Saturday, November 06, 2004
today's papersDon't Call Me HerbertBy Daniel PolitiPosted Saturday, Nov. 6, 2004, at 5:22 AM PT
The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times lead with newly released figures that revealed the number of jobs increased by 337,000 during the month of October. The number represents the largest job increase since March. If this rate of growth continues until the end of the year, President Bush will rid himself of the often-cited charge that his presidency was the first since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs. The Washington Post's top national story takes a further look into the current soul-searching going on in the Democratic Party since Bush's win. Democrats are doubtful of the president's promise to work with people from both sides of the aisle, but there is disagreement over whether the party should pursue compromise or confrontation with the Republican majority.
Although everyone agrees the latest jobs statistic is a good sign for the economy, some cautioned against taking this latest report too seriously. Both the LAT and the NYT quote staff members of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute who emphasize that brief spurts of job growth in the past have not translated into a trend. Reconstruction of areas that were hit hard by hurricanes earlier this year also contributed to the high numbers, particularly in the construction sector. The WP, who fronts the story, emphasizes the hurricane reconstruction factor and mentions it in the headline and lede of the story. The NYT, on the other hand, does not bring the issue up until nearly the end of the story, saying that even without the extra work, the numbers are still impressive.
After the difficulties Democrats experienced while dealing with President Bush during his first term, many say they are unwilling to work with him unless he takes a more moderate stance on some national issues. At the same time, other Democratic strategists believe that it would be a mistake for the party to position itself against the president because it would lead to accusations of obstructionism. In another bit of post-election introspection, the LAT fronts Democratic strategists spreading the word that the party needs someone from a red state for the next election.
All the papers front the latest from Falluja, where a push to retake the holy city by American and Iraqi forces from insurgent control seems to be imminent. Aerial bombings of the nearly deserted city continued as the troops surrounded the city. The Post is alone in focusing on a new plan by a group of Sunni Muslim leaders to end the standoff peacefully. Several groups that signed onto this plan have supported the insurgency in the past but now say they will end their endorsement of violence, if the United States and Iraq agree to six of their demands regarding the upcoming elections. Officials, however, are dubious, citing failed attempts at negotiations in the past.
The NYT and LAT reefer, while the Post stuffs, the latest on Yasser Arafat. Even though Palestinians say Arafat's coma is reversible, Israeli officials tell the WP they know "that clinically he is dead." The controversy now is where Arafat will be buried. Palestinians insist Arafat wanted to be buried in Jerusalem, but the Israeli government has said in no uncertain terms they will not allow it, preferring instead that he be buried in the Gaza Strip or in Tunisia. The Israeli government also said it will not stand in the way of a presidential funeral, which will likely be widely attended by Arab leaders. Although the Post and the LAT focus more on the burial story and rumors of Arafat's health, the NYT has the most complete description of what is going on in the Palestinian territories as those in the leadership try to fill Arafat's shoes. The article painstakingly describes the details of the process through which Palestinians will choose a new leader but ultimately states that most of the "procedural questions can be fudged." In a popular refrain since Arafat was flown to France a week ago, all the papers emphasize how difficult it will be for anybody to replace him.
In more post-election analysis, the NYT takes a look at the ubiquitous "moral values" term that seems to have guided 22 percent of the electorate while choosing a president. Some now claim that the poll question was defective and has led many to misinterpret results from exit polls to mean that cultural issues, such as gay marriage, had a greater impact on voters than they actually did. Pollsters asked people to choose the one factor that most influenced their vote, but while all the other choices were specific issues (Iraq, economy, etc), the term "moral values" could include a wide variety of topics. Additionaly, two op-ed pieces in the NYT argue against what has become the popular interpretation of "moral values."
In an episode likely to cost the band some indie cred, the NYT fronts a story about a conflict between the pop group Postal Service and the U.S. Postal Service. When the USPS asked the band to change its name because it was infringing on the USPS trademark, the two parties came to an agreement. The band can continue using its name, but in exchange the USPS will sell the Postal Service's CD on its Web site, and the group will perform at the postmaster general's annual National Executive Conference.Daniel Politi is a writer in New York.Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2109332/
The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times lead with newly released figures that revealed the number of jobs increased by 337,000 during the month of October. The number represents the largest job increase since March. If this rate of growth continues until the end of the year, President Bush will rid himself of the often-cited charge that his presidency was the first since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs. The Washington Post's top national story takes a further look into the current soul-searching going on in the Democratic Party since Bush's win. Democrats are doubtful of the president's promise to work with people from both sides of the aisle, but there is disagreement over whether the party should pursue compromise or confrontation with the Republican majority.
Although everyone agrees the latest jobs statistic is a good sign for the economy, some cautioned against taking this latest report too seriously. Both the LAT and the NYT quote staff members of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute who emphasize that brief spurts of job growth in the past have not translated into a trend. Reconstruction of areas that were hit hard by hurricanes earlier this year also contributed to the high numbers, particularly in the construction sector. The WP, who fronts the story, emphasizes the hurricane reconstruction factor and mentions it in the headline and lede of the story. The NYT, on the other hand, does not bring the issue up until nearly the end of the story, saying that even without the extra work, the numbers are still impressive.
