August 31, 2005

What You Should Be Reading On Iraq


Ackerman, Spence
Cordesman, Anthony
Clark, Wes
Cole, Juan
Diamond, Larry
Drum, Kevin
Fukuyama, Francis
Kaplan, Fred
Krepinevich, Andrew (aka 'Oil Spot')
Kristol, Bill
McCaffrey, Barry
Nossel, Suzanne
Plumer, Brad
Quinlivan, James
Vest, Jason
Yglesias, Matt

Somewhere in this veritable morass of 'what to do in Iraq' cogitations lays the truth! Well, perhaps not. But we'll be mining all of this over here at B.D. in the coming days (early indications have me paying a lot of attention to Wes Clark, btw)....

P.S. Kick added suggestions for other pieces worth reading in comments below...

Posted by Gregory at August 31, 2005 04:08 AM | TrackBack (6)
Comments

I just ordered this one by Bard O'Neill (Vest cites him)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1574883356/202-4925477-5835020

Here's an interview he did last year:

http://www.offoffoff.com/opinion/2004/oneill.php

Posted by: Anodyne at August 31, 2005 06:15 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Sorry about that.

I just ordered Insurgency &Terrorism: From Revolution To Apocalypse by Bard O'Neill.

Here's an interview O'Neill gave last year.

Posted by: Anodyne at August 31, 2005 07:08 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Greg is suffering from an advanced case of Sullivanitis. Let's hope it's not too advanced. At some point it becomes incurable. Anyone who thinks they should pay "a lot of attention to Wes Clark" has some serious issues. For one, how to explain Clark's non sequitor laden performance on Meet the Press last Sunday. And who on the planet is going to fall the old "let's get all these people who can't agree on anything in a room together, apply some leadership (by Clark, of course) and presto we will have some broas-based agreement? This is the highest ranking nitwit our military ever produced.

Posted by: Frank at August 31, 2005 12:37 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

That would be Wes Clarke who correctly predicted that Iraq would be a disaster for America.

You can read all those people and the facts still won't change: America is losing in Iraq and there isn't much it can do about it. And you are losing because Americans fail to see the obvious that democracy doesn't come from a the mendacious policiticians with a meglomanical bent. America tried a good old imperial adventure of conquest, and like many before it, ends up weaker than when it started.

I think Franks is clearly the dumbest, yet highly ranked, officer the US has produced, although Sanchez and some of the others are close (which is of course part of the reason you are losing).

Posted by: Jeremy at August 31, 2005 01:24 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Stay the course, last throes, cakewalk, we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, we're making progress and on and on.

And Wes Clark is a "nitwit"? Right.

Why not just admit that the nitwits have been running the war in Iraq for well over two years now? Rumsfeld is a nitwit, Bush is a nitwit and Cheney is the mother of all nitwits.

Posted by: Pug at August 31, 2005 01:49 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

supply problems, "operational pause", troops not trained for urban warfare, Baghdadgrad, vaunted republican guard, Al Sadr causing a civil war, "destroying" Fallujah causing a civil war, transition to a civil authority causing a civil war, a screwed up vote causing a civil war, arguments about the constitution causing a civil war, increased troop strength causing a civil war, decreased troop strength causing a civil war, and the ever popular wogs can't handle democracy.

I don't think the anti-war side has had a great track record either.

Hindsight is 20/20. I remember Clark, asked about GTMO a few weeks ago saying that he said before the war that our prisoners from Afghanistan should have been given to France and Germany. Don't remember hearing that bombshell at the time.

Posted by: monkeyboy at August 31, 2005 03:49 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Great list. I've read about half of those thus far... There are some similarities. Sustainable deployments. Developing security and infrastructure. Long term planning, and actually telling that to the populus.

It's just like WWII right??? And Philadelphia's constitutional convention???? NOPE.

Posted by: Chris at August 31, 2005 03:57 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

One must finally ask what would it take to persuade all these noodles on your list that the war has been:

1) waged for trumped up reasons
2) already lost

The elephants in the room remain:

Israeli interests
Long-term US bases in Iraq

Skip in Annapolis

R.

