Miscellaneous Matters

Foreign Policy magazine has entered the new year with a profusion of new blogs by experts, writers and journalists on their site. Journalist Laura Rozen (War and Peace) has a new blog at Foreign Policy called The Cable. She will be reporting on national security and foreign affairs news at The Cable and already has three posts discussing what she is hearing from her contacts regarding those who are likely to be appointed to senior positions in the State Department, National Security Council, and both. Other new blogs at Foreign Policy include those of former Washington Post journalist Tom Ricks, Tufts University professor and blogger Dan Drezner, Harvard University professor Stephen Walt, GWU professor Marc Lynch, and several others. One of the other blogs is Madam Secretary by FP Editor Carolyn O'Hara. All in all, an interesting collection. (A suggestion to the Foreign Policy editorial team: With such a profusion of blogs, it is difficult and time consuming to read all of them separately (through a dozen separate clicks) - you might increase your traffic and retain your readership even more effectively if you have a single group blog view that automatically integrates the posts from all of the individual blogs. It's much easier to bookmark one blog and read all your contributors than bookmark a dozen or so separate blogs.)

A quick thought - prompted by today's front page Washington Post article quoting anonymous CIA officials who seem Deeply Troubled^TM by President-Elect Sen. Obama's pick for CIA chief (DCI) Leon Panetta and the veiled threat from "several" Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Committee (yeah, that one) Democrats who apparently made clear that "they expect CIA Deputy Director Stephen R. Kappes and Intelligence Director Michael Morell, the agency's No. 3 official, to be retained for continuity and experience". Let me say for the record that I personally think Leon Panetta might in fact be a good DCI. While I have some questions about how he would handle intelligence matters, I feel a bit reassured knowing that Scott Horton is pleased both with the Panetta pick for DCI as well as the Blair pick for DNI. Horton says he highly respects the view of Milt Bearden, who is quoted by Laura at The Cable (emphasis mine):

Retired CIA deputy director for the East Europe division Milt Bearden said Panetta is a "brilliant" choice. "It is not problematic that Panetta lacks experience in intelligence," Bearden e-mailed. "Intel experience is overrated. Good judgement, common sense, and an understanding of Washington is a far better mix to take to Langley than the presumption of experience in intelligence matters. Having a civilian in the intelligence community mix is, likewise, a useful balance. Why not DNI?"

Makes sense to me. (Former senior CIA official Paul Pillar is also quoted by Laura and he seems a bit disappointed that Michael Hayden won't continue as DCI, but there are others cited in her blog post who are fine with the pick).

Since we're talking about nominees, let me add that I've been pleasantly surprised by some of President-Elect Obama's cabinet appointments so far. Many are truly outstanding (including his nominee for heading the very important Office of Legal Counsel - which partly mitigates my concern over Obama's personal friend Eric Holder, a very good nominee as far as I can tell, being his pick for Attorney General) and others are pretty good. On balance, I don't have any major concerns with his nominees and this makes me cautiously optimistic that he is setting the stage for sound public policy. Also, his picks seem to be fairly consistent with how he said he would govern.

Open Thread

My two cents: Leon Panetta was my representative when I lived in Santa Cruz and I was always impressed with his deep integrity and his smarts. He was one of the few Republicans working for the Nixon administration who resigned for principle rather than support Nixon's divisive policies. Then Panetta switched to the Democratic Party and we in Santa Cruz were grateful as we gained an excellent representative.

It was Leon Panetta who convinced George H.W. Bush that the large deficit (for that time) needed to be addressed and thus GHWB signed on to the bipartisan tax increase that kept us out of debtor hell in the early 1990s. At that time we had the savings and loan bail out and Papa Bush's little wars to pay for. Unfortunately, the only thing George Jr learned was huge deficits are okay as long as you minimize taxes on the wealthy.

Panetta is one person who I believe has the capability to make the CIA the agency we can depend on for our intelligence needs without perverting our democratic values.

What's up?

Screw Feinstein

One of the good things writing for a blog like this one is the freedom to disagree with the Executive Editor and tell him when he's full of sh*t.

So DiFi and Jay Rockefeller have their noses out of bent because Obama didn't consult with them before it leaked (by Capitol Hill sources apparently) that he was going to select Leon Panetta for CIA director.

