 |
December 07, 2006ISG Excerpts (VII)Iraq cannot be addressed effectively in isolation from other major regional issues, interests, and unresolved conflicts. To put it simply, all key issues in the Middle East—the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, Iran, the need for political and economic reforms, and extremism and terrorism—are inextricably linked. In addition to supporting stability in Iraq, a comprehensive diplomatic offensive—the New Diplomatic Offensive—should address these key regional issues. By doing so, it would help marginalize extremists and terrorists, promote U.S. values and interests, and improve America’s global image. More: RECOMMENDATION 1: The United States, working with the Iraqi government, should launch the comprehensive New Diplomatic Offensive to deal with the problems of Iraq and of the region. This new diplomatic offensive should be launched before December 31, 2006. Recommendation 6: The New Diplomatic Offensive and the work of the Support Group should be carried out with urgency, and should be conducted by and organized at the level of foreign minister or above. The Secretary of State, if not the President, should lead the U.S. effort. That effort should be both bilateral and multilateral, as circumstances require. With all due respect to a very accomplished Secretary of State (putting POTUS aside for obvious reasons), one wonders whether she'd be up to this hugely complex task, keeping in mind all her other responsibilities, with each of Bob Zeollick and Philip Zelikow no longer around, and given her lack of Middle East expertise. Worth noting too, this isn't giddy "transformational" diplomacy (whatever that means) but rather the plain, old fashioned crisis management and damage control kind. MORE, from Ignatius: I like this "New Diplomatic Offensive" precisely because it is so ambitious. It would put the United States back in the business of trying to solve the Arab-Israeli problem, which has been driving the Middle East crazy for nearly 40 years. As for Iran and Syria, the great advantage of asking them to join a global effort to stabilize Iraq is that if they say no, it's blood on their hands. As the report notes, "An Iranian refusal to do so would demonstrate to Iraq and the rest of the world Iran's rejectionist attitude and approach, which could lead to its isolation." I'm not sure the linkage Ignatius makes between the ISG's recommendations and the Obaid op-ed should be quite this direct (update: and see this comment), but having passed through DC for a meeting the day the piece appeared in the Washington Post, I must say it did strike me as somewhat of an atypical opinion piece by Saudi standards, in its attention-grabbing manner, and the timing was not uninteresting either. More on all this soon, including more detail on strategies for U.S. leverage on Iran and Syria that Ignatius doesn't mention, and that might profitably be fleshed out some more in relation to the ISG's recommendations. This Itamar Rabinovich piece is still important for broad context too, I'd think, regarding the Syrian track, and here is some of my initial (hastily put together) analysis. Posted by Gregory at December 7, 2006 04:44 AMComments
Although it probably rather obvious, no one else seems to have said it.... This entire report relegates the lives and security of the Iraqi people (and those of the entire region) to secondary (if not tertiary) status --- nowhere is there any indication that any consideration was given to potential solutions that would result in a stable Iraq, and a stable region, but under conditions unfavorable to the reputation of the Bush administration (and/or the security and reputation of the USA). Instead, the report assumes that the primary objective is US security, the secondary objective is making Bushco look good --- and once those two priorities are addressed, then options become viable. Now, of course, nothing else is to be expected from a report of this nature --- but I'd much prefer to see a set of recommendations from some kind of "international commission" that placed the security of the Iraqi people and the region as a whole in a primary position. The security "threat" of "failure in Iraq" to the USA is simply not existential in nature --- but the situation in Iraq represents an existential crisis for both the Iraqi people and many of the neighboring regimes. Yet there is absolutely no sense that the US has an obligation to place itself at risk of "non-existential" crises in order to ensure that Iraq does not descend into chaos, and that chaos extends throughout the region. (The recommendations do acknowledge that such chaos would be a bad thing --- but within the framework of what would be best for the United States and the Bush administration.) Posted by: p.lukasiak at December 7, 2006 05:28 AM | Permalink to this comment
