Planet Abell

In this age of moral equivalence, your inner bad guy is relentlessly held against you — until I do the same thing. And then I get to say a) I am no worse than you, and b) You did it first. It's a push. So it is that GOP VP candidate Paul Ryan's fact-challenged convention speech is judged on one set of criteria, and his malapropisms on another. On the former, well, he's Romney's running mate, these are the campaign's talking points, and he's just doing his job — reinforcing the message sanctioned by the top half of the ticket. On the latter, well, those are just "Bidenisms." But then in what seemed like a relaxed moment Ryan inexplicably exaggerated his performance in a marathon some 20 years ago. Yes, one's memory does play tricks, but as these things go (especially for a P90X boot camp guy) claiming you ran a sub three-hour marathon when in fact it took you more than four hours (worse than Sarah Palin's PB, but I digress) takes a little...

The demonizing of Gen. David Petraeus was a dumb move(on.org ). We need to get to the crux of the matter: what Petraeus says is irrelevant, even if it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Bush is running this war. Going after even the enabler-in-chief is like wasting all your ammo on the countermeasures in a dogfight. The issue isn't whether the US military can kick open a lot of doors, or keep them shut. Indeed, the question is often how not to be as ruthless as the military could conceivably be, which is especially necessary in a war zone where most of the inhabitants are innocent civilians. The issue is whether the fighting is a means to a realizable end. There is no point in continuing to fight if there is no hope that the suppressing fire will be used by the Iraqis to move into position, to reconcile and build their own nation. The general cannot speak to this. Above his pay grade. Way above. So today is just a sideshow, as far as I am concerned.

E ven if there weren't so few platitudes left in the White House manual to engulf and devour public opinion on the Iraq War, a comparison -- any comparison -- by President Bush to Vietnam would seem loopy. Especially since Bush himself rejected that comparison not so long ago. Especially since books about the Vietnam War have titles like " The Making of a Quagmire ." Especially since, in a mere couple of generations, the country from which we cut and ran and left to be overrun by our enemy has emerged as a stable nation and trusted trading partner. Especially since when we stopped fighting over there the only people who followed us here were peace-seeking war refugees who have coalesced into one of the most quickly assimilated ethnic groups in this nation's history. Especially since someone so well versed in history might be expected not to start a war that could be compared to Vietnam. There is nothing left except desperate, mangled Vietnam War history lessons and h...

I'm getting more confused every day about what a way out of Iraq will look like. Is it any wonder? The president continues to say it is a vital national interest to engage Al-Queda in the chosen land of Iraq. We'll leave if Iraq asks us to, consequences notwithstanding. That's called respecting a sovereign state. We won't leave if Congress asks us to, consequences notwithstanding. That's called surrender. The administration is pinning its current hopes on the success of what it calls a "surge." This allegedly temporary increase in troop strength and activity is supposed to stabilize Baghdad enough to give the political processes a chance to work. The argument against a timetable is that it gives the enemy a date certain around which to plan. And the enemy wins either way: by increasing their activity now, they give ammunition to those who would call the "surge" a failure, and by retreating to fight again when the "surge" is over they ...

The untimely death of David Halberstam will, I hope, provide a peg for new discussion about the proper role of dissent against war. May only generals assert that a war cannot be won? Is it the troops, or is it the strategists who are being attacked when war policy is criticized? What are we to think of those who, during wartime, say that the war is wrong (when else is there an opportunity to do so)? A Pulitzer-Prize winning correspondent whose early Vietnam War despatches expressed a pessimism about the prospects of "success" that would not become the conventional wisdom for years, Halberstam would a decade after his reporting write a best seller about the long list of very smart men who thought that war had to be fought, and won. "The Best and the Brightest," published in 1972 as the war still raged on, chronicled the creeping dementia and paranoia of three administrations. By then, opposition to that war was widespread, as is opposition to the Iraq now. Hal...

I always look forward to the State of the Union and shortly after it begins forget why. The speeches themselves are well below the average hot convention speech or presidential address to the nation prompted by tragedy or political necessity, although President Clinton, with visible glee, used the forum in a traditional way to trot out wild and crazy ideas guaranteed to go nowhere. At least this one didn't begin with the tired boilerplate: "The State of the Union (is excellent! is superb! has never been better!). But Bush could not help himself from making an insider's jab as is his wont by referring to the "Democrat Party" -- which drives the Democrats nuts -- although published transcripts based on the released version says "Democratic Party." There is very little to dissect, but I can't help but think if Bush's next, and last, SotU will be any different. Iraq came up late in the speech, and wasn't mentioned in passing. As the NY Times rep...