Who the f*ck cares what DiFi and Rockefeller think at all about national intelligence? Both of these traitors have enabled every illegal thing that Bush has done these last eight years, ranging from the Geneva Convention war crimes and CIA interrogation and rendition policies, to the FISA gutting and domestic spying illegalities. Both have sat by, gotten briefings, and allowed it all to happen, and are just as guilty of treason as the administration is. And I'm now supposed to care that DiFi thinks that Panetta is a bad choice?

The truth is that Obama is bringing in a fresh set of players at CIA, National Intelligence, and at Justice to clean up this mess, and that means rats like Feinstein and Rockefeller should sweat. So should those at the Agency who saluted and went along with war crimes and the trashing of the Constitution. I hope Panetta and the new team at Justice make DiFi squirm and throw it back in her face, and remind her that she could be next.

So do I care that Obama sent a message that DiFi can go pound sand on intelligence issues these next eight years? Yes. I love it.

And DiFi and Jay Rockefeller can go to hell. If the pick is OK with Russ Feingold, and if DiFi is unhappy that Ron Wyden knew about it and not her, she should get the message: your enabling of criminal activity has a price.

And thanks again Steve for letting me disagree with you.

P. S. - And while we're on the subject of stupid Democrats, for God's sake Harry Reid, get off your clueless ass and seat Mr. Burris from Illinois. You have no legal reason to stop him from taking Obama's slot, since he was appointed legally by a governor who has yet to be impeached or removed from office.

Developing A Framework to Understand and Develop Working Solutions to Major Conflicts: The Case of Mizoram (India) - Part 1

As I explained in the Introduction, the objective of this series is to develop a simplified, generic framework to discuss major conflicts - including their root causes, the conditions under which they continue and the conditions under which they could be resolved successfully in the long term. The example I will use to develop this framework is the violent secessionary conflict in the Indian state of Mizoram that lasted roughly two decades before Mizoram became the 23rd state of India in 1986. The focus of this post is to highlight the origins of the Mizo struggle - the main trigger and the additional, exacerbating factors that eventually ignited the violent conflict between the Mizo National Front (MNF) and the Indian Government in 1966. (I've collected all references at the end of the post; all emphasis in this post is mine.)

A. Preface

First, a brief refresher on Mizoram itself so that we have some context for the rest of the discussion. As I pointed out in the Introduction, Mizoram is a beautiful, lightly populated, hilly state in eastern India whose economy is largely agrarian and whose climate is temperate. It is one of India's three states (all in the eastern part) where Christians form the majority of the population (~87%  in Mizoram) - the other two being Meghalaya and Nagaland. The main language of the region is Mizo (Tibeto-Burman, with many dialects) although English is used commonly. Most Mizos (translation "highlanders") are believed to be descendants of tribes of immigrants originally from China, and possibly Mongolia, but are reasonably integrated into India today. Interestingly, a large number of Jewish Mizos also claim to be descendants of one of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Modern Mizoram was originally known as Lushai Hills or Mizo Hills and was located geographically inside what was then the state of Assam (in British India). As this map shows, its presence at the southern tip of the eastern (often referred to as the north-eastern) frontier of India resulted in ~75% [1] of modern Mizoram's state boundary being shared with two foreign countries - Myanmar/Burma in the East/South-East and Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) in the West/South-West.

B. After India's Independence (1947-1960)

In the 1800s, the British had expelled a Burmese king from Assam and integrated Assam into British India [2,3]. During the extended British rule of India, the villages of the Mizo Hills continued to be dominated by their tribal chieftains. Over time, there was broad disillusionment with the essentially dictatorial model of governance by the chieftains and in the 1940s, a political party called the Mizo Union emerged to oppose the dominance of the chieftains and to demand democratic rule [1,4]. After Indian independence from the British in 1947, the Sixth Schedule of the Indian constitution - "Provisions as to the Administration of Tribal Areas in the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram" [5] - provided more autonomy and democracy to areas such as Mizoram by creating District and Regional Councils which would include elected representatives to govern the districts and the regions within (Mizoram being a District in Assam at that time). These changes were initially welcomed by the average Mizo, especially the Mizo Union political party, which had aligned itself with the Indian National Congress at the national level and against chieftainship.

Coupla Things

I do not wait well, as my readers know, and I’m much busier at work than I expected to be, so I have just a few general observations this morning before I scurry off. I do wish I had waited on that work from yesterday, I’m sure Dr. Chu is a nice man who tries hard, but with the price of oil in a graph splat and so much else to do Energy will slide to the back burner on the DC agenda, it’s inevitable and creases me sideways, we have to move on this.

