Jaw-Jaw is Better than War-War

The always insightful Gregory Djerejian has a post today at his Belgravia Dispatch blog regarding the announcement that U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad "has been authorized to hold talks with Iranian officials on issues related to Iraq." Speaking of this devleopment, Djerejian makes the following comments:

Yeah, B.D. was calling for a track with Iran to be opened on Iraq issues way back in the summer of '04. Michael Ledeen, doubtless, will view me as a 'useful idiot' (the phrase, if memory serves, that he's served up to describe the likes of Richard Haass and Christiane Amanpour). Well, if calling for dialogue with Iran on Iraq policy makes one a 'useful idiot', chalk me up in the 'useful idiot' column then. I trust Zal Khalilzad to make things happen in this channel, much more than 100 op-eds in NRO wailing on about how Bush is selling us out on the GWOT because he's playing too much footsie with the Mullahs. It's this type of impestuous absolutism and historical myopia and missionary zeal that has gotten us in too many messes of late, and with apologies to Michael with whom I correspond not infrequently, this type of AEI think on steroids has been more than discredited amidst the hard realities of the Iraq imbroglio, and it's high time Michael start grappling with that more complicated state of affairs if he wishes to persuade on the merits.

It is certainly true, as a general rule, that dialouge and discussion, even with one's enemies, is vastly preferable to war or general belligerence. Even if one side has to prostrate itself a bit--a happenstance that I would gladly accept (to a point) on the part of the United States in order to avoid another war--diplomacy can often secure agreement on enough minor points as to preclude wider hostilities on large ones.

However, the problem with Djerjian's analysis, like most analyses of the sort of liberal hawk that would largely agree with him, is that it assumes that the United States is everywhere and always largely in control of the situation. That is to say, to the extent that armed conflict is looming with Iran it is due to a failure on the part of the present American administration, particularly one for which the liberal hawks have no instinctive love.

The actual locus of blame varies: it may be short-sighted diplomacy, not enough reliance on allies or multi-lateralism, or it may just be a blind adherence to "impestuous absolutism and historical myopia and missionary zeal" that gets us in trouble, but, make to mistake about it, it is we who are the problem. In this world-view, there are no implacable enemies who cannot be negotiated out of wanting to kill us, just incompetent Republicans who haven't come up with an imaginative or brilliant enough strategy to diffuse the problem.

I'm sure you see the central fallacy in that. If one accepts at face value the statements of the Islamic Republic, even if one discounts as hyperbole the current "President's" rhetoric, no amount of brilliant diplomacy in the world will accomplish anything other than the dual negative effect of demoralizing Western opinion and giving the enemy more time to prepare for his strike. In other words, there is a dangerous tendency in the "intelligent" foreign affairs world to assume that the Islamic Republic's stated goals and the actions that it has taken over and over consistent with those stated goals are simply part of a strategy aimed at increasing Iran's power and infuence, and, not, say, simply manifestations of an actually existing will to carry out a nightmarish program of death and destruction.

If I am right on this point, nothing Khalilzad could possibly do or say will have the slightest effect whatsoever. It is this judgment that leads people like Ledeen to quite different conclusions than Djerjian on the matter and not, as Djerjian implies, some sort of impulsive "I'll beat you up!" political immaturity.

Djerjian must admit, given Mein Kampf and the history of Nazi Germany, that there are times when one should believe one's opponent when he announces to the world that he is going to kill you just as soon as he is able. On the other hand, hawks must admit that these times are exceedingly rare and must be sussed out with careful scrutiny.

In my view, the problem of Iran has been compounded (and continues to be compounded) due to the exceedingly peculiar immunity it has enjoyed since its revolution. From the U.S. embassy seizure and hostage drama to suborning the murder of a Western author to Hezbollah to Khobar Towers to the Karina A to supporting the terrorists in Iraq, the Islamic Republic has never paid a price--not once!--for its flouting of international norms and support for international terrorism.

It is in this atmosphere that a whole generation of Iranian leaders has learned to calculate cause and effect, and one cannot over-blame them for concluding that they pretty much have the run of any options they care to employ. It is this arrogant blindness, aided and abetted by sophisticated commentators who are now busy convincing Iran and Western public opinion that the United States "has no good options" when it comes to heading off an Iranian nuclear bomb that has, more than anything, made war-war much, much more likely than it otherwise would have been.

Churchill was right. Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

Up to the moment the one doing the jawing is describing for you exactly how he intends to kill you.

King Abdullah's View: Islam Has a Problem, and Europe isn't Helping

I recently came across a very interesting interview conducted by the folks at the Middle East Quarterly with Jordanian king Abdullah II. (You can find the whole interview here.) I've never been quite sure what to think of the king, although it must be said that a man who can cross cultural lines as he can (and must) do brings a valuable perspective to the overall conflict between Islamism and the West.

