York Times about the kidnapping of an Iraqi-American Army interpreter in the (still) relatively civilized Baghdad neighborhood of Karada. A few days earlier, according to the residents who tried with bare hands to stop the abduction, the same gang had been whipping teenage boys with cables for the crime of wearing shorts. (It is always useful to know what is on the minds of the pious.) A Sunday Washington Post headline referred to the "tipping point" in the erosion of congressional support for the Iraq intervention. Well, the "tipping point" between the grim status quo in Karada and its full-scale Talibanization is rather more acute. And does anyone want to argue that a Talibanized Iraq would not require our attention down the road if we left it behind us?

There are many different plans to reconfigure forces within Iraq and to accommodate, in one way or another, its increasingly tribal and sectarian politics. (Former Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith's suggestion, arising from his admirable book The End of Iraq, involves a redeployment to the successful and peaceful north, with the ability to answer requests for assistance from the central government and the right to confront al-Qaida forces without notice.) But all demands for an evacuation are based on the fantasy that there is a distinction between "over there" and "over here." In a world-scale confrontation with jihadism, this distinction is idle and false. It also involves callously forgetting the people who would be the first victims but who would not by any means be the last ones.

Dan Gordon: No Exit from Iraq

From The American Thinker:

Whether we like it or not, we are in a war with Islamist terrorists. It is not a “supposed war,” or a war with quotation marks around it. Al-Qaeda declared its war against America years before 9/11. 9/11 was simply their Pearl Harbor. To suggest, as some have, that America and its actions in Iraq are the only thing that stands between us and peace with the Islamo terrorists would be like saying that after Pearl Harbor the reason we were at war with Japan was because we engaged the Japanese at Wake Island. The truth is much more uncomfortable. We are at war with Islamist terrorists because they want to kill us. That is not hyperbole, nor is it metaphor. They have announced it as clearly and as plainly as humanly possible. Al-Qaeda has declared we have the following choice: convert to Islam or die.

Well, the intelligentsia amongst us would have us believe that is just a Karl Rove ploy meant to frighten voters into voting for Republicans. There also lurks behind the knowing condescension the assumption that no matter what Al-Qaeda or the Ayatollahs might want in their demented fantasies, they can never really accomplish it. Maybe a few thousand die here or there, but the rest of us will still sip our lattes and shine it on. They can’t, after all, cripple America.

Actually, that’s not the case.

Just as the Spanish Civil War was a preview of what European Fascism had in store for the world, so too was the recent Israel/Hezb’allah war a preview of what Islamo Fascism has in store.

Consider this, right now as you read this, northern Mexico is by and large ruled not by its own government nor its police, nor even its military. It is ruled by drug cartels who cut off the heads of policemen and stick them up in American tourists resorts like Rosarita Beach. Like those drug cartels, Hezb’allah makes a good deal of its money which it uses to finance its terrorists activities, in the drug trade, primarily out of the Beka Valley.

Hezb’allah today has hundreds if not thousands of its terrorist operatives already in place in South America. It would be a small matter indeed for Hezb’allah units to collude with the drug cartels now ruling northern Mexico. Then with little more than the rockets already in Iran’s arsenal, with even a modest nuclear warhead (the kind which most estimates believe will be within Iran’s capabilities to produce in no more than a few years) those same Hezb’allah cells could take out the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach. While a similar unit, operating from southern Canada could just as easily take out the Port of New York and New Jersey.

Those two acts by themselves would plunge the United States into a depression which would last decades. Such a scenario is not only possible, it is highly probable; especially if the US is defeated in Iraq and the Islamist terrorists believe they are on a roll. And make no mistake about who it is they want to kill. If you are a Christian they want to kill you. If you are a Jew they want to kill you. If you are a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Taoist, or a Jain, or a Muslim of a slightly different creed, they want to kill you. If you a secularist and believe in gay marriage, gay adoption, gay rights, or gay pride, they want to kill you. If you watch movies and like rock n’ roll, if you read Playboy, or Cosmo, if you wear mini-skirts, or “allow” your daughter, wife or girlfriend to do so, they want to kill you. When they say convert to Islam or die, they mean convert to Islam or they will kill you.