greg, what leads you to think these can be acheived by diplomacy alone? Especially in this neighborhood? Do you think military power should be stepped up to bolster this diplomatic effort? How exactly? How do you think GWB would differ from these OBJECTIVES? Posted by: neill at December 7, 2006 05:30 AM | Permalink to this comment
PL: 'The security "threat" of "failure in Iraq" to the USA is simply not existential in nature...' I'm not sure why this is so. Was the WW2 threat not existential in nature? With 500,000 or so of our dead in the breach? Perhaps you can lay the consequences of "failure in Iraq" out for me. Posted by: neill at December 7, 2006 05:41 AM | Permalink to this comment
Neill, What on earth does WW2 have to do with Iraq? Posted by: weichi at December 7, 2006 07:18 AM | Permalink to this comment
I think P. Lukasiak raises up perhaps the biggest problem about American foreign policy. This is not new. We haven't cared about what happens to the lowly natives previously and it shows that we continue not caring. Who remembers a famous quote by Kissinger, who said: “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.” I wonder why some Americans get high on throwing others around so callously... Posted by: Dan at December 7, 2006 11:08 AM | Permalink to this comment
oh....and then wonder why those same people we are throwing around are not accepting "freedom." That's what Bush keeps saying, "why don't the Iraqis take hold of their destiny?" oh, the delusion won't end anytime soon, will it? Posted by: Dan at December 7, 2006 11:10 AM | Permalink to this comment
oh....and then wonder why those same people we are throwing around are not accepting "freedom." That's what Bush keeps saying, "why don't the Iraqis take hold of their destiny?" In American political rhetoric, "Freedom" has taken the same place that "Class Struggle" did for any believing Maoist. Posted by: sglover at December 7, 2006 02:57 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg -- Given your statement "With all due respect to a very accomplished Secretary of State," I'm wondering what you make of the latest post over at Steve Clemons' blog, which includes the following: But let me just put something out there that I learned this evening during a 90 minute discussion from one of the most prominent incumbent national security officials in the Middle East: Kinda different... Posted by: farmgirl at December 7, 2006 03:37 PM | Permalink to this comment
Oh, please. Leaving aside the two items that just name countries, ('Iraq, Iran'), these things are in the 'have with ye always' category. Progress on all these fronts is desirable, but no means essential to addressing the specific problem of state failure in Arab Iraq. Posted by: David Tomlin at December 7, 2006 03:45 PM | Permalink to this comment
I agree with farmgirl. I don't see how Rice has been anywhere close to an "accomplished" Secretary of State. Please name me one major accomplishment of hers since she took office.... Posted by: Dan at December 7, 2006 03:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
Not having finished the ISG report, I'm going to reserve judgment. However, the point raised by others above about Sec. Rice is worth considering. A complex diplomatic initiative on a matter of great importance is certainly something Jim Baker or Henry Kissinger in their prime could organize while still managing the rest of American foreign policy. Sec. Rice has never shown abilities on that level. It isn't just a matter of the State Department having lost some talented people recently. If you're talking about difficult diplomacy at the level of Secretary of State, the person filling that office had better be good enough to handle it. If she isn't, she'd have to be replaced for your diplomatic offensive to have any chance of succeeding. The historical record is pretty clear that America can conduct effective diplomacy with a weak Secretary of State or with a weak President, but not with both. I understand the likelihood of the President's removing Sec. Rice -- even if only to recall her to her earlier role as National Security Adviser -- is minimal. I'm just saying that even assuming a "diplomatic offensive" is approved by President Bush, I don't see Sec. Rice as capable of running it. Posted by: Zathras at December 7, 2006 05:14 PM | Permalink to this comment
About this "New Diplomatic Offensive" -- Maybe it's just me, but I read this as, "Shout at them louder and more frequently, and travel to their countries more often to do it". But is there any reason to believe that any foreign minister pays any attention or believes anything from this administration? And any talk about renewed diplomatic efforts seems completely empty unless it emphasizes the phrase ""shut the hell up and listen". Finally -- "New Diplomatic Offensive"?!? Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but this sounds like one of the great oxymorons. Posted by: sglover at December 7, 2006 08:08 PM | Permalink to this comment
