I guess I was right

There's confirmation today of my inexpert intuition of yesterday. The New York Times quotes Vice President Biden as follows:

Mr. Biden said in an interview in Baghdad last week that if Iraq went another six months without a new government it would raise concerns that Iraq’s military might intervene in politics. “My worry will be that generals in the military will start saying, ‘Wait a minute, which way is this going to go?’ ” he said.

“But I think we are far from that,” said Mr. Biden, who added that the Obama administration had been striving for a political breakthrough. “We have been deeply involved with each of the parties from the day after the election results came in,” he said, adding, “This has been constant.”

The administration may be aware of the potential problem, but I remain dubious that the United States can engineer a stable and effective grand coalition government -- in Iraq or much of anywhere.

you read it here first

Disclaimer: I am not an Iraq expert. I have no current knowledge about Iraq. But I have an intuition that the current political impasse will be ended by a military coup.

Over the years, when I have had contact with people knowledgeable about Iraq and its politics, I've asked about the role of the military and civil-military relations. Often I was told that the senior officers are frustrated with the politicians but feared the international community's response to any coup attempt.

The situation is changing, not least with the withdrawal of many US troops and the change of mission for those remaining. The situation is also changing because of the new senior American personnel, who are unlikely to be as close to Iraqi officers as their predecessors. Western reporters haven't written about this, probably because most of their contacts are civilian politicians and the military wouldn't speak to them anyway. Yet there are continuing security problems and the politicians are seen as dithering.

To me, this looks like a situation where even a reluctant military may want to intervene to end the stalemate and preserve order.

voter ignorance

I've commented before on the appalling degree of voter ignorance. In a spirit of nonpartisan fairness, I wanted to note the column of Ilya Somin, a George Mason University professor, that mentions mistaken views among Democrats. While partisan orientation may explain some beliefs that get circulated among partisans, I certainly disagree with Professor Somin's conclusion -- that "The best response to voter ignorance is to reduce the size and scope of government."

I cannot follow the logic here. Would more people know who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks if the Federal budget were only 10% of GDP? Would the extent of U.S. dependence on foreign oil be better understood if there were no Energy Department or Department of Education?

No, ignorance can be combated, though not necessarily overcome, by the availability of information and education, and by citizen efforts to publicize falsehoods.

party polarization

Dan Balz of the Washington Post draws on papers by political scientists trying to explain the political problems of the Obama presidency. Some blame Obama for trying to be above politics in 2008, offering a bipartisan vision that was impossible to achieve. Others say he exaggerated the effect of his rhetorical skills once president.

There's some wisdom in these analyses. American politics has been highly polarized for at least two decades. It's also sad but true that each of the last three presidents has been viewed as fundamentally illegitimate by a large segment of the opposition party. There are also deeper reasons for this situation -- the realignment of the parties into ideological opposites, the rise of safe congressional districts through clever redistricting, and the growth of influential interest groups outside of the party/electoral system. [I see nothing wrong with an interest group saying "we're right on corporate taxes, or relations with Taiwan, or prescription drugs. What I dislike is when those groups push for candidates using unrelated issues and hiding their real agenda.]

A more telling criticism of Obama comes from John Judis in the New Republic. He documents the inconsistencies in the administration's approach -- sounding a populist trumpet one week and sober nonpartisanship the next. Politicians should remember what harm an uncertain trumpet can do.

you are what you eat

The New York Times has a clever feature today, made even better by an interactive display on line, of the military rations for the international troops in Afghanistan. Take a look. The diversity is fascinating and the cultural significance profound. You have to wonder how happy soldiers would be to have to eat the rations from another country.

If this is one of the ways the Times is trying to reinvent itself for the digital age, then I'm more optimistic about its future.

presidential power in wartime

I've come across an article that puts into words what I have long felt about the limits on presidential power in wartime. A father and son duo, both lawyers, one conservative and one liberal, have written a book condemning the use of torture but explaining ways to assess other executive actions arguably in defense of the whole community and nation.

I'm a Constitutionalist, not a Presidentialist like the Cheney-Addington-Yoo crowd. I believe that Congress has significant powers over the use of force at home and abroad. And I excuse the extra-Constitutional behavior of Jefferson and Lincoln because they asked Congress for ex post facto authorization.

I'm also highly dubious of arguments that torture sometimes works and is a necessary tool in those "ticking time bomb" scenarios that apologists envision. I guess I have faith that, if an official were willing to risk his career and risk severe punishment, a defense in court might prove successful.

That's where the Fried and Fried article is most persuasive. They suggest that Presidents can sometimes act illegally if they are willing to follow the model of civil disobedience and accept punishment for their illegal actions. But they can't keep those actions secret and they can't ever torture. In other words, they do not have inherent power because a war exists or a threat exists. They only have the right to be judged on their illegal actions.

the approaching storm

More and more election forecasters are predicting a Democratic wipeout in the November elections. They expect huge losses leading to a Republican-controlled House and maybe the same in the Senate. Strangely, voter discontent is anger at Democrats rather than support for Republicans, as another new poll demonstrates. There just isn't any good news for Democrats.

Things can change, of course. Some of the unknown newcomers winning GOP primaries may self destruct on the campaign trail. But the economy can't surge tangibly in the remaining weeks, and the economy is the main driver of voter unhappiness.

I was struck by what an anonymous "Democratic strategist" told the Washington Post today:

"We did the mosque, Katrina, Iraq, and now Middle East peace?" said a Democratic strategist who works closely with multiple candidates and spoke on the condition of anonymity. "And in between you redo the Oval Office? It has become a joke."

On the one hand, this person rightly notes that all of the media obsessions in recent months have been bad news stories for Democrats, either in themselves or as distractions from efforts to help the economy. But did you notice that the person called the BP oil spill "Katrina"?

I think that the BP oil spill has become for Obama what Katrina was for Bush in the second term -- a metaphor for incompetent government, a long-running story of failure, despite valiant attempts to fix the problem. When even Democrats make that mental error, it suggests that the mindset has taken hold.