After the difficulties Democrats experienced while dealing with President Bush during his first term, many say they are unwilling to work with him unless he takes a more moderate stance on some national issues. At the same time, other Democratic strategists believe that it would be a mistake for the party to position itself against the president because it would lead to accusations of obstructionism. In another bit of post-election introspection, the LAT fronts Democratic strategists spreading the word that the party needs someone from a red state for the next election.
All the papers front the latest from Falluja, where a push to retake the holy city by American and Iraqi forces from insurgent control seems to be imminent. Aerial bombings of the nearly deserted city continued as the troops surrounded the city. The Post is alone in focusing on a new plan by a group of Sunni Muslim leaders to end the standoff peacefully. Several groups that signed onto this plan have supported the insurgency in the past but now say they will end their endorsement of violence, if the United States and Iraq agree to six of their demands regarding the upcoming elections. Officials, however, are dubious, citing failed attempts at negotiations in the past.
The NYT and LAT reefer, while the Post stuffs, the latest on Yasser Arafat. Even though Palestinians say Arafat's coma is reversible, Israeli officials tell the WP they know "that clinically he is dead." The controversy now is where Arafat will be buried. Palestinians insist Arafat wanted to be buried in Jerusalem, but the Israeli government has said in no uncertain terms they will not allow it, preferring instead that he be buried in the Gaza Strip or in Tunisia. The Israeli government also said it will not stand in the way of a presidential funeral, which will likely be widely attended by Arab leaders. Although the Post and the LAT focus more on the burial story and rumors of Arafat's health, the NYT has the most complete description of what is going on in the Palestinian territories as those in the leadership try to fill Arafat's shoes. The article painstakingly describes the details of the process through which Palestinians will choose a new leader but ultimately states that most of the "procedural questions can be fudged." In a popular refrain since Arafat was flown to France a week ago, all the papers emphasize how difficult it will be for anybody to replace him.
In more post-election analysis, the NYT takes a look at the ubiquitous "moral values" term that seems to have guided 22 percent of the electorate while choosing a president. Some now claim that the poll question was defective and has led many to misinterpret results from exit polls to mean that cultural issues, such as gay marriage, had a greater impact on voters than they actually did. Pollsters asked people to choose the one factor that most influenced their vote, but while all the other choices were specific issues (Iraq, economy, etc), the term "moral values" could include a wide variety of topics. Additionaly, two op-ed pieces in the NYT argue against what has become the popular interpretation of "moral values."
In an episode likely to cost the band some indie cred, the NYT fronts a story about a conflict between the pop group Postal Service and the U.S. Postal Service. When the USPS asked the band to change its name because it was infringing on the USPS trademark, the two parties came to an agreement. The band can continue using its name, but in exchange the USPS will sell the Postal Service's CD on its Web site, and the group will perform at the postmaster general's annual National Executive Conference.Daniel Politi is a writer in New York.Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2109332/
By invitation: Richard Haass The world on his desk
Nov 4th 2004 NEW YORK From The Economist print edition
A briefing for the weary winner from the man in charge of policy and planning at the State Department in 2001-03
AS GEORGE BUSH contemplates his second term, he faces far more challenges, and more difficult ones, than he did four years ago. The first reason for this is the objective state of the world, with a host of problems, from Iraq to North Korea to HIV/AIDS, demanding urgent attention. The second is the current condition of the United States. America remains the world's pre-eminent actor, but it is also stretched militarily, in debt financially, divided domestically and unpopular internationally. It all makes one wonder why Mr Bush seemed so keen to keep the job.
The United States is engaged in at least three conflicts. First, terrorism. Although al-Qaeda's original membership may be diminished, some of its leaders (including Osama bin Laden himself) remain at large and many have joined them. Mr Bush may find himself dealing with groups that possess not just box-cutters and access to aircraft, but nuclear material or, worse, a nuclear weapon.
In Iraq, America and its foreign allies are continuing, slowly and against resistance, to train Iraqis to look after their own security. Achieving stability will not be easy. Nor will conducting elections that will be accepted by Iraqis and the world as legitimate.
In Afghanistan, the task of creating a modern state still suffers from the initial decision to limit America's role in nation-building. The central government is weak, warlords are strong and poppy production is at record levels. It is unlikely that this effort, any more than those against terrorism or in Iraq, will be completed before Mr Bush leaves office.
The biggest challenges, however, may lie elsewhere, in North Korea and Iran. North Korea reportedly possesses between six and ten nuclear weapons, or at least the fuel to make that many. Iran is farther along on the path to enriching uranium than anyone knew. Either regime, if nuclear-armed, could prove the tipping-point for its region as neighbours decide to follow suit. Either regime might also slip fissile material to terrorists. Mr Bush will have to decide in a hurry what he can tolerate and what he cannot.
