The Belgravia Dispatch: Miscellaneous

May 11, 2006

Miscellaneous

A quick note from the road. First, I'm sorry if some of the posts below don't seem to have functioning comment threads. I've gotten several E-mails telling me that a couple of them aren't taking comments. I haven't been able to find the time to get in touch with my software guy to look into it, but will try to in coming days. Second, a quick note on snark. There's been, as a commenter chastised me in the Iran thread, occasional foreign policy analysis as condescension in this space here and there (perhaps more often of late). Whether Steyn or Krauthammer or Hugh Hewitt, I haven't been above adopting a dismissive tone. I'm sorry about that, and I'm sure having a drink with Steyn or Hewitt or whomever would be swell, that they're nice guys in person (just like I'm sure Kos and Duncan Black probably are). This isn't personal. It's just that I'm concerned too many in Washington remain divorced from reality and are still dwelling in a faith-based posture on too many foreign policy matters. It's stunning, really. A military campaign against Iran now, even just air strikes, is the height of folly. So when guys like Steyn breezily chime on about it in between gigs reviewing plays in the Spectator and the Atlantic, someone has to call B.S., even a bit sophomorically, I'd think. By the way, Hugh kindly invited me to do an interview on his radio show to talk Iran. I told him I'm not avoiding his invite, but I am too busy at work and don't do media stuff like this (unless I happen to be on vacation or something and have more downtime). My employer is kind enough to indulge me this hobby, and for now I'm sticking to just pounding stuff off on the laptop when I can find an hour or two. But I did tell Hugh I'd feed him the next Iran analysis I do (a more non-polemical one hopefully), and perhaps we can keep the dialogue going via blog back and forth. Last thing....my earlier note about madcap travel over the next weeks remains very much in effect. Blogging will occur at odd times and sporadically. As ever, thanks for your patience.

P.S. While we're on in-house kinda fare, two more things: 1) if you comment in B.D. threads, try not to use "Greg" as your moniker (like the Greg in the Iran thread). I comment very rarely (not because I'm uninterested, but simply because I lack the time), but when I do, I do as "Greg", so better to not confuse people; 2) when you comment, just do it once. Even if you get an error message, your comment in all likelihood will get posted, no matter how off-putting and scary-looking the warning/error/whatever 'message' pops up, therefore leading too many of you, too often, to put up the same comment twice or three times, causing painful wading through threads cluttered with repeat posts.

P.P.S. Sorry the site graphics appear screwed up as well (at least from my vantage point). Another thing to add to the list when I have people dig into a few site maintenance issues....

Posted by Gregory at May 11, 2006 05:52 AM | TrackBack (0)

Comments

Why in the world would you care what Hugh Hewitt thinks? He is just another Rush Limbaugh, but with a college education.

Posted by: ken at May 11, 2006 07:05 AM | Permalink to this comment

test

Posted by: tom Eberle at May 11, 2006 07:37 AM | Permalink to this comment

I find that when I get an error message my comment goes through about 60% of the time.

What's worked best for actually posting without duplicates in that case is to leave the window open and start up a new copy to do things on the web. An hour later check whether it posted, and if not then repost it.

Posted by: J Thomas at May 11, 2006 11:38 AM | Permalink to this comment

As far as I can tell, virtually all of the internal server error messages that I get are bogus - the message went through.
It might take refreshing several times to see it, though.

Greg, don't sweat things. You've come from naive believer to chastened believer in reality; many whom you know will still be denying reality years down the road.

Posted by: Barry at May 12, 2006 02:26 AM | Permalink to this comment

I strongly object to tom Eberle's comment on this thread, and blame him for everything.

Posted by: Zathras at May 12, 2006 03:33 AM | Permalink to this comment

I say that Zathras is misreading history and misunderstanding tom Eberle's comment, and that the sluggish out-of-date print media is responsible, and the that the liberal & conservative & left & right TV media is also culpable. Damned commies - chickenhawks - socialists - neocons - pinkos - killers...

