Who's Who in Iraq Advising?

Jason Horowitz writing for The New York Observer tells the tale of how the Democratic candidates' "Iraq point-people meet monthly at a Washington restaurant for a lunch presided over by former United Nations ambassador Richard Holbrooke."

For John Edwards, the guy is Derek Chollet:

Mr. Chollet recently helped found the Center for a New American Security, whose first mission has been identifying how many American troops it would take to prevent what it calls “the three no’s”: stopping Al Qaeda from gaining a foothold in Iraq, keeping a civil war from spilling across Iraq’s borders, and avoiding genocide. He has been advising Mr. Edwards since 2002, after helping write the memoirs of two former Secretaries of State, James Baker and Warren Christopher, and then the speeches and Bosnia memoir of Mr. Holbrooke, who encouraged him to advise Mr. Edwards.

For Barack Obama:

Barack Obama, whose lack of foreign-policy experience puts him in danger of being this year’s John Edwards, is represented at the meetings by Senate staffer Mark Lippert, 34, whom Mr. Obama poached from the Senate appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations. Mr. Lippert talks about Mr. Obama’s plan as a somewhat flexible (critics would say vague) set of goals: the withdrawal of an unspecified number of troops starting May 1 and of all combat troops by next March, but with the possibility of 90-day tour extensions as rewards to the Iraqi government if it starts meeting long-drawn deadlines for progress.

And for Hillary Clinton:

And then there’s Hillary Clinton’s day-to-day policy advisor on Iraq, Andrew Shapiro, 39, who is her Senate office’s senior defense and foreign-policy advisor. He worked for the hawkish Senator Joseph Lieberman in the 2000 Presidential campaign, and before that he was a lawyer with the Washington, D.C., law firm Covington & Burling.

What to conclude from that, I couldn't quite say. Shapiro's background -- not only with Lieberman, but before that with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy -- re-enforces my belief that Hillary Clinton and her circle have unsound instincts on national security.

Comments

Mr. Yglesias conclusion that Hilary has unsound instincts on foreign policy translates into she doesn't think that it would be a good idea to pressure the State of Israel into making concessions to terrorists.

Posted by SLC | April 15, 2007 3:55 PM

The above post has a typographical error.

For "SLC" read "AIPAC", or "DLC".

Your choice which, since it makes little difference.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | April 15, 2007 3:59 PM

"Washington Institute for Near East Policy" is the AIPAC think tank, so this would translate into a Marty Peretz-friendly, colonise-and-blame-the-Palestinians Israel policy.

Posted by otto | April 15, 2007 4:02 PM

Re Davis X. Machina

I am afraid that Mr. Machina is seriously in error in that I have no connection to either AIPAC or the DLC. Possibly Mr. Machina is really a pseudonym for Norman Finkelstein.

Re. otto

Of course, to Mr. otto, the Palestinians are just innocent poor babies who are forced against their better judgment to fire Kassems across the Gaza fence, send homicide bombers to blow up pizza parlors, and call for the extermination of the Jews.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/AntiSemi/11165.htm

Posted by SLC | April 15, 2007 4:22 PM

Wasn't this post about Iraq? Remember Iraq, the country where our troops are?

Posted by William Burns | April 15, 2007 4:38 PM

And if a terrorist doesn't kill himself when killing Israelis, is he not a "homicide bomber"? I never thought I'd see that term again. "Homicide bombing" doesn't tell us anything about the terrorist attack. It's redudnant. "Suicide bombing" offers crucial information on the tactic employed for an attack. In each case, it's still homicide. Calling it "homicide bombing" tells us nothing about the incident and everything about the person calling it "homicide bombing": that they care more about the public image of terrorism (and have a demented admiration for suicide) than combatting terrorism itself.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | April 15, 2007 5:03 PM

Part of what this Shapiro guy wants to do - according to the article - is potentially withhold funds from the Iraqi Security Forces to make their political leaders arrive at some compromises.

This seems like a good idea to me, esp. since it has the advantage of being an actual idea, rather than a feeling or sentiment. However you feel about troop levels we can all get on board with demanding a lot more from al-Maliki and co.