I know you don’t like that. I know you don’t want to believe that. I know you would like to believe only a cross eyed, red necked, right wing, apocalyptic, bozo hick like George Bush would believe such a thing, but that won’t let you off the hook. However much you don’t want to believe it, however much you would like it to go away, however loudly you whistle in the dark and comfort yourself with the sweet thought of Nancy Pelosi hanging her drapes over Denny Hastert’s fat, dead, humiliated body, it is still true.

If we quit Iraq they will follow us home. If they are defeated in Iraq, it does not mean the end of them. It does mean, however, that the wind will be knocked out of them. It means they will have suffered a set back that will take them almost as long to overcome as it took us to get over Vietnam.

But you say that we’ve already lost in Iraq. If you don’t believe it just watch CNN.

Well here is the odd truth, which for some reason, absolutely no one seems to realize. Precisely because Iraq is such a mess, the terrorists now believe it is all but inevitable that they will win. They can smell victory. They can taste it. They are ramping up the equivalent of their air craft carrier landings under the banner “Jihad Accomplished.”

But for the first time, since World War II, for some insane reason, the previous paradigm is reversed. In every other conflict of this type one always hears the sentence “All the Viet Cong have to do, or Hezb’allah has to do, or all the Resistance has to do in order to win is simply survive.” Thus by having outlasted the lumbering oaf, the West will be defeated. Well, guess what, in Iraq of 2006 precisely because they so smell victory, for the first time since World War II, all America has to do in order to win, is not lose.

Let me say it again, in Iraq, all America has to do in order to win is not lose.

All America has to do in order to defeat Al-Qaeda and the Iranian backed terrorists is not lose to them.

And all we have to do in order to not lose to them is not to leave before the Iraqis can bring the violence to a manageable level.

They don’t have to end the violence.

They just have to be able to bring it to a manageable level, a level in which they can maintain an elected government and manage their affairs with a minimum of help or indeed presence of US forces.

All we have to do to win is not leave until then.

Why do I believe that this is so? Because it is precisely what the terrorists are telling us. This is their Tet offensive. This is their attempt to influence our elections. If they can help elect a Congress that will cut off funds for the war, then just as was the case in Vietnam, that is precisely what will happen. And when it happens we will leave. In defeat.

All we have to do to win is not lose.

All we have to do to not lose, is not leave until the Iraqis can manage the violence.

Not defeat it.

Not eliminate it.

Just manage it.

If we stay till then it is the Islamo terrorists who will be gasping for breath.

It will be Midway instead of Pearl Harbor.

Calling in sick...

I've developed a bad cold, as has someone I know. It seems to be going around Washington. Result: can't think straight. So, taking Richard Nixon's advice never to make any important decisions when sick, I'm taking some time off from the blog...

Vladimir Putin Speaks...

...to Russian citizens, in his 3-hour annual call-in show on October 25th. Among his interesting comments were these:

SERGEI BRILYOV: Yulia, please, more questions from the phone centre.

YULIA PANKRATOVA: We have a caller from Moscow. Hello, hello!

TATIANA INGAIAN: Hello, good afternoon! I am Tatiana Ingaian.

Mr President! Harassment or sexual harassment and violence against women exists in many countries and is also a serious problem in Russia. Sometimes certain facts about sexual violence and harassment become known, such as in the case of the Israeli President. You recently spoke about this but, unfortunately, I did not quite understand your position on this problem. In your opinion, is it necessary to fight this ugly phenomenon, violence against women? What do you think about this? Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Violence should always be punished, any kind of violence – concerning women, concerning men and especially concerning children. It is always criminal law that regulates these serious crimes.

With regards to women, their rights require special protection. Incidentally, in connection with resolving the demographic problem we emphasised that we must elevate women’s social status – I already said that today. Of course it is absolutely inadmissible to use a position of dependency to force a woman into sexual relations, excuse me, or other things (and we do not need to be uncomfortable here, we must talk about things directly as they are).