Posted by: Skip at August 31, 2005 04:25 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Kick added suggestions for other pieces worth reading in comments below...

Peter W. Galbraith, "Iraq: Bush's Islamic Republic", New York Review of Books, Volume LII, Number 13, 2005-08-11.

There is, in fact, no Iraqi insurgency. There is a Sunni Arab insurgency. And it cannot win. Neither the al-Qaeda terrorists nor the former Baathists can win. Even if the US withdrew tomorrow, neither insurgents nor terrorists would be knocking down the gates to Iraq's Presidential Palace in Baghdad. . .

But while the insurgents cannot win, neither can they be defeated.

For most of his thirty-five year rule, Saddam Hussein faced guerilla warfare from Kurds or Shiites . . . Even the most brutal of tactics could not pacify communities that did not accept Sunni Arab rule. . . It is unrealistic to think the American military -- operating with a fraction of the intelligence of the Saddam Hussein regime and with much less brutality . . . can quell a Sunni Arab resistance that is no longer solely anti-American but also anti-Shiite. . .

This, of course, raises a question about what a prolonged US military presence in Iraq can accomplish . . .

Posted by: Robert McDougall at August 31, 2005 04:37 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

The knock on Clark is not that he is wrong so much as that his prescriptions are little more than so many Good Things -- in other words, things it would be nice to have happen (e.g. "Canada, France and Germany should be engaged to assist. Neighboring states should also provide observers and technical assistance.") unaccompanied by any suggestion as to how to make them happen.

The issues Clark is right about are mostly those one and two years in the past, which is not to his discredit, exactly, but does make the sum of his advice less helpful than it might be.

Posted by: JEB at August 31, 2005 04:44 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

To Jeremy and all those that say we are going to lose:

If I had to place my money on it, I'd agree with you. But, I'd like to avoid a horrible World War III over oil, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. etc. etc.

Right now, I like oil-spot the best, because it refocuses American interests in the Shiite south, where we can countervail Iran a little. God help us.

Posted by: Chris at August 31, 2005 05:15 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

There are some points in Gen. McCaffrey's assessment with which I disagree; he is a little hard on Iraqi Shiite politicians "shutting out" Sunni Arabs in the midst of a Sunni Arab insurgency that goes out of its way to target Shiite civilians, for example. His five-year timeframe also assumes no other commitments taking precedence to the one in Iraq, an assumption I regard as most unwise.

However, McCaffrey has a number of excellent practical suggestions addressing specific problems such as Fallujah, US military media relations, and officer rotations. At the moment I believe these to be of greater value than strategic BigThink or grand designs our present political leadership would not be able to implement even if they agreed with them. I also give McCaffrey credit for not guessing, e.g. he recognizes Iraqi corruption is a serious problem but does not offer prescriptions he has no good reason to think would be effective.

Posted by: JEB at August 31, 2005 06:15 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Why don't we just outsource the whole thing?

Really.

Create a 50K strong "Foreign Legion" of non-US citizens, train them for pacification / counter-insurgency, and make the job pay well with a promise of UC citizenship after 12 years. They can be armed with mostly small-arms, diplomatic and police skills, and if need be, be backed up by heavier weapons from our regular forces.

You solve multiple problems:
(1) The media war becomes less an issue since there will be fewer US bound body-bags. The "Insurgency" needs international attention to be effective, and without it, it'll be a nasty chronic condition, but not a strategic threat.
(2) You have a specialized counter-insurgency fighting force with long-term occupation/stabilization as its mission.
(3) In the long term, I expect it will cost less than keeping a huge chunk of our military assets busy indefinately.


Posted by: Narmer at August 31, 2005 06:24 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

the oilspot theory is stupid and deluded. Quite simply there are no more troops. None. Nunca. Its a fantasy theory.

