German editorialist on Iraq, America, and Europe
Once again Richard Herzinger, writing for Die Zeit, argues for a view not widely voiced in Germany. (He's been mentioned here for his comments after the fall of Baghdad and after Rumsfeld's "old Europe" remark.) Herzinger argues that Europeans should support the reconstruction of Iraq, both for the good that will come of it and from shared responsibility for Iraq's plight -- due in part to twelve years of sanctions, decided by the United Nations and supported by the world.

Excerpts from The moralism of the cynic:

It's time to acknowledge the progress in developing a civil society in Iraq. All western democracies, all freedom-loving nations and organizations must support that now. But some "left" German moralists would rather entrench themselves in their resentment of evil America.

...The self government of Iraqis is moving forward at the national and the local level. So well, in fact, that there are already free elections scheduled for the coming year. All the important political and ethnic forces of the country are represented in the recently installed governing council, the prelude to a transitional government. The meaning of this council's first decision to make April 9 -- the day of Baghdad's liberation by the Americans -- to a national holiday has hardly been noticed here. By way of comparison: how long did it take for a German president to dare describe May 8, 1945 as a "day of liberation"! It was in 1986, 41 years after the end of the war. [...]

No question, the situation in Iraq is improving slowly and with many setbacks, and the American side has certainly made and is making mistakes. But is that a reason to ignore that Iraqis can feel free from persecution by secret police for the first time in memory, if they don't express a correct opinion, that they enjoy freedom of the press and of assembly?

That despite all difficulties a magnificent experiment, almost unprecedented in the Arab world, is beginning to rebuild a free society in Iraq, with an outcome that's uncertain and that can certainly go terribly wrong, but that for just that reason requires the positive involvement and and support of all freedom loving nations and organizations of the world? A historic window has opened for the Middle East, and this opening must be used.

None of that matters to a substantial portion of German intellectuals. They have long since aggressively disengaged from reality in Iraq and the Middle East, as from any political reality at all, are happy with themselves in the pose of bitter know-it-alls, who draw their entire self regard from the hope that the hated Bush-Americans will learn a bloody lesson in Iraq. It's especially contemptible that they even portray this grim Schadenfreude as a kind of morally superior position. Thus the former theatre director Ivan Nagel writes in the FAZ of August 5: "The voices in Europe are growing: the opponents of the war should now help repair the damage of the war. Whether from pity for Iraqis or Americans, whether with or without UN supervision -- this would be ludicrous. It pretends to be courageous, realistic politics, and is cowardly opportunism. Schroeder, Chirac and their like would throw away their credibility with it; not just at home, but above all in America." [...]

...But what is actually needed in Iraq is to repair the damage of a 35 year totalitarian dictatorship that turned a once blooming country into a social graveyard with terrible wars abroad and unleashed terror at home. It is telling that the "moralist" Nagel forgets to mention this not unimportant point. Beyond that there are the damages of a 12 year embargo to repair, one that was imposed by the United Nations and for which France and Germany carry responsibility just as the United States does. Nagel should say sometime what the "credible" European helmsmen Schroeder and Chirac offered in alternative to the American-British military action: nothing other than the continuation of the devastating sanctions, under which the Iraqi civilian population suffered terribly, but not the regime that plundered them as it wished. [...]

The principal danger for Iraq is not to be dominated by an "imperialistic" USA, but rather that the U.S. government will lose energy and patience with the enormous tasks of the construction of a civil society, that spending soldiers' lives and and financial treasure will become too costly -- and the USA pulls out its troops, before stable conditions have been created in the country. [...]

If Europeans really have the impression that Americans are not up to the tasks in Iraq, they should insist even more on participating in [Iraq's] development. The idea that such participation would legitimate the US methods leading up to and during the war is politically infantile. If the Europeans help in Iraq, nothing will prevent them from again opposing American war plans at the next opportunity. [...]

"Politics without morality is corrupt", lectures Ivan Nagel. But the opposite is true as well: Morality without political sense is foolish and breeds irresponsibility and open cynicism.

While I like most of what Herzinger says here, there are a few points to make. First, I've never heard of Mr. Nagel, so I don't know how much weight his opinions carry. They're not unusual, judging from editorializing and attitudinizing in Stern, Der Spiegel and elsewhere. But he may not be "Exhibit A" for the German left, or for the serious and principled opposition to American policies. (May have to spring for that article after all.)

Second, I don't think the jab at the "left" in the subheadline added anything but an unnecessary poke in the eye to the piece. There are smug moralizers throughout the German political spectrum -- I'm thinking of folks like Jürgen Todenhöfer -- just as there are throughout our political scene.