With regards to what happened in Israel, then this is a special case. Ten women have declared that the President raped them and just recently corruption charges were brought against the Prime Minister. With what is that connected? In my opinion, it is connected with the fact – and many experts will agree with me – that a significant part of Israeli society is unhappy with the way their leaders handled the conflict with Lebanon. Many people consider that what happened amounts to a defeat and they immediately started to attack President, the Prime Minister, and the head of the General Staff. In my opinion, using instruments such as protecting women’s rights to resolve political issues that are unconnected with this problem is absolutely inadmissible. And this is because it actually discredits the struggle for women’s rights, an important task in and of itself.

And with regards to the event that you just mentioned, it is true that I did address this issue when the Israeli Prime Minister was here as my guest. However, journalists had already left the room and heard in passing something that was said there. Then they started to discuss it. To prevent any further discussions I have just now openly stated my position to you. With respect to the media representatives I can say that when I worked for a completely different organisation at the time we joked that: they are sent to spy but they eavesdrop. Not so nice a behavior.

You can read the full transcript here..

Judith Miller on Kurdistan

Speaking of Iraq, in today's Wall Street Journal, Judith Miller reports from Kurdistan, where she interviewed president Barzani:

Mr. Barzani is not shy about offering advice to Washington. The U.S. needs to revise its policies because "the existing strategy is not effective," he says. American forces could be reduced--perhaps by half--he said, but only when Iraqi forces are ready to restore order. But that will not happen, he warns, until the U.S. permits the Iraqi government to rid itself of the "terrorists, chauvinists and extremists" in its ranks who condone and "openly incite the violence on TV" that is destroying what remains of the capital and the country. He refuses to name names. But other Kurds point to such figures as Salah Mutlaq, an extremist Sunni leader, and aides to Moqtada al-Sadr, who heads a radical Shia militia.

"You have a different culture; you're a different people," Mr. Barzani said. "With America's mentality and approach and regulations, we cannot win like this. There must be decisive action so the government can enforce the law and restore its prestige." This Barzani, confident and candid, is different from the reticent figure I first interviewed 15 years ago in his mountain fastness of Barzan. Although plainspoken, "Kak Massoud"--a respectful but affectionate "Mister" in Kurdish--was reluctant then to offer an American journalist a frank assessment of his frustrations and aspirations. Not so the man who has evolved into "President Barzani" of Kurdistan, who, based on an informal power-sharing agreement with his rival, President Talibani of Iraq, is determined to seize this historic opportunity to advance his people's interests.

Just as "Kak" has become "president," the Kurds have gone from resistance to nation-building, with all the challenges such a transformation implies. Mr. Barzani has complained that while he and his Pesh Merga knew how to fight, it was "easier to destroy two dams than to build one power plant." Kurdistan is changing, in substance as well as style. The capital is no longer called Erbil (the Arabic), but "Howler," its Kurdish name. While Mr. Barzani, age 60, still wears the pantaloon, cummerbund, tight jacket and twirled turban favored by traditional Kurds, Western-style business suits--expensive labels, at that--are favored by Nechervan Barzani, his nephew and the energetic 40-year-old prime minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government.

Gone are the refugee tents--except for the thousands of Sunni Arab refugees from Baghdad, who, along with some 7,000 Christian families, have migrated here for safety. Temporary structures are being replaced by new brick and cement houses and apartment buildings--among them many lavish "castles," as the Kurds call these houses nestled in the hills surrounding Erbil. Expensive glass office buildings are springing up throughout the region. Apartments are priced at between $100,000 and $200,000--prohibitively expensive; and yet several of these are sold out.

"Kurds have money," Prime Minister Nechervan Barzani told me. "But until recently, they lacked the confidence to invest." If the junior Mr. Barzani is correct, Kurdistan is literally exploding with confidence and new projects befitting its ambitions: Almost $2 billion in Turkish trade and investment--the result, partly, of his outreach to Ankara--is financing the construction the Middle East's largest new conference center, a new international airport, hotels, parks, bridges, tunnels, overpasses, a refinery and an electrical plant. The Kurdistan Development Council is even advertising Kurdistan as a tourist destination. There are over 70 direct flights a week to the region's two airports from the Middle East and Europe. But Kurdistan's infrastructure is still woefully antiquated, a legacy of Saddam's privation and the ruinous civil war between the clans of Mr. Barzani and Mr. Talabani from 1994 to 1998. Most cities still provide only two to three hours of electricity a day. The rest comes from private generators, which the poor can ill afford.