Then there is the matter of Israelis and Palestinians. Where there was once a “peace process”, there is now little peace and even less process. Mr Bush will need to figure out what the United States can do to make sure that Ariel Sharon's policy of Israeli disengagement from Gaza does not become Gaza only, and that Gaza does not become a lawless failed state. Failure here would not only make it much more difficult for the United States to promote democratic reform in the Arab world or slow terrorist recruitment, but would damage its reputation everywhere.
Darfur is a humanitarian tragedy that continues to unfold while the world debates whether what is going on is genocide. The question is what more the United States and others are prepared to do, whether to stop the killing or to assist those whose lives have been devastated.
Turning to the major powers, the issue with most potential to cause real harm is China-Taiwan. There, it is getting harder for America to balance its “One China” policy with its security obligations to Taipei. If Taiwan's leaders insist on more trappings of statehood, China may go to war. Coming to Taiwan's defence could well poison America's relations with one of the world's emerging powers, and undermine chances of an acceptable resolution of the North Korea problem; not doing so could raise fundamental questions about America's reliability, and give the impression that China had replaced the United States as the region's dominant force.
Russia is a problem largely of its own making. It is fighting a costly and possibly losing war in Chechnya; alcohol and AIDS are ravaging the population; and democracy is being rolled back as Vladimir Putin takes advantage of high oil prices and fears of terrorism to consolidate his rule. But the United States needs Russian oil, as well as Russia's co-operation to deal with Iran.
One last set of challenges requires a mention. Call them (as Donald Rumsfeld might) the unknown unknowns. The most obvious is another massive terrorist attack that sets America reeling, economically, psychologically and politically. There could be assassinations; imagine the difficulties of building Afghanistan without Hamid Karzai, Pakistan without Pervez Musharraf, or Iraq without not just Iyad Allawi but much of his team. The departure of Fidel Castro, too, though hardly a cause for grief, could lead to instability that some in the United States might find it hard to ignore.
The stretched superpower
Tackling such an array of challenges would be difficult if America was in the best of shape. But it is not. The economy is growing at a reasonable clip, but the foundation of this growth is vulnerable. When Mr Bush ran for president four years ago, the budget was in surplus to the tune of $236 billion; now the annual deficit is more than $400 billion. Calls to reduce growth in federal spending will put pressure on funds available for defence, foreign aid, HIV/AIDS and homeland security.
Add the fact that the current-account deficit is expected to be more than $600 billion this year, or around 5.5% of GDP. All this leaves the economy at the mercy of bankers in Asia and elsewhere who have accumulated massive dollar holdings. As Herb Stein said, that which can't go on forever, won't. A day of reckoning could well come over the next four years. If it does, Alan Greenspan or his successor will have to put up interest rates sharply.
The deficit has grown so much, in part, because of the cost of defence and homeland security. Related to this is the fact that the United States is so active militarily. Some 135,000 troops are in Iraq, another 15,000 in Afghanistan. Reserve call-ups are being extended. The United States would be hard pressed to meet the demands of a crisis on the Korean peninsula. Preventive strikes on a would-be nuclear state are one thing, but it is difficult to see how the United States could take on a full-scale war with even a medium power at this point.
Making matters worse is America's energy dependency. The United States now imports some 12m barrels a day, more than half the oil it consumes. There is no reason to believe that the oil price will soon come down from its $50-a-barrel perch. Besides, the balance between world supply and demand is sufficiently tight that it would not take much disruption in a medium producer (say, Venezuela or Nigeria), not to mention Saudi Arabia, for the price to spike through the roof.
It will not be all doom and gloom, of course. Relations overall with the other big powers—China, Japan, Russia, India—have never been better. In addition, India and Pakistan have moved back from the brink, and links between the two are growing. East Asia is on the economic rebound. South Africa is faring relatively well, as is much of Latin America.
The state of America, too, should be put in perspective. For all its weaknesses, it remains the world's dominant power. Americans support an active world role, despite the costs. Mr Bush could benefit considerably from simply adjusting the tone and style of his diplomacy.
What to focus on
What should rise to the top of Mr Bush's agenda? Let me suggest nine items.
Success in Iraq. This need not require transforming Iraq into a shining city on a hill. It does mean making it a functioning country. Elections will have to be held as scheduled, and the training of Iraqi security forces accelerated. It may be both desirable and necessary to increase American troop levels in the run-up to January's elections, coupling any such increases with an announcement that reductions would follow the vote. America would also be wise to declare publicly its lack of interest in holding on to any bases in Iraq once its troops depart. To be avoided are an arbitrary exit date that would require forces to leave without establishing relative stability, and any appearance that the United States is being driven out of Iraq as it was out of Somalia.
Engage North Korea and Iran. The United States, with others, should make comprehensive offers to both North Korea and Iran. In both cases, the offer should include security assurances and political and economic incentives in exchange for giving up nuclear ambitions. It should also indicate the price to be paid if the world's concerns are not satisfied. Two other good ideas: accelerate efforts to secure Russia's “loose nukes”, and get the nuclear haves to agree that no other country should be able to gain access to nuclear fuel which could be used as, or in, a weapon.