Posted by: Jeremy at August 31, 2005 08:15 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

FAREED ZAKARIA

Posted by: ARCHER at August 31, 2005 08:27 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

How can Clark be taken seriously? "So no Kurdish vote on independence, a restricted role for Islam and limited autonomy in the south. And no private militias." What means does he propose to accomplish these ends? We just declare, "Islam will have a restricted role in your country"???!!! Or "Disband your militias right now"??!!!?? This oped is so full of empty -- yet intelligent sounding -- phrases that one must wonder whether Clark has any idea what he's talking about. For example,

- "Key ministries must be reinforced, provincial governments made functional"??!!!?? What does this even mean? How do you reinforce a key ministry? In fact, which are the key ministries that he's talking about? In what ways do they need to be "reinforced"? And which regional governments are not functional? In what ways are they not functioning? Are some of the provinces functioning better than others? Does he even know?

- A regional conference with Iraq's neighbors to discuss cutting off infiltration of jihadists? Is Clark aware that Syria just might be allowing/sending jihadis into Iraq? That Iran's interests do not exactly coincide with ours? That no matter how fancy the regional conference, or how many Richard Holbrookes preside over it, Syria and Iran may not be persuaded that a secure and democratic Iraq is a good thing for them?

- As for his suggestions regarding the "military side," I have no expertise in this area, but I do have common sense. I have no personal knowledge of the "tried-and-true methods of counterinsurgency" that Clark yearns for, but I suspect that Clark does not possess any knowledge in this area that is not shared by the active U.S. generals and officers currently commanding and/or engaging in operations in Iraq. (By the way, Clark's description of those "tried and true methods" sound a hell of a lot like the Vietnam approach that he decried a few paragraphs earlier.) Is Clark really saying that there are specific potentially successful strategies and tactics that our military leaders are failing to employ? Will he please share them with the men and women in the field?

The vacuousness of Clark's prescriptions is neatly encapsulated with his closing line: "If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home." This is truly a brain-exploder. How can we tell if a strategy is a winner unless and until we've won? Obviously, we can't; winning strategies are evident only in hindsight. But according to Clark, unless we've won, demands for withdrawal from Iraq are justified. This makes no sense.

I am really surprised that anyone who isn't simply looking to bash Bush would buy into this nonsensical crap.

Posted by: Brutus at August 31, 2005 09:08 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Juan Cole? Is he more than a nitwit at the U of Mich?

Posted by: Jim, Mtn View CA at August 31, 2005 09:12 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Well - at least I know what I WON'T be reading on Iraq

Wes Clarke? Juan Cole? What about Michael Moore???

So sad to find BD had followed Andrew "I supported the war against Islamic facism until the issue of gay marriage came up" Sullivan line

Posted by: Pogue Mahone at August 31, 2005 09:57 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Random thoughts on this post and comments section:

1) Wes Clark's recommendations on personal finance -- "buy low and sell high"

2) Wasn't he (Clark) the genius that wanted us to attack the Russian troops at the airport in Bosnia? An action that was only avoided by the mutiny of his British second in command? An action that got him removed (al la Tenant) several months early?

3) The first leftyI looked at, per the recommendations, was Ackerman. The first paragraph of his polemic states: "It won't stop the insurgency from gathering strength..." By what metric does he see the insurgency gathering strength? This is not a facetious question - I'd be willing to review any serious data that indicates the insurgency is gaining strength. If this cannot be provided I have to assume that the rest of his piece is just as tendentious as the first paragraph.

4) The Sunni's, as a whole, do not need to be won over for this Constitution to be established. The Shia and Kurds have to appeal to 34% of the Sunni's, in the privacy of the polling booth, that this process is better than another 10 years of car bombs. The haggling and tenders being proffered to tribal leaders during this period are being bankrolled by the countries' oil fields - what assets are the former Baathists bringing to the table? Even assuming, forthe sake of argument, that the Constitution is rejected - if the predicted 88% of the population participates and sends the commission back to start over, won't that event have some independent impact?