Finally, the Bush administration has not distinguished itself in persuading the world it wants or appreciates outside help (although that may be changing, see below). I can understand past reluctance to complicate the ten-dimensional chess game of Iraqi reconstruction with the joys of managing a wider coalition. But the fact is we literally can't afford to do this ourselves, and we can't afford to politically, either. I think the United States should meet the UN and the Europeans halfway if possible, and cede some authority and control in exchange for help with this critical challenge.

Bush thaws on Germany, Germany thaws on Bush
A little, anyway. It's good to see Bush thawing his peevish cold war with Schroeder and Germany; speaking in Crawford, Bush commented:

Germany has taken a very active role in Afghanistan and we're very thankful for that. As NATO steps forward, Germany has assumed a big responsibility. And we really appreciate the German participation. And the reason I bring that up is, is that that's a change from six months ago. And not only is Germany's participation important, it's robust, more robust than we would have anticipated. I look forward to thanking [German] Chancellor Schroeder for that

Yes, appreciation for German help in Afghanistan is a change from six months ago. It's worth remembering German lives have been lost in our behalf there.

The word today is that Herr Nagel's advice about helping in Iraq notwithstanding, the German government is considering cautiously expanding its soldiers' mission in Afghanistan, and may express support for an expanded role for NATO in Iraq as well.

Advantage: Herzinger.


=====
TRANSLATION NOTES: I've sometimes used equivalent phrases in translating some of the above, rather than sticking to a overly literal translation. For example, I translated "nach aussen ... und nach innen" as "abroad ... and at home"; the literal translation would be "to the outside... and to the inside." Some word choices: magnificent: grandios -- which does not carry the same connotation as "grandiose" in English, and is clearly not meant that way here. (From Cassell's; I had used "stirring.") Know-it-alls: Besserwisser, lit. "better-knowers." Corrupt: grundschlecht, lit. approx. "thoroughly bad, low down bad." posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:27:00 PM -- |  

 
Saudi you do
Via Atlanta blogger Photodude, I came across this New York Times item: Report on 9/11 Suggests a Role by Saudi Spies:

The classified part of a Congressional report on the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, says that two Saudi citizens who had at least indirect links with two hijackers were probably Saudi intelligence agents and may have reported to Saudi government officials, according to people who have seen the report.

Photodude adds, This is a matter of grave concern among people all across the political spectrum, and thus, the biggest threat to Bush's re-election. They'd best get out in front of this one, before they bleed out from anonymous leaks."

I don't care so much about Bush's re-election. But I do want to know just how rotten the Saudi government is -- and isn't. I think the "Saudi government" is a byzantine, ramshackle affair built on an arms-length symbiosis between Wahabbite religious leaders and the Saud dynasty that neither side is ever entirely satisfied with.*

There have been other hints that religious zealots have special channels within the Saudi government. Remember the Bin Laden Kandahar video? In the runup to the Afghanistan war, a prominent Saudi cleric named Khalid al Harbi joined Bin Laden in Kandahar, only to be separated from that video clip of Bin Laden chortling to him about 9/11.

It turned out that how Al Harbi got to Kandahar was just about as interesting as his video. Ken Layne wrote that ABC News did a full translation of the video -- and learned that Al Harbi claimed he'd been smuggled there by Saudi religious police. (Another translation, however, seemed to imply it was Iranian-type religious police.**)

This may not make much operational difference to true -- as opposed to Halliburton-whatnot -- United States interests. Ken Layne wrote back then:

It doesn't matter whether the command came from that bloated hog King Fahd or the fanatic religious leadership he can't control. What is obvious to everyone except the Bush Administration is that our ally, Saudi Arabia, harbored, supported and created the terrorists who launched a war against the United States 100 days ago.

Hard to disagree with that - except that there was at least one report suggesting that the Kandahar video operation was a sophisticated "sting" -- with an assist from friendly Saudi intelligence on the one hand, and an all-too-unfriendly cleric on the other.

There may be a power struggle within Saudi Arabia that we should learn to understand and perhaps affect to our benefit. If so, "Saudi-bashing" might not be the best way to do it, and those "Saudi spies" may not be acting at Crown Prince Abdullah's behest.

The Bush administration, on the other hand, does Americans no favors by stonewalling requests to see the unredacted section on the Saudis in the 9/11 report. It would do far better to turn over that report, and educate the American people about our foes and maybe our handful of friends in Saudi Arabia. A little sunshine will clarify things both here and in Riyadh.


