His first suggestion -- the more palatable one -- is "Stability First."

In which he suggests we drop efforts to create a democracy in Iraq, and negotiate with "insurgents" and Syria and Iran to create this "stability."

I'm not especially big on democracy-- if it has to go, so be it. But what, precisely, does appeasing Al Qaeda have to do with that?

If we're going to dump democracy, why not create a vicious, authoritatrian, torturing-and-assassinating regime which we like and let it rule thuggishly over the country as Saddam did, only this time, the Sunnis would be the ones to be ethnically cleansed and murdered?

I don't see the linkage here.

James Baker is a 1) a foreign policy Kissingerian realist 2) an Arabist and 3) a long-time (quiet) opponent of the war.

So, take his recommendations -- 1, declare the war a failure and concede the country to terrorists, or 2, declare the war a failure and concede the country to terrorists -- with a grain of salt.

Put me, should it come to it, in the "we had to destroy the village in order to save it camp." Should the Sunni terrorists and Sadrists and Al Qaeda terrorists really begin to win widespread popular support, well, they chose their own fate. I'd rather see Iraq decimated and de-industrialized by serious bombing than have it become an Al Qaeda haven.

Push comes to shove, we're not for full, unlimited "self-determination." To an extent, yes. But if the Iraqis, or Afganis, chose to align with the terrorists -- the One No of US policy -- that is simply a dealbreaker and not something we can go along with peacefully.

We're not for "peace" with Al Qaeda, or Muslim terrorists generally. We can have "peace" anytime we want-- by surrendering to them (and surrendering, and surrendering, and surrendering -- because their demands will expand, not diminish). James Baker led a team of graybeard wisemen to tell us we can have "peace" the way we've always known we can have "peace" -- by simply learning to "coexist" with Al Qaeda.

No sale, James. You've been peddling this sort of foreign policy wisdom your whole career.

"Fuck the Jews. They didn't vote for us." -- James Baker, ca. the late 80's/early 90's

Posted by: Ace at 02:30 PM | Comments (65)
Post contains 414 words, total size 3 kb.

Neither surprising nor particularly unwelcome. The Nobel Peace Prize has a long tradition of honoring those who bravely speak in favor of tyrants, murderers, war criminals, and loathsome thugs.

Good to see the fine tradition continues.

It's amusing that the nitwits of Europe continue believing they can tweak us with such obligatory maneuvers, not realizing that we long ago stopped giving a rat's ass what they thought.

Now we just think it's kind of sadly amusing.

This cushions the blow, fortunately, of Mother Peace not being selected as a finalist for Jenny Craig spokeswoman.

I think she made the right choice. Between helping prop up vicious goons like Hugo Chavez and losing those last few stubborn 40 "vanity pounds" in her belly, it's more important to support the goons.

It's also nice to see the Nobel committee is finally honoring a retard.

Posted by: Ace at 02:16 PM | Comments (98)
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

It's not so much the Muslim religion as the jihad, perverse conspiracy-theorizing and scape-goating excuse-making and utter lack of introspection, violent xenophobia, and cultural insecurity which breeds in turn an extreme aggression in forcing that culture on unwilling outsiders.

For years, those who raised their voices were mostly on the far right. Now those normally seen as moderates - ordinary people as well as politicians - are asking whether once unquestioned values of tolerance and multiculturalism should have limits.

The religion itself is conducive to the sickness of the Muslim world, with its talk of violent and jihad and beheading "polytheists" and Jews, but the real problem is the extrme civilizational insecurity and resultant overcompensation of the Muslim world, which would be laughable were it not simultaneously heartbreakingly pathetic and terrifying.

There is a model for cultural progress and prosperity and peace, and it has worked damn near every time it's been tried. But the Muslim world's coupled extreme insecurity and irrational arrogance -- two things that go together with predictable frequency -- rejects any way except a "Muslim" way, and there are, as of yet, no uniquely or exclusively "Muslim ways" which result in decent and prosperous and peaceful society.

The wheel is available to them, but cultural/racial/religious pride compells them to reinvent it anyway, while eschewing the "polytheistic" circular design that seems to work.

