Probably a good place is to point out an irony he picks up on, I completely missed in discussing the same WaPo article.
He tells you who are beginning to sound like Democrats here, and its signifigance.
-
I'd say that if progressives are ever going to develop a sensible, persuasive defense policy -- one that protects America and promotes its true long-term interests, without turning its soldiers into geopolitical cannon fodder -- now would be the time to do it.
Billmon was ahead of the pack in evaluating Paul Bremer back in May.
-
But when the stakes are somewhere in between – as they are now – personal power struggles can turn deadly: not for the participants, of course, but for the poor schmoes (U.S. and foreign) who wind up being used as pawns. Vietnam was one example. So was the Iranian hostage crisis. So was Iran-Contra. And now we have another.
This is the key to understanding Bremer, I think. Looking at his career, particularly his recent career, I see a man who excels at only one thing: not making enemies. It’s the ultimate bureaucratic skill -- and the key to emerging as the consensus pygmy when the giants are at each other’s throats.
Whether that same skill will serve him as well in Iraq – where you don’t have to make enemies because they make you – is more doubtful. But given Bremer’s track record, you probably can bet on one thing: Whatever happens in Baghdad, he’ll emerge without a fleck of mud on his well-tailored suits.
There's more.
And don't miss his fascinating take on the enduring nature of American innocence abroad.
I was prepared to take issue with a certain pessimism in it, when reader Hobson directed my attention to this report in the Village Voice.
-
U.S. Curtails Iraq's Newfound Media Freedoms
BAGHDAD—The print press is booming here as newspapers rose from five government-run papers during Saddam Hussein's regime to around 150 now. But U.S.-led forces are dampening the mood of the free press by censoring it.
(edit)
Coalition forces last week raided a distribution center of Sadda-al-Auma newspaper in Najaf, two hours from the capital. They questioned the staff and seized copies of an edition that ordered Iraqis to join the resistance against Americans.
They had their reasons; the article is distinctly fair, and members of this new Iraqi press have differing reactions.
But even where a relatively unprofessional broadside is anti-American, or praising resistance to US occupation, isn't it better to know who is saying what, than to drive such dissatisfaction underground, or worse, into actual violence. Did anyone think to go and talk to the editor of that paper in Najaf, before confiscating its output?