However, the point raised by others above about Sec. Rice is worth considering. A complex diplomatic initiative on a matter of great importance is certainly something Jim Baker or Henry Kissinger in their prime could organize while still managing the rest of American foreign policy. Sec. Rice has never shown abilities on that level. It's common knowledge that Rice couldn't even function as an intermediary between Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell, no? Posted by: sglover at December 7, 2006 08:58 PM | Permalink to this comment
As the report notes, "An Iranian refusal to do so [engage with the US over Iraq] would demonstrate to Iraq and the rest of the world Iran's rejectionist attitude and approach, which could lead to its isolation." Wishful thinking. All Iran needs to do to refute the "rejectionist" charge is maintain the posture that America is the real source of problems in Iraq, while bypassing us to talk with Iraqi leaders. Exactly as they're doing now, in fact. Posted by: CRR at December 7, 2006 08:58 PM | Permalink to this comment
Wishful thinking. All Iran needs to do to refute the "rejectionist" charge is maintain the posture that America is the real source of problems in Iraq, while bypassing us to talk with Iraqi leaders. excellent point, and one which demonstrates the overall vacuity of the ISG Report. One other point that the Iranians could make regarding their involvement in Iraq's affairs would be along the lines of Bush constantly said that America had to fight in Iraq against al Qaeda in order to not have to fight them in America. Well, Iraq just happens to be right next door to us --- and our Shia brethern are being slaughtered by them because the Bush regime attracted them to Iraq. We're involved in Iraq, and we're going to stay involved in Iraq, because we don't want to fight al Qaeda in Iran. GET THE FUCK USED TO IT.Posted by: p.lukasiak at December 8, 2006 12:03 AM | Permalink to this comment
I like this "New Diplomatic Offensive" precisely because it is so ambitious. It would put the United States back in the business of trying to solve the Arab-Israeli problem, which has been driving the Middle East crazy for nearly 40 years. As for Iran and Syria, the great advantage of asking them to join a global effort to stabilize Iraq is that if they say no, it's blood on their hands. As the report notes, "An Iranian refusal to do so would demonstrate to Iraq and the rest of the world Iran's rejectionist attitude and approach, which could lead to its isolation."
In American political rhetoric, "Freedom" has taken the same place that "Class Struggle" did for any believing Maoist. and god it sucks Posted by: r4d20 at December 8, 2006 03:03 AM | Permalink to this comment
24-year old staff sergeant T.F. Boggs:
The Iraq Survey Group’s findings or rather, recommendations are a joke and could have only come from a group of old people who have been stuck in Washington for too long. The brainpower of the ISG has come up with a new direction for our country and that includes negotiating with countries whose people chant “Death to America” and whose leaders deny the Holocaust and call for Israel to be wiped from the face of the earth. Baker and Hamilton want us to get terrorists supporting countries involved in fighting terrorism! If I am the only one who finds something wrong with that then please let me know because right now I feel like I am the only person who feels this way. Not only are the findings of the ISG a joke but the people who led the group (Baker and Hamilton) treat soldiers like they are a joke. One of the main recommendations of the ISG is to send more troops to Iraq in order to train Iraqis so they can secure their own country, but they don’t feel that we are doing a good job of that right now because training Iraqis isn’t an attractive job for soldiers to do because it isn’t a “career advancing” job. As someone who trained Iraqis from time to time I take personal offense to this remark. In my experience soldiers clamored for the chance to train Iraqis. Any soldier who doesn’t think training Iraqis is worth their time because it isn’t a “career advancing” job shouldn’t be part in the war on terror plain and simple. *** I feel like all of my efforts (30 months of deployment time) and the efforts of all my brothers in arms are all for naught. I thought old people were supposed to be more patient than a 24 year old but Talking doesn’t solve anything with a crazed people, bullets do and we need to be given a chance to work our military magic. Like I told a reporter buddy of mine: War sucks but a world run by Islamofacists sucks more.