They will continue attempting uniquely Muslim designs -- the square wheel, the triangular wheel, the wheel which is actually just a two-by-four nailed to an axle -- with predictable results. And of course they will continue blaming Jews for their failures.

Thanks to Larwyn.

Posted by: Ace at 02:04 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

NYT link, so here's the skinny. "Experts" (whatever) argue plausibly that the Norks seek nukes not to blackmail the West, but because they are accutely aware their conventional military will be quickly decimated in a conventional war.

The military in North Korea is by far the largest consumer of the countryÂ’s scarce resources. But even so, its combat jet pilots get only about two hours of flying time a month, its soldiers sometimes have to grow their own food, and much of its equipment is old and outclassed by that of its neighbors. According to South Korean and Western experts, if a conventional war breaks out on the Korean Peninsula, the best the North Korean military could manage would be to fight to a bloody stalemate.

It is the deep insecurity born of these shortcomings, the experts say, and not any desire to grab attention or gain leverage, that drove President Kim Jong-ilÂ’s decision to defy international warnings and declare this week that his country had tested a nuclear weapon.

“I think North Korea wants an effective deterrent against the U.S. in case of war on the Korean peninsula,” said Park Yong Ok, a former lieutenant general in the South Korean army who served as vice minister for defense in the late 1990’s. “Kim Jong Il wants a nuclear weapon at hand. It’s not a bargaining chip.”

Although the North has an active army of more than one million soldiers — an immense number for a country of 23 million people — its poor and outdated equipment and huge difficulties in maintaining combat readiness mean it is outgunned by the smaller forces of South Korea and the United States troops stationed in the South.

Until now, North KoreaÂ’s main deterrent against attack has been the 8,000 artillery pieces and 2,000 tanks it has positioned close to the demilitarized zone that separates North and South. Many of the guns have ranges long enough to reach Seoul, a city of 10.3 million people, and can fire chemical-weapon shells.

But military officials and analysts interviewed today said that the North closely watched conflicts elsewhere in the world, particularly the invasions of Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and saw that masses of tanks and artillery could be neutralized with ease by superior American military technology. So, methodically but with growing nervousness, the Communist regime sought a new trump card to maintain the security standoff on the peninsula.

“It’s a large army, but the equipment is old,” said a Western military attaché based in Seoul, who did not want to be quoted by name because he was not authorized to speak for his government on the matter. “I think the caliber of the army is not that great anymore. Kim has to look at other means for protection.”

The attaché said it was unlikely that the Mr. Kim would now bargain his nuclear arms away. “He might talk, but not to hand over that capability,” he said. “It’s his security blanket.”

I grow weary of Democrats calling for "diplomacy." Diplomacy is only effective if two parties genuinely seek similar goals and simply need to concede lesser points to one another to reach an agreement, or if "diplomacy" is really simply a naked threat backed up by the promise of military force.

The Norks simply have an entirely different agenda than we do. They want to continue running their Gulag State, and maybe conquer the south at some point (dare to dream); everyone except Russia and China would like to see that gulag closed down at some point.

"Diplomacy" cannot bridge the plainly incompatible goals here.

John Kerry continually claims we should have gotten "our allies" involved in Iraq, ignoring the fact that "our allies," such as France and Russia, wanted to keep Saddam in power and, barring that, wanted us to fail in Iraq. It was, and remains, in their national interest to see America weakened and pinned down.

How can "diplomacy" overcome such a chasm? Some glad-handling and charm is going to cause the French and Russians to act against their own national self-interest?

Bush has pretty much taken "diplomacy" as far as it can go. Hopefully now come punitive measures.

Counterpoint... From the Herald UK, which claims attacking North Korea is "not feasible."

Because they're "dug in," protected by "rock and concrete and steel" in the mountains, and that nothing short of nukes can blast them out.

I rather doubt that. For one thing, a fuel-air munition or thermobaric bomb can suffocate such folks, no matter how well dug-in, right? And missiles are getting pretty damn good at flying in right through the window.

Guns have to poke out of a hole, or else they're not guns.

For another thing, the bulk of the Nork force is massed right on the border. If 10% of the Norks' guns and rocket emplacements are too hard to get at, 90% aren't hard to destroy at all.