No Exit from Iraq

Last night, I was invited to a party at the Turkish Embassy in celebration of Turkish Republic Day, declared October 29th some 83 years ago by Kemal Ataturk. It seemed like a scene out of a movie, Secret Service cars with flashing lights, the embassy just down the street from the minaret of Washington's Islamic Center (not guarded by any police or barriers, interestingly). I walked in as two limousines arrived--just in front of me, the Indian Ambassador; just behind me the Uzbek ambassador. The very international crowd reminded me of accounts of the non-aligned movement (although Turkey was a member of NATO). A Greek-American attorney told me he had no personal animosity towards the Turks, that Greeks and Turks get along just fine today--then added that his mother-in-law had waded to a small boat through the surf with her belongings on her back when he house was burned down during riots in Izmir. But he had no problem with Turks today."My grandmother cooked Greek food," he told me. "It's the same as Turkish."

I found myself chatting with the Cambodian ambassador, who knew two people I had known in New York when I worked with a group trying to save Boat People--Sichan Siv, now a businessman in Texas after serving in the first Bush administration; and Sydney Schanberg, once a NY Times reporter, then a columnist, then a Newsday columnist and now I don't know what he does. He told me that Cambodia has a successful garment industry, now worth some $1.8 billion annually, manufacturing clothes for Nike and Wal-Mart. Given the suffering that country has seen, this type of manufacturing is surely a good side to globalization. He said Cambodia wanted good relations with all countries--including the USA and China. A small country like Cambodia, he explained, cannot afford to have bad relations with a big neighbor like China.

The most somber discussion was with a brilliant young Turkish diplomat, who had served at the UN and in Washington, who explained to me that there were no easy answers for the US in Iraq. Turkey had ruled the region for hundreds of years--with colonels, not four-star generals--and knew that there were no simple solutions to the ethnic, nationalist, and religious conflicts. The region could be ruled, managed, pacified, administered, it seemed--but not "solved."

For example, a much-discussed proposal by Peter Galbraith (among others) to break Iraq into three nations--a divide-and-conquer plan of sorts--is just not acceptable to Turkey. Turkey could not allow Kurdistan to foment rebellion in Turkish territory via the PKK. I got the sense that Turkey would not allow it. Well, without Kurdistan, there certainly won't be an independent Shia-stan or Sunni-stan. It is, as businessfolk say, a "deal-killer." Further, all the neighbors of Iraq are opposed to the division of Iraq. This makes sense, because in a geopolitical sense Iraq is a true "buffer state" that keeps Shia iran from rubbing against Sunni Arab states--and Turkey from doing the same.

Likewise, the rapid departure of American forces from Iraq is not acceptable, for the same reason: Americans now provide a buffer. Remove the buffer, and conflict will escalate--perhaps into regional war. Turkey remembers the Iran-Iraq war with horror, because not only did the country accept refugees (including Kurds, acccording to my conversation partner), but it also damaged the Turkish economy, which had previously depended on trade with both Iran and Iraq. The Turkish economy has recovered, and Turkey does not want another regional war.

So, said my Turkish interlocutor, there are no solutions for America--Iraq is like Jean-Paul Sartre's existentialist drama: No Exit. The Turks were there for hundreds of years, after all, during the Ottoman empire.

if he is right, and he certainly made convincing case, then perhaps a first step for Democrats and Republicans might be to take this message seriously, and stop looking for "exit strategies." Instead, America might want to talk about "coping strategies," in order to treat Iraq more like a chronic inflammation and less like an acute disease...

NATO Kills Afghan Civilians

During post-Ramadan raids, according to The Guardian:

Major Luke Knitig, a spokesman for the international security assistance force, said 60 dead bodies had been discovered, but it was "very unclear" whether they were civilians or insurgents.

