The Bernoulli Effect

« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »

February 20, 2007

Whither Condi, Part III

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line comments on a WaPo report that details Condi Rice's continuing effort to bring back that old Kissinger shuttle diplomacy magic. Paul:

Secretary Rice is shuttling back and forth between Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Abbas trying to bring about a "peace" arrangement between the two parties that will also include their Arab neighbors.

This is a fool's errand. Olmert is too weak politically to lead Israel into any kind of deal with Abbas, whose Fatah party is now participating in a government with Hamas, an organization committed to Israel's destruction. Even Olmert apparently has enough sense to insist that Israel cannot be a peace partner with the new Palestinian government. And if, somehow, Rice managed to broker a deal, it would not bring peace anymore than the Oslo deal did.

I've lost all faith in Secretary of State Rice--she is the lamest of lame ducks. Remember her decisive pronouncement on the disarming of Hizbollah?

If Hezbollah resists international demands to disarm, Rice said, "one would have to assume that there will be others who are willing to call Hezbollah what we are willing to call it, which is a terrorist organization."

What, exactly, does Condi hope to accomplish? As Paul observes, bending heaven and earth to accomplish a deal--when there are no good alternatives to choose from--is absurd:

And that's one answer to the Democrats when they ask what the harm is in talking with Iran. The last thing we need is for a Condi Rice or a Madeleine Albright to become obsessed with getting Iran's signature on a piece of paper, any piece of paper.

Now, just imagine John Bolton as Secretary of State.

I can dream, can't I?

February 11, 2007

What's Your Idea Of Doom?

A story in yesterday's Houston Chronicle bore the headline:

New U.S. commander warns of doom for Iraq

And the body of the story continued:

BAGHDAD, Iraq — The new U.S. commander in Iraq warned today that the country was "doomed to continued violence and civil strife" if American and Iraqi forces did not work together.

I guess it's a small thing, but does anyone agree with me that there's a disconnect between the outcome implied by the headline and general's exact words? To me, "doom for Iraq" conjures up images of a complete breakdown of all civil government combined with complete anarchy dominated by factional thuggery. In other words, a cessation of the idea of Iraq as a sovereign country.

Now I realize that there is partial breakdown of some civil government and some degree of violent factional thuggery. But there is also no doubt that a lot of normal day-to-day activities are ongoing. And I also contend that "continued violence and civil strife" doesn't equate to the "doom" that the legacy media headline writers are touting.