Via Hot Air, which notes that the sanctions against North Korea have been watered down, thanks to, of course, Russia and China. But watered down is not piss, either.

Posted by: Ace at 01:53 PM | Comments (41)
Post contains 868 words, total size 6 kb.

Guess it's just a matter of which party is endorsing torture, huh?

I have to say that Hillary just became more acceptable to me as a President than John F'n' McCain.

(Actually, Hillary! seemed to double-talk on the issue a bit. But it seems correct to say that she's in favor of "severity," as she calls it, so long as 1) it's lawfully authorized and 2) she can claim Bush acted unlawfully and can bash him on ticky-tack procedural grounds.)

And Andi swoons.

Posted by: Ace at 01:02 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

Striking distance.

The economy's good. Gas prices are down. The deficit has been halved three years' ahead of Bush's schedule (which the liberals mocked as a fantasy; now they claim it was easy and inevitable).

And yet... we're all acting as if the liberal critique of Republcians -- the GOP has destroyed the nation -- is, essentially, true.

What the fuck happened to the Delta I used to know?

It's time for a futile and stupid gesture to be done on someone's part -- like voting straight-ticket GOP.

(Except if Chafee's on the ticket.)

Posted by: Ace at 11:41 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

At the Malcontent.

Hot Air has a shorter version too, but is more bound by those pesky fair-use rules.

The episode was okay, but didn't really savage the Truthers the way they've savaged the Mormons and the Scientologists. Why go so easy on them? Sure, they call them retarded a lot, but they also feature a character walking around with the main Truther URL for half the episode.

I was left wondering if either Stone or Parker actually believes, partly, in the most moronic conspiracy theory ever postulated, and the script was a compromise between them.

Also, alas -- not enough Cartman. Or even Butters. It's just a fact that the show suffers ever minute Cartman isn't on screen. They can't overuse him, but episodes where they hold back on Cartman are just not, what's the word?, all that good. Cartman has a bit part here; the show is about Stan and Kyle.

Watching it again, I liked it a bit better the second time, but still not a stand-out, and I'm still disappointed they didn't give the Truthers "This is what they actually believe" treatment.

I guess, though, the Truthers don't really agree on what they "really believe," though, believing in multiple contradictory "facts" simultaneously, so it's harder to pin them down.

Posted by: Ace at 11:33 AM | Comments (38)
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

The reasons offered, usually, are immigration, overspending, corruption, and general political ineptness.

But I wonder about that. At least, I wonder about the first three.

One that's not mentioned as frequently is the War in Iraq. Which I think is more of a factor in conservative disatisfaction that many conservative war-supporters are willing to admit, perhaps even to themselves. more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:57 AM | Comments (121)
Post contains 858 words, total size 5 kb.

Pretty even split between the three. All are rated about the same level of acceptability, and Giuliani edges the others as a first choice.

McCain has a 44% net unacceptability rating.

Everyone knows I'm a Giuliani guy, but I like Romney too (as do many, it seems) as well as Gingrich (ditto, though I wonder if he really has a shot).

But the results do suggest a possilbe way for Guiliani to win: Romney and Gingrich's social-con credentials are pretty strong, and both are acceptable and legitimate candidates. Although there's been talk that Giuilini and McCain would split the social moderate vote, and thus guarantee a social-con candidate winning the nomination, it seems possible that Romney and Gingrich could split the social-con vote, and make Giuliani a winner.

That still requires him to actually become a social moderate at some point, rather than a social liberal, as he is now. There's no way an unreformed social liberal wins the Republican nomination.

Of course, the results are even better for Romney, aren't they? He doesn't have Guiliani's or Gingrich's name-recognintion yet, but he competes with them easily, and he doesn't have either of those men's political or personal baggage (divorce, etc.).

Meanwhile... Mark Warner drops out of a race he could have won. To, yes, spend more time with his family.

Uh-huh.

Posted by: Ace at 10:27 AM | Comments (56)
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

Be a damn shame if anybody got their work done today.

Posted by: LauraW. at 08:34 AM | Comments (127)
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.