Posted by berger | April 15, 2007 5:14 PM

Mr. Yglesias conclusion that Hilary has unsound instincts on foreign policy translates into she doesn't think that it would be a good idea to pressure the State of Israel into making concessions to terrorists.

The idea is to talk to the political wings of these organizations and get involved with them so that they start becoming more responsible and eventually stop being terrorists (cf. Sinn Fein). Naturally doing this will take a lot of energy and attention, you will run into roadblocks here and there, and the process does not make for instant gratification. (Making peace with Egypt took half a decade, and that was simplicity itself as compared with dealing with the Palestinians.) The alternative to all this talking, of course, is to not talk. That has certainly worked out well, hasn't it?

Posted by ploeg | April 15, 2007 7:34 PM

God, will you people shut the fuck up about Israel?

Posted by Walt | April 15, 2007 8:44 PM

This post is about Iraq policy advisors. Hillary Clinton's Iraq policy advisor is a Israeli-lobby affiliate (ex-WINEP). That's the relevance - it's not being dragged in for the hell of it. Rather, it's part of the reason that MY gives for not trusting HRC on national security.

Posted by otto | April 15, 2007 9:17 PM

It would occur to me that someone like Daily Kos might want to ask Hillary! why she has a former Lieberman aide as her foreign policy advisor. I doubt that will be popular with the blogroots.

Posted by otto | April 15, 2007 9:29 PM

The term "homicide bomber" is useful - it's shorthand to let you know the speaker should not be taken seriously.

Posted by Steve | April 15, 2007 9:32 PM

"The term "homicide bomber" is useful - it's shorthand to let you know the speaker should not be taken seriously.
Posted by: Steve on April 15, 2007 09:32 PM"

Much like "Islamofascism."

Posted by Reality Man | April 15, 2007 9:53 PM

Re Steve

The term homicide bomber is an accurate description. The purpose a terrorist wearing an explosive vest is to murder as many people as possible. He does not really consider that he is committing suicide because he expects to wake up in paradise to be greeted by 72 virgins.

Re reality man

Applying the term Islamofascism to organizations like Hizbollah and Hamas is absolutely correct and accurate. Their aim is to impose a fascist dictatorship over the Muslim world by imposing
Sharia rule.

Re Walt

No!

Posted by SLC | April 15, 2007 10:45 PM

Listening to Holbrooke is one step removed from listening to Jeff Jacoby and other fatuous, chickenhawk Israel-firsters. These people are proven liars and frauds who enthusiastically cheer on the ethnic cleansing campaign against the Palestinians. These are people who should be hung by their balls and perhaps someday they will.

Posted by Trevor | April 15, 2007 10:48 PM

I'd be a lot more sympathetic, SLC, if Israel hadn't bombed all those Lebanese civilians.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | April 15, 2007 10:51 PM

I agree with Walt.

Posted by Mearsheimer | April 15, 2007 10:56 PM

I'd be a lot more sympathetic, SLC, if Israel hadn't bombed all those Lebanese civilians.

Err, in what decade?

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 15, 2007 11:35 PM

I'm curious, Neil, because I've heard a few different comments from people who say they soured on Israel over the last attack on Lebanon. In scale and scope it wasn't as horrific as Operation Accountability or Grapes of Wrath (to say nothing of the original Israeli invasion from the 80's), and in the wayback days of the 90's they weren't even pretending to be bombing civilians on accident, it was openly proclaimed to be a feature not a bug, in that it was supposed to pressure the Lebanese government into policing Hezbollah for the Israelis. So I'm wondering if the coverage was qualitatively different or why this particular incident would change someone's mind.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 15, 2007 11:48 PM

"Re reality man

Applying the term Islamofascism to organizations like Hizbollah and Hamas is absolutely correct and accurate. Their aim is to impose a fascist dictatorship over the Muslim world by imposing
Sharia rule."