Luka, you are spot on. The idea that the key to resolution in Iraq lies in negotiated arrangements with Iran and Syria is simply a pipe dream. Sure they will talk to us. By inviting them to the table, we increase their stature in the eyes of the Islamic world, but that would be a small price to pay if there was a reasonable chance of substantive progress. Iran and Syria love to see the US bogged down in Iraq where they can trumpet the impotency of the great Satan. And don't think they would welcome the Al Qaeda bunch with open arms either. They take delight that Bin Laden's minions are flocking to Iraq and not to their own countries. It is a fundamental rule of negotiation that each side has something that the other side wants and the ultimate issue is the structure of the exchange. The ISG report as I read it is full of platitudes of what we could offer Iran, but utterly lacking in any evidence that Iran could possibly want what we could offer. And I have heard no one offer anything likely to fill this gap. Where I part with Luka is the notion that the Persian Shia are truly caring about their Shia “brothers” across the border. In their worldview that is repeatedly expressed, those who die are simply parts of some bigger puzzle, the picture of which certainly escapes me. I am increasingly of the view that the ultimate salvation of this morass is going to the deep seated animosity between the Shia Arabs and the Shia Persians. The former are not going to let themselves be controlled by the latter and ultimately, they will come to blows. They may be friends of convenience at the moment, but in a region where slights are never forgotten and always sought to be avenged, there are been too many slights over the centuries for this alliance to have any permanency. What is the ultimate lesson of Iraq? I suggest that the pervasive mentality of the region simply doesn't admit to any but an autocratic form of government. If I am correct, the only answer is to fund the research and develop the technologies that marginalize the value of oil. When the fat funding is diminished, perhaps there could be an awakening. In the meanwhile, ISG will be followed by ISG light and ISG heavy and in the end, it is all ISG BS. Michael Posted by: Michael Pecherer at December 8, 2006 04:56 AM | Permalink to this comment
I am not nearly so negative about the ISG document as Michael Pecherer is. Its description of the state of play in and around Iraq is commendably straightforward, and is I think likely to become a kind of benchmark for the media in particular. As the administration and the military have gotten in the habit of describing events in Iraq with what one might call wildly excessive optimism, this is significant. I am much less impressed by the report's recommendations, but I've already posted my thoughts about these on Dan Drezner's blog and would refer those interested there. Here I'd just add that Pecherer's view of the differences between the interests of Arab Shia and their co-religionists in Iran is not far from mine -- doubtless the situation is highly complex but the alarm over a majority Shiite government in Iraq that might be "under the thumb" of Tehran has always struck me as exaggerated. Posted by: Zathras at December 8, 2006 06:03 AM | Permalink to this comment
eliot cohen via betsyspage: Instead we get this mess of pottage from the ISG. Perhaps that is the result when the direction from the group comes from the legislative rather than the executive branch. As I argued in my column last week, the history of attempts by Congress to take a leadership role in directing warfare in our country is not encouraging. (In December of 1776, at the low-point of the Revolution, during the “times that try men’s souls,” the Continental Congress voted to deny itself war-making powers and gave those powers to Gen. Washington. At the Constitutional Convention, there was little debate about giving the powers of commander-in-chief to the president. A fatuous process yields, necessarily, fatuous results. "Iraq's neighbors are not doing enough to help Iraq achieve stability" -- a statement only somewhat ameliorated by the admission that some are even "undercutting stability," which sounds as though Syria and Iran were being downright rude, rather than providing indispensable assistance to those who have filled the burn wards of Walter Reed, the morgue in Baghdad, and the cemetery at Arlington. The selected remedy is, first and foremost, rather like the ISG's credo for its own functioning, consensus. "The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region," as if our chief failure with Bashar Assad or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lies with the hitherto unnoticed laziness or rhetorical ineptitude of our diplomats, or as though Europe, Saudi Arabia and Israel have not yet figured out that stability in Iraq is a good thing. "Syria should control its border" and "Iran should respect Iraq's sovereignty."