Revive Middle East peace efforts. Making sure that an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza goes ahead and leaves something stable in its wake will require American, European and Egyptian collaboration. Ensuring that diplomacy begins rather than ends with Gaza will require America to speak out about where peace efforts should lead, and show greater commitment to getting there. Appointing a senior envoy who clearly enjoys White House backing would be a start.
Prevent a Taiwan crisis. This means continued pressure on Taiwan's leaders not to go too far, along with continued warnings to China's leaders to pursue their goals peacefully. Both should be left in no doubt that they would not benefit from a crisis of their own making.
Drive Doha. A new WTO agreement would be a boon for both America's economy and the world's. America should set an example by eliminating all its remaining subsidies, quotas and tariffs.
Help Darfur. America should make intelligence, logistics, training and equipment available to the African Union, and push for targeted sanctions against Sudan's leaders.
Repair transatlantic ties. Further continental drifting apart will serve neither America's nor Europe's interests. Alas, there is no quick fix available. Europeans (read French and Germans or, better yet, NATO) must find some way to help meaningfully in Iraq; a failure there would do them as little good as it would the rest of the civilised world.
Stay the course on terrorism. Continue to go after terrorists and frustrate their recruitment efforts, but also keep investing in homeland security. Lowering America's profile in Iraq will help, as will raising it on the Palestinian issue. The United States should also stick with efforts to promote political, economic and education reform in the Arab world.
Get your house in order. The United States will not remain a great power for long if the economic foundation of its power erodes. It must rein in domestic spending, including tackling entitlements. America must also develop a serious and responsible energy policy. The only debate needed is over the right mix of mandated efficiency improvements, investment in alternative fuels and (get the children out of the room) new taxes.
All these challenges will add up to a more restrained America. New wars of choice are less likely; Mr Bush will have his hands full. Many around the world will no doubt welcome this. But they should be careful what they wish for. The world is a very dangerous place and, unlike the economic marketplace, there is no invisible hand making sure all turns out for the best. As Mr Bush well knows, only the United States can fulfil this role.
AP
Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations. His next book, “The Opportunity”, will be published in the spring
Copyright © 2004 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
Nov 4th 2004 NEW YORK From The Economist print edition
A briefing for the weary winner from the man in charge of policy and planning at the State Department in 2001-03
AS GEORGE BUSH contemplates his second term, he faces far more challenges, and more difficult ones, than he did four years ago. The first reason for this is the objective state of the world, with a host of problems, from Iraq to North Korea to HIV/AIDS, demanding urgent attention. The second is the current condition of the United States. America remains the world's pre-eminent actor, but it is also stretched militarily, in debt financially, divided domestically and unpopular internationally. It all makes one wonder why Mr Bush seemed so keen to keep the job.
The United States is engaged in at least three conflicts. First, terrorism. Although al-Qaeda's original membership may be diminished, some of its leaders (including Osama bin Laden himself) remain at large and many have joined them. Mr Bush may find himself dealing with groups that possess not just box-cutters and access to aircraft, but nuclear material or, worse, a nuclear weapon.
In Iraq, America and its foreign allies are continuing, slowly and against resistance, to train Iraqis to look after their own security. Achieving stability will not be easy. Nor will conducting elections that will be accepted by Iraqis and the world as legitimate.
In Afghanistan, the task of creating a modern state still suffers from the initial decision to limit America's role in nation-building. The central government is weak, warlords are strong and poppy production is at record levels. It is unlikely that this effort, any more than those against terrorism or in Iraq, will be completed before Mr Bush leaves office.
The biggest challenges, however, may lie elsewhere, in North Korea and Iran. North Korea reportedly possesses between six and ten nuclear weapons, or at least the fuel to make that many. Iran is farther along on the path to enriching uranium than anyone knew. Either regime, if nuclear-armed, could prove the tipping-point for its region as neighbours decide to follow suit. Either regime might also slip fissile material to terrorists. Mr Bush will have to decide in a hurry what he can tolerate and what he cannot.
Then there is the matter of Israelis and Palestinians. Where there was once a “peace process”, there is now little peace and even less process. Mr Bush will need to figure out what the United States can do to make sure that Ariel Sharon's policy of Israeli disengagement from Gaza does not become Gaza only, and that Gaza does not become a lawless failed state. Failure here would not only make it much more difficult for the United States to promote democratic reform in the Arab world or slow terrorist recruitment, but would damage its reputation everywhere.
Darfur is a humanitarian tragedy that continues to unfold while the world debates whether what is going on is genocide. The question is what more the United States and others are prepared to do, whether to stop the killing or to assist those whose lives have been devastated.