Sharia rule does not equal fascist. Fascism is a particular political ideology about how state and society should be structured that is totalitarian, but is not the same thing as totalitarianism (communism, which fascists often saw as their greatest enemy, also has been totalitarian). Does Hamas and Hizbollah conceive of a state of iron triangles between the party, the bureaucracy and business interests? Fascism also tends to be secular in nature, as seen in Nazi Germany, Italy, Japan and other places. While fascists draw on religious communities to solidify a form of identity, they often use their propaganda to elevate themselves above their religion's god. For instance, while Nazi propaganda never really said Christianity isn't real, it did rather explicitly elevate to a status higher than Jesus and Christianity in their conception of a Nazi German state and society. If you want to look for a Muslim who was a fascist, you are probably better at looking at Suharto instead of Nasrallah. The Guardians of the Cedars, IIRC, were explicitly secular, drawing from the Christian Maronite community and explicitly anti-Palestinian and anti-Shi'ite while drawing publicly from Mussolini as an example of whom they politically emulated. Some of their supporters were called Black Shirts. It is simply lazy to use "fascist" as an easy adjective to say "totalitarian" or "people with views I don't like." Words have meanings. Stretching the meaning of the word "fascist" out until it is unrecognizable only helps actual fascists duck getting attacked with the word as a label.

Posted by Reality Man | April 16, 2007 12:07 AM

"For instance, while Nazi propaganda never really said Christianity isn't real, it did rather explicitly elevate to a status higher than Jesus and Christianity in their conception of a Nazi German state and society."

Should have read:

"For instance, while Nazi propaganda never really said Christianity isn't real, it did rather explicitly elevate Hitler to a status higher than Jesus and Christianity in their conception of a Nazi German state and society."

Posted by Reality Man | April 16, 2007 12:08 AM

"I'm curious, Neil, because I've heard a few different comments from people who say they soured on Israel over the last attack on Lebanon. In scale and scope it wasn't as horrific as Operation Accountability or Grapes of Wrath (to say nothing of the original Israeli invasion from the 80's), and in the wayback days of the 90's they weren't even pretending to be bombing civilians on accident, it was openly proclaimed to be a feature not a bug, in that it was supposed to pressure the Lebanese government into policing Hezbollah for the Israelis. So I'm wondering if the coverage was qualitatively different or why this particular incident would change someone's mind."

I'm guessing this has to do with two trends 1) a greater willingness to see Lebanese, and Arabs in general, as actual human beings and 2) a wish to see the Cedar Revolution create a liberal, democratic, pluralist Lebanon. The Israel-Hizbollah War effectively ended the Cedar Revolution. I would also guess more people in the past few years have realized that friends of theirs and prominent people in America (from the Sunnunus to Steve Jobs to Doug Flutie) are Lebanese. I would guess that Lebanese-Americans make a disproportionate share of Arab-Americans and also tend to be Christians and thus possibly be part of the same religious communities as most Americans.

Posted by Reality Man | April 16, 2007 12:13 AM

"Applying the term Islamofascism to organizations like Hizbollah and Hamas is absolutely correct and accurate. Their aim is to impose a fascist dictatorship over the Muslim world by imposing
Sharia rule."

Also, Lebanon+Palestine does not equal the Muslim world. It doesn't even equal the Arab Muslim world. They are not the same thing as Al-Qaeda.

Posted by Reality Man | April 16, 2007 12:15 AM

SLC is such a classic troll, he just comes on here repeating propaganda nonsense to get a rise out of people.

If one wished to seriously use the term "homicide bombers" to include people who try to use bombs to kill other people, it would have to include bomber pilots for the IDF and USAF.

Posted by MQ | April 16, 2007 12:41 AM

SLC, no shit a suicide bomber hopes to kill as many people as possible. So do most people who us explosives to kill people, which is why the term homicide bomber is so ridiculous. Suicide bombing is a specific tactic. Calling it homicide bombing doesn't tell us anything unique about the tactic, unless homicide does mean suicide.

Also, your initial attack on MY isn't fair (as just about every other person who has made comments has pointed out). He was criticizing Hillary's choice of advisors for having close ties to Lieberman and, therefore, support for the Iraq War. You decided to -- at what appeared to be an opportune moment but was actually not -- attack MY's criticisms of Israel by, well, ignorantly inflating MY's criticisms of Israel.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | April 16, 2007 1:42 AM

'[I]nstinct is a name for we know not what. To say that migrating birds find their way by instinct, is to say that we do not know how migrating birds find their way.' - C.S. Lewis

Posted by David Tomlin | April 16, 2007 2:32 AM

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/AntiSemi/11165.htm

Thank you. This is the first time I have seen these claims about the Nazis being inspired by the Mufti of Jerusalem actually attributed to a source. It is interesting that the source is a journalist, not a historian. I never see these claims in ordinary histories of Nazism - only in Zionist propaganda.