The possible civilian deaths, which a UN statement said were in the village of Nangawat, happened during Eid, the festival marking the end of Ramadan.

Bismallah Afghanmal, a Kandahar provincial council member, told the Associated Press that between 80 and 85 people had been killed. A villager, Karim Jan, said between 60 and 70 had died.

"It was late at night - that might be the reason they didn't know where to bomb," Agha Lalai, another member of the provincial council, told Reuters. "They have bombed residential houses."

Witnesses told Reuters that 25 homes were demolished during four to five hours of bombing.

Maj Knitig said Nato troops had been engaged in heavy fighting against insurgents in three separate incidents in Panjwayi on Tuesday. The battle included air strikes.

He said that while there was a confirmed insurgent death toll of 48, that number could eventually be as high as 70, adding that insurgents had been attacking bases providing security for aid projects in the area.

In a statement, the UN mission in Afghanistan said it was concerned by reports that a "great number of civilians may have died during the conduct of military operations".

Openly Cheating in the World Series

After seeing the pine tar on Detroit Tiger pitcher Kenny Rogers' hand, someone I know stopped watching this year's World Series. Baltimore Sun sportswriter Peter Schmuck explains:

Was Kenny Rogers flouting the rules of baseball if he had pine tar or some other dark, sticky substance on the palm of his left hand in the early innings of a strong Game 2 performance at Comerica Park?

The rule book would answer clearly in the affirmative, and the prescribed punishment would have been a suspension if St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa had asked the umpires to check Rogers' hand and they had, indeed, found something other than infield dirt.

La Russa chose instead to send a message to the Tigers' postseason hero through the umpiring crew:

Whatever you're doing, stop doing it.

The decision not to make a federal case out of it put La Russa on the hot seat in St. Louis, because he might have passed up an opportunity to get Rogers out of a game he absolutely dominated for eight innings. But the fact that La Russa had no appetite for gamesmanship in that situation might have been because he knows something you don't want to know.

There is an acceptable level of rule-bending in major league baseball that is largely overlooked because it is almost universal.

Tigers closer Todd Jones came right out and admitted yesterday that he has - in the past - used a little pine tar to improve his grip on the baseball under certain conditions. I guess if you're going to admit to substance abuse at the World Series, this probably is the best way to do it, but Jones chose his words just carefully enough to shed some light on the situation without incriminating anyone.

"I had a guy I played with go to another team," Jones said. "He came back and said, 'If you guys check me [for pine tar], I'm going to drill every one of you because you didn't mind it when I was here.'"

La Russa said during yesterday's news conference at Busch Stadium that "pitchers use some kind of sticky stuff to get a better grip from the first day in spring training to the last side session of the World Series." And even though he claimed the Cardinals' coaching staff had seen video evidence that Rogers might have had sticky fingers in a couple of earlier outings, La Russa said he didn't consider it "over the line."

In short, there is cheating and then there is cheating, a distinction that seems harmless enough when a pitcher is just trying to get a better grip on a cold night, but represents the kind of moral relativism that can justify just about anything.

Ian Buruma on Van Gogh's Murder in Amsterdam

Monday night, appearing on the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer (RealPlayer link).

John LeBoutillier: Bush is Incompetent

From Boot's Blasts:

9) The Bush Administration has handled foreign policy with the same level of competence they handled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The incompetence from the top down has been shocking. And it is our soldiers and their families who are paying a steep price for this;

10) The President says we are staying until “we achieve victory.” OK...that sounds great. What exactly is this ‘victory’? Who do we want to win? The Sunnis of Saddam? Or the Shi’a of Iran?

11) All of this is why only a quarter of our fellow Americans remain steadfast that things will go well in Iraq. And make no mistake about it: the crumbling of the GOP lately is not due to Mark Foley’s perversions; it is due to Iraq and the realization that this war is a disaster for our country.