/* Wev.¹ Gratitude is a blessed thing, so thank you twice, Bob Herbert, for so masterfully hitting home the utter futility of Afghanistan but much more importantly adding the human element of lost American lives, which amazingly and tragically are somehow usually never part of the discussion. I’m simply bewildered by this entire filthy war that has no end or purpose, how our people are blithely tossed to the worst of human fates with no thought or mention at all.

Open Thread - Obama's Stumbles

Simply put, I am appalled at the news that Obama has selected Leon Panetta to head the CIA. The Obama team selected Panetta without consulting any of the congressional Democrats leading the intelligence committees, perhaps wanting to avoid a leak. Yet the choice itself of a political manager who knows zip about the world of intelligence reeks of a White House that wants control of the apparatus through a master beancounter. This is far less desirable than redirecting the Agency's policies and improving its morale by appointing a capable veteran like Stephen Kappes.

Second, I am equally appalled to see the Obama team try and blame Bill Richardson for underestimating his exposure from a grand jury investigation first reported back in August, the details of which would have been unknown to him. Team Obama is now smoothly throwing Richardson under the bus for their own vetting process and willingness to nominate someone possibly tied to a public and active grand jury investigation. But then, they got what they wanted from Richardson: a Hillary supporter who turned against her, a national Latino political supporter who delivered a key state, who never got the job he really wanted (Secretary of State) and is now not getting any job at all.

OK, your turn.

Developing A Framework to Understand and Develop Working Solutions to Major Conflicts: The Case of Mizoram (India) - Introduction

With the impending Obama Presidency, my primary goal in the near-term is going to be to return to my main interest - public policy. There are three broad areas of public policy that interest me the most - foreign policy, energy/environment and economics. Given the recent terrorist attacks in India and the ensuing tensions between India and Pakistan, and the Israel/Hamas conflict in and around the Gaza strip, my blogging focus over the next few months is largely going to be foreign policy. I can't claim to be an expert in any of these areas, but I would like to see more Americans take a deeper interest in understanding conflicts (beyond the predictable sound-bites on radio, TV and even on the web sometimes) - so, I am going to utilize this opportunity to use an example from the past to try and develop a simplified, generic framework for us to think about and discuss conflicts - their root causes, the conditions under which conflicts continue and the conditions under which they might be resolved successfully in the long term.

In my view, doing this is important for a couple of reasons. First, we have a natural tendency as humans to respond to ongoing conflicts largely through the lenses of firmly-held past perspectives, to focus more on the (in)appropriateness of the current actions in the conflicts and, in some ways, feel helpless that we are unable to solve the problem in a manner that seems just and fair to us. This could result in more entrenched views and distance us even more from what it might take to seek truly transformative solutions. Second, a focus on the present could lead to significant tensions and misunderstandings, even between friends who might have strong disagreements over the conflict, and could result in a lost opportunity to continuously and unstintingly engage everyone at the level of workable ideas and long-term solutions to the conflict. History suggests that major conflicts are rarely resolved through piecemeal approaches and restricted avenues of thought. To think "big" requires that we consider the multi-dimensional nature of each problem that needs to be solved and about related and unrelated historical precedents, and then develop a simplified, generic framework to look at each conflict with a lens that is wide enough to ensure that we have a reasonable shot at developing a lasting solution.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com has been writing some thought-provoking posts on the topic of Israel/Palestine. In one of the posts he said (emphasis mine, throughout this post):

Where’s the Energy Plan?

It’s been a well-known public polling fact for a long time that Americans absolutely loathe the concepts of energy “dependence” or “addiction,” for very good reasons, obviously, so it’s been amusing over the years to see energy lobby and public policy language constantly dance around this little problem. LithiumCola of Daily Kos is correct, McClatchy does have a cool graphic of the Obama cabinet, but earnest Americans looking for change for won’t find it at the Department of Energy slot there.

“We will now have an energy policy that can mean the US will have a chance at obtaining energy self-sufficiency.”

Open Thread

Funny how tax cuts seem to be the ultimate answer to everyone's problems. I hope the news reports are wrong, because we really don't have the time and there isn't enough money to waste our stimulus dollars on a fantasy that will never pan out.

Your turn.

A Matter of Sematics

Paul Krugman is worried that the economic situation is liable to get much, much worse because the politicians are not taking the need for a substantial stimulus package seriously enough and he warns that what could follow is a depression.

