Saturday, February 22
An extra 150 United States troops are expected to arrive shortly in Colombia to bolster a rescue mission for three Americans being held hostage by FARC rebels.The US has been slowly increasing its presence in Colombia for some time, especially since the Pastrana-initiated (the Colombian president from 1998-2002) "Plan Colombia." The combination of the narcotics problem, the stated policy of the Uribe administration to pursue a policy of confrontation, and the recent evidence of IRA-linkages to the FARC are all likely to continue to increase direct US military involvement in Colombia.
I study Colombia for a living (amongst other areas of interest) and actually find this current move to be somewhat surprising. The US troops currently in Colombia are there to train the Colombian military, and are not allowed to engage in combat. I am not suggesting that this will lead to direct engagement, but even the use of US troops for search-and-rescue is a fairly significant event.
Friday, February 21
President Saddam Hussein's government, apparently emboldened by antiwar sentiment at the U.N. Security Council and in worldwide street protests, has not followed through on its promises of increased cooperation with U.N. arms inspectors, according to inspectors in Iraq.
and I'm shocked!
One U.N. official here said that since Friday's Security Council meeting, "we have not seen any positive moves on the part of Iraq." Another charged, "They are not fulfilling their promises."
All from Thursday's WaPo
The legal source is the French press law of 1881, which hasn't applied in some time, but still...
the Sun risked a $48,000 fine by publishing a special French edition, which blasted Chirac as a "worm" on its front cover. France's "insult laws" make it a criminal offense to disparage the president (from Slate).
Although come to think of it, if we passed such a law in the US, then the anti-war protestors, who have been piling on Dubya, could easy foot the bill for the deficit.
Thursday, February 20
Wednesday, February 19
In 1991 there was a clear race not to be the guy to lose to a popular incumbent, as Forty-One was in the stratosphere popularity-wise in early 1991. The exit (indeed, the lack of entrance) of any of the Dems' first string let then B-team player Governor William Jefferson Clinton of Arkansas find his way into the nomination (lest we forget, in 1991 Clinton was considered an up-and-comer for the Dems, but he was by no means considered a heavy hitter). Of course, many of the Democrats had to be cursing themselves by mid-1992, when it became clear that they had given up the chance, perhaps the best chance of their careers, to become President. None predicted (nor could they have), Forty-One’s precipitous tumble in the polls, or the Perot factor.
So, it is not surprising that in 2003, the response is quite different. Rather than be swayed by Forty-Three’s high popularity numbers late last year/into this year, or even the possibility that a successful war will be to his benefit, the strategic decision has clearly been made not to make the mistake of 1991. Better to start a run now, and pull out later, than to never run and find out an opportunity was lost. As a result, there is already a remarkably crowded field, and it looks like it may get even more crowded (Wesley Clark? Bob Graham? Christopher Dodd? The entire cast of River Dance?).
At any rate, the 2004 electoral cycle is therefore playing out as an inversion of the 1992 cycle. I will go on to predict that the outcome will also be the reverse, as at this point I believe that Forty-Three will outdo Forty-One and win re-election.
I believe that the most likely scenario over the next year or so runs like this: we have a successful engagement with Iraq. As a result of said action, gas prices will start to come down, as the newly freed Iraqis will be allowed to sell their oil on open markets (plus, the Venezuela situation will likely have calmed down some more by then). The removal of the unease associated with the uncertainty over the war will have a positive effect on the stock market, which will have commensurate effects (some real, some psychological) on the rest of the economy. Indeed, Greenspan pointed out last week that there is a good deal of pent-up potential in this economy that is waiting for a good reason to bust forth.
As a result, the President will be in excellent shape going into 2004, and the first string Dems will find themselves in the same position as in 1992: sitting at home after election day, but this time will have had to pay for the privilege by actually running.
It will be interesting to see (if the war is successful) how many of the Hopefuls decide that the result of their Exploratory Committees will be a decision not to run, as the basic result should be known in a few months.
Indeed, the sad truth for the Dems is that their best shot at winning in 2004 is that if something bad (indeed, something really bad) happens: disaster in Iraq, the deterioration of the economy, or another massive terror attack. Their current lack of a positive message is a serious problem for their party. I don't see this as beyond their control (in that they have no choice but to be negative), but as an indictment of the current state of the policy. They are lost.
Well, that’s my analysis, and I’m stickin’ to it (at least until I have new data!)
"Hussein will be given 'a last chance to comply before he gets clobbered,' The New York Times on Monday quoted an unidentified U.S. official as saying."--CNN.com, Jan. 27, 1998Really--how can anyone take seriously the charge that more time is needed for this process to work? If one is oppossed to war in principle (i.e., war is bad), then say so.
"Annan Admits Iraq Trip Could Be Last Chance for Peace"--CNN.com, Feb. 18, 1998
"Clinton: Iraq Has Abused Its Last Chance"--CNN.com, Dec. 16, 1998
"The White House suggested Wednesday that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has missed his 'last chance' to disarm."--CNN.com, Dec. 18, 2002
"Future European Union members endorsed a joint declaration Tuesday warning Saddam Hussein he has one last chance to disarm."--Associated Press, Feb. 18, 2003
Czech Foreign Minister Cyril Svoboda said in a retort to Mr Chirac: "We are not joining the EU so we can sit and shut up."and
"In the European family there are no mummies, no daddies and no kids - it is a family of equals," said Polish Foreign Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz.
Tuesday, February 18
Speaking of Joe M.--how depressing is it that the finale of the series was one of the most-watched shows of all time (according to Drudge's current headline)?
Clearly, the French believe that the best way to counter the United States is to alienate everyone.
And you have to love this: Chirac called the letters "infantile" and "dangerous," adding: "They missed a great opportunity to shut up."
Monday, February 17
Offered a choice of three reasons to best explain why they opposed going to war, 76 percent of the anti-war camp said they "dislike they way the United States is behaving in the crisis"..
Just nine percent said the were mainly against military action because Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was not a threat to international security and 13 percent chose to explain their view by saying the crisis did not affect France's interests.
Utterly remarkable--nothing like using spite to make foreign policy. (Thanks to ScrappleFace for bringing the poll to my attention).
Sunday, February 16
Fear, I have observed, would induce men to shun one another; but the marks of this fear being reciprocal, would soon engage them to associate.In other words, peace and human relations arise, at least partially, out of the mutual fear humans feel for one another. This particular philosophical point of view (which differs radically from Hobbes) struck me as amusing in the current conversation of French diplomacy, and their historical propensities to surrender and appease.
I am not acussing Montesquieu of being the Father of French Diplomacy, but nonetheless thought the passage ironic and highly entertaining.
Their actions in NATO mirror this behavior and consequence.