Turning to the major powers, the issue with most potential to cause real harm is China-Taiwan. There, it is getting harder for America to balance its “One China” policy with its security obligations to Taipei. If Taiwan's leaders insist on more trappings of statehood, China may go to war. Coming to Taiwan's defence could well poison America's relations with one of the world's emerging powers, and undermine chances of an acceptable resolution of the North Korea problem; not doing so could raise fundamental questions about America's reliability, and give the impression that China had replaced the United States as the region's dominant force.
Russia is a problem largely of its own making. It is fighting a costly and possibly losing war in Chechnya; alcohol and AIDS are ravaging the population; and democracy is being rolled back as Vladimir Putin takes advantage of high oil prices and fears of terrorism to consolidate his rule. But the United States needs Russian oil, as well as Russia's co-operation to deal with Iran.
One last set of challenges requires a mention. Call them (as Donald Rumsfeld might) the unknown unknowns. The most obvious is another massive terrorist attack that sets America reeling, economically, psychologically and politically. There could be assassinations; imagine the difficulties of building Afghanistan without Hamid Karzai, Pakistan without Pervez Musharraf, or Iraq without not just Iyad Allawi but much of his team. The departure of Fidel Castro, too, though hardly a cause for grief, could lead to instability that some in the United States might find it hard to ignore.
The stretched superpower
Tackling such an array of challenges would be difficult if America was in the best of shape. But it is not. The economy is growing at a reasonable clip, but the foundation of this growth is vulnerable. When Mr Bush ran for president four years ago, the budget was in surplus to the tune of $236 billion; now the annual deficit is more than $400 billion. Calls to reduce growth in federal spending will put pressure on funds available for defence, foreign aid, HIV/AIDS and homeland security.
Add the fact that the current-account deficit is expected to be more than $600 billion this year, or around 5.5% of GDP. All this leaves the economy at the mercy of bankers in Asia and elsewhere who have accumulated massive dollar holdings. As Herb Stein said, that which can't go on forever, won't. A day of reckoning could well come over the next four years. If it does, Alan Greenspan or his successor will have to put up interest rates sharply.
The deficit has grown so much, in part, because of the cost of defence and homeland security. Related to this is the fact that the United States is so active militarily. Some 135,000 troops are in Iraq, another 15,000 in Afghanistan. Reserve call-ups are being extended. The United States would be hard pressed to meet the demands of a crisis on the Korean peninsula. Preventive strikes on a would-be nuclear state are one thing, but it is difficult to see how the United States could take on a full-scale war with even a medium power at this point.
Making matters worse is America's energy dependency. The United States now imports some 12m barrels a day, more than half the oil it consumes. There is no reason to believe that the oil price will soon come down from its $50-a-barrel perch. Besides, the balance between world supply and demand is sufficiently tight that it would not take much disruption in a medium producer (say, Venezuela or Nigeria), not to mention Saudi Arabia, for the price to spike through the roof.
It will not be all doom and gloom, of course. Relations overall with the other big powers—China, Japan, Russia, India—have never been better. In addition, India and Pakistan have moved back from the brink, and links between the two are growing. East Asia is on the economic rebound. South Africa is faring relatively well, as is much of Latin America.
The state of America, too, should be put in perspective. For all its weaknesses, it remains the world's dominant power. Americans support an active world role, despite the costs. Mr Bush could benefit considerably from simply adjusting the tone and style of his diplomacy.
What to focus on
What should rise to the top of Mr Bush's agenda? Let me suggest nine items.
Success in Iraq. This need not require transforming Iraq into a shining city on a hill. It does mean making it a functioning country. Elections will have to be held as scheduled, and the training of Iraqi security forces accelerated. It may be both desirable and necessary to increase American troop levels in the run-up to January's elections, coupling any such increases with an announcement that reductions would follow the vote. America would also be wise to declare publicly its lack of interest in holding on to any bases in Iraq once its troops depart. To be avoided are an arbitrary exit date that would require forces to leave without establishing relative stability, and any appearance that the United States is being driven out of Iraq as it was out of Somalia.
Engage North Korea and Iran. The United States, with others, should make comprehensive offers to both North Korea and Iran. In both cases, the offer should include security assurances and political and economic incentives in exchange for giving up nuclear ambitions. It should also indicate the price to be paid if the world's concerns are not satisfied. Two other good ideas: accelerate efforts to secure Russia's “loose nukes”, and get the nuclear haves to agree that no other country should be able to gain access to nuclear fuel which could be used as, or in, a weapon.
Revive Middle East peace efforts. Making sure that an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza goes ahead and leaves something stable in its wake will require American, European and Egyptian collaboration. Ensuring that diplomacy begins rather than ends with Gaza will require America to speak out about where peace efforts should lead, and show greater commitment to getting there. Appointing a senior envoy who clearly enjoys White House backing would be a start.
Prevent a Taiwan crisis. This means continued pressure on Taiwan's leaders not to go too far, along with continued warnings to China's leaders to pursue their goals peacefully. Both should be left in no doubt that they would not benefit from a crisis of their own making.
Drive Doha. A new WTO agreement would be a boon for both America's economy and the world's. America should set an example by eliminating all its remaining subsidies, quotas and tariffs.