Posted by: frank wallace at May 12, 2006 04:28 AM | Permalink to this comment

Personally, I believe Tom Eberle's comments and Zathras comments can be reconciled with just a little imagination and a little less fingerpointing. It's time for a little fresh thinking in these comment threads, and a lot less talk radio talking points.

(This message produced by the "Moderate Commenter Random Generator", making clueless inattentive people sound sensible since 2003)

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at May 12, 2006 01:47 PM | Permalink to this comment

> ... comments can be reconciled...

Sir, I accuse you of appeasement!

Posted by: frank wallace at May 12, 2006 07:36 PM | Permalink to this comment

Well, I accuse YOU of appeasement, and I still blame tom Eberle for everything. He knows what he's responsible for; what we want to know is, when will he confess? When will he confess?

Posted by: Zathras at May 12, 2006 11:24 PM | Permalink to this comment

You're doing OK. There are problems, both external and internal. As we focus on one, we neglect the other. Only ideologues refuse to change their minds or their stock picks.
I think that the internal danger from unchecked government power and incompetence is very high at present. Consider Federalist # 51
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

We have a President drunk with power, an executive branch larded with incompetent political cronies, and a Congress that averts its gaze every time the President unilaterally changes the law (that's what a signing statement is, and we're averaging 3 per week). If FEMA couldn't deal with Katrina, how can we expect that NSA can use this more complex data in a constructive way? I think not. The CIA has been in the toilet for more than 10 years- putting a John Yoo with stars in charge of it is not the answer. I haven' t made phone sex calls, and I'm not a politician. If I were a politician opposed to the government, what are the chances that my phone records would be fished out? No wonder that they can’t catch bin Laden- they put all their money into building gigantic domestic databases.
Venezuela has la lista, with the names of every person who signed the petition for Chavez’s recall election. We have the CIA-NSA-HSD- the same kind of crap. If we had a true two party system, I'd be more hopeful. Congress can't oversee the executive branch if the EB is allowed to change the law (signing statements).

Posted by: milktoast at May 13, 2006 06:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

I think you're spot on to be dismissive of Steyn et al; they have very little to offer in this debate.

In spite of all their sound and fury, Steyn and Krauthammer and their ilk are offering two mutually incompatible policies: regime change, and a military solution to the nuclear crisis. Attempts at regime change will strengthen the commitment of the regime to nuclear weapons and an aggressive regional policy. Military strikes will increase domestic support for the regime, and will lead to a more aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapons down the line.

Regime change seems far off in any case. People have been predicting the end of the Islamic Republic for decades, and it is tougher than ever. It has survived an eight-year war, embargoes, a de facto default on its debt, unpopularity, political inertia, collapsing oil prices etc. The reform movement is dead, and despite an inept economic policy, the regime seems more secure than ever.

The greatest problem of direct talks between the US and Iran is not that Iran will win some kind of PR victory - it's already won plenty of those, and real geopolitical victories, in the past five years. Nor is it that Iran will push ahead with nuclear weapons under the cover of talks; it will do that regardless of US behaviour.

The greatest problem is the weakness and division of the Iranian regime, which contains many centres of power and major unaccountable institutions. Even the policy of Khamenei, the leader, is circumscribed by clerical rivals and institutions like the Rev. Guard and the bonyads. Building consensus in this system takes time, and Iranian negotiators will not be able to guarantee the support of all element of the regime when they first sit down with the US.

A further difficulty is that the US and Iranians don't know how to talk to each other: 25 years of mistrust will make any negotiations tentative and vulnerable to sabotage. Successful talks will take time, but the pressures of the nuclear crisis and the US electoral cycle mean that little time will be available.

Still, it is comforting to see that most thinking people know that direct talks are now the best way forward.

Simon

Posted by: Simon at May 14, 2006 08:29 AM | Permalink to this comment