As I've mentioned in other threads, numerous opinion polls of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza show majorities in support of a two state solution. I think this is more pertinent than whatever the Mufti said half a century ago.

Posted by David Tomlin | April 16, 2007 2:43 AM

Matthew Struhar:

You decided to . . . attack MY's criticisms of Israel by, well, ignorantly inflating MY's criticisms of Israel.

I don't think SLC exaggerated MY's views. He just used tendentious wording.

The Palestinian leadership does include terrorists. What SLC ignores is that at least three prime ministers and one president of Israel have also been terrorists.

Posted by David Tomlin | April 16, 2007 2:59 AM

God, will you people shut the fuck up about Israel?

No.

Posted by David Tomlin | April 16, 2007 3:07 AM

Fact--Israel was created by mother USA,for one reason--foothold in the middle-east. Like mother like daughter--mass killers.
What is the diff,when a poor palestinian straps a bomb vest or an Israel/USi jet with a thousand bomb ? one is hi-teck and the other-disperation.
Now fat heads listen to this--not one of the 19 terrorists of 911 was Arab.- Who done it-- Ashkenazie JEWS ! Ask Marvin Bush.

Posted by genrikh yagoda | April 16, 2007 6:53 AM

Re Reality Man

Mr. Reality Man provides an academic discussion which tries to make distinction between supposedly different forms of totalitarianism, e.g. Fascism, Communism, Islamic Fundamentalism, etc.

1. It should be first noted that the system in the former Soviet Union was state capitalism, not communism. Karl Marx would have turned over in his grave to have the the Soviet system characterized as communist.

2. The differing ideologies between the various totalitarian systems are completely irrelevant as to the facts on the ground. There is no distinguishable difference between the Soviet gulags and the Nazi concentration camps for the inmates therein. Stalin was as big a Fascist as Hitler.

Posted by SLC | April 16, 2007 8:22 AM

Re David Tomlin

There was another speech by a mullah in the Gaza Strip last week calling for the extermination of all Jews living in what is now Israel. Unfortunately, the story is no longer up on the Jpost web site. Mr. Tomlin states, as have other commentators on this blog, that polls show that Palestinians favor a two state solution. What the polls never show is that the Palestinians also demand that the residents of refugee camps be given the option of relocating in what is now Israel. Since this would result in the State of Israel going out of business, there is zero chance of the Government of Israel agreeing to any such demand.

Posted by SLC | April 16, 2007 8:28 AM

What the polls never show is that the Palestinians also demand that the residents of refugee camps be given the option of relocating in what is now Israel. Since this would result in the State of Israel going out of business, there is zero chance of the Government of Israel agreeing to any such demand.

I think this is the most interesting part of SLC's psychosis. Anyone with any knowledge of reality is aware this is flatly false -- that very, very few Palestinian refugees actually want to return to present day Israel.

Yet SLC is completely obsessed with it. He worries at it like a dog with a chewtoy. It's clear he desperately wants to believe Israel can never live in peace, and will cling to any fantasy that will allow him to continue thinking this.

Of course, this is standard behavior in people with serious mental health problems. They're terrified of facing themselves, and so invent a million conflicts outside themselves so they can focus on that.

Posted by ArgleBargle | April 16, 2007 10:14 AM

Don't you people understand. Only Israel matters. US foreign policy and tax payer dollars are best used to help Israel. As Patrick Buchanan said. Washington DC is just more Israeli occupied territory. Hell...why do you think we are in Iraq?