=====
* See an old post of mine, Saudi Arabia: background on Wahhabism and the House of Saud -- based not on long study of Arab history, I hasten to add, but on a worthwhile few days with a book by Milton Viorst, In the Shadow of the Prophet.
** The dispute centered on word usage differences about the precise kind of religious police involved, meaning, I guess, that Al Harbi used neither the word "Saudi" nor "Iranian" to describe his escorts. I should also mention that the man identified as Al Harbi was first thought to be someone else, Ali Saeed al-Ghamdi; figuring out videos can be hard stuff, it seems. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:37:00 AM -- |  

 
Something Must Be Done
Just in time for our annual Chincoteague vacation, I read this in the Washington Post:

Surfers, lifeguards, anglers and others who regularly dip a toe into the Atlantic have noticed this summer that water that is typically bathwater-warm has occasionally become fjord-cold. [...]

...the prime suspect appears to be coastal upwelling. The driving force behind upwelling is persistent winds that blow up the coast from the south or southwest. The winds push away the warm surface layer of water, which is then carried eastward as the Earth spins, a process known as the Coriolis force.

It seems to me we have at least five options to make my vacation more comfortable: stop the Earth's rotation, block the southwesterly winds, push that little patch of "red" in the upper right there down to where it does me some good, set up nuclear power plants to warm the water off Chincoteague Island, or set up some kind of innovative, market-based heat exchange program with Europe, which is apparently going through a heat wave. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:38:00 AM -- |  

 
Nephew 2008 gets Wall Street Journal boost
Writing in OpinionJournal yesterday, James Taranto opined:

Maybe it's time to amend the Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to serve as president, so long as they have held American citizenship for at least 14 years (the current provision requires 14 years' residency as well as native citizenship).

Of course, he's writing about Schwarzenegger, but at the -- let's face it -- faltering NEPHEW 2008 campaign, we'll take our allies anywhere we can get them.

As for Ahnuld -- bring him on, that girlie-boy! We'll wipe the floor with him.

(Via Matthew Yglesias.) posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:01:00 AM -- |  

 
Amina Lawal
I'll just go ahead and assume we all agree that Ms. Lawal should not be buried up to her neck and stoned until dead for the crime of adultery.

Here's some background on the case from Amnesty International, and an online petition to the Nigerian government to show mercy to Ms. Lawal; both items via "all facts and opinions" Natalie Davis. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:52:00 AM -- |  

 
Volunteer Tailgate Party
Ms. Sugarfused provides play-by-play commentary on blog entries submitted by Rocky Top Brigade members (I submitted "Name that Liberal," below). Have a look, for a diverse group of Tennesseans' and ex-Tennesseans' takes on topics from driving on I-40 to the Workplace Religious Freedom Act to personal childhood memories of Uganda and Idi Amin. Really. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:21:00 AM -- |  

 
LXG and me besides at Old Ebbitt Grill
Got together with Brett Marston and Tony Adragna at Old Ebbitt Grill in downtown DC on Tuesday afternoon. Konstantin Klein sent his regrets from Europe; maybe next time, hopefully.

Brett had several Pilsner Urquells, I had several Sam Adams, Tony had a Guinness followed by a couple of Buds. Make of that what you will; while you're at it, buy us another round. We shared a couple of dozen of the oysters the place is famous for.

A fine time was had by all. We talked about Iraq (of course), Texas, Gene Robinson, "no-fly" lists, the possible hostage-taking incident, religious school vouchers, and much, much more. It's remarkable how you start to get a little more insight about your own views and even (gasp) question them when you're (a) dealing with two smart people in an extended and friendly conversation, and (b) you're not dealing with questions in isolation, as is my wont in any given posting.

As we talked, some questions seemed to keep coming up, at least for me: deciding when to start caring about process over substance, about the letter of the law as much as its spirit. Texas redistricting power grab. "Second resolution" fight in the UN before the Iraq war. Hostage-taking (or mere -- mere? -- threatening thereof) incident in Iraq.

Bush. Blair. DeLay. United Nations. United States. Ashcroft. U.S. officer in Iraq. When and why do I trust or extend the benefit of the doubt? Is it to people I believe are at least theoretically accountable to me (Bush) or who appear open to explaining themselves to me (Blair)? Am I motivated by fear of another 9/11 -- yes, undoubtedly -- at the expense of meaningful restraint? I don't think so, but then I wouldn't, would I? Have I been too relaxed about the appearance of impropriety in some cases -- being willing to see the TSA "no fly" issue as a simple case of "false positives," for example -- while banging the table about other ones like the FAA and AMICC involvement in the Texas situation?

Well, I told you there was a lot of beer, so this ramble is the best I can pull together out of what was mainly a good time with good people. Hope we can do it again soon. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:11:00 PM -- |  

 
For crying out loud
The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes scrapes the bottom of the barrel with The Gay Bishop's Links, in which he discovers that Episcopal Church bishop-elect Gene Robinson...

is a founder of a group called Outright that supports gay, lesbian, or "questioning" young people 22-years-old or younger and gets them together with older gay and lesbian role models.