Posted by: wayne at August 31, 2005 10:25 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Jim in Mountain View wrote:
Juan Cole? Is he more than a nitwit at the U of Mich?

Definitely. As long as you have a decent bullshit filter in your head, Cole offers a lot of insight.

Posted by: Guy at August 31, 2005 10:26 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Jeremy won the argument, guys! He used several different variants of No/None/Nothing or whatever. Can't beat that....

Posted by: Chris at September 1, 2005 12:36 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

JEB,

I agree Clark made sence a few year ago, heres the quote:

Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. . .

Clark continued: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001. . .

More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Glad to see reading BD has had an impact on your analysis.

Posted by: Wayne at September 1, 2005 01:30 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Are you saying the war was waged for trumped up reasons Skip?

Do you know the reason for the war?


As for "Israel's interest" - I would say that all of us - from Juan Cole to Chris Hitchens agree that solving the Israeli/Pali issue is a vital element toward long term peace and stability in the region

Surely an arab democracy is a step in this direction

and the removal of a major backer of Hamas et al

Posted by: Pogue Mahone at September 1, 2005 02:03 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I disagree with the Clark thesis and others who proscribe a heavy nation building approach at this point. In my view the opportunity for effective post-conflict transition has been squandered and we are now in a situation where US presence is an obstacle to progress in Iraq.

As the quote from Peter Galbraith points out, this is a Sunni/Baathist and foreign fighter insurgency that would not prevail if US forces withdraw. Rather it would bring Iraqi on Iraqi violence into clear view with Sunni/foreign extremists on one side and the rest of Iraq on the other -- a battle they cannot win.

The correct strategy in my view is a near term US withdrawal with aggressive diplomatic efforts to isolate the insurgency from Sunni moderates thereby sap the ability of an insurgency to thrive following US withdrawal. The withdrawal would also require a careful work with the Iraqi and Iranian government to draw clear lines of US interests.

There may be a possibility to retain a US strike and SOF operation based in Kuwait if the Iraqi government would so support. And international reconstruction and development assistance should continue.

I'm not an optimist about my strategy but I see every alternative course as worse.

A note for some of the naive comments above:

I disagree with Clark's approach but anyone who thinks he's a nitwit or vacuous or simplistic isn't knowledgeable about Wes Clark. Clark's reputation in the Army was never good -- because he was arrogant and brilliant -- not fitting in the Army culture of humble simplicity. As Gen Shalikashvili, my favorite CJCS, said "he was too brilliant not to promote." Furthermore, the Dayton Military Annex orchestrated by Clark implemented by Joulwan, Smith and Nash essentially prevented an insurgency from developing in Bosnia. If you think Clark's prescription is simplistic, its because you don't understand it.

Posted by: POTUS B at September 1, 2005 03:34 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Who are the enemies and what are they doing and how are they doing it? These questions need to be answered first and foremost. Then get the tactics right to deal with each threat.

As of right now there is nonsense carried over from the GWoT and G-SAEV rhetoric which makes the enemy ill defined. But what I see America facing is locals who can be integrated into the political process and also some terrorist groups supported by neighbouring governments. American might is a threat to these regimes in a way that Saddam 35 years of brutallity could never be, America can stifle this part of the rebellion by threatening the surrounding regimes. With the exception of Iran it does not.

Posted by: unaha-closp at September 1, 2005 03:50 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

As the quote from Peter Galbraith points out, this is a Sunni/Baathist and foreign fighter insurgency that would not prevail if US forces withdraw. Rather it would bring Iraqi on Iraqi violence into clear view with Sunni/foreign extremists on one side and the rest of Iraq on the other -- a battle they cannot win.

Yes they can, without America the picture changes. They have a secure supply from fundamentalist Sunni worldwide - lots of money and men. If they attack solely Shia targets, it becomes a battle between Iranian backed Shia and the Sunni backed by the Sunni world. America would back the Sunni eventually, as it backs most other Sunni regimes.