One of his responses, though, really stood out (emphasis mine throughout):

MEQ: Do your neighbors have the same approach [with regard to fighting extremism]?

Abdullah: In private, they do. At the time of the Beslan school massacre in Russia, all of us were disgusted. But it's just not good enough to sit in the privacy of one's home and say how awful this is and condemn these people who are defaming Islam. This was a crime against humanity, and we have to be much more vocal, in public. In my view, Islam is going in a direction that's very scary, and as the Hashemite Kingdom, we have a moral obligation to stand up. Yes, there are a lot of other things that are happening inside the Muslim world, but we have to draw the line. If we don't, then these people are going to win.

Even the Saudis have started talking more openly. They were supportive of the conference that we had here in Jordan for Iraq's neighboring states where we issued a clear and unambiguous call against extremism.[1] They were vocal in Amman. They are more vocal in their own country, now. But there are still some in Saudi Arabia who think that the problem of these bin Ladin supporters is a passing threat and that six months from now the extremists won't have a leg to stand on. That's just not the case and to think so is to sugarcoat the problem. It doesn't solve the problem that they have inside the country, nor does it solve the problem that we in the Muslim world have.

I have to say it's very good news indeed if the king's peers were disgusted by Beslan, as any decent person should be. And it's also refreshing to hear a Middle Eastern leader express concern for the general direction of Islam. Also, it should not be forgotten, as the President said in his speech today, a major Iraqi police academy is being run in Jordan with the king's government's help.

Hope, perhaps?

However, even more intersting was this response, which seems to not have excited much comment:

MEQ: The Iranian acquisition of nuclear capability would change the equation. What is the best response to this?

Abdullah: You have to deal with Iran with a united front. When we went to Iran about a year and a half ago, the Iranians were under tremendous pressure. They felt that they had gotten themselves into a very tight corner, and that's why they said, "Please, we want to reach out to the United States; we have our Al-Qaeda prisoners that we want to hand over; we want to talk about weapons of mass destruction; and we want to have some sort of a common understanding on the issue of Iraq, the unity of Iraq." But the minute the Europeans had prime ministers knocking on Iran's door, the Iranians felt the pressure was off. How do you address the nuclear issue now, given the way Europe is, with France's and Germany's relationship with the United States? How do you get a united front to deal with Iran? You need a unified front. But even so, that doesn't mean we should be letting the Iranians off the hook with what they're trying to do in Iraq.

Good going Europe! Thanks for the assist, as usual.

New York Times Parodies Self

I've long since thought that there is really no use making fun of the self-righteous idiots who run the Newspaper of Record because their newspaper is so bad it constitutes a daily exercise in self-mockery. Sometimes, though, they kick it up a notch, making the perverse negativism a truly wonderous thing to behold.

Today is such a day.

From today's New York Times, page 1, column A:

Upbeat Signs Hold Cautions for the Future

By VIKAS BAJAJ

Gasoline is cheaper than it was before Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans. Consumer confidence jumped last month and new- home sales hit a record. The stock market has been rising. Even the nation's beleaguered factories seem headed for a happy holiday season.

By most measures, the economy appears to be doing fine. No, scratch that, it appears to be booming.

Indeed, the government today revised economic growth for the third quarter to an annual pace of 4.3 percent, up from an earlier estimate of 3.8 percent and far higher than the 4 percent most analysts had expected. The revision was driven by even stronger consumer spending than earlier thought. Personal consumption rose by 4.2 percent, up from the 3.9 percent initial reading, the Department of Commerce reported.

But as always with the United States economy, it is not quite that simple.

For every encouraging sign, there is an explanation and concern for the future. Consumer confidence is bouncing back from what were arguably some of its worst readings in years. Gasoline prices - the national average is now $2.15, according to the Energy Information Administration - have fallen because higher prices held down demand and Gulf Coast supplies have been slowly restored.

The latest reading on home sales, released Tuesday, contradicts most recent measures of housing activity, which generally indicate a slowdown. And, yes, manufacturers' fortunes are on the mend, but few besides airplane makers are celebrating.

It all means the economy is likely to end the year with a splash. But before you splurge on a new car, consider this: Many economists do not expect the party to continue, especially if the Federal Reserve continues taking the punchbowl away and raises interest rates. That could further slow the housing market, damp consumer spending and crimp corporate profits.

New Sisyphus contest time! Please post the headline and some text of what this article would have said had the economy under-performed rather than boomed well in excess of any other Western nation's performance.

Winner will receive a lovely book by Victor Hanson! Post now!

