Gyroscope

A newsletter for those unmoved by spin.
No. 25, January 26, 2004

Subscribe

Change Address

Unsubscribe

Comment

This week, I'd like to direct your attention to several things worth reading. I'm traveling a lot this week and next, so this is a shorter issue than normal. But these articles I site here will keep you going for a many hours.

"WMD in Iraq: evidence and implications," Carneigie Endowment for International Peace, J. Cirincione, J. Mathews, G. Perkovich with A. Orton, authors, Jan 2004.

This is a carefully documented review of the evidence for and against the various claims about WMD in Iraq. They conclude that Iraq had limited capability, was not tied to 9/11, and that the Administration misled the nation and took us to war unnecessarily. Only the missile program, they conclude, was under active development. Iraq was a threat, but not an immediate one. They advocate a return to deterrence as a strategy when dealing with nations (but not movements like Al-Qaeda) whose actions may create a threat.

"Bounding the Global War on Terrorism," Jeffrey Record, Strategic Studies Institute, U. S. Army, Dec. 2003.

I love the army! Or at least, I love the SSI portion of it. They have, once again, published a document that strikes at the heart of the entire premise of the Administration's foreign policy. This is the work of the author, not the official position of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but it continues a tradition of reasonable analysis from within the military structure. Record concludes that "the conflation of al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat [was] a strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level, and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action. The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda." When Dean says that he is "angry," when you or I say it we are "unpatriotic." But what does it mean when the army says it?

Foreign Affairs magazine used to be pretty uneven in tone and coverage. Too often it headlined pointless pieces by senior officials. In recent issues it has hit one home run after the other. Insightful articles on Saudi Arabia and terrorism in the Philippines, pleas to 'take Arabs seriously', and examinations of China and Arafat have been all worth reading. Only one truly silly article, on Hezbollah, mars a very good recent record. Also worth noting: serious coverage of Castro's recent severe crackdown in Cuba, aimed especially at journalists.

The Washington Monthly magazine satisfies any political junkies need for gossip and head spinning stories of politics in action in our nation's capital. "Memo of the month" is fun as are the little bits and small stories. It's point of view: good government is still something you should expect as a citizen. I love hopeless romantics.

The Walrus magazine has nothing to do with the Beatles. It is a new monthly news analysis periodical out of Canada that is similar in tone and layout to the Atlantic or Harpers. Of course, there is some Canadian focus - not going to read an in depth analysis of Chretien's last days in office in Newsweek, are we? In the second issue I was most struck by a detailed, sympathic review of "Shake Hands with the Devil," by Romeo Dallaire. General Dallarie was a senior official working to stop the Rwandian genocide and this is his haunting account of trying desperately to get someone powerful to act to stop it. In a sad parallel to the willful obscurity of the powerful to the massacre, his book is largely invisible as well. Even Amazon.com can't find it.

Read on.