Posted by: unaha-closp at September 1, 2005 04:05 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Unaha-closp --

I'm willing to consider your argument that the disparate insurgent strands could win a civil war against a national Iraqi majority government actively backed by Shia, Kurd, at least some Sunni areas, the US, and to some degree Iran. You would have to assume that the insurgency retains its organization and momentum in the face of US withdrawal. You would have to assume Sunni moderates fail to meaningfully take political opportunities offered for leadership in a new Iraqi government. You would have to assume that giving the Sunnis wide autonomy over their own regions fails undermine their cause. You would have to assume that the insurgents could eventually transition from roadside bombs to occupation of territory to ability to control key instruments of power in the country including most of Baghdad, other key cities, oil facilities, media, etc.

This appears to be a tall order. I certainly envision a continuation of fighting after US withdrawal but I'm skeptical that the Sunni's would be able to regain power in Baghdad. The greater risk is that the nation is ethnically polarized, pushing the Shia dominated government into close relations with Tehran.

Again, I'm not optimistic about my course but it is better than the alternatives IMO.

Posted by: POTUS B at September 1, 2005 03:01 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"If you think Clark's prescription is simplistic, its because you don't understand it."

That stings.

Potus B, please direct us to the un-simplistic prescriptions in that op-ed. Just one. Please.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I do understand Clark's suggestions.
- no role for Islam in Iraqi governance
- stop the bad guys from coming across the borders
- no private militias
- more regional cooperation
etc.

These are not policy prescriptions; they are goals, and in fact they are largely the administration's current goals in Iraq. But Clark's piece is utterly devoid of the "how"; how to disband the militias (is he advocating direct armed confrontation?), how Islam's role in government should have been (too late now) restricted; how to forge an Iraq that its "neighbors can support" (again, Syria and Iran have demonstrated, pretty unequivocally, that what they want in Iraq is not something we -- or most Iraqis -- want); how the current reconstruction operations are deficient and how they can be improved; how counterinsurgency strategy and tactics should be conducted. Instead, Clark essentially says "we need to do all the things that will allow us to succeed in Iraq" without telling us what those things are.

I don't doubt that Clark is an intelligent man; notwithstanding all the cliches about the military, I can't imagine someone attaining the positions Clark has occupied without having a brain. But how can you get past his bizarre idea that we can just convince those stubborn Syrians and confused ayatollahs that they really, really, really should want a stable democratic Iraq next door, or that Germany, France and Canada will somehow want to get involved in Iraq if we just "engage" them. These suggestions reveal blithe naivete at best and total ignorance at worst.

In truth -- and I think this is the whole point of this blog and all others -- it doesn't matter how damn smart Clark has proven to be in the past, present or future. He has articulated an argument and his SAT scores do not make that argument any better.

Posted by: Brutus at September 1, 2005 07:00 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Forgive me for being simplisitc, but it seems that "what to do in Iraq" is and always has been fairly simple:

Train and equip Iraqi forces until they are capable of holding down Al Anbar and Ninewah. It's difficult because it takes a bare minimum of four months to train a brand new infantryman, several more months for unit to develope any sort of cohesion, and then years after to develope a decent NCO corps.

The biggest problem in all of this is that the Iraqi army that's being created doesn't seem to have any decent equipment to speak of. An infantry unit should not be reduced to getting transported in the back of Nissan pickup trucks. A system that can procure pickup trucks should be able to procure Hummers and some halfway decent equipment.

If we can't fix the equipment problem (or for that matter can't manage to train any motivated Iraqis), then this Iraq business is a complete waste of time.

Posted by: Andrew Reeves at September 1, 2005 07:36 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Forgive me for being simplisitc, but it seems that "what to do in Iraq" is and always has been fairly simple:

Train and equip Iraqi forces until they are capable of holding down Al Anbar and Ninewah. It's difficult because it takes a bare minimum of four months to train a brand new infantryman, several more months for unit to develope any sort of cohesion, and then years after to develope a decent NCO corps.