Posted by goldhorder | April 16, 2007 12:36 PM

Ed Marshall and Reality Man:

I can only speak for myself, but I'm fairly young so I haven't been following politics closely until recently. Its pretty hard to have really confident views on issue that happened 15 years ago, much less 40. But in the run up to the recent Israeli bombing of Lebanon I was aware of the issues involved. I knew about the level of threat posed by what the Israelis were facing, I knew what the likely impact bombing would have, I saw the kind of decision making that took place in the Israeli military. And I witnessed the consequences for those decisions in Lebanon and in the change (not really improvement) of the Israeli security situation. and it was all pretty disappointing. Events in the past- its hard to say when there are people arguing both sides. But I lived through this one and was paying attention closely. So yeah, it made a pretty big difference to me.

Posted by mpowell | April 16, 2007 3:03 PM

mpowell and friends,

If you want to have a confident view of an issue the happened 40 some years ago, Google: USS Liberty. Then for some more recent drama, this summer you can look forward to a real life, classic spy trial...

(http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10764),

...where, as DTomlin averred USA/Israel relations as, "mother and daughter", daughter is alleged to be the princess of espionage. As someone said, to paraphrase: Those that will screw you the most, will be those that live under your own roof.

At any rate, in defense of spies, "More men are guilty of treason through weakness than any studied design to betray”.

(François de la Rochefoucauld)

Note that he said, "More", not, "All".

Best of luck....

Posted by mike williams | April 16, 2007 8:30 PM

Re argiebargie

"I think this is the most interesting part of SLC's psychosis. Anyone with any knowledge of reality is aware this is flatly false -- that very, very few Palestinian refugees actually want to return to present day Israel."

Okay Mr. argiebargie, if this is the case, why does the entire Palestinian leadership present as an nonnegotiable demand that Israel agree to allow the Palestinians currently living in refugee camps the option of relocating in Israel? If very few of these folks want to relocate, then it would seem that the the Palestinian leadership gives up nothing by dropping this demand. In actual fact, if the State of Israel ever took leave of its senses and agreed to this demand, immense pressure would be placed on the Palestinians in refugee camps to relocate there whether they wanted to or not. The object, of course, is to force the State of Israel to go out of business. Since the Arabs have failed to achieve this goal through armed force, they will fall back on overwhelming the Jewish population of Israel with Arabs. The bottom line is, it ain't going to happen.

Re goldhorder

Mr. goldhorder puts forth Pat Buchanan as his source for knowledge of the Middle East situation. I think that even Mr. Yglesias will find that amazing.

Posted by SLC | April 16, 2007 10:45 PM

Okay Mr. argiebargie, if this is the case, why does the entire Palestinian leadership present as an nonnegotiable demand that Israel agree to allow the Palestinians currently living in refugee camps the option of relocating in Israel?

That's a great question! The answer is: for the same reason that rain falls up.

Posted by ArgleBargle | April 17, 2007 1:22 AM

. . . where, as DTomlin averred USA/Israel relations as, "mother and daughter", daughter is alleged to be the princess of espionage.

Huh?

For the record, I have no idea what this refers to.

Posted by David Tomlin | April 17, 2007 4:00 AM

Oh, I see. Mike Williams thought comments are signed at the top instead of the bottom, and so attributed to me a comment by genrikh yagoda.

Posted by David Tomlin | April 17, 2007 4:04 AM

MY, as one Jew to another, I must insist that you post no more threads regarding the topic of Israel. Seriously, look at the deranged shit that is now cluttering up your blog.

Of course, someone might point out that this post wasn't even about Israel in the first place! Which is true. The only conclusion is that you really can't post about anything, aside from maybe basketball. Anything else opens the door to the sort of person who thinks 9/11 conspiracies aren't writ large enough.

I can only pray that the Bulls don't sign some Israeli power forward for next season, thus depriving us of our last pleasant topic.

Posted by Steve | April 17, 2007 4:40 AM

Re argiebargie

"That's a great question! The answer is: for the same reason that rain falls up."

Apparently, Mr. argiebargie was smoking lefty luckies when he made this comment.

Posted by SLC | April 17, 2007 8:52 AM

Dave Tomlin,

Sincere apologies for having applied the "mother/daughter" reference to you mistakenly. I was indeed referring to this post: genrikh yagoda on April 16, 2007 06:53 AM. Thank you for the correction.

Posted by mike williams | April 18, 2007 3:15 AM