Tuesday Morning--Time for Quick Notes

More short notes on a wet and very cold Tuesday morning:

-- I see that yesterday in NRO's The Corner, Jonah Goldberg had some questions regarding his visit to us here in the great Pacific Northwest. Jonah wrote:

I'm heading back to DC in a few hours. I always have such mixed feelings about Seattle. On the one hand, there's a lot to like about this town and this region. It's my kind of weather, my kind of food, etc. But I'm always amazed at how pre-Giuliani so much of the downtown is. I'm baffled at how the business community and the tourist industry can cave to the drug-addict romanticizers and panhandler enablers. There is so much skeeviness and bummery going on right at the heart of why people come to this town in the first place. And, it's not just to prey on the tourists, there are half-way houses, methadone clinics, etc all near Pike's. I don't folllow Seattle politics so I don't know how the arguments play out, but I'd have to guess there are West Coast versions of the same jackasses who thought drug dealing, transvestite hookers, and robbery were what gave Times Square its authenticity and "charm."

This reaction is common for first-time visitors to Seattle, as it is here in Portland as well. The problem isn't so much one of law enforcement as one of political will. The Pacific Northwest is the heir of a great radical tradition unique in American history, one result of which is that popular attitudes are wildly to the left compared to the rest of the nation. This "liberal arc" follows the coast from San Francisco all the way north to Seattle. On the state level, more conservative populations in the east of California, Oregon and Washington have kept law and order issues in the moderate center. On the city level, however, there is no such equalizing pressure to prevent the left-wing leadership from fully indulging its wishes. The result is a civic culture that fetishizes "the homeless," romanticizes "youths," and protects "minorities" from reality.

I doubt that the laws on the books in Seattle differ very much from those in New York. Come to think of it, the laws during David Dinkins' stint as mayor weren't very different from those Mayor Guiliani worked under, which makes it even more clear that political will and leadership is the key ingredient. Liberals here tend to think that urban ugliness is "cool," and a part of life that makes them superior to those bland idiots who live in the "suburbs." Stubborn reality, however, refuses to be repealed and the city authorities in both Seattle and Portland are tearing their hair out trying to figure out why their multi-million dollar redevelopment plans for the downtown areas aren't enough to staunch the flow of people and businesses out from the center.

-- Can you read Spanish, by any chance? If you can, please be sure to check out Mackinlay's, an economic-focused blogsite run by a very bright Argentinian named Agustin. His comments and notes on developments in Latin America and Spain are always insightful. Agustin is fully bilingual, so don't hesitate to leave him a comment in English if your Spanish isn't up to it.

-- I note with great sadness Dr. Demarche's decision to shut down the Daily Demarche blog, though I certainly understand his reasoning. Being a FSO isn't really very condusive to blogging; contrary to popular opinion, it is a very demanding job. Back in those heady days when the Diplomad was posting, when Dr. D and Smiley were going strong and I was still a FSO it appeared that conservative FSOs were going to be a real presence in the Blogosphere. For a variety of reasons, that hasn't worked out. Suffice it to say that the position makes blogging very difficult. The last FSO blogging full time is Consul-At-Arms, and he is very good. Let's hope some other FSOs step up to pick up the slack.

-- Read a breathless review of Peter Jackson's upcoming King Kong the other day. The most amazing thing I took out of it is that Mr. Jackson has lost an incredible 75 pounds since his Oscar acceptance speech. He looks like a new man. Congrats, Peter! Well done. (Oh, and the movie looks spectacular.) Now, where is that Hobbit you promised us?

-- Is there some sort of rule that Republican senators must have vacant, creepy grins while appearing on television? If there is, it is apparently ruthlessly enforced.

-- In his latest Spectator column, Steyn mentions as an aside that he will no longer be writing op-eds for the Telegraph. His defense of Lord Black is ringing, though not quite as good as that which can be found at his website's "Topical Take."

-- Played Civilization IV again last night. The game's "first to discover certain technologies founds a given religion" system (under which any given civilization can adopt any of the religions in the game) leads to some unintentionally funny messages from the computer.

Example: "Mecca has converted to Judiasm."

The brothers are going to love that when they hear about it. Watch your back, Sid.

-- As I was playing, my young Elizabethan English civilization discovered "Monotheism" first, leading to the founding of Judiasm in London. The very next turn, two units of Arab warriors were on my border seeking tribute. And if that wasn't enough, the demand was presented by their leader Saladin, who looked suspiciously like a certain cave-dwelling headliner on Al-Jazeera. Coincidence?

-- Has "Two and a Half Men" always been the funniest show on TV? I never paid much attention to it, but the last three episodes had me rolling. Charlie Sheen is just a jewel of a comic actor. And that kid kills me.

-- John Derbyshire points us to pictures of French news anchor Melissa Theuriau found here. I suspect ratings are up. Way up. And we're stuck with Brian Williams and Anderson Cooper.

-- Speaking of anchors, can anyone please tell me what the hell has happened to Rita Cosby's voice? And what is she doing on MSNBC?