12) The Democrats were willing partners with GW Bush and the GOP in getting us into a war we need not have started. Containment would have worked; after 9/11, all the world was with us. We could have done to Saddam what we did to the Soviets for 40 years: starved him out until his rotten regime crumbled from within. We could then have spent our resources in getting Osama and wiping out the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Daniel Pipes: Change Course in Iraq

The Bush administration slogans have shifted from "Mission Accomplished," to "Stay the Course," to "Finish the Job." Now, Daniel Pipes suggests moving American troops from cities to desert bases under another motto: "Stay the course – but change the course."

The situation in Iraq has become a source of deep domestic antagonism in the coalition countries, especially the United States and Great Britain, but it can be finessed by noting that the stakes there are actually quite minor, then adjusting means and goals on this basis. Do you, dear non-Iraqi reader, have strong feelings about the future of Iraq? I strongly suspect not.

Iraqis want possession of their country; and peoples in countries providing troops serving in Iraq have wearied of the hopeless effort to transform it into something better than it is. Both aspirations can be satisfied by redeploying coalition troops to the desert, where they can focus on the essential tasks of maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, keeping the fossil fuels flowing, and preventing humanitarian disasters.

Malkin: "CNN Wants US to Lose..."

Flying on JetBlue, I watched Bill O'Reilly debate CNN's Iraq war coverage with Michelle Malkin. He defended CNN against her charges that the network favors the Iraqi terrorists and insurgents, and chooses to show propaganda in order to demoralize and defeat the US. I couldn't find the video on YouTube but did find the official O'Reilly summary:

"CNN wants us to lose this war," Malkin declared. "It's not just the airing of this sniper video, which undermines troop morale, but there's a whole history at CNN of choosing the wrong side. If you're going to run this kind of video, you have to be very mindful of being used as a tool."

O'Reilly pooh-poohed Malkin (I don't see his quote in the official summary, something like, "I can't believe Larry King wants us to lose"). But I'd say it is not impossible to believe that Anderson Cooper--an alumnus of the University of Hanoi in North Vietnam--might not want to see an American victory.

In any case, there is no need to treat this question as a guessing game. One way to settle this question might be for O'Reilly to invite CNN's anchors and executives onto his program and ask them directly: "Who do you want to win in Iraq?"

Doubt by John Patrick Shanley

While visiting Los Angeles last weekend, I went to see Cherry Jones starring as Sister Aloysius in John Patrick Shanley's Doubt, now playing at the Ahmanson Theatre. Doug Hughes' production was pretty good--a thousand times better than the horror show we walked out of at Chicago's Steppenwolf Theatre. Sort of George Bernard Shaw meets Playhouse 90 (can the HBO/PBS version be far behind?) The play seemed extremely timely--given Mark Foley's congressional page scandal. And the audience seemed to include a number of alumni of the Catholic school system, who laughed knowingly at references that were opaque to this non-parochial school grad.

Curiously, although reviews had given an impression that the play left matters of guilt up in the air, it seemed to me that Sister Aloysius did in fact catch a child molester--and that her doubts at the end were related to a Church heirarchy that appeared to protect and promote pedophiles. In the play, the accused priest, named Father Flynn (Chris McGarry), goes on to become pastor at another school--much as Mark Foley's priest appears to have been protected.

The conflict appeared to be more between Nuns (good) and Priests (bad). It reminded me of the Washington saying about John F. Kennedy--that the Republicans and Richard Nixon had support from bishops, while the sisters were all for Jack Kennedy. Another meaning for "sisterhood is powerful" I guess. It might be relevant, because the action of the play occurs shortly after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, America's first (and only) Catholic president.

There is another theme, of integration, which is handled in a complex manner. The victim approached by the priest is one of the first students to integrate the formerly all-white school for working class Irish and Italian kids. When Sister Aloysius invites his mother (Adriane Lenox) to discuss the situation, she begs the nun to keep the matter quiet. Interestingly, something similar seems to have actually happened in the Foley case. After that confrontation, Sister Aloysius becomes more determined than ever to "get" the priest.

She does--while keeping it quiet to protect the victim--and then, for the first time in the play, admits she has doubts. For Doubt is about doubt--including doubt about doubt itself...