ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Yglesias

Government By Moron

Jeff Stein sets out to ask some counterintelligence officials and the congresspersons charged with overseeing them if they know the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni. The results are sobering.

The lack of any interest in actually understanding what’s going on in the Islamic world — the preference for crude historical analogies, chest-pounding, and feel-good rhetoric — in this country is both absurd and more than a little frightening. Via Jonah Goldberg.

UPDATE: For a genuine challenge, does anyone understand the Zensunni/Zensufi split in the Dude books?

Yglesias

Broken Constitution

Sanford Levinson makes the case that the celebrated US constitution is actually totally whack. I tend to agree. For a lengthier exposition of Levinson’s views, see Cass Sunstein’s review of his new book which lays out the argument in some detail. Sunstein is pretty dubious, but I find his counterarguments unpersuasive, except on the point that Levinson’s calls for a “do-over” just seem utterly unrealistic.

Let me try, however, to locate a more policy-relevant point here. The United States semi-frequently finds itself in the business of trying to assist other countries in making transitions to democracy. Thanks to our country’s habit of Founder-worship, there’s a tendency to push American-ish political institutions on other nations. Empirical research (see George Tsebelis’ Veto Players for a summary of much of it), however, indicates that US-style proliferation of veto points makes democratic consolidation much more difficult. In the American context, an extremely large number of veto points serves, in essence, to impede progressive social reform, which is unfortunate. In young democracies without entrenched norms, however, it tends to simply encourage people to break the frequent deadlocks through extra-legal means — coups or paralyzing street violence. This has been a particular problem in Latin America where the US influence has been at its highest.

President Bush Fails to Put Iraq’s Leaders on Notice

President Bush made a friendly phone call to Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki yesterday, “telling him to not believe ‘rumors’ (in spokesman Tony Snow’s words) that the U.S. had privately given him a two-month timetable to shape up.”

In fact, the “rumors” were comments on CNN by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad two weeks ago. Bush’s contradictory statement sent the wrong message — that the United States will continue giving a blank check to the Iraqi leadership no matter what it does or doesn’t do. In assuring that the United States does not seek to impose a timeline, President Bush also undercut the message that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tried to send to Iraq’s leaders in her trip there earlier this month: speed up the political process.

The timing of Bush’s call made its impact even worse. On the same day, Iraq’s leaders postponed a national reconciliation conference aimed at addressing the problems that are at the heart of Iraq’s violence, and USA Today published comments from Prime Minister Maliki saying he would not take steps to disarm militias anytime soon, even though these militias are a key part of Iraq’s security problem.

Bush’s message to Maliki also ignores the advice from U.S. leaders from across the ideological spectrum — including Rep. John Murtha, Sens. Jack Reed, John Warner, Chuck Hagel to former Secretaries of State James Baker and Colin Powell — that staying the course is not an option and Iraq’s leaders need to take responsibility.

The Bush administration clings to its open-ended commitment to Iraq, which is fostering a culture of dependency among Iraq’s leaders.

Instead, the United States needs to set a policy of Strategic Redeployment — including a peace conference to stop Iraq’s civil war and a phased redeployment of U.S. forces.

- Brian Katulis and Peter Juul

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up