It is a fundamental rule of negotiation that each side has something that the other side wants and the ultimate issue is the structure of the exchange. The ISG report as I read it is full of platitudes of what we could offer Iran, but utterly lacking in any evidence that Iran could possibly want what we could offer. And I have heard no one offer anything likely to fill this gap. The problem lies between what is in America's (and everyone else's) genuine interest at this point (a stable Iraq in a stable Middle-East) and what the Bush regime wants (a forward operating base in the center of the Gulf region from which the US can manipulate/undermine/overthrow the governments of other mid-East nations that don't adhere to the neo-con vision of America's divine hegemonic rights). The ISG tries to split the difference between these two competing visions -- and winds up satisfying no one. Syrua and Iran will have something to contribute when the US goal becomes regional stability rather than US hegemony -- until that time comes, its unsurprising that both nations will undermine the Bush regime's efforts in Iraq. *************** What is the ultimate lesson of Iraq? I suggest that the pervasive mentality of the region simply doesn't admit to any but an autocratic form of government. actually, history has consistently shown us otherwise. Once upon a time, Lebanon was a model of diversity and democracy in the middle east. Prior to the invasion of Kuwait (and the subsequent decade of onerous sanctions) Iraq was developing into another model of pluralism and nascent democracy. And prior to our invasion of Iraq, Iran was evolving into a far more democratic and pluralistic society than it had been. Indeed, 250 years ago, much of your critique ("They may be friends of convenience at the moment, but in a region where slights are never forgotten and always sought to be avenged, there are been too many slights over the centuries for this alliance to have any permanency" and "the pervasive mentality of the region simply doesn't admit to any but an autocratic form of government") could have been said about Western Europe. One of the tragedies of the middle east is that while the West (specifically Britain) planted the seeds of liberal democracy in the region over a century ago, the West has also been constantly tearing up by the roots any seedlings that sprout that threaten to grow in a manner that would result in nations whose self-determined democratic decisions would be at odds with the agenda of Western powers. We talk a good game when it comes to "democracy", but when push comes to shove it really is just talk. Posted by: p.lukasiak at December 8, 2006 12:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
....the alarm over a majority Shiite government in Iraq that might be "under the thumb" of Tehran has always struck me as exaggerated. Zathras, doesn't it make sense that people who fantasised about a pliable complacent iraqi government under our thumb would also imagine it would work for somebody else?
Once upon a time, Lebanon was a model of diversity and democracy in the middle east.
Prior to the invasion of Kuwait (and the subsequent decade of onerous sanctions) Iraq was developing into another model of pluralism and nascent democracy. Surely you jest. Posted by: David Tomlin at December 8, 2006 03:00 PM | Permalink to this comment
It never made 6 on the Polity scale. well, any scale where Israel is given a 10 despite its treatment of Palestinians under its control isn't (IMHO) very useful. (not to mention the fact that no other middle east came close to Lebanon's "almost six") Surely you jest. not in the least. Iraq was developing a thriving middle class, and its government was totally non-sectarian. I didn't say that Iraq was some kind of ideal -- I said it was developing. Sustainable democracy seldom "just happens", it evolves from non-democratic systems over time. And when one considers that Iraq was created to be virtually ungovernable absent an authoritarian system, the very fact that conditions were being created under which democracy could evolve is significant. Posted by: p.lukasiak at December 8, 2006 03:32 PM | Permalink to this comment
A quick note in response to J Thomas' comment upthread: the alarm I spoke of about an Iranian client state emerging from a Shite majority governing in Iraq is centered in Riyadh, not Washington. Tempting as it may be to project domestic political differences onto every aspect of a situation like this one, it really is a temptation worth resisting. Posted by: Zathras at December 8, 2006 04:02 PM | Permalink to this comment
. . . any scale where Israel is given a 10 despite its treatment of Palestinians under its control isn't (IMHO) very useful. The scale doesn't take into account treatment of people in colonial dependencies. I don't think that makes it useless. Even so, that Israel got a 'perfect' score for roughly half of its history does suggest some significant limitations.