Help Darfur. America should make intelligence, logistics, training and equipment available to the African Union, and push for targeted sanctions against Sudan's leaders.
Repair transatlantic ties. Further continental drifting apart will serve neither America's nor Europe's interests. Alas, there is no quick fix available. Europeans (read French and Germans or, better yet, NATO) must find some way to help meaningfully in Iraq; a failure there would do them as little good as it would the rest of the civilised world.
Stay the course on terrorism. Continue to go after terrorists and frustrate their recruitment efforts, but also keep investing in homeland security. Lowering America's profile in Iraq will help, as will raising it on the Palestinian issue. The United States should also stick with efforts to promote political, economic and education reform in the Arab world.
Get your house in order. The United States will not remain a great power for long if the economic foundation of its power erodes. It must rein in domestic spending, including tackling entitlements. America must also develop a serious and responsible energy policy. The only debate needed is over the right mix of mandated efficiency improvements, investment in alternative fuels and (get the children out of the room) new taxes.
All these challenges will add up to a more restrained America. New wars of choice are less likely; Mr Bush will have his hands full. Many around the world will no doubt welcome this. But they should be careful what they wish for. The world is a very dangerous place and, unlike the economic marketplace, there is no invisible hand making sure all turns out for the best. As Mr Bush well knows, only the United States can fulfil this role.
AP
Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations. His next book, “The Opportunity”, will be published in the spring
Copyright © 2004 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
November 6, 2004BATTLE PLANS
All Sides Prepare for American Attack on FallujaBy DEXTER FILKINS and JAMES GLANZ
EAR FALLUJA, Iraq, Nov. 5 - American armored vehicles roared through the villages surrounding Falluja, the western town at the heart of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, on Friday as warplanes pounded rebel positions and ground forces ratcheted up their preparations for what appeared to be an imminent assault on the city.
Within Falluja, insurgents who were hiding themselves by day among a dwindling and embittered populace set up a defensive perimeter around the city and said they would defeat the Americans or die in a cause they called just.
Marines gathering outside the city practiced house-to-house fighting, while some American crews fitted their armored vehicles with front-loading shovels designed to unearth explosives buried in the roads on the way in. Marines fired artillery rounds throughout the day and night on positions around the city.
"We are going to rid the city of insurgents," said Lt. Col. Gary Brandl, a battalion commander in charge of about 800 marines at a base outside the city. "If they do fight, we will kill them."
Military intelligence officials say as many as 75 to 80 percent of the city's 250,000 residents have fled. That estimate was consistent with reports from inside Falluja.
As battle preparations went forward, top American commanders in Iraq and senior Bush administration officials in Washington were conducting final reviews of their own.
At the presidential retreat at Camp David, Md., President Bush was briefed Friday morning on the battle plans in a videoconference with his top national security advisers to discuss Iraq.
American officials said the precise timing was being left to American commanders in the field and to Prime Minister Ayad Allawi of Iraq. "People here are asking, 'What about this issue?' or 'Have you thought about that?' But otherwise, they're leaving the planning up to the people on the ground," said a senior military officer in Washington.
Visiting European Union leaders in Brussels on Friday, Dr. Allawi reiterated his warning that "the window is really closing" on chances for a peaceful settlement of the standoff. Negotiators for the two sides have not met in more than a week.
At the United Nations, Secretary General Kofi Annan confirmed that he had formally expressed concern about the effects any invasion of Falluja would have on stability in the country ahead of elections scheduled for January. His concerns could cloud prospects for a major United Nations role in Iraq in the elections and afterward.
Dr. Allawi and American officials have insisted that they must reassert control over Falluja quickly in order to pave the way for the elections. Falluja lies squarely within a region of the country dominated by Sunni Arabs, a minority group whose participation in the elections is considered crucial if the outcome is to be accepted as legitimate. Favored under Saddam Hussein's rule, disenfranchised Sunnis are now leading the increasingly deadly insurgency.
Outside the city, the Americans were setting up military checkpoints to choke off access roads. Warplanes conducted at least five major airstrikes on Friday.
Insurgents inside the city continued their own preparations, filtering through waning crowds of ordinary people in the markets and on the streets.
A man who had been encountered at a fortified position on the perimeter of the city a few days before was seen downtown on Friday morning wearing a T-shirt and pants from a track suit. He was driving a motorcycle and carrying a huge bag of clips for an automatic rifle.
The man, who identified himself as Abu Muhammad, said the fighters were more numerous and better prepared than the last time they battled the Americans, in April. "We trust in God," he said, explaining why he thought that the insurgents were so strong. "We have two choices - victory or martyrdom."
Beyond those sentiments, the insurgents appear to have the benefit of some fairly sophisticated military advice. They have built a layered perimeter with at least one inner fortified ring that would give them a place to retreat to should the outer ring be breached.