-- Best T-Shirt of the week: "Seriously, Who Let the F'ing Dogs Out?" - Seen on a young man on the Max. Usually, I strongly disapprove of profanity on T-shirts, but this one had me laughing for hours.

Candian Government Falls

Maclean's has just reported that the long-awaited no confidence motion in the House of Commons has passed 171-133. Prime Minister Martin is expected to ask the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament tomorrow, assuming Her Excellency is still Canadian then. Elections are expected to be held on January 23.

The campaigning will start immediately, with Martin scheduled to appear in Quebec tomorrow with new Liberal candidate Marc Garneau, famous astronaut and the first Canadian in space (if you don't count some of those parties Trudeau attended with the missus in the late 60's).

Good luck to Harper and the Conservatives! It's all about Ontario, boys.

Liberal Looney Tunes

It's not a good day for anyone when you get taken to the shed by both Mark Steyn and Lileks in the same day, but if anyone deserves it it's the increasingly insufferable Whoopi Goldberg. Once a mildly amusing comic who doubled as an enigmatic Star Trek character, she's now metamorphosed into some kind of low rent Maya Angelou: otherworldly, earthy African-American wisdom dispensed from a serious, smiling, knowing face.

I ran across one of those interview shows on PBS the other night, and there she was: Whoopi the Wise discoursing on the mystery of life from a single chair in front of an all-white audience. She looked sage and wise, dropping droll bits of wisdom to the type of crowd that donates $50 to PBS instead of the usual $25 in order to score the Rick Steeves tote-bag.

Of course, Whoopi was never that funny or that good and Star Trek: TNG is as old now as the original series is for kids growing up (Remember Nat X's Top Five Reasons Not to See Burgler? Number One: Whoopi's in it.) which may go a long way in explaining Whoopi's Maya-esque transformation.

In any case, she has managed to annoy two of the best in the business and gets her due. From Steyn in today's Sun-Times:

The average multiplex is surely not long for this world. Already, 85 percent of Hollywood's business comes from home entertainment -- DVDs and the like. Suits me. Or so I thought until, on the way home from the hell of Harry Potter, I stopped to buy the third boxed set in the ''Looney Tunes Golden Collection.'' Loved the first two: Daffy, Bugs, Porky, beautifully restored, tons of special features. But, for some reason, this new set begins with a special announcement by Whoopi Goldberg explaining what it is we're not meant to find funny: ''Unfortunately at that time racial and ethnic differences were caricatured in ways that may have embarrassed and even hurt people of color, women and ethnic groups,'' she tells us sternly. ''These jokes were wrong then and they're wrong today'' -- unlike, say, Whoopi Goldberg's most memorable joke of recent years, the one at that 2004 all-star Democratic Party gala in New York where she compared President Bush to her, um, private parts. There's a gag for the ages.

I don't know what Whoopi's making such a meal about. It's true you don't see many positive images of people of color on ''Looney Tunes,'' but then the images of people of non-color aren't terribly positive either (Elmer Fudd, Yosemite Sam). Instead, you see positive images of ducks of color, roadrunners of color and tweety birds of color. How weirdly reductive to be so obsessed about something so peripheral to these cartoons that you stick the same damn Whoopi Goldberg health warning on all four DVDs in the box. And don't think about hitting the "Next" button and skipping to the cartoons: You can't; you gotta sit through it.

From Lileks:

Picked up my "Looney Tunes vol. 3," and was very excited. Finally: a chance to see if "Hillbilly Hare" was as funny as I recalled. I hadn't seen it in ten years - used to come around once every few months in the morning Warner Brothers cartoon show in DC. (I would get up, check local Fox TV - the best morning show at the time - then move directly to Looney Tunes.) I put in the disc and was instantly horrified to see Whoopie Goldberg enter the frame, looking like a character cut from "Battlefield Earth." She brings with her a strange set of implications: in another dimension, people think she is funny, but in private even those people do not think she is funny, but they do not dwell on the matter. Apparently to us yokels her presence is meant to indicate the presence, or at least the imminence, of hilarity. She warns us about the cartoons we are soon to behold. Warns us! It seems - odd as this may sound - they had many unexamined casual racial stereotypes back then, and these images found their way into cartoons. These jokes "hurt people of color, women and ethnic groups." Somehow I doubt stupid barefoot idiot hillbillies are an ethnic group. But they're mercilessly mocked - not only for their appearance or lack of intelligence, but their inability to resist the instructions of a rabbit whose square-dancing calls have the force of law.

I suppose that "person who thinks that Looney Tunes cartoons need to come with political warnings" is as good a definition for "liberal" as any.

Or as Maya would say: "Crispedly. Crunchity. Butterfinger."

Or was that Deepak?