The biggest problem in all of this is that the Iraqi army that's being created doesn't seem to have any decent equipment to speak of. An infantry unit should not be reduced to getting transported in the back of Nissan pickup trucks. A system that can procure pickup trucks should be able to procure Hummers and some halfway decent equipment.

If we can't fix the equipment problem (or for that matter can't manage to train any motivated Iraqis), then this Iraq business is a complete waste of time.

Posted by: Andrew Reeves at September 1, 2005 07:36 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Brutus --

When you tell me Clark outlines some lofty goals without providing a case as to how to accomplish those goals, I agree with it. But an op-ed is not a pol-mil plan. A plan of Clark's scope can only be outlined. Clark could write several books on how to execute every one of those items and we might disagree with him then as well. My comment was simply that its naive to think that Clark doesn't have depth or intelligence behind his argument and therefore leap to the judgment that Clark is "vacuous" or a "nitwit" i.e. dumb. That or its mindless partisanship.

As I said, I disagree with his approach. Its the personal characterization that he's stupid that I flagged as naive and simplistic.

POTUS B

Posted by: POTUS B at September 1, 2005 10:18 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

what is Juan Cole doing on that list???

As for the oil spot strategy, it's an interesting concept, but it simply doesn't work. You can secure small areas, you cannot secure entire cities or regions. Still, I do advocate securing small areas in allmajor cities. This will allow NGO and strategic organizations (banks, state administration, big corporations, the UN etc...) to have a presence throughout Iraq.

Posted by: vox populi at September 2, 2005 09:19 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I agree that Clark is a very intelligent man -- he let us know he graduated first in his class at West Point nearly as many times as Kerry told us that by the way he served in Viet Nam. Watching him deal with extemporaneous questions on the campaign trail gave me a much more nuanced,shall we say, view of his abilities. I'm sure we've all known people that excell acedemically, but who we would be very hesitant to allow to change the oil in our car. I wouldn't put Clark quite in that category, but I do see him as an opportunist that went from the comments I quoted above to Michael Moore's preferred candidate in a matter of months.

Posted by: wayne at September 2, 2005 10:21 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Actually I agree with some of the things Professor Cole said. He thinks there should be first a withdrawal from urban areas ASAP; giving the Iraqi Army the tools they need, such as armor and helicopters, and finally using the US Air Force's firepower against insurgent's strongholds. I found his comments more helpful than General Clark's. This was a surprise to me. Maybe he has changed his views a bit since Fallujah and the elections.

Posted by: Chuck Betz at September 2, 2005 10:59 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'dlike to add Mark Styne to the reading list:

Here's the link to his article "Why I'm Still an Optimist."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=6557&issue=2005-09-03

Posted by: wayne at September 3, 2005 04:36 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'd like to add Mark Styne to the reading list:

Here's the link to his article "Why I Remain an Optimist."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=6557&issue=2005-09-03

Posted by: wayne at September 3, 2005 04:38 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Fallows: Blind Into Baghdad.

This Atlantic article indicates how the administratiin faiiled to prepare for the most difficult part of the process and ignored those who tried to help it.

http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=185

Posted by: sandy at September 6, 2005 10:48 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Fallows: Blind into Baghdad

http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=185

Posted by: sandy at September 6, 2005 10:50 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/

http://victorhanson.com/


Excellent analysis and comments at belmontclub.

Hanson has broad knowledge of the military and history.

Posted by: vladimir at September 8, 2005 10:18 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
"Must-read list"
--Washington Times
"Pompous Ass"
--an anonymous blogospheric commenter
Recent Entries
Search
English Language Media
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
U.S. Blogs
Columnists
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
Security
Books
The City
Western Europe
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Central and Eastern Europe
CIS/FSU
Russia
Armenia
East Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
Middle East
Egypt
Israel
Lebanon
Syria
B.D. In the Press
Archives
Categories
Syndicate this site:
XML RSS RDF

G2E

Powered by