This ties right into a couple of other pieces I read today: one from the Economist which defined the difference between a recession and a depression and another via Calculated Risk where Janet Yellin notes the situation we are in is not a garden-variety recession and stronger measures are needed to avoid a depression.

The Economist writes that one way to look at the difference between recessions and depressions is to look at what triggered the problem. Standard recessions are caused by tightening monetary policy for managing inflationary incidents (such as the situation the US faced when Volker raised interest rates to snuff out the double digit stagflation) and "a depression is the result of a bursting asset and credit bubble, a contraction in credit, and a decline in the general price level."

In the Yard // Open Thread Continued

We have a beautifully clear, cold dawn in the Bay Area this morning and very soon I will be laboring in my roses all day. I’ve been neglecting them in this time of holidays and rest, but it’s time to get scratched and sore in the cold, today is no day for political writing.

This is a particularly difficult time, waiting for the worst of all time to leave while fresh crises erupt every week with nothing to do but worry for our people. Personally, at least, I’m in no shape to stew with it all day, I need to labor, it really doesn’t matter what it is.

Please be well, Left Coasters, dawn just broke through the windows and I belong elsewhere.

Open Thread

Back in January 2003, Bill Keller wrote that George W Bush had big ambitions to unleash a conservative era making him worthy of being Ronald Reagan's son.

What is Bush's morning in America? He clearly has the instinct to do big things, and barring some failure of leadership -- a serious misadventure abroad, a corroding economy -- he has the license. What does America look like if he succeeds?

Two years ago the question would have seemed ridiculous. We knew America had to be governed from the center. That was the lesson of Bill Clinton's popularity, it was the constraint imposed by a divided electorate and in Bush's case it was the price of a minority victory. Bush had no mandate. But Bush, like Reagan, seems to believe that presidents make their own mandates.

What Bush is striving for, on the evidence of the choices he has made so far, is bold in its ambition: markets unleashed, resources exploited. A progressive tax system leveled, a country unashamed of wealth. Government entitlements gradually replaced by thrift, self-reliance and private good will. The safety net strung closer to the ground. Government itself infused with, in some cases supplanted by, the efficiency and accountability of a well-run corporation. A court system dedicated to protecting property and private enterprise and enforcing individual responsibility. A global common market that hums to the tune of American productivity. In the world, America rampant -- unfettered by international law, unflinching when challenged, unmatchable in its might, more interested in being respected than in being loved.

If he fails, my guess is that it will be a failure not of caution but of overreaching, which means it will be failure on a grand scale. If he succeeds, he will move us toward an America Ronald Reagan would have been happy to call his own.

Six years later it is stunningly clear that he failed on a grand scale. Such a monumental achievement from someone who, as Frank Rich notes, is smaller than life. The only good that came of his failure is he took down the Radical conservatives with him. Now it's time to clean the Augean Stables left in his wake.

Your turn now.

The Cheese is Back

In these carefree times of 2009, such times of prancing nonchalance, not only has the US Manufacturing Index cliff-dived but commodity prices have too--crude oil has been on a dive none of us will likely see again--and the dreaded dairy price subsidies have kicked in now that milk, butter and cheese prices have been in their own graph splats.

Powdered milk is the first to officially be stored and stamped under the Uncle Sam brand now, but butter and cheese will very soon be stored in stupefying quantities, this little dairy bailout game has been going on for a long time and a mere $350 billion for the banking industry isn’t going to stop it, no way.

Open Thread

Animated Aurora Borealis from space by Astronaut Don Petitt.

From DotEarth.com via The Big Picture

California Turns to the Mob

I took a three day break to try and calm a badly jangled political soul but, as we all know, current events have not cooperated. Not 24 hours after baby Jesus day the Israelis went berserk with American-made ordnance, and then Blagojevich tossed a political grenade to produce a scenario where Harry Reid is ever known to actually possess testicles: knifing another Democrat. Appalling year-end market numbers came in with Depression scope, while even the most tectonically patient souls have become angrily disgusted with how long it takes to get that felon out of the White House. Even the most sunnily optimistic among us are starting to wilt, but trust me, it isn’t you, this sucks.

Rankly creeping knowledge of what’s happened in California descended foggily December 27th, for the Legislature and Governor officially ate the worm, flipped out, passed the Rubicon, and in a confusing, contorted game of budget twister finally fell flat on their faces with incisor-projection splats of terminal failure, finally going the Mob for help. It’s impossible to simply report what happened but I will do my very best, but again, after all the confusion eventually settles down an irrevocable stamp of gloom will descend with a rattling finality to the most faithful among us, god damn it, this is bad.