American commanders in Iraq have expressed confidence they could complete their assault in a matter of days, but a senior officer said Friday that planners had no sure way of knowing how long insurgents would hold out. "Right now, they're hoping it doesn't go much longer than a week," the officer said.
Meanwhile, the insurgents continued with their deadly attacks. An American soldier was killed and five were wounded in an attack on a base near Falluja on Friday, the United States military reported. The injuries were said to be "the result of an indirect fire attack," a term the military generally reserves for mortars or rockets.
Two marines were killed during security operations around Ramadi, west of Falluja, on Thursday, while one soldier in the First Infantry Division died and another was wounded in Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad, when an improvised bomb exploded near their vehicle.
[A group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an ally of Al Qaeda, claimed responsibility on Saturday for a car bombing that killed three British troops south of Baghdad on Thursday, Reuters reported. The men were among about 850 British soldiers sent to free up American forces for the attack on Falluja. Also on Saturday, two car bombs exploded in the town of Samarra north of Baghdad, killing at least 19 people and wounding at least 23, police said.]
As preparations for the battle of Falluja sped forward, there were warnings that it could have devastating consequences far from the small piece of turf at issue.
The Los Angeles Times reported Friday that Secretary General Annan of the United Nations had sent a letter to the governments of Britain, Iraq and the United States expressing concern that continued military attacks on the rebel-held city would alienate people and disrupt elections. The United Nations did not release the text of the letter and, in a corridor conversation with reporters, Mr. Annan confirmed its existence but declined to discuss it.
Asked about United Nations worries about the effect on the elections of the American-led military assault on Falluja, Kieran Prendergast, the under secretary for political affairs, said, "It is important to understand that elections are not a stand-alone event, that the context in which they are held is very important if they are to have the effect of promoting stability in Iraq."
American military officials said the exact timing of any attack on Falluja hinged on a range of factors. Officials in Washington said Dr. Allawi wanted more time to discuss with his cabinet, as well as religious and tribal leaders, the political and military ramifications of an American-led offensive. Some Sunni leaders have appealed to the interim government to call off any attack.
Military officials said the remaining residents in Falluja needed a last warning to leave the city before any assault began.
The chief Marine intelligence officer in Iraq, Col. Ronald S. Makuta, gave this description in an e-mail message from his headquarters at Camp Falluja, three miles east of the city: "Those remaining fall under the categories of not having enough money to move out or simply do not want to leave their homes and possessions for fear that these will be gutted and or robbed by the foreign fighters, local insurgents, and criminals. Insurgents continue to wage a brutal campaign of murder, assassination, terror, kidnapping, coercion, and intimidation. The criminal content has also taken advantage of the lawlessness in the city, and are pursuing similar means."
The operation is shaping up to be the largest since the American invasion of the country 20 months ago. A senior military officer said that roughly 25,000 American and Iraqi troops were surrounding Falluja and Ramadi and the corridor between the two cities. Another senior military official said that from 10,000 to 15,000 of those troops were immediately around Falluja. They face an Iraqi insurgent force in the city that Colonel Brandl estimated at a few thousand fighters.
It is all intended to set right the disastrous events of April, when a large force of marines attacked the city after the killing and mutilation of four American contractors there. Though the Americans were making steady progress in the city center, they were forced to halt their attacks when Iraqi leaders became unnerved over reports, largely unconfirmed, that hundreds of civilians had been killed there.
That time, the fighting in Falluja helped fuel armed uprisings in other parts of the country against the American presence here.
Iraqi leaders and American commanders say they are worried about similar risings now, particularly in volatile cities like Mosul, but they say that circumstances have shifted markedly since then. This time, with the American occupation formally over, Iraqi leaders are in charge and willing to take some of the political heat for the operations.
American soldiers preparing to move into the city say they expect to find homemade bombs along roads and fortified positions around the city's perimeter. The Americans said they were preparing for close-quarters urban fighting.
Thousands of Iraqi troops have moved into position with their American counterparts and are expected to take part. In the pattern set in similar operations in Najaf and Samarra, American soldiers are to do most of the fighting on the way in, clearing the way for the Iraqi security forces to take control once the insurgents are defeated. With this method, Iraqi and American leaders hope for the best of both worlds: American muscle and an Iraqi face.
The performance of the Iraqi security forces is viewed as crucial to the success or failure of the mission in Falluja. In April, entire units of the Iraqi police and national guard disintegrated before uprisings in Falluja and southern Iraq.
Now, American commanders say they have higher hopes, particularly because of the intensive training that Iraqi units have received.
Dexter Filkins reported from near Falluja for this article, and James Glanz from Baghdad. Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington, an Iraqi employee of The New York Times from Falluja, and Warren Hoge from the United Nations.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help Back to Top
November 6, 2004BELIEFS
The 'Moral Values' IssueBy PETER STEINFELS
he election of George W. Bush, it seems, turned on moral values.
It seems.