On its website, Outright had a link to a pornographic website--until the link became an issue in the fight at the Episcopal Church's national convention in Minneapolis over ratifying the election of the bishop-elect, Gene Robinson, by New Hampshire Episcopalians. The link, indeed all links, were removed from the website today.

Robinson was reported to have denied any knowledge of the link. But he has made no secret of his connection with Outright. In his official biography, he takes credit for founding Outright...

I think that will do, and you can read it yourself to see if I've pulled a Maureen Dowd on you with those ellipses at the end. There's certainly a flurry of mudslinging going on at the last second here. But there's also just simple bigotry. What's wrong with a group for gay young people? Founding one is a point in Robinson's favor, not some kind of "charge" against him.

For a thorough look at the story, see Tony Adragna, where I first read about Barnes' article. It turns out Robinson's lack of knowledge of the link is understandable: the implied direct Outright link to pornography was in fact two or three clicks away. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:21:00 PM -- |  

 
New York, New York


The full image is really spectacular. Via the always interesting NASA Earth Observatory Newsroom site.
Note, of course, the brown spot at the south end of Manhattan.
Cross-reference: Mr. Beller's Neighborhood. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:21:00 PM -- |  

 
Name that liberal
July 31:

Much bigger majorities opposed inter-racial marriage in 1967, when it was finally protected, than now oppose same-sex marriage. But then those evil judicial activists imposed equal marriage rights on an unwilling populace.

August 3:

The difference between Republicans and Democrats right now is not between big and small government. It's between the Democrats' Big, Solvent Government and the Republicans' Big Insolvent Government.

August 3:

But the theocrats and social conservatives don't give a damn if federalism ends up with results they don't like. That's why they passed the Defense of Marriage Act. They suspect that's unconstitutional. So what to do? Change the constitution!

What would be interesting now is if a principled Republican ran against Bush for the nomination if and when Bush endorses the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. Don't all step forward at once.*

Meanwhile, Sullivan -- OK, it's Sullivan -- is discovering one absurd theological position after the other in the Catholic Church's views of what makes a "valid" marriage. The name of the earliest papal declaration (1587) on impotence is priceless.

Finally, it's somehow telling and good that Andrew Sullivan and Patrick Nielsen Hayden have -- presumably independently and without having read eachother for the last, oh, one thousand and fifty years -- composed nearly identical responses to the Vatican's gall to suggest that it, of all institutions, has any idea at all what's best for children. If that's libertarianism, conservatism, or liberalism, so be it.

It's not anti-Catholicism, by the way, although it might be anti-Vaticanism. It's tolerancism, it's what-did-they-ever-do-to-you-ism, it's mind-your-own-business-and-try-to-keep-your-hands-off-American-kids-while-you're-at-it-ism. Good for both of you.

=====
* And if principled Democrats ran against the three Democrat co-sponsors of the FMA: Collin Peterson (D-MN), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Ralph Hall (D-TX). The Republican co-sponsors are Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), David Vitter (R-LA). posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:18:00 PM -- |  

 
Kidnapped European tourists reportedly in Mali; political demands dropped?
A group of 14 kidnapped European tourists (9 Germans, 4 Swiss, 1 Dutch) may now be in Mali, according to a flurry of Spiegel reports over the last couple of weeks. The hostages have been held for about half a year by a bandit with possible terrorist connections named Abderrassak al-Para. A group of Austrian tourists had been released earlier this year. Sadly, one of the German tourists, Michaela Spitzer of Augsburg, recently died in captivity, apparently of heat stroke. The kidnappers and their victims are now apparently in northeastern Mali, near the town of Tessalit.

Previously, it had seemed that there was a political goal to the kidnapping: to free four Algerian extremists sentenced for conspiracy to commit a bombing of a Strassburg open air marketplace. Now, Spiegel reporters Ralf Beste et al write, it seems it's just about money:

A sum in the high millions is being discussed ... As a sign of their willingness to negotiate, the fundamentalists sent a video early last week. [...]

Since then there are regular talks. For the first time in months German emissaries can speak directly with the religious warriors -- a development that was blocked in Algeria by the military and that gives the German government hope, that the case can be quickly solved with diplomacy and money.

The German government can hardly officially dicker with its checkbook. The payment of a sum in the high millions could be understood by bandits as a kind of reward in future kidnappings.

In the end, security experts suspect, the solution may be similar to the case of the Wallert family, kidnapped in Jolo: a neutral middleman pays, for example the government of Mali. The sum could be paid back via European development aid.

I'm not quite sure how that really gets around the problem of whetting appetites for the next kidnapping. But the alternative seems to be on the back burner:

The deployment of the German military elite unit KSK is apparently not being discussed in Berlin for now. Reconnaissance flights like those flown several times per week over Algeria, have been halted.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 2:24:00 AM -- |