It's tough to be wrong, but it's tougher to deny an obvious truth. I'm speaking of myself, of course, and my naive hopes that President Bush was just giving his opponents no satisfaction before deciding to reduce the US military presence in Iraq as rapidly as possible. But I could just as easily be speaking of Bush, who, despite the clear logic of the Iraq Study Group's analysis and, perhaps most importantly, strong opposition by the U.S electorate to raise troop levels , thinks the best way to bring an end to US military involvement in Iraq is by first increasing it. Americans support folly and even things they don't understand -- if they have confidence in their leader. Sometimes that requires a leader to admit to fallibility. Bush has perhaps never come closer to this than in these woefully inadequate 10 words in his Iraq speec h : "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." Is this the way to begin to re-build consensus? I dou...

It appears to be one of the great early successes in open-source journalism -- exactly what MSM futurists like Reuters' Tom Glocer seemed eager to greet and other news organizations welcomed with little visible trepidation. But the unauthorized video of Saddam Hussein being hanged is likely to result in some severe penalty for someone -- one hopes it is at least the "guilty" party -- and for the moment the media focus seems to be on the act of taping some pretty odd gallows behavior by official participants (or were they? see below) rather than the behavior itself. Ironically, the overarching issue is not whether TV would show the actual death. These days that discussion is quaint beyond words. The issue is that there is tremendous news value in the illicit recording of an historical event that could not have been obtained any other way. And, but for this, history would have been inaccurately recorded. Recall that the first video released of the execution, the official...

President Bush has delayed any announcement of any new strategy in the Iraq War until next year . I won't be rushed, Bush says. Reuters reports that among the reasons Bush needs more time is so that Robert Gates, who takes over as defense secretary next week, has time to settle in: Bush, speaking after talks with top Pentagon officials, said one reason for the delay was to give the incoming defense secretary, Robert Gates, to be able to provide input on Iraq when he takes over from Donald Rumsfeld on Monday. That would be the same Gates who was on the Iraq Study Group until he was tapped to run the Pentagon. That would be the same Iraq Study Group which unanimously came up with a 79-point plan, the key provisions of which Bush has said he doesn't necessarily intend to heed . So, he hasn't yet sat down in the big chair but Gates is apparently to blame for further dithering. Great boss.

We won't know for a couple of week, when the president is likely to announce his Santa Clause strategy for Iraq to the nation, but I wonder if the pushback is a negotiating tactic -- with himself, even -- or a sign that Bush intends to remain thick-skinned and bunkered against difficult realities. Evidence of the latter is easy to see, as it comes in a news conference with last best friend concerning Iraq policy, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, giving visual assurance that Bush does not stand alone (although the New York Times includes a somewhat contrary picture of the two, backs to the camera, walking out of the room). Evidence of the former is tougher, though words seem to take on whatever meaning a cunning politician wants them to. So, there may be no "direct talks" with Iran and Syria, but indirect talks conducted by third parties are semantically possible and often these are more productive (hint: Blair was in town, he believes in engaging these two states, and...

"The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. There is no path than can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved." So begins the eagerly-anticipated report of the Iraq Study Group , which criticizes the goals, strategy and tactics of the war. It remains to be seen how this analysis will be attacked, and thus how it will resonate among the caretakers of this problem, but there are very few long knives out in the early hours of its release, which bodes extremely well. President Bush, who last week was nearly pronouncing the report preemptively DOA , today was was speaking like a uniter not a divider when he ascribed to it the power to be basis for common ground. That is a very positive step. It costs him nothing, but magnanimity isn't his style, so perhaps this means something. The rapid pace of change of attitude towards the war has been astonishing, of course, because of the resounding expression of disgust in the mid-term election just a month ago. But...

The drip drip drip from the Iraq Study Group continues with a Washington Post report that the panel will recommend the withdrawal of all US combat troops from Iraq by the end of 2008, leaving behind only trainers and advisors (making this war Vietnam in reverse). Iraqi PM Al-Malaki again upstages President Bush by promising that'll be plenty of time, since his army should be all trained up by the middle of next year . So, who is going to rain on this parade? Not Bush, who has threatened only that he won't countenance a graceful withdrawal for the sake of a graceful withdrawal. Not Congress, some of whose Democratic leaders might grouse that even early 2008 is too far into the future to put things right (even though this is eons better than Bush's prediction months ago that extricating from Iraq will be the next president's problem) while others take vaciarious credit for a suggestion that is not a whole lot different from what Jack Murtha was saying a year ago . What...

After suddenly coming down with a so serious a case of the vapors that he could not attend a meeting with the President of the United States , Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki got some good news: yes, the Iraq Study Group is going to recommend redeployment of a substantial number of US troops in his country, but no, there won't be any pesky timetables -- for now. Al-Malaki was allowed to twist slowly, slowly in the wind for only a few hours. Bush folksily declared him " the right guy for Iraq " -- like this was just another whirlwind campaign appearance for a member of congress whose seat was in jeopardy -- shortly after someone in his administration leaked a Nov. 8 memo from National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley that questioned al-Malaki's commitment, honesty or competence (your pick). I hope one of the US exports to Iraq these days are episodes of "The Sopranos," because this sure looks like the diplomatic equivalent of a serious warning f...