Hardly had the exit polls shown that 22 percent of the voters named "moral values" as the issue mattering most in their choice for president when Andrew Kohut, the president of the Pew Research Center, called that conclusion misleading. On the Wednesday edition of "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," Mr. Kohut rightly pointed out that moral values may have ranked ahead of jobs or terrorism because it was an ambiguous, appealing and catchall phrase.
It is true that if the exit polls had constructed an equivalent catchall economic category adding concern about health care and taxes to that about jobs and growth, it would have been the top concern of 33 percent of the voters. If the poll findings had combined concern about terrorism with concern about Iraq, as apparently many voters did, the resulting category would have ranked first with 34 percent of the voters.
To underscore the ambiguity of moral values, consider three of the issues often subsumed under that umbrella. Stem cell research is immensely popular. Gay marriage is not. Legal access to abortion falls somewhere in between.
And surely concern about moral values mixes revulsion at the offerings of Hollywood, cable television, the popular music industry and pornographic Web sites with defense of displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses and of reciting "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance - and who knows what else.
Furthermore, many of these concerns are stimulated and shaped artificially and emotionally by the high commands and local shock troops in the culture wars.
So level-headed observers like Mr. Kohut are wise to warn that no one quite knows what reality lies behind the moral values catchphrase. But isn't it important to find out? The fact that 80 percent of the voters listing moral values uppermost in their minds voted for Mr. Bush suggests that there is some unifying, underlying reality there. Anyone seeking to understand American political culture should be more than a little bit curious, to say nothing of Democrats contemplating the future of their party.
There are, however, several surefire ways to short-circuit such an inquiry.
Comparing the so-called values voters with jihad-driven Muslim terrorists, an equation ventured by not a few post-election analysts, will do nicely, for starters. Loosely tossing around terms like fundamentalism and theocracy is similarly effective at anesthetizing the thought processes. Then there is the leap that fretting about moral values is merely a disguise for ignorance, irrationality and intolerance.
These caricatures cast millions of citizens as ominous Others, alien invaders not from another planet but at least from another era, probably the benighted Middle Ages or the nearly as dark 1950's. Nevermind the evidence of writers and scholars as different as David Brooks, Alan Wolfe and Morris P. Fiorina that Americans are not really as deeply divided as either the metaphor of a culture war or the electoral-vote map of the red and blue states suggests.
Barack Obama, the newly elected senator from Illinois, memorably challenged the red-state, blue-state dichotomy at the Democratic convention. "We worship an awesome God in the blue states," Mr. Obama said, and "have gay friends in the red states." Perhaps he could have added something about finding supporters of the ban on so-called partial-birth abortions in blue states and conservative Christian defenders of church-state separation in the red states.
Fanaticism exists, of course, and stupidity, too. Wild claims and aggressive demands have been made in the name of moral values, often enough by figures competing for public attention. Latching upon these is an easy and tempting way to deaden the kind of empathy and imagination necessary to comprehend another perspective.
A condescending incredulity offers a slightly more sophisticated way to derail any inquiry into the moral values issues. Just treat one's own views as so established and self-evident that any questioning of them can only be a puzzling and pathological "backlash." Are there really still people out there opposed to abortion rights? How incomprehensible!
Whatever one may think of same-sex marriage, for example, it takes a real stretch to pretend that it is not a noteworthy departure from existing social and legal norms. It would also be a long shot to deny that it was the Massachusetts Supreme Court along with local officials around the nation challenging current laws by officiating at same-sex weddings who placed this on the national agenda rather than the religious right or President Bush.
Voters' emphasis on moral values has prompted talk that the culture is undergoing a sharp conservative shift. A better case can be made that the cultural shifts of recent years have almost entirely continued in a liberal direction. On Nov. 2 a significant part of the nation balked. Gay marriage has proved, at least for now, unacceptable. Meanwhile civil unions, which stirred shock and fury in Vermont only a few years ago, have almost reached the edge of being mainstream.
A final way of skirting any exploration of the moral values so many Americans say determined their presidential choice actually has considerable legitimacy. One can challenge the very idea reflected in the exit polls that moral values constitute some distinct category of public concerns.
Are not moral values also at stake in decisions about war, in drawing lines against torture, in addressing poverty or in providing desperately needed housing and health care? It has become commonplace to note that for every injunction in the Bible regarding homosexuality there are hundreds, maybe thousands regarding care for the poor. All of a nation's common life, not just sexual matters or personal behavior, is shot through with moral and ethical issues.
These points are absolutely true. But those who make them should remember that enlarging the framework of the discussion is one thing, trying to change the subject is another. Whatever this large chunk of voters may have in mind by moral values, those things need to be identified and addressed, not simply steamrolled over by pointing to other issues that may be equally moral and equally or even more important.
Suppose that these barriers to pursuing the question of moral values can be overcome. What then? The endgame should not be some expedient concession or cosmetic exercise to garner votes next time around. The endgame should be an honest discussion of the moral stances dividing Americans, each side (and there may be more than two) addressing the contending arguments at their best and not at their worst. It is not unthinkable that a few minds might be changed, and a great many people feel less alienated.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help Back to Top