Conservatives Alarmed At Seeing Liberals

This is the kind of story that should make you laugh out loud: conservatives are alarmed at the sight of liberals advising the incoming Obama administration. After eight years of doing everything to destroy the federal government, the Washington Post tells us that some conservatives are unhappy because liberals from the Clinton era are back inside the Beltway offering advice on policies and staff choices.

I have a two-word response to these conservatives: F*ck You, and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way back to Neanderthal Estates.

This is what happens when conservatives feel they have an entitlement to control the federal government and regulatory apparatus. Their candidate just ran on their platform and got his head handed to him by a centrist Democrat, who is allowing the broadest possible input into his policies and agenda, and still there are knuckle-dragging goons who are unhappy that Obama isn’t only listening to slugs like them.

Well slugs, let me clue you in: You lost, and so did your agenda and your policies.

You ran this country into the ground, wrecked Main Street, handed over the Treasury to Wall Street and the Caymans, and have allowed Osama Bin Laden to roam free while you enriched yourselves and your disaster capitalism fascist friends these last eight years. And now you express fake concern and outrage that Obama is allowing the other side of the political spectrum a chance to be heard more than you? You should be glad that the new Justice Department doesn’t come looking for you, because if I were the new AG, my foot would be in your asses and you’d be losing sleep every day the next four years wondering when someone would be knocking at your door with a subpoena.

But then, that’s just me.

Open Thread

In Paul Krugman's latest column he notes that one of the reasons the Republicans are in such a deep hole is the Southern Strategy was so successfully used by them until that's all they had left. I think Krugman makes an important point, but he has missed another aspect of the GOP problem which is they are so ideologically blinded they are unable to face reality. After all, conservative hostility to government is much older than the Southern Strategy. This strategy was just the latest manifestation of their goal to not let anyone get in the way of the rightful winners. Indeed, Thomas Frank found this quote from 1928 -- way back before the southern strategy was a gleam in Lee Atwater's eyes -- which expressed the same profound contempt for government as expressed by Grover Norquist and Karl Rove:

A thoroughly first-rate man in public service is corrosive. He eats holes in our liberties. The better he is and the longer he stays the greater the danger. if he is an enthusiast -- a bright-eyed madman who is frantic to make this the finest government in the world -- the black plague is a housepet by comparison.

Many of the failures in the Bush governance were not just because they were practicing racially divisive politics, although they were, but because they couldn't even see that their pet theories such as abstinence only sex education, business can regulate itself, you don't need evidence when your gut tells you it's true, etc, did not do well when exposed to reality. No wonder we are in such deep trouble.

What's on your radar?

WATB

Paul Krugman is looking for a word that can be used to define those like Alberto Gonzales who whine that they don't understand why they are being persecuted for doing the best they could under the circumstances. Billmon found another case of one who is just as hurt and confused about their new situation which methinks makes it more urgent that we find some way to nail down the personality type 'cause we'll be seeing a lot of it in the coming days.

I've got a suggestion: Atrios coined WATB to describe reactions of this sort.

What do you think?

Back To Work

An emotional, tough holiday season winds down for our family, and a new year beckons with opportunities to turn the page, reconnect with friends, and resume the good fight. Happy New Year to all of you, and may you and your families have a happy and healthy 2009. I also want to thank all of you who kindly expressed your thoughts to me over the passing of my father at the beginning of December - these condolences meant a great deal to me.

I wanted to weigh in with a short piece to follow up on the fine work by Eriposte on what lies ahead for the Obama administration after the train wreck left behind by Bush and his band of criminals. First, can we all just wait a bit in judging Barack Obama and his actions until, you know, he actually gets into office and can act upon his rhetoric? His cabinet choices were largely solid, although I can quibble with some of them (I wanted Montana governor Brian Schweitzer for Energy and yes, I would have been happy with someone other than Hillary for State - and there were better choices than Eric Holder for Justice).

But it's a little early for disdain already about his actions or lack thereof. The man hasn't taken office, doesn't have the machinery available to him yet, and will be left with a bag of burning manure on the doorstep of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue by the outgoing miscreants, most of whom should be indicted after Obama reverses the pardons handed out by a man who eventually should be awaiting trial at The Hague. Take another look at the speeches, the rhetoric of the final days of the campaign, and maintain your hope that Obama will still aim for most of it, before we conclude that he'll disappoint us.