. . . the alarm I spoke of about an Iranian client state emerging from a Shite majority governing in Iraq is centered in Riyadh, not Washington. And a reader is supposed to know this how? Posted by: David Tomlin at December 8, 2006 05:16 PM | Permalink to this comment
not to mention the fact that no other middle east came close to Lebanon's "almost six" Just to correct the record, Turkey has done better. http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/polity/country_reports/tur2.htm Posted by: David Tomlin at December 8, 2006 05:24 PM | Permalink to this comment
While is it certainly a meme, a cliche' already, I am struck by how the people who got it wrong, from start to finish, and most (all?) points in between i.e Ignatius, Friedman, et al, are the loudest, and most trumpted people telling us what to do now. Why should I care what Ignatius thinks? The firing of the Saudi 'consultant' is simply not plausible. No matter what the cover story is. I've heard Nawaf Obaid speak in person before. Followed his career for a while now. He is not going to anything so public like do an op ed for the WAPO without specific approval. His is falling on his sword for the sake of plausible deniabiltiy. He must have his reasons. Posted by: jonst at December 8, 2006 06:28 PM | Permalink to this comment
Just to correct the record, Turkey has done better. show of hands please.....How many people consider Turkey to be a part of the "middle east"? Posted by: p.lukasiak at December 8, 2006 07:40 PM | Permalink to this comment
How many people consider Turkey to be a part of the "middle east"? You're the first I've encountered who didn't. Posted by: David Tomlin at December 8, 2006 08:05 PM | Permalink to this comment
plusiakiak: Where America/Britain have been given a 10 for most of their existence! (Those who live in glass houses should be careful about throwing stones.)
if this is such a lost cause, why don't most of our troops there think so...if it was, wouldn't they be anxious to get the hell out of there to a safer place?)Posted by: Davebo at December 9, 2006 01:11 AM | Permalink to this comment
boggs above says he thinks a majority believe in the mission, there are a lot of veterans once they're through who say the same. do you have any detailed info to refer to? voting returns for overseas military? Posted by: neill at December 9, 2006 02:33 AM | Permalink to this comment
neil, This would be sound advice but knowing that Fox news is the sole media they are exposed to would definitely skew any sound voting. I have heard that the military publications are balanced but what chance have they against the t.v. and the glitter of Fox. Posted by: Russ at December 9, 2006 02:49 AM | Permalink to this comment
oooops. though most those headlines have one significant element in common. Hint: it's a 'peaceful' belief system. Posted by: neill at December 9, 2006 03:03 AM | Permalink to this comment
Russ, I take that to mean that you agree the the majority of our troops continue to support the mission. Clearly, Fox is a stronger influence than their in-country experiences. I think they have a choice in what they watch, as do we all. but clearly, these rubes are dumb as rocks.... Is 'Russ' an aka for....er...John Kerry or......Charlie Rangel. Posted by: neill at December 9, 2006 03:15 AM | Permalink to this comment
the new kids in town: Thu, December 7, 2006 Beheadings threatened By AP MOGADISHU, Somalia -- Residents of a southern Somalia town who do not pray five times a day will be beheaded, an official said yesterday, adding the edict will be implemented in three days. Shops, tea houses and other public places in Bulo Burto, about 200 km northeast of the capital, Mogadishu, should be closed during prayer time and no one should be on the streets, said Sheik Hussein Barre Rage, chairman of the town's Islamic court. His court is part of a network backed by armed militiamen that has taken control of much of southern Somalia. Posted by: neill at December 9, 2006 03:45 AM | Permalink to this comment
We can't believe what any of oiur guys in uniform say, unless it's one-on-one in private with the promise you won't repeat it. They're getting censored. And they get punished for saying things that sound discourasging. And some of them get to come home early if they write stories about what great progress we're making in iraq. It's wartime. Soldiers have a duty to lie to the public in wartime. Don't believe what they say unless they can be sure it won't get back to their commanding officers.
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder!
Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz Quotable More Predictions Predictions, Predictions! A 'Sick Man of Europe' Reprise? Addingtonism (Belatedly) Ripe For A Comeuppance?
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Ross Douthat Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Innocents Abroad Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Red State Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice
Archives
August 2008
July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
